| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since firearms are definitely going to come up eventually, I hope they are in the core rulebook so we can playtest them from the start against everything else. I think a couple things need looking at:
- How proficiency in Firearms is handled. They really should just be a weapon group like Heavy Blades or Polearms or Bows. Don't make them weird semi-exotic weapons again.
- How the "core mechanic" of Firearms is handled. In PF1, they target touch AC. Do not do this again. The whole thing of penetrating armor is a dumb idea anyway. In real life armor was "proofed" against firearms by shooting it at point blank range, and the dent shown off to potential buyers to assure them they would be protected.
- I'd be happy with them working just like other projectile weapons, but with longer ranges. The gunpowder can propel a bullet faster than a string can propel an arrow, so it goes farther before dropoff. That's really all you need to sell firearms to me. Arrows can still do more damage, because they are bigger and tear through more of the body than the little hole left by a bullet.
- Gunslinger can really just be a Fighter or Ranger archetype. It doesn't need to be its own class. It was worthless as a class in PF1 after 8th level anyway.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns will not be in the PF2 Core Rulebook. Erik Mona talked about this choice in the Know Direction interview.
If I recall correctly, the reasoning was something like: that they would need a more intensive and focused playtest and that enough folks really don't like guns in their games that leaving it out of the Core (and so, more "optional") might go down better with the playerbase.
(But it's been a while since I listened to the interview so I may be misremembering. Please correct me if I've misrepresented the exchange!)
Joe M is correct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if they're being put off to a future book, I hope they do get significantly playtested and are nothing like PF1 firearms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah they are a mess, gotta figure out what to do with them so they are balanced. Any suggestions?
I really dont think these early firearms were supposed to have any long range. Bows and Crossbows still get a good run as the sniping weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I like fire-arms as marginal in my fantasy and always disliked the gun slinger. Better approach by my book would have been making it 3/4 BAB Alchemist based, which also meshes with idea you are self crafting ammo and maintaining finicky weapon which few are familiar with. Dialing back the approach which enables "full attack" stuff is better IMHO, and Alchemist also would be good chassis for that, potentially also with "super shots" of exploding rounds etc that doesn't need multiple attacks to be viable. I also disliked the "lots of/fast bombs" angle of Alchemist, which seemed un-necessary and cinematically off-putting in fantasy setting, just too video-game and de-emphasizing the rarity and novelty of SINGLE bombs.
Besides they've apparently stated "no" on this re: CRB, I don't quite get people's expectations on P2E Core covering much more than P1E (besides Alchemy/Goblins). It's a new system, they have enough to cover just getting basics, which admittedly will probably be alot more fleshed out for classes like Fighter which were very sparse in P1E Core. Paizo is also in the business of selling expansion/splat, so pushing everything into Core undermines that business. For that reason I don't see any reason to expect "Archetypes" in Core, although I'm not aware of specific Paizo statements on that
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Early firearms (before rifling) were hopelessly inaccurate. They were fine for firing at massed infantry but little use otherwise. Even at Waterloo the opposing forces were blazing away at people standing still in bright red uniforms barely 50 yards away and missing. Though the smoke takes much of the blame for that.
I've ruled that the short-range attack for guns in PF1 attacks flat-footed rather than touch. It's more sensible, though it obviously does odd things to balance. Dragons are safe again.
But I'm happy to see it wait a couple of years.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since firearms are definitely going to come up eventually, I hope they are in the core rulebook so we can playtest them from the start against everything else. I think a couple things need looking at:
- How proficiency in Firearms is handled. They really should just be a weapon group like Heavy Blades or Polearms or Bows. Don't make them weird semi-exotic weapons again.
- How the "core mechanic" of Firearms is handled. In PF1, they target touch AC. Do not do this again. The whole thing of penetrating armor is a dumb idea anyway. In real life armor was "proofed" against firearms by shooting it at point blank range, and the dent shown off to potential buyers to assure them they would be protected.
- I'd be happy with them working just like other projectile weapons, but with longer ranges. The gunpowder can propel a bullet faster than a string can propel an arrow, so it goes farther before dropoff. That's really all you need to sell firearms to me. Arrows can still do more damage, because they are bigger and tear through more of the body than the little hole left by a bullet.
- Gunslinger can really just be a Fighter or Ranger archetype. It doesn't need to be its own class. It was worthless as a class in PF1 after 8th level anyway.
A lot of this is just wrong or heavily depends on what type of firearm we're talking about when speaking of firearms.
Not proficiency or the archetype parts, those are fine, but the other two:
1) No plate was proof against bullets at short ranges, all the evidence suggests it was proofed at about 50-100 yards, and whether the bullet penetrated or not depended mostly on how the bullet struck and the armor's sloping. But old firearms were perfectly capable of penetrating armor, particularly low quality armor (a great book for this information is "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" by Alan Williams).
2) Your Bow-Guns assertion is completely backwards. If we're speaking about early firearms, they had horrible range, but they were propelling 0.85 inch lead balls (on average, calibers tended to vary). That will cause massive tissue damage compared to an arrow, if it hits. But bows had far greater range and reload speed.
PF1E's approach to guns was good. Touch AC within 1st range increment was fine with the ranges given. The problem was the combination of Gunslinger with Feats/Cartridges to achieve reload times like bows in-game, but adding Dex to damage from a Gunslinger, which made them easily the best ranged weapons out there. Even before the old TWF Double Pistol weapon cord trick.
Yeah that is definitely a place where I would like the rules severely altered.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How proficiency in Firearms is handled. They really should just be a weapon group like Heavy Blades or Polearms or Bows. Don't make them weird semi-exotic weapons again.
Agreed; one of the biggest problems with firearms in PF1E was that there were so many hoops you needed to jump through just to use them at all (forget about using them well) that there was no such thing as a character who used firearms as a secondary weapon, or blended with other combat styles. This meant that iconic firearm-related concepts, like the corsair or ot the musketeer, were effectively impossible to do well. The amount of investment required to be good with firearms meant you couldn't support any other combat style to mix with it. You were shoehorned into being an anachronistic flintlock cowboy.
To an extent, part of the problem was the "one-size-fits-all" fantasy setting that is Golarion. Firearms could not be allowed to become a generally-usable sidearm option for flavor reasons in Golarion, and the rules warped around this to ensure it was impossible to splash firearms on a build that didn't completely specialize in them. If we were trying to run the Three Musketeers, we got Billy the Kid instead of d'Artagnan. If we were trying to run Pirates of the Carribean, we got Billy the Kid instead of Jack Sparrow. Because Golarion could not allow firearms to be a viable sidearm option for characters who aren't gun specialists, we were effectively barred from the vast majority of firearm-related concepts.
How the "core mechanic" of Firearms is handled. In PF1, they target touch AC. Do not do this again. The whole thing of penetrating armor is a dumb idea anyway. In real life armor was "proofed" against firearms by shooting it at point blank range, and the dent shown off to potential buyers to assure them they would be protected.
Completely agree. Touch AC should have never been used for firearms, or any weapons. From a gameplay balance perspective it resulted in a mess, and from a realism perspective... well, Pathfinder is so hopefully anachronistic to begin with that there's not really much point in talking about realism. The fact is that there has always been an arms race between weapons and armor, with weapons necessitating stronger armor which in turn necessitate better weapons to beat that armor. So in order to analyze the efficacy of firearms versus armor we need to ask what time period we're talking about, which goes against Pathfinder's embrace of anachronism.
If we're going to say that firearms ignore armor, then does armor make you impervious to swords? How about other traditional anti-armor weapons like halberds? There are lots of weapons that were specifically designed to beat the armor of their time period, and lots of armors specifically designed to counter these weapons. Pathfinder isn't going to nail down a specific time period, nor is it ever going to be an accurate historical arms and armor simulation. Either there should be a general mechanic for weapons with an "armor-piercing" property that is built into the game and balanced accordingly (which can then be given to guns and other weapons that are thematically associated with being anti-armor), or it shouldn't be codified into the rules at all.
Gunslinger can really just be a Fighter or Ranger archetype. It doesn't need to be its own class. It was worthless as a class in PF1 after 8th level anyway.
Agree; if Gunslinger is to return, he needs a niche other than "guy who uses a gun". The Fighter already has the "guy who is really good at his chosen fighting style" niche covered; we don't need a whole class for one of those niches.
Early firearms (before rifling) were hopelessly inaccurate.
This is a bit of a myth. I did some research on this a while back, and it turns out smoothbore firearms are actually quite accurate at short range. It's only at long range that they have accuracy issue. And yes, clouds of smoke were an issue.
This is a bit of a myth. I did some research on this a while back, and it turns out smoothbore firearms are actually quite accurate at short range. It's only at long range that they have accuracy issue. And yes, clouds of smoke were an issue.
Well, they got this part right... To a ridiculous degree!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a homebrew setting that takes a lot of inspiration in late 1700s/early 1800s history, and as a result the early firearms are a god send in regards to cementing the historical themes and signifying that the game isn't in medieval stasis. However, even though I use the Commonplace Guns rules (they're classified as martial weapons, early firearms and their ammo cost 25% their normal cost), I still find that the P1e firearm rules leave a lot to be desired, namely the fact that they especially suffer from them not being especially viable as a sidearm/ranged backup weapon without at least some investment. As someone who makes extensive use of firearms in her homebrew settings, here's my wish list in regards to changes I would like to see in firearms:
1.) Make them more viable.
The biggest drawback to firearms in P1e is, due to their inferior range, longer reload speed, and misfire chance that increases when you use paper alchemical cartridges (which are near necessary to keep reload time low), unless you go in putting a fair amount of investment into firearms, there's a high likelihood that longbows, or even crossbows, are more viable as a ranged sidearm - and this is without taking into consideration the fact that they're exotic weapons. Increasing their range and making their reload speed more reasonable would go a long way to fix this.
2.) Rebalance Firearms in general
With the suggestions I made in my first point, maintaining the mechanic that firearms bypass armor in their first range increment would create major balance issues, especially with P2e's 10>AC<10 Crit system. Therefore, I would propose that firearms should act as essentially higher tier crossbows; they should have (roughly) comparable range and reload speeds, with one-handed firearms being equivalent to light crossbows, and two-handed firearms being equivalent to heavy crossbows, but with bigger damage dice (IE Pistol doing more damage than the Hand Crossbow/same damage as a Light Crossbow, Musket doing more damage than the Heavy Crossbow), as well as a high crit damage modifier. They should maintain their misfire chance - whether or not it stays the same as P1e's misfire rules or fully adapts to P2e's 10>AC<10 crit system would require playtesting to figure out.
3.) Rework the Gunslinger.
While I'm personally a fan of the flintlock cowboy aesthetic, I recognize that this ultimately serves as a disservice to the class; the Gunslinger in P1e being more or less designed as the de facto gun user without a whole lot of consideration into how other classes would interact with firearms beyond just proficiency ultimately does the entirety of firearm rules a disservice. When firearms get reintroduced into P2e, while they need to be designed to be more non-gunslinger friendly, the gunslinger itself needs to be reworked into being the gun master; put a lot of emphasis on their ability to create their own guns and ammo and spend a lot of time on the field without needing to go into civilization to buy more ammo - essentially, redesign the base gunslinger to more explicitly represent an early frontiersman, while the archetypes can take the duty of representing other firearm-heavy character types, like the cowboy, gun-wielding pirate, (proper) musketeer, siege gunner, etc.
To reiterate, these are all just suggestions as to how firearms in P2e should operate, and I'd love to hear any feedback/criticism from others in regards to these ideas.
(Sorry if any of this seems rough, I've been typing this up on-and-off for the past hour.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[In PF1] there was no such thing as a character who used firearms as a secondary weapon, or blended with other combat styles.
Definitely agree with this concern! I would love to see PF2 handle "pistol and sabre"-type characters well. It's a classic image, and I definitely tried making it viable in PF1 but it's just not (even with archetypes specifically designed for it, like the Musketeer cavalier.)
Maybe higher damage + longer reload times would make sense, mechanically and thematically? Maybe have it require a feat so it's not the go-to opener for every character but it's available as a viable option for those who want it.
The gunslinger evolved into design by virtue that it was intended as a fighter archetype, not a full class iirc.
From a narrative design standpoint, it makes way more sense to me to have it become more a niche of the rogue class, meaning characters like Han Solo immediately become easy to make. A weapon that turns precision damage on/off by virtue of design rather than one that invalidates armor. The same could be said of the more swashbucklery like builds, which by what we've seen may be in the cards for rogues in PF2.
From a setting standpoint, it makes more sense for the gunslinger to be tied to the alchemist in terms of weaponry. If guns became alchemically based weapons that expand upon the bomb mechanic into focused damage (something like Concentrated Splasg in PF1) as a mechanic that allowed alchemists, or really anyone using alchemical weapons, a weapon slot item that merely existed as a vessel to geet their +x/weapon abilities to their alchemical weapons might be both interesting and flavorful.
The design space here might land somewhere in the middle, and the gunslinger like class archetypes might even become more universal to where we get a gunslinger that functions as "whatever they're replacing archetpyes/prestige classes" with in PF2.
I honestly didn't mind the touch AC thing; it made sense to me. That said, I could see where it would create issues with the new crit system. I'd be fine with just amping up the gun damage instead and removing options to speed up the rate of fire (which really was, I think, the issue in PF1).
I do hope they keep the misfire mechanic, because it does serve as a balancing element and helps keep in mind the era of guns being used. I recall talking one of my players (who had been waffling between a gunslinger and some other class) into playing the gunslinger after seeing an 18th-century musket demonstration (complete with a misfire) in Boston and going "okay, that would be pretty flavorful."
The gunslinger doesn't need to exist, though. It's just a fighter. Give the fighter, the alchemist, and maybe the rogue an archetype for it and call it a day, and just make guns an exotic weapon group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a narrative design standpoint, it makes way more sense to me to have it become more a niche of the rogue class, meaning characters like Han Solo immediately become easy to make.
From my perspective, this is exactly why firearm-use shouldn't be a class at all. There are so many divergent concepts that share nothing in common except the fact that they use a gun. You don't have to multiclass into a specific class to use any other type of weapon effectively, and firearms shouldn't be a special exception.
From a narrative design standpoint, it makes way more sense to me to have it become more a niche of the rogue class, meaning characters like Han Solo immediately become easy to make.From my perspective, this is exactly why firearm-use shouldn't be a class at all. There are so many divergent concepts that share nothing in common except the fact that they use a gun. You don't have to multiclass into a specific class to use any other type of weapon effectively, and firearms shouldn't be a special exception.
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that the Gunslinger should specifically be a Alchemist/Rogue archetype (hell the Gunchemist and the Gun Smuggler, respectively, both came out in the same splatbook, and they're both very different and respectable approach to characters centered around firearms), but personally? I wouldn't be too upset if the Gunslinger was just designated as a Fighter archetype.
That being said, the Gunslinger does serve a specific purpose; for games where the GM doesn't want to explicitly introduce firearms, it allows the player to have a firearm and remain self-reliant despite the lack of firearm support, as well as introduce firearms to new players in a relatively easy way. If it were an archetype, as opposed to its own base class, GMs who aren't warm to the idea would be more likely to flat out not allow firearms.
From a narrative design standpoint, it makes way more sense to me to have it become more a niche of the rogue class, meaning characters like Han Solo immediately become easy to make.From my perspective, this is exactly why firearm-use shouldn't be a class at all. There are so many divergent concepts that share nothing in common except the fact that they use a gun. You don't have to multiclass into a specific class to use any other type of weapon effectively, and firearms shouldn't be a special exception.I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that the Gunslinger should specifically be a Alchemist/Rogue archetype (hell the Gunchemist and the Gun Smuggler, respectively, both came out in the same splatbook, and they're both very different and respectable approach to characters centered around firearms), but personally? I wouldn't be too upset if the Gunslinger was just designated as a Fighter archetype.
That being said, the Gunslinger does serve a specific purpose; for games where the GM doesn't want to explicitly introduce firearms, it allows the player to have a firearm and remain self-reliant despite the lack of firearm support, as well as introduce firearms to new players in a relatively easy way. If it were an archetype, as opposed to its own base class, GMs who aren't warm to the idea would be more likely to flat out not allow firearms.
Archetypes I postulate will function very similarly to Variant Multiclassing in execution, and will subsequently and simultaneously assume the role of prestige classes.
Based on this postulate, all one needs do is ban the archetype and your issue with firearms would be solved.
I don't have the facts to verify this, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "Gunslinger" being built around Alchemist instead of Fighter is way to go.
It removes conceit that it is directly comparable to Fighter, although it can be very competitive over-all.
It doesn't need to perform exactly like P1E, a Gun-Chemist can also have bombs and tinker-flavor as well as alchemical tools at their disposal.
It doesn't need same rapid-fire approach, good class abilities can compensate for lack of scaling in that regard, in fact P2E norm seems less "multiple attack" focused in general. Same re: Bombs, P1E felt like a tone-breaking videogame, which is absurd because this was AoE so why the need for multiple attacks?
Make them individually better and there is no need for that. Augment that with demolition angle, and other "tinker" abilities and it's solid class basis.
I proposed Bomb-Gun and Mutagen-Melee being more strongly distinguished by default in Alchemist, more like Ranger choosing a Style or Wizard/Druid/Paladin choosing Arcane/Nature/Divine Bond. P1E Alchemist just felt like "too much" in my book ESPECIALLY since both angles are pushing hard against vanilla fantasy's conventions. There is always room for later "Archetype" that does both, or using general access Feats to enable other side of things. Gun-Bomb-Tinker is distinct side of things from Mutagen, external-engineering vs internal-crypto-medical... Really, I think giving each of them distinct spell-formula lists would be ideal and really enhance the flavor focus... Actually, more than just 2 spell-formula lists, have multiple ones like Domains but generally aimed at aspect of each "side of things". Further options can open up more "Domains" on your side of things or on the other side.
Re: general Feats to enable Gun usage, it doesn't need to be (shouldn't be) equivalent to competent archery, but the minor feat investment still can yield VIABLE option in certain action-economy scenarios. If somebody doesn't plan going deep in archery anyways, the "intro Gun usage" could be plausibly attractive to them - it could also synergize with non-Gun usages of Alchemy for them. There remains scope for class-specific Gun archetypes/options better than general "intro Gun usage" feat but not as good as Gun-Chemist, or at best CO-equal if synergizing with class abilities but generally it WON'T synergize with all your non-Alchemist abilities by design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping for Penetration rather than touch AC.
My personal rule for is:
Penetration bypasses the combination of armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 2nd increment (however, keep reading). One-handed firearms have a PR of 3, two handed firearms have a PR of 6, but this is ½ outside of 1st increment. Also PR automatically increases based on enhancementx2, so a character with a +5 musket bypasses 16 points of AC from armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 1st increment, but only 8 in 2nd increment.
Broken Condition: Penetration lowered by 4 (minimum 0).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective, this is exactly why firearm-use shouldn't be a class at all. There are so many divergent concepts that share nothing in common except the fact that they use a gun. You don't have to multiclass into a specific class to use any other type of weapon effectively, and firearms shouldn't be a special exception.
I don't see why the need to be positioned as "just another weapon" with expectation to work like one. If they're posited as specific means of Alchemical magic, like Bombs, that is different perspective. And maybe others can use *a* Bomb with Resonance etc but they don't expect to make general habit of it any more than an Arcane potion or scroll. Gun-Chemists have schtick allowing them to routinely use Guns, as they do re: Alchemical Potions and Bombs, but the system doesn't need to set it up as "merely" a weapon. P1E had problem of trying to be "setting neutral" also conceiving of various contexts for Gun commonality, none of which matters when they are going "full Golarion". Paizo doesn't need to cover "all possible concepts involving guns", they need to cover how they view guns being used in their world.
Well, let's hope they don't marginalize guns with a knee jerk twitch of the nerf bat. They'll probably playtest them, so that's not really a huge concern. There's really no way that they can work the same way in PF2, for much the same reason that scimitars and rapiers have had to change.
I also hope that they let the DMs make the choice as to whether or not they're available in setting. After what my players have done in Golarion, while they're still rare, they are by no means confined to two countries anymore, at least at our table's version of the setting. I'd like to still be able to rock it to the bang bang boogie.
As long as they don't attack touch AC I'll be happy enough.
|
Like as far as I get it, Gunslinger is supposed to be class all about trick shots and other Western movie tropes?
Either way, I suppose in 2e they could have archetype that is "Base class, but you can now use guns!", but it would make all classes use guns in same way though so that'd be sad I think <_<
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why the need to be positioned as "just another weapon" with expectation to work like one.
Because firearm-using concepts are just as divergent as bow-using or sword-using concepts or any other concept. Nothing against the alchemical concept you're talking about, but it's very different from what I have in mind for firearm-using characters.
P1E had problem of trying to be "setting neutral" also conceiving of various contexts for Gun commonality, none of which matters when they are going "full Golarion". Paizo doesn't need to cover "all possible concepts involving guns", they need to cover how they view guns being used in their world.
Providing a wide range of options to support a wide variety of concepts is a laudable goal. It's part of the reason why Golarion is a blend of so many different genres in the first place. Locking firearms into a very narrow concept is a weakness and not a strength. The proliferation of firearms should be handled through setting-specific availability rules, not by hamstringing the gun rules to result in fewer viable builds.
If Golarion wants to restrict firearms by jacking up the default price and slapping a proficiency tax on them, then fine. That's easy enough for us to adjust with alternate rules. But don't gate the fighting style behind a single class to artificially render it completely unviable for the vast majority of character concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since firearms are definitely going to come up eventually, I hope they are in the core rulebook so we can playtest them from the start against everything else. I think a couple things need looking at:
- How proficiency in Firearms is handled. They really should just be a weapon group like Heavy Blades or Polearms or Bows. Don't make them weird semi-exotic weapons again.
- How the "core mechanic" of Firearms is handled. In PF1, they target touch AC. Do not do this again. The whole thing of penetrating armor is a dumb idea anyway. In real life armor was "proofed" against firearms by shooting it at point blank range, and the dent shown off to potential buyers to assure them they would be protected.
- I'd be happy with them working just like other projectile weapons, but with longer ranges. The gunpowder can propel a bullet faster than a string can propel an arrow, so it goes farther before dropoff. That's really all you need to sell firearms to me. Arrows can still do more damage, because they are bigger and tear through more of the body than the little hole left by a bullet.
- Gunslinger can really just be a Fighter or Ranger archetype. It doesn't need to be its own class. It was worthless as a class in PF1 after 8th level anyway.
The problem with firearms is that unless they are semi-auto or faster, they are too weak. Hell, even as late as the civil war the strategy was fire then melee with your bayonet (unless you have a full minute to reload another shot). Semi-auto pistols and rifles came out the same time as automobiles and are just way too advanced to fit into a fantasy game (in my opinion).
I would prefer guns that are simple weapons (that's why they were popular compared to bows IRL), but take a minute to reload. You aren't really going to be able to make a post-civil war gunslinger anymore, but you can use it for a first round shot, while you are closing to melee, then reload after the fight. More like how it was generally used IRL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with firearms is that unless they are semi-auto or faster, they are too weak. Hell, even as late as the civil war the strategy was fire then melee with your bayonet (unless you have a full minute to reload another shot). Semi-auto pistols and rifles came out the same time as automobiles and are just way too advanced to fit into a fantasy game (in my opinion).
I would prefer guns that are simple weapons (that's why they were popular compared to bows IRL), but take a minute to reload. You aren't really going to be able to make a post-civil war gunslinger anymore, but you can use it for a first round shot, while you are closing to melee, then reload after the fight. More like how it was generally used IRL.
I would like more support for mixing up melee and ranged in general. As it stands in PF1, you pretty much have to specialize in one or the other. But in reality, there was a lot of opening ranged volleys proceeding to melee, like you said.
I'd LOVE if more of the feats and class abilities in PF2 worked with /all/ weapons. Let's have no separation of "Spring Attack" and "Shot on the Run", please let "Power Attack" work with strength-based ranged weapons like composite bows and thrown weapons, the whole shebang.
I'd like Gunslinger best as a universal archetype, rather than releasing a gun archetype for everyone. That way Fighters can fill the role the previous Gunslinger filled, as a master of guns as a weapon, then rogues can pick up using them as a utility combat tool by tacking debilitating strikes on them as opening moves, wizards and sorcerers can pick up spellslinging, alchemist can get trick shots/special ammo, and all of these further specializations can just be class feats tacked on to a generic chassis, as opposed to releasing an archetype for every class anyway..
I like firearms in my game, so I would definitely like to see them implemented in PF2. But I agree they should not be in the Core, and should show up in an optional book. Hopefully that way, the concept can be more fully developed than they were in Ultimate Combat.
I would really like to see additional options revolving around firearms that take into account that they exist in a magical fantasy world, and how the world would evolve with their presence. Since we're dealing with fantasy creatures that have tenous ties to reality to varying degrees, we can play fast and loose with the effectiveness of firearms against non-mundane creatures.
I was disappointed by the lack of magical options to enhance firearms and defend against them, like an enchantment to truly silence a firearm, shields that reflect bullets, ability to curve bullets like Wanted, and so on. In my home campaign, I used alchemy as a form of magical chemistry to justify the creation of alchemical ballistic fiber padding that could be added to armor at a cost and increased armor check penalty to make them effective against firearms.
I realized that stuff like that would really take a lot fo people out of the more classical fantasy setting, which is why they should totally be in a separate book where rules and options can be fully developed for a fantasy setting that assumes the existence of firearms.
How proficiency in Firearms is handled. They really should just be a weapon group like Heavy Blades or Polearms or Bows. Don't make them weird semi-exotic weapons again.Agreed; one of the biggest problems with firearms in PF1E was that there were so many hoops you needed to jump through just to use them at all (forget about using them well) that there was no such thing as a character who used firearms as a secondary weapon, or blended with other combat styles. This meant that iconic firearm-related concepts, like the corsair or ot the musketeer, were effectively impossible to do well. The amount of investment required to be good with firearms meant you couldn't support any other combat style to mix with it. You were shoehorned into being an anachronistic flintlock cowboy.
To an extent, part of the problem was the "one-size-fits-all" fantasy setting that is Golarion. Firearms could not be allowed to become a generally-usable sidearm option for flavor reasons in Golarion, and the rules warped around this to ensure it was impossible to splash firearms on a build that didn't completely specialize in them. If we were trying to run the Three Musketeers, we got Billy the Kid instead of d'Artagnan. If we were trying to run Pirates of the Carribean, we got Billy the Kid instead of Jack Sparrow. Because Golarion could not allow firearms to be a viable sidearm option for characters who aren't gun specialists, we were effectively barred from the vast majority of firearm-related concepts.
Definitely agree with this concern! I would love to see PF2 handle "pistol and sabre"-type characters well. It's a classic image, and I definitely tried making it viable in PF1 but it's just not (even with archetypes specifically designed for it, like the Musketeer cavalier.)
Maybe higher damage + longer reload times would make sense, mechanically and thematically? Maybe have it require a feat so it's not the go-to opener for every character but it's available as a viable option for those who want it.
I have been playing a pistol-and-sabre character for the last two years in my Iron Gods campaign. She is a lot of fun.
The campaign began with three players, playing a strix skald, half-elf magus, and dwarf gunslinger. I offered a NPC to fill out the party. They unexpectedly chose the wizard's daughter Val Baine and suggested that she could become a Savage Technologist barbarian. I wanted a wizard's daughter to have more magic, so I adapted Savage Technologist to homebrew Savage Spellslinger for bloodrager. I kept adjusting that archetype for balance and simplicity. Thus, I learned what is necessary to make pistol-and-sabre work, because in some versions it did not work.
The key ability is the Savage Technologist's Sword and Gun ability, which lets the barbarian/bloodrager shoot her pistol without provoking an attack of opportunity from adjacent opponents. My Savage Spellslinger has no natural rapid reload; in fact, her spell loading ability hinders rapid reload. Nor does she have a Quick Clear. So she played very much in a buccanneer style: shoot once and then swing with the sabre. (By the way, Val Baine does use a sabre, an adamantine copy of a Red Mantis sawtoothed sabre, rather than a longsword.) Misfires and slow reloading don't matter for that style, because she deals with those issues between encounters.
I have mentioned the sword-and-pistol style in other forum posts where players complained of the difficulty of gaining free-action reloads on pistols to be able to full attack with the pistol. They were not interested. Multiple attacks are heavily ingrained in Pathfinder 1st Edition. Maybe Pathfinder 2nd Edition will wean some people away from the many-attack mindset.
Later, the PCs in the campaign found some fully functional technological firearms (I stacked the treasure hordes and altered the technology rules in their favor). Now, they use those firearms as secondary weapons. But they still prefer their original weapons. Well, except for the gunslinger, who instead created an effective battlefield control technique using the relatively-inexpensive technological autograpnel and sonic pistol.
Many people here have listed the features that they think Pathfinder 2nd Edition firearms should have. I want to add one more: Does Not Provoke, because that enables historical pistol-and-sabre combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was two things that made the Gunslinger a class that rose above normal balance. One is Touch Attacks, as mentioned, which made the guns into almost autohits unless one misfires.
The other is making the class a full BAB class. The two together should have never happened.
It is this disparity that would need "fixed" in the new iteration. I would think that guns would get an accuracy bonus for guides and sights, using with both hands for the one handed versions, and target regular AC otherwise. If the Gunslinger returns, one of his class feats would be to use Touch Attacks with the gun (using Grit if pools are still used, tied to times per day based on a stat and leveled tiers if not)
Guns in PF1 are an enigma and is something of a conversation when comparing settings and different version of roleplaying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was two things that made the Gunslinger a class that rose above normal balance. One is Touch Attacks, as mentioned, which made the guns into almost autohits unless one misfires.
The other is making the class a full BAB class. The two together should have never happened.
It is this disparity that would need "fixed" in the new iteration. I would think that guns would get an accuracy bonus for guides and sights, using with both hands for the one handed versions, and target regular AC otherwise. If the Gunslinger returns, one of his class feats would be to use Touch Attacks with the gun (using Grit if pools are still used, tied to times per day based on a stat and leveled tiers if not)
Guns in PF1 are an enigma and is something of a conversation when comparing settings and different version of roleplaying.
This analysis aligns with mine as well.
Given the gunslinger's massive resource of BAB, they are able to stack feats like TWF, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim together and the penalties become irrelevant, coupled with the extra iterative attacks to whom some of these penalties do not apply (unless they invest in Improved TWF) they acquire a large number of potential attacks, and with clustered shots this accumulated damage outpaces most other martial characters, except maybe archers who have game breakingly insane attack bonuses anyway.
Since everyone who's going to be using weapons in PF2 is going to essentially be full BAB anyway, the design around guns needs much more careful design, attention, and testing to avoid this mathematical problem in game design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was two things that made the Gunslinger a class that rose above normal balance. One is Touch Attacks, as mentioned, which made the guns into almost autohits unless one misfires.
The other is making the class a full BAB class. The two together should have never happened.
It is this disparity that would need "fixed" in the new iteration. I would think that guns would get an accuracy bonus for guides and sights, using with both hands for the one handed versions, and target regular AC otherwise. If the Gunslinger returns, one of his class feats would be to use Touch Attacks with the gun (using Grit if pools are still used, tied to times per day based on a stat and leveled tiers if not)
Guns in PF1 are an enigma and is something of a conversation when comparing settings and different version of roleplaying.
This analysis aligns with mine as well.
Given the gunslinger's massive resource of BAB, they are able to stack feats like TWF, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim together and the penalties become irrelevant, coupled with the extra iterative attacks to whom some of these penalties do not apply (unless they invest in Improved TWF) they acquire a large number of potential attacks, and with clustered shots this accumulated damage outpaces most other martial characters, except maybe archers who have game breakingly insane attack bonuses anyway.
Since everyone who's going to be using weapons in PF2 is going to essentially be full BAB anyway, the design around guns needs much more careful design, attention, and testing to avoid this mathematical problem in game design.
I don't mind gunslingers having full BAB. For the gunslinger in my party, that means that she also wields a mean pick. Likewise, my pistol-and-sabre bloodrager also has full BAB.
I agree with master_marshmallow about stacking TWF, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, and Clustered Shots together, but for my own reasons. Ulitmate Combat gave PCs a totally new ranged weapon, the firearm, and most of them use it like a bow, with the added advantage of touch attacks and dex-to-damage and even more attacks through TWF. That's boring.
I am somewhat anachronistic myself in wanting to play characters resembling the 17th-century Three Musketeers and Caribbean buccaneers in the 13th-to-16th-century setting of Pathfinder. Nevertheless, skipping up to the easy reloading of the cowboy's Colt 1873 Frontier Six-Shooter or the massive damage of the prohibition gangster's 1921 Thompson submachine gun is much more anachronistic.
A move action (simple one-act action under Unchained Action Economy) to reload is an acceptible breach from historic reality in exchange for less deadly damage from firearms, since an encounter where an NPC kills a PC with one shot and then is unarmed while spending three turns to reload is no fun. But a free action to reload black-powder firearms is too extreme and makes the advanced six-shot revolver irrelevant.
Fortunately, the three-acts-per-turn action economy of Pathfinder 2nd Edition will force a reconsideration of the multiple-attack abuse of firearms. Paizo will probably create a new version of Rapid Shot for bows, but I hope they excluded firearms from Rapid Shot and instead invent Marksman Shot, a double-act action that gives a +5 bonus to attack rolls, for firearms and crossbows. That would make up for dropping touch attacks from firearms. Alchemical cartridges could reduce the chance of misfire instead of speeding up reloading and increasing the chance of misfire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to have gunslingers that do not rely on a dozen of shots to do damage. It makes the old flint pistols non competitive. I like firearms in my fantasy, but prefer "pirate" *and "musqueteer" arms, instead of wild west revolvers or semiautomatic weapons
Interestingly, in my research on early firearms I found some rather surprising facts. On penetration power, it turns out that firearms were roughly comparable to crossbows. There was a continual arms race between armor design and weapon design, and firearms would continue to advance long after crossbows were obsolete, but in the time that both weapons coexisted the crossbow was the more powerful of the two. The advantage firearms had is actually one that isn't modeled at all in Pathfinder: fatigue. Reloading a firearm takes very little physical exertion, thus allowing a soldier to remain at peak performance for much longer than someone using a traditional ranged weapon. I don't think there's an easy way to model that in Pathfinder, but I do think it's interesting since it does put an interesting light on why firearms became dominant.
I would like to have gunslingers that do not rely on a dozen of shots to do damage. It makes the old flint pistols non competitive. I like firearms in my fantasy, but prefer "pirate" *and "musqueteer" arms, instead of wild west revolvers or semiautomatic weapons
Totally agree. I'm fine with firearms, but so far every campaign I've been in has resulted in the DM allowing the gunslinger to acquire a revolver, which is just a step too far for me. Pirates and Musketeers for me, not cowboys.
Well, Golarion default is the 'emerging firearms' category, which fits best with the rest of the setting as-is. So I hope they just make those firearms work, rules wise. The western firearms should be optional, as intended when they first released the rules.
If I ever run Pathfinder, there's no way I would ever allow western guns in Golarion. (I don't currently run games, because I was sick of running by the time PF1 was released. I started running 5e when it came out, and plan to run Starfinder. Hopefully PF2 will be a game worth running.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strangely, I'm a lot more cool with the sci-fi. Maybe my dad made me watch one too many Westerns as a kid.
I think really I just don't like more than a certain amount of tech in my fantasy world, but the sci-fi gets a pass since it comes from another world in the setting.
I believe they've said we're getting both class specific and universal archetypes, so Gunslinger might be a universal archetype.
Although if I recall correctly, they have also stated that all of the existing classes, and I think they called out gunslinger specifically, will be classes available in future books.
|
|
I believe they've said we're getting both class specific and universal archetypes, so Gunslinger might be a universal archetype.Although if I recall correctly, they have also stated that all of the existing classes, and I think they called out gunslinger specifically, will be classes available in future books.
Hmm, not sure how I feel about that honestly.
I'm hoping for Penetration rather than touch AC.
My personal rule for is:
Penetration bypasses the combination of armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 2nd increment (however, keep reading). One-handed firearms have a PR of 3, two handed firearms have a PR of 6, but this is ½ outside of 1st increment. Also PR automatically increases based on enhancementx2, so a character with a +5 musket bypasses 16 points of AC from armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 1st increment, but only 8 in 2nd increment.
Broken Condition: Penetration lowered by 4 (minimum 0).
I believe James Jacobs uses a similar system in his home campaign setting and I really wish they had used it in pf1.
I hope that PF2e has NO or least severely limited guns, and I'm very happy that guns will not be part of the core. I'm going to be blunt here and say that I think whoever designed the PF guns and gunslinger had no idea whatsoever how early modern firearms worked or how they were used.
1) They were terribly inaccurate. Their one virtue was that it was easy to train people in their use, and thus they were a good weapon for war and mass combat but not good personal weapons.
2) They made a huge amount of smoke, flash, and noise. None of these is recognized by the current rules which seem to think that black powder was silent, flashless, and smokeless.
3) They took a long time to reload. The development of drill and salvo/volley fire turned them into effective battlefield weapons but this is outside the kind of combat we see in PF. There are some wonderful scenes in the 1974 movie The Four Musketeers which show how long it took to reload these weapons.
GMT Games has two great series where early modern firearms are present, and the rules and designer's notes (freely available as PDFs) are a wonderful source of information on this topic.