Homebrew Gun rules


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Here's my idea for guns in a campaign starting almost completely from scratch. Forget everything PF said about guns before, here is my take:

(1) Guns are classed as Simple Weapons, not exotic.
(2) Guns resolve against Full-AC, not touch
(3) Rolling a natural 1 just means a dud, no weapon damage
(4) They are extremely slow to reload and no way to speed up the reload
(5) They are too expensive to carry multiple
(6) No cone or line of effect weapons, single target per shot
(7) Buckshot works by having damage drop off rather than range increment
(8) High damage with 4d6 for a musket, 2d6 for a pistol
(9) Double Barrel allows second shot before a reload
(10) Multi-chamber weapons only at ultra high level (Lv 13-20)

Only issues remaining:
-Price: how expensive should these be. They shouldn't be so cheap that with quickdraw you can be whooping them out, shooting then dropping them on a whim.
-Precisely how long a reload: I'd like to say, long enough that they'd never seriously consider trying it in combat but not a complete chore out of combat. Maybe a skill check to reflect how despite being easy to use, the complexity is in reloading. DC10 so Unseen Servant can do something?
-Crit multiplier: I know this should be good, but should it be x4 or the more unusual 19-20/x3? Should it be different based on whether the weapon is rifled or smoothbore?
-Range increment: toughest one. On one hand, muskets are inaccurate from not only barrel dynamics but recoil and blast, on the other hand compared to lower velocity projectiles the trajectory is flat with short flight time.

I want to reflect how firearms were when they were first introduced, an oddity that could really mix up the opening stages of combat but the meat and potatoes of combat was still cold steel.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

What are your design goals with these rules? Also, you don't need to make a rule that natural 1s result in no damage. All attacks automatically fail on a natural 1.


Okay, I can tell you the primary problem I see already.

Good damage, but slow to reload and too expensive to carry more than one? That means I will never use them. Ever. Because if they take anything more than a move action, and there is no way to ever speed that up, then Crossbows are extremely more efficient and crossbows are already terrible.

Also, this removes anything that makes them special. They are just crossbows that you can never reload faster, and do slightly better damage for "too expensive". I could just get a magic crossbow.

And lastly, I think you misunderstand what Buckshot and Blunderbusses are for. They are for shooting into a crowd. You don't AIM a shotgun, you point it in a direction, and everything close to you that way gets hit. Without those traits, it would be better to just say that buckshot and blunderbuss don't exist at all.

Cyrad, I think he means no damage to the gun.


Cyrad wrote:
What are your design goals with these rules? Also, you don't need to make a rule that natural 1s result in no damage. All attacks automatically fail on a natural 1.

The key thing is the round that you took ages to load isn't expended. All that is cost is the action to aim and try to shoot. If you have high BAB, Haste or similar you could take another attempt to shoot. It is still the case that natural-1 spoils your single attack, but it shouldn't knock you down too far.

Yeah, my goals? To have guns in the game more reflect their early historical role which is important for player group expectation. Things get a bit weird with gunslinger who isn't acting like players expect, they are going against expectations of musket being a mediocre hitter to one of most reliable hitter in the game. And despite best attempts they end up going rapid fire as the class has the dilemma of being either really bad or suddenly really good.

Drawing from films and books like Treasure Island and the Three Musketeers, guns were important but not the be-all-and-end-all. They could suddenly change the pace of a fight by one suddenly being drawn then, oh well, one shot, back to swordplay. They could be devastating in a single hit (a crit) but generally they weren't of supreme advantage over crossbows.

From a practical point, guns are important for their great power being independent of strength score. Crossbows and Stone Bows fill that role to some extent but still quite limited, even if you ignore flavour text for how bulky they are it's only by magic that you can get the damage to scale at higher levels.


Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
What are your design goals with these rules? Also, you don't need to make a rule that natural 1s result in no damage. All attacks automatically fail on a natural 1.

The key thing is the round that you took ages to load isn't expended. All that is cost is the action to aim and try to shoot. If you have high BAB, Haste or similar you could take another attempt to shoot. It is still the case that natural-1 spoils your single attack, but it shouldn't knock you down too far.

Yeah, my goals? To have guns in the game more reflect their early historical role which is important for player group expectation. Things get a bit weird with gunslinger who isn't acting like players expect, they are going against expectations of musket being a mediocre hitter to one of most reliable hitter in the game. And despite best attempts they end up going rapid fire as the class has the dilemma of being either really bad or suddenly really good.

Drawing from films and books like Treasure Island and the Three Musketeers, guns were important but not the be-all-and-end-all. They could suddenly change the pace of a fight by one suddenly being drawn then, oh well, one shot, back to swordplay. They could be devastating in a single hit (a crit) but generally they weren't of supreme advantage over crossbows.

From a practical point, guns are important for their great power being independent of strength score. Crossbows and Stone Bows fill that role to some extent but still quite limited, even if you ignore flavour text for how bulky they are it's only by magic that you can get the damage to scale at higher levels.

I am going to be honest, if you came to me and explained this reasoning, and then the rules above, I would ask to reroll a character, and feel like you were unfairly crippling my character for your desires that our fantasy game be "more historically accurate". The gunslinger class revolves around firing guns, their class features all make them better at firing guns, and you admitted you want him to only be able to do this once a combat.

And as far as historical accuracy, for Treasure Island and Three Musketeers were set in the mid 17th century, when Wheel-lock, Dog-lock and Match-lock weaponry were more common, although Flintlock was being introduced. The guns in Pathfinder seem more based on the late 17th-early 18th century Flintlock weaponry.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Historical accuracy doesn't really work in Pathfinder, a fantasy game. I've seen so many try (including with Ultimate Combat) and fail. Part of what doesn't work is that in Pathfinder, getting shot once won't necessarily kill you. It doesn't debilitate you and doesn't cause bleed.


I was of the opinion that guns did change the game entirely when introduced en masse to the western world. (The game being the state of affairs IRL)

Is there a reason why you want to not use the current rules, sticking with early firearms only ( I have a strong opinion regarding advanced firearms personally that I don't want to get into)

While I agree they are a bit much there are alot of good things. You spoke about making guns really expensive. I have a group that had to pull their funds together as their gunslinger lost his, exploded and almost took him with it at early levels.

You also spoke about how firearms should be treated more as they were, so why simple weapons and not exotic as they kinda were for a while if you weren't an infantryman at one point.


Thanks for the feedback Atticus.

One thing I'm actually hoping for is it doesn't replace crossbow for those who are already committed to crossbows, while you may not like them, Dex builds love them for avoiding strength penalties to damage. Paizo chose the example art of the Rogue to have a crossbow with good reason.

I thought 4d6 was pretty generous base damage. I guess a gravity bow'd Composite with one of the +7 strength ratings would match the same damage and that's one out of possibly 3 attacks EVERY round.

But a musket would be a simple weapon. It's something almost anyone can use.

It's something they can open a fight with, where after the opening exchange they invariably either get to cover or close to melee range. Or if an enemy appears out of melee range, unsling that trusty musket and give them a good hit.

While 2d6 isn't much better than a light crossbow with gravity bow, it's all that power in a lil old pistol. I guess that's the thing. RAW, there's no difference quickdrawing a pistol compared to quickdrawing a crossbow. But certainly you could use such a weapon one handed.

One thing I am hoping to do is to enable more switch-hitting as a trend I have noticed is damage goes up, enemy health goes up, and nothing really changes. I want more options, more tools on the utility belt, less predictability in the gaming sessions. Things like having more flexibility count so much more for keeping sessions fresh and engaging.

Not a problem for stronk players, they have the power of thrown weapons add damage modifier, they can lob a nearby brick and with strength bonus deal decent damage.

Maybe pistols would be more appealing if they were more disposable like a sling can be. As part of your movement you find yourself unable to position to attack, you sling out a pistol and take a shot, no worries after that, just drop it on the ground.

FYI: the first thing I was taught when I went clay pigeon shooting is you DO aim a shotgun. The first thing I learned when I started shooting was how right my instructor was. He made the obvious point that it wouldn't be an Olympic Sport if you didn't have to have any finesse in aiming but just point in the general direction, in such a case every single person would hit every clay with every shot unless they pointed in totally the wrong direction.

This was true for the blunderbuss as well, which was simply a medieval shotgun.

All a shotgun does with it's many shot is to make it easier to hit at medium ranges at the cost of most of the power of the cartridge being wasted beyond ranges so close you might as well just be using solid slug as the mass of pellets hasn't had time to spread out.

That would be reflected in how you've actually got a very good chance of hitting at long range, but the damage potential drops precipitously. From 6d4 at the muzzle to 1d4 at maximum range reflecting how far fewer number of the pellets are likely to hit.

One reason I wanted to get rid of area affect weapons is it breaks the magic weapons special abilities. Flaming quality on an area of effect weapon led to endless d6's being rolled out, flaming was balanced on the assumption of one attack for one extra d6 of flame damage to one target.


Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

Thanks for the feedback Atticus.

One thing I'm actually hoping for is it doesn't replace crossbow for those who are already committed to crossbows, while you may not like them, Dex builds love them for avoiding strength penalties to damage. Paizo chose the example art of the Rogue to have a crossbow with good reason.

I thought 4d6 was pretty generous base damage. I guess a gravity bow'd Composite with one of the +7 strength ratings would match the same damage and that's one out of possibly 3 attacks EVERY round.

But a musket would be a simple weapon. It's something almost anyone can use.

It's something they can open a fight with, where after the opening exchange they invariably either get to cover or close to melee range. Or if an enemy appears out of melee range, unsling that trusty musket and give them a good hit.

While 2d6 isn't much better than a light crossbow with gravity bow, it's all that power in a lil old pistol. I guess that's the thing. RAW, there's no difference quickdrawing a pistol compared to quickdrawing a crossbow. But certainly you could use such a weapon one handed.

One thing I am hoping to do is to enable more switch-hitting as a trend I have noticed is damage goes up, enemy health goes up, and nothing really changes. I want more options, more tools on the utility belt, less predictability in the gaming sessions. Things like having more flexibility count so much more for keeping sessions fresh and engaging.

Not a problem for stronk players, they have the power of thrown weapons add damage modifier, they can lob a nearby brick and with strength bonus deal decent damage.

Maybe pistols would be more appealing if they were more disposable like a sling can be. As part of your movement you find yourself unable to position to attack, you sling out a pistol and take a shot, no worries after that, just drop it on the ground.

FYI: the first thing I was taught when I went clay pigeon shooting is you DO aim a shotgun. The first thing I learned when I started shooting was...

You have done a good job making them not replace crossbows. Crossbows are now 100% better. Because at level 6 my fighter can fire his crossbow 10 times in 5 rounds, and your gunslinger can fire his gun 3.

Also, you shouldn't try to compare target shooting to combat use of a weapon. You are trying to hit center-mass while the target is not fighting back, as opposed to just trying to hit your enemy to stop them attacking you in combat. I wouldn't AIM for your arm, but if I hit your arm, you still aren't fighting back.


I'm currently working on a set of home-brew gun rules, for much the same reason.

The main reason why the firearms in Pathfinder are weird (to me) is because the guns presented as 'early firearms' are incredibly sophisticated - they're guns of a kind that was introduced after cruder firearms had made metal armour redundant, and they're guns of a kind that were still used a key weapons by modern armies in the 19th century. Essentially the game is trying to balance dinosaurs and meteorites by putting these firearms with armour-wearing adventurers.

My rules a fairly different to your initial suggestion - but as regards crit multiplier, I"m using a compound crit multiplier to reflect the difference between 'dangerous wound' and 'boom, headshot' - like 18-19x2/20x4 (My firearms have much more crit power to make up for the fact that I've limited reloading efficiency so that a full-attack action with anything beyond a single pistol is difficult)

Edit: Oh, I also, similar to you, had scatter weapons doing single attack roll against single target, but I gave the guns an Armour Reduction property against 'hard armour' (natural, shield, armour bonus) and gave scatter weapons the same property against 'evasion' (deflection, dodge, insight, dexterity bonus)


Atticus Bleak wrote:


I am going to be honest, if you came to me and explained this reasoning, and then the rules above, I would ask to reroll a character, and feel like you were unfairly crippling my character for your desires that our fantasy game be "more historically accurate". The gunslinger class revolves around firing guns, their class features all make them better at firing guns, and you admitted you want him to only be able to do this once a combat.

And as far as historical accuracy, for Treasure Island and Three Musketeers were set in the mid 17th century, when Wheel-lock, Dog-lock and Match-lock weaponry were more common, although Flintlock was being introduced. The guns in Pathfinder seem more based on the late 17th-early 18th century Flintlock weaponry.

Sorry, for "Forget everything PF said about guns before" includes forgetting the entire Gunslinger class.

I'm not proposing this as a solution for Gunslinger, I'm proposing this as how guns could be in integrated into a table running Pathfinder, at all.

We've banned gunslinger from our tables for a while, it always ended up a mess. In fact the most problems we've had has been with builds that focus on ranged attacks.

off topic of my problem with ranged focused builds:
One problem is that as they have such "reach" they almost never have to break up a full attack to hit their opponent, they don't even have to move from one to another they have such depth and width of affect. Things like rapid shot are blatantly more powerful than equivalents such as two-weapon-fighting as although a -2 on each a single enchantment applies to both attacks and with composite the full strength bonus on each rather than 0.5 on the second hit that would be the offhand with two-weapon fighting. Precise shot is just extra damage for nothing. Multi-shot is just double damage, for nothing. Again, all super dooper damage... yet scaling up enemy health just left everyone in the dust. The lack of threatened area meant they couldn't block the frontline at all, everyone made a beeline for the wizard. That's the thing, ranged attacks are the caster's thing. Combats became extremely static shooting galleries. They couldn't body block or coordinate with Rogue for flank sneaks, it's was just damage attrition

Forget what Pathfinder said about guns, this is building on all the OTHER Pathfinder rules OTHER than what they said about guns. Starting from scratch.

Yes, one thing I definitely want to do about guns is make them relevant to almost ALL PLAYERS, not just the gunslinger. I don't think this is unreasonable as they should be simple to use like how a crossbow is simple to use.

I don't reference fictional novels because historical accuracy is my guiding concern, but books, films and history do give everyone around the table a common ground to launch a story from. It's what makes for better games. Yes, people were incredulous about a 90-degree spread on PF buckshot, which is what the 15ft cone is.

Liberty's Edge

Hrm, we have a level 8 gunslinger pistolero in the group, and he doesn't break the game. In Fact he is usually outdamged by the Oracle or Cleric honestly.

You probably have to look at your players, is a player going to just Google or look at forums on how to build a broken gunslinger? If so that's a player problem, not the class... with someone looking to exploit loopholes and read as written rules to build a min max munchkin of doom.

*edit*

I actually like the gunslinger, but I do notice that a lot of times the game does tend to favor ranged classes to include mages with melee classes getting left in the dust as things that help a melee overcome DR is essentially things that are Penetrating Strikes which isn't available until 12th level and only to fighters.

Perhaps instead of nerfing guns, you should just give the melee people some extra teeth... like they all get Pounce and Penetrating Strike for free....(So that people have a reason to be melee, and they can get full attacks each turn essentially like a ranged character and can overcome DR like a ranged characters Cluster Shot... which is attainable for a larger group of classes and much earlier) Meaning they can always charge and get full attacks. Its worked for me before, and the gunslingers deeds to basically control the flow of battle with a trick shot and precise shot to not hit friendly's becomes infinitely more valuable. As far as shooters hitting touch... if they are going against other shooters, have them use cover and concealment or smoke... its easy enough to make in any circumstance.

But yes, it was in issue with AD&D 2nd edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5 as well where range and casters tend to leave the melee in the dust after a while, because why stand close when I can do my damage from afar, especially against an enemy who has to close.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Atticus Bleak wrote:


I am going to be honest, if you came to me and explained this reasoning, and then the rules above, I would ask to reroll a character, and feel like you were unfairly crippling my character for your desires that our fantasy game be "more historically accurate". The gunslinger class revolves around firing guns, their class features all make them better at firing guns, and you admitted you want him to only be able to do this once a combat.

And as far as historical accuracy, for Treasure Island and Three Musketeers were set in the mid 17th century, when Wheel-lock, Dog-lock and Match-lock weaponry were more common, although Flintlock was being introduced. The guns in Pathfinder seem more based on the late 17th-early 18th century Flintlock weaponry.

Sorry, for "Forget everything PF said about guns before" includes forgetting the entire Gunslinger class.

I'm not proposing this as a solution for Gunslinger, I'm proposing this as how guns could be in integrated into a table running Pathfinder, at all.

We've banned gunslinger from our tables for a while, it always ended up a mess. In fact the most problems we've had has been with builds that focus on ranged attacks.

** spoiler omitted **...

Oh. See you used an existing gunslinger as an example, so I assumed this was an attempt to fix him, I apologize.

I would still argue that no one would bother ever buying guns with this system, and I do mean anyone, including NPCs. The gun industry would die and we would continue using arrows forever, because it is impossible to really reflect the danger of guns.

The primary killers in an early firearm is shock from the pain, organ damage, infection, lead poisoning, and bleeding out. Guns were a thing everyone carried in those books and movies because they were essentially one use "Avada Kedavra" wands, even if you hit someone in the arm or leg they were out and probably dead unless a doctor is present. You can't really reflect that expectation without making them a 1 use wand of Finger of Death.

Liberty's Edge

Atticus Bleak wrote:
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Atticus Bleak wrote:


I am going to be honest, if you came to me and explained this reasoning, and then the rules above, I would ask to reroll a character, and feel like you were unfairly crippling my character for your desires that our fantasy game be "more historically accurate". The gunslinger class revolves around firing guns, their class features all make them better at firing guns, and you admitted you want him to only be able to do this once a combat.

And as far as historical accuracy, for Treasure Island and Three Musketeers were set in the mid 17th century, when Wheel-lock, Dog-lock and Match-lock weaponry were more common, although Flintlock was being introduced. The guns in Pathfinder seem more based on the late 17th-early 18th century Flintlock weaponry.

Sorry, for "Forget everything PF said about guns before" includes forgetting the entire Gunslinger class.

I'm not proposing this as a solution for Gunslinger, I'm proposing this as how guns could be in integrated into a table running Pathfinder, at all.

We've banned gunslinger from our tables for a while, it always ended up a mess. In fact the most problems we've had has been with builds that focus on ranged attacks.

** spoiler omitted **...

Oh. See you used an existing gunslinger as an example, so I assumed this was an attempt to fix him, I apologize.

I would still argue that no one would bother ever buying guns with this system, and I do mean anyone, including NPCs. The gun industry would die and we would continue using arrows forever, because it is impossible to really reflect the danger of guns.

The primary killers in an early firearm is shock from the pain, organ damage, infection, lead poisoning, and bleeding out. Guns were a thing everyone carried in those books and movies because they were essentially one use "Avada Kedavra" wands, even if you hit someone in the arm or leg they were out and probably dead unless a doctor is present. You can't really...

Very True.. with this system guns are joke.. and exist only for flavor as they would never be really combat effective. Arrows all the way.

If firearms bothers your group, just play with no guns, because with this they are really just super slow reloading crossbows. Guns are deadly true, but its fantasy game as well... try shooting 6 arrows in 6 seconds while being deadly accurate...let alone the idea of shooting fireballs from my hands without burning my hands to a crisp. Its simple suspension of disbelief, but up to an extent your comfortable with.

But, if guns seriously bother your group to this extent in them being easy damage on target. Don't use them, run a no guns campaign.


@Atticus

Well, that's alpha damage for you.

What would it take to put out two ranged attacks each dealing 4d6? That would be a double-barreled musket, Haste extra attack, or BAB extra attack. The significance of these weapons is a flavour for all classes, everyone will perk up when these turn up. This actively discourages feat investment or trying to build a class around them as that - I believe - is what would break such weapons.

The idea isn't to revolutionise every ranged class, why would I even want to do that? They have been carefully balanced (I hope) and throwing a spanner into the works would almost certainly make a mess of things.

I'm not trying to make all powerful ranged classes even more powerful, I'm trying to introduce a wildcard that all players can play.

"You are trying to hit center-mass while the target is not fighting back, as opposed to just trying to hit your enemy to stop them attacking you in combat."

I don't think we can continue down this path of what we think is realistic, it'll become a hoedown about military tactics rather than what makes a good game.

@Kjeldor
Early firearms were exotic to procure, not to use. The Simple/Martial/Exotic division in weapons tables seemed to initially be divided by their difficulty of use. A Javelin is simple to throw. A Javelin with Amentum is harder to master the spin so is a martial weapon. A Bolas requires even more intricate throwing action so is an Exotic weapon.

But are any of them significantly more intricate or demanding in design?

Firearms are still point and shoot weapons, not fundamentally different from crossbows. That's my rationale for them being simple weapons.

Liberty's Edge

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

@Atticus

Well, that's alpha damage for you.

What would it take to put out two ranged attacks each dealing 4d6? That would be a double-barreled musket, Haste extra attack, or BAB extra attack. The significance of these weapons is a flavour for all classes, everyone will perk up when these turn up. This actively discourages feat investment or trying to build a class around them as that - I believe - is what would break such weapons.

The idea isn't to revolutionise every ranged class, why would I even want to do that? They have been carefully balanced (I hope) and throwing a spanner into the works would almost certainly make a mess of things.

I'm not trying to make all powerful ranged classes even more powerful, I'm trying to introduce a wildcard that all players can play.

"You are trying to hit center-mass while the target is not fighting back, as opposed to just trying to hit your enemy to stop them attacking you in combat."

I don't think we can continue down this path of what we think is realistic, it'll become a hoedown about military tactics rather than what makes a good game.

@Kjeldor
Early firearms were exotic to procure, not to use. The Simple/Martial/Exotic division in weapons tables seemed to initially be divided by their difficulty of use. A Javelin is simple to throw. A Javelin with Amentum is harder to master the spin so is a martial weapon. A Bolas requires even more intricate throwing action so is an Exotic weapon.

But are any of them significantly more intricate or demanding in design?

Firearms are still point and shoot weapons, not fundamentally different from crossbows. That's my rationale for them being simple weapons.

Hmm, it sounds like the problem is your trying to turn guns into a wand that is used with Use Magic Device... Simply a convenient disposable weapon, when its fired you don't really use it anymore so its gone as opposed to something reliably used and improved upon with training (levels, class bonus, and feats) Essentially making a gun a secondary weapon for everyone to use as opposed to a Primary weapon one class can specialize in.

Just the impression im starting to feel/ get

*edit*
I am thinking I would just buy/ recharge a wand, if guns and their ammunition are expensive and they don't go against touch AC... and they are super slow to reload, wands all the way. "Avada Kedavra!"


@Idle Champion

Compound crit multiplier is interesting. It would just depend on the player keeping track of it. You could just call it "18-20/x2" crit with the note "on a Natural-20, crit multiplier is x4"

Idle Champion wrote:


Edit: Oh, I also, similar to you, had scatter weapons doing single attack roll against single target, but I gave the guns an Armour Reduction property against 'hard armour' (natural, shield, armour bonus) and gave scatter weapons the same property against 'evasion' (deflection, dodge, insight, dexterity bonus)

I toyed with that but things began to grind to a halt with such variable AC. Die would be rolled, bonuses counted and... we'd spend way too long figuring out if it had hit or not the problem is we're supposed to keep our character stats relatively secret from each other but counting up so many different sources. Weird things kept coming up like what does a luck bonus count as, what about deflection bonus, does prone matter?

This is why it's best to calculate AC before hand for broad circumstances like Normal, Flat Footed and Touch.

@Atticus Bleak

I don't know where you are getting your idea of guns being death effects in contrast to other PF staples like swords and spears. Either in game or in reality.

@Angry Ghost

Arrows for the superhuman characters who have such extraordinary blend of Strength and Dexterity to shoot arrows from bows with such immense force. But for those who don't have the best of... ALL worlds... firearms make a bit more sense. Not to mention some really poorly considered feats for ranged focus builds, things which not only make it so much better than melee when it already has the advantage of extreme reach but then take away the few limiting factors for ranged attacks.

These aren't even obscure loopholes. Things like Rapid Shot and Manyshot are unmissable to anyone making a ranged focus build.

But I hate to be the party pooper running censor pen through so much of the rulebook, I really try to convince my players to not play such characters or else I'll throw a pine cone at their head or something.

Liberty's Edge

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

@Idle Champion

Compound crit multiplier is interesting. It would just depend on the player keeping track of it. You could just call it "18-20/x2" crit with the note "on a Natural-20, crit multiplier is x4"

Idle Champion wrote:


Edit: Oh, I also, similar to you, had scatter weapons doing single attack roll against single target, but I gave the guns an Armour Reduction property against 'hard armour' (natural, shield, armour bonus) and gave scatter weapons the same property against 'evasion' (deflection, dodge, insight, dexterity bonus)

I toyed with that but things began to grind to a halt with such variable AC. Die would be rolled, bonuses counted and... we'd spend way too long figuring out if it had hit or not the problem is we're supposed to keep our character stats relatively secret from each other but counting up so many different sources. Weird things kept coming up like what does a luck bonus count as, what about deflection bonus, does prone matter?

This is why it's best to calculate AC before hand for broad circumstances like Normal, Flat Footed and Touch.

@Atticus Bleak

I don't know where you are getting your idea of guns being death effects in contrast to other PF staples like swords and spears. Either in game or in reality.

@Angry Ghost

Arrows for the superhuman characters who have such extraordinary blend of Strength and Dexterity to shoot arrows from bows with such immense force. But for those who don't have the best of... ALL worlds... firearms make a bit more sense. Not to mention some really poorly considered feats for ranged focus builds, things which not only make it so much better than melee when it already has the advantage of extreme reach but then take away the few limiting factors for ranged attacks.

These aren't even obscure loopholes. Things like Rapid Shot and Manyshot are unmissable to anyone making a ranged focus build.

But I hate to be the party pooper running censor pen through so much of the rulebook, I really try to convince my...

But wouldn't a super human individual possibly have such superhuman hand eye coordination (Strength for the recoil and Dex for the quick aiming) to fire and reload a firearm to? especially with alchemical cartridges? But I digress...

Well essentially what im saying is thus, the issue you have is the ease with which Gunslingers/ Ranged Attack People/ Casters Essentially unbalance the game as far as ability to DPS and avoid damage themselves when compared to Melee fighters.

You can try to re-write the Firearms rules (Though just taking them out entirely would be better because you have pretty much invalidated guns with those rules to where I and others in this thread would never consider touching them, as arrows shoot faster and can do very viable damage while still being epically cheaper and silent as there is no *Boom*)

I suggest still, if the melee users are feeling particularly pathetic... give Melee a buff... i.e. Free Pounce and Penetrating Strikes Feats or perhaps awarded at level 5, the same time the Gunslinger gets to add his dex to damage. Because then that fighter with the Falchion will be having a field day especially with the up-coming levels where he gets multiple attacks for a BAB 6+.

Or just make fire-arms a variety of bow and arrow, the same rules exactly, they just have a different flavor but with game terms they are the same.


@Angry Ghost

Pretty much right though I did want it to be more emergent, not to totally rule out main class use but to discourage abuse.

I know how sensitive things can be to a different weapon as a main. That's spending a lot of effort to make something balanced for a very small number of people. A new item for all? Which isn't just a magic doo-dad?

Wands need to have the spell they cast be on your class's spell list (if any classes you have have any spells at all) otherwise their use is dependant on a capricious die roll for UMD which is a tough skill to beat. Pushing your luck you then have to hit with it, the chain of effect needs too many consistent good rolls even if ignoring armour bonuses.

And spells in Pathfinder are generally not good for blasting as far as I can tell. Casters double down on their ability to do anything and leave sheer destruction to mere mortals, or at least that's the way Paizo has balanced it. Casters do things like Command which does things no mortal could achieve except by the most miraculous Diplomacy checks. Things like area of effect blind. Or turn people invisible. Things like that.

Though you make a good point about pricing. These guns can't be crazily priced otherwise they're in the same league as single-use or low-charge magic items that can seriously debuff over range. Even then, it should be something you shouldn't be worried about dropping it (should you need that hand again) not to give it up forever but just you might have to run away and leave it.

But really, your party should have a Wizard. That wizard should know Retrieve Item. A spell which has no limit on number of objects. No valuables should ever go far.


Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

@

What would it take to put out two ranged attacks each dealing 4d6? That would be a double-barreled musket, Haste extra attack, or BAB extra attack. The significance of these weapons is a flavour for all classes, everyone will perk up when these turn up.

A Flaming Vicious Light crossbow could deal 3d6+1d8. And you can fire that one handed. Your average damage on a 4d6 musket is 12, not even enough to kill a 1st level favored class Fighter with 14 Con.

You say perk up, as a player if we got one of these as loot I would probably go "Oh! That seems cool! Oh, no these are not very good at all. Lame." and immediately sell it, especially if that are "Too expensive to carry more than one". I would be very disappointed.

Also, if they are so expensive, how hard is it to find someone interested enough to spend all that money to buy it off the party, or to find ammo?


@Angry Ghost.

It is pretty farcical to have a musket spinning around and ramrods flicking in and out in fractions of a second to in order to let of multiple shots per round. It simply being magical teleportation of a fresh round into the chamber is comparatively fine, that's a simple suspension of disbelief. That would be consistent, there are limits on magic in Pathfinder. But such insanely fast muzzle loading opens the door to "well if I can do all that, reload my musket so quickly, why can't I also do this ridiculous thing".

I actually don't find casters that hard to Balance. GM has a lot of control over Wizard's spells list and even then most of them are buffing, debuffing and zoning. Generally they end up taking Mnemonic Enhancer more often to have more of the utility low level spells.

4d6 damage is average of 14 damage. That's the same average damage as a Composite Longbow with Flaming and +6 strength rating. That's not weak.

4d6 is pretty damn good for a weapon that is:
-Simple
-Non Magical
-Strength insensitive
-Prone viable

Tell me what would make this appealing? Without just making it tailored for one particular class or making it fast enough to render melee redundant?

Because those are the twin threats I'm dealing with. Making it a move action to reload (by any means) is just encouraging more static grinding fights. To try to balance that with aspects that limit it to a certain class just encourages players to double down on ranged blasting, the maneuver element hugely undercut.


Atticus Bleak wrote:
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

@

What would it take to put out two ranged attacks each dealing 4d6? That would be a double-barreled musket, Haste extra attack, or BAB extra attack. The significance of these weapons is a flavour for all classes, everyone will perk up when these turn up.

A Flaming Vicious Light crossbow could deal 3d6+1d8. And you can fire that one handed. Your average damage on a 4d6 musket is 12, not even enough to kill a 1st level favored class Fighter with 14 Con.

You say perk up, as a player if we got one of these as loot I would probably go "Oh! That seems cool! Oh, no these are not very good at all. Lame." and immediately sell it, especially if that are "Too expensive to carry more than one". I would be very disappointed.

Also, if they are so expensive, how hard is it to find someone interested enough to spend all that money to buy it off the party, or to find ammo?

Viscious "This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder."

Not something you want to use very often but let's say you did... you're comparing a weapon with TWO magic special abilities, one of which you are houseruling from use on melee weapons and has serious downsides, to one without any.

And shooting a crossbow one handed has a -4 penalty.

And 4d6 does average 14 damage as the average roll of a d6 is 3.5, not 3.
(1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 3.5

To actually beat 14 damage average you'd need something like Flaming, Frost AND Corrosive on a HEAVY crossbow. But there's a problem, a total of +3 enhancement bonus would cost 18'000gp. And it would still take a standard action to reload so one shot every two turns. And energy resistance/immunity to any one of those shuts it down. And those extra damage die aren't multiplied on a crit.

So you are getting much better value for money if you deal with the cacophonous blast.

"a 1st level favored class Fighter with 14 Con"

enemy NPCs take average rolls rounded down even from level 1, so that would be 7hp. Never mind how this can be a sneak delivery mechanism this could reliably take down HD2 fighters in a single hit.

Again, you don't have to like this weapon.

I was just hoping you could have some ideas other than make another range spammer weapon.


Angry Ghost -

Angry Ghost wrote:

"I toyed with that but things began to grind to a halt with such variable AC. Die would be rolled, bonuses counted and... we'd spend way too long figuring out if it had hit or not the problem is we're supposed to keep our character stats relatively secret from each other but counting up so many different sources. Weird things kept coming up like what does a luck bonus count as, what about deflection bonus, does prone matter?

This is why it's best to calculate AC before hand for broad circumstances like Normal, Flat Footed and Touch."

The simple shorthand for me was Armour Reduction was x (based on firearm category - bigger firearms had more) + weapon enhancement. "Hard armour" reduction would then be AC - Armour Reduction, but would not go below Touch if they still had their Dex bonus to armour. "Evasion" would then be AC - Armour Reduction, but would not go below Flat-footed.

Edited for brackets and quotes.

Liberty's Edge

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

@Angry Ghost.

It is pretty farcical to have a musket spinning around and ramrods flicking in and out in fractions of a second to in order to let of multiple shots per round. It simply being magical teleportation of a fresh round into the chamber is comparatively fine, that's a simple suspension of disbelief. That would be consistent, there are limits on magic in Pathfinder. But such insanely fast muzzle loading opens the door to "well if I can do all that, reload my musket so quickly, why can't I also do this ridiculous thing".

I actually don't find casters that hard to Balance. GM has a lot of control over Wizard's spells list and even then most of them are buffing, debuffing and zoning. Generally they end up taking Mnemonic Enhancer more often to have more of the utility low level spells.

4d6 damage is average of 14 damage. That's the same average damage as a Composite Longbow with Flaming and +6 strength rating. That's not weak.

4d6 is pretty damn good for a weapon that is:
-Simple
-Non Magical
-Strength insensitive
-Prone viable

Tell me what would make this appealing? Without just making it tailored for one particular class or making it fast enough to render melee redundant?

Because those are the twin threats I'm dealing with. Making it a move action to reload (by any means) is just encouraging more static grinding fights. To try to balance that with aspects that limit it to a certain class just encourages players to double down on ranged blasting, the maneuver element hugely undercut.

Well... the issue your going to have with it is this...

People play a firearm user.. because they want guns.. and why were guns made? Essentially to replace Bows...easier to shoot (Touch AC) very brutal damage (X4 Crit) and eventually ease and quickness of reloading and reacquiring your target (Pepperbox and Revolver containing multiple cylinders and speed loaders)

That is what separates the guns from the bows and largely what people want to play, not so much the clunky rifle that only fires twice a minute. Sad but true, that just doesn't feel heroic.

In a game of fantasy and pushing suspension of disbelief to its limits with magic and shenanigans with how fast someone can notch an arrow and let loose with lethal effect, I wouldnt really have anything against guns. The one thing that does make them lethal is that they go against touch AC which I believe reflects how easy it is for them to hit their targets, as you stated essentially point and click. Musket Balls easily pierced plate armor, which is why heavy armor started disappearing, why wear heavy armor when it isnt protecting you against what is being seen more and more on the battle field. Some master Armorsmiths did produce some breastplates that stopped bullets, but even those were quickly outmatched.

The options Paizo gave were pretty much while you can use a gun.. to use one really well.. you need to be a gunslinger....deeds and training to add dex to damage. That helps limit the number of people who will be getting guns to do that wonderful touch AC hit, unless they feel like dipping a level into gunslinger... but if they are already level 7 or so some will not want to essentially lose their level 8 abilities and stuff just to use a gun.

I honestly say, Paizo did the best it could with the system it has with in regards to keeping it the same while making guns viable. Imagine if grabbing an arrow from your quiver and notching it and aiming it was a move action... so essentially thinking about it... that would take 2 to 3 seconds. While not wrong it does limit the amount of damage and attacks said archer can do compared to melee. So they just get benefits for attacks as per their bonus like a melee fighter.

So does your group want to play with Guns? Do only a couple people want to play with guns? You stated that it turns into a shooting war? Do they not like the shooting wars? Its only different then because guns go against touch AC as opposed to arrows against regular, but it is infinitely easier to load and shoot arrows rapidly in PF.

The problem you face is if you change guns to really anything beyond what they are now, you push them out of direct combat essentially and into combat support. Even if you do 4d6 damage, it isnt readied fast enough for someone to use it when they want/ need to because of the extended reload times or because it goes against regular AC instead of touch... then why use it, just use a composite long bow with Many shot, rapid shot, precise shot, point blank shot and cluster shot. There are so many more enchants that work for bow but not with a gun.

DR can be the bane of the gunslinger especially up to level 5 when there are no silver bullets to use on some monsters. because with your d8 damage and at best you can do 3 damage per turn against a DR 5/- monster which can be fairly common its kinda brutal as you are stuck firing, loading and doing nothing for damage while the fighter who can add Strength to Damage or the Bowman with the composite adding strength to his.

Trying to balance who all can use them and how well they are used is an issue of course... if everyone can use them easily... then they shouldnt be too strong.. or you get modern firearms... essentially guns everywhere as they are easy to use and easy to replace (Cheap to boot then too)

The other side of that coin is, if only a certain class can use them really effectively and you take that away or weaken them... then that class is completely worthless. To use them effectively you had to be that class, it was a sacrifice in character creation.

To encourage maneuvering in combat? It requires a very detailed battlefield... cover and concealment... smoke. Things obscuring vision. Making obstacles like cover where people have to move to get a shot at a target. If players have to close on a shooter or vice versa.. the feats step up or lunge work well if they try the take 5 foot step back approach.

Alot of gun builds are not terribly broken unless someone dips into other classes... like making the dual wielding three armed gunslinger wielding double pistols.... if you have players wanting to do that.. you should see about getting other players as you pretty much have "Murder hobos"

So.. you can either weaken guns as you have listed... but then... why use them... they fire so slow and hit only normal AC that I would honestly prefer to use a bow instead of the "one hit wonder" the fire arm then is now not a heroic fantasy to wield one, its just there to take up space on the field and in the minds of the players.

If you are tired of guns being able to do what they do.. then make them hit normal AC and not touch.. but make them reload faster like a bow and arrow... so that they are essentially just a bow but cosmetically look different. Because attacking with a bow and arrow.. many shot is 2 attacks, rapid shot is another attack plus the original attack... so thats 4d8 damage plus the Strength bonus of a composite bow added to them... say +4 for argument sake.. so it would essentially be 4d8 + 12 damage... compared to the 4d6 of the rifle. And the bonus of, I can keep firing with the bow as opposed to having to spend precious time reloading it.

If the gun mechanics bother the group this much where you have to re-invent the wheel so to speak... I would just not allow firearms.
but like I said before. We have a gunslinger in our group and it works without problems and the games are not shooting matches and he even has a revolver. It depends more on the player and if they are looking to build a character that wants to break the game. If someone wants to break the game they can do it so many ways.. just google it.

Liberty's Edge

Idle Champion wrote:


Angry Ghost - "I toyed with that but things began to grind to a halt with such variable AC. Die would be rolled, bonuses counted and... we'd spend way too long figuring out if it had hit or not the problem is we're supposed to keep our character stats relatively secret from each other but counting up so many different sources. Weird things kept coming up like what does a luck bonus count as, what about deflection bonus, does prone matter?

This is why it's best to calculate AC before hand for broad circumstances like Normal, Flat Footed and Touch."

The simple shorthand for me was Armour Reduction was x (based on firearm category - bigger firearms had more) + weapon enhancement. "Hard armour" reduction would then be AC - Armour Reduction, but would not go below Touch if they still had their Dex bonus to armour. "Evasion" would then be AC - Armour Reduction, but would not go below Flat-footed.

And yes, I don't know the bracket magic for quote box.

Grind to a halt because of variable AC? I dont follow you...

The character sheets have Full AC, Flatfoot AC and Touch AC listed?
Full AC.. self explanatory
FlatFoot... no Dex
Touch.. no Physical Armor.

Hard Armor Reduction???? do you mean just DR? (Damage reduction? that just factors in after the hit is made but before damage... also a place on the character sheet...)
Evasion? Like the class ability?

im sorry im just really confused as to what your saying.

*Edit*

essentially all I am saying is just if the melee people feel like they are sucking compared to all the range people... give them a couple free abilities and feats... like Pounce... which gives full attack on a charge instead of just one... so they are always moving to engage the enemy and getting full attack... that combined with step up or lunge... and then give them penetrating strikes to pretty much crush any damage reduction.

Then the Melee will be more viable because they are not stuck chasing a target around and only getting one hit in and because it has an adamantine something or other that grants DR 5/- so their one hit is nerfed.

The guns work well and function as best really as guns can in this system without just being a mirrow of a bow and arrow.

Melee falls behind because of:

Ease to hit - melee doesnt normally go against touch AC like a gun.
most games that accumulated between 3 to 6 points in AC. Enchantments, feats and special abilities eat away at that fairly quickly. Though this is only really an issue with advanced firearms. With Early firearms the range at which they go against Touch AC is fairly limited.
They have magic items that are fairly cheap that provide more AC against firearms specifically.

Damage - not as much... 1d8 for a firearm.. and at level 5 you add your dex to it... which means say 1d8+4, easily obtainable as a melee even more so as a two handed user... now with dual wielding... off hand for melee only gets 1/2 STR... but you can use power attack at the expense of accuracy. Also most Melee weapons crit on 19-20 so they have double the frequency to crit. Its just if a firearm crits its x4.. so easy fix... make it x2 or x3...alot less painful.

Feats - Gun feats to get more shots.... can be tricky.. Many Shot I believe says Arrows... so guns is a no no? Rapid Shot.. well if they dont have a round/ bullet loaded they cant shoot... so now they have to work on rapid reload, which still is only partially effective unless they want to sink in feats as you said earlier. If both hands are occupied with guns its hard to reload because you have to drop a gun and reload the other one and then switch out. Which goes into weapon chains and conservation of actions to essentially load a weapon... now if they have 3 arms because and they are an alchemist... then they have been reading up on people's min max attempts and you should do something about that as they will want to just build a min max character irregardless of what they build. Then gunslinger/ guns really isnt the issue.. its a single player exploiting with possibly others following his example and ruining a campaign


Angry Ghost wrote:

Hard Armor Reduction???? do you mean just DR? (Damage reduction? that just factors in after the hit is made but before damage... also a place on the character sheet...)

Evasion? Like the class ability?

Armour reduction doesn't exist in the game - it is a feature of my homebrew firearms. The existing firearm 'attack against Touch AC', implies a bypass of all armour bonuses, shield bonuses, and natural armour bonuses. I was simply calling this 'hard armour', because it prevents a hit by absorbing or directing the force of an attack so it doesn't harm the target, rather than preventing an attack from hitting by actually avoiding the hit, like an insight bonus or the dexterity bonus.

Instead of ignoring all 'hard armour' - I have the firearms ignore a limited amount of 'hard armour.' A two-handed firearm might ignore all the armour provided by a suit of chain mail, and the same firearm with an enhancement bonus will ignore keep on ignoring the chain mail of equivalent enhancement, but it won't ignore all of an ancient red dragon's natural armour. Some armour-piercing power, but not a straight bypass.

It's not a defensive feature like DR. It's just my approach to balancing the Firearm vs Touch AC advantage that full attacks with firearms have over other weapons.

Edited to respond to Angry Ghost. And hopefully not to double post.


Angry Ghost wrote:


Well... the issue your going to have with it is this...
People play a firearm user.. because they want guns.. and why were guns made? Essentially to replace Bows...easier to shoot (Touch AC) very brutal damage (X4 Crit) and eventually ease and quickness of reloading and reacquiring your target (Pepperbox and Revolver containing multiple cylinders and speed loaders)

That is what separates the guns from the bows and largely what people want to play,...

Really?

I thought "easier to shoot" would be better reflected in how they were simple weapons not how in expert hands they had an extremely high hit-rate by resolving against touch. Muskets are infamously fickle on matters of precision shots.

Guns were made to replace bows in the real world because us mere mortals weren't strong enough to shoot them at a high power rating and fast. But the superhuman stats of Pathfinder nullify that disadvantage. Really for someone with a Composite Longbow to match 4d6 they'd need for a single shot to have a strength rating equivalent of being able to reliably deadlift a 1000lbs weight and even hold it and stagger around with it. That suggests the Composite Longbow corresponds to a weapon of the power of many siege machines with several hundred pound draw weights.

"The one thing that does make them lethal is that they go against touch AC which I believe reflects how easy it is for them to hit their targets"

Sorry, but everyone around my table at least said "hey, aren't Muskets notoriously inaccurate?" gunslinger doubles down against this impression with dex bonus on damage. They weren't actually that much less accurate than crossbows, but the idea of them being such laserbeams leaves everyone at the table pretty incredulous at what they see as arbitrary feature.

I think it's quite a simple conceit that whatever advantages early guns might have in better armour penetration it is balanced out by being slightly harder to hit with. It's a needless complication to chase after touch AC, just have it resolve normally and don't break the game balance.

Really, standard PF guns aren't powerful, they are weak. 1d12 has the same average damage as a level 1 mook two hand swinging a mere club. That's the guns THEMSELVES. But the damage is boosted by the supposedly notoriously inaccurate weapon becoming more and more precise: dex bonus, deadly aim, and firing faster.

This is why people didn't like it in the game, it was beyond their ability to understand this rapid fire. A bow was at least understandable, it may take precision but it's obviously very open to drop and arrow into the large space on the side of a bow for it to be notched.

"Musket Balls easily pierced plate armor, which is why heavy armor started disappearing, why wear heavy armor when it isnt protecting you against what is being seen more and more on the battle field."

The problem with that line of reasoning is Crossbow bolts could also penetrate plate armour, certainly not all armour was immune. Many melee weapons were specifically designed to pierce straight through plate armour like the Rondel Dagger, Estoc and Lucerne Hammer. These don't resolve against touch. Even though piercing weapons in theory wouldn't be remotely impeded by leather armour still leather armour gives its same AC bonus against such attacks. Armour in PF is not an accurate model, otherwise the thin but wide covering chainmail should give huge bonuses against slicing weapons but none against piercing.

Guns are still broadly the same as light armour gives some protection and as we don't know precisely how tough the armour is. Vaguely we could go by damaging objects rules and with Breastplate in Pathfinder having Hardness 10 and 30hp it's not necessarily the case at all that a bullet would naturally wreck it. In fact it may not overcome even the hardness of the material, especially with rules on ranged attacks and precision damage on damaging objects.

"The options Paizo gave were pretty much while you can use a gun.. to use one really well.. you need to be a gunslinger"

Which is both against the players' comprehension and the player's enjoyment.

"I honestly say, Paizo did the best it could with the system it has with in regards to keeping it the same while making guns viable."

I honestly think your ideas of what makes guns "viable" is what makes a disproportionately powerful gunslinger class and only for that class you might play.

Well... good for you.

But Pathfinder is a team game.

"The problem you face is if you change guns to really anything beyond what they are now, you push them out of direct combat essentially and into combat support."

Problem for who?

Only a problem for people banking way to much on being the one guy putting out huge ranged damage full-attacking each round.

" it isnt readied fast enough for someone to use it when they want/ need to because of the extended reload times"

Why would you carry it around unloaded?

"because it goes against regular AC instead of touch"

As it should, most of the bestiary monster and prebuilt NPC enemies are balanced around the idea of major damage dealing resolving against Full AC, or at best if the Wizard can blind them or the Rogue sneak up on them against flat-footed AC. Too much of what balances fights is in their metal armour, natural armour and so on.

Touch for high damage is a HUGE thing.

"then why use it, just use a composite long bow with Many shot, rapid shot, precise shot, point blank shot and cluster shot."

Is that a facetious question?

Why would anyone appreciate such power (4d6, avg 14 damage) for a SIMPLE weapon that DOESN'T need any significant STRENGTH or any particular FEATS nor any MAGIC.

You say "why would any one care about getting this" well what if they haven't been spending the last few levels burning feats and maxing Strength and Dex just in hope of getting a composite longbow of precisely the tight strength rating? What if they don't even have martial weapons proficiency?

"DR can be the bane of the gunslinger especially up to level 5 when there are no silver bullets to use on some monsters."

Actually, wouldn't a literal silver bullet do it? Or adamantium bullet or whatever.

"if everyone can use them easily... then they shouldnt be too strong.. or you get modern firearms... essentially guns everywhere as they are easy to use and easy to replace"

First they're too weak (for your medieval machien gun classes) now they are for everyone they are too powerful.

Early levels a crossbow can easily either kill a PC in a single hit or reliably leave them critically wounded. But crossbows stay where they are as health goes up.

"The other side of that coin is, if only a certain class can use them really effectively and you take that away or weaken them... then that class is completely worthless."

Gunslingers are banned from my session and so many sessions anyway.

You can still be a gunslinger as in one who slings guns, just not a Capital-G Gunslinger, the class.

"So.. you can either weaken guns as you have listed... but then... why use them... they fire so slow and hit only normal AC"

This is a non-sequiter to me.

You say they aren't powerful enough and they fire too slow, now you say their damage must be nerfed.

I don't see why that should be done.

I think you're still way WAY too focused on resolving against touch-AC. Remember what I said that the beginning: forget everything PF said before about guns. Don't go in with that assumption.

"If you are tired of guns being able to do what they do.. then make them hit normal AC and not touch"

Done

"but make them reload faster like a bow and arrow... so that they are essentially just a bow but cosmetically look different."

I'm not going to do that for the very reason you say.

Plus, it's a very inherent aspect of early firearms that having to load everything down a long narrow tube from the muzzle end inherently makes them much slower than nooking an arrow or even charging string in a crossbow.

"Because attacking with a bow and arrow.. many shot is 2 attacks, rapid shot is another attack plus the original attack... so thats 4d8 damage plus the Strength bonus of a composite bow added to them... say +4 for argument sake.. so it would essentially be 4d8 + 12 damage"

Now that is ONLY FOR THE STRONG PLAYERS. Think about all those with +0 or negative strength modifiers?

And it's martial as well. And dependent on a long feat line and ability minimums (Dex 17 and BAB+6).

Also, those numbers don't even add up with what you said.

It should be 3d8+12 (avg 25.5 dmg) but that's only if both attacks hit, and each would have an inherent -2. Say if you had the same inherent bonuses to hit you needed to roll an 11-or-higher on d20 to hit ONCE with a Musket (so a standard action, before or after movement or in a surprise round) to do that WHOLE 4d6 damage, that's a 50% hit chance. Now to deal 3d8+12 you need to roll good twice and even better as -2 on each attack, all else being equal, you need to roll a 13-or-higher. Simple probability combination, you need to take a full-round action to have only a 16% chance of doing more damage.

But that also means it's quite likely at least one will hit, the probability of either hitting is 64%. So take a full round action and a whole line of feats and special class requirements for only a 14% better chance of hitting. To do either far less or slightly more damage depending oh whether the first counting as Many-shot hits or the second hit.

"And the bonus of, I can keep firing with the bow as opposed to having to spend precious time reloading it."

That the bonus PRECISELY what I'm trying to avoid, because if they are taking iterative full attacks they are going to end up extremely static. They've sunk almost all their feats into being a superhuman sentry gun.

Archers can already do that, we don't need to just make a gun which is functionally the same. You talk of the ideals of one particular class continuously putting out huge damage at range without consideration to how unbalancing that is.

Plus, surely for balance, such a powerful weapon that almost any can use should be balanced by preventing iterative fire. Right now I'm thinking of an absolute limit of full round action to reload each barrel of a long gun. The only magic I'd allow to speed up reloading is that it can be reloaded passively so sling the weapon and a new load will magically migrate to the chamber but at the same rate but you can be doing something else like fighting in melee or repositioning.

"If the gun mechanics bother the group this much where you have to re-invent the wheel so to speak... I would just not allow firearms. "

Or I could actually re-invent the wheel and not give up.

Your repeated objections have been that it ISN'T the same as before, that it ISN'T the same as a Bow or Crossbow or PF's regular firearms. I've reinvented the wheel and you object that it isn't the same as before.

" It depends more on the player and if they are looking to build a character that wants to break the game. If someone wants to break the game they can do it so many ways.. just google it."

I disagree.

As players don't collaborate on character creation and levelling, they ARE all trying to make their players as good as possible, that's the entire point of the game. It's inevitable that some will likely surge hugely ahead. And banning google is ridiculous, it hurts those who need help as much as those who don't. They don't know they are breaking the game until it's broken, it's like driving a car without a speedometer. I could get everyone to work together to tailor their character but people find that way too "metagamey" and they get frustrated with GM coming around each character sheet undoing their evening's work.

Liberty's Edge

Idle Champion wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:

Hard Armor Reduction???? do you mean just DR? (Damage reduction? that just factors in after the hit is made but before damage... also a place on the character sheet...)

Evasion? Like the class ability?

Armour reduction doesn't exist in the game - it is a feature of my homebrew firearms. The existing firearm 'attack against Touch AC', implies a bypass of all armour bonuses, shield bonuses, and natural armour bonuses. I was simply calling this 'hard armour', because it prevents a hit by absorbing or directing the force of an attack so it doesn't harm the target, rather than preventing an attack from hitting by actually avoiding the hit, like an insight bonus or the dexterity bonus.

Instead of ignoring all 'hard armour' - I have the firearms ignore a limited amount of 'hard armour.' A two-handed firearm might ignore all the armour provided by a suit of chain mail, and the same firearm with an enhancement bonus will ignore keep on ignoring the chain mail of equivalent enhancement, but it won't ignore all of an ancient red dragon's natural armour. Some armour-piercing power, but not a straight bypass.

It's not a defensive feature like DR. It's just my approach to balancing the Firearm vs Touch AC advantage that full attacks with firearms have over other weapons.

Edited to respond to Angry Ghost. And hopefully not to double post.

ahhh gotcha, that would work as it still allows for physical protection without using the Bullet Charms to give AC against bullets or taking levels in Gun Tank to add AC against Fire Arms

Liberty's Edge

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:


Well... the issue your going to have with it is this...
People play a firearm user.. because they want guns.. and why were guns made? Essentially to replace Bows...easier to shoot (Touch AC) very brutal damage (X4 Crit) and eventually ease and quickness of reloading and reacquiring your target (Pepperbox and Revolver containing multiple cylinders and speed loaders)

That is what separates the guns from the bows and largely what people want to play,...

Really?

I thought "easier to shoot" would be better reflected in how they were simple weapons not how in expert hands they had an extremely high hit-rate by resolving against touch. Muskets are infamously fickle on matters of precision shots.

Guns were made to replace bows in the real world because us mere mortals weren't strong enough to shoot them at a high power rating and fast. But the superhuman stats of Pathfinder nullify that disadvantage. Really for someone with a Composite Longbow to match 4d6 they'd need for a single shot to have a strength rating equivalent of being able to reliably deadlift a 1000lbs weight and even hold it and stagger around with it. That suggests the Composite Longbow corresponds to a weapon of the power of many siege machines with several hundred pound draw weights.

"The one thing that does make them lethal is that they go against touch AC which I believe reflects how easy it is for them to hit their targets"

Sorry, but everyone around my table at least said "hey, aren't Muskets notoriously inaccurate?" gunslinger doubles down against this impression with dex bonus on damage. They weren't actually that much less accurate than crossbows, but the idea of them being such laserbeams leaves everyone at the table pretty incredulous at what they see as arbitrary feature.

I think it's quite a simple conceit that whatever advantages early guns might have in better armour penetration it is balanced out by being slightly harder to hit with. It's a needless complication to chase after...

I believe we are at an impasse then as I can simply post counter arguments to what you are saying and we can go back and forth...and I dont care for that. I posted my reasons and ideas when you asked for an opinion.

If the group you play with is happy with your ideas on fire arms.. then go for it... but the fact that you are posting something like this here probably means that some are not?

simply saying, you are essentially nerfing guns through the floor and I wouldnt use them in your game, perhaps even so much to not use them out of protest. I dont play a gunslinger and our group has gunslingers and we have no problems with them. Pathfinder works on a very abstract system, the archers in history were used in mass as were the rifles, they fired in volleys so they were not normally expected to be accurate and while the weapons were called muskets it seems to hint that these "muskets" had some sort of rifling which I am willing to believe as the game is a fantasy game with witches, warlocks and wizards.

Personal opinion to end this with, is you have re-invented the wheel.. and its square now....
You presented your opinion on the matter for feedback on the forums and the random people who did read it and posted show that they are not for it. So as a homebrew based on your players desires, if this is what they want, then go for it. If this isnt what they want but simply what you are forcing on them... then if you are changing what they want and they will probably opting out of playing that class. I play a melee and or caster class not even a gunslinger and looking at what you did to guns, I would opt out of ever wanting to see them in the game, they are so horribly impractical a deranged howler monkey could see it, you asked for opinions on it, and we gave them. But instead of accepting opinions and constructive criticism on how to change guns and work with people you stubbornly stuck to your guns trying to use history or stats, which can be viable as there are many facts when posted when dealing with realism, but again pathfinder is a very abstract system as I dont know how many times I could be cleaved with a longsword or blown up by a fireball. But I am saying, if you are dead set on using the rules you made... then why even ask here for others opinion if you dont want to take into consideration really any of it and are just seeking validation for your rules here? Just do it as you have so vehemently defended your concept and you are the GM for the session you deliver the ultimatum. These are how guns work for your group.

The large flame wars about gunslingers have pretty much died out long ago as people realized with many new classes, they can be broken. But only if the players make them broken by desiring to make them murder hobos under the guise of simply trying to make the best character they can.


@Angry Ghost

And I really do appreciate your feedback.

I am posting this here to see what's the worst that can be said about them, that the worst is that they aren't potent enough is frankly what I what I was hoping for. I was worried I'd have made these guns too good.

I am actually very satisfied that you find them extremely limited by hard limits on iterative use as the reason we banned guns was from so many hits full-attacking each round. You've managed to point out that bows can be as powerful though only with very heavy investment of feats and abilities.

Another thread has brought up from a lot of people bemoaning the problems with gunslinger in their group.

Bows should pull ahead in capability with multi-attacks, they are martial weapons and have much higher ability requirements.

Liberty's Edge

*Important note*
Please understand I am not attacking you.

But largely what I am just saying is the majority of your rules strike me and apparently others on this thread as greatly inhibiting the flexibility of essentially fantasy firearms in a fantasy game as trying to make them adhere to reality while bows, arrows, swords, hammers and magic..?!? do not. The hit points are abstract, the Armor system is abstract, the hitting system and special rules are abstract. Its at the point now that weapons are added not so much added for their realistic historical value (and use) but more for just adding something new and giving a new special ability or a compromise.

Now also our understanding of muskets may be different in that we may be thinking of different muskets. I am thinking of a Springfield 1861 rifled-musket, when the game refers to early firearms. Which was able to hit a man sized target with training around 450-500 yards away.

Trying to address your issue with firearms here.
You imply that they pretty much become turrets.. that is essentially what you did with a firearm and a bow though. You stayed put and shot hopefully behind cover as opposed to in a rank and file firing volley's... which were effective but also had high casualties. Both sides would fire at each other until one side had enough or wanted to try to gain an advantage and initiate a bayonet charge in hopes of sweeping and overtaking the enemy. So it upsets you that historically people become turrets, it happens today to. Gun Battles are not so dynamic unless you watch a Hong-Kong action movie. My Deployments all had a large degree of receiving fire and the action is to return fire and move to cover. You Suppress and then try to flank them.

Are you wanting more say.. Everyone carries a pistol or some firearm as a reserve? I.E. Engages in melee then when they kill their melee target, they see someone and just draw a pistol with the intent to shoot them and then discard the pistol and go back to melee? That is essentially what I see with the rule system you have set up.

Was that the goal? to Remove Firearms as a primary weapon and make them a secondary?

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Pasting this from my house rules doc:

Quote:

Firearms: Resolve as Crossbows (no touch attacks in 1st range increment). Crossbow related feats can be taken for firearms.

Era: Guns Everywhere. Cost 10% of list price, including ammo.

Proficiency: Simple in advanced time games; Exotic (Long arms or side arms) in typical pf

Range and Penetration: Resolve attacks against normal AC, not Touch

Loading: Per Advanced Firearms for a single bullet. Anything with a capacity 2-5 takes a standard action. Anything with a capacity 6+ takes a full round action. Rapid Reload applies normally, reducing Move to Free, Standard to Move, Full to Standard. Rapid Reload + a quick load item (such as a speedloader for a revolver or a clip for a rifle) can reduce Full to Move. Stacking reload speeds cannot reduce a Full to a Free.

Reloading requires a free hand.

Misfires: Critical Fails are not in place, hence, neither are misfires.

Ammo: Early firearms use quick-load paper cartridges. Advanced firearms use metal cartridges. Both use loading times from above.

EDIT: We also use Ptolus guns rather than PF guns for their lower dice and costs.

Liberty's Edge

archmagi1 wrote:

Pasting this from my house rules doc:

Quote:

Firearms: Resolve as Crossbows (no touch attacks in 1st range increment). Crossbow related feats can be taken for firearms.

Era: Guns Everywhere. Cost 10% of list price, including ammo.

Proficiency: Simple in advanced time games; Exotic (Long arms or side arms) in typical pf

Range and Penetration: Resolve attacks against normal AC, not Touch

Loading: Per Advanced Firearms for a single bullet. Anything with a capacity 2-5 takes a standard action. Anything with a capacity 6+ takes a full round action. Rapid Reload applies normally, reducing Move to Free, Standard to Move, Full to Standard. Rapid Reload + a quick load item (such as a speedloader for a revolver or a clip for a rifle) can reduce Full to Move. Stacking reload speeds cannot reduce a Full to a Free.

Reloading requires a free hand.

Misfires: Critical Fails are not in place, hence, neither are misfires.

Ammo: Early firearms use quick-load paper cartridges. Advanced firearms use metal cartridges. Both use loading times from above.

EDIT: We also use Ptolus guns rather than PF guns for their lower dice and costs.

Ptolus? Acronym for???

though I would say a speed loader, with rapid reload would make loading a revolver into a swift action, and if they tried to load another revolver it would be pushed to a move action.

Quick question though. What is the benefit of using a gun then over a bow and arrow?

As it looks right now they feel like slow loading/ firing Bow and Arrows.

Liberty's Edge

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

@Angry Ghost

And I really do appreciate your feedback.

I am posting this here to see what's the worst that can be said about them, that the worst is that they aren't potent enough is frankly what I what I was hoping for. I was worried I'd have made these guns too good.

I am actually very satisfied that you find them extremely limited by hard limits on iterative use as the reason we banned guns was from so many hits full-attacking each round. You've managed to point out that bows can be as powerful though only with very heavy investment of feats and abilities.

Another thread has brought up from a lot of people bemoaning the problems with gunslinger in their group.

Bows should pull ahead in capability with multi-attacks, they are martial weapons and have much higher ability requirements.

well with consistent testing on guns vs bows and playing all the way from the playtests, as trying it myself and other people playing it as well. The real difference with it when you get to the meat and potatoes of it all is that guns go against touch AC. Full attack sets against Touch AC is pretty lethal as even attacks with low chance to hit based on BAB still have a fair chance to hit.

The proposed counter to that was the reload time of the guns. Now with hefty feat taxes they can negate huge reload times to make themselves more combat viable, and by being a gunslinger with the deeds. Essentially a character not built right has a BAB of +6/+1 would get two shots... but because of his weapon and its reload time only gets 1 shot per turn while doing nothing else, but that shot is against touch.
Now some people carry pistols and even dual wield them. With the double barreled pistols and revolvers this turns into a whole new can of worms. What a lot of people tend to forget is the range increment for which their firearm goes against touch, whether is early or advanced... so many just assume its touch for everything. But most encounters do resolve within 60ft in the game. Especially if using models and mats.... 1500ft in a game with miniatures is a pretty big mat just for one encounter.

The Bane of Gunslingers for a lot of the players was often a mage. The ability to do mage armor/ shield as well as change the environment in which they battled was a great equalizer also displacement is a serious way to frustrate many. A gunslinger could do damage consistently, but they were a one trick physics pony... while a mage could essentially alter physics. Melees would close the distance using bonuses to armor from magic that gunfire didn't negate and once they get close the battle becomes a lot more vicious as the gunslinger either dumped feats into shooting a lot or dumped feats into being able to still shoot but now in melee so as to not get eaten alive for shooting in melee but then lost the ability to do all the crazy damage at range.

Gunslinger is a class that has to be played smart, if someone plays it smart.. then the people/ monsters have to play smart fighting them. Guns eclipsed arrows and made many armors irrelevant for a reason.
A basic charge against a group of people using guns usually means the chargers are going to die, unless you go back to the early firearms where you are loading cap, ball, powder.. etc. Then they got a couple shots maybe before they were in melee. (think civil war and revolutionary war) When people start using revolvers, its then best to think of the old spaghetti westerns, remembering the idea... never bring a knife to a gunfight. Though if the person with the knife gets the drop on someone all bets are off.. but walking out into the center of a street and trying to draw a knife and throw it as opposed to drawing a gun and shooting it was a lot harder.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Ptolus is Monte Cook's 3.5 Campaign Setting. Guns are very present, and are at a power level much more consistent with every other set of weaponry in the game.

I had that capability to drop a 6-shot down to a free at one point, but with weapon cords we were still able to abuse GS rules to get full revolver use 4 times per round. Making them a move at best to reload closed that gaping hole for us.

The benefits are dice and crit multiplier, which are really only 2 of the 3 functions of a weapon anyway (crit range being the 3rd function). Bows require less training and less specialized parts. Another benefit is that the gunslinger is specifically designed to make this weapon better than every other weapon.

To me, and the experience at our table, guns don't replace bows. They replace crossbows. Crossbows already were templated for what guns came from, particularly with the repeating crossbow. When we looked at redesigning things to not be so easy to abuse, the reloading time of the 4 core crossbows really was the benchmark we tried to match.

Liberty's Edge

Gunslinger is definitely the way to go to truly make guns shine. Adding Dex to Damage and touch attacks make guns potent.
That still hasn't turned gamebreaking for our groups personally though.
The big thing I had to take into consideration was the Touch AC. Things essentially had to dodge out of the way and couldn't depend on their armor which fighters hated with a passion... monks not so much.

Ultimately what has been happening in everyone elses games that Gunslingers are dominating like specifically?

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

In our experience, the GS's don't particularly dominate any more than any other Full BAB archer except for about 2x damage output from damage dice. Post 11th level, though, with the quicky reload deed, you could start seeing cheesy stuff abusing action economy. The only house rule we have in place for the GS beyond the firearm changes is forcing a use of Deadeye to hit Touch AC (up to 2 range increments).

By and large, GS is a pretty good class as far as mechanics go, and even at its best build, still is below the 'per attack' damage output of a power attacking 2h melee brute.

Liberty's Edge

archmagi1 wrote:

In our experience, the GS's don't particularly dominate any more than any other Full BAB archer except for about 2x damage output from damage dice. Post 11th level, though, with the quicky reload deed, you could start seeing cheesy stuff abusing action economy. The only house rule we have in place for the GS beyond the firearm changes is forcing a use of Deadeye to hit Touch AC (up to 2 range increments).

By and large, GS is a pretty good class as far as mechanics go, and even at its best build, still is below the 'per attack' damage output of a power attacking 2h melee brute.

ahh yeah the quick reloading deed.

Some things that have worked are doing what was said about traits in regards to spell level adjustments. Meaning two different abilities cant affect the same thing. Essentially making it so they can only stack reloading so much.

The weapon chords were cheese honestly though, a lot of people just wanted to see how far they could go with cheese on respects to that, but I haven't seen anyone use a Forum built gunslinger made to broken in our games thank god.


Here are my thought on pricing.

Angry Ghost made a great point about pistols, why not just use a wand? That might be a very good pricing guide. Albeit a wand would have strict class requirements (a relevant spell list) or a good UMD roll.

A Wand of Snowball CL 2 would deal 2d6 for 1500gp but with some relative pros and cons. But that's way better; 50 charges, resolve against touch, chance to stagger.

I'd price a pistol at 500gp. Enough that you can't be packing too many but hardly a huge dent into budget. 750gp for a double-barrel version.

1000gp for a musket, 1500gp for a double barrel musket.

Liberty's Edge

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

Here are my thought on pricing.

Angry Ghost made a great point about pistols, why not just use a wand? That might be a very good pricing guide. Albeit a wand would have strict class requirements (a relevant spell list) or a good UMD roll.

A Wand of Snowball CL 2 would deal 2d6 for 1500gp but with some relative pros and cons. But that's way better; 50 charges, resolve against touch, chance to stagger.

I'd price a pistol at 500gp. Enough that you can't be packing too many but hardly a huge dent into budget. 750gp for a double-barrel version.

1000gp for a musket, 1500gp for a double barrel musket.

I would definitely be careful when dealing with double barrel items as that is where all the broken RAW things start to appear.

One Problem I saw with firearms is that how many there are. And how Paizo tried to make them all significantly different. There are some differences definitely... but in the abstract damage system you start to struggle to make them different.

case in point.. don't think of fire arms as a category... think of them almost like a single weapon... i.e. how many different and unique bastard swords can you make before they start stepping on each other in terms of rules. It feels like Paizo wanted to make a large section of firearms to choose from, from different periods.

not sure if that last bit made sense.
but beware the things involving double barrel fire arms, weapons chords and 3 armed gunslingers...


Angry Ghost wrote:

*Important note*

Please understand I am not attacking you.

But largely what I am just saying is the majority of your rules strike me and apparently others on this thread as greatly inhibiting the flexibility of essentially fantasy firearms in a fantasy game as trying to make them adhere to reality while bows, arrows, swords, hammers and magic..?!? do not. The hit points are abstract, the Armor system is abstract, the hitting system and special rules are abstract. Its at the point now that weapons are added not so much added for their realistic historical value (and use) but more for just adding something new and giving a new special ability or a compromise.

Magic is not licence for anything to then be fair game.

I'm having guns adhere to fantasy or reality in much the same way as crossbows do.

You absolutely nailed it on "adding something new and giving a new special ability or a compromise" that is the compromise with Musket compared to a crossbow, much more powerful with the compromise of cacophonous blast and

Quote:
Now also our understanding of muskets may be different in that we may be thinking of different muskets. I am thinking of a Springfield 1861 rifled-musket, when the game refers to early firearms. Which was able to hit a man sized target with training around 450-500 yards away.

If you didn't just pick one of the most advanced muzzle loading muskets that is still considered a musket.

"Both sides would fire at each other until one side had enough or wanted to try to gain an advantage and initiate a bayonet charge in hopes of sweeping and overtaking the enemy."

I don't want that.

Didn't you just criticise me for adhering too much to realism?

My motivation with relation to reality is muskets actually COME FROM REALITY so it's relevant to not just take their name but their actual form. It is not prescriptive but descriptive. It's not trying to replicate 18th century battle formations but getting people on the same page of understanding of rules mechanics.

It's hard to get such a feel for combat with muskets going so against expectation. It doesn't even feel so great, depending on spammed shots, the game-feel isn't such that you feel like you have a powerful weapon.

"Are you wanting more say.. Everyone carries a pistol or some firearm as a reserve? I.E. Engages in melee then when they kill their melee target, they see someone and just draw a pistol with the intent to shoot them and then discard the pistol and go back to melee? That is essentially what I see with the rule system you have set up.

Was that the goal? to Remove Firearms as a primary weapon and make them a secondary?"

I do believe this is the second time you have asked a question such as this and this is the second time I have confirmed it.

Except I should add, there were already removed from our sessions and nobody wanted them back.

This is more interesting than guns being for "The Gun Class" which is both against players understanding and sense of satisfaction. I do think there is a gap in alchemical weapons for things like firearms to do such things. For example, weak characters can struggle to have an effective means of dealing bludgeoning damage though a firearm can fulfil that role.

Liberty's Edge

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:
Angry Ghost wrote:

*Important note*

Please understand I am not attacking you.

But largely what I am just saying is the majority of your rules strike me and apparently others on this thread as greatly inhibiting the flexibility of essentially fantasy firearms in a fantasy game as trying to make them adhere to reality while bows, arrows, swords, hammers and magic..?!? do not. The hit points are abstract, the Armor system is abstract, the hitting system and special rules are abstract. Its at the point now that weapons are added not so much added for their realistic historical value (and use) but more for just adding something new and giving a new special ability or a compromise.

Magic is not licence for anything to then be fair game.

I'm having guns adhere to fantasy or reality in much the same way as crossbows do.

You absolutely nailed it on "adding something new and giving a new special ability or a compromise" that is the compromise with Musket compared to a crossbow, much more powerful with the compromise of cacophonous blast and

Quote:
Now also our understanding of muskets may be different in that we may be thinking of different muskets. I am thinking of a Springfield 1861 rifled-musket, when the game refers to early firearms. Which was able to hit a man sized target with training around 450-500 yards away.

If you didn't just pick one of the most advanced muzzle loading muskets that is still considered a musket.

"Both sides would fire at each other until one side had enough or wanted to try to gain an advantage and initiate a bayonet charge in hopes of sweeping and overtaking the enemy."

I don't want that.

Didn't you just criticise me for adhering too much to realism?

My motivation with relation to reality is muskets actually COME FROM REALITY so it's relevant to not just take their name but their actual form. It is not prescriptive but descriptive. It's not trying to replicate 18th century battle formations but getting people on the same page of...

ahh cool, sorry about asking that question twice. The new Paizo web page updates and formats they are using don't mesh well with the computer here... its like part of the content typed disappears/ doesn't appear...

Ok, if you wanted to make guns not a primary weapon and not have the gunslinger class. Then it should work.

I was under the impression that you wanted to rework firearms to that degree and still have the gunslinger be viable as a class, which really wasn't going to happen.

The plan you have implemented works for making guns simply a everyman's tool kinda like throwing a simple bomb or something at the enemy as opposed to a fixed pivotal point of combat evolution.

yup the old springfield.... when Pathfinder introduced muskets and having how they built and stated it, it was the first rifle to come to mind. With Alkenstar being devoid of magic essentially using firearms to be competitive in combat, the muskets other than a springfield wouldn't allow them to prosper and survive. Essentially we are picking up firearms at the Springfields point of entry. Kind of like how we are using greatswords, claymores and bastard swords instead of stone axes or bronze swords of earlier era. Basically we haven't gone full primitive on guns like we haven't gone full primitive on swords.

I use to black powder shoot with an old friend and his father, even made our own lead balls and shot... and found out the hard way it flares up if your sweat falls and hits the molten lead... so bye bye one eyebrow...

*edit*

I if your players wanted them gone I would just be water and flow. Get rid of firearms as a whole. It will save you a lot of grief when dealing with players who essentially try to use your rules to find a RAW loolhole to exploit to have a gun that not just breaks the game but shatters it. Then your stuck with "Congratulations you have just won pathfinder, what should we do now"


archmagi1 wrote:

By and large, GS is a pretty good class as far as mechanics go, and even at its best build, still is below the 'per attack' damage output of a power attacking 2h melee brute.

This I have to take issue with.

As melee combatants are invariably resolving against full-AC therefore Power Attack isn't as equivalent. When resolving against touch-AC; Deadly Aim and other attacks which sacrifice attack bonus for more damage are always worth it as you're going against such low AC.

It's not a fair comparison. Melee combatants are needing much higher rolls to actually hit and do damage, they wouldn't necessarily use Power Attack unless thye had other bonuses like flanking or the target was prone.

And once you've got reloading down to a free action there is nothing like Rapid Shot to straight up give a whole extra attack for only -2 to hit. Monk gets something like that and justifies a whole class around it. So the per-attack comparison is quite a canard, Gunslingers pull way ahead in damage by, incredulously, attacking more and hitting more.

It is not at all easy to boost mobs touch AC, Natural armour and physical armour can go through the roof but dex tends to take hits, especially as you graduate to bigger more monstrous creatures.

~Angry Ghost
I'll focus on early firearms for now, muzzle loading and smoothbore. Flintlock just to solve any BS on percussion caps procurement (simply need brimstone, saltpeter, charcoal and lead to reload). Also to make certain water based abilities and environments relevant, like create water.

I don't even know how to make something like rifles relevant. Their inherent accuracy is so very high, but that's not all. Say you had a laser pointer, it's still harder to place it on target at very long range compared to close, the target fills a smaller field of your view and the point of aim changes more with slighter changes in the pointer's position.

I thought a hard limit reload speed would always put a limit on firearms, not to mention how resolving against Full-AC is no where near as easy to abuse their hit rate by piling on things like Deadly Aim. I feel there should be SOME way to get off a second shot, just to allow recreation of the story of the legendary Ninja; Sugitani Zenjubō who sniped at the infamous warlord Oda Nobunaga famously firing two rapid shots that hit their mark. The myth goes that he either had two guns or a special double barrelled gun. So a core element of the ninja mythos is a stealthy character taking multiple rapid shots with a firearm.

Maybe double barrelled needs to cost much much more than +50% extra, as in value terms it is much better than having a whole extra weapon which would be much more cumbersome to also carry and switch to.

Maybe geometric pricing. 1000gp for a single barrel musket. 4000gp for double barrel 9000gp for triple barrel.

Liberty's Edge

@ Alex Trebek's Stunt Double

in going along with your proposal on firearms... the Ninja would be a highly magical and mythical character (atleast in that reference)... possibly of exceptionally high level who would be able to accomplish such a feat because of Mythic Levels I would say.

So the characters or NPC's in order to gain such an advantage in firearms would require Mythic Levels. Mythic Levels are essentially GM relegated and no level of EXP and such can allow access to them via feats or anything. So if at the time you deem it necessary you can allow them to get a Mythic Level. Ultimately controlling the flow of the advancement of firearms as a weapon.

but I would still feel inclined to steer clear of the fantastic with firearms, using such a strong basis in reality and how ineffective they are in your game. Perhaps he just had two rifles.. fired one and picked up another and creating a Myth about his skills with the rifle as a psychological weapon.

Though I am still inclined to side with the players as they didn't like firearms at all, and just not include them in your game. It would save you the time of trying to grind out rules for them.

Simply put, with your players, they don't like the taste of guns with their fantasy. So instead of searching for a way make it palatable I would just not serve it up at all. Pathfinder has played well without guns, so no harm is really done.


Here is how i would runs them

1) Does touch attack vs 1st range increment, but after that, would be normal attack. Armor is still effective, just not up close.

2) Would have firearm only do 1d4 damage per shot. See number 3 and 4 before you say that is low.

3) You can fire off a gun twice for each melee action you take. So if you swing a sword, you do 1d8. Or you can fire a gun at any 2 target (or the same target); no two of which can be more than 15 ft apart, for 1d4 damage each. == Full round action, fighter with 3 attacks, could in effect shoot 6 times, at a group of creatures who are all within 15 feet of each other ==

4) Pulse riffles ( yes a fan of rifts), would let you do 3d4 damage, when fired at a single target in sim-automatic mode, for modern to futuristic guns. Would use up 3 shots of ammo, and they all hit or miss together. Counts as a normal melee action tho, as it takes a little longer to fire.

5) Full auto-matic = Full round Spray. (Tommy guns in gangster movies) Treat is as a Area of Effect that does 2 damage per shot fired. Counts as a full melee round attack. Target effected, get a reflex save vs half damage (monk/rogue/9th level ranger = can reduce this even more). ==== Only 2 damage ?? due to the fact that tommy guns could have 20 or 50 round drum magazine. And as an AoE, there is no attack roll, when used this way.

6) Most guns are simple weapon, which most classes can just pick up and use. (( people who did not grow up around guns or watch tv shows with guns, might.. might suffer a penalty on there first 10 shoots, after which they can use normal )).

7) Number of shot dependent the weapon hold, dependent on teck-level. Reloading a weapon is a standard action, unless it is a musket or pistol, in which case it is a full round action.

A = Old world, 1 shoot. musket, pistols. Why it was normal to pull the weapon as a free action, fire, and drop. Then pull your melee weapon next round.

B = 6 shooter western. Could hand load it as a full round action, or swap out the drum as a standard action. == realistic, who cares.. what i saw on the black and white, westerns growing up.

C = Modern guns. Has 6, 7, 8, 12, 15 bullets per clip, depending on weapon type for hand guns. Riffles could have 15 to 25 depend on type, and tommy guns could have 50 round drum's.

D = Futuristic guns. Startrek (old), had about 20 shoots. Cold see the 25 - 50 depending on weapon type. Starship trooper had around 100-150, for the big bulky two handed riffles. Just depend on what GM says is available.

.....................................

And this is Base line, before feat like deadly aim, many-shoot, vital strike, power-attack, weapon focus is added. Also before magic-enchantments are added to the guns or ammo to make them even more deadly.

More people die in the USA, each year due to stabbing than they do to guns. What makes guns great weapon is range and firing speed.

Guns only need to be 1d4 damage weapon to make them deadly, especially when most 1st level character only have 1d8 hp. So 2-4 shoot will kill most 1st level character, before feats and magic is added on top.

Liberty's Edge

@ Oliver McShade

he doesn't want Firearms to be Primary means of doing damage or a primary weapon that a class can focus on. Your rules are very thought out and I am sure they are working for your group, but that again makes firearms a primary weapon instead of a sword and shield. He doesn't really want people to use firearms or firearms to be really effective, basically the culminating point is that if someone had a firearm they would probably think of using it as a club as opposed to shooting it, they would only shoot it if the enemy was at such range that they couldn't club someone with it.

More of what he wants is kind of like a disposable bomb but in gun form.

I.E.
the character in question fights with a sword, kills his enemy, draws a pistol and fires it at an enemy who is closing and then drops the pistol before closing in to engage in Melee again.

He doesn't want a character to use guns almost exclusively.

What he is wanting to steer away from is this: characters who can do amazing things with guns thus making them viable primary weapons as opposed to disposable toys essentially.

Its kind of like they are only viable as or on Attacks of Opportunity and that's it. Not every turn type of attacks.

He wants a game where swords and melee are the Primary source of damage with firearms coming in at something like eleventeenth.

@ Alex Trebek's Stunt Double

well in our games right now, we are running two. The Gunslinger is doing about half the damage as our two handed weapon wielding barbarian. We are level 7 almost 8.

The Exchange

Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

" it isnt readied fast enough for someone to use it when they want/ need to because of the extended reload times"

Why would you carry it around unloaded?

I honestly find your changes to firearms interesting. But the one thing I HAVE to disagree with, is your disregard for how volatile and unstable early powder was. To walk around with a loaded gun was the equivalent of having a miniature explosive on your hip or back. A single spark from a torch in a dungeon (which pathfinder should have a few of if you're using the game alot) could end up blowing off your leg.

So I ask you, why would I carry around a loaded firearm packed with volatile, explosive powder? At the very least it could go off planting the bullet in my own flesh, at the most the gun itself backfires.

Not to mention that if it's an outdoors adventure and I need to cross a creek or small river with no bridge or raft, my powder is now ruined if I didn't think to unload the firearm.

*Edit*

For the river example, so many times has my DM have us roll life or death skill checks to cross a raging river to escape some creature that could not stand water, only to have brigands and bandits of our own level in the trees on the other side that we failed to notice. (a -5 perception check for almost drowning is pretty reasonable to our group, especially if you keep going up and under repeatedly)

Liberty's Edge

Jericho Graves wrote:
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

" it isnt readied fast enough for someone to use it when they want/ need to because of the extended reload times"

Why would you carry it around unloaded?

I honestly find your changes to firearms interesting. But the one thing I HAVE to disagree with, is your disregard for how volatile and unstable early powder was. To walk around with a loaded gun was the equivalent of having a miniature explosive on your hip or back. A single spark from a torch in a dungeon (which pathfinder should have a few of if you're using the game alot) could end up blowing off your leg.

So I ask you, why would I carry around a loaded firearm packed with volatile, explosive powder? At the very least it could go off planting the bullet in my own flesh, at the most the gun itself backfires.

Not to mention that if it's an outdoors adventure and I need to cross a creek or small river with no bridge or raft, my powder is now ruined if I didn't think to unload the firearm.

Pretty much... if you carried a loaded gun around and it got water in it...then the wadding and the powder were ruined and the weapon was really hard to clean out especially with any amount of mud.

the old saying when crossing the river "Keep your feet wet and your powder dry"

meaning keep your feet under you and walking as opposed to failing and now your weapon isn't useable... some riflemen actually carried a spare rifle to.


@Oliver McShade.

Just... why?

You're going to be rolling d20's all day, even putting Wizard with high level summons to shame. And that's a system which is obviously going to be broken, I can tell, things like treat one attack as two attacks. Wait does that mean you can move and shoot twice? Shoot twice in surprise round?

Getting 6 shots in 6 seconds...

And although each shot is apparently enough to scythe through armour so easily it's resolved as touch the damage per hit is as weak as a Light Crossbow sized for a cat (tiny creature).

Angry Ghost said: "basically the culminating point is that if someone had a firearm they would probably think of using it as a club as opposed to shooting it"

More like they have one shot between lengthy reload, it's going to be a big deal for them to use their shot, for example they wouldn't use it in a skirmish with many fleeting enemies in close quarters. But if you hear familiar incantations from a mysterious hooded figure in the backfield, this is where GM fluff is important, the GM established certain familiar phrase is used to summon a horrific monster, you fear it being uttered again. Rush over to a good position, draw your musket and take a shot.

Yes they could also move and just draw a thrown weapon, and thrown weapons have their place, they are really great for how each round you can move and shoot, move and shoot, over and over, each time swapping back to a two handed grip of your melee weapon. But if that caster is summoning a beast you need to bet all you've got on one good hit. You don't really want to have blown you one shot on the first goblin you see, unless you're trying to make a point.

Yeah, I'd like to have a bayonet that can be on muskets without blocking the barrel. It'd mainly be there to, again, serve the general purpose nature of a firearm, you still threaten the squares around you which is important, even if you don't feel particularly confident using it to attack with, as for:
-Someone trying to run right past you, like to go shank your caster, you threaten space around you
-Someone trying to perform a combat maneuver on you can hit them to stack penalties on their CMB roll
-Someone who ends up prone next to you technically they have a +4 to AC against all ranged attacks but -4 to melee attacks
-To give utility to rogue who depends so much on Flanking bonus to get Sneak Attack bonus


Jericho Graves wrote:
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote:

" it isnt readied fast enough for someone to use it when they want/ need to because of the extended reload times"

Why would you carry it around unloaded?

I honestly find your changes to firearms interesting. But the one thing I HAVE to disagree with, is your disregard for how volatile and unstable early powder was. To walk around with a loaded gun was the equivalent of having a miniature explosive on your hip or back. A single spark from a torch in a dungeon (which pathfinder should have a few of if you're using the game alot) could end up blowing off your leg.

So I ask you, why would I carry around a loaded firearm packed with volatile, explosive powder? At the very least it could go off planting the bullet in my own flesh, at the most the gun itself backfires.

Not to mention that if it's an outdoors adventure and I need to cross a creek or small river with no bridge or raft, my powder is now ruined if I didn't think to unload the firearm.

*Edit*

For the river example, so many times has my DM have us roll life or death skill checks to cross a raging river to escape some creature that could not stand water, only to have brigands and bandits of our own level in the trees on the other side that we failed to notice. (a -5 perception check for almost drowning is pretty reasonable to our group, especially if you keep going up and under repeatedly)

You've got a very good point but the problem is how it actually plays out in game.

The player will inevitably say "yeah, of course I have it loaded" when I raise the spectre of accidental discharges they give me an incredulous look... and rightly so, it's now left to my whim whether he either blows his leg off or we have the ridiculous circumstance that they have to spend the first round of combat fooling around loading a gun. There is no gameplay modelling for stray sparks or static discharges, there is no way to tell the difference between me being a dutiful game manager modelling the rules as I should and just being a dick hurting their character arbitrarily and humiliatingly.

When you just have to read a few stories of 17th and 18th century explorers and, well, they walked around with their guns loaded. As made total sense, they were deep in territory of experienced warrior societies, if they were attacked it would be sudden and they wouldn't have time to stand there and load their weapon.

No. The solution is quite simple, the weapon isn't generally affected by accidental discharges. The player gets the benefit of the doubt and remember the game is Pathfinder, not "sit there while I tell you all the ways you are suicidally stupid" game. Pathfinder is a great game, that latter example is not.

NB: a certain spell might ignite it and that's something like Burning Disarm as that specifically says it heats up the weapon. But that's at least following some specific cause and effect. Not a case of "I guess there's a spark here or something".

"So I ask you, why would I carry around a loaded firearm packed with volatile, explosive powder?"

Because if you don't there's no point in carrying one at all.

The whole point of a gun is that the energy of the "volatile" explosives powder is released when you trigger it and that energy only goes in the direction you point it. A musket shouldn't explode any more than your car should necessarily burst into flames the moment you start the ignition. Anything can sound scary that way "why let thousands of volts of electricity flow through your home that could fry you in seconds" not as long as your house is properly wired, and why shouldn't it? Firearms are proof marked. They are deliberately over built and tested several times with a "proof load" that is 2-3x what the gun would normally fire and with no cracks or deformation it gets its "proof mark".

"At the very least it could go off planting the bullet in my own flesh, at the most the gun itself backfires."

The term "backfire" doesn't relate to firearms except in the figurative sense.

A "backfire" is the practice of starting small fires around a forest community when a large forest fire is approaching. But this so often went wrong that it became a synonym for a risky measure that goes completely wrong. Then it was used for when fuel leaked into an automobile's exhaust system and would explosively ignite making a loud but mostly harmless bang.

Really, there is no such thing as a firearm "backfire". A Musket with an entirely sealed chamber has no internal moving parts. The most complex part with the primer or flintlock mechanism is still extremely simple.

It is things like water which is why I definitely don't want firearms to be in a position that they base their entire class around them as they are then blackmailing entire sessions to never EVER get everyone wet or else they b@$$& and moan "now I can't play my character, thanks for wasting my evening".

Though there is a lot that can be done to give moderate protection for firearms. Melting wax to make plug will both seal the bullet in tight and keep most moisture out yet not impede it from the force of firing, and a cork in the muzzle of the rifle keep a large deluge out. The frizzen would need to be reset if it was soaked. Also, powder-horns are completely airtight let alone water tight. One thing I'd actually like is things like a steady deluge of rain precluding the use of firearms, this works both ways. If you're trying to infiltrate some jungle base, wait till it rains, then you'll be dealing with bayonets instead.

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Homebrew Gun rules All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.