Firearms Design impressions


Gunslinger Class

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm genuinely curious what an advanced firearm is going to look like, and whether that would be worth taking the -2 accuracy penalty compared to a simple or martial one. Perhaps the final class will, like the fighter, have a feat to patch this.

Advanced weapons generally aren't enough better than martial ones to justify that accuracy hit, at least in terms of "what weapons people are willing to use."

I would like to see an introduction to the more refined "advanced" firearms I want at the very least. Magazine or wheel fed guns, preferably ones that use jacketed rounds.

I just hate the idea of a "gunslinger" who uses a flintlock. That era of firearms just doesn't fit that image imo. Weapons of that era were probably only fired once in a given battle, at least until you get to solid blocks of infantry and multi-line engagements like the Civil War or virtually any battle the British military fought up to that point with rifles. But they got around the reload with sheer numbers: 3 or so ranks of men multiply the number of shots you can put down range by 3.

Usually they'd dump their loaded shot, then charge with bayonet or saber. Or they'd be used as skirmishers/light cavalry called dragoons who rode in and decimated a flank before riding off and reloading. Look at the Muskateers of France for the "common" use, again until the British started using blocks of musket-men.

Nobody wants to reload a muzzle loader in combat if they can avoid it.

We are also missing the ability to create a Revolutionary war era bayonet infantryman, since we don't currently have bayonets. That will probably come with time though.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm genuinely curious what an advanced firearm is going to look like, and whether that would be worth taking the -2 accuracy penalty compared to a simple or martial one. Perhaps the final class will, like the fighter, have a feat to patch this.

Advanced weapons generally aren't enough better than martial ones to justify that accuracy hit, at least in terms of "what weapons people are willing to use."

I don't think I've ever actually seen anyone use an advanced weapon without a feat that transforms it into martial proficiency. I mean in theory fighters could do it, but almost always you need that feat to get access to it anyway.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber

I'm worried about the low weapon damage die especially at high levels and runes come into play


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah I've never seen someone just use an advanced weapon. Even if access isn't a problem, advanced weapons just aren't good enough to justify the accuracy penalty fighters have. -2 to hit for one weapon trait or +1 damage/die is just a bad trade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once a combat, is about right for how much I'd like gunslingers to use their firearms. At least until mid-levels or so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
Once a combat, is about right for how much I'd like gunslingers to use their firearms. At least until mid-levels or so.

Is that from a conceptual stand point, or from a balance stand point? Because that is NOT reasonable with how the guns are currently balanced imo. They'd need a few extra dice of damage as a baseline to be in the, "once per battle is enough," category imo.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, I'd be okay with skipping ahead to advanced firearms being the norm. Not really keen on the balancing headache of starting with flintlocks. Like, how many people who are okay with guns in their games are not okay with a little more modern weaponry with fewer headaches?

Balance them right and make sure the Uncommon tag stays on and it's unlikely it be a huge problem right? Also, everyone who is imagining a gunslinger is already imagining a six shooter.

It would make my life easier when converting Starfinder stuff over anyhow...

Dark Archive

RE: Advanced Firearms - Don't forget, since we just advanced time and didn't do a lot of retcon from PF1, there's several battalions worth of WWII era soviet firearms and ammo still floating around in the north somewhere.

Also Thark Rifle


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

Personally, I'd be okay with skipping ahead to advanced firearms being the norm. Not really keen on the balancing headache of starting with flintlocks. Like, how many people who are okay with guns in their games are not okay with a little more modern weaponry with fewer headaches?

Balance them right and make sure the Uncommon tag stays on and it's unlikely it be a huge problem right? Also, everyone who is imagining a gunslinger is already imagining a six shooter.

It would make my life easier when converting Starfinder stuff over anyhow...

That would also open up the Advanced design space for other weapons that are even more interesting.

An Alchemical Blunderbuss that fires reagents that mix literally on the fly to create an unstable reaction.

A "silenced" rifle that fires a less damaging sub sonic round, but makes no noise and doesn't make you automatically observed after an attack.

A Magically enhanced pistol that allows a spellcaster to imbue a normal bullet with a spell similar to the Eldritch Archer. They could be called something snazzy. Like Magelocks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another issue that just occurred to a buddy of mine:

There is currently no prohibition against using Firearms under water, or near an open flame. We don't have any guidance on how any of that works.

Sure, realistically, wet powder won't burn correctly, and will ignite in say a raging fire. But what does that look like in game?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Firearms might need a new weapon trait to replace versatile (and a trait I see downvalued somehow in this thread) with something like:
"Optimal B" this weapon deals B damage if it would deal more than normal for its type (P).
if the image of skeletons does not help, then try shooting some certain oozes.

And I just dislike all the hate on flintlock, some do really love em, just imagine a pistolero as a cavalier

I guess advanced weapons will be advanced proficiency.

I really like the lethal rules on them.

Just messed around at todays table and will have a real testing next week


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
beowulf99 wrote:

All of that I believe was regarding why the Arquebus and Dueling Pistol are listed as "Level 1" in their entry on the table. This prevents an Inventor from making their innovation either one, since they are not "Level-0" weapon. Nothing stopping them from making a Blunderbuss though.

Boomstick approves.

While I can see you were originally responding about the level 1 guns, the comment of yours I responded to was about an Inventor making a Flintlock, neither of which have a level.

beowulf99 wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
The fact that two of the guns have (1st level) next to them kind of implies that there are other non-1st level versions of those guns. Unless I'm reading way too much into it.

It sorta does, but it could also just be there to prevent an Inventor from making a Flintlock out of their contraption, since it has to be, "a level-0 common simple or martial weapon of your choice."

Time will tell.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:

All of that I believe was regarding why the Arquebus and Dueling Pistol are listed as "Level 1" in their entry on the table. This prevents an Inventor from making their innovation either one, since they are not "Level-0" weapon. Nothing stopping them from making a Blunderbuss though.

Boomstick approves.

The comment of yours I responded to was about an Inventor making a Flintlock, neither of which have a level.

beowulf99 wrote:
Bardarok wrote:
The fact that two of the guns have (1st level) next to them kind of implies that there are other non-1st level versions of those guns. Unless I'm reading way too much into it.

It sorta does, but it could also just be there to prevent an Inventor from making a Flintlock out of their contraption, since it has to be, "a level-0 common simple or martial weapon of your choice."

Time will tell.

I realized my error after the fact, but it was too late to edit. For some reason I had thought you were talking about the Arquebus and Dueling pistol specifically. My bad.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Ah. That makes sense then.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
Did you play with firearms in first edition?
But that's beyond the point really. This isn't 1st ed, and the world has changed a bit.
The versatile B is a holdover from when guns did P and B damage.

Very much this. There's actually a survey question where we talk about this, as it was a point of discussion among the design team.

A bullet deals both bludgeoning and piercing damage as the game understands it; it would be very weird if shooting a skeleton in the skull was less effective than hitting it with a club. But PF2 also doesn't support a weapon simultaneously dealing two damage types unless we split the damage types out, and base weapons still need to measure their damage in single-die increments, so we decided to keep versatile as the closest approximation to the functionality of a firearm. There are other options that we explore in the survey and talked about among ourselves, like just having separate piercing and bludgeoning ammo types, but I worried that was a level of fiddly and unnecessary that would make the game experience less enjoyable for players by giving them two different pools of ammo to manage and also kind of ignoring the way guns actually work (bludgeoning damage concentrated to a small enough point that it has a piercing effect).

So versatile B isn't perfect and we know that, which is why we ask about it in the survey, but it's the closest we could get to properly embodying the story of a bullet leading up to this playtest.

Perhaps a new trait, Penetrating (or something), it deals Bludgeoning but will switch to Piecing in a more advantageous situation, rather than the player having to decide what their bullets are doing.

Edit: ah, I see Laki already suggested a similar idea.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Laki7z wrote:

Firearms might need a new weapon trait to replace versatile (and a trait I see downvalued somehow in this thread) with something like:

"Optimal B" this weapon deals B damage if it would deal more than normal for its type (P).
if the image of skeletons does not help, then try shooting some certain oozes.

And I just dislike all the hate on flintlock, some do really love em, just imagine a pistolero as a cavalier

I guess advanced weapons will be advanced proficiency.

I really like the lethal rules on them.

Just messed around at todays table and will have a real testing next week

I like Optimal (P,S or B depending on...lots of...things) as a trait concept. Not just for guns either.


WatersLethe wrote:

Personally, I'd be okay with skipping ahead to advanced firearms being the norm. Not really keen on the balancing headache of starting with flintlocks. Like, how many people who are okay with guns in their games are not okay with a little more modern weaponry with fewer headaches?

Balance them right and make sure the Uncommon tag stays on and it's unlikely it be a huge problem right?

Hmm, yes, I like this. Although no necessity to skip ahead, but perhaps supply both for greater range of concepts.

WatersLethe wrote:

Also, everyone who is imagining a gunslinger is already imagining a six shooter.

Well, admittedly it is hard to remove the six-shooting concept out of my head, but for those of us who have watched or read a lot of Sharpe, Revolutionary War stuff, played Pirates back in the day or a whole scad of flintlock TV (ach..Dick Turpin...so bad it’s just...bad) then flintlock and gunnes are where we are at. And for those invested in it, it kinda fits parts of Golarion. While lazor gunz fits others.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It feels like Firearms are balanced against Crossbows which feels bad since crossbows suck pretty heavily. I like the fatal trait but it honestly doesnt seem like enough. Balancing the simple firearms against crossbows seems fine but the martial ones probably should be balanced against bows which they currently are not.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Dubious Scholar wrote:
Actually, since a hand cannon is thematically changing damage type by what you load into it, I don't think Modular is appropriate. There's no reason loading ammo for a different damage type for my next shot should take an additional action.

One might make the argument that the action to change damage types represents you switching around your pouches of ammo so that the chosen type is easily available. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a "Modular reload" trait that lets you switch damage types like modular does, but when you reload instead of as a separate action


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
RexAliquid wrote:
Did you play with firearms in first edition?
But that's beyond the point really. This isn't 1st ed, and the world has changed a bit.
The versatile B is a holdover from when guns did P and B damage.

Very much this. There's actually a survey question where we talk about this, as it was a point of discussion among the design team.

A bullet deals both bludgeoning and piercing damage as the game understands it; it would be very weird if shooting a skeleton in the skull was less effective than hitting it with a club. But PF2 also doesn't support a weapon simultaneously dealing two damage types unless we split the damage types out, and base weapons still need to measure their damage in single-die increments, so we decided to keep versatile as the closest approximation to the functionality of a firearm. There are other options that we explore in the survey and talked about among ourselves, like just having separate piercing and bludgeoning ammo types, but I worried that was a level of fiddly and unnecessary that would make the game experience less enjoyable for players by giving them two different pools of ammo to manage and also kind of ignoring the way guns actually work (bludgeoning damage concentrated to a small enough point that it has a piercing effect).

So versatile B isn't perfect and we know that, which is why we ask about it in the survey, but it's the closest we could get to properly embodying the story of a bullet leading up to this playtest.

Wouldn't a new keywork be appropriate under these circumstances? Something like:

Fallback:
If the target of a Fallback weapon is resistant or immune to the type of damage listed in its Damage entry it can deal a different type of damage than listed. This trait indicates the alternate damage type. For instance, a piercing weapon that is Fallback B will deal bludgeoning damage if the target is resistant to piercing damage. If the target is resistant to both damage types use the least resisted.

When a rouge swings their shortsword they are choosing to swing or stab with their weapon so versatile makes sense, in contrast, a gunslinger isn't choosing to shoot in a 'Bludgeoning' manner against a skeleton.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
graystone wrote:
Yeah... a single bullet might break a single bone while a club could crush several because it hits a MUCH larger area. I'm with you on this.
That's actually why firearms have lower base damage dice but high damage dice criticals through fatal. I've got a fun bullet scar on my hip that was more annoying than anything else when I got it, my uncle has a bullet in his rump Forrest Gump Style and a scar on the bridge of his nose from a bullet deflecting off his rifle scope, etc. (I come from a military family where the majority of the last four generations have served). But if those bullets had been an inch to one side or the other, most of them would have been far more serious injuries (had a few of those in the family, as well).

Wouldn’t that be true of any weapon though? A glancing blow with a dagger might just leave a scratch vs a well placed stab would be far more serious. Why would a scratch from a bullet do less damage than a scratch from an arrow or sword?


Michael Sayre wrote:
graystone wrote:
Yeah... a single bullet might break a single bone while a club could crush several because it hits a MUCH larger area. I'm with you on this.
That's actually why firearms have lower base damage dice but high damage dice criticals through fatal. I've got a fun bullet scar on my hip that was more annoying than anything else when I got it, my uncle has a bullet in his rump Forrest Gump Style and a scar on the bridge of his nose from a bullet deflecting off his rifle scope, etc. (I come from a military family where the majority of the last four generations have served). But if those bullets had been an inch to one side or the other, most of them would have been far more serious injuries (had a few of those in the family, as well).

This is actually why I can accept the damage as is, especially considering balance issues. However, the range of some of the weapons is horrible. The Arquebus for example when originally put to use was considered deadly out to 400 yards, as opposed to the english longbow which came close at 350 yards. Obviously we cannot use the Reas ranges but some of the long guns should have their ranges bumped.


I think the skeleton head example fails because you could use the same argument for most every piercing or slashing weapon. I'd say that's a crit. How would the weapon traditionally do vs. the ribcage? A lot of piercing and slashing goes in between (except the big stuff which is doing big enough damage to get past Resistance).
I'd put bullets firmly in the piercing category.

That said, alternate blunt bullets seem reasonable, perhaps losing Fatal though. And maybe gaining a crit effect that knocks them away or prone.
And what about slashing flechette rounds? AoE rounds?
Or boxing glove bullets for nonlethal! (okay, maybe magical nonlethal)

----

As for advanced firearms, why would they need to advance along the same technology path as Earth's?
If there are hiccups and issues with black powder or paper cartridges (et al), we/Paizo/Golarion inventors can substitute something that fulfills the same role yet lacks the drawbacks. (Without resorting to modern bullets.)
Maybe there are alchemical "boomballs"* that do the exact same thing except don't roll out of your gun, do work underwater, and can be reloaded fast enough for mechanical balance. Done.
What are the mechanical needs? Figure them out, slap a zingy alchemical name on them and we're good to go.**

*boombolts? ball bullets? what shape or texture would suit? (or smell?)
** This would also help with some of the cartoon-y/anime issues. Who's to say "boomballs" can't do these things? They aren't bullets, nor based on chemistry. They're game devices for some fun boom-boom action!

---
Dennis McKiernan (I think it was him) put firearms into a fantasy setting. There were many varieties of weapons, often tied to the user's Ancestry, i.e. Dwarves had lots of launched, risky explosives. The flavor didn't detract from the fantasy since gunpowder technology was woven into the world (rather than mirroring Earth). And it was dubious, leaving plenty of room for good ol' bows & blades.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Castilliano wrote:

Or boxing glove bullets for nonlethal! (okay, maybe magical nonlethal)

I like how you went with boxing glove bullets despite rubber bullets being a thing


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

Or boxing glove bullets for nonlethal! (okay, maybe magical nonlethal)

I like how you went with boxing glove bullets despite rubber bullets being a thing

It fits with looney toons physics of some of the other things in this playtest. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First impression of guns is I very much dislike it. Being crit fishing weapons with low damage means they are only good for fighters and gunslingers. Black powder weapons were one shot then engage in melee most of the time type weapons. There's no fantasy of fast firing black powder weapons, the iconic get around is the brace of 6+ pistols.
Firearms have always had two things going for them, relative ease of use and lethality.
So making them low lethality except when used by the most skilled (legendary proficiency) classes, is the opposite of what fire arms are.
I would prefer high damage and long reloads, make a trait that allows multiple dice for base damage and every time something adds a die you add your base damage with the weapon.
If we had lever rifles and six shooters then I think these rules could work better, would still need work though to make these weapons viable for other classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Castilliano I'd be generally fine with an in house made firearm system that just worked differently from reality. A good example from the TTRPG/TTWG space is Iron Kingdoms. In that world instead of standard black powder, they have a two powder system. So their shells have 2 compartments that a pin pierces to mix the powders. Muzzle loaded versions of their weapons use 2 bags of powder. It's neat and consistent.

I'm fine with that. But that is not the direction that Paizo has taken their firearms in. For all intents and purposes black powder on Golarion seems to operate exactly as black powder on earth does, as do the presented firearms. And that is a problem for me with the 3 action, 6 second round.

I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for a lot of things. Feats allow characters to perform actions that are incredible, even at low levels. But the inclusion of muzzle loaded firearms that can be fired at a modern firearm rate just bugs me, because it doesn't require a feat, it doesn't require anything.

A level 0 commoner in Pathfinder 2 is automatically the most proficient reloader of muzzle loaded firearms who ever lived. For reference, this is a Fast reload on a muzzle loader. And virtually anyone who picks up a flintlock musket on Golarion is orders of magnitude faster than that.

The 3 action system needs faster working firearms to make sense.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Different" guns would great, could fix a lot of the issues with firearms - fitting in the system with thr action system, reloading issues brought up elsewhere, etc. Might be tough to top Iron Kingdoms, but let's see what they got.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Is the "how long it takes to load historical firearms" really that different from "how long it takes to load historical crossbows"? Like being able to load, aim, and fire a heavy crossbow every 6 seconds would be pretty implausible by realistic standards (Realistically it would be closer to "3 rounds per shot").


I've never been a fan of crossbows to be completely honest with you. But thats a whole different topic.

And there is a key difference between the two weapons anyway. A modern crossbow largely operates the same as a classical one. Sure there are many design improvements, windlass systems, compound systems etc... that make reloading a crossbow faster and more efficient. But besides a few obscure repeating crossbows through history, nothing like the huge improvements in firearms technology.

And improved firearms are not that far removed from flintlock muskets in the grand scheme of things. We have an inventor class that can create magnetic fields and harness electricity, but nobody figured out cased shells? Breach loading?

I don't want to see flintlocks go away. Make them all simple, buff their damage and make them reload 3 and cheap. Then put more advanced firearms into the martial space.

Even at reload 3, you are still looking at a world class reload, but its far more acceptable to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
beowulf99 wrote:

but nobody figured out cased shells? Breach loading?

I mean, those do exist in Pathfinder. They're just not in the playtest. The question is more whether that's a conscious decision to de-emphasize those kinds of firearms or if we'll see more stuff down the road.


I think that the designer mentioned owning several pistols and having them on a bandolier could solve some of the "single" use/reloading issues that have been mentioned. I don't know how fun that'd be, but I saw it posted elsewhere.

Furthermore, I think that the firearm damage is solid. I think if it was higher it could lend itself to creating a meta of non-GS'ers adopting firearms. I think the "fix" though for the damage is making more feats centric to firearms or increasing damage through feats. Something like megaton strike in the inventor which essentially doubles damage. Thoughts?


Squiggit wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:

but nobody figured out cased shells? Breach loading?

I mean, those do exist in Pathfinder. They're just not in the playtest. The question is more whether that's a conscious decision to de-emphasize those kinds of firearms or if we'll see more stuff down the road.

We probably will, that I have no doubt. But I'm afraid that anything magazine or wheel fed will pay for it by being made advanced, making them less accurate overall than a flintlock, simply due to a label.

Or if alternatively we get revolvers as martial or simple weapons, and they are on par damage wise with a flintlock just with an ammo capacity, then that begs the question: why start with flintlocks in the first place?

But that doesn't solve my initial complaint really. Reload 1 is just too fast out of the box for a flintlock.

Scarab Sages

Cased shells and breach loading don't exist yet, the playtest has all the 2e guns. Further, with the Flintlock being Reload 1 it doesn't leave a lot of space for other types of guns.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Cased shells and breach loading don't exist yet, the playtest has all the 2e guns.

That is not true.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder canonically has a belt fed 7.62×54mmR heavy machine gun and laser cannons. We're just not getting rules for them in this playtest.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We don't know if we are getting revolvers or other 1e "advanced firearms" in 2e, but we definitely know these aren't all the firearms in guns & gears, we don't have stat for the gunblade mentioned in shop blurb for example ;D


beowulf99 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:

but nobody figured out cased shells? Breach loading?

I mean, those do exist in Pathfinder. They're just not in the playtest. The question is more whether that's a conscious decision to de-emphasize those kinds of firearms or if we'll see more stuff down the road.

We probably will, that I have no doubt. But I'm afraid that anything magazine or wheel fed will pay for it by being made advanced, making them less accurate overall than a flintlock, simply due to a label.

Or if alternatively we get revolvers as martial or simple weapons, and they are on par damage wise with a flintlock just with an ammo capacity, then that begs the question: why start with flintlocks in the first place?

But that doesn't solve my initial complaint really. Reload 1 is just too fast out of the box for a flintlock.

I doubt that advanced firearms will become Advanced weapons. It's more likely they will be Simple or Martial, and then have the Rare trait slapped onto them so GMs will decide if/when they can appear as treasure. PF1E contained the same advice with their various gus guns-in-campaign levels, only it wasn't wrapped up as neatly behind rarity tags, and advanced guns aren't more complicated to operate or use. If anything, they're simpler.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyhoo, on sidenote to those who think the guns aren't lethal enough:

Pretty much ALL weapons are extremely lethal if you are hit by them :P Guns are easier to use yeah, but if you get hit by arrows, your internal organs won't really like that either, you tend to die from that. You don't just shrug off being hit by sword or axe either.

Plus on game mechanic perspective making guns inherently more dangerous damage wise than normal weapons would just... Well, be kinda imbalanced, you couldn't have gunslinger in campaign that wasn't either all about guns or being more rocket taggy than normal campaign.

Maybe there is some in between answer that satisfies both, but yeah I do think its kinda mistake to go for the "guns have to be inherently more lethal than other weapons" route in game where people seemingly survive being shot with arrows several more times than they would in real life


Perpdepog wrote:
I doubt that advanced firearms will become Advanced weapons.

It's likely that "Advanced" firearms are going to be things like the aforementioned belt-fed machine gun, or a plasma cannon powered by energy crystals.

But if you handed someone on Golarion like a modern Remington Model 700, they should be able to manage if you supplied them with the ammunition. Ammunition is going to be the limiting reagent for a lot of firearms that break the tech curve, since you're not going to know how to handload since you don't have access to the right primers (even if you can reuse the cases).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Anyhoo, on sidenote to those who think the guns aren't lethal enough:

Most of the concerns I've seen have been more about mechanics than anything else. Remember, a bow can make two attacks for every one a gun makes (and has more opportunity to use Reaction based attacks).

The concern some people have is that the mechanics of firearms as is doesn't really make up for that action economy deficit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

People *have* made crossbow characters that work well enough. So "guns are weapons that require actions to reload them" is just something that we're going to have to deal with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

Personally, I'd be okay with skipping ahead to advanced firearms being the norm. Not really keen on the balancing headache of starting with flintlocks. Like, how many people who are okay with guns in their games are not okay with a little more modern weaponry with fewer headaches?

Balance them right and make sure the Uncommon tag stays on and it's unlikely it be a huge problem right? Also, everyone who is imagining a gunslinger is already imagining a six shooter.

It would make my life easier when converting Starfinder stuff over anyhow...

That would also open up the Advanced design space for other weapons that are even more interesting.

An Alchemical Blunderbuss that fires reagents that mix literally on the fly to create an unstable reaction.

A "silenced" rifle that fires a less damaging sub sonic round, but makes no noise and doesn't make you automatically observed after an attack.

A Magically enhanced pistol that allows a spellcaster to imbue a normal bullet with a spell similar to the Eldritch Archer. They could be called something snazzy. Like Magelocks.

And to think we just finished adapting the Iron Kingdoms Gun Mage to Pathfinder 2


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
People *have* made crossbow characters that work well enough. So "guns are weapons that require actions to reload them" is just something that we're going to have to deal with.

The only notable crossbow build is the precision Ranger, which uses a specific Edge option that rewards one big attack alongside a very specific selection of class feats.

For everyone else, the crossbow is a garbage weapon.

And given that we are considering an entire class that wants to be able to use these weapons with some degree of flexibility and mobility, including dual-wielding and getting into close quarters, they'll need to be better to be usable without extra free damage dice from a class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
feelsbradman wrote:
I think that the designer mentioned owning several pistols and having them on a bandolier could solve some of the "single" use/reloading issues that have been mentioned. I don't know how fun that'd be, but I saw it posted elsewhere.

While it seems like a cool idea, it's pretty much unworkable. You have to pay a huge upfront cost to buy all these guns, and you'll start falling behind from level 3 because you cannot use doubling rings with such a set up unless you get a pair of doubling rings (and therefore spend an invest slot) for each pistol, which is again a huge upfront cost.

Dark Archive

Squiggit wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Anyhoo, on sidenote to those who think the guns aren't lethal enough:

Most of the concerns I've seen have been more about mechanics than anything else. Remember, a bow can make two attacks for every one a gun makes (and has more opportunity to use Reaction based attacks).

The concern some people have is that the mechanics of firearms as is doesn't really make up for that action economy deficit.

Still don't see that as big deal because attacking with three times with bow, the third attack doesn't usually hit anyway. Or isn't made in first place because players are more likely to use one of class special

2-action actions rather than shoot three times.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Which still has to face the issue that while an archer is making two attacks per turn (with about a 60% and 35% hit rate for those attacks), a gunslinger is realistically only making one.

So a gun needs to be dealing a LOT more damage than a bow to compensate.

Dark Archive

There is gunslinger feat for shooting at same time while reloading though so I think two shots per turn is still plausible even with use of 2-action actions, its not like ranged characters need to move as much anyway

And that isn't taking in account possibility of rarer guns that have higher capacity before needing the reload. If base flintlocks are stronger than average weapon to compensate for the reload, then the revolvers and such would be pretty op considering you'd need to reload them after like six shots

Also there is one other thing that argument isn't taking in account: If guns would need to have higher damage to compensate for likely only shooting once per round, then there is an issue when wizard shoots target once, hits and deals damage equal to either two or three crossbow bolts hitting. And that is before wizard spams the electric arc ;P Compare that then to fighter and gunslinger doing same and critting.

Also also, the scenario of "party of cleric, wizard, rogue and ranger all shoot once and each happens to hit". Since again, if single shot of gun would have higher damage than single shot of crossbow or bow... Well, yeah, normal character wouldn't be likely to hit all three or even two longbow shots, but its much more likely to hit once with your highest bonus.

Basically I think that if single gun shot would deal damage of major striking weapon, that'd be kinda silly when you make the gun to be a major striking weapon

(also to everyone who says that crossbows are garbage so why I keep bringing them up: even if I would agree with that assessment(eeeh, I don't think they are THAT bad in practice, they are just inefficient rather than actively making you worse), they aren't going to change crossbow rules at this point. So if guns are inherently better than crossbows damage wise, why would you make crossbow gunslinger assuming guns weren't banned in your campaign? :p)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly though it's the perfect time to redo crossbows. There's only a couple of them in the crb and an alchemical xbow in fall if plaguestone. Just make like 5-6 xbows with the rules you want and BAM you're done


A couple impressions of mine to add to the pile... If I'm totally off-base with these, lemme know.

I'm ok with the general balance of the firearms. They strike me as gimmicky but potentially dangerous for anyone that isn't a gunslinger, and legitimately dangerous when used by a gunslinger (once he's finished being balanced).

That said, I take issue with the blunderbuss. Compared to the musket, the extremely short range seems like a harsh penalty for the die increase, which would be okay except it is also stepped up into martial weapons. The extra 1 damage to secondary targets seems ineffective to me (as well as a liability to teammates), and the only feat that really affects the blunderbuss is pretty poor. I would personally move it to the "simple" category and let the range and damage difference balance each other out.

Regarding the dueling pistols, I find myself wondering who would ever use a flintlock pistol when these exist. Of course the martial weapons should be an upgrade, but in this case it's just drowning in improvements, far more than most martial weapons IMHO. Maybe let the flintlock pistol be used as a bludgeon or something since it's bulkier, I dunno.

Last I'll just speculate on the TBA advanced weapons. I would submit the following:

Revolver:
d4 P
20 ft.
Reload 3
Bulk 1
Hands 1

Fatal d8
Versatile B
Magazine 6

Clean and simple; it just uses the flintlock pistol stats but comes with the opportunity to fire several shots in a burst before reloading. Less accurate than a dueling pistol due to the advanced category, and it doesn't fit in many builds because of how many feats affect reload 1 weapons, but in my experience that is where advanced weapons shine.

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Guns and Gears Playtest / Gunslinger Class / Firearms Design impressions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.