2nd Ed Gunslinger?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Does anyone know of any rumblings that would suggest we'll be getting this class at some point? My steampunk game needs it.


We know it isn't coming in the APG next year, and they've mentioned elsewhere that for the Gunslinger to exist (either as an Archetype anyone can take, or as a solo class), we need a book dedicated to guns for you to play around with.

I'm hoping it'll come around during the next major book at 2021, but who knows??


Ezekieru wrote:

We know it isn't coming in the APG next year, and they've mentioned elsewhere that for the Gunslinger to exist (either as an Archetype anyone can take, or as a solo class), we need a book dedicated to guns for you to play around with.

I'm hoping it'll come around during the next major book at 2021, but who knows??

Brutal.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ezekieru wrote:
for the Gunslinger to exist (either as an Archetype anyone can take, or as a solo class), we need a book dedicated to guns for you to play around with.

The idea of a book dedicated to guns seems dubious with the minimum book size they’ve established.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Luke Styer wrote:
Ezekieru wrote:
for the Gunslinger to exist (either as an Archetype anyone can take, or as a solo class), we need a book dedicated to guns for you to play around with.
The idea of a book dedicated to guns seems dubious with the minimum book size they’ve established.

But as part of a book dedicated to Martial classes something like Ultimate Combat seems very likely.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

IMHO, guns in PF2 won't be that hard to implement. We've already seen some character art with guns present.

What would black-powder firearms look like in PF2?
- a modest base damage die with something like the "deadly d10" trait of the pick, so criticals would be really dangerous.
- a significant reload time, that you could reduce slightly with training and/or feats (but not too much, I hope).
- a special feat to give proficiency in firearms, and another one to allow crafting of firearms and/or ammunition.
- a MC dedication-style feat to let any class in the game become a partial gunslinger.

All these things could easily fit in a few pages of an AP chapter. No need for a big book of stuff.

Scarab Sages

I'd love to see guns come out in a book alongside large-scale battle rules and siege weaponry. They could be made out to be a weapon of warfare, not small scale skirmishes. For someone to use a gun efficiently in small-scale battle would require specialized feats, as they would just be too inaccurate otherwise.

This would give Paizo a reason to publish them, as a lot of players are probably looking for rules on kingdoms, sieges and warfare.


Guns and gunslingers are relatively uncommon in the setting so it is not a surprise they are not in the first two main books

Equally they weren't in the first two 1E hardcovers either. They appeared in the third. There is a good chance that is where they will appear this time

Hopefully they will be less broken this time around. The balancing of weapons and the removal of touch AC makes this quite likely.

I wounder if they will work the same way as the playtest swashbuckler - perform some kind of move to enter a state of "Grit" which gives you bonuses of some kind. Although I don't see the finisher idea working properly with a gunslinger / ranged weapons


Wheldrake wrote:

IMHO, guns in PF2 won't be that hard to implement. We've already seen some character art with guns present.

What would black-powder firearms look like in PF2?
- a modest base damage die with something like the "deadly d10" trait of the pick, so criticals would be really dangerous.
- a significant reload time, that you could reduce slightly with training and/or feats (but not too much, I hope).
- a special feat to give proficiency in firearms, and another one to allow crafting of firearms and/or ammunition.
- a MC dedication-style feat to let any class in the game become a partial gunslinger.

All these things could easily fit in a few pages of an AP chapter. No need for a big book of stuff.

The MC dedication would be expected given how many gun archetypes there were in 1E. Almost every class had one

Sovereign Court

I created an Alchemical Gunslinger Dedication. The rules are in the back of my Pathfinder 2e rules changes.


At least theres no touch AC for them to target in this edition to make them widely unbalanced.


There is an antagonist in the second Age of Ashes adventure path that has a blunderbuss maybe improve from its stats?


I retro-fitted the blunderbuss from Cult of Cinders for a rough idea how guns will work until we get better rules for them. I don't know if they are very balanced as is, they do extra damage, but have short ranges and long reload times compared to a crossbow. They will probably be martial but I made them simple because the point of guns is that they were easy to learn compared to a longbow still, AFAIK.

[Uncommon] Simple Weapons
Two Ammo Types (bullet, gunpowder).
Always loud.
Misfire: On a critical failure, succeed on a DC 15 Crafting or relevant Lore skill check or the gun explodes, damaging you for the attacks damage, and destroying the weapon.

Pistol Damage 1d6 P, Range 20 ft., Reload 2, Bulk 1, Hands 1, Group Firearm
Weapon Traits hot lead(1d6)

Blunderbuss Damage 1d6 P, Range 15 ft., Reload 3, Bulk 2, Hands 2, Group Firearm
Weapon Traits hot lead(1d10), scattershot

Musket Damage 1d10 P, Range 40 ft., Reload 3, Bulk 2, Hands 2, Group Firearm
Weapon Traits hot lead(1d10)

hot lead: Deals the damage listed as fire damage in addition to the basic dice. This value is note altered by striking, etc.

scattershot: Can make a 2 actions attack, 30 ft. cone, reflex = 10 + Attack, double damage. Counts as a misfire.


vagrant-poet wrote:
They will probably be martial but I made them simple because the point of guns is that they were easy to learn compared to a longbow still, AFAIK.

Maybe bows are more difficult in an "army vs army" scenario where you have to lob shots over your allies and calculate those distance attacks. But in a skirmish scenario I think using a bow is much easier than an early firearm with so many moving parts and things you have to light and load in a certain order. I could say with confidence that I could shoot a basic bow, albeit with difficulty and maybe a few tries, but I don't think I could shoot an early flintlock without some kind of tutorial.


Sure. I mean, you need to be trained in simple weapons too.

But really I don't care about accurate early firearms tbh, as long as they feel interesting and different.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As to the comparison of bow to firearms. I'd say it is simpler to fire a firearm in general, than to shoot a bow in the right direction. But I would agree, that it would be harder to load an early firearm, than to load and fire a bow or crossbow.

I was inclined to make them Martial, uncommon, but with a trait allowing to be fired as a common weapon, but potentially with raised chance of misfire.

Misfire I wasn't going to tie to critical failure because I didn't think firing at a small coin should be more likely to misfire, than firing at the side of a barn. I was going to base it on the natural roll of die (such as natural 1). Also, misfire wasn't a blow up, it was a jam if the gun started in normal good working order. If not in good condition (already been a jam recently) it would have some mechanic to optionally lead eventually to a potential gun exploding.

I think there have been several people wondering if the gunslinger might not end up being a full class, and it simply be an archetype that helps enable a gun fighter/ranger/swashbuckler/rogue etc. Honestly, some of how the swashbuckler looks like, it seems possible that a gunslinger might simply be a swashbuckler with the gunslinger archetype. [however, it will bring up the given promise to allow a means to take a archetype at 1st level, even though you pay for it with a second level feat] Since someone may well want to 'start' as a gunslinger.


I agree with Wheldrake that it doesn't need to be a class. 1E guns were overcomplicated for the sake of it. A martial weapon (with a note they may become a common weapon in time) with a few special properties would be better than a whole subsystem that isn't really needed.


I don't think the designers want to make any classes that are tied to one weapon

So it seems like guns will be a weapon option and maybe a universal archetype to improve usage in whatever class you are


1e guns weren't that complicated the problem was that targeting touch AC with large dice made then hard to balance and required 0 investment (as long as you had the money/kit to repair it).

But I agree that depending on how they do things gunslinger doesnt need to be a class. I can see then being a Swashbuckler class archetype replacing Panache for Grit and melee weapon proficiency/feats for firearm proficiency/feats (replace any melee strike with ranged strike in feats).


I hated them as touch attacks. I'm glad if nothing else that won't be a thing. So I think having a long reload is a given and I'll trust they can figure out which die to give them the interesting part will be what it's critical effect will be.


I can see guns being one of two things in 2E:
- a more standard weapon type with more reasonably-priced ammunition (because 11gp a shot, or 11sp a shot if crafted, is ridiculous), with unique weapon traits related to their signature close-ranged effectiveness (with bonus damage or bonus on attacks rolls at close range), misfiring, scattering shots and whatnot;
- a new type of alchemical equipment with price and damage scaling similarly to bombs, with either an archetype or alchemist research field associated to them.


I feel like people consistently over think guns in table top role playing games. For practical game purposes a gun should just be a repeating crossbow - it doesn't need to have gigantic damage dice, or weird clunky reloading mechanics.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Mechanically, the gunslinger and the swashbuckler fill similar design spaces, differing mainly in their primary weapon choices. It seems that for PF2 they decided to make the swashbuckler rather than the gunslinger the parent class.

What they do with the gunslinger depends on how they ultimately decide to handle firearms in general in PF2 as well as how they handle class archetypes and other class variations by the time they get around to general firearms rules.

Scarab Sages

I don't think that the gunslinger should be a full class on its own, but rather just a part of a class, like one of the thief's rackets or barbarian instincts.

Instead, I'd love to see a class focused entirely on enhancing ranged combat that could then be separated into something like gunslinger / sniper / skirmisher for mid / long / short range specialties.

This way you wouldn't be forced to use a gun for the class, but there could be gun-related feats for those that want them. It would also give Paizo a reason to balance pistols/rifles/blunderbusses against crossbows/bows/thrown weapons for use with the class.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Black powder, muzzle-loading firearms should take some time to reload. Not a free action, like a bow. I'm not adamant about it taking as long as in real life. But if you look at guys reloading in cinema, like in Mel Gibson's The Patriot, you see that even well-trained gun users need time to take out their powder horn, pour the powder, then tamp down shot and wadding. It's really not instantaneous.

I feel our fantasy version of black-powder firearms should retain some of that feel, even if advanced feats might speed it up, it should never be a free action.

Sixguns and other breechloading firearms are a different story.

As I said before, I expect firearms to have a modest damage die (it's only a flesh wound!) but to have the deadly d10 trait, like a pick. When you critical hit with a firearm, your target should really feel the pain.

I'd expect a firearm class to work more like a MC dedication feat, that any class could take, rather than a fixed firearm-dedicated class. Though perhaps we'll have both. Time will tell.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
It seems that for PF2 they decided to make the swashbuckler rather than the gunslinger the parent class.

Parent class?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
It seems that for PF2 they decided to make the swashbuckler rather than the gunslinger the parent class.
Parent class?

I probably should have said primary class instead, since hybrid classes may not even be a thing in PF2.

In the Advanced Class Guide for PF1, the parent classes of the Swashbuckler were the Fighter and the Gunslinger. But since PF2 does not have a Gunslinger class yet, their Swashbuckler cannot be considered a hybrid class since one of its parents does not yet exist. If they make a Gunslinger class as a hybrid class in the future, its parents would be the Fighter and the Swashbuckler.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
It seems that for PF2 they decided to make the swashbuckler rather than the gunslinger the parent class.
Parent class?

I probably should have said primary class instead, since hybrid classes may not even be a thing in PF2.

In the Advanced Class Guide for PF1, the parent classes of the Swashbuckler were the Fighter and the Gunslinger. But since PF2 does not have a Gunslinger class yet, their Swashbuckler cannot be considered a hybrid class since one of its parents does not yet exist. If they make a Gunslinger class as a hybrid class in the future, its parents would be the Fighter and the Swashbuckler.

I think this falls in to the category of a few of the hybrid classes are unique enough to make them a full class, Swashbuckler and Investigator being two of those. However, I expect there are quite a few of the hybrid classes that will either be just archetypes or just a multiclass to make work.


Filthy Lucre wrote:
I feel like people consistently over think guns in table top role playing games. For practical game purposes a gun should just be a repeating crossbow - it doesn't need to have gigantic damage dice, or weird clunky reloading mechanics.

I am not sure it is overthinking. It is more the general obsession / perception that guns should be massively powerful and better than any other ranged weapon

This is arguably more an issue with some people not decoupling guns used by traditional “gunslingers” - so 19th century ones with what would be a sensible fit in Golarion. And potentially an entire class named gunslinger doesn’t help with that

I am a Brit and think for me at least this is the main reason I have never seen the desire for the weapons or the class in the game . But the gunslinger is key foundation legend in the States. They are like the US version of knights and outlaw archers and the like

But as has been mentioned, the removal of touch AC from the game will go a long way towards removing my issues with the class. In 1E they completely invalidate certain enemies (or if a popular podcast is anything to go by entire APs)


Lanathar wrote:


I am not sure it is overthinking. It is more the general obsession / perception that guns should be massively powerful and better than any other ranged weapon

Definitely. Emphasis on "perception". If I had to choose between getting shot or struck with a sword it would definitely be the former.


Historically guns were absolutely inferior to a trained archer up until repeating rifles came about. But they didn't require that lifetime of training, nor did they need the strength to load of a crossbow.


Which is why I think simple prof, uncommon rarity, big damage dice, short range, reload 2 and fatal/deadly is the way to go for firearms. They really don't need any special properties.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Garretmander wrote:
Which is why I think simple prof, uncommon rarity, big damage dice, short range, reload 2 and fatal/deadly is the way to go for firearms. They really don't need any special properties.

Why "Big damage dice"? If you have a moderate damage dice (say, a d6 or d8 base damage for 1-handed and 2-handed black-powder firearms) then you keep the "Oh, it's only a flesh wound" trope. Giving it the deadly d10 trait makes for a huge difference between a normal hit and a critical hit, going from, say, 1d6 damage to 3d10 damage.

The other big things with black-powder firearms are reload time and reliability.

Someone with little or no training in firearms should be able to shoot one off, but take a lengthy penalty to reload time and have a greater chance of misfire. Training in the form of specialist feats should reduce both of those, without entirely eliminating them.


Wheldrake wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Which is why I think simple prof, uncommon rarity, big damage dice, short range, reload 2 and fatal/deadly is the way to go for firearms. They really don't need any special properties.
Why "Big damage dice"?

Simple, reload 2 is a massive detriment to any character focused on firearms, and I don't think that should be reduced by much more than something like running reload.

A d8 pistol, a d10 musket and a super short range d12 blunderbuss sounds about right. Even if a ranger's feats all work directly with firearms and a familiar can perform the reload action, they'd still likely be inferior to a regular crossbow because of reload 2.


I don't really care about/would never implement black powder weapons in my game - only 1800s level of technology.

As for stats - they'd just be ranged picks. Same damage dice, same abilities, just with a range increment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Filthy Lucre wrote:
I don't really care about/would never implement black powder weapons in my game - only 1800s level of technology.

I don't understand. We speak about "black-powder firearms" when referring to muzzle-loading shoulder arms used from the 15th to 18th (and early 19th) centuries.

While it's true that Golarion does have places with later firearms, like sixguns, and even science-fiction rayguns (and androids, etc) it seems to me that the break point in terms of rules comes with the way in which black-powder, muzzle-loading firearms are handled.

Obviously, a PC wielding a Colt 1851 (or similar sixgun) is going to have far fewer worries about rate of fire and misfire chance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The default should be Rare, not Uncommon.


Filthy Lucre wrote:
I feel like people consistently over think guns in table top role playing games. For practical game purposes a gun should just be a repeating crossbow - it doesn't need to have gigantic damage dice, or weird clunky reloading mechanics.

Why have them in the first place if they're no different from what already exists in the game?

Guns from D&D 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide were designed as glorified crossbows and guess what? They were terrible and very uninteresting weapons that even non-powergamers wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Designing a new weapon isn't as easy as "take an existing weapon and make it better at a cost". It either becomes mandatory and overshadows its predecessor (power-creep) or no one is interested in it at all. To be fair, crossbows are so terrible that overshadowing them isn't that hard.

Simply going back to what made firearms interesting in 1E would be a good start: shorter range but great stopping power at close range.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

So these complicated rules...

Can we just say they invented rifling and throw away all these crazy mechanics. I want guns for once to just be ranged weapons like everything else.

Guns are loud, have that be their penalty and end it there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:

So these complicated rules...

Can we just say they invented rifling and throw away all these crazy mechanics. I want guns for once to just be ranged weapons like everything else.
Guns are loud, have that be their penalty and end it there.

Although we do have many, many anachronisms in our fantasy-medieval world, it is disingenuous to claim "guns are guns" and stop there.

You don't expect to see pirates wielding M-16s or 44 magnums, that's just not part of the fantasy. Pirates wield blunderbusses and muskets and one-shot muzzle-loading pistols. They just don't stack up the same way as modern firearms, or as mid-19th century sixguns like Colt 1851 Navy revolver or a Henry 1860 or Winchester 1873 repeating rifle.

Guns, just like other weapons, are inextricably linked to specific historical periods, and when we introduce them into our fantasy games we need to be careful what we're actually talking about.

What I think we need is a first set of rules dealing with black-powder muzzle-loading firearms (perhaps making an abstraction concerning the real differences between matchlocks and flintlocks and wheel-locks) on one hand, and more advanced firearms like those historically used in the old west on the other. The reload times will not be the same, and the reliability of such weapons will not be the same either.

PF1 didn't do all that bad a job integrating these differences into our fantasy games, except for the feats that allowed ridiculously quick (free action) reload times for muzzle-loaders and the unbalancing mechanics of touch attacks.

I would hope that PF2 will do a bit better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:


You don't expect to see pirates wielding M-16s or 44 magnums, that's just not part of the fantasy. Pirates wield blunderbusses and muskets and one-shot muzzle-loading pistols. They just don't stack up the same way as modern firearms, or as mid-19th century sixguns like Colt 1851 Navy revolver or a Henry 1860 or Winchester 1873 repeating rifle.

But pirates do wield AK-47's. Oh sorry, wrong pirates...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Wheldrake wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

So these complicated rules...

Can we just say they invented rifling and throw away all these crazy mechanics. I want guns for once to just be ranged weapons like everything else.
Guns are loud, have that be their penalty and end it there.

Although we do have many, many anachronisms in our fantasy-medieval world, it is disingenuous to claim "guns are guns" and stop there.

You don't expect to see pirates wielding M-16s or 44 magnums, that's just not part of the fantasy. Pirates wield blunderbusses and muskets and one-shot muzzle-loading pistols. They just don't stack up the same way as modern firearms, or as mid-19th century sixguns like Colt 1851 Navy revolver or a Henry 1860 or Winchester 1873 repeating rifle.

Guns, just like other weapons, are inextricably linked to specific historical periods, and when we introduce them into our fantasy games we need to be careful what we're actually talking about.

What I think we need is a first set of rules dealing with black-powder muzzle-loading firearms (perhaps making an abstraction concerning the real differences between matchlocks and flintlocks and wheel-locks) on one hand, and more advanced firearms like those historically used in the old west on the other. The reload times will not be the same, and the reliability of such weapons will not be the same either.

PF1 didn't do all that bad a job integrating these differences into our fantasy games, except for the feats that allowed ridiculously quick (free action) reload times for muzzle-loaders and the unbalancing mechanics of touch attacks.

I would hope that PF2 will do a bit better.

right, but blackpowder guns are not what i'd call very conducive to games in general.

as for PF1 didn't do that bad of a job...

?

REALLY?! only 1 class could use them, it's just a weapon, but you needed to play a specific class for them to work.


You didnt need to play 1 specific class all you really needed were 2 feats: Firearm proficiency and Gunsmithing.

What the Gunslimger class did was basically give you a free gun (they are as expensive if not more than full plate) and a few quality of life abilities (Ex: quick clear, dex to damage, decrease misfire, etc.). By the end there where like 4-6 very functional gun archetypes for other classes, including Eldritch Archer which was a broken combo (you lost no accuracy and got increased damage for it).

And in hindsight, the Gunslinger class design is very much the same as PF2, every class must have 1 niche they are very good at.


Temperans wrote:

You didnt need to play 1 specific class all you really needed were 2 feats: Firearm proficiency and Gunsmithing.

What the Gunslimger class did was basically give you a free gun (they are as expensive if not more than full plate) and a few quality of life abilities (Ex: quick clear, dex to damage, decrease misfire, etc.). By the end there where like 4-6 very functional gun archetypes for other classes, including Eldritch Archer which was a broken combo (you lost no accuracy and got increased damage for it).

And in hindsight, the Gunslinger class design is very much the same as PF2, every class must have 1 niche they are very good at.

In this case, the only class in 2E that's remotely close to the Gunslinger I can think of right now is the Alchemist: it relies entirely on the existence of a certain subcategory of equipment that's prohibitively expensive for most adventurers and requires a feat to craft that alchemists get for free. Having a gunsmith research field and early firearms and their ammunition as alchemical gear (since in 1E rulesets that ditch Gunsmithing, alchemy is required to create black powder) would avoid having firearms compete directly with other existing ranged weapons and either overshadow them completely or become nearly useless. Plus it would probably make the alchemist more attractive as an offensive class once its design problems are solved (because having an ability that doesn't do anything unless you are trained in a skill that isn't part of the class's starting proficiencies is ludicrous).


FlashRebel wrote:
Why have them in the first place if they're no different from what already exists in the game?

Because they're just window dressing for a steampunk setting and the aesthetic is more important than potentially unbalancing your game?


Wheldrake wrote:
You don't expect to see pirates wielding M-16s or 44 magnums, that's just not part of the fantasy.

Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura disagrees.


Filthy Lucre wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Why have them in the first place if they're no different from what already exists in the game?
Because they're just window dressing for a steampunk setting and the aesthetic is more important than potentially unbalancing your game?
Sure, have gunpowder and bullets function exactly like crossbow bolts as well, it would be a shame to take any risks by making the setting believable.
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
You don't expect to see pirates wielding M-16s or 44 magnums, that's just not part of the fantasy.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura disagrees.

That's not even remotely related to Pathfinder. What is your point?


FlashRebel wrote:
Filthy Lucre wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Why have them in the first place if they're no different from what already exists in the game?
Because they're just window dressing for a steampunk setting and the aesthetic is more important than potentially unbalancing your game?
Sure, have gunpowder and bullets function exactly like crossbow bolts as well, it would be a shame to take any risks by making the setting believable.
Filthy Lucre wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:
You don't expect to see pirates wielding M-16s or 44 magnums, that's just not part of the fantasy.
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura disagrees.
That's not even remotely related to Pathfinder. What is your point?

1.) The moment you decide to die on the hill of absolute realism is when PF/D&D break down completely. It's a toally arbitrary standard that is selectively enforced. It's not "believable" that someone can fall 300ft off a cliff and survive, and yet we still hand waive it.

2.) The point is that you're making a claim about the genre "fantasy" as if it is limited to your personal definition.


Well pathfinder is a setting with robots, pirates, dinosaurs, dragons, weird space monsters sleeping inside the planet waiting to envelope everything in madness.... pirates using guns better than single shot pistols is not that far off of what is possible.

Also, the key is always striking a balance between reality and magic. For example: The lv 1 character has no reason to be falling from space and surviving and the lv 20 character has no reason to die from a 2 ft fall.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Note that I'm not saying that pirates should *never* have modern firearms or even rayguns. Both of those things are a (small) part of Golarion lore. But for me, a pirate-themed campaign means cutlasses and black-powder, muzzle-loading pistols, boarding axes and blunderbusses.

If that doesn't correspond to your view of a fantasy world, I have no problem with that, but I think if we were to take a poll of what PF players expect to see in a pirate-themed PF campaign, black-powder firearms would be a major part of that.

And I'm hoping that whenever guns do finally get introduced into PF2, they will include robust rules for black-powder firearms that have a reasonably long reload rate, even once you apply every feat and whistle. I'd expect them to also include rules for modern firearms (or at least 1860-era ones) with about the same variety of applications and effectiveness as in PF1.

It's not a question of "realism" as such. Our shared hobby is far beyond that, with magic and anachronisms everywhere you turn. It more a nod to veisimilitude, or the "real-seeming effect", fantasy rules that at least in part apply limits we know from the real world, even if those limits are stretched and broken at times.

Could you have a magical musket or muzzle-loading pistol that reloads itself as a free action? Sure, why not? But that should contrast with a baseline reload rate that takes at least several actions.

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / 2nd Ed Gunslinger? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.