Is double-barrel pistol even worth it?


Advice

51 to 56 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Temperans wrote:

I'm not sure in how going from the Attack Action to Full Attack Action works, so I'll let someone else answer.

As for uses for Double-Barrel. A Spellslinger is able to enchant each barrel with a different thing, this is specially useful when creatures with different weaknesses. There is the Shieldmarshal's Pistol, which gives a free deed feat, very useful when feat starved.

Depending on how its ruled, an Eldritch Archer gains the ability to shoot 2 rays with a single action.

It's also useful for things like surprise rounds, where you can start with you gun in hand and immediately make 2 shots.

Otherwise, the second shot is able to hold special ammunition as was suggested previously. Ex: Mage Shot (Acid), or a Poison Bullet from the Poison Shot deed.

Now that I sat a little on the subject, I think I got our Vital Strike subject solved, but I still need advice on the flaming/Full Attack thing.

As RAW, VS says: "Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses."

If you DB shoot, you dont change the weapon's DMG dice, therefore you would gain DMG equivalent as the weapon's listed DMG dice. If that doesnt convince you, you can look as DB shoot as either a DMG bonus or a weapon's ability, and on either case, VS would proc before the added bonus of the second bullet. I still think DB shooting is a single attack, but now I think VS would give me +1d8, despite on how you look at It.

On "flaming", Gun Scavenger let me make the entire gun flaming, not a specific barrel, so I think the question still remains for me. But thanks for the exemples!

Also, that Full Attack transition would imply that you dont take Rapid Shot penalty on your first attack, since it has a very clear ruling that Rapid Shot only happens when using a Full Attack, and you didnt choose that action before the first attack was made. Only when you decide to take the second onwards.


Leench wrote:
Also note that the "Attack" word as well as the "Full Attack" words starts with capital letters.

That's because it's a heading, and follows the english language rules for capitalization in headings (i.e. most words are capitalized). For instance, a few pages later, a similar heading says "What Hit Points Represent" - that doesn't emans "represent" was a game term. Thus, the attack in quesiton is not the attack action.

Leench wrote:
Can I start with a "standard action", triggering vital strike AND THEN PROCEED by making the "full attack" (not using DB shots, but still making use of the remainder of multiple attacks?)

No, you can't. If you declare you're using the standard attack action, that's what you're doing. The rules don't say you can turn a standard attack into a full attack if you want, but that you turn a full-attack action into a single attack (basically aborting the full-attakc action to get the move action "back"). It just doesn't work the other way around. You declare what kind of action you are using, and whether you can use stuff like Vital Striek depends on that declaration.

Leench wrote:

If DB shooting was 2 attacks, I think we would all agree that flaming would proc twice, BUT...

If DB shooting is 1 attack, can you argue that a single attack doesn't imply a single hit, so you could proc flame DMG twice if both bullets HIT?

It's one action, but two attacks. OK, it's a little confusing because the same sentence uses the word attack in two entirely different meanings, so I'm gonna try to make it clear: The "attack action" is what the second word says, an action (a standard action). As part of that action, you make two attack rolls (each with a -4 penalty in addition to the usual calculation from BAB etc.), each one of which hits or misses independent from the other. Since the weapon is not classified as a double weapon, magic enchantments like flaming affect both barrels, so each hit deals the 1d6 bonus damage. Likewise, each hit would get the bonus damage from Vital Strike.

If both attacks from a (medium sized) double barrel pistol hit, with Vital Strike, they each do 2d8+1d6+x damage, 4d8+2d6+2x in total.


Thanks a Lot for the reply.
Some things were Very clarifying, others no so much.

First things First: VS rulling.

Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make ONE attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage.

It should proc only in one of the attacks, if DB shooting is two attacks.

I am not convinced It is though. But either way, I think that would make us agree that its (1d8x2+mod+1d6) + (1d8+mod+1d6) = 3d8 + 2xmod +2d6

Flaming: I just dont think multiple hits demand multiple attacks. But still, we agree on that for different reasons

Full Attack: you got me convinced on the argument that It works on a Full Attack changing to an Attack, and not backwards. That was enlightning.


Leench wrote:

First things First: VS rulling.

(...)

It should proc only in one of the attacks, if DB shooting is two attacks.

I totally get where you're coming from. Indeed, if we take the wording of Vital Strike completely literal, it doesn't work at all with double barrel pistol/musket's special standard attack action. What I'm doing is that I take the section of Vital Strike about the attack action being but one attack to not be actual rule text, but reminder text. I guess I rushed the post (hence the crazy number of typos), so I apologize for not being clearer in the first place. I blame my parent's Easter BBQ that I had to get to.

The reason I'm not simply following the strict RAW is because the CRB is usually presuming the most vanilla case possible. DBP/M is already overruling the basic rules for standard attack action, and when combined with Vital Strike, we have two different rules at basically the same level (so no "specific beats general) that clash. For comparison, look at the Animal Fury rage power. The whole section on the full attack is basically a very sloppy repeat of the rules on combining manufactured and natural weapons, because apparently the writer didn't even consider the possibility of a full attack consisting of nothing but natural attacks. The half strength part would, as written, even be true when you make a standard attack with it. In extreme cases (with the Multiattack feat), this could actually lead to a primary natural attack that's being made at a lower attack bonus than secondary attacks. Obviously, that's stupid, so we extrapolate what the rules are most likely supposed to be. There are actually a bunch of sentences in the CRB that we cannot take literally without them breaking the game, in some cases even core only games. A prime example being the polymorph rules that explicitly talk about spells, and then later allude to non-spell polymorph effects like wild shape, even though those are by literal reading not addressed by those rules.

Leench wrote:
Flaming: I just dont think multiple hits demand multiple attacks.

Not necessarily, but I think the only case where it doesn't is Manyshot. Unless otherwise specified, a hit is a successful attack roll ("If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage." CRB pg. 178).


As a random sidenote.
(I do not know if you can vital strike with both barrels or not so I can't comment on it)

But this weapon sounds rather nice for Spell Cartridge feat that came out recently. It woud be fairly useful for a 3/4baab caster level having class to work with. The type who won't have a lot of iteratives, and likes to move or cast. Neat.


Sorry about the delay. I got sucked by RL a bit haha.

Anyway, thanks for the reply Derk. It helped me a lot! :)

51 to 56 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is double-barrel pistol even worth it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.