|
Not all classes will work the same in PF2. Some have spells. Some don't. Clerics have domains. They will have different weapon proficiencies.
True, but Class-Agnostic Archetypes don't interact with those things at all. The part they interact with is equivalent, which is very much not true of Starfinder Archetypes.
I also doubt class feats will all be equal. Some classes will weaker feats than others. If Archetypes are class agnostic, then either the Archetype is overpowered or only the classes with weaker feats use them.
This is not necessarily true. For one thing, they mentioned in the Pirate Archetype example that it might have both martial ans spell casting Feat options, so one of the biggest divides in likely Class Feat capabilities might be bridged right there. For another, I'm not sure it follows that one Class's Class Feats will be unambiguously better than another's. We have several Classes whose Class Features aren't so assuming Class Feats will strikes me as odd.
1) Nice, some little dreams can come true, though I am not sure about it being Cha-based (Master of Resonance).
Alchemists already have Int based Resonance, I'd be willing to bet that so will Occultists.
2) Feeling cheated seems to come, no matter what, with an edition change, someone always feels "cheated".
Sure, but you ideally avoid as many of these situations as you can. This one's easy to avoid.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Neat, I always like feats like Zen Archery and substituting ability scores, within reason (4th Ed goes too far with this, for me - yay, I can use my Cha modifier for everything!).
So far it seems Class rather than Feat based, which is a bit easier to keep from getting out of hand.
2) I guess if the Witch is in the top 3 or what-have-you most popular non-core classes, then yeah, they should bring it on; Gunslinger, Oracle, and Witch seem like good candidates.
Well, per this survey I appear to have misremembered slightly. Witch is 4th of the non-corebook Classes, right after Magus and right before Gunslinger. So Oracle, Witch, Magus, and Gunslinger seem like to get revamps (Swashbuckler and Inquisitor are also on that list popularity wise, as are Bloodrager and Summoner).
Personally I hope they combine Swashbuckler and Gunslinger into a single Class (no idea on name, but the mechanics for the two are similar enough to make this a good plan), and make Bloodrager stuff a Barbarian Archetype, but the rest of those being full Classes makes a lot of sense to me.
|
|
Ah, I am not into the Magus, especially with the revised action economy,
Due to revised action economy the Magus would have to work almost completely differently on a mechanical level to be cool and effective. That doesn't mean they can't do that (I suspect they can), but it's not gonna resemble the PF1 Magus a whole lot mechanically.
nor into Swashbuckler (rogue or fighter archetype), the Bloodrager is an obvious Barbarian thing (as you say), and a stupid name, to me,
I'd be fine with all these as Archetypes, but then I'd be fine with Gunslinger solely as an Archetype, too. They may well be too popular for that treatment (especially Gunslinger and Swashbuckler), but we'll see.
as for the Summoner, I like the concept, dislike the execution, the Eidolon thing annoys me.
Summoner strikes me as worth converting thematically, and the mechanics seem fixable with an edition change.
|
Additionally, I don't feel the Barbarian needs to be it's own class as it is still just a pure martial character - it should be able to be built with a fighter chassis, and appropriate feats toward rage powers.
Similarly, I think the rogue/bard could be the same base chassis.
Second edition D&D had that from the beginning in the form of the four base classes Warrior, Priest, Wizard, Rogue. Fighter was a flavor of Warrior who got weapon specialization and some cool follower mechanics. Ranger was a Warrior with woodsman Priest and rouge elements and little real magic, Paladins were Priest Warriors with a lot of insane tools, but they were human only and had to follow a literal knightly code.
Wizards were either mages, or specialists. Priests were Clerics, or Druids, which was actually just an example of a modified Priest and not really a class itself. Rouge and Thief and Bard as it's two defaults.2nd edition was a cluster when it came to classes, then we added Kits which were the precursors to archetypes. 3.5 was the Revolution from that system.
It could be designed that the most signature illusion spells, for instance, are only available to wizards who have specialized in the illusion school. Conversely, a witch of the healing specialty could have heal, restoration, etc on theirs.This is theoretically doable, but from what they've already said about spell lists clearly not how they're doing them for Wizard, so it's a bit of a non-starter in that regard.
Sure, they have described what they have done in the playtest. But since the playtest books are already off to print, all discussion we are having now consists of wishes for the final product being made next year. I personally would much rather have extremely varied spell lists, driven by class and subclass selection.
Oracle is the spontaneous spell caster for divine. You might not like it, but it is.In Pathfinder 1E; they haven't even hinted at what might be coming outside of core in Pathfinder 2E. I think it likely to come back, but I would like more careful balancing of the curses.
Better question, what to remove from core?I'd say the removal of gnomes from the 4E PHB was one of the things that disinclined me to move to 4E. Paizo is probably wise enough not to make fun of it, like one of the transition videos for 4E did, but removing classes and races people expect from the base game is an easy way to alienate people.
But let's face it, they won't be making any additions to classes at this point in time. It takes time to design well.They still have a good year before having to get the final version to the printer. That's plenty of time to internally playtest a new version of an old class, or even do a PDF drop after the new playtest book is released and have some external playtesting of this additional class. I don't find it terribly likely, but it's far from impossible.
This and they removed to many classes from 4E, 5/11 3.5 PHB were gone.
I think Monk is maybe the only one you could remove and replace with something else but removing classes is a bad idea. Personally Monk, Sorcerer and Barbarian I don't care about but if I was a designer I would include them.
Actually, of all PF1 classes, I feel the Gunslinger needs to be its own thing
I feel once I "saw" Gunslinger as tinker/explosive focused "Gunchemist" Alchemist, I can't "un-see" that.
Now, I don't think it's current P1E implementation is fully there, but the fundamental themes seem inescapably linked there.
Witch all the way
I'd also want every single psionic class including the prestiges but psi points are complicated and not even by paizo...
You know, thinking about it more, I am starting to think the Gunslinger shouldn't be a class. It should be a universal archetype, like how Jason described the Pirate in the Gameinformer interview. I feel like the redesigned guns should be pretty much usable for any class. Currently we have one class that uses them really well, and a bunch classes with individual archetypes that don't seem to be worth it. But the particular flavor of the gunslinger and it's abilities are something that seem like they could be melded with just about any class.
Also, a lot of people don't like gunslingers for setting related reasons and aren't inclined to allow them. I think there's something very discouraging about having a base class that you have to ask permission to play. But I think having a universal archetype being disallowed is an easier pill to swallow. It also means that when a DM is on board for the Gunslinger, EVERYONE can get on board. Imagine a party with a fighter that functions like the PF1 Gunslinger, a Rogue that somehow can make a gun feel like a sneaky attack, a wizard that channels spells into bullets (fireball bullet? Hell yeah), and a cleric that feels like Nicholas D. Wolfwood. It feels pretty dope.
|
|
I'm totally on board with Gunslinger being a universal Archetype (indeed, I prefer it) and am almost certain we will get a universal gun-using Archetype rather than the plethora of Class-specific ones in PF1.
That said, the popularity of the Class may argue for there to be a full Class as well...though I honestly hope not. The only unique thing it has is the Grit mechanic and if they want to adapt that to PF2, I'd hope it would be on a more generalized chassis (which you could then add the the Gunslinger Archetype to), which could probably also be used for Swashbuckler.
I am down for the class and the Archetype
I see that some don't want guns to be a thing in a fantasy world and in my games when someone wanted a gunslinger it was always a curiosity (though I would have been okay with generally availible guns)
It IS a class one might have to think twice about before adding it to the game
But I certainly hope we get the option in PF2 - and with a bit of luck its better balanced then in PF1 which would make at least one problem go away
And since grit und panache were (even ingame, as stated in a swashbuckler sidebar) basically the same mechanic I agree that it should return and would be interesting
The swashbuckler and gunslinger both make really good archetypes actually
Hmmmm I would have to say oracle if I wanted to go for covering your general play styles, having a spontaneous divine spell caster.
Though I would find it interesting if they merged the sorcerer and oracle together to be the spontaneous caster. At level one you could pick witch type of magic you do, heck we could even have drudic magic in there as well. Sort of a you were born with magic ethier given to you by the gods or it runs in your blood sort of thing
That being said I doubt pazio would do that
Fighter, Slayer
Barbarian, Monk
Cleric, Oracle
Wizard, Sorcerer
Inquisitor, Alchemist
maybe kineticist and/or cavalier.
After playing 5e and how it handled archetype based gishes/spellswords, which aside from the Arcane Trickster was rather lackluster (or it didn't quite catch the feel), I think magus needs to be it's own class, even if it means having to remake it to fit the new system.
For gunslinger, I am unsure on how much grit will change, or how different it will be from fighter aside from guns. On one hand, the new action economy will probably make grit skills much more useful, on the other, I wish it got incorporated into an artificer/inventor class that utilizes gadgets as well as guns to give the class some more flexibility.
Id be surprised if the design team isnt looking down the road at additional classes beyond core.
Okay, so the Gunslinger seems to boil down to making firearms an intrinsic part of Golarian, available to everyone/all classes, could be cool.
Well, I would say more making guns an instrinsic part of certain parts of Golarion and specific campaigns. I don't object to guns in my fantasy, but a lot of people do. Basically, I think guns should be kind of an off/on switch. I don't think guns in fantasy are so much the problem as it is weird seeing guns used alongside crossbows. When we use guns, let's really use guns!
If guns are a thing we can all use, the one unique thing the gunslinger seems to have left is grit/deeds, but the swashbuckler demonstrates that principle works on another class just as well. Even most of the gunslinger deeds IIRC seem like they would work just as well with other ranged weapons; they seemed more about marksmanship than guns.
The grit system might actually be robust enough to warrant it's own class. Some kind of "action hero" martial based around pulling off risky stunts and acrobatics, but that can use a variety of weapon types. But that might depend on what kind of sick stunts we can already do sans grit mechanics. We shall see!
I'll be honest, I'd appreciate waiting a whole year or two for them to play test and balance and tweak and do whatever they honestly must to cram a good 30 classes into a three book core release. I hate, hate, hate that when new books with new classes come out they have new concepts which aren't supported at all by older books. Dropping a massive bomb of everything we need all at once all balanced to each other and then focusing on archetypes and additional options for those classes would be far more intuitive to me. My top list includes gunslinger (guns from the start), kineticist (SLA classes) summoner (magical companion focused options), psion and soulknife (psionics, equipment creation/customization), witch (hexes), at least one heavy poison based archetype if not several or a class (poisons), and a grapple/CMB archetype too, and for good measure let's add the rules for VMC as a standard part of each class (each class description, at the bottom, includes the benefits of VMC for that class, as a standard part of designing any pf2 class you'll include these options so 3pp can have VMC stuff expected to be baked in).
Basically I want all the niche rules and awkward stuff we will eventually need to deal with to be covered in core, so we can add a little at a time without having to add entirely new systems for them. When the kineticist hit, there was nothing like it and no support. When dreamscarred did psionics, paizo had no support options. When summoner hit, nobody expected how he would power bloat especially with synthesist. At no point did they ever IMO make going and producing a poison worth the gold and effort. Grapple rules are awful and someone should feel (not bad, it's a hard subject to get right) a strong need to adjust them.
I dunno...I think cramming in as many new rule systems and classes reliant on said rules in as short a time as possible would be more likely to produce problems. I'd rather less material produced that could be more thoroughly designed and playtested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think guns should be kind of an off/on switch.
Well in PF we have a middle setting - no firearms, primitive firearms (musket, flintlock etc.) and 'modern' firearm (revolver etc.)
If I would go with firearms on a bigger scale then flintlock, musket and co, the modern shoulr really be a rarity
besides If I try to imagine a pirae with a revolver it looks anarchonistic and kinda silly...
The core seems fine IMHO, its the base design that folks should worry about. Unlike PF1, in PF2 the designers get to build out a system that can/should accommodate their future additions. Making sure that core chassis is up to the task will be the real question.
I absolutely agree, cramming it in without significant stress test would be awful, even worse than not including them at all. I'm suggesting that the release date be held off for as long as possible, I'm not in any rush for PF2 to hit the shelf, to get all of it in there -correctly-, all at once and the first time.
EDIT:
While I'm at it, my suggestion for Psion and Soulknife might deserve a small subnote all it's own, I'd suggest paizo buy the rights for those classes from DSP and invite them to weigh in on the classes during the P2e transition, so that psionics isn't locked into 3pp and Paizo can add support options like psionic archetypes for classes, while DSP can continue to focus on the new classes and all of their archetypes. It's a chance to bring psionics into the full game with first party support and fully integrated balance, not a suggestion to steal the psionics market from DSP. Just a small buy in to ensure rules compatibility and product support is optimized.
I mean what would be the time frame you are looking at? Remember Paizo also is a company that has to pay employees and keep it's products in view. I think pushing the playtest with core rules to any longer time span risks the company taking a bad hit. After all, are we even getting any hardcover books between Planar Adventures this summer and the core rulebook for PF2E in the summer of 2019?
For what its worth, I think having designed PF1E, they have a rough sense of how to work the other content in, based on how those worked. So I think the System will be able to handle later entries for psychic magic and guns, although I agree these should be a priority for publication early in the game cycle, along with some of the popular classes. For instance, They have already referenced making the Occultist a resonance focused class, which will slot in well with the existing game.
for the DSP material, the Psion and Soulknife are SRD/OGL/whatever, so they could do those classes without "buying" the rights. Not sure if they are all that interested to be honest however. ALthough the new spell point system doesn't open up the game to classes that rely almost entirely on points rather than slots for casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think guns should be kind of an off/on switch.Well in PF we have a middle setting - no firearms, primitive firearms (musket, flintlock etc.) and 'modern' firearm (revolver etc.)
If I would go with firearms on a bigger scale then flintlock, musket and co, the modern shoulr really be a rarity
besides If I try to imagine a pirae with a revolver it looks anarchonistic and kinda silly...
I guess I should have been more specific. I wasn't referencing the type of guns, but having guns at all. A legit problem with guns in PF1 is that no matter which guns you use you pretty much need an exotic weapon proficiency to use them. Which is like... exactly the opposite of what makes a gun so dangerous historically and today. And while I'm not normally one who pushes super hard for historical accuracy or realism in my fantasy role-playing games, this one bugs me.
We should have revolvers for our cowboys and flintlocks for our pirates, but don't try and tell me I need more training to point and fire a gun than a crossbow. If the setting allows for guns, let there be guns.
I think guns should be kind of an off/on switch.Well in PF we have a middle setting - no firearms, primitive firearms (musket, flintlock etc.) and 'modern' firearm (revolver etc.)
If I would go with firearms on a bigger scale then flintlock, musket and co, the modern shoulr really be a rarity
besides If I try to imagine a pirae with a revolver it looks anarchonistic and kinda silly...
I guess I should have been more specific. I wasn't referencing the type of guns, but having guns at all. A legit problem with guns in PF1 is that no matter which guns you use you pretty much need an exotic weapon proficiency to use them. Which is like... exactly the opposite of what makes a gun so dangerous historically and today. And while I'm not normally one who pushes super hard for historical accuracy or realism in my fantasy role-playing games, this one bugs me.
We should have revolvers for our cowboys and flintlocks for our pirates, but don't try and tell me I need more training to point and fire a gun than a crossbow. If the setting allows for guns, let there be guns.
For flintlocks (and even wheellocks to a certain extent), there is certainly some argument to be made that firearms need a more extensive knowledge of weapon upkeep and gunpowder safety to be used effectively; for instance, you need to be careful about how you seal your priming charge and generally how you carry your gun or you are probably going to have a weapon that does not fire when you want it to or risk getting your powder everywhere blowing yourself up with errant flint sparks.
For verisimilitude, perhaps guns could be balanced by having really dire critical failure effect on attacks without the appropriate feats rather than requiring feats to use them at all.
I think guns should be kind of an off/on switch.Well in PF we have a middle setting - no firearms, primitive firearms (musket, flintlock etc.) and 'modern' firearm (revolver etc.)
If I would go with firearms on a bigger scale then flintlock, musket and co, the modern shoulr really be a rarity
besides If I try to imagine a pirae with a revolver it looks anarchonistic and kinda silly...
I guess I should have been more specific. I wasn't referencing the type of guns, but having guns at all. A legit problem with guns in PF1 is that no matter which guns you use you pretty much need an exotic weapon proficiency to use them. Which is like... exactly the opposite of what makes a gun so dangerous historically and today. And while I'm not normally one who pushes super hard for historical accuracy or realism in my fantasy role-playing games, this one bugs me.
We should have revolvers for our cowboys and flintlocks for our pirates, but don't try and tell me I need more training to point and fire a gun than a crossbow. If the setting allows for guns, let there be guns.
You won't do away with the "keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter" aspects of guns any time soon. However, treating them the same as other weapons would help. Make them a higher damage dice version of crossbows with more expensive ammo, and/or more effort to reload. Or maybe have them be a martial version of the crossbow. Whichever, but definitely do away with them targeting touch AC, which is why they need to be exotic in the system. Sure, guns could pierce armor, but armor was hardly immune to projectile weaponry before guns came around. Maybe have guns need to beat AC by 8 instead of 10 to land a crit. A higher crit failure chance could also be applied.
I think guns should be kind of an off/on switch.Well in PF we have a middle setting - no firearms, primitive firearms (musket, flintlock etc.) and 'modern' firearm (revolver etc.)
If I would go with firearms on a bigger scale then flintlock, musket and co, the modern shoulr really be a rarity
besides If I try to imagine a pirae with a revolver it looks anarchonistic and kinda silly...
I guess I should have been more specific. I wasn't referencing the type of guns, but having guns at all. A legit problem with guns in PF1 is that no matter which guns you use you pretty much need an exotic weapon proficiency to use them. Which is like... exactly the opposite of what makes a gun so dangerous historically and today. And while I'm not normally one who pushes super hard for historical accuracy or realism in my fantasy role-playing games, this one bugs me.
We should have revolvers for our cowboys and flintlocks for our pirates, but don't try and tell me I need more training to point and fire a gun than a crossbow. If the setting allows for guns, let there be guns.
For flintlocks (and even wheellocks to a certain extent), there is certainly some argument to be made that firearms need a more extensive knowledge of weapon upkeep and gunpowder safety to be used effectively; for instance, you need to be careful about how you seal your priming charge and generally how you carry your gun or you are probably going to have a weapon that does not fire when you want it to or risk getting your powder everywhere blowing yourself up with errant flint sparks.
For verisimilitude, perhaps guns could be balanced by having really dire critical failure effect on attacks without the appropriate feats rather than requiring feats to use them at all.
Those are arguments for upkeep, not usage though. At worse, I imagine you'd need training for reloading them mid-combat. Storage seems like it shouldn't be a meaningful concern for a game whose grenades are made of glass, you know? (Actually, Alchemist fire gives me an idea. See below.)
The actual usage themselves, it seems like recoil would be the only thing that could mess with your aim.
You won't do away with the "keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter" aspects of guns any time soon. However, treating them the same as other weapons would help. Make them a higher damage dice version of crossbows with more expensive ammo, and/or more effort to reload. Or maybe have them be a martial version of the crossbow. Whichever, but definitely do away with them targeting touch AC, which is why they need to be exotic in the system. Sure, guns could pierce armor, but armor was hardly immune to projectile weaponry before guns came around. Maybe have guns need to beat AC by 8 instead of 10 to land a crit. A higher crit failure chance could also be applied.
Well, to be fair touch looks like it will be closer to regular AC this time around, though who knows how that will play out for all creatures. But the numbers we have seen suggests the difference may only be one or two points.
I think an alternative that could be considered would be making guns function as something closer to alchemical consumables than bows or crossbows. It requires some similar chemistry as bombs, and gun powder being harder to craft and store than arrows seems legit. Having guns be the sort of thing you whip out for emergencies and don't tend to use more than once a combat could be neat. But that might limit folks who want guns to be their main form of attack.
I think guns should be kind of an off/on switch.Well in PF we have a middle setting - no firearms, primitive firearms (musket, flintlock etc.) and 'modern' firearm (revolver etc.)
If I would go with firearms on a bigger scale then flintlock, musket and co, the modern shoulr really be a rarity
besides If I try to imagine a pirae with a revolver it looks anarchonistic and kinda silly...
I guess I should have been more specific. I wasn't referencing the type of guns, but having guns at all. A legit problem with guns in PF1 is that no matter which guns you use you pretty much need an exotic weapon proficiency to use them. Which is like... exactly the opposite of what makes a gun so dangerous historically and today. And while I'm not normally one who pushes super hard for historical accuracy or realism in my fantasy role-playing games, this one bugs me.
We should have revolvers for our cowboys and flintlocks for our pirates, but don't try and tell me I need more training to point and fire a gun than a crossbow. If the setting allows for guns, let there be guns.
The problem with gun training was not the pointing and shooting but maintenance and (in case of front-loaded guns) the loading itself
(If I remember right one was actually pretty good if you could fire a shot per minute)But if I remember right the rules had variants for the whole thing - depending on how common one wants guns vastly reduced costs and either reducing their prophiciency to martial or even basic weapon prophiciency
and the feat itself was always for all firearms, so it was at least not a high tax if you wanted to go there
Of course you are right then firing the guns themselves is beyond easy (at least at short distance - at long it can'T hurt to know the quirks and projectile trajectory)
So one can argue how many feats one would need (I don't think it should be that many)
Those are arguments for upkeep, not usage though. At worse, I imagine you'd need training for reloading them mid-combat. Storage seems like it shouldn't be a meaningful concern for a game whose grenades are made of glass, you know? (Actually, Alchemist fire gives me an idea. See below.)
The actual usage themselves, it seems like recoil would be the only thing that could mess with your aim.
Well, they are arguments why you might need special training for upkeep, loading firearms, and handling firearms while loaded. All of which might put you at greater risk of firearm failure. I agree that the training penalty to accuracy makes little sense, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Primitive guns are a nightmare, but are not Golarian firearms generally more advanced (like six-shooters and stuff)?The problem with gun training was not the pointing and shooting but maintenance and (in case of front-loaded guns) the loading itself
(If I remember right one was actually pretty good if you could fire a shot per minute)
Not really. While there are some six-shooters around, they aren't common, and those who appear in APs are often time-displaced weapons that come from time-hopping creatures or outsiders (like Pale Strangers and such). Of course, one those come into existence, every player will try to get them, so they become a staple in the game table. But the standard Golarion firearms look like the arms the iconic gunslinger have
I think guns should be kind of an off/on switch.Well in PF we have a middle setting - no firearms, primitive firearms (musket, flintlock etc.) and 'modern' firearm (revolver etc.)
If I would go with firearms on a bigger scale then flintlock, musket and co, the modern shoulr really be a rarity
besides If I try to imagine a pirae with a revolver it looks anarchonistic and kinda silly...
16th Century revolver: German version and Chinese version.
It's not shooting a firearm that requires any exceptional proficiency, but reloading a matchlock or even flintlock or wheellock is not an easy or simple process. It's very easy to miss one our or repeat one and end up with a misfire or an ineffective shot. That's where the specialist training comes in, though from personal experience I'd say it's easier to learn that than to learn how to use a warflail effectively.Not really. While there are some six-shooters around, they aren't common, and those who appear in APs are often time-displaced weapons that come from time-hopping creatures or outsiders (like Pale Strangers and such). Of course, one those come into existence, every player will try to get them, so they become a staple in the game table. But the standard Golarion firearms look like the arms the iconic gunslinger havePrimitive guns are a nightmare, but are not Golarian firearms generally more advanced (like six-shooters and stuff)?The problem with gun training was not the pointing and shooting but maintenance and (in case of front-loaded guns) the loading itself
(If I remember right one was actually pretty good if you could fire a shot per minute)Ah, yeah, cool, they still look a lot better, reliable, and advanced than most old historical firearms I have seen, but definitely not in the realm of a Western!
As others have said, firearms should not require a separate feat to use proficiently, and I don't think they should bypass armour.
If you need special training for it then, it should be for rapid reload type feats, not to offset a -4 for proficiency.
Edit: that also means it's easy to use fire arms as one per combat thing, which a lot of people are into.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh boy, Firearms are going to be Paladin levels of fun aren't they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh boy, Firearms are going to be Paladin levels of fun aren't they?
yeah. one good reason to push the gun rules to the next release...
Not so much a class, but a feature for a class:
Some kind of Totemic "Rage Feats" that let a Barbarian turn into an animal instead of regular Rage.
Just so there's at least some way to Wild Shape, even a little, without being a Druid.
Guns face the same problem as the katana. Everybody thinks they are cool, but some folks they should be doing 2D20 damage and cut tanks in half. Hopefully guns dont make the core cut and are supplement territory imho.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns face the same problem as the katana. Everybody thinks they are cool, but some folks they should be doing 2D20 damage and cut tanks in half. Hopefully guns dont make the core cut and are supplement territory imho.
But they've been folded over a million times! They're basically metal lightsabers. 2d20 with a 13-20/x4 crit range is just an accurate representation of the weapon.
It's not shooting a firearm that requires any exceptional proficiency, but reloading a matchlock or even flintlock or wheellock is not an easy or simple process. It's very easy to miss one our or repeat one and end up with a misfire or an ineffective shot. That's where the specialist training comes in, though from personal experience I'd say it's easier to learn that than to learn how to use a warflail effectively.Not really. While there are some six-shooters around, they aren't common, and those who appear in APs are often time-displaced weapons that come from time-hopping creatures or outsiders (like Pale Strangers and such). Of course, one those come into existence, every player will try to get them, so they become a staple in the game table. But the standard Golarion firearms look like the arms the iconic gunslinger havePrimitive guns are a nightmare, but are not Golarian firearms generally more advanced (like six-shooters and stuff)?The problem with gun training was not the pointing and shooting but maintenance and (in case of front-loaded guns) the loading itself
(If I remember right one was actually pretty good if you could fire a shot per minute)Ah, yeah, cool, they still look a lot better, reliable, and advanced than most old historical firearms I have seen, but definitely not in the realm of a Western!
As others have said, firearms should not require a separate feat to use proficiently, and I don't think they should bypass armour.
If you need special training for it then, it should be for rapid reload type feats, not to offset a -4 for proficiency.
Edit: that also means it's easy to use fire arms as one per combat thing, which a lot of people are into.
If you aren't proficient at loading old firearms correctly, this can happen.