REBOUNDING ASSAULT


Gunslinger Class

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Myth Busters test: Busted
Like the idea for doing extra damage if both hit. I just don't see this as possible as is.

I throw a dagger and it hits,
then I shoot the dagger right as it hits in just the right spot to push it in deeper.
How much damage does my dagger take and if I drive it in deeper,
how does it rebound?

Maybe the fist hit distracts the target giving the shot a better chance to hit and dose more damage because the target has opened themselves up to a clean shot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rebounding assault is asinine in my opinion. Not as a lame as black powder boost, but a close second.

Why would I bother adding the force of my bullets to a melee weapon strike when I can just add the force of my bullets directly to my target? A middle-man is not required in this exchange.

And how does forward momentum translate to backwards rebound so I can retrieve my weapon?

I'm sorry but there's nothing cool about this feature.


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

Rebounding assault is goofy as heck, but I'd also like to point out:

At 9th level you could do this bizarre maneuver to get your who knows how heavy melee weapon to dislodge itself from your foe's chest and fly directly back to your hand over potentially huge distances.

At 10th level you can take Trick Shot to... move a 2 bulk object 10 feet, but definitely not into your hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another thread on Rebounding Assault xD

For what it's worth, even the player at my table who likes crazy over-the-top stuff took one look at Rebounding Assault and said, "This is stupid."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Parrish Ashbourne wrote:

Myth Busters test: Busted

Like the idea for doing extra damage if both hit. I just don't see this as possible as is.

I throw a dagger and it hits,
then I shoot the dagger right as it hits in just the right spot to push it in deeper.
How much damage does my dagger take and if I drive it in deeper,
how does it rebound?

Maybe the fist hit distracts the target giving the shot a better chance to hit and dose more damage because the target has opened themselves up to a clean shot.

Yeah, I really don't like the over-the-top nature of this, especially for a core ability of one of the Ways. I know this is some people's jam, but it should at least just be a feat so that GM's can not allow it easily without banning one third of the Gunslinger class

Horizon Hunters

I really don't see the problem with this feature. There is plenty of lower level ways to get thown weapons to bounce back to you after the attack. The explanation is silly and makes no sense but it's easy to reflavor it at your table as both attacks hitting the enemy for extra damage with the return happening only on both succeding.

I imagine many people will use this with a returning rune just in case one of the attacks misses.

Yes it gives the return option to non-thrown weapons and having a rapier bonunce from your enemy is silly, but at level 9 martials are well in the realm of supernatural. A level 6 monk (Titan Wrestler + Whirling Throw) can throw a huge creature 30 feet away.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Backtospawn wrote:
I really don't see the problem with this feature.
Backtospawn wrote:
The explanation is silly and makes no sense

Thas it.

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Backtospawn wrote:
I really don't see the problem with this feature.
Backtospawn wrote:
The explanation is silly and makes no sense

Thas it.

Good point lol. I guess I just assumed that it will get rewritten for sure, the feature is fun, throw and shoot at an opponent, similar to the paired shots but only one reload and bonus damage in exchange for -2 attack on the throw and chance to lose that weapon is cool. But there was a clear oversight by not mentioning why would the weapon return other than game balance.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The main problem I have with this ability is that the first part basically means that, merely by being a natural wonder at shooting guns or crossbows, I can suddenly throw any 1H melee weapon. Something no martial character, whatever their level, can do AFAIK.

The closest thing I found is the Whirling Blade Stance Monk feat which :

- Is a Monk stance, which states that it "creates a deep connection between you and your monk weapons, allowing you to manipulate them with your ki even at a distance", so clearly mystical / almost magical.

- Only works with Finesse Monk weapons.

- Is a level 14 feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The throw is aided by the shot, which guides the weapon towards the enemy and also makes it rebound.
Granted, it's not easy to visualize the scene; but we also have abilities saying things like:

Quote:
You find tiny holes or imperfections that no one else could see and try to somehow fit yourself through them, possibly moving directly through the wall or floor from one side to the other.

or allowing hiding in plain sight, or Battle Medicine. And magic.

So, I guess everything is possible.


Just limiting it to Slashing and Bludgeoning Weapons should be good enough. Otherwise trying to use this on someone that’s 20-60ft away is willingly taking a 10-50% additional miss chance. Guns themselves have a range of 10-30ft, so on average i don’t think many tables will come across throwing long swords at people 100+ ft away only to have it bounce magically back to your hand. Usual distance looks to be around 20ft at average with 30-40ft being the extreme ends before we get into specific builds.

Also, for similar abilities:

Ricochet Stance APG pg 126 wrote:
You adopt a stance designed to rebound your thrown weapons back toward you. While you are in this stance, any thrown weapons you use as part of a ranged Strike to deal bludgeoning or slashing damage immediately return to your hand, enabling you to use them for additional Strikes. You must be within the weapon’s listed range increment and have a hand free to catch the weapon. If you make a ranged Strike with a thrown weapon outside of its listed range increment, it instead flies back toward you a number of feet equal to its listed range increment and then falls to the ground.

This is a Level 6 Fighter Feat and a Level 8 Rogue Feat. We already have abilities that do this very thing at this very level range.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Just limiting it to Slashing and Bludgeoning Weapons should be good enough. Otherwise trying to use this on someone that’s 20-60ft away is willingly taking a 10-50% additional miss chance. Guns themselves have a range of 10-30ft, so on average i don’t think many tables will come across throwing long swords at people 100+ ft away only to have it bounce magically back to your hand. Usual distance looks to be around 20ft at average with 30-40ft being the extreme ends before we get into specific builds.

Also, for similar abilities:

Ricochet Stance APG pg 126 wrote:
You adopt a stance designed to rebound your thrown weapons back toward you. While you are in this stance, any thrown weapons you use as part of a ranged Strike to deal bludgeoning or slashing damage immediately return to your hand, enabling you to use them for additional Strikes. You must be within the weapon’s listed range increment and have a hand free to catch the weapon. If you make a ranged Strike with a thrown weapon outside of its listed range increment, it instead flies back toward you a number of feet equal to its listed range increment and then falls to the ground.
This is a Level 6 Fighter Feat and a Level 8 Rogue Feat. We already have abilities that do this very thing at this very level range.

I would agree, and the ability would break verisimilitude far less as far as I am concerned, if Rebounding Assault was similarly restricted to thrown weapons.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This is a Level 6 Fighter Feat and a Level 8 Rogue Feat. We already have abilities that do this very thing at this very level range.

No we don’t.

Throwing a weapon and it ricocheting back to you is not the issue with the feat.


Rysky wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This is a Level 6 Fighter Feat and a Level 8 Rogue Feat. We already have abilities that do this very thing at this very level range.

No we don’t.

Throwing a weapon and it ricocheting back to you is not the issue with the feat.

That has been one of the most talked about issue with a number of posters; including this very thread. Ricochet Stance works very similar on a practical level as Rebounding Assault; the only exceptions i see are multiple range increments for RA as apposed to RS, the additional 1d6 to damage, and RA allows for piercing weapons.

So get rid of allowing Piercing Weapons and they end up being rather similar. Speaking practically, rather than literally of course.

If the problem is with the oddly loose, yet oddly specific wording, then i just haven’t seen many arguments of why that shouldn’t be, or isn’t expected to be, cleaned up. Maybe I’ve just missed them tho

@ Raven - you do have a point with RS being limited to Thrown Weapons specifically, but RA gives weapons w/o the thrown trait the thrown trait, limits them to 1-handed weapons, and half the range of normal Thrown Weapons; and all the 1-handed weapons in the CRB are 1 bulk or less(with two exceptions being Uncommon Advanced Weapons).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
That has been one of the most talked about issue with a number of posters

It's the whole package and part of it is the rebound and HOW it rebounds: you must 1st hit with a weapon you throw: full stop. THEN you have to shoot said weapon: full stop. THEN the 1st weapon somehow reverses direction after all that and flies back into your hand.

Step 1 is pretty out there right off the bat when you're chucking a greatsword 50' [possibly 100' with a feat]. Step 2 is also pretty out there as you are not only hitting the thrown weapon, but hitting it to drive the thrown weapon harder into the target yet somehow doesn't damage the weapon while it's damaging the target. [especially since you can't even target the same weapon with a Strike when is sitting on the ground unmoving!] Step #3 is the worst offender as the same force that drove the thrown weapon into the target somehow paradoxically flings the weapon in the completely opposite direction so that it accurately lands into your hand, so in the case of the greatsword it has to be enough force to deal the extra damage from the hot AND enough to toss that greatsword 50' [possibly 100' with a feat].

All in all, the entire thigs is pretty far out there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Having to hit twice to get the thrown weapon back kind of sucks, just in general.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This is a Level 6 Fighter Feat and a Level 8 Rogue Feat. We already have abilities that do this very thing at this very level range.

No we don’t.

Throwing a weapon and it ricocheting back to you is not the issue with the feat.

That has been one of the most talked about issue with a number of posters; including this very thread.

No, actually read the complaints.

The issue isn’t the rebound, the issue is that you shoot your own weapon after you’ve thrown it to increase the damage (instead of just shooting the jerk you just threw your weapon at) by making it go faster, and then it rebounds to you, which gets even sillier when you go over piercing weapons.

Absolutely no one is complaining about the ability to ricochet, it’s everything else involved in the feat.

Horizon Hunters

Rysky wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This is a Level 6 Fighter Feat and a Level 8 Rogue Feat. We already have abilities that do this very thing at this very level range.

No we don’t.

Throwing a weapon and it ricocheting back to you is not the issue with the feat.

That has been one of the most talked about issue with a number of posters; including this very thread.

No, actually read the complaints.

The issue isn’t the rebound, the issue is that you shoot your own weapon after you’ve thrown it to increase the damage (instead of just shooting the jerk you just threw your weapon at) by making it go faster, and then it rebounds to you, which gets even sillier when you go over piercing weapons.

Absolutely no one is complaining about the ability to ricochet, it’s everything else involved in the feat.

Sounds like a very easy fix though, just change the wording so that the bullet hits the target instead at a rule of cool angle to send the weapon back flying to you.

Maybe change the 1d6 to mental damage as they struggle to comprehend what just happened /s

I think it will also be very common for people to have a 1d6 thrown weapon for this so they can put a returning rune on it though.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

An easy fix would be to just give them their own ricochet feat and not involve shooting your own weapon.

Throw, it bounces back, and you use your bullet on something serious, like the jerk you just bounced a hatchet off of.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is an extremely silly ability. It not only makes no sense that any drifter gets it, it makes utterly no sense that every drifter gets it.

Many games do not want to be this silly. For some games, its OK, but not as a standard feature of all drifter gunslingers.

Also, there are a host of alternate abilities that would be good for the drifter's 9th level deed. How about a dual weapon attack that takes 2 actions, lets you shoot someone, move up to them, and attack with a melee weapon with no additional multiple attack penalty and a bonus to damage if the range attack hit.


I heard someone mention it came from a scene in an old Western movie. Unfortunately, it seems to be too far removed from pop culture to work out.

Honestly, I don't mind the idea of combining both attacks - but I feel it'd be better received if it dealt some scaling extra damage and did not rebound. It can be a good finisher move and a decent trade to free a hand if you need it.


Rysky wrote:


The issue isn’t the rebound, the issue is that you shoot your own weapon after you’ve thrown it to increase the damage (instead of just shooting the jerk you just threw your weapon at) by making it go faster, and then it rebounds to you, which gets even sillier when you go over piercing weapons.

It isn't that it goes faster, you aren't shooting it mid-air. You shoot it after it's hit the person, and that is what causes it to deal more damage from that impact and then rebound.

Silver Crusade

You are explicitly shooting it mid air.

Rebounding Assault wrote:
If both attacks are successful, the bullet hits the thrown melee weapon instead of your target, adding its force into a single attack.

If you’ve hit the target and shoot after it’s not a “single attack” or instance of damage.

Throwing the weapon into an enemy and then shooting it after and then that’s when they finally take damage is even sillier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
You are explicitly shooting it mid air.
Rebounding Assault wrote:
If both attacks are successful, the bullet hits the thrown melee weapon instead of your target, adding its force into a single attack.

If you’ve hit the target and shoot after it’s not a “single attack” or instance of damage.

Throwing the weapon into an enemy and then shooting it after and then that’s when they finally take damage is even sillier.

I do think it was meant to be the even sillier reading. At least that's the impression I got when Michael Sayre tried to explain how it could work.

Michael Sayre wrote:
I see it more as you fling the rapier, it spins end over end, the point lodges in the target's face, then you shoot the hilt as it sticks out at an angle, causing it to slam into their chest hard enough to yank the blade of the rapier out of the wound with the remaining kinetic energy causing the weapon to rebound enough for you snatch it up again (since it can't go forward through the target). It's all in the initial throw and putting vertical spin on your weapon rather than throwing it along a curved arc. YMMV.

Silver Crusade

Shooting it to make it rebound, while over the top, wouldn’t be the issue if it was just that by itself. It’s when you make it the combined damage component as well that it gets silly.

The first “hit” doesn’t cause damage until the second hit hits or misses? That’s not any better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
This is a Level 6 Fighter Feat and a Level 8 Rogue Feat. We already have abilities that do this very thing at this very level range.

No we don’t.

Throwing a weapon and it ricocheting back to you is not the issue with the feat.

That has been one of the most talked about issue with a number of posters; including this very thread. Ricochet Stance works very similar on a practical level as Rebounding Assault; the only exceptions i see are multiple range increments for RA as apposed to RS, the additional 1d6 to damage, and RA allows for piercing weapons.

So get rid of allowing Piercing Weapons and they end up being rather similar. Speaking practically, rather than literally of course.

If the problem is with the oddly loose, yet oddly specific wording, then i just haven’t seen many arguments of why that shouldn’t be, or isn’t expected to be, cleaned up. Maybe I’ve just missed them tho

@ Raven - you do have a point with RS being limited to Thrown Weapons specifically, but RA gives weapons w/o the thrown trait the thrown trait, limits them to 1-handed weapons, and half the range of normal Thrown Weapons; and all the 1-handed weapons in the CRB are 1 bulk or less(with two exceptions being Uncommon Advanced Weapons).

to disallow piercing weapons is to dissallow rapiers, probably of of the drifters popular weapons and what many in europe would play because of history.

Visuals need to be better explained and rapiers still to be thrown.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Shooting it to make it rebound, while over the top, wouldn’t be the issue if it was just that by itself. It’s when you make it the combined damage component as well that it gets silly.

The first “hit” doesn’t cause damage until the second hit hits or misses? That’s not any better.

Oh, I 1000% agree it's all silly no matter how you parse it. I mean, replace rapier with a club and make the gun a hand cannon once... Do we assume the CLUB sticks in the target so you can shot it out of it with a wooden stake kitchen knife shot out of the hand cannon?

I don't get why it's made so of the wall. We have abilities that combine damage, like flurry, that don't require you hitting your own fist with your other fist to combine the damage: you just combine it if you hit twice. We have abilities that allow a weapon to rebound even when they miss, which is more out there but is still in the cap America type super skilled level of play. Why they didn't just combine those together and say 'done ' I just don't get.

REBOUNDING ASSAULT [two-actions]
GUNSLINGER
Requirements You’re wielding both a loaded firearm or
crossbow and a one-handed melee weapon.

Make a ranged attack with a melee weapon within it's first range increment, 10' range is it doesn't have thrown, and attack with a loaded firearm or crossbow. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage and add an additional 1d6 precision damage. Increase your multiple attack penalty only after making both attacks. After resolving the attacks he melee weapon immediately return to your grasp if you have a hand free to catch the weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Make the above with thrown weapon only and I will be on board.

Being able to throw any 1H melee weapon when no other Martial can is what breaks it to me.


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

I'd prefer if it said:

You throw your melee weapon and fire your ranged weapon simultaneously. Combine the damage for the purposes of overcoming damage resistance. By the power of God and Anime and/or Grayskull, your melee weapon returns to your hand.


You know the rebounding stance feat limits it so it can only return as far as the first range increment and that seems very appropriate considering this is not even a feat.

Also yeah there is no reason why it should work with non-thrown weapons.


"Combining the strike damage of both attacks into one if both hit" isn't some new mechanic that implies the weapons both hit each other mid-air to make it the big-attack, nor does it make the damage require both to hit for one instance of damage to apply. It uses the same design as Double Slice.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Blatantly ignoring what the complaint is isn't gonna make your position look better.

No one has an issue with a combined attack.

No one has an issue with a ricochet attack.

It's that they're combined and how they're presented in Rebounding Assault, it's silly.

Double Slice can be read as a dual attack. Rebounding Assault is one then the other, you literally can't shoot then throw.

Also Double Slice doesn't require you to shoot your own sword.


The Raven Black wrote:

Make the above with thrown weapon only and I will be on board.

Being able to throw any 1H melee weapon when no other Martial can is what breaks it to me.

LOL IMO, tossing a bastard sword is about the least bothersome issue for me. 10' is improvised weapon thrown range so anyone can toss a bastard sword as a thrown weapon if they want, this just allows it without the -2 penalty. That seems fairly innocuous compared to getting something like a Mambele or a Filcher's Fork to bounce off a target after damaging it and fly right back into your hand.

Temperans wrote:
You know the rebounding stance feat limits it so it can only return as far as the first range increment and that seems very appropriate considering this is not even a feat.

Myself, I'd be willing to have it be more powerful BECAUSE it's not a feat and is something that lock into a class/subclass.


Rysky wrote:

Blatantly ignoring what the complaint is isn't gonna make your position look better.

No one has an issue with a combined attack.

No one has an issue with a ricochet attack.

It's that they're combined and how they're presented in Rebounding Assault, it's silly.

Double Slice can be read as a dual attack. Rebounding Assault is one then the other, you literally can't shoot then throw.

Also Double Slice doesn't require you to shoot your own sword.

I was just replying to and clarifying the previous bits of the discussion about things like it being 'explicitly stated as shooting it in the air' and 'The first “hit” doesn’t cause damage until the second hit hits or misses? That’s not any better.' but didn't use the quote feature because it was multiple posts and I thought it'd be clear what I was replying to.

That post was not aimed at discussion whether or not it is silly or not, which is subjective. I don't really see much I could add to the conversation on whether or not it's silly that hasn't already been said so .... why would I bother to? I've already said 'this is so fine for me silly-wise', so nothing would be gained in this convo of me just going 'Acktsully it's fine for some people' whenever people complain about it being too silly for them. At best, me doing that would be thread-crapping.

I will say can Rebounding Assault can be read as a dual attack. I know I did and at least a handful of other people I know did (I am not gonna go around surveying peps to findout how common this niche interpretation thing is), and we've heard it was the intent of the writer. You attack twice, trying to do one big attack. Don't need to beat the enemies resistance twice, because the swords already in them by the time you shoot and you're just launching it in further with the force.


graystone wrote:
Temperans wrote:
You know the rebounding stance feat limits it so it can only return as far as the first range increment and that seems very appropriate considering this is not even a feat.
Myself, I'd be willing to have it be more powerful BECAUSE it's not a feat and is something that lock into a class/subclass.

I can see that, but then I am not sure on the balance of it. Most other classes dont get so much for as part of level up. Those that do have weaker chassis, outside of Rogue/Investigator.

So its really a toss up from my perspective.

Silver Crusade

Milo v3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Blatantly ignoring what the complaint is isn't gonna make your position look better.

No one has an issue with a combined attack.

No one has an issue with a ricochet attack.

It's that they're combined and how they're presented in Rebounding Assault, it's silly.

Double Slice can be read as a dual attack. Rebounding Assault is one then the other, you literally can't shoot then throw.

Also Double Slice doesn't require you to shoot your own sword.

I was just replying to and clarifying the previous bits of the discussion about things like it being 'explicitly stated as shooting it in the air' and 'The first “hit” doesn’t cause damage until the second hit hits or misses? That’s not any better.' but didn't use the quote feature because it was multiple posts and I thought it'd be clear what I was replying to.

That post was not aimed at discussion whether or not it is silly or not, which is subjective. I don't really see much I could add to the conversation on whether or not it's silly that hasn't already been said so .... why would I bother to? I've already said 'this is so fine for me silly-wise', so nothing would be gained in this convo of me just going 'Acktsully it's fine for some people' whenever people complain about it being too silly for them. At best, me doing that would be thread-crapping.

I will say can Rebounding Assault can be read as a dual attack. I know I did and at least a handful of other people I know did (I am not gonna go around surveying peps to findout how common this niche interpretation thing is), and we've heard it was the intent of the writer. You attack twice, trying to do one big attack. Don't need to beat the enemies resistance twice, because the swords already in them by the time you shoot and you're just launching it in further with the force.

You’re launching it further in.... and then having it immediately sproing back to your hand with the same action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
You’re launching it further in.... and then having it immediately sproing back to your hand with the same action.

Yes, which I feel is pretty cool. But I can see why some find it too much to take seriously.

I feel like it should definitely still be an option for the class and I really enjoy that style of option being present in the game without me having to wait eons to just get cool options, but do lean towards it not being the in-built default so that it doesn't distance people from the Way.


I know this trick, the idea is that you throw the weapon, the weapon hits, as it goes to fall to the ground as normal, you have also shot towards your target at the same time,
this shot THEN hits your weapon, rehitting your target a second time with such force, it deals an extra 1d6 damage and then rebounds back to you.
It works like this because if you miss one of the attacks, (IE thrown attack misses) though the shot may have hit the target (You shot where the melee weapon would have hit) you didn't hit your weapon and it doesn't rebound back OR (IE shot attack misses) Though the thrown weapon hits, the shot misses and thus the weapon falls to the ground, not having the shot's force ricochet it back towards you.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Guns and Gears Playtest / Gunslinger Class / REBOUNDING ASSAULT All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Gunslinger Class