Oh I agree. That was one of the things I went off on in the other thread, that they should have had the playtest be based on Martial Firearms, not simple ones to be patched. Like you said, simply bumping up both the base and fatal die by 1 size might work well from the flitlock base.
If the intent is for most firearms to be simple and patched with firearm ace, I am strongly against it. If instead there will be a selection of martial firearms, crossbows, and slings, then I think the class would be better off as a whole.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said in another post, I hope they get rid of fatal as Firearms defining trait. Crit fishing is not fun if it is imposed and picks at least do decent damage on regular hits thanks to STR to damage.
About gunslinger, I don't really care if they get to legendary or not, I just want reload to be a fun mechanic. I want to play a gunslinger and be happy to take a reload.
Imagine if feats like risky reload, Alchemical Reload or Shooter's Aim costed 1 action less but didn't include the strike (Free action reload, 1 action Reload + effect and 2 action Reload + Effect and take aim, last 2 work until the end of your next turn). Suddenly reloading is a decision point and not a chore. Suddenly special attacks get more useful.
Things like the Dual Weapon Reload all people want should be a passive benefit that allows to take reloads with hands full all gunslingers have and not an specific action, so it doesn't get into the toes of other feats. And Firearm/Crossbow Ace and Running Reload should be given for free as their existence as Class Feats makes picking them non-decisions.
Mandatory fatal, no-fun-allowed reloads and mandatory Class Feats are the biggest problems gunslingers have, not Expert to Legendary proficiency (Guns being afwul options doesn't help either).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crossbows already occupy the decent back up ranged weapon for most characters. I am much more in favor of simple firearms having somewhat of a niche in being the fatal ranged weapon for making that one shot really count, rather than just have them eclipse crossbows as the best dungeon delving back up ranged weapon.
See I disagree that fatal is a niche for simple firearms as you rarely get that 'one shot that really counts' from someone forced to use simple weapons. Secondly, I still don't see this 'must have' dungeon weapon if the die is boosted: IMO, you'd get as many people that's want a crossbow vs guns with bigger die. Even in dungeons, you can find ranges bigger than 10'-40' and then penalty for ranges + cover starts to really cut into the chances to hit for someone that has to use simple weapons. I mean, does the rogue WANT to be within 10' when he fires his sneak attack? At that point why not just move into melee?
High damage low range WOULD give it a niche that the average user of simple weapons could/would use and provides a good alternative to the crossbow: as is, I see NO reason people would get a simple gun over a crossbow so I don't see that 'niche' you want to keep: there is a reason fatal melee weapons are martial as people that use simple weapons don't have the ability to capitalize on it.
The developers are not going to reduce their ranges any more than they already have been reduced, and it makes no sense to have simple one handed firearms to do 1d6 base damage or more, and get cool features.
I makes sense to me: hit hard ALL the time at low range works IMO. The range as/is is fine: once you dump fatal and versatile a higher die works just fine.
Now I think fatal would be fine on a single firearm or 2, like a sniper rifle or a target pistol where it'd make sense: make the die a lower and tie it to crit fishing for those that like that. Sounds great to me. A dozen ranged picks is just a huge glut in a niche that doesn't need that many.
Moving this here because it was offtopic for that thread.
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.
Yes. Or some kind of niche.
You would prefer high damage low range as a niche. Got it. I disagree that is a niche worth designing for though, and also disagree that it is different enough from crossbows as they stand to be the general space for firearms to occupy.
The same logic you propose two posts above this also applies to your own preference: it would be fine to have 1 or 2 firearms that are basically loud crossbows, mechanically similar enough to crossbows that people can use that style but also use the firearm exclusive feats. Especially if they were simple firearms, so as to get maximum benefit from Firearm Ace. But for the general firearm design, I'd rather they have some different niche. I don't particular care for Fatal/Crit as that niche, but it at least has the virtue of being distinct.
You would prefer high damage low range as a niche. Got it. I disagree that is a niche worth designing for though, and also disagree that it is different enough from crossbows as they stand to be the general space for firearms to occupy.
Well it's at least a niche that someone that's using simple weapons CAN use and does give tangible difference between crossbows and themselves. x4 range and being able to shoot outside of a single monsters move vs a higher risk higher damage shot that requires being within that monsters single move seems a consequential enough choice to make.
Now I'm not saying this is the only way to do it: I'm MORE than willing to look at someone elses ideas on what to do. It's just that so far, I haven't seen a better option.
The same logic you propose two posts above this also applies to your own preference: it would be fine to have 1 or 2 firearms that are basically loud crossbows, mechanically similar enough to crossbows that people can use that style but also use the firearm exclusive feats.
It's not really the same logic as fatal isn't a trait someone using simple weapon can leverage. Now if we're talking martial, sure make a fatal one or 2.
I don't particular care for Fatal/Crit as that niche, but it at least has the virtue of being distinct.
I'm not sure what you mean be distinct. There aren't exactly piles of traits added to simple weapons. What's the common trait of darts? Bows? Slings? I'm not seeing why guns should be special and get common ones. I think they'd be distinct enough with whatever quirks firearms have as gunpower weapons and adding traits to specific guns. Why should a sniper rifle and a hand cannon have the same traits? It'd rather see the 'budget' for those types of guns not get lowered by slapping a common trait on every single gun.
Yes, I could go for firearms as short range high damage compared to crossbows.
How can any ranged simple weapons go higher damage than what crossbows already provide?
Are people suggesting a flint lock pistol do 1d8 damage? in a 20ft range?
A strong character can get close to/ surpass this with a sling, but they have to be boosting 2 attributes to keep up, but the limit of a D6 weapon helps control how good the weapon gets with runes. A D8 one handed simple ranged weapon that is dex based seems like way too much to expect.
A handcross bow is already a 1d6 weapon with a 60ft range. With a crossbow ace like feat, you can boost that to 1d8. That is all the powerful one handed weapon that the class needs.
As long as using a hand cross bow doesn't keep you from using half of your feats (which is what currently needs to change from the playtest) then a crossbow slinger is a great build for the vast majority of people wanting more reliable and less swing damage.
This is a little funny to me, because I was very skeptical of crossbows at first, and wanted them out of the gunslinger class, (saved for something else or an interesting archetype), but I can see that current crossbow design will pretty much fill most of the complaints I am seeing about the gunslinger, as long as they function with the feats.
I think the hand cannon should be modified to be a 1 handed scatter weapon, but otherwise, I think the firearms in the book are pretty much at the right spot to allow for really interesting and unique builds with the gunslinger feats, and the handcrossbow works very well for the reloading strike option, but you should do it at the end of your turn so you have a loaded weapon going into your reaction.
What's the common trait of darts?
Agile
Bows?
Reload 0 and Deadly
Slings?
Propulsive (bolas aside, but I think they're just there so that they didn't make a new weapon group and it is close enough, similar to how bows and crossbows are in the same group but are distinct)
To complete the set: crossbows have no features beyond high damage and range.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the common trait of darts?Agile
Javelin doesn't have it.
Bows?Reload 0 and Deadly
Crossbows are bows.
Slings?Propulsive (bolas aside, but I think they're just there so that they didn't make a new weapon group and it is close enough, similar to how bows and crossbows are in the same group but are distinct)
As you said, bolas.
To complete the set: crossbows have no features beyond high damage and range.
Crossbows are JUST simple bows, the reason they lack traits. the difference with firearms is they are trying to SHOVE in a traits on all of them, simple and marital. Cut those traits loose and you can open up guns to being useful and varied.
Crossbows are JUST simple bows, the reason they lack traits. the difference with firearms is they are trying to SHOVE in a traits on all of them, simple and marital. Cut those traits loose and you can open up guns to being useful and varied.
That is quite clearly not the intended design. If it was, all gunslinger feats that work with crossbows would be written to work with both bows and crossbows, and you'd get proficiency with the entire bow weapon group, not just crossbows. After all, if crossbows are simple bows, it follows that bows are martial crossbows.
I will accept your correction about javelins, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is quite clearly not the intended design. If it was, all gunslinger feats that work with crossbows would be written to work with both bows and crossbows, and you'd get proficiency with the entire bow weapon group, not just crossbows. After all, if crossbows are simple bows, it follows that bows are martial crossbows.
I will accept your correction about javelins, however.
Why are you treating firearms as one category but breaking up bows? Even the playtest doesn't make every gun fatal or versatile.
For crossbow, it's... complicated. There isn't currently a crossbow group: the only group is bow. Now I think everyone knows what they mean but it's just us assuming it. Hopefully they'll fix it in the book: but then they might add martial crossbows and then there might not be common traits anymore for them.
Suggestion: Bump all gun dice one stage, replace all fatal with deadly of the same size.
Now guns are trading the range of crossbows for the deadly on crit.
I started to go into this on a different thread, but I'll more fully lay it out here where it is on topic:
I see several potential options for gunslinger ranged weapons, each with a slightly different playstyle:
Simple Crossbows: High damage die, high range
Simple Slings: Slightly less range, more damage thanks to propulsive.
Simple Firearms: If they trade out fatal for the trait I described above, which I'll call Grazing from here on, that opens up a new mechanical operating condition while still roughly keeping the same damage.
All of these can retain that style even while Aced up.
Martial Crossbows: I'd like these to be carbon copy of each of their current entries with the fatal trait applied. Crossbows will have the highest range of all options, so it would make sense to interact best with Snipers.
Martial Slings: They already exist, and offer better range or better combat options. I don't think any more need to be added here. And I belatedly realized that Bolas do fit in this paradigm, as Thrown is essentially Propulsive+ for this weapon.
Martial Firearms: Here I'm stuck. I don't mind if they get some kind of crit rider, but that seems kind of lazy and steps on where I want to see crossbows land. But I suppose the grazing effect would still provide a unique feeling while deadly would make them work better for Gunslingers that expect to be able to crit a lot. Another option would be for multiple shots per reload action, as Unicore suggested. Or both.
Like javelins, exceptions to this general set can apply. For example, the blunderbuss is different than all other weapons; that can be seen as trading range to double down on the grazing effect.
That is quite clearly not the intended design. If it was, all gunslinger feats that work with crossbows would be written to work with both bows and crossbows, and you'd get proficiency with the entire bow weapon group, not just crossbows. After all, if crossbows are simple bows, it follows that bows are martial crossbows.
I will accept your correction about javelins, however.
Why are you treating firearms as one category but breaking up bows? Even the playtest doesn't make every gun fatal or versatile.
For crossbow, it's... complicated. There isn't currently a crossbow group: the only group is bow. Now I think everyone knows what they mean but it's just us assuming it. Hopefully they'll fix it in the book: but then they might add martial crossbows and then there might not be common traits anymore for them.
I'm not asking you to defend the design decision. But I think you can see what I mean, and why I would break that group into two when discussing thematic mechanics.
And like I said earlier, the same logic applies to your own preferences that you want to apply to guns with the fatal trait. The fatal trait appeals to people that likes crit fishing. That is a valid audience to target, and big crits thematically works with guns, even if neither of us would choose it. But having most guns in general work a certain way while reserving at least a couple that mechanically work more like crossbows (monkeying with the range/handedness if necessary) would help make that more palatable.
Either way, really, but I favor the "most guns work different" approach. To be sure, I also would like to see 1 new crossbow that work like guns, so that crit fishers can enjoy the class at tables that firearms are banned at (assuming I don't get my way elsewhere and crit fishing is here to stay).
Edit: as an aside, I want to make explicitly clear that I dislike fatal on simple firearms. I think I've been clear enough else where, and it isn't fully related to this, but I also don't want to waste any further electrons with arguments against it. I agree.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fatal trait appeals to people that likes crit fishing. That is a valid audience to target, and big crits thematically works with guns, even if neither of us would choose it. But having most guns in general work a certain way while reserving at least a couple that mechanically work more like crossbows (monkeying with the range/handedness if necessary) would help make that more palatable.
I think we can agree here. I'm, all for people getting their crit fishing guns: I just don't want all of them being that way. I'm all in on finding a way to alter the current guns in a non-crit fishing way for at least some guns: I'm good with everyone having at least 1 option in both simple and marital for their preferred play style. What I don't want is to see the playstyles being siloed to weapon types so crit fishers HAVE to use guns and others HAVE to use crossbows.
The fatal trait appeals to people that likes crit fishing. That is a valid audience to target, and big crits thematically works with guns, even if neither of us would choose it. But having most guns in general work a certain way while reserving at least a couple that mechanically work more like crossbows (monkeying with the range/handedness if necessary) would help make that more palatable.I think we can agree here. I'm, all for people getting their crit fishing guns: I just don't want all of them being that way. I'm all in on finding a way to alter the current guns in a non-crit fishing way for at least some guns: I'm good with everyone having at least 1 option in both simple and marital for their preferred play style. What I don't want is to see the playstyles being siloed to weapon types so crit fishers HAVE to use guns and others HAVE to use crossbows.
Of course. If all feats worked for all weapons, then I could see the current soloing state existing just fine, but as they stand there will need to be some diversity of options even if general trends are set up one way or another.
I can also see why the playtest only had these examples; only so much room and they don't want to dilute the data, but as I said elsewhere I hope more will exist in the book.
I think if you balance guns around crossbows, then the gunslinger needs class features that make using a crossbow like weapon viable like the precision ranger.
Otherwise, guns need to be far superior to crossbows.
I don't think so. The whole crossbow idea was intended as a way for players use Gunslingers at tables where guns aren't allowed. So either the whole design paradigm of the class shifts to something focused on Reload weapons, thus requiring the need for balance between crossbows and guns, or it treats the crossbows as what they are: Acceptable substitutes for some tables.
I find the notion of balancing crossbows against guns on the Gunslinger class to be a unnecessary restriction. They shouldn't bother making crossbow attractive because they are, as of right now, just a replacement not a primary goal.
If you want to make a competent crossbow character, I don't think the Gunslinger should be the primary source. Rangers and Fighters are suitable already, even though it would be nice to have more feats supporting the playstyle.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the notion of balancing crossbows against guns on the Gunslinger class to be a unnecessary restriction. They shouldn't bother making crossbow attractive because they are, as of right now, just a replacement not a primary goal.
I think this is wrong on two counts.
For one, a replacement shouldn't feel like a noticeable downgrade. Someone who wants to play a bolt ace instead of a gunslinger shouldn't feel like they're nerfing their character into the dirt to do it. Making one option intentionally bad doesn't help anyone.
For another, that's not really how weapons are supposed to be balanced. Paizo generally speaking has a rough budget for how weapons work based on their tier. Simple crossbows and simple firearms should be rough comparable because they're both simple weapons. Martial firearms should be a bit better than their simple counterparts, but comparable to other martial options because that's how martial weapons work.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a Gunslinger with a crossbow is not competitive with other classes using the weapon, no one will play one. Which means that the Gunslinger will only be played with guns. Might as well make them gun-only.
I still hope we will have the Gunslinger as the specialist of reload weapons, whatever the weapon and not restricted to firearms. Which BTW implies that the class should not be prisoner of the Fatal trait, or in fact of any trait other than reload. And its features and feats should provide many fun ways of interacting with reload.
The point i was sort of making is that there is no fighter build that uses crossbows. Crossbows are far inferior to bows. All ranged fighters use some type of bow.
So if you are balancing guns with crossbows, there has to be a class option that makes using a weapon about the same power as a crossbow worth using. The current gunslinger doesn't have that class option. So the class as constituted with the guns offered sucks.
Many people assume that a crossbow ace feat will be a final part of the class, just as fire arm ace is now to boost guns.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks to all the posts about crits being necessary due to Fatal on firearms, I decided to create the Critfisher Assassin :
A Kobold Gunslinger (Sniper) with INT 14, dedicating in Investigator at lvl 2 for Devise Stratagem at lvl 4, then dedicating in Assassin at lvl 8 for Assassinate at lvl 12, and Adopted by humans at lvl 5 to qualify for Wizard dedication at level 9, and Basic Spellcasting at lvl 10 for True Strike and Invisibility, Dracomancer at lvl 13 for even more True Strike and Invisibility (or maybe Silence), Conceal spell at lvl 14 and Silent spell at lvl 16, Expert Spellcasting at lvl 18 and Master Spellcasting at lvl 20.
Ending up Legendary in Arcana, Stealth and Athletics.
Weapons at 20th : Arquebus +3 Major Striking, Dueling pistol +3 Major Striking with the new doubling rings to use the Runes with the Aldori Sword he gets from Unconventional Weaponry at lvl5 and Unconventional expertise at lvl17.
I must admit that I will beg my GM to be able to select a Light Pick with Unconventional Weaponry instead, for even more crit Fatal shenanigans.
Not sure I will be able to play him before the real class comes out, but who knows :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want guns to be competitive for non gunslingers
I keep seeing people say that firearms offer nothing to non-gunslingers, but that is really not true.
The blunderbuss is an interesting short ranged back up weapon that does 2 damage types and will devastate swarms. Anyone who can get running reload, and will be planning on trying to stay mobile would be fine with a blunderbuss over a shortbow.
The dueling pistol is nothing but a functional improvement over the hand crossbow as far as 1 handed ranged weapons. Perhaps some strong martial characters will still be better off with a sling, but they are concealable, do 2 different damage types and hit like halberd when they crit. As long as some kind of magical item comes along that lets weapons drawn and then dropped benefit from some kind of runes (which was mentioned by Michael as something being looked into) a rogue with a brace of dueling pistols is going to be a nasty threat.
The arquebus is pretty squarely a snipers' weapon. Some rangers may want to use one instead of a crossbow if they get a little feat support for it (there is no reason to believe that we couldn't get new class feats/archetypes/or even a general feat for counting firearms as some other kind of weapon for proficiencies or interaction with class abilities), but by and large the arquebus is very much a specialists weapon.
I think one more martial firearm that fits more of a general soldier's weapon with a little more balanced damage range, perhaps 1d8 normal, 1d10 fatal but with 2 shots before reloading and a 40 or 50ft range and you'd have a pretty decent range of martial fire arms that feel like firearms.
Simple firearms are simple weapons. I would like to see the hand cannon turned into a modular scatter weapon with no fatal, and otherwise I think they are pretty much fine. It is probably best that the crossbow looks like the better weapon on paper for most simple weapon users, while firearms require some kind of scheming to make worth choosing or else rarity is going to be the only gate holding everyone back from wanting to cary around a firearm, which will just end up making them feel arbitrarily restricted.
Golarion is a place where firearms (especially simple ones) shouldn't be the weapon everyone wants as soon as they can find a dealer for them. Otherwise the whole game world would pretty much be having to make the shift away from other weapons and towards armies and nations actively looking to arm their soldiers with them. The only ways to make that be true is to make them "finicky" which will just be annoying, or to make them of limited value without investment.
Saying, "I don't think I'd want to use a firearm if most of them have a primary shtick that is the fatal trait" isn't the same thing as saying that they have nothing to offer anyone. If crossbows are not generally the more reliable weapon of most average folk of Golarion than similar proficiency level firearms, I think it would be hard to push back against the need to have a game world culture shift that a whole lot of players and GMs don't want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The arquebus is straight up a bad weapon because of Unsteady's action tax, on top of the reload.
Blunderbuss is too weak. The scatter damage is nice but doesn't make up for the fact that composite bows are hitting just as hard on the primary target and doing it without reload costs.
Etc.
Just across the board, the math is not favorable for the current implementations.
(There's a similar issue with Deadly in general - it's generally priced into weapon stats as a -1 die size, but unless you can crit on 11+ or the like it's a straight loss of average damage. And that would be true even if it didn't skip adding a die with the striking rune)
why does a blunderbus have to compete with a composite short bow? And in what context?
Anyone who wants a good ranged weapon that can be used in close quarters and is investing in strength is fine with having the composite shortbow be the better choice. A composite shortbow is going to be a terrible weapon against most swarms though. A blunderbuss is versatile though, which is pretty rare for a ranged weapon any way, and does splash damage. Honestly it is a pretty great weapon for a lot of undead hunters, and swarm slayers. And it requires no strength investment.
The "math being unfavorable to firearms" in most generic metrics seems essential to keeping firearms from becoming weapons that should become ubiquitous across Golarion. The question is whether or not the math of firearms can be made to work out for specific character builds outside of gunslingers and the answer to that question is yes.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
why does a blunderbuss have to compete with a composite short bow?
They're both martial ranged weapons, fitting a similar scope of usability and on the same 'tier' in terms of weapon value. They should be reasonably comparable as a result. Why shouldn't they be?
This notion that guns "need" to suck strikes me as really problematic and ultimately not healthy for the game at large. There's no point in publishing intentionally terrible weapons and providing feat support to then turn them into okay weapons is the antithesis of PF2's design principles. It's exactly what was wrong with PF1 guns and exactly why reworking them for PF2 was important.
The gap between two martial weapons should be relatively marginal, because that's what weapon tiers represent. Things like range and MAD muddy the waters a bit, but the end result should still try to approximately even out. Two different characters picking up two different damage-oriented martial weapons and expecting to have similar results with no caveats or exceptions is not some kind of bizarre, nonsensical ask.
To put it another way. If you can't pick up a blunderbuss, slap your level-appropriate runes on it and be competitive with the shortbow user straight out the gate, someone has made a mistake balancing the weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why does a blunderbuss have to compete with a composite short bow?They're both martial ranged weapons, fitting a similar scope of usability and on the same 'tier' in terms of weapon value. They should be reasonably comparable as a result. Why shouldn't they be?
This notion that guns "need" to suck strikes me as really problematic and ultimately not healthy for the game at large. There's no point in publishing intentionally terrible weapons and providing feat support to then turn them into okay weapons is the antithesis of PF2's design principles. It's exactly what was wrong with PF1 guns and exactly why reworking them for PF2 was important.
The gap between two martial weapons should be relatively marginal, because that's what weapon tiers represent. Things like range and MAD muddy the waters a bit, but the end result should still try to approximately even out. Two different characters picking up two different damage-oriented martial weapons and expecting to have similar results with no caveats or exceptions is not some kind of bizarre, nonsensical ask.
To put it another way. If you can't pick up a blunderbuss, slap your level-appropriate runes on it and be competitive with the shortbow user straight out the gate, someone has made a mistake balancing the weapon.
Having specific situations where the weapon is better, by itself, but worse in other situations is not saying it sucks. If a player is wanting to be mobile, but pack a wallop in up close ranged damage output, without investing in STR and be able to do multiple damage types without having to carry separate weapon, a blunderbus is a pretty good weapon option. the fact that it pretty much requires a feat (running reload) to be optimal is not really different than the longbow being a terrible weapon for most characters that can't get a feat or class ability to compensate for volley.
I agree that one more 2 handed martial firearm targeted more at the traditional soldier motif instead of the sniper would be ideal, but there is no martial firearm that is just not worth using by any character, and to the right character, all of the martial firearms and most of the simple ones have a place where characters might value them over other martial weapons. That seems like a very reasonable metric for weapon balance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having specific situations where the weapon is better, by itself, but worse in other situations is not saying it sucks.
True. The problem is it isn't specific situations, it's the majority of them. If an enemy is especially vulnerable to bludgeoning or splash damage, the blunderbuss looks more compelling, but by and large it suffers for the same reason every reload weapon suffers.
While I agree a more general purpose firearm would be nice to have, that doesn't address the underlying issue because the Blunderbuss is the short-range powerhouse and it still struggles in terms of raw numbers because of its attack rate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tentatively of the opinion that if you don't want to specialize in them, guns with reload can fulfill a niche that's essentially:
"Ranged option for if you're in no rush to shoot again"
Such as:
1. Melee character who opens with a ranged attack then closes
2. Someone with lots of other options in combat, especially if they have a familiar or something that reloads for them
3. Someone in a long-term siege situation
However, once you specialize in them, either through archetype or feats, it should be a viable option, action for action, versus bows against the same gamut of different enemies.
Right now, it feels like it'd be easy to tweak the numbers for the non-specialized use case to be true, but the specialized use case remains to be seen.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, once you specialize in them, either through archetype or feats, it should be a viable option, action for action, versus bows against the same gamut of different enemies.
This I can't agree with. For crossbows, we're told that they're simple weapons, designed to be worse so they get a feat to bump them up to martial level (crossbows still fail to some extent, but that's another topic). That's the logic behind crossbow ace we've seen from developers.
For weapons that are already martial, feats should be gravy. A weapon generalist should be able to pick up whatever weapon and feel pretty good using it. A weapon specialist should feel meaningfully better off using the weapon they've specialized in than other weapons.
Specializing just to reach baseline competency feels completely wrong. At that point you're not really specializing so much as buying a feat tax.
However, once you specialize in them, either through archetype or feats, it should be a viable option, action for action, versus bows against the same gamut of different enemies.This I can't agree with. For crossbows, we're told that they're simple weapons, designed to be worse so they get a feat to bump them up to martial level (crossbows still fail to some extent, but that's another topic). That's the logic behind crossbow ace we've seen from developers.
For weapons that are already martial, feats should be gravy. A weapon generalist should be able to pick up whatever weapon and feel pretty good using it. A weapon specialist should feel meaningfully better off using the weapon they've specialized in than other weapons.
Specializing just to reach baseline competency feels completely wrong. At that point you're not really specializing so much as buying a feat tax.
I think if the baseline was a little higher this would be less of an issue. There are some not so great martial weapons on the list as it is (looking at you newly nerfed Spiked Chain) and if guns got a little bump they'd be fine I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, once you specialize in them, either through archetype or feats, it should be a viable option, action for action, versus bows against the same gamut of different enemies.This I can't agree with. For crossbows, we're told that they're simple weapons, designed to be worse so they get a feat to bump them up to martial level (crossbows still fail to some extent, but that's another topic). That's the logic behind crossbow ace we've seen from developers.
For weapons that are already martial, feats should be gravy. A weapon generalist should be able to pick up whatever weapon and feel pretty good using it. A weapon specialist should feel meaningfully better off using the weapon they've specialized in than other weapons.
Specializing just to reach baseline competency feels completely wrong. At that point you're not really specializing so much as buying a feat tax.
Forgive me, I must not have been clear.
If the balance is hit right, a gun will be a stronger option for people in the "no rush to shoot again" niche than bows, without any extra specialization.
With specialization, guns should be on equal footing with equal levels of specialization in bows. So, a specialized bow user (someone with an archetype or a class feat or two dedicated to them) should be doing equal damage to a specialized gun user (same level of investment).
In other words: if you're not going to be using guns as your main schtick, they don't have to be balanced vs other weapons in DPR, as long as they're an objectively good choice to some set of people. If you *are* using guns as your main schtick, you should be on even DPR footing with people who are using bows as their main schtick.
From what we've seen so far, neither are true but tweaking up could make the unspecialized idea true, while more work is needed for the specialized case.
|
|
The Rarity is what keeps firearms gated, as befits their frequence in the setting (Uncommon).
They should be comparable to other ranged weapons (those with reload as well as those without) of the same category (Simple, Martial, Advanced).
Now, as Unicore stated, a high STR user might favor a propulsive weapon and a low STR user might favor a firearm. I have no problem with that.
*pushes glasses* AXCTUALLY, you see if you look on page 95 of the Character Guide, there is a Knight Reclaimant example image. They are loading a holy bullet into a revolver. IN setting there is a lot of different locales using guns now other than just Alkenstar. Like A LOT so rarity in Golarion is not as big of an issue. Ustalav has backgrounds that give Lore Engineering which matches the image. The World Guide entry on Alkenstar talks about Ricia's trade ideals and how far they have been pushing their firearm tech all over world now.
Really, just the art design alone for all the characters I've seen makes me think this was a low hanging fruit argument all around.
Crit fishing doesn't really feel good on a short range weapon with Reload 1.
If I want to play a crit fishing ranged character, using a bow or a deadly thrown weapon feels more satisfying.
Otherwise, I feel like I'm wielding a worse thrown weapon that doesn't add my Strength to damage and no rune to offset the action economy.
Also fatal is a lot more powerful than deadly as a trait.
There is no reason to think, or not to ask, that we get some feats/archetypes in Guns and Gears to allow other classes to get basic reloading action economy boosters to make both crossbows and firearms more useable.
A rogue MCing into Gunslinger and using a dueling pistol can get real nasty with ranged feinting and running reload. Kiting with a firearm can get pretty brutal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arquebus' range is 80ft.
The arquebus is the obvious outlier.
Fatal only adds an average additional +4 damage to a critical hit compared to a Deadly of the same die size. Significant, but a bow gets to add up to +2 or +3 each shot with 0 variance. It can also be fired three times a round. The maximum damage is much higher, but the cost feels too great.
Even for crit fishing, firearms aren't great and lose so much for it compared to other weapons.
|
Also fatal is a lot more powerful than deadly as a trait.
There is no reason to think, or not to ask, that we get some feats/archetypes in Guns and Gears to allow other classes to get basic reloading action economy boosters to make both crossbows and firearms more useable.
A rogue MCing into Gunslinger and using a dueling pistol can get real nasty with ranged feinting and running reload. Kiting with a firearm can get pretty brutal.
Thanks to Sneak and MAP, Rogues are just the best ranged attack option period. A Rogue with any ranged weapon will be brutal.
Speaking of the rogue, that's the kind of damage you need to make a 2-action attack loop satisfying (hide then shoot, plays a lot like reloading).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play a real undetected sniper, Investigator is great : you hide carefully, do nothing but wait for the Nat20 on Devise a Stratagem and then shoot.
Fatal weapons are great when critical hit is guaranteed.
Now, I did a comparison of weapons for my Investigator at lvl1 and lvl4 with a +1 Striking Rune.
Level 1:
Arquebus deals 8 HP, 26.5 on a crit.
Composite Longbow deals 9 HP, 23.5 on a crit.
Dueling pistol deals 7 HP, also 23.5 on a crit.
Composite Shortbow deals 8 HP, 21.5 on a crit.
Level 4:
Arquebus deals 12.5 HP, 39.5 on a crit.
Composite Longbow deals 13.5 HP, 32.5 on a crit.
Dueling pistol deals 10.5 HP, 34.5 on a crit.
Composite Shortbow deals 11.5 HP, 28.5 on a crit.
I still went for the Composite Shortbow. Because Reload eats your actions (which can be used for further Strikes but also other activities). And because I did not want the Volley penalty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, fatal is great on a crit - but what isn't? That's like saying investments make you a lot of money when you're rich - which is true, but also a clear problem with the Finance expansion for Outside.
An entire weapon class for those few times a crit is guaranteed/likely? I dunno, I'm still going to go with it being too niche. Do all the math on how hard it hits if you want to, it's not common enough for a core play loop for my tastes at least, and even assuming it was common, that damage would need to be about 1.5x-2x another weapon to make up for reload.