| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi folks,
This is a Just for Fun thread about the rules for firearms that might be included in the not really upcoming Ultimate Combat 2E. I've come with some ideas and I would love to read yours.
Maybe, if we fire enough shotguns we might hit something, after all, there is no better marksman than the one who can paint the bull after the shot is fired.
Let's get started:
- The simple approach: ignore it and make them a high critical weapon,deadly (d12), maybe fatal
- The complicated approach: mimicking 1E let's add grazing (this ranged weapon deals half damage on a miss on it first ranged increment)
- The elegant approach:<insert your feedback here>
- Reload action economy: one for one-handed, two for two-handed, similar to crossbows.
- Double barrel: automatic MAP for both attacks, separate action to reload
- Shotguns (scatter): like in 1E, attack just every creature in a the cone at a -2 penalty counts as 2 attacks for MAP.
- Shotguns (boomstick): when attacking a target in melee range with this weapon increase your degree of success by one, reduce the degree of success by one when attacking targets beyond the first range increment.
Humbly,
Yawar
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dig the "complicated approach," as it gives Firearms a unique use case that's not found in bows/crossbows. Reload action economy is decent, and I dig the proposed shotgun traits. Makes me wonder what would be good traits to have for pistols or rifles.
Touch AC doesn't exist anymore, I thought?
Touch AC doesn't exist anymore, I thought?
It doesn't, but that was how firearms worked in 1E, so the approaches Yawar wrote down were some alternatives to Touch AC.
I dig the "complicated approach," as it gives Firearms a unique use case that's not found in bows/crossbows.
I like to, but I was thinking, why didn't they use it for Spell Rays? Specially since they remove attack foci. And then I thought maybe keeping track of 3 ACs for several attacks per combat.
I mean Combat Finishers and specific maneuvers with failure effects are meant to be used on specific occasions, but reload times should keep it in check.
Overall, I am interested in what would be implemented as class feature and what as weapon quality.
Humbly,
Yawar
I'd like them to either get a totally unique crit spec, or at least the dart spec. Bullets bleed!
I'd like them to either get a totally unique crit spec, or at least the dart spec. Bullets bleed!
I think copying the dart makes the most sense. Scatter based weapons could use the brawling group, just to have a couple of options.
I think fatal (+1 die size, max d10) makes sense for all bullet based rounds. For "scatter" weapons I think they would need to have no bonus abilities. Getting to attack multiple things at once at no real cost is very strong.
Another interesting idea for scatter weapons comes from the 5E port of Zeitgeist, where you target a square rather than a creature to attack - so you can hit multiple things if they happen to share a square, or can avoid miss chance on invisible targets if you know they're there.
I hope that they do away with firearms ignoring armor. It is not even historically accurate. In fact, historically, they used to test armor by shooting it with a gun. That's where we get the phrase 'bullet proof' from.
I wonder how much of the myth that guns show through armor is from the Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?
I'd like them to either get a totally unique crit spec, or at least the dart spec. Bullets bleed!
I absolutely 100% agree with this statement.
I think fatal (+1 die size, max d10) makes sense for all bullet based rounds. For "scatter" weapons I think they would need to have no bonus abilities. Getting to attack multiple things at once at no real cost is very strong.
Generally agree, but I think two-handed not really sniper firearms should be fatal (d12) just because rule of cool. And while I am generally against having different weapon properties or profiles for different attacks, its just a trigger on critical special property that can be ignored or applied according to the ammunition (bullets or pellets).
I hope that they do away with firearms ignoring armor. It is not even historically accurate. In fact, historically, they used to test armor by shooting it with a gun. That's where we get the phrase 'bullet proof' from.
I wonder how much of the myth that guns show through armor is from the Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?
Yes, I know, but 1E gave firearm a distinctive feel to the point it could be an in house trope. The purpose of the thread is to brainstorm something with with a similar flavor or not (see simple approach).
Humbly,
Yawar
I think that guns should get an extra die of damage for the first range increment. This would be a weapon trait called point blank. So, you might have a wheel-lock pistol with point blank that did 1d8 and 2d8 at the first range increment. If it were a striking weapon, it would do 2d8 and 3d8 in the first range increment.
Guns should also have the misfire trait, which means on a critical failure, the gun requires a 2 action activity to clear and can't be used.
Guns in pathfinder should also have the dangerous trait, which means on a natural 1 they explode for their point blank damage done to both the gun and the wielder, and are automatically considered to have misfired
Muskets should be reload 3, pistols reload 2. Class/Archetype feats can improve that.
And they should be have either the Fatal or Deadly trait. Fatal seems closer to the vibe of the PF1e 4x crit multiplier, and provides a flip side to the Dangerous and Misfire traits.
Firearms should have levels. Matchlocks being lower level than wheel-locks, etc.
They need a critical specialization effect. Bleed (as per dart) is the easiest fit, but it would be neat to have a unique critical specialization effect for them.
Other weapon traits would include capacity (X), multi-barrelled (X), and scatter (X ft.).
So, for example you would have:
Wheel-lock pistol (level 3)
Price: 50 GP
Damage: 1d8 P
Range: 20 feet
Reload: 2
Bulk: L
Hands: 1
Group: Firearm
Traits: Point Blank, Dangerous, Misfire, Fatal (d10)
Note that this means that a pistol that scores a critical hit at point blank range does 5d10. Too much?
I'd like them to either get a totally unique crit spec, or at least the dart spec. Bullets bleed!
The dart spec is already shared by the knife. I think the pick spec makes a bit more sense if we're okay with copying existing specs.
Other flavorful things gun crits coud do is pierce the target, hitting another target behind them, or the bullet could get lodged in the target's body, weakening them and making them enfeebled for one round.
I also advocate most guns having a trait reflecting the loud noise they make. Something like this:
Loud
This weapon creates huge noise when you attack with it, alerting enemies to your presence. You become hidden to any creatures to which you were undetected, and you become undetected to any creatures to which you were unnoticed. The range of the sound depends on the environment. Out in the open, the range is usually up to one mile. In a more enclosed environment, such as inside a building or in a dense forest, the range can be as low as one quarter mile. In a completely enclosed area, such as deep in a castle or inside a dungeon with stone walls, the range might not extend further than the current room.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most importantly, I would like the rules to be as simple as possible and directly compatible with existing rules to avoid a lit of weird rules complications or combinations that can arise when an "optional" rule is significantly different than the standard.
Guns should just target normal AC, again for simplicity.
Since we already have dice-additive damage (striking) I would prefer guns not get extra dice based on range or whatever. They are probably due for a larger damage die than a "normal" weapon of their size, so handguns are probably on par with d8s and longarms with d12s. Most fatal weapons seem to get that trait from being able to focus a lot of momentum into a small target area, such as a pick. Given that is exactly what a bullet is, fatal seems like it would be an obvious trait.
I'm not sure what a good critical specialization would be, but I agree it should be its own category, maybe even two depending on how diverse they decide to make the roster of guns types. Bleed might be the easiest solution, but it just feels a little cheap. They feel like they should have something more interesting.
The noise of guns has always been the big issue. They make dungeon delving and stealth nearly impossible since it draws the attention of everything for some distance away. Its hard to justify not having all the enemies coming running at the same time and very quickly overwhelming the PCs.
I think they could use the hardness/HP/BT rules to adjudicate the misfiring. Maybe it does x damage to the gun on a misfire so it doesn't automatically become broken on a misfire. Dunno. Just have to take into account that with the MAP, the chances for a critical fumble go up considerably after the first shot. I'm not a fan of guns, but I don't want to screw-over gun users any more than necessary.
Of course gunsmith is a no-brainer feat needed to repair guns or craft bullets.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Misfires just seem very unfun. Other weapons don't randomly break on bad attack rolls. Maybe there could be some edge cases where they become applicable, but in general I think they should be cut.
Misfires just seem very unfun. Other weapons don't randomly break on bad attack rolls. Maybe there could be some edge cases where they become applicable, but in general I think they should be cut.
I ran a 1e gunslinger from 1st till 12th level, and though I admittedly used just the relatively low misfire pistol, misfires didn't come up too much. Also, it didn't matter too much. You could have multiple guns plus quick draw, so when a misfire did occur, you could immediately mitigate it without even spending a grit point on quick clear.
That being said, misfire, and the chance of a gun explosion was a fundamental part of guns in 1e. Gunslingers were a little crazy in their willingness to use dangerous and unreliable weapons. I like that, and would not mind seeing some version of that in 2e.
If guns will have misfire and a chance to break they need to deal a lot more damage or hit a lot more often. Specially in a system like PF2e that has critical failures.
Also I do think that while strong armor might block bullets, most armor is not capable of it. If they were the world would not have abandoned heavy armor.
One way to reconcile this is with something like Calibre X. Where the gun ignores armor whose AC is less then X.
For example: A pistol might be Calibre 2 ignoring up to Leather Armor, a Musket might be Calibre 4 ignoring Scale Mail, while a really heavy gun might be Calibre 7 ignoring all armor.
Bows also are capable of penetrating some armor. Bodkin arrows, in particular, were especially penetrative against chain mail. Guns deliver more kinetic energy than bows, but that could just translate into more damage. In fact, when you start considering things like telekinetic projectiles, the bite attack of a gargantuan dragon, the tail spikes of a manticore, you can see that there is no reason that guns should have any special penetrative property. Why should a pistol be so much more effective at penetrating armor than a disintegration ray or an adamantine javelin hurled by a rune giant?
Personally I just don't want to see guns getting to cut out some part of AC or doing boatloads more damage. d12 damge is fine, but I'm strongly against giving an extra damage dice at close range as one poster suggested.
Personally I want to see the misfire mechanic gone and probably use something like the OP's suggestion of a grazing mechanic on a failure/miss (but not on a critical failure/miss).
The closest thing I could see to targeting a different AC is something like a Puncture trait that allows you to crit at 9 over AC instead of 10.
I ran a 1e gunslinger from 1st till 12th level, and though I admittedly used just the relatively low misfire pistol, misfires didn't come up too much. Also, it didn't matter too much. You could have multiple guns plus quick draw, so when a misfire did occur, you could immediately mitigate it without even spending a grit point on quick clear.
That being said, misfire, and the chance of a gun explosion was a fundamental part of guns in 1e. Gunslingers were a little crazy in their willingness to use dangerous and unreliable weapons. I like that, and would not mind seeing some version of that in 2e.
If misfires rarely came up and were easily mitigated, I don't see how they could be called "fundamental." For the same reason spellcasters no longer have to make concentration checks to see if they randomly can't cast their spells, I don't think gunslingers should randomly have their weapons break.
The role of "half-crazy fighters using dangerous weapons" seems to have been usurped by alchemists. Gunslingers seem to be more along the lines of steely-eyed, tough-as-nails warriors who kill with precision.
I ran a 1e gunslinger from 1st till 12th level, and though I admittedly used just the relatively low misfire pistol, misfires didn't come up too much. Also, it didn't matter too much. You could have multiple guns plus quick draw, so when a misfire did occur, you could immediately mitigate it without even spending a grit point on quick clear.
That being said, misfire, and the chance of a gun explosion was a fundamental part of guns in 1e. Gunslingers were a little crazy in their willingness to use dangerous and unreliable weapons. I like that, and would not mind seeing some version of that in 2e.
If misfires rarely came up and were easily mitigated, I don't see how they could be called "fundamental." For the same reason spellcasters no longer have to make concentration checks to see if they randomly can't cast their spells, I don't think gunslingers should randomly have their weapons break.
The role of "half-crazy fighters using dangerous weapons" seems to have been usurped by alchemists. Gunslingers seem to be more along the lines of steely-eyed, tough-as-nails warriors who kill with precision.
Misfires came up more in the Iron Gods game I ran. There was an android gunslinger that made it to like 18th level eventually, and he used a pepperbox pistol that had a higher misfire chance, and that could not be easily replaced. Eventually, at really high levels, he had magical ways to reduce the misfire chance and a good amount of grit that was often replenishing due to critical hits and numerous kills (you could spend a grit point to quick clear), and he too had a backup gun or two, but those guns were not as good as his highly enchanted, magic pepperbox.
If you ask me, misfire (not necessarily blow up on a well maintained gun, pristine) should be an aspect of the firearms rules. However, I don't think they should be simply tied to a critical failure. Shooting a coin at the far distance of your range shouldn't be that much more likely to misfire as shooting a box ten feet from you.
I'm inclined to think, for instance, of a misfire being tied to a roll of a natural 1. Perhaps damaged guns having a higher natural roll result being able to trigger one. When an already damaged gun is fired, it might then also have the capability of exploding, under certain circumstances, but not a given even in those circumstances.
Guns shouldn't replace crossbows, and be simply better than most/all other ranged weapons. I'd like for them to find a cool niche, leaving other weapons viable, but giving a gun an edge in certain circumstances.
A key thing that would be important to me would be to make firearms able to have an option to scale damage similar to magic weapons, without using magic. [but would not want that method, and magic to be able to be stacked together to make it a super-weapon, so I'd guess mixing would be a choose your benefit for shot, not get both]
A form of a grazing trait seems promising as a potential beneficial trait for firearms. I've also considered firearms potentially penetrating a portion of somethings physical DR(effectively reducing it). Alternately I'd considered if the attack exceeded the DR, the DR doesn't reduce the damage, but that benefits it disproportionately more at higher levels. I'd originally thought about giving it an extra die of damage at starting instances of the weapons. But noting I was hoping for them to be able to exist for 1st level characters, I eventually realized it seemed it would be too hard to balance being viable balanced weapons from lower levels up all the way to high levels.
I've just barely started writing a Victorian/Steampunk adventure (with Wild West-styled stuff elsewhere in the setting, but I digress), and I decided to put in guns. I used the simple approach as YawarFiesta puts it, giving guns Fatal by and large, with lower base dice to make them relatively fair. As the guns are somewhat more advanced (revolvers, repeater rifles, and the like), I also adjusted reloading them slightly. For Shotguns, I added a Burst quality, which allows them to hit multiple targets within a given radius of a target at least 20 feet away.
Not all of the damage is necessarily as high as people might want, but I was trying to keep them relatively balanced against standard options.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could have an inverse volley trait where the gun has -2 to hit beyond the first range increment. From my admittedly small knowledge of these era guns, they were pretty inaccurate I believe.
For the crit specialisation, maybe something along the lines of deafened or stunned or similar to account for the surprise and noise guns make.
The complicated approach: mimicking 1E let's add grazing (this ranged weapon deals half damage on a miss on it first ranged increment)
I haven't decided how I'd like to see firearms work in 2e - I'm leaning towards "high damage, but takes multiple actions to fire", but I don't think anyone else would be happy with that - but this definitely isn't it.
"Give all firearms a free 10th level Fighter feat, except significantly better" is definitely not happening. Maybe you could get away with "one damage per die on a miss", but even that is pretty good comparatively.
I may be in the minority here, but I'm not too keen on seeing firearms in PF2E. IRL, the development of hand-held firearms had a profound impact on human history. The transition from swords to small arms was somewhat gradual, and one could posit that The Age of Lost Omens is in that that twilight period technologically speaking. Among other considerations, I would ask if firearms would evolve in a world where even a middling-level caster can hurl a ball of flaming napalm.
For further interest:
https://mythcreants.com/blog/six-ways-guns-change-a-fantasy-setting/
Unfortunately for you, they already exist in the setting, and they're not going to retcon them, especially with how many guns have already appeared in art in LOCG and LOWG, and a dude in Age of Ashes.
Unfortunately for you, they already exist in the setting
That's fine, and I get it. Guns are popular among the player base and PF is not the only high fantasy setting to feature them. Paizo will publish firearms rules at some point for marketing reasons. Nonetheless, I wonder how many front-line devs agree/disagree with their inclusion from a narrative standpoint. That's something we'll never know for sure, obviously.
Unfortunately for you, they already exist in the settingThat's fine, and I get it. Guns are popular among the player base and PF is not the only high fantasy setting to feature them. Paizo will publish firearms rules at some point for marketing reasons. Nonetheless, I wonder how many front-line devs agree/disagree with their inclusion from a narrative standpoint. That's something we'll never know for sure, obviously.
And we've reached the conspiracy theory part of the morning.
Most of the Devs have either an AMA or are active on social media. You could just ask them.
If you ask me, misfire (not necessarily blow up on a well maintained gun, pristine) should be an aspect of the firearms rules. However, I don't think they should be simply tied to a critical failure. Shooting a coin at the far distance of your range shouldn't be that much more likely to misfire as shooting a box ten feet from you.
I'm inclined to think, for instance, of a misfire being tied to a roll of a natural 1. Perhaps damaged guns having a higher natural roll result being able to trigger one. When an already damaged gun is fired, it might then also have the capability of exploding, under certain circumstances, but not a given even in those circumstances.
I agree. It makes more sense for misfire/explode occur on a roll of a 1 or the like.
Perhaps the trait misfire (X) where a misfire occurs on a roll of X or less, (just like in PFv1). I still like a dangerous trait where they explode on a natural 1 though. So, a gun that only misfired on a 1 would not also have the dangerous trait, but a gun could also have misfire (2) and dangerous, in which case it would misfire on a 2, and explode on a 1 , and misfire on a 1.
And we've reached the conspiracy theory part of the morning.
Most of the Devs have either an AMA or are active on social media. You could just ask them.
Apparently, we've reached the naive part of the morning as well. Paizo as a whole either supports firearms in PF2, or it does not. Head devpelopers "A" versus "B" will not publicly espouse opposing viewpoints. They are too professional for that.
Instead of ad hominem remarks, it would be nice to see some mature opinions in this thread about the topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They already exist in the game. Therefore, they want them in the game. Generally speaking, game designers don't put things they don't want in their games.
They already exist in the game.
Guns exist in some art for the game, yes. They're not in the game as codified rules.
Generally speaking, game designers don't put things they don't want in their games.
You're missing my point entirely, which was: how does a culture develop a need for firearms where lethal magic already exists and seems rather commonplace?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, so you were actually asking a lore question!
Yeah, actually I'm really happy overall with how Paizo has explained the existence of firearms on Golarion. They manage to avoid a lot of the common pitfalls.
They already exist in the game.Guns exist in some art for the game, yes. They're not in the game as codified rules.
I believe what Grankless meant to say is "they already exist in the setting", which is absolutely true and does mean we will 100% get rules for them eventually.
...Although, now that I think about it, it's true the other way too. Well, almost. Gun, singular, exists in the game, because a single gun makes a cameo appearance in Age of Ashes. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus they've heavily indicated guns will come as a player facing rule - they'll just need playtested. And people sure are hopeful that'll be the 2021 big rulebook. :P
...
I agree. It makes more sense for misfire/explode occur on a roll of a 1 or the like.
Perhaps the trait misfire (X) where a misfire occurs on a roll of X or less, (just like in PFv1). I still like a dangerous trait where they explode on a natural 1 though. So, a gun that only misfired on a 1 would not also have the dangerous trait, but a gun could also have misfire (2) and dangerous, in which case it would misfire on a 2, and explode on a 1 , and misfire on a 1.
I had done some playing around with rule ideas. I had an undamaged gun loaded/fired by someone specifically proficient with it only causing a misfire. It could be quickly cleared by someone so proficient, but would do 1hp of damage after an action. A gun that was already damaged, I believe I had do damage according to its die size to itself on a regular misfire. If that damage exceeded the guns BT, the gun broke with the misfire, and needed to be fixed. If the damage exceeded remaining HP, the gun was destroyed, and would do that damage to the wielder. I think I was also going to have it do damage to those within 5', but I don't recall how much.
I got a bit hung up on the details of figuring out how many HP the guns should have, and how to deal with higher level versions of gunpowder/guns doing more damage, but not blowing up the guns instantly. For instance, having the guns reduce the damage to themselves by their hardness, or not? Have it not apply hardness to damaging itself, but only do 1 die of damage to itself to determine its state?
I'd also considered having misfires prompt a crafting check by the person who loaded the weapon. Perhaps only on a critical failure on the loading check, would the gun do more than jam, for instance.
That might be sort of in line with the rare gun found in an AP, if I recall. (not exactly the same, but is a precedent of utilizing Craft for an aspect of its use)
I know a lot of people advocate making them Advanced weapons, and thus making them powerful. However, just shooting a gun was considered rather easy. It reportedly allowed peasants to potentially use them with less training. (or so I've heard) So that makes me wonder if they shouldn't be able to be fired as a simple weapon. But make loading a multi-round action for any such individuals. Tie being able to reload a pistol in two actions, or long-arm in three actions to being unlocked by getting martial or advanced training. Some feat would allow you to perhaps shave off an action from the time it takes to reload a firearm.
I know quite a few people have suggested Fatal being a viable item to attach to firearms, and I probably largely agree. Perhaps, if we attach something to the first range increment, it could be a PointBlank(dX) property, which would mean that anyone struck with it in the first range increment would take the given higher die size, it wouldn't add a die however. Fatal would add a die on critical hits, and use the larger die size, between Fatal or PointBlank.
A derringer might have a very short range, small die like 1d4, perhaps with fatal(d6) but PointBlank(d8). That would mean getting hit at close range with it, normal hit would be d8, a critical would be 3d8, but hits past the first range increment would be 1d4, and critical hits only 3d6.
I also agree if applying graze damage to a normal miss, that half damage as a default seems too much. I'm more inclined to say minimum damage, or perhaps 1 point per die.
That would mean that a squad of 10 recruits with muskets, even if they missed, would likely be doing at least 10 damage to someone they are facing if they focused their fire. Take just for an example such a group going against an opponent some 4 levels higher, it would probably have an AC some 5 higher than their to hit, so you might easily say only a couple would hit and perhaps a couple would critically miss. That would mean that the regular misses might contribute some 6hp damage, and two hits would contribute 2 normal damages, unless one of them was a crit. If the NPC unit had special abilities that allowed them to reload a musket in 2 rounds, they could shoot each round, unless they rolled a 1 the prior round, they would need to clear the weapon before reloading.
Apparently, we've reached the naive part of the morning as well. Paizo as a whole either supports firearms in PF2, or it does not. Head devpelopers "A" versus "B" will not publicly espouse opposing viewpoints. They are too professional for that.And we've reached the conspiracy theory part of the morning.
Most of the Devs have either an AMA or are active on social media. You could just ask them.
There's nothing unprofessional about saying, "I disagree with this choice." In fact, I can think of at least one major example off the top of my head where two designers were in disagreement on whether Paladins should be alignment locked. Both held their positions, a decision was made, and everyone moved on.
Plus they've heavily indicated guns will come as a player facing rule - they'll just need playtested. And people sure are hopeful that'll be the 2021 big rulebook. :P
It's the need for playtesting that makes me wonder what is up. Even if they added a whole slate of traits just for guns, they already know we like and understand the trait system for weapons. Unless they fundamentally don't work like weapons.
That AoA stat block is very curious and wildly different than what most people are imagining as rules for guns.
The complicated approach: mimicking 1E let's add grazing (this ranged weapon deals half damage on a miss on it first ranged increment) I haven't decided how I'd like to see firearms work in 2e - I'm leaning towards "high damage, but takes multiple actions to fire", but I don't think anyone else would be happy with that - but this definitely isn't it.
"Give all firearms a free 10th level Fighter feat, except significantly better" is definitely not happening. Maybe you could get away with "one damage per die on a miss", but even that is pretty good comparatively.
Maybe, but if it takes a whole turn to fire one shot (1 action + plus 1 or 2 to reload) with a small die weapon that only shines on a critical maybe some measure of insurance is warranted.
Not a fan of this approach either, but for legacies sake I think is worth evaluating how to emulate Touch AC with guns.
I think for the balance of the game they can't do much to emulate touch AC.
At best guns might get to treat the targets AC as 2 points lower, that's the most I can imagine happening.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the idea of guns with the Fatal trait and think the point blank trait idea sounds really good
On the other hand I am really agains misfires - that was the most unfun mechanic sorrounding guns, it either ate up your grit (which is, if panache is an indicator, very limited) or just straightup was a risk destroying a pice of equipment that was very expensive even before you enchanted it - and since they probably wont be that imbalanced I think it is not neccessary
Also not a big fun of graze, I could however imagine a gunslinger feat of sorts that allows to do something similar
I could imagine firearms having a higher reload need then most ranged guns, so that they are roughly balanced around more awesome crossbows (which is in points of handling the closest)
so guns as 'martial/advanced crossbows' would probably be a good place
I am also conflicted if I want to see 'modern' firearms again, even though reload + magazine would be interesting but those definitly had to be advanced
I am also conflicted if I want to see 'modern' firearms again, even though reload + magazine would be interesting but those definitly had to be advanced
I agree with a lot of what you said in your post, but I actually have to strongly disagree with you here.
Early firearms are much more difficult to use from a training and usability stand point because of their mechanism of function.
Compare that to an AK-47 which can be thrown in the mud, not cleaned in anyway, and then fired without issue in most cases. And to operate it you load the magazine, pull the receiver back to chamber a round, and start firing.
(Most) modern style firearms are amazingly simply to operate compared to early variants.
Personally I would say they should be simple proficiency (or a unique proficiency), but rare in terms of availability.
I think for the balance of the game they can't do much to emulate touch AC.
At best guns might get to treat the targets AC as 2 points lower, that's the most I can imagine happening.
That sounds very fine. So, should it be something like this?
Claxon's approach: piercing(?) this ranged weapon treats target's AC as 2 points within the first rang increment.
Humbly,
Yawar
I am also conflicted if I want to see 'modern' firearms again, even though reload + magazine would be interesting but those definitly had to be advanced
I agree with a lot of what you said in your post, but I actually have to strongly disagree with you here.
Early firearms are much more difficult to use from a training and usability stand point because of their mechanism of function.
Compare that to an AK-47 which can be thrown in the mud, not cleaned in anyway, and then fired without issue in most cases. And to operate it you load the magazine, pull the receiver back to chamber a round, and start firing.
(Most) modern style firearms are amazingly simply to operate compared to early variants.
Personally I would say they should be simple proficiency (or a unique proficiency), but rare in terms of availability.
I know that it would be unrealistic, but if we throw in revolvers, etc. they need something more like rarer availebility since the whole simple/martial/advanced weapons is also designed around balance
I know that it would be unrealistic, but if we throw in revolvers, etc. they need something more like rarer availebility since the whole simple/martial/advanced weapons is also designed around balance
I wouldn't be surprised if firearms in general have the "rare" tag.
I thinknthst really depends on the gun. A pistol with a small calibre will work best at point blank. But a rifle with a large calbre can have a huge range and still penetrate armor.
How about Penetrate X. Treat target AC as two lower up to X range increments?
********************
Also, after thinking a while, there is no reason why bonus damage needs to be a dice. So how about Calibre X: On a success, add X damage to your roll, this bonus damage is multiplied on a crit. Or alternatively, the minimum damage per dice rolled is X when you roll for damage.
The first version would have Calibre 2 add 2 damage on a success and 4 on a crit success.
The second version would have Calibre 2 make it so your minimum rolled damage is 2. And if you get lesser striking, the minimum then becomes 4, etc.
I think that "deals more damage" traits like this really depend on what the design goal is for guns. Are they meant to be comparable to other ranged weapons in terms of lethality, or are they meant to be significantly stronger, requiring a heavier investment of feats and/or money to use properly?
Speaking of traits, in 1e shotgun-like weapons were given the scatter trait, which meant they attacked in a short-range cone, and a lot of homebrew 2e firearm rules I've seen have replicated that feature. I'm personally not a fan of this, as I don't think any gun has ever had a spread that wide or a range that short. Nobody ever fired a gun and hoped to hit everything directly in front of them. I think shotgun-type weapons should be single-target weapons with short range increments and maybe a trait like spread that reduces the attack roll penalty for firing beyond its range increment from -2 to -1.