| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if there's one thing this playtest has shown, it's that the Reload trait is dramatically undervalued in Paizo's current formula for weapon balance.
There's been a lot of talk about the fatal trait, about feats and damage and things like running reload, but I think all of that ends up obfuscating the fundamental issue a bit: The reload trait is really bad and the weapons aren't properly compensated for it in the long run.
It was true of crossbows in core and it's still true of firearms in the playtest. The only real difference is that everyone pretty much gave up on crossbows pretty quickly.
Yeah, the gunslinger could get feats to make it better, maybe. But imo that's not good enough. A big part of weapon design in PF2 is creating tiers of weapons that are supposed to be roughly comparable to each other:
If you hand someone a dueling pistol and then hand an identical character a shortbow, they should perform similarly right out the gate, because they're both martial weapons. If you instead hand that character a crossbow, they should perform slightly worse because it's a simple weapon, but only slightly (really just compare simple melee weapons to their martial counterparts: going from a longspear to a halberd is one die step and an extra trait, going from a dagger to a short sword is just one die step. That's the kind of advantage a bow should have over a crossbow, nothing more).
Quantifying 'similar' is a bit tricky when they have different ranges and the shortbow should probably have a slight edge because propulsive makes you MAD, but ultimately, they're both martial weapons so the end result should be similar before you look at any feats.
Solving the issue by giving the gunslinger an overpowered feat or feature to compensate or something would be a significant misstep, imo, because it fails to address the underlying imbalance the Reload trait imposes on the game and creates mandatory feats everyone who's expecting to use similar weapons is forced to find a way to take, which is supposed to be anathema to PF2's core design principles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely agree with you that Reload has created a fundamentally imbalanced situation. I also think the problem is bows; most ranged weapons have an inherent 2+ action routine, either via reload or by drawing another thrown weapon, with shiruken being weird (how do you reload a thrown weapon exactly?).
Problem is that bows are already in the game. Unless they get patched to be advanced weapons, I think we're kind of stuck with introducing new feats or class features as compensatory measures, even if it goes against PF2's underlying philosophy.
Returning is just about the cheapest weapon rune out there, so a think a similarly priced patch (either rune or feat) could be introduced.
I like my reload as a reaction feat (naturally as it is my idea), though seeing how cheap returning is I'm thinking it would be fine as a level 1 feat instead of where I'd had it at level 3. But having a weapon rune that reduces reload time by 1 also makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that the dueling pistol is supposed to be comparable to a short bow. The dueling pistol is a one shot weapon that can be drawn and used with one hand. The fact you could have a sturdy shield and a dueling pistol is something that a bow user is never going to be able to do.
All I am saying is that there is also a handed-ness dynamic that has to be taken into account.
|
When talking about reload, I did a theorycraft a long time ago, using a dragon stance monk against a hypothetical “Focused Strikes” stance that was d20 damage with reload 1 and no other traits.
Dragon stance was better at 2 actions (flurry+strike) and was only barely worse at 1. Focused Strikes obviously couldn’t use flurry, and might be different for ranged weapons seeing as both dragon and focused strikes add strength mod whereas ranged weapons do not, but as you start picking up flat damage bonuses like property runes and weapon spec, it’ll start being more accurate.
Comparing two strikes from a bow to a single shot from a reload weapon, that would mean the Shortbow equivalent would probably need to do d10 damage and the longbow d12 for it to be close to worth it.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that the dueling pistol is supposed to be comparable to a short bow. The dueling pistol is a one shot weapon that can be drawn and used with one hand. The fact you could have a sturdy shield and a dueling pistol is something that a bow user is never going to be able to do.
All I am saying is that there is also a handed-ness dynamic that has to be taken into account.
Handedness is important, but the difference between 1 w/ reload and and 1+ is less significant than you're making it out to be. In both cases you need two hands to properly utilize your weapon, but generally have one hand free for other purposes. A dueling pistol user holding a sturdy shield can't reload and that's pretty bad.
Like I said, the shortbow should probably have a slight edge over the dueling pistol in overall value (owing to the 1+ mechanics and the MAD aspect of propulsive)... but the emphasis on that is slight. Right now the gap between them is far too significant for two martial weapons that fill a similar niche.
Besides, by that token two handed firearms should be that much stronger than a bow and that's not the case either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately yes - reload is clearly mispriced in weapon stats. Look at the heavy crossbow, which is absolutely and utterly unusable as a weapon in general.
I think this is another issue with reload weapons. Some are clearly priced assuming you never reload them in combat. The heavy crossbow is a caster weapon through and through. You fire it once when you want some extra damage for your 3rd action and don’t have anything else to do, then you don’t reload until after the encounter.
Such a paradigm makes it awful for martial characters who want to use their weapons multiple times per combat (unless they have quick draw and ABP).
If Reload weapons couldn’t be preloaded, then maybe they would be priced better, but as it stands I think the devs are having a problem whereby if you make them good enough to use for martials, then they become too good as a fire and forget option for casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately yes - reload is clearly mispriced in weapon stats. Look at the heavy crossbow, which is absolutely and utterly unusable as a weapon in general.I think this is another issue with reload weapons. Some are clearly priced assuming you never reload them in combat. The heavy crossbow is a caster weapon through and through. You fire it once when you want some extra damage for your 3rd action and don’t have anything else to do, then you don’t reload until after the encounter.
Such a paradigm makes it awful for martial characters who want to use their weapons multiple times per combat (unless they have quick draw and ABP).
If Reload weapons couldn’t be preloaded, then maybe they would be priced better, but as it stands I think the devs are having a problem whereby if you make them good enough to use for martials, then they become too good as a fire and forget option for casters.
It really seems that the developers are looking at this in considering the concept of a brace of pistols and a magic item that enables having runes move from weapon to weapon
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really seems that the developers are looking at this in considering the concept of a brace of pistols and a magic item that enables having runes move from weapon to weaponUltimately yes - reload is clearly mispriced in weapon stats. Look at the heavy crossbow, which is absolutely and utterly unusable as a weapon in general.I think this is another issue with reload weapons. Some are clearly priced assuming you never reload them in combat. The heavy crossbow is a caster weapon through and through. You fire it once when you want some extra damage for your 3rd action and don’t have anything else to do, then you don’t reload until after the encounter.
Such a paradigm makes it awful for martial characters who want to use their weapons multiple times per combat (unless they have quick draw and ABP).
If Reload weapons couldn’t be preloaded, then maybe they would be priced better, but as it stands I think the devs are having a problem whereby if you make them good enough to use for martials, then they become too good as a fire and forget option for casters.
I do not have enough words to express how much I hate that idea.
As an option, sure, go nuts. But I have no desire to end combat with a trail of pistols littered about the battlefield.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me of a Pathfinder 1st Edition forum discussion in May 2019 at Are Fireweapons even viable? comment #11.
Firearms need free reload, period.This is where I differ from almost everyone else who offers advice on firearms. The two gunslinging characters in my Iron Gods campaign were not rapid-fire gunslingers. The dwarven gunslinger/rogue Boffin used a grappling gun for battlefield control. She started with a Grapple Launcher firearms invented with the Experimental Gunsmith archetype (for gnomes only, but I ignored that) and advanced to the high-tech autograpnel from the Technology Guide. The bloodrager Val Baine was a weirder case. She was an NPC support character, but to amuse myself I used her to playtest a homebrew gunslinging archetype for bloodrager, the Savage Spellslinger.
Val Baine fought like a buccaneer. She shot once, put her pistol away, and charged with her sword. The reload time was irrelevant. If her pistol misfired, well, she was going to put it away regardless. After combat she would cast a 10-minute Mending cantrip to fix it. At one shot per encounter, the cost of ammunition was largely irrelevant. Buccaneer style avoided most problems with early firearms--perhaps that is why the buccaneers fought that way.
The reload topic also came up with the Savage Technologist archetype for barbarian, such as the threads
Savage Technologist? and Savage Technologist and Gunsmithing class choice [PFS]. The PF1 Savage Technologist has a Sword and Gun ability to avoid attacks of opportunity for shooting her pistol when she has a sword in her other hand. But reloading the pistol is unmanageable when she has a sword in her other hand. I based my Savage Spellslinger on Savage Technologist, so it also fought with a pistol and sword.I am fondness of United States history. At the battle of Lexington and Concord in 1775, the British army tactics was to march in rows. The first row would shoot their flintlocks and then kneel down to reload those firearms. Then the second row would shoot over their heads. (American Revolution: Weapons and Battle Tactics). This is 170 years later than the technology modeled in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, but I like it as an example of flintlock firearms.
The muzzleloader musket took 15 to 20 seconds to load and fire, so a six-action (two-turn) reload would be realistic, ... but not practical for a Pathfinder game.
I myself would like a three-action reload split into three steps: Clean, Reload, and Ram Shot. The shooter could skip Clean, but that would increase the chance of misfire. The shooter could use high-quality rounds to avoid Ramming Shot, but that would increase the cost.
The current firearms described in the Guns & Gears playtest document are boring. Flintlock musket (2-hand use, fatal d10, versatile B) Damage 1d6 piercing. Flintlock pistol (1-hand use, fatal d8, versatile B) Damage 1d4 piercing. The base damage is too low for all the trouble with reload and misfire. Trying to buff the damage with fatal weapon trait adds randomness that works best against low-level enemies rather than the important high-level enemies. Dealing damage is routine and won't make firearms exciting.
On the other hand, the firearms critical specialization looks fun: "The target must succeed at a Fortitude save against your class DC or be stunned 1."
I would change that to an always-on weapon trait of the firearms, "Impact Anyone hit by this weapon must succeed at a Fortitude save against your Reflex DC or be stunned 1." The critical specialization could drop the save.
The gunslinger Boffin in my Iron Gods campaign had a lot of success confusing opponents with the Targeting Deed. This is a miniature version of that and would make up for the reload time on firearms. In fact, the reload delay would be necessary to keep it balanced.
Alas, this is a pipedream. Fast reload is the vision of most players. They want firearms to be more like bows.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really seems that the developers are looking at this in considering the concept of a brace of pistols and a magic item that enables having runes move from weapon to weaponUltimately yes - reload is clearly mispriced in weapon stats. Look at the heavy crossbow, which is absolutely and utterly unusable as a weapon in general.I think this is another issue with reload weapons. Some are clearly priced assuming you never reload them in combat. The heavy crossbow is a caster weapon through and through. You fire it once when you want some extra damage for your 3rd action and don’t have anything else to do, then you don’t reload until after the encounter.
Such a paradigm makes it awful for martial characters who want to use their weapons multiple times per combat (unless they have quick draw and ABP).
If Reload weapons couldn’t be preloaded, then maybe they would be priced better, but as it stands I think the devs are having a problem whereby if you make them good enough to use for martials, then they become too good as a fire and forget option for casters.
I do not have enough words to express how much I hate that idea.
As an option, sure, go nuts. But I have no desire to end combat with a trail of pistols littered about the battlefield.
I don’t hate it for any aesthetic reason, I just hate having an item printed to fix the rules being bad. Because it leads to situations where people don’t know about/don’t buy the item (too expensive) or a DM disallows the item (maybe there isn’t one for sale at this settlement if you can’t start with it) and everything that requires that item to function properly just breaks apart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t hate it for any aesthetic reason, I just hate having an item printed to fix the rules being bad. Because it leads to situations where people don’t know about/don’t buy the item (too expensive) or a DM disallows the item (maybe there isn’t one for sale at this settlement if you can’t start with it) and everything that requires that item to function properly just breaks apart.It really seems that the developers are looking at this in considering the concept of a brace of pistols and a magic item that enables having runes move from weapon to weaponUltimately yes - reload is clearly mispriced in weapon stats. Look at the heavy crossbow, which is absolutely and utterly unusable as a weapon in general.I think this is another issue with reload weapons. Some are clearly priced assuming you never reload them in combat. The heavy crossbow is a caster weapon through and through. You fire it once when you want some extra damage for your 3rd action and don’t have anything else to do, then you don’t reload until after the encounter.
Such a paradigm makes it awful for martial characters who want to use their weapons multiple times per combat (unless they have quick draw and ABP).
If Reload weapons couldn’t be preloaded, then maybe they would be priced better, but as it stands I think the devs are having a problem whereby if you make them good enough to use for martials, then they become too good as a fire and forget option for casters.
I do not have enough words to express how much I hate that idea.
As an option, sure, go nuts. But I have no desire to end combat with a trail of pistols littered about the battlefield.
Technically the item don't change the dinamic much, people would either have to draw the gun from the magic bandolier that is the same action as reload, or quickdraw it with a feat and that means no other metastrike.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not have enough words to express how much I hate that idea.
As an option, sure, go nuts. But I have no desire to end combat with a trail of pistols littered about the battlefield.
I'm right there with you: I hate it quite a lot. What worries me is a battlefield that isn't conducive to just collecting your weapons afterwards: for instance, you're in an aerial dogfight with a dragon 500' in the air over the ocean... Good luck tracking those tossed away guns.
I think one issue is just what crossbows and other Reload weapons (slings, sling staff, guns) are supposed to do. When I read over the Ranger class, I thought that this was their way of 'fixing' crossbows, and I've seen a general agreement there: Precision edge, Crossbow Ace, and you're doing d10+d8+2 damage out the gate. I do see there's Firearms Ace (and I assume that if GUnslinger's meant to do bows too then they'll have access to Crossbow Ace), so I kind'a think they're meant to be 'hit hard' versus the bow's 'hit often'.
That said, I'd agree that heavy crossbows are basically fire-and-forget weapons, more so than the current versions of handguns. SHOT load load SHOT load load SHOT load load is not a waltz I'd want, especially with fluid combat and monsters that will waltz up to you and break in on your own dance.
Still, what manoeuvring room is there to make them better? Heavies are already doing d10, and with Ace that's a d12, and in this system there is no provisino for rolling d14s for damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still, what manoeuvring room is there to make them better? Heavies are already doing d10, and with Ace that's a d12, and in this system there is no provisino for rolling d14s for damage.
I don't think the simple weapons are the point of balance we should worry too much about. They are designed to be worse. What is more important are the weapons that martial classes are supposed to use - martial weapons.
And I think that solution is not too difficult. A good baseline martial crossbow is reload 1, damage d10 with deadly d10. This way we have something that hits a lot harder than a bow per shot, but is physically incapable of making as many attacks. From there we have the same design paradigm as everything else via traits.
Then we just have to make Crossbow Ace, Crossbow Terror and Firearm Ace what they are meant to be - catch-up feats for people who only have access to simple weapons or want to use them for some reason. They shouldn't affect martial and advanced firearms at all.
The real problem lies in differentiating crossbows and firearms.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't see reload weapons doing enough damage with just the 1 die.
And that's what I meant when I said bows are broken. With their reload 0, deadly, and propulsive, it is pretty close to impossible for anything to catch up within the constraints of PF2 weapon design.
Edit: Whether they are in a good place relative to melee is immaterial in a lot of respects. If it is too hard to design new ranged weapons around the constraints of bows, then they are literally breaking the game's design.
I personally wouldn't be against balancing reload with more new traits like impact(stun), piercing(ignores ac bonus for light cover), bleed(persist damage). I also wouldn't mind all of them going up one damage die even having some of them with 2 die to start. Like the penalties of having to reload is big and it also means on turns where you need to move or use a skill or an item you can't reload. Bows and melee weapons don't have this problem.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't see reload weapons doing enough damage with just the 1 die.And that's what I meant when I said bows are broken. With their reload 0, deadly, and propulsive, it is pretty close to impossible for anything to catch up within the constraints of PF2 weapon design.
Edit: Whether they are in a good place relative to melee is immaterial in a lot of respects. If it is too hard to design new ranged weapons around the constraints of bows, then they are literally breaking the game's design.
Bows being in a good place relative to melee is hardly immaterial. If you can't make reload ranged weapons as good as bows then they are never going to compete with melee, and they're going to drag down whatever party they're in. If you add a character that isn't contributing to the frontline defensively, and that does considerably less damage than other martials, then they're going to be a trap option that punishes people who want to use firearms/crossbows.
If it is too hard to design new reload ranged weapons that are competitive with bows then it's reload that is breaking the game's design by being so inefficient that fatal d12 isn't enough.
Bows are balanced, maybe even a bit underpowered, compared to melee and they are certainly not the problem here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My playtesters are hoping that guns with more than 1 ammo capacity end up existing. The one person in our group who was playing a non-gun character, and they just couldn't stop themselves from comparing themselves to that melee inventor.
If the inventor hit, he did good damage, and had actions for doing other stuff like moving, athletics actions to trip enemies, and using other class abilities like megavolt. If the gun-users hit, they dealt reasonable or poor damage (rarely they dealt a big hit of damage from a crit), and can maybe move abit.
If the inventor missed, it was fine since he still had those other actions.
If the gun-users missed, it mainly felt like their turn was wasted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, what manoeuvring room is there to make them better? Heavies are already doing d10, and with Ace that's a d12, and in this system there is no provisino for rolling d14s for damage.I don't think the simple weapons are the point of balance we should worry too much about. They are designed to be worse. What is more important are the weapons that martial classes are supposed to use - martial weapons.
And I think that solution is not too difficult. A good baseline martial crossbow is reload 1, damage d10 with deadly d10. This way we have something that hits a lot harder than a bow per shot, but is physically incapable of making as many attacks. From there we have the same design paradigm as everything else via traits.
Then we just have to make Crossbow Ace, Crossbow Terror and Firearm Ace what they are meant to be - catch-up feats for people who only have access to simple weapons or want to use them for some reason. They shouldn't affect martial and advanced firearms at all.
The real problem lies in differentiating crossbows and firearms.
Good points, tho our current martial reload weapons consist of the sling staff, which is d10 without deadly (but with propulsive). Of course, its advantage over the longbows (to make up for Reload) are the lack of volley, one higher die, and one less bulk. And fewer people able to use it due to being uncommon. And much less feat support that I know of.
Longbows are monstrously inconvenient weapons for dungeon crawling. Using one and not having to move every round is basically a commitment to standing far away from the party and often having to deal with cover. Characters that make longbows their main deal are often dealing with accuracy issues, which ends up eating into their DPR via Frits very often.
My cleric of Ketephys is always wishing that the short bow worked as a holy weapon, and only ends up using the bow about 50% of combats. Luckily, casters are generally ok with short ranged damage/be buff options so it works out to be not terrible, but not what it looks like it could be on paper.
I think the gun that is currently missing from the play test is the reliable “soldiers” version of a martial fire arm. Right now the primary action economy fix to reload involves movement and that means only having the arquebus as a martial long arm that works like people think a gun should work is the major setback.
I can't see reload weapons doing enough damage with just the 1 die.
I don't know, doing ~50% more damage per shot than a bow seems pretty good to me. Not everyone is going to get huge value out of that, but that is true for all weapons. It is not like you are taking a shortsword as a Barbarian or mallet as a Swashbuckler.
Now, if we also get actual feat support that is not just patchwork stuff like Crossbow Ace, I absolutely see some classes being interested in this. Gunslingers, obviously. The Investigator and Precision Ranger, definitely. Maybe some Rogues and Fighters.
Good points, tho our current martial reload weapons consist of the sling staff, which is d10 without deadly (but with propulsive). Of course, its advantage over the longbows (to make up for Reload) are the lack of volley, one higher die, and one less bulk. And fewer people able to use it due to being uncommon. And much less feat support that I know of.
Its actually even worse, because the composite longbow has propulsive as well and both versions have deadly d10. They also have higher range than the sling staff and are 1+ handed, not 2. It is arguably better than the Daikyu, though, so that is something :D. But seriously, none of the current reload weapons are particularly well balanced, simple or otherwise.
Feat support isn't all that bad, honestly. Slings are a bit boned, as they have exactly 1 feat - Titan Slinger - which is not terrible for an ancestry feat, but still an exclusive ancestry feat. Crossbows have it better, as they can use many bow feats. And many ranged weapon feats are universal, even though anything with the press trait is of... limited usefulness.
I can't see reload weapons doing enough damage with just the 1 die.I don't know, doing ~50% more damage per shot than a bow seems pretty good to me. Not everyone is going to get huge value out of that, but that is true for all weapons. It is not like you are taking a shortsword as a Barbarian or mallet as a Swashbuckler.
Except you don't get that 50% damage. Propulsive alone cuts the die advantage between a shortbow and your proposed weapon in half. (d6 averages to 3.5, d10 averages to 5.5, propulsive would commonly add 1 to the shortbow).
With a longbow it is eliminated entirely.
I also wouldn't mind all of them going up one damage die even having some of them with 2 die to start.
Which would break the game's design. A lot of stuff would have to be rewritten to accommodate that. Edit: That isn't to say it couldn't be done, but it might be a headache and not something they want to do.
I can't see reload weapons doing enough damage with just the 1 die.And that's what I meant when I said bows are broken. With their reload 0, deadly, and propulsive, it is pretty close to impossible for anything to catch up within the constraints of PF2 weapon design.
Edit: Whether they are in a good place relative to melee is immaterial in a lot of respects. If it is too hard to design new ranged weapons around the constraints of bows, then they are literally breaking the game's design.
Bows being in a good place relative to melee is hardly immaterial. If you can't make reload ranged weapons as good as bows then they are never going to compete with melee, and they're going to drag down whatever party they're in. If you add a character that isn't contributing to the frontline defensively, and that does considerably less damage than other martials, then they're going to be a trap option that punishes people who want to use firearms/crossbows.
If it is too hard to design new reload ranged weapons that are competitive with bows then it's reload that is breaking the game's design by being so inefficient that fatal d12 isn't enough.
Bows are balanced, maybe even a bit underpowered, compared to melee and they are certainly not the problem here.
It seems pretty obvious to me that ranged weapons weren't actually meant to be competitive with melee, especially at ranges above 35', and are supposed to be 2 action activities. You're correct that the error probably happened with misvaluing of reload though.
Consider for a moment a game where bows weren't here. Cantrips would be the short ranged heavy damage option, with 10d4 at level 20 competing well with 4d6+rune damage at a longer range, as long as both took 2 actions.
So yeah, I do think it is immaterial that bows come within earshot of melee damage, as I think that is an accident instead of intentional. I think bows should have been either as is but advanced weapons (where the reduced proficiency and feat-gating would keep everything honest), or 1 smaller die each and lacking deadly. The latter option would have worked reasonably well, leaving shortbows at 4d4+runes at about double the range and frequency of cantrips, though at slightly less of an attack bonus. This would have left enough room in weapon formulas for all other weapons to breathe.
Note, this is close to where Shiruken landed. Shorter ranged, but double the damage boost from strength via Thrown, and Agile as well.
Though I may be doing the designers a disservice. Instead of a miscalculation, perhaps they ultimately decided to give a boost to bows because they assumed the higher range wouldn't come up anyways, as Unicore points out, and so need to have competitive damage with melee to compensate for having most of the same risks and some extra drawbacks. If so, that effectively made bows the standard for range instead of an interesting exception.
For martial melee characters, it is true that bows are all around better back up weapons than anything else, but that seems quite intentional.
The bow is pretty MAD to build around though for as a main weapon and it is incredibly rare for archers not to be contending with cover if they want to stand and shoot. 1d8+2 or 1d6+4 is pretty much what maximum martial bow power looks to be built around. The Arquebus gets there + with feats, but doesn't interact with running reload very nicely until you get shooter's Aim, which is essentially mandatory if you want to use an Arquebus.
If the blunderbuss could get the +2 from fire arm ace to its scatter damage, that would make it a pretty nasty soldier's weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like what the gunslinger in particular needs is:
- more activities that can be combined with reloading a la running reload.
- a good "third action" in class to complement turns where two are occupied by "reload and shoot".
I've played plenty of characters that primarily made one attack/round, and that's a fine way to play, but the difference between, say, the swashbuckler and the gunslinger is that if the swashbuckler misses on the finisher, they still presumably got some benefit from their action to gain panache.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except you don't get that 50% damage. Propulsive alone cuts the die advantage between a shortbow and your proposed weapon in half. (d6 averages to 3.5, d10 averages to 5.5, propulsive would commonly add 1 to the shortbow).
With a longbow it is eliminated entirely.
Which is why I was specifically talking about the "baseline crossbow". The same as the regular shortbow is the baseline bow. Of course you get completely different results if you compare apples to oranges. The equivalent to a longbow would be d12, deadly d10 plus some trait comparable to volley. And there will obviously be an equivalent to the composite variants.
So yeah, I do think it is immaterial that bows come within earshot of melee damage, as I think that is an accident instead of intentional. I think bows should have been either as is but advanced weapons (where the reduced proficiency and feat-gating would keep everything honest), or 1 smaller die each and lacking deadly. The latter option would have worked reasonably well, leaving shortbows at 4d4+runes at about double the range and frequency of cantrips, though at slightly less of an attack bonus. This would have left enough room in weapon formulas for all other weapons to breathe.
It is most certainly not immaterial, if only for the simple fact that that is the state of the game, mistake or not. And given that bows are not nearly as powerful as you portray them to be, I do not think that it is a mistake. Deadly is nice and all, but a d6 weapon whose upgraded version requires you to be MAD to get up to 2 bonus damage, frequently has to deal with lesser or higher cover and doesn't have the advantage of flanking is not exactly as strong as about any of the standard melee weapons. And comparing them to cantrips, which are basically the simple weapon sidearms of a caster's arsenal, is simply not productive. Melee weapons and reload 0 weapons are reasonably fine and balanced as they are, its reload weapons that are not.
I feel like what the gunslinger in particular needs is:
- more activities that can be combined with reloading a la running reload.
- a good "third action" in class to complement turns where two are occupied by "reload and shoot".I've played plenty of characters that primarily made one attack/round, and that's a fine way to play, but the difference between, say, the swashbuckler and the gunslinger is that if the swashbuckler misses on the finisher, they still presumably got some benefit from their action to gain panache.
Well I think it looks like a lot of gunslinger activities are designed to be 2 action activites any way, so that 3rd action is getting folded in to the shot, but not every gunslinger build gets there right away and for some it will be level 8 or higher before there is a 2 action activity that they will want to be taking regularly.
Which is why I was specifically talking about the "baseline crossbow". The same as the regular shortbow is the baseline bow. Of course you get completely different results if you compare apples to oranges. The equivalent to a longbow would be d12, deadly d10 plus some trait comparable to volley. And there will obviously be an equivalent to the composite variants.Except you don't get that 50% damage. Propulsive alone cuts the die advantage between a shortbow and your proposed weapon in half. (d6 averages to 3.5, d10 averages to 5.5, propulsive would commonly add 1 to the shortbow).
With a longbow it is eliminated entirely.
I'm not sure you're having the same conversation I am about this point.
So let me ask you, when you say this:
I can't see reload weapons doing enough damage with just the 1 die.I don't know, doing ~50% more damage per shot than a bow seems pretty good to me.
And you're not talking about bows since that is an apples to oranges comparison, what comparison were you making?
Which is why I was specifically talking about the "baseline crossbow". The same as the regular shortbow is the baseline bow. Of course you get completely different results if you compare apples to oranges. The equivalent to a longbow would be d12, deadly d10 plus some trait comparable to volley. And there will obviously be an equivalent to the composite variants.Except you don't get that 50% damage. Propulsive alone cuts the die advantage between a shortbow and your proposed weapon in half. (d6 averages to 3.5, d10 averages to 5.5, propulsive would commonly add 1 to the shortbow).
With a longbow it is eliminated entirely.
I'm not sure you're having the same conversation I am about this point.
So let me ask you, when you say this:
And you're not talking about bows since that is an apples to oranges comparison, what comparison were you making?I can't see reload weapons doing enough damage with just the 1 die.I don't know, doing ~50% more damage per shot than a bow seems pretty good to me.
Hm, you might be right, there seems to be some miscommunication going on. So here is my perspective:
What I think you are doing is comparing my version of the crossbow equivalent of the shortbow to the composite shortbow and composite longbow. Hence, the apples and oranges comment. A shortbow is the weaker version of the composite shortbow, so it shouldn't be surprising that the crossbow version doesn't hold up to it as well.
If you make the comparison I was thinking of - my proposition of a damage d10, deadly d10, reload 1 crossbow vs the shortbow - then we are looking at a damager-per-shot difference of about 50%. Everything else, including things like propulsive and volley equivalents, can be balanced from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean non-propulsive bows, then I think it is an incorrect comparison. If we have to consider ranged weapons in light of the fact that bows can do the lower end of melee damage and so that is the default they should all hit, then we should also have to consider composite as the default for most martial ranged characters, who would not find Str 14 to be a significant cost (Str 18 is much more significant, which is why I only calculated propulsive based on Str 14). There's also no real trade-off between propulsive and non-propulsive past level 1, and only then if you're buying your own gear.
I honestly tend to forget the non-propulsive version is even in the game. Making composite bows level 1 weapons would have worked as a differentiator; I'm sort of curious why they did not. Or, again, making composites advanced instead of martial.
But agreed that 5.5 is roughly 50% over bare 3.5. I just don't think that is a valid comparison when we're looking at martial characters.
Yes, that was exactly what I was talking about ^^. It just stands to reason that crossbows would have to follow the same upgrade path as bows do, otherwise bow users would feel rightfully cheated. So we have to have a baseline we can build upon, which is what I was establishing. Of course reload weapon users will do the exact same thing and grab the "composite" variant as soon as it is available, but that doesn't mean we should be better out of the gate. I personally think the whole composite upgrade thing is really silly, but we have it now and need to make the best of it.
Edit: Ok, this forum is clearly not designed for rapid responses XD. Or I'm a bloody time wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean non-propulsive bows, then I think it is an incorrect comparison. If we have to consider ranged weapons in light of the fact that bows can do the lower end of melee damage and so that is the default they should all hit, then we should also have to consider composite as the default for most martial ranged characters, who would not find Str 14 to be a significant cost (Str 18 is much more significant, which is why I only calculated propulsive based on Str 14). There's also no real trade-off between propulsive and non-propulsive past level 1, and only then if you're buying your own gear.
I honestly tend to forget the non-propulsive version is even in the game. Making composite bows level 1 weapons would have worked as a differentiator; I'm sort of curious why they did not. Or, again, making composites advanced instead of martial.
But agreed that 5.5 is roughly 50% over bare 3.5. I just don't think that is a valid comparison when we're looking at martial characters.
Edit: o.O okay now it just all looks weird.
Edit: Ok, this forum is clearly not designed for rapid responses XD. Or I'm a bloody time wizard.
Yeah I'm not moving stuff around anymore, lol.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't see reload weapons doing enough damage with just the 1 die.
Let me calculate the math.
I'll will start with a shortbow as the standard and average together two cases, 50% chance to hit and 60% chance to hit on an unpenalized attack.
At 50% chance, the character has a 45% chance of a regular hit and a 5% chance of a critical hit on the first attack and a 20% chance of a regular hit and a 5% chance of a critical hit on the second attack. A regular hit deals 3.5 piercing damage on average and a critical hit, due to deadly d10, deals 12.5 piercing damage on average. That comes to (0.65)(3.5) + (0.10)(12.5) = 3.525 piercong damage per turn on average.
Replace the shortbow with a longbow or a composite shortbow with +1 projective damage boosts that to (0.65)(4.5) + (0.10)(14.5) = 4.375 piercing damage per turn on average.
The 60% chance of hitting with a shortbow gives (0.80)(3.5) + (0.15)(12.5) = 4.675 piercing damage per turn on average. For a longbow or composite shortbow that would be (0.80)(4.5) + (0.15)(14.5) = 5.775 piercing damage per turn on average.
Next, let's suppose the character has a ranged weapon with reload 1 that deals dN damage with no deadly nor fatal weapon trait. The average damage of a 1dN is (N+1)/2. Instead of making two shots with this weapon, the character reloads and takes one shot. Thus, the 50% case deals (0.45)(N+1)/2 + (0.05)(N+1) = (0.275)(N+1). If we want that to match the damage of a shortbow, we solve (0.275)(N+1) = 3.525 for N = 11.8. The 60% case deals (0.5)(N+1)/2 + (0.10)(N+1) = (0.35)(N+1). To match the shortbow, we solve (0.35)(N+1) = 4.675 for N = 12.4. The case N = 12 is close enough to both of those cases.
Thus, a d12 ranged weapon without deadly or fatal can match the damage of a shortbow. However, this is as far as we can get.
For the longbow or composite shortbow, the 50% case gives (0.275)(N+1) = 4.375 for N = 14.9 and the 60% case gives (0.35)(N+1) = 5.775 for 15.5. N = 15 is between those cases, but we lack a physical d15. 2d7 would also work, but we lack a physical d7, too. We could manage with a d8+d6. Imagine a firearm that deals 1d8 piercing damage and 1d6 bludgeoning damage with reload 1 and no deadly nor fatal trait. With a 50% chance to hit, this weapon would deal (0.55)(4.5+3.5) = 4.4 weapon damage. With a 60% chance to hit, this weapon would deal (0.7)(4.5+3.5) = 5.6 weapon damage. We can easily tweak the rules so that a Striking rune increasing the weapon damage dice from one to two means that 1d8+1d6 increases to 2d8+2d6.
Having a flintlock musket deal 1d8 piercing and 1d6 bludgeoning and a flintlock pistol deal 1d6 piercing and 1d6 bludgeoning would make firearms more interesting. And it would remove that Versatile B from a weapon that does not two clear attacking modes like either stabbing or cutting with a shortsword.
With a 60% chance to hit, this weapon would deal (0.7)(4.5+3.5) = 5.6 weapon damage. We can easily tweak the rules so that a Striking rune increasing the weapon damage dice from one to two means that 1d8+1d6 increases to 2d8+2d6.
As a supporting argument, when I was mathing out my "Grazing" trait the other day, I discovered that if Fatal added an additional die for each die on a crit, rather than just the 1st, that almost yanked the weapon up to acceptable.
I think there might be some unintended wonkiness with stuff that does additional damage per weapon die, but that might be able to be addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mathmuse, I really like the idea of multiple dice doing different damage types, and how it gets the math to be both where it's needed and allow for some design space.We'd need errata for the existing reload weapons still to avoid firearms completely dominating I think. Simple firearms and crossbows should be comparable to some degree.
For crossbows the the Guns and Gears can easily solve this by adding some kind of martial crossbows that can add traits (something like composite crossbows that maybe add deadly) or even add repeating crossbows to avoid reload every time.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Capacity X trait to fire X times before having to reload.
Grazing trait for firearms to deal 1 point of damage on a simple failure (thanks AnimatedPaper for this one).
Bigger damage to make up for the reload (and grip-changing) actions.
Deadly rather than Fatal, but some Fatal guns for those who enjoy them.
Reload tricks (such as the Tactical Reload ability proposed by Karmagator) granted by the Gunslinger class and its MC dedication.
And the Rune-bearing bandolier for thrown and reload weapons to support the Brace of pistol fighting style.
Which BTW should be more of a non-Gunslinger tool IMO.
Fingers crossed :-D
I was thinking of a Gunslinger class feature that would let them reload as either a reaction (after firing, as long as it wasn't a misfire) and later on gain an extra reaction just to reload; or as a free action with the same trigger (and the flourish trait to start, but losing that trait at a certain level).
I lean toward Reaction because they really don't have a good useful reaction like the fighter's AofO or how other classes get Shield Block.
I like this in theory, but Paizo tends not to have too many reactions that can be used on your turn easily. Besides say, Feather Fall, I can't really think of any that can reliably trigger on your turn.
A feat that gives you a 1/turn free action reload with the Press trait I could get behind, but that sorta steps on the toes of Risky Reload. I can't really see Paizo giving you 2 different ways of doing the same thing.