|
Totally an oddball weapon. How does it work? How does one make it work for them?
As I read it, it's a firearm that also functions like a normal ranged weapon, uses thrown weapons for ammunition, and has pretty high odds of explosion.
Doesn't seem to be covered in the UC errata or the FAQ.
For more specific rules questions:
Are the Javelins destroyed when the weapon fires, like normal ammunition, or are retrievable like a thrown javelin would be?
Are the Javelins that it fires, considered ammunition for the purposes of enchanting?
Can you mount any javelin into a fire lance, or does it require special versions of javelins?
Since a Javelin is a melee weapon, thrown ranged weapon, and ammunition for the Fire Lance (which is a firearm), how do spells/abilities which buff held/touched weapons apply to both the Fire Lance and the Javelin ammunition?
Once loaded, what action is required to remove the Javelin without firing?
I'm not sure there are rules for any of this, so I'm just winging it here, but this is how I would call it:
I don't think I would treat a javelin as ammo. It's still a javelin. It doesn't say they're special javelins, so they're just javelins. Spells for ammunition probably would not apply to the javelins since they're probably not ammo; so treat spellcasting on the javelin just like spellcasting on any other ranged thrown weapon.
It's probably the same action to unload as it is to load, but it would wast the gunpowder unless they were in cartridges (powder would just be spilled on the ground unless you took care to unload it over a container of some kind, or took longer to collect the powder).
|
|
I'm not sure there are rules for any of this
Alright, glad we're on the same page. Was thinking I had missed them or something.
Your suggestions seem reasonable.
Now, questions:
Okay, my character has a +1 javelin, I load it into the Fire Lance and fire: am I at +1 attack and damage due to my magical javelin?
Now, take it up a notch, I am unlawful and have an Axiomatic Javelin I load into the Fire Lance. At no point am I attempting to wield the weapon, so I never get a negative level, as I'm only wielding the fire lance, right? And yet, the shot javelin is till lawfully aligned and +2d6 damage against chaotic creatures, right?
I'm asking these because if we assume that the javelin isn't ammunition, we run into this sort of issue.
|
I would say that if you are using the javelin, even indirectly, you are wielding it.
"Wielding" is a wonderfully undefined term in this game.
Axiomatic: An axiomatic weapon is infused with lawful power. It makes the weapon law-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against chaotic creatures. It bestows one permanent negative level on any chaotic creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded.
In this instance, I see "wielding" as trying to use or be ready to use, not as "have in your hand". I wouldn't allow someone to say "It is not in my hand, I have a gauntlet so it is in the gauntlet" or "they are axiomatic armor spikes, they are on my armor (a breastplate, so no gauntlets), not in my hand" or other similar arguments.
If someone is are ready to do harm with the axiomatic item, he is wielding it.
Edit: note that I will consider a block of ammunition a single item for the negative level. You will get it once and it will disappear when you stop firing the arrow (or whatever ammunition it is).
As you lose 5 hp every time you get a negative level, having that happening for each arrow would be excessive.
|
|
Weapon Focus
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
You make an attack roll using the javelin?
No, you make the attack roll using the fire lance.If you want to play that way, you get the negative level while loading the fire lance, as you have the javelin in your hand for a few seconds while doing that.
The fire lance does say that it uses Javelins as 'ammunition' which seems to me that when used that way, they would function as firearm ammunition.
That would mean they were always destroyed.
I would allow javelins to be enchanted as ammunition for this purpose, but the magic would only function when used as ammunition, not when wielded in other ways.
I would probably allow the bonuses from a regularly enchanted Javelin to apply, but since it would be destroyed after shooting that would be an expensive shot.
I would have pulling a javelin out of the firing tube be a move-equivalent manipulate an item action. If you want to remove the javelin and have the weapon ready to be loaded again, it would probably take longer, but if you just want to pull it out so you can stick something with it, move equivalent is fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real question is, if you treat the javelin as non-ammunition, do you have to spend an extra move action just to draw it?
|
|
Weapon Focus
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.You make an attack roll using the javelin?
No, you make the attack roll using the fire lance.If you want to play that way, you get the negative level while loading the fire lance, as you have the javelin in your hand for a few seconds while doing that.
I don't want to play it that way, but you are suggesting that I'm able "indirectly" wield weapons and that in doing so, I am penalized for "indirectly" wielding a javelin while using a Fire Lance. If you intend to only penalize, but not allow any bonuses for "indirectly" wielding a weapon, I call BS.
As for holding Axiomatic weapons. You have to wield it, not just hold it. The effect ends when you stop holding it, but merely holding it doesn't confer negative levels. Otherwise level 1 PCs would die if they briefly held an unholy sword, even if they weren't able to determine that it was one.
The fire lance does say that it uses Javelins as 'ammunition' which seems to me that when used that way, they would function as firearm ammunition.
That would mean they were always destroyed.
I would allow javelins to be enchanted as ammunition for this purpose, but the magic would only function when used as ammunition, not when wielded in other ways.
I would probably allow the bonuses from a regularly enchanted Javelin to apply, but since it would be destroyed after shooting that would be an expensive shot.
I would have pulling a javelin out of the firing tube be a move-equivalent manipulate an item action. If you want to remove the javelin and have the weapon ready to be loaded again, it would probably take longer, but if you just want to pull it out so you can stick something with it, move equivalent is fine.
So, while I agree the wording suggests they are ammunition, the page opposite in Ultimate Combat specifically talks about the options for firearm ammunition and doesn't mention the javelin at all, they even speicify the "only" types of firearm ammunition.
I honestly think the entire weapon is a huge oversight from Paizo. As much as I like it's inclusion, it needs a much longer entry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cleanest solution to all these problems is for the fire lance to use its own special ammunition.
|
|
As for holding Axiomatic weapons. You have to wield it, not just hold it. The effect ends when you stop holding it, but merely holding it doesn't confer negative levels. Otherwise level 1 PCs would die if they briefly held an unholy sword, even if they weren't able to determine that it was one.
Find a definition of wielding.
You are holding a weapon in your hand and can potentially attack with it? That is enough to count a wielding it, for me.While you are loading the javelin in the fire lance you are holding it in your hand, and you can attack with it.
And yes, first level non-evil PC handling a unholy sword die if they aren't extra careful.
I don't want to play it that way, but you are suggesting that I'm able "indirectly" wield weapons and that in doing so, I am penalized for "indirectly" wielding a javelin while using a Fire Lance. If you intend to only penalize, but not allow any bonuses for "indirectly" wielding a weapon, I call BS.
You are benefiting from the axiomatic property, but you want to avoid the penalty, so you have no mora high ground here.
Weapon focus say that you add the bonus to the die roll made attacking with the weapon, you make an attack roll while attacking with the javelin? No, you make a attack roll while attacking with the fire lance. You apply the modifiers linked to the fire lance.
Weapon focus arrow applies when you use an arrow as a improvised dagger, not when you fire it from a bow.
|
|
I have some additional question. So what exactly is the point of the fire lance? It seems useless.
Does the fire lance deal fire lance damage plus javelin damage? i.e. 1d6 plus 1d6.
Can you set it down, light, it, move, and have it as a trap?
Can you use it as a spear if the lance is loaded with a javelin?
Does the gout of fire deal any damage to the front 5ft square?
I know it doesn't deal fire damage, but can it ignite?
v/r
Thank you
|
|
I have some additional question. So what exactly is the point of the fire lance? It seems useless.
Does the fire lance deal fire lance damage plus javelin damage? i.e. 1d6 plus 1d6.
Can you set it down, light, it, move, and have it as a trap?
Can you use it as a spear if the lance is loaded with a javelin?
Does the gout of fire deal any damage to the front 5ft square?
I know it doesn't deal fire damage, but can it ignite?
v/r
Thank you
?
I would say that if you are using the javelin, even indirectly, you are wielding it.By your logic, would Weapon Focus (Javelin) apply to Fire Lance wielding?
I am "indirectly" wielding Javelins, after all.
definitely not, weapon focus (javelin) works for conventional, muscle powered throwing, possibly helped by an atlatl or amentum... throwing Javelins through a fire lance is different enough as to require WF (Fire Lance) specifically.
|
|
Necro my thread, huh? I suppose it could use a revisit.
I have some additional question. So what exactly is the point of the fire lance? It seems useless.
Useless is strong. Certainly iffy when compared to other weapons, especially other firearms. Especially when used in conventional circumstances.
Though in terms of uses, there is one amusing use for the Fire Lance: Underwater Combat....As a ranged weapon, it's -2 to attack for every 5ft of water they pass through. So certainly lacking there. But as it only deals piercing damage, you'll be dealling full damage while underwater (with a passed swim check). All the other firearms deal P+B by defaulf, so would be half damage underwater. You'd still need to solve the issue of wet powder, but their are options there. Certainly something to consider for underwater gunslingers, even if only as a back up weapon.
In general, I think the main function of the fire lance would be firing point blank into melee. It has a range of only 10ft, and without training, will explode on a 1-9 (1-4 normally, +4 due to always being considered broken and lacking training in the weapon). Although explosions sound bad and do include the firer, it does mean you can create a burst at point blank that does normal weapon damage (half with DC 12 reflex). Weapon is cheap and light weight, so you could actually plan to use it in a disposible capacity.
Low level skeletons would be particularly devastating with fire lances. That Skeleton DR 5/Bludgeoning would make the Fire Lance's (d6) Piercing explosion not harm them except with max damage, while being rather nasty for low level PCs caught in the explosion.
A character with Evasion, would also be very able to negate the explosion damage to themselves. Fire lance does seem like a decent option against swarms. Actually, might opt for one of these on my next Rogue build.
And, since firearm explosions do weapon damage to a burst, magical upgrades to damage on the weapon do actually increase the explosion damage (while they wouldn't affect the burst save DC).
The point of the fire lance, AFAICT is to show what really early firearms were, and how bad they initially were... I don't think the thing was ever intended to be used by a rational PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well, I could have said "optimised" or "minmaxing", but those can be taken as pejorative and I wanted to avoid that.
Touché anyway.
|
|
well, I could have said "optimised" or "minmaxing", but those can be taken as pejorative and I wanted to avoid that.
Agree, definitely not an optimal option.
In terms of other values to the game. It is the cheapest firearm option by a large margin. If your GM did one of those scenarios where your stuff is all taken by NPCs or otherwise lost, I think a Firearm focused character would be thankful for the cheap firearm option, even if it was a terrible firearm.