It's still a martial fatal d12 weapon with a d8 base. Casters with their lower proficiencies aren't going to get much value from it since they're not going to be landing crits; the crossbow or longbow is still the better choice in such a case.
And the proposed Recoil can be offset with a tripod, just like Unsteady, which can enable two-attack sequences if you set up.
Unsteady requires you to commit actions before the shot no matter what you do. Recoil requires you to commit actions before the shot only if you want multiple shots; otherwise, it enables the flexibility and mobility that a sniper will often need.
Honestly, rather than getting rid of unsteady, I'd maybe just pop the base damage up a tier to d10 if we don't feel like its worth it at the moment. But I do think the tripod/bipod would ameliorate the need.
Has anyone mathed these out yet? I'd love to see a chart before I worry about any of the guns not being powerful enough.
Honestly, rather than getting rid of unsteady, I'd maybe just pop the base damage up a tier to d10 if we don't feel like its worth it at the moment. But I do think the tripod/bipod would ameliorate the need.
Has anyone mathed these out yet? I'd love to see a chart before I worry about any of the guns not being powerful enough.
I personally like the base die upping the best because it keeps the maximum from getting any bigger while raising the average.
Last night I Playtested Gunslinger and even dueling pistol crits are absolutely huge. They weren’t even that uncommon but that adventure had a lot of low ac enemies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw an alternate trait to Unsteady somewhere else in the forums which might help with the tuning: Recoil.
When firing a weapon with recoil, it counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty unless you take an action to stabilise it/set up a tripod first.
It means that snipers would have the option of making Strike/Running Reload/Hide sequences, or setting up properly if they want multiple shots to really bring the damage.
Definitely the most elegant solution proposed, so far.
I agree with sniper trait adding precision damage (however much that should be) if it encourages one large shot per round. Maybe tune it like power attack?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the easiest way to balance it as-is is to just combine the aiming and setting up a tripod: As an action, you can make an Interact action to set up the tripod and you negate the unsteady penalties until you move. Make adjusting your grip and taking out the tripod part of the Interact action and you're golden.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...the latter is a simple weapon while the former is martial, so the Arquebus should just straight up be stronger.
Respectfully, I disagree. For the most part, martial weapons (and even advanced weapons) aren't stronger. They simply have more weapon traits generally, which don't make them stronger, merely more versatile.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...the latter is a simple weapon while the former is martial, so the Arquebus should just straight up be stronger.Respectfully, I disagree. For the most part, martial weapons (and even advanced weapons) aren't stronger. They simply have more weapon traits generally, which don't make them stronger, merely more versatile.
While the power scale isn't exactly always direct, it's been said (I think it was Mark Seifter) that Martial (and advanced) weapons are supposed to be better than simple weapons. That's pretty much by design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Respectfully, I disagree. For the most part, martial weapons (and even advanced weapons) aren't stronger. They simply have more weapon traits generally, which don't make them stronger, merely more versatile.
I'd agree that there's no significant power difference between advanced and martial weapons, but there is definitely a leap in power between simple and martial. The strongest simple weapon is 1d8, and even then, such weapons only have a single trait most of the time, as well as 2 handed, while martial weapons go up to a d12 for 2h non reach weapons, d10 for reach 2h weapons, and d8 for 1h weapons, and typically weapons at these damage levels have 2 helpful traits.
That said, the arquebus has reload 1, while the heavy crossbow has reload 2, so it's already leagues better. No one in my playtest group is actually using the arquebus though, so idk how it compares to a longbow, which is the ranged weapon it should be most compared to
...the latter is a simple weapon while the former is martial, so the Arquebus should just straight up be stronger.Respectfully, I disagree. For the most part, martial weapons (and even advanced weapons) aren't stronger. They simply have more weapon traits generally, which don't make them stronger, merely more versatile.While the power scale isn't exactly always direct, it's been said (I think it was Mark Seifter) that Martial (and advanced) weapons are supposed to be better than simple weapons. That's pretty much by design.
Better, which in this case equates to number of traits, doesn't equate to stronger necessarily. The main thing that actually make weapons 'better' is the die unless you're after a specific trait and even then you most likely don't care about any other traits on it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like we're forgetting the fact that a Sniper weapon is typically used to start an encounter. Not a sustained instrument throughout one.
If your complaint is an Arquebus, the long-ranged rifle weapon, isn't super effective over several rounds my argument would be: "That's probably by design".
As far as opening attacks a Gunslinger, and particularly a Sniper Gunslinger can make goes, it's the best way to open a turn.
Nothing is stopping you from dropping the gun and drawing something else.
Who's to say there isn't a lever-action arquebus coming down the line that allows more than one firing before requiring a reload?
If you gave an Arquebus to a Fighter and they only loaded it between combats and they opened any long-range combat with the Arquebus then it would still be more advantageous to use it than a Longbow if your plan was simply to wade into melee afterwards.
The weapon can't just be evaluated as a sustained weapon, and as a sniper weapon, it would make sense if it wasn't intended to be a sustained weapon.
It would need to lose fatal 1d12 to be able to do sustained damage IMO, because the action economy taxes only occur if you continue to use the weapon in combat after your first strike. An entirely optional thing, even for a Sniper Gunslinger.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing is stopping you from dropping the gun and drawing something else.
Apart from the prohibtive costs of multiple guns (at low levels) or multiple runed weapons (at high levels).
A level 1 character barely has enough money to buy a single firearm, while a level 20 is expected to have a single level 19 permanent magic item (i.e. a single +3 major striking weapon)
That tactic only works in the small time interval between the moment when buying multiple guns becomes feasible and the moment where you are expected to acquire magic weapons to keep up with the rate at which enemy HP and AC grows.
That goes double for guns, since their role as crit-fishing weapons means every single +1 matters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from the prohibtive costs of multiple guns (at low levels) or multiple runed weapons (at high levels).
Like I said, a Fighter rolling with this as a backup weapon is totally within the realm of reason.
Switch-hitting weapons can be one behind max weapon and still be extremely imposing.
A level 1 character barely has enough money to buy a single firearm, while a level 20 is expected to have a single level 19 permanent magic item (i.e. a single +3 major striking weapon)
Yet the comparisons all seem to include Composite weapons, which are not even available to characters at level 1.
That tactic only works in the small time interval between the moment when buying multiple guns becomes feasible and the moment where you are expected to acquire magic weapons to keep up with the rate at which enemy HP and AC grows.
A single Primary two handed weapon and a backup Arquebus is just as intensive monetarily as a Ranger with a Longsword/Shortsword with a doubling ring (item 3+) until level 5. After that, it's only slightly behind in wealth.
That goes double for guns, since their role as crit-fishing weapons means every single +1 matters.
With Expert Prof. on a Fighter that's switch-hitting between Longbow or Rifle, this works just fine.
Runes are not nearly as expensive as you're making them out to be. And as a Fighter, it's absolutely one of the better magical items to invest in as a Secondary item (and one of the easier ones to fine).
At level 5, a person can have a +1 Striking Greatsword and a +1 Rifle pretty easily, and at level 6 both at Striking.
I have never found it to be difficult with the current wealth rules to keep a slightly staggered magical weapon as a backup and the general treasure by level rules support that claim.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from the prohibtive costs of multiple guns (at low levels) or multiple runed weapons (at high levels).
Like I said, a Fighter rolling with this as a backup weapon is totally within the realm of reason.
Switch-hitting weapons can be one behind max weapon and still be extremely imposing.
A level 1 character barely has enough money to buy a single firearm, while a level 20 is expected to have a single level 19 permanent magic item (i.e. a single +3 major striking weapon)Yet the comparisons all seem to include Composite weapons, which are not even available to characters at level 1.
That tactic only works in the small time interval between the moment when buying multiple guns becomes feasible and the moment where you are expected to acquire magic weapons to keep up with the rate at which enemy HP and AC grows.A single Primary two handed weapon and a backup Arquebus is just as intensive monetarily as a Ranger with a Longsword/Shortsword with a doubling ring (item 3+) until level 5. After that, it's only slightly behind in wealth.
That goes double for guns, since their role as crit-fishing weapons means every single +1 matters.With Expert Prof. on a Fighter that's switch-hitting between Longbow or Rifle, this works just fine.
Runes are not nearly as expensive as you're making them out to be. And as a Fighter, it's absolutely one of the better magical items to invest in as a Secondary item (and one of the easier ones to fine).
At level 5, a person can have a +1 Striking Greatsword and a +1 Rifle pretty easily, and at level 6 both at Striking.
I have never found it to be difficult with the current wealth rules to keep a slightly staggered magical weapon as a backup and the general treasure by level rules support that claim.
Composite bows are only +1 damage at level 1 anyway, and non-composite bows still outdamage the Arquebus simply due to their superior action economy (and that's just from reload, not even considering unsteady).
Simply, the extra attacks that you get to make with a bow at -5 and more rarely at -10 are worth more than the extra damage an Arquebus does on a crit, and you don't need to bother with switching to another weapon after the first round. The only real use of an Arquebus as it stands is in the hands of an investigator or archetyped character who fully sets up and spams Devise a Stratagem from outside of combat until they get a crit and initiate. That is way too niche of an application, so the damage of the Arquebus, and every gun, should be increased to be at least competitive in most combats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply, the extra attacks that you get to make with a bow at -5 and more rarely at -10 are worth more than the extra damage an Arquebus does on a crit
Simply, if you're not making any more ranged attacks with the Arquebus it doesn't matter.
That's my whole point.
What if the intent of the Arquebus is not to be the primary weapon for most people and only a strong long-range secondary weapon?
Because as written, it operates perfectly as that type of weapon and a long-range rifle deemed a "sniper" is probably not a weapon people realistically use at all range intervals, in every portion of combat.
Now if you want the Arquebus to be that kind of weapon, then it needs to lose a lot of its extreme damage threshold.
It is not in a place where "buff the action economy" is reasonable while leaving the rest of the weapon's statistics intact.
It doesn't matter if you only crit once every other combat with the dang thing, the combat you do crit, the encounter is more than likely starting with an enemy dead or nearly dead (even if it's above level).
If you are doing switch hitting, then investing in an Aquebus is more of a waste of actions. It requires 1 action to even set up the shot, an action that could have been spent on Sudden Charge or putting a bow away after shooting it.
Right, so any encounter where you start with knowledge of an enemy or starting at extremely long range, what would you rather have?
An Arquebus. Because the action doesn't matter. The range is optimal. And it's the largest opening damage shot you can use.
Of course the weapon has a setup time required, it's a sniper. And when you have time to setup, it's the best long range weapon to use to open an encounter.
So it's the best weapon when you have range, time to set up, and the ability to get a jump on your opponent.
Doesn't that sound like a Sniper's weapon?
So I run Arquebus as my backup. It goes even with my primary weapon for 1/3-1/2 of the levels of the game and one rune behind at the rest of the points and I use it as a weapon to open combats, and then drop and switch to my Dueling Pistols.
And you know what? It plays effective.
As a Gunslinger, what kind of Long range weapon am I going to want to use? A bow? No. Because I have expert prof in guns and I want criticals.
You all are trying to turn the Arquebus into the automatic assault rifle on par with a Bow, and I don't think it's intended to be that.
If you were to design a long-range, generally single-shot weapon for a sniper, it would look almost identically to what we have on the Arquebus now.
What you all want is honestly an Advanced weapon that does more, and that's what I'd suspect Paizo will do instead of buffing an already decent weapon even more so it can "beat the longbow" at ranged combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply, the extra attacks that you get to make with a bow at -5 and more rarely at -10 are worth more than the extra damage an Arquebus does on a critSimply, if you're not making any more ranged attacks with the Arquebus it doesn't matter.
That's my whole point.
If that truly is the intended design, I would argue it is definitely something that needs correcting then.
I thought we were supposed to be done with situational options that have a "right" way to be used and become traps if used the "wrong" way. That kind of design is exactly the kind of reasoning that lead to hundreds of character options in 1e being useless because they were designed around one particular situational "right" use, meaning people who couldn't guess the writers' intent were punished for attempting to use an option they liked for their character concept.
Besides, the Heavy Crossbow is a weapon that already fills the exact same "shoot once, then drop it" niche (with more reliable damage, even better range and an equally as punishing mechanic to prevent repeated shooting), and it is one of the worst weapons of 2e. We don't need another weapon to join it.