I've seen comments on gunslingers that range from "They almost always hit, but don't do that much damage per hit. The guy playing if felt under powered and switched classes!" To, "OMG the gunslinger took down my CR+4 dragon in one round! BROKEN!!!"
I've never had one in a game I ran or played in outside of a few low level games, so I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on gunslingers are and how they compare to other martial characters (and, particularly against archers).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen comments on gunslingers that range from "They almost always hit, but don't do that much damage per hit. The guy playing if felt under powered and switched classes!" To, "OMG the gunslinger took down my CR+4 dragon in one round! BROKEN!!!"
I've never had one in a game I ran or played in outside of a few low level games, so I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on gunslingers are and how they compare to other martial characters (and, particularly against archers).
YMMV
On paper, they look balanced since to shoot the gun cost gold.
In Play, they seem overwhelming and I have had a few boss fights end real quick to a lucky or set up Gunslinger critical.
I ban them more for the fact I dislike guns, tech, and the occult classes in my games so I ban them for flavor reasoning. I do allow Bolt Ace as the only Gunslinger Archetype.
It is a choice that is completely up to the DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslingers are terrible at everything that isn't dealing damage.
Gunslingers are pretty terrible at dealing damage before level 5.
At level 5 gunslingers can deal decent damage.
If a player is attempting to optimize the character, the will "break" the game by being able to deal too much damage.
If you took away guns ability to target touch AC, guns in general would become much more balanced but the gunslinger class would need to be given something to make up for how crappy guns would be at that point.
Without targeting touch AC, guns are just expensive crossbows that require extra proficiency to use.
For my home games I do as Louise Bishop does and ban guns and gunslingers (except Bolt Ace).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem with the Gunslinger is that gun rules are awful, and the Gunslinger is written to be a band-aid to make those rules work. I do not allow them in my current campaign because of technology issues (my game lacks Gunpowder to make fortifications more secure) but I would allow them in terms of balance.
The main "problems" with gunslinger are when players find ways to game the rules, like duel-wielding double pistols or managing to effectively use the Double Hackbutt while mobile.
While hitting touch AC can be an issue, especially at high CR, at earlier levels it is not as much of an issue. More importantly, the touch AC only really matters within the first range increment and unless they are specifically playing the Musket Master archetype that range increment is fairly small. To put things in perspective, a pistol has a range increment of 20ft at -10 it can hit things up to 100ft away. The composite longbow has a range increment of 110ft, at no penalty it can shoot farther than a pistol.
This, along with Manyshot, are where Archers excel over Gunslingers. Archers have a huge range advantage of Gunslingers and fire an extra arrow per round over the slinger. Archers also have some other boons, being able to play most classes, less expensive ammunition, no misfires (a serious issue as you gain more attacks per round), no feat taxes like Rapid Reload, and all they give up is touch attacks within a fraction of their range + needing to spend a few ability points into strength for a longbow.
Now, an arguement is that most engages happen within 60ft. Which is a valid point, but that is a vault of the Game Master not allowing the archer to leverage their advantage. As an archer, talking to your GM about scounting and engaging at longer distances can help fix that. If your GM tailor makes situations (close range encounters with low touch AC enemies) then of course the Gunslinger is doing to seem powerful as a result.
Oh, both Throne Warden and Maverick are neat archetypes that I like a lot. If you still have issues with gunslinger, allow the Bolt-Ace.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a good concept for a class, but I don't think the class really works for the reasons that Claxon pointed out. You don't get much out of the class that's not "shooting things to make them dead" and how good you are at shooting things to make them dead ranges from "piddling" to "wholly unreasonable" as level and optimization varies.
I allow the Bolt Ace, but don't have guns in my game. My biggest problem with the class is that I just don't think it's very fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, the Gunslinger had made almost all combat irrelevant.
He played a Pistolero VMC Rogue, and stacked his damage, while also exploiting the TWF/Rapid Shot rules. Since guns go against touch, he took all the penalties and was still smoking the enemies.
The character has since retired.
I think there are better ways to run guns, but I haven't found or written any to test.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslingers suck. Just in general, they kinda suck. They're mostly hyper-dedicated archer fighters with some tricks and less feats. They're also super expensive and weakened massively since that ranged enhancement FAQ, forcing gunslingers to pay heavy premiums for their ability to overcome DR compared to a comparable archer.
Basically, if you think Gunslingers are broken, you have no idea what an actually well-built bow user in a similar scenario could do to your big bad, and your major concern is probably antagonistic/thinking too much in terms of 'big boss fights against solo big monster', which Gunslingers chew for breakfast (as well as Paladins, especially, ESPECIALLY Bow Paladins).
occult classes
One of these is very different to the others, particularly since occultism is an extremely strong influence to a lot of stuff in D&D and etc. (not even tied to psychics/psionics, but like occultism like spirits and stuff, which just get flavoured in and around the psychic stuff), but that's just my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslingers suck. Just in general, they kinda suck. They're mostly hyper-dedicated archer fighters with some tricks and less feats. They're also super expensive and weakened massively since that ranged enhancement FAQ, forcing gunslingers to pay heavy premiums for their ability to overcome DR compared to a comparable archer.
Basically, if you think Gunslingers are broken, you have no idea what an actually well-built bow user in a similar scenario could do to your big bad, and your major concern is probably antagonistic/thinking too much in terms of 'big boss fights against solo big monster', which Gunslingers chew for breakfast (as well as Paladins, especially, ESPECIALLY Bow Paladins).
occult classesOne of these is very different to the others, particularly since occultism is an extremely strong influence to a lot of stuff in D&D and etc. (not even tied to psychics/psionics, but like occultism like spirits and stuff, which just get flavoured in and around the psychic stuff), but that's just my opinion.
It is a personal preference that I dislike Lovecraft. So I don't allow the classes in my games when I am DM. I play with people who use them and that's all cool. Just not my cup of tea and I avoid it as much as possible when I play. I've had plenty of discussions and know the classes are not terrible. It is what I want as DM in my games. No amount of opinions will ever change my mind on it. Players know up front and if they don't like it then don't play in my games. I tend to not like Pathfinder Tech and still on the fence about star-finder. I doubt I will play it.
I prefer the classic Dragonlance style of fantasy adventures and that is what I shoot for in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At level 1-4 the Gunslinger is pretty bad. It doesn't do anything except shoot a gun, and even then it's only passable with firearms while bleeding unreasonable ammunition costs. Past the 5th level it's a one-trick pony (barring a few interesting archetypes) that's little more than good at one combat style. It's easily the blandest class in all of Pathfinder, and in my opinion it should never have existed. Gunslinging should have been a feat chain, or an assortment of archetypes, not a class.
My understanding of the "OMG gunslinger is OP" mentality is that it comes from tables that get into an player/GM arms race. The players beat a combat encounter too easily, so the GM responds by increasing the CR of the monsters he sends at the player next time. These new monsters have high AC so most of the party hits less often, but the Gunslinger is unaffected since touch AC didn't increase. Most parties will adapt to the higher difficult, and proceed to beat it easily after a while, so the GM will raise the difficulty again. Once again AC and touch AC diverge further. If this process repeats itself a few times, sooner or later the rest of the party will be struggling while the Gunslinger is still having an easy time hitting touch AC. Bottom line, any time the rest of the party is being challenged by an opponent's AC the Gunslinger is going to have a field day. If this is all the GM knows, then he has no tools with which to address this problem. Going for higher CR monsters only makes the situation worse since higher CR monsters don't have any better touch AC.
Optimized characters have always been able to break "standard" combat encounters, requiring GM's to get creative if they want to create an interesting battle that neither kills their players nor gets killed off. The Gunslinger is just perhaps a little easier to build up to the point at which it makes opponents fall dead. The fact that the Gunslinger has literally nothing else makes it compare unfavorably against most archer builds, especially after the Weapon's Master Handbook - fighters are a lot better now and have raised the bar considerably for characters who focus almost exclusively in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just right.
I concur.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're good at what they do, it's just they don't do all too much and people tend to confuse overkill with overpowered.
I feel like the class was pretty powerful when it first came out, but it has been slowly nerfed over time to where it's just an average to sub-par archer.
No more or less than any other class.
In my games, the Gunslinger had made almost all combat irrelevant.
He played a Pistolero VMC Rogue, and stacked his damage, while also exploiting the TWF/Rapid Shot rules. Since guns go against touch, he took all the penalties and was still smoking the enemies.
The character has since retired.
I think there are better ways to run guns, but I haven't found or written any to test.
To be fair, pisoleros are basically melee characters with slightly larger reach weapons. All those penalties are suddenly a very, very big deal when you're up against a caster or an archer who has no reason to ever come into your striking range.
On the whole, though, the Gunslinger CLASS is fine but paizo's gun rules are more trouble than they're worth; a gun-focused character has good spike damage against things with bad touch AC and is otherwise just an archer with more expensive weapons. I don't bother with the gunslinger simply because the firearm rules stink, but the Bolt Ace is perfectly fine as a class and actually makes crossbows more viable.
You are not wrong, but the seeds of an arm race had already started and the group decided to move on for the betterment of everyone.
I'm still not sure on better rules, but I am considering an armor enchantment which applies armor against gunfire.
They're good at what they do, it's just they don't do all too much and people tend to confuse overkill with overpowered.
I agree. Gunslinger class lets a character focus all their attention on dealing damage, which leads to a character that is tediously superior in combat and tediously incompetent out of combat.
In contrast, my wife created a gunslinger in my Iron Gods campaign who seldom deals damage but is great at battlefield control. She used the Experimental Gunsmith archetype, which gave up gun training, added two levels of Unchained Rogue, and wields a technological grappling gun, the autograpnel. With the autograpnel, she can grapple enemies to reduce their AC and keep them from escaping. With the Targeting deed she can disarm or confuse foes. She also likes to taunt opponents to target her, because her Nimble ability gives her the highest AC in the party. I like that a non-spellcaster can be successful at battlefield control.
And outside of combat, she fulfills the high Perception, trap-finding, and lock-opening roles in the party.
It's a really bad class.
The only thing it does it bring guns into "comparable with bows" territory, and... that's it.
The class is over at that point, nothing interesting left.
Sure, you can deal decent damage with it, but there are far more damaging options in this game, they just take a bit more effort to piece together.
It's a really bad class.
The only thing it does it bring guns into "comparable with bows" territory, and... that's it.
The class is over at that point, nothing interesting left.
Sure, you can deal decent damage with it, but there are far more damaging options in this game, they just take a bit more effort to piece together.
I think the appealing thing about the class is how easily it works, though bland.
I've seen plenty of classes get use out of combat.
The aforementioned pistolero was the groups rogue/sneak guy as well as an item crafter who has to use business connections to get them into a dungeon.
The campaign purposely included social combat and other challenges to not polarize characters into being defined by combat effectiveness.
Ah, guns and gunslingers. You are so cool as a concept for fantasy yet so boring and lackluster rulewise.
Gunslingers have problems as I wrote in this article.
I'm not sure if I'd call them overpowered, but they're definitely poorly designed.
Gunslingers have problems as I wrote in this article.
I'm not sure if I'd call them overpowered, but they're definitely poorly designed.
Overall good article. But I highly doubt the vital strike line as deeds work at all. I don't see how it can compete with the volley of arrows of an archer or even a crossbowman.
We had an ifrit Mysterious Stranger gunslinger in our Strange Aeons game, and I'd call her just right, only dipping into insanely good because we ended up with a mythic tier for defeating Hellion, which allowed our 'slinger to pick up Limitless Range.
Otherwise, the range seems to be a major limitation, and I think in the future, if I was ever interested in playing a gunslinger, I'd have to go Bolt Ace.