| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's Magus all over again - True Strike isn't something to design around.
If the ONLY reason simple firearms exist is True Strike, then IMO they just shouldn't. Honestly, True Strike is the Blood Money of PF2: A 1st level spell that just causes trouble everywhere you go.
I am also thinking that crit fishing ranged Magi are going to really, really like using fire arms.
Called it. 2 crappy crit fishing mechanics bound up with a true bow... It's hard to keep my breakfast down with al that cheese. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple firearms have utility, even beyond the firearm ace feat. I can understand not wanting to build for it, and they are not better than other simple options. I don’t really understand the “woah is we” response to, “hey, a fairly powerful fatal weapon choice for simple weapon users is kinda cool.”
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple firearms have utility, even beyond the firearm ace feat.
Do they? What benefit do they bring that's better than casting that True Strike with a cantrip instead of the gun? Or for that matter JUST ignoring the Trustrike and casting and electric arc? The range is inferior to your cantrips. [up to 1/6th] The damage is inferiors to base cantrip damage. Really, WHAT do they bring to the table for those that do not already get martial weapons? I'm not seeing it.
I can understand not wanting to build for it, and they are not better than other simple options.
Not only aren't they better, they are activly WORSE than the options people avoid: crossbows.
I don’t really understand the “woah is we” response to, “hey, a fairly powerful fatal weapon choice for simple weapon users is kinda cool.”
I don't understand the “hey, a fairly powerful fatal weapon choice for simple weapon users is kinda cool.” For classes that are stuck at simple weapons, they have a low chance to crit, making fatal lame. To 'tweak' it to do anything, you have to waste a 1st level spell to have a slight chance of a crit... Why not just cast a real 1st level spell? Or a cantrip? Or anything really. If you aren't winning out over a sling or a cantrip most rounds, why bother?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I meant by you're not having the same conversation. You're straight up demanding that simple guns justify their existence to you personally by having some mechanical edge, while at the same time ignoring any such potential edge pointed out to you because you don't like the option.
They appeal to some. That should be enough; the game isn't written for you alone, after all. It's not even written for a majority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's Magus all over again - True Strike isn't something to design around.
I agree, which is why I mostly agree with the original post that firearm ace is too build defining to safely exist.
As an option, I think it is a nice mechanic to exist and have to play with for those that choose to do so. But I strongly would dislike an entire class depending on that crit to function (unless, like the Gunslinger, they have something enabling that crit rate built in).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simple firearms have utility, even beyond the firearm ace feat. I can understand not wanting to build for it, and they are not better than other simple options. I don’t really understand the “woah is we” response to, “hey, a fairly powerful fatal weapon choice for simple weapon users is kinda cool.”
Like when? Who are guns and crossbows actually good for, apart from rangers and gunslingers?
You say "fairly powerful fatal weapon" but it really isn't that powerful. At level 1 it gets beaten up by Telekinetic Projectile and it never really gets better.
Having a back up way of inflicting 2 damage types, and really hitting hard when you crit is pretty useful. With true strike, even when your accuracy is bad, and you need a 20 to crit, you maintain a near 10% chance of criting.
This is probably the biggest advantage from my perspective. When I ran my Inventor through the Slithering, I would have died first fight without a gun. And that's with all the martial options available to me; being able to use my main, fully enchanted weapon against an opponent effectively immune to piercing damage changed the fight significantly. It's not going to be something that comes up very often. It was handy to have that one time, and allowed me to have fun on that character.
Edit: Note, this is with crits taken completely off the table (I didn't use the "Fatal still increases your damage die on a crit even against creatures immune to crits").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's Magus all over again - True Strike isn't something to design around.I agree, which is why I mostly agree with the original post that firearm ace is too build defining to safely exist.
As an option, I think it is a nice mechanic to exist and have to play with for those that choose to do so. But I strongly would dislike an entire class depending on that crit to function (unless, like the Gunslinger, they have something enabling that crit rate built in).
Crossbow Ace enables builds for Ranger but isn't mandatory because good martial ranged weapons are available (bows).
The problem for Gunslinger is there aren't any good martial firearms for them. I think the blunderbuss and dueling pistol are close (bump the former's average damage another notch, give the latter another trait or two?), but the arquebus is trash.
To be honest, it's more the +2 damage bonus I object to. I assume they'll figure out martial guns; I agree they're not in a great place right now even as I insist simple firearms should exist as a lesser option. But having what is effectively a double die increase, that stacks with fatal, is too strong compared to other level 1 options.
That it also has a boost for simple firearms is the least of my worries for Firearm Ace. As that boost doesn't stack with fatal, you're trading much of your weapon's budget for a more consistent baseline damage. Which, given the feelings of most people in this thread, is probably worth the trade-off and is suggestive of potential mechanical reworks down the line, but that doesn't seem nearly as appealing to me as just getting a martial firearm (such as they are).
Edit: I'm actually curious what they'll wind up with for martial crossbows, if they do. Because that would run up into the same issue (from my pov).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I meant by you're not having the same conversation. You're straight up demanding that simple guns justify their existence to you personally by having some mechanical edge, while at the same time ignoring any such potential edge pointed out to you because you don't like the option.
No, I'm demanding that they be AT LEAST as good as the worst current option: I don't think asking that they are at least as good as the option most people avoid because it's not that good is a high bar to meet. I normally don't hear people clambering for options that do less than current ones.
Second, I'd still trying to figure out WHO they appeal to in their current form. I mean, other than aesthetic appeal, what do they have? And if it's just aesthetics, just add sound effects to a crossbow. (pew, pew?) :P
They appeal to some. That should be enough; the game isn't written for you alone, after all. It's not even written for a majority.
They not only have to have appeal by themselves but also with the class that has them IN the name. This means a built in crit fishing mechanic is not only built into the equipment but the class: as such, it has to not only appeal for a niche equipment, but for a whole class. If we where talking a single specific gun that had the mechanic or a certain specific build of the class, then I'd agree it's a different debate.
being able to use my main, fully enchanted weapon against an opponent effectively immune to piercing damage changed the fight significantly
I don't know that versatile is going to survive the playtest: while it's a useful trait, it's also a pretty nonsensical one without loading different ammo. It's drawn a lot of 'what the heck' reactions. Even if it does, I don't know that it makes up for the rest of the rounds where you deal less damage on 'normal' targets.
Secondly, you could do the same thing with the inventor and a crossbow: Complex Simplicity (d10, versatile B). Or Modular Head [Modular + nonlethal]
Second, I'd still trying to figure out WHO they appeal to in their current form. I mean, other than aesthetic appeal, what do they have? And if it's just aesthetics, just add sound effects to a crossbow. (pew, pew?) :P
Sure thing Krispy.
Second, I'd still trying to figure out WHO they appeal to in their current form. I mean, other than aesthetic appeal, what do they have? And if it's just aesthetics, just add sound effects to a crossbow. (pew, pew?) :PSure thing Krispy.
*scratches head* I don't recall any 'Simple guns as super awesome!!!' Krispy posts. Where where they?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*scratches head* I don't recall any 'Simple guns as super awesome!!!' Krispy posts. Where where they?Second, I'd still trying to figure out WHO they appeal to in their current form. I mean, other than aesthetic appeal, what do they have? And if it's just aesthetics, just add sound effects to a crossbow. (pew, pew?) :PSure thing Krispy.
Edit: Pulling back my comments because cat fighting is just stupid.
I am not going to pay for a new rulebook when I can just do theater of the mind. That's the long and short of it, and no shouts of badwrongfun will impress me.
I do not care if new options math out to be better or worse. I just want them to be different; these fit. I don't expect them to appeal to many. I don't think it is realistic to even design them to do so. I do expect them to be different enough that they appeal to some, while being mechanically similar to the real, martial options.
The Arquebus is a murderously effective weapon for a sniper. It is not a weapon they can use every round of every combat though. Although, by level 8, with shooter's Aim, they can probably get at least 2 shots out of it in a combat, still doing their hide, sneak-runner's reload trick to be taking the most accurate shot in the game with the most lethal crit fishing weapon in the game, before they pretty much have to be committed to just standing still with it, or dropping it for another weapon. Seriously, the shooter's aim shot can easily swing the equivalent of a +4 to the attack roll and ignore cover, all while letting you ignore the unsteady trait. It has a very clear and obvious niche.
It was as a sniper at higher levels that I realized Firearm ace was only something I really was even going to be able to use about 50% of the time, and only for a +2 damage, that it really isn't that good. The only reason to keep it though was because there were no better first level feats. The problem wasn't with firearm ace being too good, and if there was a better 1st level feat, I think a lot of gunslingers would train out of firearm ace by 5 or 6th level (the point at which they start getting striking runes).
A big part of why I would rather have a 1st level feat that did what firearm ace does after drawing a weapon, is because it is up-close and personal combat styles that would want it the most and I don't think that style should be as tied to needing to reload their gun and not drawing another cheap gun out of a magical brace.
As far as simple fire arms, a one shot pistol with trues trike takes 2 actions, so you can do it and move. Maybe you even MC to Gunslinger or ranger and pick up running reload with it if you really have fun with it. With simple fire arms, rogues, sorcerers, monks, witches, oracles, clerics, etc who want a 2 damage type dealing back option that they can carry around loaded, and mess someone up on a crit. There are many situations where, if you can get yourself a little extra accuracy, the extra damage from fatal and the increased probability of criting would make firing a simple fire arm better than firing a crossbow.
Then its issues with range, and not doing much damage on a non-crit (although not much less, and possibly more if a target has resistance to piercing or weakness to bludgeoning) means that crossbows are still fine options for these characters too. Neither one is just currently the obvious superior choice.
I wouldn't have thought you needed it explained that if I call you by the wrong name, it's because they've made a similar claim as yours, not the exact opposite. But here we are.
I don't think it strange I read it 'sure thing [comma] Krispy. Sarcasm, like any kind of tone, often doesn't translate well. It's why I leave [:P] or [;)] to indicate it. ;)
In any case, telling people to just embrace theater of the mind instead of offering a new mechanical option is not exactly a great way to sell books.
Never said it was. What I was saying that doing that made crossbows 'feel' more like a gun than the current mechanics. If it was the mechanics of a specific type of gun, like a target pistol or sniper rifle, I could buy the low base high crit mechanic, but not for the run of the mill gun. And versatile is just plain odd/weird/bizarre.
I would like to see a simple firearm. I genuinely do not care if they are mechanically superior or worse; I simply want them to be mechanically different.
I differ: I don't mind a Simple gun, but I don't want it clearly inferior to other options JUST in an effort to make it "mechanically different". I see no reason for change for change sake. For instance if it had the same base damage as a crossbow with less range and Penetration [ignore 1 resistance per weapon die], I'd say 'now that feels like a gun'.
I also don't agree that they are strictly mechanically worse, which would require that they be mechanically inferior in all situations (such as having reload 2 at base, or a base damage of 1 instead of a d#, etc.), though I certainly agree that their appeal is extremely niche and no iteration of simple firearms will be broadly picked up.
Agree to disagree. I see no reason they exist: either you can take a martial version or you don't have the proficiency to leverage the crit fishing leaving you with an inferior base damage die and no stat mod to add. I just can't see a situation where there isn't a better mechanical option avalible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as simple fire arms, a one shot pistol with trues trike takes 2 actions, so you can do it and move.
AH... Why? You could use a magic missile spell, always hit out to 120' and still move with the same slot cost and no money used.... And on someone that can't use martial weapons so an expert proficiency maybe? Doesn't seem like a good/efficient use of the gun or spell. 2d4+2 force damage with move or 2d4+3 without at 120' vs 20' and 2 fairly bad rolls to hit.
I see no reason for change for change sake.
I do, particularly when it comes to new rules in a system that is intended to be rules heavy.
If I wanted a rules lite system, where I can make do by going "pew pew", there's other options. Pathfinder appeals to me entirely because they are willing to add mechanically diverse options to appeal to a wide audience.
Again, I am not saying you have to like them. You are continually demanding that their existence be justified to you personally in a way that appeals to you. Even when you say "I'm demanding that they be AT LEAST as good as the worst current option", you are still the one actually judging if they are or not.
In any case, telling people to just embrace theater of the mind instead of offering a new mechanical option is not exactly a great way to sell books.Never said it was. What I was saying that doing that made crossbows 'feel' more like a gun than the current mechanics. If it was the mechanics of a specific type of gun, like a target pistol or sniper rifle, I could buy the low base high crit mechanic, but not for the run of the mill gun. And versatile is just plain odd/weird/bizarre.
Especially when you included this part. This is a game. None of the things in it are actually real. If relabeling crossbows and guns so that they switch names makes them both real more appropriate to you is what it takes to make this all acceptable, fine. I'm less concerned with what actually gets called what, merely that new options are actually new options, not the same exact thing with a suggestion that I go "pew pew."
Further, I see the simple firearms as doing exactly what you are asking of them in this quote: the two flintlocks are clearly intended to be less capable versions of the Arquebus and Dueling pistol. So they are offering some of the feeling of the martial weapons (which are what most characters will actually use), but clearly limited to reflect their lower proficiency.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I am not saying you have to like them. You are continually demanding that their existence be justified to you personally in a way that appeals to you. Even when you say "I'm demanding that they be AT LEAST as good as the worst current option", you are still the one actually judging if they are or not.
I think they have to justify themselves overall: they have to bring something to the table. Right not, "pew, pew" is about the only justification I can see for them being there. I haven't see any mechanical reason: I don't see the niche they are meant to fill in their current form. Just having different mechanics doesn't mean it's a worthwhile addition: different mechanics aren't a reason onto themselves.
I'm less concerned with what actually gets called what, merely that new options are actually new options, not the same exact thing with a suggestion that I go "pew pew."
And I'm more concerned that the changes are actually worthwhile and aren't just page-fillers that aren't going to see actual use by the vast majority of PC's. If your average attacks with the weapon aren't catching up to crossbows and people already pan crossbow, I find it an issue. New mechanics combinations don't blind me to those facts.
I'm less concerned with what actually gets called what, merely that new options are actually new options, not the same exact thing with a suggestion that I go "pew pew."And I'm more concerned that the changes are actually worthwhile and aren't just page-fillers that aren't going to see actual use by the vast majority of PC's. If your average attacks with the weapon aren't catching up to crossbows and people already pan crossbow, I find it an issue. New mechanics combinations don't blind me to those facts.
So, since this conversation has wandered completely off the original point, let me bring it back: the original point that I was responded to was Asclepius saying that simple firearms should not exist at all. In any form. Even if they do some up with new traits or mechanics that make them competitive with crossbows, he says they should not exist.
As you yourself pointed out, these are likely not the final versions of these weapons. I do not want the entire existence of simple firearms to be deleted because these playtest firearms are not good enough for you personally, without even seeing what the final mechanics look like.
So, for the last time, please stop trying to get me to justify the existence of these exact items. Because whatever form firearms ultimately take, I think simple versions for nonmartial classes to be able to pick up is worth putting into a source book about adding guns and technology to Pathfinder, as long as those simple firearms mirror inexactly the martial versions that will be more widely used. I think it will remain true even if simple firearms are mathematically inferior to crossbows in the final version. The ability to use guns broadly without putting feats or new class abilities into is too appealing to me, and makes too much sense for this kind of book.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't want firearms to be a gunslinger only thing, and that's what the current system does. I want firearms to have a reason to mechanically exist beyond just being crossbows with a reskin, but I prefer crossbow reskin to 'crossbows but worse for everyone but gunslingers'. At that point, may as well only balance guns For gunslingers and ban them from other classes.
I just don't want firearms to be a gunslinger only thing, and that's what the current system does. I want firearms to have a reason to mechanically exist beyond just being crossbows with a reskin, but I prefer crossbow reskin to 'crossbows but worse for everyone but gunslingers'. At that point, may as well only balance guns For gunslingers and ban them from other classes.
You're arguing both sides at once here. Your first sentence you say guns are currently balanced as gunglinger only weapons, and you do not want that. Your last sentence, you're saying that instead of the current design (which you describe as guns being gunslinger only), you'd rather guns be gunslinger only.
In all seriousness, if you were a designer, what kind of feedback would you take from that post?
Beyond "guns suck, make them OP", I mean. Which is a legitimate design direction; if part of the class power is devoted to making guns work, they can be as OP as equipment as long as the combination of equipment plus character is still in line with other classes. The "technically balanced with other weapons but only satisfying when used by a crit heavy class" approach doesn't seem to be working.
Edit: this is not intended to talk down to you. Your taste is your taste. I ask because when you fill out the survey, it might be more useful for them if you had an answer to that question for them.
For instance, my personal response was that instead of Fatal, guns had a new trait (which I called "Fierce") that added a flat damage bonus per weapon die. So basically 1d4+1 instead of d6 damage for the 1 handed gun. Since the top end damage was lower, they could balance them against crossbows without needing the crit-fishing on simple firearms but still leave that on Martial firearms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the issue is just the Fatal trait, then firearms are as gunslinger exclusive as picks are Fighter exclusive. That's kinda what the weapon trait system is for, to open opportunities to find synergies.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're arguing both sides at once here. Your first sentence you say guns are currently balanced as gunglinger only weapons, and you do not want that. Your last sentence, you're saying that instead of the current design (which you describe as guns being gunslinger only), you'd rather guns be gunslinger only.
I think you misread. I said how it works right now (that it is basically useless for non gunslingers). Then I said that despite wanting guns to be distinct, I would prefer them being reskins of crossbows than their current exclusive state.
Then at the end I basically put forward that if they want guns to just be a gunslinger thing, then just ban it from the other classes and make them actually work for gunslingers rather than making them bad and needing bandaids. Rather than putting trap options in their game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the issue is just the Fatal trait, then firearms are as gunslinger exclusive as picks are Fighter exclusive.
For me, they don't seem very good at that either: they do the opposite of what I want. They put the hurt on low AC mooks and cause ouchies to bosses when I'd want the legendary proficiency class to be doing the damage to the boss. They get out performed by a fighter or ranger with a bow [seen in actual play]. It'd be kind of like adding 1/2 a dozen new picks when the 2 there is pretty much covers the crit fishing niche: now many ranged 'picks' do you need?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, since this conversation has wandered completely off the original point, let me bring it back: the original point that I was responded to was Asclepius saying that simple firearms should not exist at all. In any form. Even if they do some up with new traits or mechanics that make them competitive with crossbows, he says they should not exist.
I don't think simple firearms are a great idea because the "budget" to get traits and base damage for them is so small. And I think the Firearm Ace feat just reinforces this problem because it makes it "not a problem for gunslingers". That doesn't help non-gunslingers!
Simple firearms as they are right now don't look good at all for simple weapon classes;
- A wizard isn't proficient because wizard.
- For bards, druids, non-Divine sorcerers/witches, Telekinetic Projectile is just much better. To-hit is mostly better (because it uses your casting stat & proficiency), adding your casting stat to damage at level 1 and free scaling at higher level.
- It's somewhat an option for clerics, Divine sorcerers/witches and oracles who run into trouble when Holy Lance doesn't work, but that's pretty much the definition of niche.
- It's an option for alchemists who don't have enough bombs per day yet.
Note that these are the same reasons why crossbows aren't great for anyone except Precision rangers. Base damage and accuracy just aren't great. You're usually better off leaning more into your class abilities (cantrips) than trying to make weapons work.
Fatal is also a bad trade for them - since you have slow weapon proficiency and Dex is usually not a key stat, you won't be critting on anything except a 20 most of the time. So a crossbow's higher base damage just trumps them.
---
If we are to have firearms for simple classes, I think a better design for them would be:
- Shorter range than crossbows (and perhaps also shorter than slings)
- Comparable reload time
- Slightly higher damage
- Possibly bludgeoning damage
That would make them competitive with crossbows, slings, javelins and darts while staying within the Simple bracket.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just want to restate Graystone's point:
How many ranged picks do we need?
Are guns too similar/lack breadth?
Could what seem like different guns be bundled under one umbrella stat line? Or does the historical advancement tree of guns need to be replicated (though we hardly do that with other weapons)?
Or should there be a variety of different abilities? Wouldn't some traits need to be new? But what would those be?
Intimidating? Knockback? Magazine? Alchemical?
Just want to restate Graystone's point:
How many ranged picks do we need?Are guns too similar/lack breadth?
Could what seem like different guns be bundled under one umbrella stat line? Or does the historical advancement tree of guns need to be replicated (though we hardly do that with other weapons)?
Or should there be a variety of different abilities? Wouldn't some traits need to be new? But what would those be?
Intimidating? Knockback? Magazine? Alchemical?
Depends. Are you talking about actual guns that will be used by the martial classes, or the simple firearms that I'm talking about?
If you mean martial options, then as many as you'd like. This is literally a about enabling people's fantastical imaginations in games. So...however many options that takes.
Workable options though. I don't disagree with the larger criticisms people have with guns in general.
Simple firearms, then no more than 2 or 3. Unless the point of the hand cannon is to eventually enable alchemy synergy somehow, I would have rather had that balanced as a martial weapon and only the two flintlocks be the entire simple firearm offerings. I can see room for one with the scatter trait to enable all class feats to be possible (if not advisable) with simple weapon proficiency, and maybe whatever new traits they decide to add multiple feats supporting it, but no more than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For simple it seems two guns would do, a 1-handed and a 2-handed option.
Other differences might come down to ammo rather than the weapon.
For martial, maybe more, maybe not, just like shortbow & longbow cover nearly all bows in history. Maybe "longarm" and so forth can suffice.
As in, this gun's loaded this way and this one's loaded that way, while a third might have a different option (or different bores/bullets/etc) yet maybe mechanically they come out the same under one umbrella name.
Then again, maybe guns are like swords and we need them at several different scales w/ oddballs too. Except guns aren't so iconic, yet then again, in this book they would be. I guess Paizo does have to tackle that option should somebody want to recreate Boot Hill.
End of wandering thoughts...for now.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think for simple firearms, Fatal is the wrong way to go. Classes that rely on simple weapons don't have a high to-hit to profit from Fatal.
A simple gun could instead have higher damage than a crossbow, but shorter range. Or perhaps the same damage as a crossbow, shorter range, but bludgeoning damage (which is often better than piercing).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, since this conversation has wandered completely off the original point, let me bring it back: the original point that I was responded to was Asclepius saying that simple firearms should not exist at all. In any form. Even if they do some up with new traits or mechanics that make them competitive with crossbows, he says they should not exist.I don't think simple firearms are a great idea because the "budget" to get traits and base damage for them is so small. And I think the Firearm Ace feat just reinforces this problem because it makes it "not a problem for gunslingers". That doesn't help non-gunslingers!
Well, I agree that the budget is small and they don't have a lot of room to work with. I disagree that the firearm ace does anything to address it though. Or, I think if that is the actual intent, they failed, because patching simple firearms by increasing their die size yet tying what budget they have on a trait that increases their die size, and the two not stacking, is counterproductive.
There's two issues tangled up in this thread that I'm trying to get untangled with y'all. Well, three really, but I'll get to that.
1: guns in their current form rely too much on crit chance, which due to the game's design often does not feel great and is far too class dependent. I would go further and say it is too indicative of PF1 design sensibilities; with guns we have a chance to create a new design space, and they are so far just chasing the old. Edit: I just realized that was nearly word for word the objection I had to Striking Spell, so at least I'm consistent there.
2: The simple firearms in the playtest are positioned as if they were usable by the gunslinger due to 3: there is a page space limit on the playtest that won't really exist in the book. They only had so much room and didn't want to dilute their own data by adding too many options here, but I disagree with the choice to give as many simple firearms as martial ones. This is a martial class; we should have had all or nearly all martial firearms as the baseline to test. Perhaps 1 so we could compare this feat to other options, but that would be it.
If I had to guess, I think they did so many simple firearms because they didn't want to add martial crossbows to the playtest, and it wouldn't be fair to playtest objectively better guns against the current crop of crossbows and expect everything to work fine. But as I said, I think that was the incorrect call, especially as not giving access to crossbow ace makes it a moot point.
A lot of the objections don't seem to be to simple firearms in and of themselves, but seem to be to firearm design in general, compounded by the fact that we have as many simple firearms as martial ones in the playtest. I support you in the call for redesign! But like I said, whatever design they ultimately take, I want a simple version to be useable by classes other than the gunslinger. For the gunslinger's, I want more martial options for both crossbows and firearms, but I think the logical conclusion of the criticism here is firearms becoming the martial upgrade to crossbows. THAT is what I'm trying to head off, and not just because I think guns are cool. It would mean the class would essentially be a dead to tables that don't want guns in their pathfinder, because it would be designed and balanced for martial weapons that no longer exist.
Edit:
Then again, maybe guns are like swords and we need them at several different scales w/ oddballs too. Except guns aren't so iconic, yet then again, in this book they would be. I guess Paizo does have to tackle that option should somebody want to recreate Boot Hill.
Right, exactly. I wouldn't be such a pain about this if this was a different book. But if we're going to get simple firearms to play with at all, this is where to add them. Page space limits should not apply to firearm options in this one book, because that should be the point of the book.
Though I have no qualm with asking that they be good options. I just don't want them to not exist at all.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Higher base damage but a shorter range is a terrible, terrible direction for firearms to go. It will make every one and their sisters be bringing firearms into dungeons, unless the range increments fall to 5ft and stay shorter range than thrown weapons.
We get 3 melee picks already. All of them are martial. we get 0 simple melee picks.
as common items, 2 or 3 simple ranged picks, and 2 or 3 martial ranged picks is not some wildly unreasonable number.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Higher base damage but a shorter range is a terrible, terrible direction for firearms to go. It will make every one and their sisters be bringing firearms into dungeons, unless the range increments fall to 5ft and stay shorter range than thrown weapons.
We get 3 melee picks already. All of them are martial. we get 0 simple melee picks.
as common items, 2 or 3 simple ranged picks, and 2 or 3 martial ranged picks is not some wildly unreasonable number.
In fairness, something has to give. One of the issues is that crossbows are featureless. So if you're going to make something mechanically distinct, you need to cut into either the damage or the range.
So I agree with Asclepius that shorter range, higher damage is a possible direction, but I also agree with you of the immediate problem that would encounter. The opposite would be equally true though; lower damage and higher range would make no one ever take a gun into a dungeon.
I've mentioned a couple ideas here, but that's more for a firearm in general thread, not this particular one.
Naturally I also agree with your second point, though I could see more martial options to represent other kinds of firearms ultimately coming into the game.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we really should be making any "simple pick"; if you only have simple weapon proficiency, you won't have the accuracy to profit from Fatal.
As I think about it, I'd actually propose the opposite for simple guns: make them "spray and pray" weapons. Instead of Fatal, let them do some Splash damage. That has some interesting consequences:
- Crits are a bit less impressive than other weapons, because the splash doesn't multiply.
- Attractive to classes with so-so accuracy because you're quite likely to at least get the splash.
- Design space for gun-toting alchemists who do more with the splash.
- Many classes might pack a backup gun against swarms.
You could keep martial guns more or less as they are, but get rid of the Firearm Ace feat, and perhaps push the base damage up a teensy bit. Like, instead of <d6, Fatal d10> you could go to <d8, Fatal d10>. It should be something that a ranger or investigator would seriously consider.
A gunslinger would of course benefit from the higher proficiency (I like that) but be less desperately crit-fishing. And you make more room in the class to give them reload-with-flair abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we really should be making any "simple pick"; if you only have simple weapon proficiency, you won't have the accuracy to profit from Fatal.
As I think about it, I'd actually propose the opposite for simple guns: make them "spray and pray" weapons. Instead of Fatal, let them do some Splash damage. That has some interesting consequences:
- Crits are a bit less impressive than other weapons, because the splash doesn't multiply.
- Attractive to classes with so-so accuracy because you're quite likely to at least get the splash.
- Design space for gun-toting alchemists who do more with the splash.
- Many classes might pack a backup gun against swarms.You could keep martial guns more or less as they are, but get rid of the Firearm Ace feat, and perhaps push the base damage up a teensy bit. Like, instead of <d6, Fatal d10> you could go to <d8, Fatal d10>. It should be something that a ranger or investigator would seriously consider.
A gunslinger would of course benefit from the higher proficiency (I like that) but be less desperately crit-fishing. And you make more room in the class to give them reload-with-flair abilities.
I like your splash idea as an alternative to fatal. I don't want to get into too much about guns in general; I've derailed this thread enough, so I popped those points into a different thread, but I do like it.
On the other hand, removing fatal from simple firearms would make me almost change my mind on Firearm Ace. Not so far as to like it; I still think it should just be baked into the class's chassis somehow (crossbow ace too). But it would at least give the feat AND simple firearms a mechanical reason to exist for gunslingers. Aced simple guns would theoretically have a higher baseline damage, while martial ones would have lower damage but hit a lot harder on a crit.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you could bake it into the class. Look at champions - also a martial class - they get a boost to using their deity's favored weapon if it's simple.
So then you'd get roughly this split:
* Simple weapon classes have enough reason to use simple guns.
* Martial classes don't really want to use simple guns except as anti-swarm option, but the martial guns are adequately powerful in their hands.
* Gunslingers get good mileage out of both simple AND martial guns.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it’s important to note just how little Gunslingers get by default compared to other classes. They get Legendary proficiency, which only Fighter gets, but beyond that it’s not much. Fighter gets Legendary and heavy armor and attack of opportunity (a 6th level feat most places it’s available) and shield block.
A gunslinger gets one of the Ways, but for two of them that essentially means they get to have their weapon drawn at the start of combat. That is a non-benefit in the majority of combat situations, because GMs just don’t enforce needing to draw your weapon at the start of combat. Even when it doesn’t make sense that you’d have it out already. So that leaves the benefits as a +2 initiative and free 10 foot step for Pistoleros, or a free stride for Drifter. Sniper at least gets bonus damage, though it’s limited to the first shot of an encounter. Compare that to the first hit every round of a Precision Ranger.
That leaves Gunslinger with “mandatory” feats.
Yes, Sniper is in a better place than the other two, because sniper at least gets some bonus damage. But it’s also the way that is least likely going to be compatible with most adventuring groups.
Gunslinger could add in built in Firearm Ace or built in Risky Reload and not be overpowered. Possibly even both.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslinger could add in built in Firearm Ace or built in Risky Reload and not be overpowered. Possibly even both.
Honestly, Risky Reload would make a lot of sense as a baseline ability if only for the fact that Misfire would actually be a part of the Class by default then instead of "if you ever decide to take something with Misfire".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just prefer firearms getting its own version of propulsive except with Dex or a mental ability score.
It never feels good for a weapon to never add an ability score modifier to its damage roll.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Higher base damage but a shorter range is a terrible, terrible direction for firearms to go.
It'd be truly terrible to have a weapon made people would universally want to use vs a weapon people a lot don't want to use... Truly awful. :P
As to "It will make every one and their sisters be bringing firearms into dungeons", they ARE uncommon and require specific classes/area to access. So you're only tripping over them if the DM allows. I'd rather had it be a close call between crossbow and guns between higher damage or higher range, than just have simple crossbows be better than simple guns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Higher base damage but a shorter range is a terrible, terrible direction for firearms to go.I'd rather had it be a close call between crossbow and guns between higher damage or higher range, than just have simple crossbows be better than simple guns.
To Unicore's point though, would it actually be a close call?
It is fairly clear that no one, or at least no one here, likes "lower damage die augmented by fatal". Except Unicore of course, but she likes crit fishing so can be excused from the counts. This holds true even if it maths out to close to the same damage (which it genuinely does; even at the least favorable 10/1 success/crit success ratio at level 20, guns come within 1 point of damage per average hit of crossbows, and Fatal Bullet helps with that). I don't think the problem is the average, but that the damage is inconsistent, and that feels bad. Dubious's point about Resistance is also an excellent one.
Given that, wouldn't a weapon that does consistently higher damage be super attractive, even if it again maths out to close to the same, or even slightly less? It is important to me that guns have some kind of mechanical variance, though I am less picky about the exact nature of it. Even if I dislike the current direction of guns, it might genuinely be good for the game as a whole if featureless crossbows continue to appeal to the "I want consistent damage" crowd while guns appeal to the crit happy crowd.
Slings, with their propulsive trait, can enter the fray as a "higher floor, lower ceiling" option for those that REALLY want consistent damage.
Of course, all of this depends on the feats being fixed so that they work with more than just guns. There's limits to that, but feats like Trick Shot and Blast lock don't really need to be weapon locked, and some like Smoke Curtain can be reworded to be generally alchemical in nature, rather than tied to bullets, so as to be an option for crafty crossbow users.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is fairly clear that no one, or at least no one here, likes "lower damage die augmented by fatal". Except Unicore of course, but she likes crit fishing so can be excused from the counts.
"Everyone agrees with me, except the person who doesn't agree with me, and they don't count" is a pretty hilarious and revealing statement
Like I'm not a huge fan of crit fishing either, but I do have distinct memories of people complaining about how Barbarians are bad at getting the big chunky crits they wanted. I really don't think there's a problem with having Fatal weapons designed to appeal to gambling mindsets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lower damage die augmented by fatal would be fine if we had alternatives. And crossbows are sort of that? But they still have the simple weapon issue and need Ace as a fixer (and people want to use guns on Gunslinger).
Here's kind of where I'm at now. I'm still thinking, and I still have the free form survey to complete, which is why I'm thinking out loud.
I'd like three mechanical niches: consistent damage, spike damage, and failure damage. Currently both slings and crossbows occupy the "consistent" damage area; I'd like to move crossbows out into spike damage by introducing new martial crossbows with the fatal trait, and rework firearms so that they do minimal damage on a failure (but not crit failure). Splash sort of works; I'd like to see it reworked into a bullet burn mechanic so that the "splash" damage only hits the target. Scatter would be an augmented version of this same trait. This would leave propulsive slings as the most consistent of the three, with the highest minimum and lowest maximum damage.
That would give 3 distinct options that do not depend on range as their differentiator, and still preserves Aced simple crossbows and firearms for those that just want a big honking damage die. It would in fact go back to making Ace a genuine option instead of more or less mandatory. If you want to skip it, just use a martial option.
Edit:
It is fairly clear that no one, or at least no one here, likes "lower damage die augmented by fatal". Except Unicore of course, but she likes crit fishing so can be excused from the counts."Everyone agrees with me, except the person who doesn't agree with me, and they don't count" is a pretty hilarious and revealing statement
I did mean everyone here in this specific thread, not everyone in general (which I cannot know). I didn't want to just ignore her opinion, but for the specific point I was making it wasn't applicable.
So yeah, everyone that wants a specific thing...wants the specific thing. I'm not sure that is too controversial.
You're trying to make it out that I'm dismissive of the position entirely, but I'm genuinely trying to decouple people's taste from the mechanics. People are saying that firearms are lower damage as an objective statement. They aren't averaged out, but it feels like that. Addressing other stuff about the class, like Firearm ace feeling mandatory, has to take that feeling on board.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that, wouldn't a weapon that does consistently higher damage be super attractive, even if it again maths out to close to the same, or even slightly less?
Sure, but that's balanced with having to move WELL within a single move of your target to attack in the 1st increment. Once you start having to get within 10' to 20', you might as well just hit them with a reach weapon and get flank.
It is important to me that guns have some kind of mechanical variance, though I am less picky about the exact nature of it.
*shrug* I don't need them to reinvent the wheel. I just want them to work and work well: IMO, they don't have have a mechanical variance. Changing range and damage does enough IMO.
Even if I dislike the current direction of guns, it might genuinely be good for the game as a whole if featureless crossbows continue to appeal to the "I want consistent damage" crowd while guns appeal to the crit happy crowd.
I see nothing wrong with a fatal gun option, just not EVERY gun is s fatal option: that means you're FORCING anyone that wants to play a gunslinger into using a crit fishing weapon OR they drop 1/2 their weapon option and have to use the crossbow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if I dislike the current direction of guns, it might genuinely be good for the game as a whole if featureless crossbows continue to appeal to the "I want consistent damage" crowd while guns appeal to the crit happy crowd.I see nothing wrong with a fatal gun option, just not EVERY gun is s fatal option: that means you're FORCING anyone that wants to play a gunslinger into using a crit fishing weapon OR they drop 1/2 their weapon option and have to use the crossbow.
Or they could make interesting crossbow oriented feats and include crossbows in the language of more of the feats as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or they could make interesting crossbow oriented feats and include crossbows in the language of more of the feats as well.
Even if I dislike the current direction of guns, it might genuinely be good for the game as a whole if featureless crossbows continue to appeal to the "I want consistent damage" crowd while guns appeal to the crit happy crowd.I see nothing wrong with a fatal gun option, just not EVERY gun is s fatal option: that means you're FORCING anyone that wants to play a gunslinger into using a crit fishing weapon OR they drop 1/2 their weapon option and have to use the crossbow.
I don't know why one prevents the other. Making more crossbow options in NO way means it's a good idea to lock all guns behind the same trait, limiting the option on that side. You'd STILL be cutting off guns from someone that wants to play a gunslinger and doesn't like crit fishing even if they'd prefer a gun. If you come for the gun and the gun sucks for you, it'd be a turnoff: now if you have a variety of guns and you can just ignore the crit fishing guns, then it has a broader appeal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guns really don't suck though. Especially not for the gun slinger. Not simple ones nor martial ones, (well maybe the hand cannon). The average damage of guns in comparison to crossbows, very quickly shifts in the guns advantage with only a slight boost in accuracy vs the targets AC.
1 crit with a arquebus is better than 3 regular hits with a longbow.
The dueling pistol is a L weapon. Meaning you can carry 10 of them for 1 bulk. 1d6 base is great (d10 fatal) with a weapon you can draw and drop over and over again and it sounds like the developers are already looking into ways to give us a bandoleer or brace of pistols option for covering runes.
There are rough patches in the implementation of making the different options work smoothly with the way players will want them to work, but it isn't necessary to try to wrestle firearms around when crossbows pretty effectively cover the weapon design niche that people seem to be complaining that guns don't.