| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guns are not in Core. What do you think Guns would look like if you had to house rule them? I have a friend who very much likes Pf1 because they have the gunslinger. We're probably going to need to Homerules guns to get his buy in, so I was hoping you fine people might help me with that.
Probably a low range increment (40 ft?). Reload of 2. D12. On a critical failure the gun gains the broken condition. Deadly D12.
Then maybe a gunslinger archetype would look to reduce reload time down to 1, and a way to quickly fix the gun in combat.
Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I saw someone suggest Fatal instead of Deadly
But looks sensible and reasonable (more than can be said for many gun suggestions)
Unsure on how ranges balance in 2E
They would be whatever the exotic weapon equivalent is as well unless you are a gunslinger or from whatever region mana wastes is in
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than misfiring on a critical failure (which has the strange consequence of making misfires more common against creatures with high AC), I would be inclined to give them a 'Misfire X' trait, where a roll of 1-X results in a misfire.
I also agree that Fatal may be a better fit than Deadly (though if you really wanted to recreate that 4x crit multiplier, I don't think there's any reason you couldn't give them both, offset by the high reload value and the Misfire trait).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than misfiring on a critical failure (which has the strange consequence of making misfires more common against creatures with high AC), I would be inclined to give them a 'Misfire X' trait, where a roll of 1-X results in a misfire.
I also agree that Fatal may be a better fit than Deadly (though if you really wanted to recreate that 4x crit multiplier, I don't think there's any reason you couldn't give them both, offset by the high reload value and the Misfire trait).
Picks are fatal and were x4
And scythes were deadly and x4Both in the playtest at least
So there is no precedence for something to have both of it had a high crit level. And I reject any notion that guns should be better than other weapons especially these “early firearms” that are use in this setting
What there isn’t a proxy for is something to indicate that they are better against armour. But perhaps that is unnecessary as plate no can get DR against everything that isn’t bludgeoning and plate is what was invalidated by guns largely
Perhaps there should be something called “noisy” even if there is no obvious mechanical effect
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I reject any notion that guns should be better than other weapons especially these “early firearms” that are use in this setting
Since they are presumably advanced weapons, they should in fact be better than simple or martial weapons, because that's how the weapon tiers work. If they are martial instead, then no they obviously shouldn't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Misfire on a 1 ONLY- Having higher misfire ranges did NOTHING except discourage people from buying anything except the same 4 firearms and leaving the rest in the discount bin with the exception of those few gunslingers who instead wasted their money on expensive and pointless enchantments to keep them from blowing their face off when instead they could have crafted better ammo and used an objectively better firearm in the first place.
I think Deadly d12 is reasonable for Critical hits.
I'd like to see Paizo take a stance with their mainline hardcover books and NOT release "Modern" firearms at ALL. They don't make sense for Golarion, hell even the space-laser weapons are more Sci-Fantasy than futuristic and adding in Semi/Fully automatic weapons with no misfire chance, superior damage and negating the Reload-Tax for the mainline products is just goofy nonsense that encourages everyone to build the same character, especially if they eventually use Class Feats to gain access to Gunsmithing Formulas to craft one or more Uncommon-Rare Firearms of their choice as they level.
I'm not usually one of those "Keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter" folks but I honestly think that 3PP can and should be the ones best suited to creating firearms that make sense outside of the context of Golarian, IMO nobody should be able to strategically use supplements even 5-10 years down the road with 1st Party books to create Master Chief, that's just silly and destroys the world continuity. Let Rogue Genius Games or somebody else take that creative space and play with it, don't contaminate the lore otherwise.
Tie Grit/Panache/Moxie/Whatever to the Focus Point system. I don't care if people think it's strange that it should use the same resource that Spellcasters use, it makes sense to tie the X/day really cool limited resource stuff to the same pool for every class for balance reasons, besides there is already precedent in place for ways to restore Focus which is a big part of what those systems were about in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Makes reverse volley property for guns (+2 to hit in close range) and a critical hit property like fatal or deadly, a reload value then done.
I actually like the idea of Gunslinger archetype for extra feats for guns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do people feel about Firearms reducing Resistance by X and within the 1st range increment? To help simulate penetrative power.
If Firearms are Advanced, AND have Misfire, it feels like they should have something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of big dice and deadly/fatal balanced by action reload times and rarity.
I'd like to see it so having a loaded gun makes for a good opening move in combat, but that standing there shooting and reloading over and over is less of a good idea.
As a homebrew (and as a GM who likes guns), I'd almost consider very large dice (2d8?) but a two whole turn reload activity.
More pirates carrying a few loaded pistols along with their sword in a boarding action, less obvious crossbow replacement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is misfire only in to justify extra power ? Does it need to be there? Could guns not be made less powerful but a bit more unique with the various traits ?
If they got a bonus at close range I would want a corresponding negative at long range. That is what I thought was meant by reverse volley (so negative outside of a certain range and no positive up close) - early firearms were utterly useless at range. Even 18th century ones were “whites of their eyes” weapons. They were not even worth fitting until within their increment.
I’d sooner see negatives at x range and no fatal or armour piercing properties
And within range fatal and some kind of overcoming resistance but no bonus (+2 with the extra crit effects and likelihood is too much in this system)
Agree if misfire is kept is should only be a 1 unless gun is broken or perhaps some other extra circumstances
And i am not sure there should ever be a way of reloading so fast they can fire 3 shots in a round. The firing rate should never outpace a bow unless it is pepperbox or the like . The image of muzzle loaded powder guns being reloaded 2+ times in 6 seconds is one of those things that even in a world of magic and dragons strains immersion (but I could be in a limited group here)
I like the idea of big dice and deadly/fatal balanced by action reload times and rarity.
I'd like to see it so having a loaded gun makes for a good opening move in combat, but that standing there shooting and reloading over and over is less of a good idea.
As a homebrew (and as a GM who likes guns), I'd almost consider very large dice (2d8?) but a two whole turn reload activity.
More pirates carrying a few loaded pistols along with their sword in a boarding action, less obvious crossbow replacement.
As i was reading your post I thought of the pirates carrying multiple loaded pistols and then that was your last point !
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am really against the misfire - in PF1 it was kind of the counterweight to 'hits TAC' but there is no TAC anymore
Also: without misfire the weapons can be more interesting for classes that don't have something like the gunslingers quick clear
Multiple reload actions per magazine/chamber sounds good, had similar thoughts about it - but it should be managable in combat
The damage dice don't have to be THAT big, primitive firearms were more often then not less effective then their powderless counterpart
And I stay with adding fatal, feels better for those kind of weapons (imo)
A revolver could be for example d6, fatal d10, reload 1 (per chamber) or reload 2 (3 chambers) [maybe even both as options for more dynamic]
A musket could be d10, fatal d12, reload 2 (per chamber)
There could also be a bunch of new weapon properties
the negative volley sounds good
There could be something that emphazises the effect of the weapon on enemies (in another rpg powder weapons were not stronger then other ranged weapons but dealt stress damage additional to the regular, not sure how to impement it)
And of course hitting with the stock of a weapon is kind of a common trope so they could also double as size appropriate bludgeon
(and I really hope that if we get bayonets we don't have to remove them before shooting and adding them again before stabbing, that just made no sense at all)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am really against the misfire - in PF1 it was kind of the counterweight to 'hits TAC' but there is no TAC anymore
Also: without misfire the weapons can be more interesting for classes that don't have something like the gunslingers quick clear
Multiple reload actions per magazine/chamber sounds good, had similar thoughts about it - but it should be managable in combat
The damage dice don't have to be THAT big, primitive firearms were more often then not less effective then their powderless counterpartAnd I stay with adding fatal, feels better for those kind of weapons (imo)
A revolver could be for example d6, fatal d10, reload 1 (per chamber) or reload 2 (3 chambers) [maybe even both as options for more dynamic]
A musket could be d10, fatal d12, reload 2 (per chamber)
There could also be a bunch of new weapon properties
the negative volley sounds good
There could be something that emphazises the effect of the weapon on enemies (in another rpg powder weapons were not stronger then other ranged weapons but dealt stress damage additional to the regular, not sure how to impement it)
And of course hitting with the stock of a weapon is kind of a common trope so they could also double as size appropriate bludgeon
(and I really hope that if we get bayonets we don't have to remove them before shooting and adding them again before stabbing, that just made no sense at all)
You are aware that you have described exactly how original bayonets worked and they needed to research new technology - either ring or plug bayonet - before they could shoot and use them without moving
I was reading about this the other day after watching Outlander and trying to work out why the “Highland Charge” was every really a good idea. And apparently it was up until bayonets evolved. Because once they got through the first volley the enemy literally had no real way of defending themselves . Post bayonet they could shoot and have a pseudo - spear wall
It is a thing in Empire total war - which starts in 1700
You have to research to upgrade your bayonets so you can use them and fire
And golarion whilst having a spread of culture and times is still pre-1700 in my view
*
But more reasonable rules for clubbing people should definitely be a thing. And given the damage would surely be similar to a bayonet most of what I have written above is redundant - unless the idea is that a bayonet is a “reaction” to a charging foe or something
I was not exactly aware of that but still, that kind of bayonet is...not fun, especially in the middle of the combat
And while its true that golarion has a pre1700 culture in most parts
there are corners where theres magic all around
there is this one corner where they have modern firearms (post 1700 i would guess)
there is this corner (which i dont like) where they have sci-fi tech
and they have steel, which is also a post 1700 invention (a lot more modern then most people think, well at least the process that made it widely availible is from that time period)
So I am all for easily attachable bayonets which don't prevent you from firing your weapon
Interesting concept - I personally would make the deadly die bigger then the point blank die - or stick with fatal
So for pistol d6 (or even d4) -> point blank d8 -> fatal d10
musket d8 -> point blank d10 -> fatal d12
would add some more dynamic
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was not exactly aware of that but still, that kind of bayonet is...not fun, especially in the middle of the combat
And while its true that golarion has a pre1700 culture in most parts
there are corners where theres magic all around
there is this one corner where they have modern firearms (post 1700 i would guess)
there is this corner (which i dont like) where they have sci-fi tech
and they have steel, which is also a post 1700 invention (a lot more modern then most people think, well at least the process that made it widely availible is from that time period)
So I am all for easily attachable bayonets which don't prevent you from firing your weapon
I apologise for getting on my high horse a bit about the bayonets and coming across as condescending. I played so much empire total war and literally only reread that bayonet thing two weeks ago . So it didn’t cross my mind that it wasn’t common knowledge (again interest in history and interest in fantasy has always had a close connection to me)
I agree it is not fun
And I actually did not know that was how bayonets worked in 1E since I personally don’t allow gunslingers as to me the stick out to much in certain settings (e.g. it would have been a terrible idea in the Hells Rebels group)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks good, there are a few things I would change:
Increase the point blank property to 20ft.
I wouldn't have the gunslinger dedication to give free weapons.
I'd cut out rapid reload entirely. I know this is fantasy, but the best musketeers in real life seem to have struggled to get more than three shots off in one minute (a whole ten rounds), I'd prefer sticking to needing more barrels or more guns to increase how many times you can shoot.
I could see a 'crack shot' where you can ignore the inaccurate property for the first range increment. Or other ways to fiddle with the properties of a gun as an action or reaction.
As far as the hefty property goes, I'm not a huge fan, swinging a gun around as a club should work, but it should count as some sort of improvised weapon, not a tactic you should default to in combat.
A series of bayonets (plug, socket, etc) as a separate martial weapon would be better. Possibly with a property rune that lets them share the 'striking rune' or whatever it was called that's installed on the gun.
I'll take a quick stab.
All Firearms are Advanced and Rare.
Point Blank: At range 10 or below increase the weapons damage die to the listed size.
Inaccurate: Inaccurate weapons receive an additional -4 when firing outside their range.
Hefty: A Hefty weapon can be used as a melee weapon dealing the listed Bludgeoning damage. When used in this way ignore all other weapon traits.
One Handed
Pistol - Range 20, D6 P. Hefty d6, Pointblank d10, Inaccurate, Deadly d10. Reload 2.
Two Handed
Blunderbuss - Range 25, d8 P. Hefty d8, Inaccurate, Splash d8, Reload 2.
Musket - Range 40, d10 P. Hefty d8, Pointblank d12,Inaccurate, Deadly d12, Reload 2.
Gunslinger Dedication Uncommon 2
Requirements: From or have visited Alkenstar, or trained with another character who has this feat.Gain trained in Pistols, Blunderbusses and Muskets. You acquire two pistols or one blunderbus or musket.
Gun Adept Uncommon 4
You treat Pistols, Blunderbusses and Muskets as Martial weapons. Gain the Rapid Reload reaction.Rapid Reload Reaction
Trigger: You fired a Pistol, Blunderbuss or Musket
Reduce the Reload of that weapon to 1 until the start of your next turn.
I like “inaccurate” as I really think it should be reflected especially if bows are supposed to be less accurate up close (questionable but here we are, they clearly didn’t want it being the default choice)
I also like the setting requirement on the dedication feat . Perhaps expand to the shackles? Or am I wrong about that?
What is the purpose of gaining martial proficiency at 4? I am a little confused but I don’t know all the new rules
We are a little bit constrained. As you can't do multiple dice in PF2 paradigm the span of dice you have is quite limited. Given these are weapons that will require a feat to even acquire, I didn't want their base damage to be too low. If anything I think the weapons are too weak still but I like the negatives thematically.Interesting concept - I personally would make the deadly die bigger then the point blank die - or stick with fatal
So for pistol d6 (or even d4) -> point blank d8 -> fatal d10
musket d8 -> point blank d10 -> fatal d12
would add some more dynamic
Where does not being able to do multiple dice come from? Just that there aren’t any examples ?
I wonder how much of that is about showing the d12 some much needed love!| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does not being able to do multiple dice come from? Just that there aren’t any examples ?
I wonder how much of that is about showing the d12 some much needed love!
There's a section in the book saying D12 is the highest your Weapon dice can go. But that's in the section for increasing your die size (i.e. D12 does not turn into 2D8 like in PF1, it just doesn't get any larger).
Then there's also the precedent that no weapon is 2DX.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Misfire on a 1 ONLY- Having higher misfire ranges did NOTHING except discourage people from buying anything except the same 4 firearms and leaving the rest in the discount bin with the exception of those few gunslingers who instead wasted their money on expensive and pointless enchantments to keep them from blowing their face off when instead they could have crafted better ammo and used an objectively better firearm in the first place.
I think Deadly d12 is reasonable for Critical hits.
I'd like to see Paizo take a stance with their mainline hardcover books and NOT release "Modern" firearms at ALL. They don't make sense for Golarion, hell even the space-laser weapons are more Sci-Fantasy than futuristic and adding in Semi/Fully automatic weapons with no misfire chance, superior damage and negating the Reload-Tax for the mainline products is just goofy nonsense that encourages everyone to build the same character, especially if they eventually use Class Feats to gain access to Gunsmithing Formulas to craft one or more Uncommon-Rare Firearms of their choice as they level.
I'm not usually one of those "Keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter" folks but I honestly think that 3PP can and should be the ones best suited to creating firearms that make sense outside of the context of Golarian, IMO nobody should be able to strategically use supplements even 5-10 years down the road with 1st Party books to create Master Chief, that's just silly and destroys the world continuity. Let Rogue Genius Games or somebody else take that creative space and play with it, don't contaminate the lore otherwise.
Tie Grit/Panache/Moxie/Whatever to the Focus Point system. I don't care if people think it's strange that it should use the same resource that Spellcasters use, it makes sense to tie the X/day really cool limited resource stuff to the same pool for every class for balance reasons, besides there is already...
I strongly disagree. I don't like marrying the system to the setting. I'm not playing pathfinder for Golarion, I'm playing it for the ruleset.
Advanced guns should be published, as an alternative rule set (like a future Unchained equivalent) or as part of the main rules.
You may not like science in your fantasy, but some of us do.
I think advanced ones will come out when a need for technology rules is required (which for Paizo will be setting linked)
They have limited design space and I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t make it in when guns first do
That said if damage can’t go above d12 I am not sure what more can happen with more modern guns . You take away the misfire and the loading times i guess . Then that takes away the balance - which I guess is put back in by everyone being proficient . I haven’t really looked into modern guns because they seem to quickly become the only choice (on paper at least). And PF2 seems to be trying to remove default choices (like giving bows a draw back , removing threat ranges on certain weapons etc )
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see guns and other things that make sense as being "touch attacks" being rules as doing some amount of chip damage on a miss but not a critical miss. That would make them relatively more useful to less skilled characters even if they are advanced weapons or whatever (which makes sense to me from a kind of simulationist point view due to firearms having a simple "point and click" interface).
I could see guns and other things that make sense as being "touch attacks" being rules as doing some amount of chip damage on a miss but not a critical miss. That would make them relatively more useful to less skilled characters even if they are advanced weapons or whatever (which makes sense to me from a kind of simulationist point view due to firearms having a simple "point and click" interface).
So like "Up close and deadly" for the Pistolero but as default
An interesting idea
What about something to represent how their noise would be unusual to people who were not used to it? Or is that redundant in a world with magic, dragons and undead (probably yes)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly disagree. I don't like marrying the system to the setting. I'm not playing pathfinder for Golarion, I'm playing it for the ruleset.
I get that, I really do, but that's what the Gamemastery Guide or whatever it will be called is for, that and 3PP.
Them publishing content that doesn't fit within the scope of Golarian is not only a bad idea, but it would also require them to add even MORE handholding for PFS and Con games in terms of hard-fast restrictions.
I said it in my post, it's an opinion, but I'll repeat it. If you want Glocks, SMGs, and full auto weapons in your Pathfinder game, then you should be looking to 3PPs for that, not looking to Paizo to contaminate their own pool and setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see guns and other things that make sense as being "touch attacks" being rules as doing some amount of chip damage on a miss but not a critical miss. That would make them relatively more useful to less skilled characters even if they are advanced weapons or whatever (which makes sense to me from a kind of simulationist point view due to firearms having a simple "point and click" interface).So like "Up close and deadly" for the Pistolero but as default
An interesting idea
What about something to represent how their noise would be unusual to people who were not used to it? Or is that redundant in a world with magic, dragons and undead (probably yes)
Kinda, yeah. Armor warps and fast guys can't dodge the shot entirely because the shooter doesn't have to move much to adjust the angle of his shot (and the bullet moves so fast in the first attack range).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about something to represent how their noise would be unusual to people who were not used to it? Or is that redundant in a world with magic, dragons and undead (probably yes)
If guns are uncommon but alchemists throwing bombs is more common then they'd probably associate the two since they're probably just as loud as each other.
I just want to point out that Paizo released this: Rasputin Must Die! as part of Reign of Winter.
So if they ever re release that adventure path, they must also release rules for WW1 guns and probably some age appropriate vehicles.
This is a good point; and possibly a good compromise. I haven’t played many campaigns, but Strange Aeons looked somewhat modern from some of the artwork i’ve seen around it also.
I do agree with Metric on this one; if anything i’d hate if all ‘modern’ weapons brought to the game was ‘better’ versions of early age firearms.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's what 'modern' weapons are though. Even 'modern' melee weapons and bows are better, simple due to having better materials, tools, and processes.
'Modern' Armor is also better for the same reasons aswell. (Plus they are usually made to be anti firearm.)
If that ends up being the only thing they can do then i agree with Metric and say better off w/o them. Leave them for 3pp. One of the things i look forward to is not comparing weapons side by side for what does the most damage; but rather what benefits each weapon can offer to enhance the character build. I’d rather they not bring back the, ‘i’d like to buy the Greataxe but the Greatsword is simply better in every practical way.’ It was bad design then, and it would be bad design again.
I'd certainly be disappointed if we didn't get some optional rules for advanced cartridge based firearms, since my home setting is a bit more modern than Golarion.
As for how guns are implemented, I agree misfire should probably go. The first thing any class that uses guns did was find a way to get rid of it. PF2 is supposed to try to do away with feat taxes like that. I like the idea of early firearms following the crossbow paradigm to its extreme, really big damage dice in exchange for really long reload times. It would be both unique, and realistic, encouraging carrying multiple pistols, or using your musket for an opening volley followed by a bayonet charge.
Advanced firearms are a bit trickier. They should certainly be a little better than their earlier counterparts, and I wouldn't even mind if they made most missile weapons obsolete, but hopefully it would be possible to balance them such that there's still reason to play a melee character. Even in a world of gunpowder, Heroes Prefer Swords.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic, fantastical materials, supernaturally tough hides, superhuman strength and constitution etc. all mean that I can let realism with guns slide. However, that goes both ways.
A primitive gun doesn't have to have a chance of misfiring, nor does it need to be inherently better at piercing armor.
It doesn't need to take almost a minute to reload, but neither does it have to deal damage far and away greater than other weapons.
In general, I think guns need:
1. Different tiers. Early vs Modern allows you to play very different games, where Early guns might be on par with a crossbow and modern guns might be advanced weapons with a Rare tag.
2. Ammunition. Despite the PF1 portrayal, it is much easier to cast a lead bullet than craft a crossbow bolt. Making small amounts of special bullets for different creatures for low cost should be a selling point of guns, and would help link them up with alchemy. It fits with the tropes of silver bullets etc.
3. Varying accuracy. Early guns are notoriously inaccurate, modern guns are notoriously accurate. Similar to how heavy armor penalties are reduced with strength, dexterity (or even int?) could extend the range increment on early guns from an initial low range to a suitably impressive range at higher levels. Modern guns could do the same and enable effective sniping at very long ranges.
4. Decent damage. Everyone should notice getting shot, or it becomes immersion-breaking. It should be less than getting hit by a two handed weapon, but greater than getting shot with a hand crossbow or a thrown dagger.
What I *don't* think guns need:
1. Improved effectiveness against armor outside of the normal weapon paradigm. We're wearing armor that can turn aside adamantine swords wielded by literal giants moving with magical haste. The natural armor penetration of a nonmagical bullet should be lost in the weeds by this point. Let guns fall in line and not break armor math.
2. Misfire. This isn't fun for anyone, and may be acceptable on average in a military unit, but as adventurers wielding a weapon that might explode in the middle of a fight just isn't feasible. Let it go.
3. High costs. Absurdly high cost weapons and ammunition is basically a GM passive aggressively preventing you from using a game element that is ostensibly okay. We have the rarity tag now, as well as the potential to bring basic guns more in line with other weapons, so cost shouldn't be a big factor.
To go against the grain a bit, I would like to offer my idea of implementing firearms:
First off, I am imagining only 'early' firearms for this purpose, so no cartridge pistols or rifles (somebody else can dream up how that would work).
What I am picturing is high-damage but slow to reload weapons, where they have a large damage bonus (10 for pistols, ~20-30 for rifles), BUT they take rounds to reload. This would work with real firearms where a single rifle would be good for an opening volley, but would require the user dedicate significant time to reload (something that would really be limited to specific situations). With this in mind, feel free to load up on three pistols while you ambush a group of mercenaries, unleash some devastating attacks on them, and then move in with a sword to finish them off.
Having high static damage would allow crits to feel POWERFUL when doubled, but I think it would be better for firearms to be very useful once, while requiring a reload out of combat.
To sum it up: pistols would be 1d6 +10, reload 6
Rifles 1d10 + 20, reload 15.
I know this is vastly different from what many people imagine, but I would want my guns to hit like a truck, totally unlike other ranged weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely prefer the large damage dice, deadly, reload 2-3 and proposed point blank & inaccurate traits above to a static damage bonus.
Early firearms weren't that good.
My only issue with making any gun reload 3, is what property offsets that reload time?
Double barrel weapons being able to strike twice in one strike offset by a full three action activity to reload a single barrel? Or does just the ability to shoot a firearm more than once a turn justify a three action reload?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd echo high damage long reload.
What about a special firearm property that adds damage rather than a static bonus?
Firearm: This weapon deals one additional damage die, if it is +2 or higher quality it deals two additional damage die. These damage die are multiplied normally on a critical hit.
So something like:
pistol 1d8 20 ft range reload 3 Firearm Fatal d10
So far Bardarok’s idea sounds the most fun. I’m not quite understanding the long reload mechanics. Hand/Light Crossbow only have 1-action reload, but pistol should have 3-action or more? 1e has alchemical cartridges that lowered the reload time so why not just use that ammunition as the standard to go by? With Firearms having more Alchemical influence they could have different types of ammunition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far Bardarok’s idea sounds the most fun. I’m not quite understanding the long reload mechanics. Hand/Light Crossbow only have 1-action reload, but pistol should have 3-action or more? 1e has alchemical cartridges that lowered the reload time so why not just use that ammunition as the standard to go by? With Firearms having more Alchemical influence they could have different types of ammunition.
For me it is a desire for guns to have a unique niche and for them to be both commonly used but not replace melee weapons or bows. The flintlock fantasy idea of a few rounds of gun fire followed by sabers because they take too long to load or a pirate saving his three shots for imortant moments in the fight seem more evocative to me than just bows that target touch AC, though of course touch AC is gone so they won't be that.
I didn't like the gun rules as published in PF1 and instead home brewed my own guns that worked more like what I proposed above.
It would be a major shift from PF1 which I think makes it unlikely that guns will be implemented that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologise for getting on my high horse a bit about the bayonets and coming across as condescending
Accepted, no big deal ;)
Magic, fantastical materials, supernaturally tough hides, superhuman strength and constitution etc. all mean that I can let realism with guns slide. However, that goes both ways.
A primitive gun doesn't have to have a chance of misfiring, nor does it need to be inherently better at piercing armor.
It doesn't need to take almost a minute to reload, but neither does it have to deal damage far and away greater than other weapons.
In general, I think guns need:
1. Different tiers. Early vs Modern allows you to play very different games, where Early guns might be on par with a crossbow and modern guns might be advanced weapons with a Rare tag.
2. Ammunition. Despite the PF1 portrayal, it is much easier to cast a lead bullet than craft a crossbow bolt. Making small amounts of special bullets for different creatures for low cost should be a selling point of guns, and would help link them up with alchemy. It fits with the tropes of silver bullets etc.
3. Varying accuracy. Early guns are notoriously inaccurate, modern guns are notoriously accurate. Similar to how heavy armor penalties are reduced with strength, dexterity (or even int?) could extend the range increment on early guns from an initial low range to a suitably impressive range at higher levels. Modern guns could do the same and enable effective sniping at very long ranges.
4. Decent damage. Everyone should notice getting shot, or it becomes immersion-breaking. It should be less than getting hit by a two handed weapon, but greater than getting shot with a hand crossbow or a thrown dagger.
What I *don't* think guns need:
1. Improved effectiveness against armor outside of the normal weapon paradigm. We're wearing armor that can turn aside adamantine swords wielded by literal giants moving with magical haste. The natural armor penetration of a nonmagical bullet should be lost in the weeds by this point. Let guns fall in line and not break armor math.
2. Misfire. This isn't fun for anyone, and may be acceptable on...
Totally agree with at the least most part of it
Especially with:-Costs: Bullets were so ridiculously expensive in pf1, it made no sense
-Not breaking Armor math: the math just got streamlined with getting rid of TAC, don't mix it up again
-Misfire: it was just annoying, making guns unrealiable for all but those with skill and for them it was an annoyence that basically said '5-15% chance to eat up one point recources for bad luck'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Had a Ranger in our group that went heavy crossbow and Animal Companion. He singlehandedly did the most damage in our group with some good rolls, but 2-action reload alone makes the weapon seem niche enough to not just grab over the light one. Multi-round reload just sounds awful to me. I’d rather just make Alchemical Cartridges the standard ammunition.
Had a Ranger in our group that went heavy crossbow and Animal Companion. He singlehandedly did the most damage in our group with some good rolls, but 2-action reload alone makes the weapon seem niche enough to not just grab over the light one. Multi-round reload just sounds awful to me. I’d rather just make Alchemical Cartridges the standard ammunition.
For what it's worth, I totally agree with you. What I suggested in my earlier post was a contrary stance that is significantly different from how guns have been previously implemented in Pathfinder. My imagination for *long* reload times was mainly involving the balance between extreme damage and significant investment into preparing another shot. For all of the power behind a gunshot, I've never fully enjoyed a bullet doing similar damage to an arrow, so I would prefer to imagine a weapon that would deliver massive damage but require planning to reload when still in combat.
Granted, when discussing cartridges my suggestions entirely change. It wouldn't make sense for such a weapon to take so long to reload, so if firearms are implemented to be more advanced than the early firearms I'm suggesting, then they would have to be balanced much closer to that of exotic ranged weapons that currently exist (with the excellent weapon properties ideas that have been suggested in this thread).
Edit:
Anyways, total aside: with my version of firearms I would prefer to collapse the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler together, make them a Musketeer that uses panache/grit, and have them focus on precise and powerful opening attacks with firearms before diving into combat with swords. This would bring together the two (very similar) classes, give them powerful opening damage and interesting combat choices when they sling their musket and move into melee.
Any class wholly built around full-time firearm use will have to live with weapons that won't accurately represent how powerful guns are in the setting (if they aren't balanced with long reload times like I suggested).
Sorry for the ramble, just my 20¢
Yeah, Multi-Round reload is bad, Multi action is one thing...
Also, considering the damage dice you would have to put a lot of stuff in there to make multi round reload worth it, becaust it can't be more dice
Yeah, Multi-Round reload is bad, Multi action is one thing...
Also, considering the damage dice you would have to put a lot of stuff in there to make multi round reload worth it, becaust it can't be more dice
At the very least, I explicitly suggested a high static bonus to go with the *very long* reload time. If it hits, it does a lot no matter what, which I hope is an accurate stance for being hit by a bullet (I've never gotten the chance and I don't seek it out).
But yeah, I get it. That's why I noted that my position was very much against the grain from what has been discussed, I just wanted to broaden the conversation!