You've never seen a punt gun. I'm not saying the players are toting one of those around, but if you see one in action you'll understand.
They were designed to hunt a flock of ducks at time. Not an individual duck, but several that could be scattered up at the same time.
Also the single example we have of a firearm in PF2 is a gun with an AOE attack.
Pretty safe to assume that's going to be a thing.
Also the single example we have of a firearm in PF2 is a gun with an AOE attack.
Pretty safe to assume that's going to be a thing.
Not really? Whoever ends up developing the rules for firearms might not necessarily be the same person/people that worked on the AoA firearm. So it could end up being completely different.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The example in question is very clearly jury-rigged and labeled as such. I wouldn't assume its stats are reflective of much of anything.
I would, however, be very surprised if there's not an AoE gun since it's an obvious thing to exist and certainly showed up in PF1. Its mechanics might be completely different in detail, though.
That was more or less what I meant. The details are almost certainly going to be different, or why bother having a playtest? But the existence of some spread mechanic seems pretty likely.
As to the jury-rigged nature, that seems somewhat reminiscent of the Gunsmithing feat. Especially the part where you needed a craft check to fire (with the gun owner himself having a much lower DC). Not quite the same, but a similar idea as the feat gating of guns.
I devoutly hope that won't show up in even the playtest version of firearms, whenever that comes around, although it's a clever way to include a gun without truly including them in an early AP.
|
To throw a very strange and quite possibly smoking hat into the ring, what if The Thing that makes firearms different is something that reflects their in-setting rarity? Namely that they're ungodly loud, terrifying deathsticks that nobody outside Alkenstar is totally comfortable with yet. Basically nothing sounds like a gun going off, no matter what sorts of pyrotechnics the casters are chucking about, so maybe that could be a focus of the class, rather than shying away from it entirely.
I could see a lot more being done with the scary/unconventional side of this newfangled technology than we saw in PF1, simply because there's a lot more to mess around with skillswise in the newer edition. There certainly doesn't seem to be the wish for a return to the inconvenient-yet-powerful firearms of yore, so building the Gunslinger itself around what makes guns cool and weird while leaving them a little lower-power might work? Maybe?
Whether though Swash-style panache-grit or whatever, this has the boon of neatly sidestepping the noise issue by acknowledging and exploiting it for fun and profit. Sure, it's not a stealth weapon, but it sure as hell could be an ambush/disorientation weapon that's especially effective coming OUT of stealth. There could also be the opportunity to exploit a gun's uniquely (if not perfectly) point-and-click nature through called-shot debuffing attacks and trickshots. Speaking of tricks, there's probably a lot to be said about the ability to bluff like mad if you're the only person in the room who knows the limits of your boomstick.
Knowing how to mix gunpowder on the fly is also pretty significant. Nothing wrong with chucking a handful into the enemy evoker's dumb, flammable face, right?
I have no idea if any of this is good or practical, and it definitely seems unlikely. Just... maybe treating the infernal things like any other weapon when it comes to damage would work best if we highlighted exactly what makes them so very different in the narrative.
Anyway, that's me off to hibernate for another eternity. Nice seeing you all!
Personal opinion on shotguns (and this is what I did for the Victoriana adventure I'm slowly building) is to make them deal more damage when you're at close range, and have them count as splash damage for triggering weaknesses/resistances. I gave them a quality called Point Blank which ups the die size when within 10 feet, which allowed me to make them simple weapons without feeling like they're overpowered compared to other options. Still need to playtest them, but that requires me finishing the basic adventure I've been distracted from.
Edit: And in case you're wondering why this is different from my previous comment on firearms, it's because I decided the other method was overly fiddly, not not nearly as intuitive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if guns rolled against Reflex save DC instead of AC?
That has the same concept as touch AC but it's a 2E mechanic.
Speaking about shotgun spreads, punt guns and what not, I don't think the intent is to create a realistic weapon, and I don't think the game stats should be based on realistic values.
I could see a shot gun doing a blast being like a cone effect an getting a reflex save. but for regular shots it doesn't fit. Dodging bullets makes less sense then shooting through armor.
I could see a shot gun doing a blast being like a cone effect an getting a reflex save. but for regular shots it doesn't fit. Dodging bullets makes less sense then shooting through armor.What if guns rolled against Reflex save DC instead of AC?
That has the same concept as touch AC but it's a 2E mechanic.
Speaking about shotgun spreads, punt guns and what not, I don't think the intent is to create a realistic weapon, and I don't think the game stats should be based on realistic values.
While true, dodging works against the shooter in the sense of making it more difficult to aim at the target. Especially at a distance, it can be very hard to hit a moving target (though this applies to all ranged attacks).
But since we don't have touch AC in PF2, a mechanic which completely removes armor from the AC calculation isn't acceptable. My suspicion is that it will go against full AC and have other attributes to make up for it.
I don't know what to expect honestly I just know I don't want it to be targeting touch or flat footed or anything weird like that.
One thing I really don't want to see is to have gunslingers have to pay a considerable price out of pocket every time they discharge their weapon. If we give them something like "infused reagents" every day that are good for ammunition and you have to pay beyond that, but guns in PF1 got really expensive to shoot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best thing I know to do is to make it take a long time to reload so you would basically be shooting once a round using all your actions and then the gunslinger class would make that work more seamlessly. The plus asise being you could load out of combat start combat take your one shot then swap weapons.
I do want the "I'm Blackbeard, and I carry a cutlass and six pistols, each of which I can fire once, and then reload out of combat" sort of character to be enabled by the rules.
Guns should be a little pricey so that you don't carry around like 30 of them but yeah that kind of thing I would be down with.
I do want the "I'm Blackbeard, and I carry a cutlass and six pistols, each of which I can fire once, and then reload out of combat" sort of character to be enabled by the rules.
I think that's going to possible unless guns are just made so stupidly expensive that only gunslingers can afford them.
The real question is what should gunslingers be able to do and be balanced against other martials.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They could be made Rare access, that way only Gunslingers can get them and the GM can still restrict how many they can get, rather than giving them an arbitrary high price.
A gunslinger that has a gun they build up and improve on as the adventure goes on is an interesting take, especially with how enchanted weapons work in this edition with Runes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They could be made Rare access, that way only Gunslingers can get them and the GM can still restrict how many they can get, rather than giving them an arbitrary high price.
A gunslinger that has a gun they build up and improve on as the adventure goes on is an interesting take, especially with how enchanted weapons work in this edition with Runes.
Kind of like the D&D 3.0 samurai and his Daimyo swords.
Guns should be a little pricey so that you don't carry around like 30 of them but yeah that kind of thing I would be down with.
Being a bit pricey only stops you at low levels and makes weird situations in which pawning your starting gear is preferable. At high levels the enhancement prices will make you stop from doing it.
I think Bulk and being Advanced Uncommon will handle the issue more appropriately.Humbly,
Yawar
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there has to be a rule about penetrating armor, you could have a quality called "penetrating." It could be something like gaining a bonus against targets wearing manufactured non-magical armor equal to their armor bonus (or more simply non-magical armor doesn't count towards their AC). Though this quality the way I have it would be completely worthless against magical armor or anything else that doesn't wear armor, regardless if your weapon is magical or not. So in this way it's kinda like targeting flat-footed armor in PF1, but very watered down.
I also remember in d20 modern that armor piercing rounds gains you a +2 bonus against armored targets, such as a target wearing Kevlar.
This is just a first draft idea. I'm sure it can be greatly improved upon, if that's the direction they want to take firearms.
A simple penetrating that gives +1 or 2 vrs armor isn't a terrible way of going about it.
Of course I always felt like the penetration of bullets was countered out by how inaccurate early forearms were. Which is why I wouldn't say a flat +1 to hit but rather just vrs armor.
A simple penetrating that gives +1 or 2 vrs armor isn't a terrible way of going about it.
Something like a +2 circumstance bonus in the first range increment?
Humbly,
Yawar
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both ideals aren't bad. I would lean more towards +1 but it will have to depend on what the finished weapon looks like. (+2 seems like such a substantial bonus now a days.)
It could be something like gaining a bonus against targets wearing manufactured non-magical armor equal to their armor bonusHow do you tell which monsters have protective exterior armor?
It could be roughly determined from the monsters' AC and reflex saves. Your AC is 10 plus your level plus your armor's AC bonus plus your proficiency with your armor plus your dexterity modifier. Take out the armor's AC bonus and you have 10 + level + dex mod + armor proficiency. If we assume that a monster's armor proficiency is roughly equal to its proficiency at reflex saves, then that's basically the same thing.
Add 10 a monster's reflex save modifier. If that number is greater than the monster's AC, then the difference is (again, roughly) how much benefit the monster is getting from whatever armor it has.
Not saying I like the idea of armor-piercing bullets, but it's feasible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like anything that interacts directly with armor conceptually is just going to head back into the weirdness that we had in PF1.
PF2 has tried pretty hard to make AC just AC... monsters don't even have concepts like item bonus vs dex bonus going on, they just have a listed AC, so a rule like that would require a lot of off the cuff GM arbitration, which feels like a weird thing to bake into something as fundamental as an attack roll.
I feel like firearms should just make attacks against AC.
It could be something like gaining a bonus against targets wearing manufactured non-magical armor equal to their armor bonusHow do you tell which monsters have protective exterior armor?
Maybe it's more of a GM discretion thing. In the section for firearms, it could have an optional rule in the sidebar like: "to better simulate the penetrating power of a firearm, at the GM's discretion, attacks with firearms gain a +1 bonus against targets wearing manufactured armor." Maybe it would have something about the GM deciding whom is wearing armor or not.
I suspect any 'improved penetration versus armor' idea will run headlong into the issue of the benefit vs. complexity and lose. I suspect that in that case they'd just give a flat bonus to attack rolls or the like instead, but I could easily be wrong. I just know that I'd disallow guns if they were too complex compared to other weapons.
While I don't recall early firearms being noted for being particularly accurate, I think it's probably best to model it as their ability to puncture armor/flesh. Mainly for the sake of simplicity when designing their weapon trait. More accurate firearms can simply have more range.
The best way I think the armor piercing/puncture/penetrating trait can work is by granting a +1 bonus on attack rolls and ignoring AC bonuses granted by anyone raising their shields.
Other traits that make sense are deadly/fatal, and I don't think anyone wants to see it return but a misfire trait, too.
I think this works best overall and gives it a good "gun feel" without going overboard, like in PF1.
Edit: maybe ignoring raised shield bonus might be a bit too powerful now that I think of it. Mainly at the PCs expense.
While I don't recall early firearms being noted for being particularly accurate, I think it's probably best to model it as their ability to puncture armor/flesh. Mainly for the sake of simplicity when designing their weapon trait. More accurate firearms can simply have more range.
The best way I think the armor piercing/puncture/penetrating trait can work is by granting a +1 bonus on attack rolls and ignoring AC bonuses granted by anyone raising their shields.
Other traits that make sense are deadly/fatal, and I don't think anyone wants to see it return but a misfire trait, too.
I think this works best overall and gives it a good "gun feel" without going overboard, like in PF1.
Edit: maybe ignoring raised shield bonus might be a bit too powerful now that I think of it. Mainly at the PCs expense.
I think ignoring shield bonus seems odd but potentially interesting idea with the idea you have less time to use the shield and potentially some cases it may penetrate the shield?
It however then makes a primary benefit only apply to a select group of users utilizing shields, when I'm not certain that is thematically aligning with story-wise why people would choose firearms.
And you are wrong about the idea that no-one would want to see misfires come back. They are iconic with respect to past gun implementations, as well as even other fiction reflecting early firearms.
Note, I say I'm looking forward to misfires, I want to make it clear misfire does not equal gun exploding. Guns exploding should generally be very rare, and wouldn't even need to be a part of the core rules as far as I'm concerned, but would be ok in core rules if it was limited to using guns that are in known poor/damaged condition.
I agree that early firearms weren't known for being especially accurate, although some early firearm users were supposedly able to get pretty good with their weapons. I certainly find the idea of giving an early firearm an across the board accuracy bonus seems counter-intuitive or contrary to flavor. I'd considered reducing the DR of attacks, but then found the idea of a gun bypassing or reducing the DR of an attack against a skeleton kind of counter-intuitive, based on what it reflected. I'd considered bypassing some DR, but only on critical hits as an option. In retrospect, something I don't think I'd considered was rather than bypassing or reducing Resistance, it might work to have it reduce Hardness on objects. But primarily it would only make guns good at piercing shield blocks and attacking unattended objects, which I'm not certain should be their niche, as I mentioned above. I wonder if making a flat DC15 to halve Physical resistances might be an interesting dynamic?
To bring up something frequently talked about as a way of reigning in guns, by making firearms advanced weapons, it would in effect make them tend to be inaccurate, as attackers would tend to be one or more ranks less skilled. However, that makes it seem like it is less that the weapon is inaccurate as people find it harder to use. And as pointed out, historically, they were pretty simple to point and shoot. (I think the loading part was the primary part that might have been tricky) So really, firing them in the most basic sense seems like it needn't be any more complicated than a simple crossbow. And having them be Advanced, creates the situation where someone picks an advanced weapon to get martial progression and suddenly the weapon is as accurate as all the other accurate weapons. I'm not certainly I therefore like the idea of guns being considered Advanced weapons from a proficiency standpoint.
That is pretty much the idea I was going with when ignoring shield bonuses, like not raising it fast enough and mainly penetrating it, as you said. Maybe instead of ignoring it, it could just be an additional +1 bonus to counteract some of the bonus. I would not be against the idea of dropping this part altogether.
I was thinking mainly the +1 bonus would just apply to opponents wearing manufactured armor instead of a flat bonus. There's a good chance you won't be seeing any of these bonuses in later encounters since most encounters aren't against armored people, though.
I wanted to future proof the trait to just give a +1 bonus instead of giving different values depending on the weapon (penetration 1, penetration 2 etc.). Advanced weapons would simply have better statistics than early weapons, such as range, for example, while still keeping the bonus at only +1.
I'm really not fond of ignoring damage resistances. I don't really like the idea that, for example, someone can pick up a gun and ignore a vampire's physical resistance. It just kinda cheapens the value of even having that resistance in the first place and doesn't provide a benefit against anything else that doesn't have it. It also doesn't set a good precedent, because maybe since guns ignore some resistance then what about other weapons in the future ignoring resistance?
When I mentioned misfire, I pretty much only had exploding guns in mind.
I'm also not too sure what category of weapon they should be in. Simple sounds fine but again idk. Never gave it much thought, lol.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Misfire should be there. It's always been a problem with guns, and still is today.
I don't see how it's any more of a problem than swords getting dull or bowstrings snapping, two other real-world weapon malfunctions that the rules of the game completely ignore.
If misfires exist in any capacity (and I don't think they should), they should be only be a factor when the person using the firearm is untrained with them. If someone builds their character to use guns, their guns shouldn't randomly break in their hands. As I've pointed out before, casters no longer have to make concentration checks to see if they randomly loose their spells. The same courtesy should be applied to firearms.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very much on the side of "gun misfires aren't, y'know, fun". I'm sure there are ways to make them fun, going back to the "ungodly loud terrifying deathsticks" idea, but Snes is right that it's a weird weapon to make an exception for.
I guess we could always go back to Fumble tables if we wanted to make it both fair and spicy...
I would make misfires an optional rule or something. Even then it would be rare for it to happen.
Any thoughts about how I would handle firearms in my earlier posts? As in, if they made them and that's pretty much what they looked like, hypothetically.
IMO swords and bows failing should be in the game as a core mechanic (some other RPGs have had it) and the loot system adjusted to take that into account. Shields breaking is present (but PF2 messed up by not allowing for this in the loot-by-level guidelines).
Yes, and a great many people don't care for it in the games it's included in.
One of my least favorite things about Breath of the Wild is weapons breaking. I basically always go get the Master Sword ASAP and only use it when possible, avoiding fights if it breaks temporarily.
In Fallout New Vegas I avoided durability as much as I could by getting the jury-rigging perk that let you repair your items with another item that was the same category (basically pistols could repair pistols, longarm other longarms, etc while the default was that you could only repair an item with another of the exact same item).
While some people may enjoy that sort of thing, many people do not. And if we don't have it for everything (all weapons and armor) we shouldn't have it for firearms either. Shields are already one of the most maligned items in game because of their functionality, breaking, and loss of wealth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fallout is broken, you start with great armor and then spend the game looking for batteries.
If the system is in the core design, it can be gated behind a feature toggle (on/off).
You don't have to use it, as long as the game is designed to allow it to be turned on an off.
In PF2's case, it was put in for some items and not others, and there was no toggle to adjust the game to match.
That's Fallout 4, which is...unique in terms of how weapons and armor function.
They gave you power armor early on, but because power armor is insanely powerful yes they force you to use batteries so that you can't use it all the time. This was another mechanic I hated, and it doesn't even make sense. All the other version of power armor in other games had fusion cells that lasted hundreds of years. Power armor only work for 5 minutes was purely because the option is broken (at low levels) if you can use it all the time. In previous games it was balanced by being very hard to get training in, and without training you couldn't even use it.
Weapons and armor don't degrade otherwise in Fallout 4, though they did in Fallout 1/2/3/New Vegas.
Fallout 4 also featured the ability to customize your weapons to increase damage.
Which is something I wish Starfinder did, even if it was just narratively. Instead of having differing version of the same weapon at different levels, just have it be one weapon. You spend money either tweaking it yourself or paying someone else to do it to increase the damage (and maybe otherwise customize it).