| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this is basically a thread I wanted to make to get some input on this topic, especially after having read Guns and Gears.
What are your thoughts on incorporating guns in your games, and on Guns and Gears in general?
Personally, I think 1d4 for the flintlock pistol is a pitiful amount, much for the same reason I think 1d4 for a baseball bat style club is too small. I would bump it up to 1d6 for both.
Honestly the whole "flintlock cowboy" vibe of the gunslinger really doesn't sit well with me.
In terms of setting stuff, I would really want to get more info on Arcadia considering it gets a section of its own in Guns and Gears, indicating that it's clearly a hotbed for what the book discusses, as well as it is clearly coded as the "Americas" which is an interesting combination.
I also have integrated "early firearms" as core weapons in my setting. Fwiw, it's also easy to include more modern firearms in there by fiddling with weapon qualities and referencing the "techno-junk" stuff in the Numeria modules (although that's not exactly "modern" per se).
The one big thing I'm really waiting on for in 2e PF is the "tech guide", which it seems others here also would like (considering the two threads on the subject). Fwiw I would want to emphasize the "guide" part of that by being less a list of guns and more a "tech level table" thing for GMs to build equipment of multiple different kinds.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a big fan of guns in fantasy! They coexisted with plate armor (not that the d20 fantasy space is beholden to any notion of historicity), and are essential for the vision of what pirates look like. Given how much of the setting is closer to the 1700s than the medieval era, I don't find them jarring at all, but I appreciate that they're more of an Arcadian and Garundi thing - it adds a sense of local flavor.
Arcadia having an entirely separate design lineage of firearms that stems from magic relics is awesome. I love that our Americas has indigenous cowboys who don't need to get their guns from Fantasy Europeans. Beast Guns are an awesome concept that I want more on, and those arcane skymetal guns out of places like Heyopan likewise really intrigue me. I'm glad that Alkenstar offers a different flavor of gunslinging, and Numeria is what first drew me to Golarion.
I do wish they hit a little harder to compensate for the punishing reloads, and that their design broadly felt more like the Harmona Gun - simple, straightforward, and pretty damn effective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think 1d4 for the flintlock pistol is a pitiful amount, much for the same reason I think 1d4 for a baseball bat style club is too small. I would bump it up to 1d6 for both.
The mechanical shtick of firearms is that they have very high Fatal trait, making their crits far stronger than those of other ranged weapons. I you want to bump their regular damage without altering the Fatal trait on them, you'll end up unbalancing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was at least one other discussion about guns in January.
I also like that there is more than one "type" of guns, depending on the location/manufacturing premise, even for gunpowder-based guns. Alkenstar guns are different than guns from Tian Xia/Vudra.
The magical guns from Arcadia, like the beast guns, are really nifty conceptually and make a great (IMO) way to have firearms in a fantasy setting that don't rely on gunpowder. The only potential drawback is that the magical guns are higher level items not suitable for 1st level characters. The star guns are pretty much limited to high-level play, while the beast guns require a specific ritual hunt and even the lowest level beast gun (the drake rifle) is a 4th level item; the related beast gunner and spellshot archetypes also lean into the magical aspect even more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't gotten around to looking at any of them mechanically yet but thematically and flavor-wise I would say that I am generally in favor of guns & clockwork/steampunk tech in fantasy. I've never been a fan of the assertion that the existence of magic would halt technological progress.
I don't know that they're a fit for every setting; were I to make a Conan-esque, bonze age, sword & sandle type setting, I'd exclude them. But Golarion is very much a kitchen sink amongst kitchen sinks as far as settings go.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The magical guns from Arcadia, like the beast guns, are really nifty conceptually and make a great (IMO) way to have firearms in a fantasy setting that don't rely on gunpowder. The only potential drawback is that the magical guns are higher level items not suitable for 1st level characters. The star guns are pretty much limited to high-level play, while the beast guns require a specific ritual hunt and even the lowest level beast gun (the drake rifle) is a 4th level item; the related beast gunner and spellshot archetypes also lean into the magical aspect even more.
Yeah, tbh if I had one real complaint it's that I'd like to see more accessible/lower level/more scalable versions of a lot of the weirder guns.
Hopefully if we get a dedicated Arcadia book we'll see more of that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The magical guns from Arcadia, like the beast guns, are really nifty conceptually and make a great (IMO) way to have firearms in a fantasy setting that don't rely on gunpowder. The only potential drawback is that the magical guns are higher level items not suitable for 1st level characters. The star guns are pretty much limited to high-level play, while the beast guns require a specific ritual hunt and even the lowest level beast gun (the drake rifle) is a 4th level item; the related beast gunner and spellshot archetypes also lean into the magical aspect even more.Yeah, tbh if I had one real complaint it's that I'd like to see more accessible/lower level/more scalable versions of a lot of the weirder guns.
Hopefully if we get a dedicated Arcadia book we'll see more of that.
Arcane/Skymetal Guns are mentioned in the book, but not detailed - I have to assume that's their niche.
I'm also reminded of Eberron's wandslingers, who use small "bottomless" wands as foci for throwing out a ton of offensive cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't gotten around to looking at any of them mechanically yet but thematically and flavor-wise I would say that I am generally in favor of guns & clockwork/steampunk tech in fantasy. I've never been a fan of the assertion that the existence of magic would halt technological progress.
I absolutely agree with this.
Personally, I have it so that early flintlock one-shot pistols and muskets have slowly become outdated, to the point where a four-barrel pepperbox is considered the lower end of "standard" gun equipment. For a minor digression, I also have tinkered with Golarion's solar system and lore since it really makes no sense for Verces and Aballon to be so weirdly advanced yet for Golarion to be a kitchen sink. In my lore, a bunch of timespans have been reduced, and all the planets are roughly on par with each other, just in different ways (ie post-apocalyptic industrial on one, etc. etc. and fwiw Golarion is already massively post apocalyptic anyways).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The magical guns from Arcadia, like the beast guns, are really nifty conceptually and make a great (IMO) way to have firearms in a fantasy setting that don't rely on gunpowder. The only potential drawback is that the magical guns are higher level items not suitable for 1st level characters. The star guns are pretty much limited to high-level play, while the beast guns require a specific ritual hunt and even the lowest level beast gun (the drake rifle) is a 4th level item; the related beast gunner and spellshot archetypes also lean into the magical aspect even more.Yeah, tbh if I had one real complaint it's that I'd like to see more accessible/lower level/more scalable versions of a lot of the weirder guns.
Hopefully if we get a dedicated Arcadia book we'll see more of that.
Frankly my complaint would be how item levels and the like are awkward things in the first place (too reminiscent of DnD 4e tbh).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally love guns in fantasy! I homebrewed in my own guns into the game before gng; many of which ended up being super balanced and close to the ones they actually added.
As far as damage, I kinda assume that the game cares more about balance than realism, and that the fantasy pf 2e provides is akin to, say, Monster Hunter, where everyone can withstand an inhuman amount of beating before kicking the bucket. Basically any d20 is going to be poor for delivering the "one shot, one kill" fantasy many people have about firearms because of how hp works. I find it helps to think of the Fatal trait (and is somewhat weaker relative, Deadly) as representing that fantasy pretty well, with crits representing that time you get them in your sights just right and blow a hole through the targets head or gut, and to think of other attacks as things like grazing blows that wear the target down over time.
That said, I do have a homebrew gun that suit the cowboy gunslinger ideal; a revolver that basically uses the shortbow stats, but is truly one handed, but has a magazine (6 shots), 1d4 damage, concussive, kickback, and two handed (1d8). The 2 handing damage boost represents the greater accuracy gained from using two hands rather than getting more strength. Now that fatal aim is a thing, I will probably replace the deadly with fatal aim, and bump the damage to 1d6
My homebrew also used the pick crit spec, which also really helped sell the "crits are the big shots, normal hits are the grazes" idea
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally love guns in fantasy! I homebrewed in my own guns into the game before gng; many of which ended up being super balanced and close to the ones they actually added.
As far as damage, I kinda assume that the game cares more about balance than realism, and that the fantasy pf 2e provides is akin to, say, Monster Hunter, where everyone can withstand an inhuman amount of beating before kicking the bucket. Basically any d20 is going to be poor for delivering the "one shot, one kill" fantasy many people have about firearms because of how hp works. I find it helps to think of the Fatal trait (and is somewhat weaker relative, Deadly) as representing that fantasy pretty well, with crits representing that time you get them in your sights just right and blow a hole through the targets head or gut, and to think of other attacks as things like grazing blows that wear the target down over time.
That said, I do have a homebrew gun that suit the cowboy gunslinger ideal; a revolver that basically uses the shortbow stats, but is truly one handed, but has a magazine (6 shots), 1d4 damage, concussive, kickback, and two handed (1d8). The 2 handing damage boost represents the greater accuracy gained from using two hands rather than getting more strength. Now that fatal aim is a thing, I will probably replace the deadly with fatal aim, and bump the damage to 1d6
My homebrew also used the pick crit spec, which also really helped sell the "crits are the big shots, normal hits are the grazes" idea
Yeah, my real problem with "damage" was that the "1d4 flintlock pistol" lent itself to some pretty dumb writeups in published stuff. Like the "gut shot" move in Punks in a Powderkeg where the guy would shoot through their own stomach, inflicting 1d4 damage to themselves and getting to attack someone behind them for that. Like-- that's just dumb. Also, a baseball bat (ie a club) should be 1d6.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think on the mechanical side they are a bit weak, all ranged weapons are, and they suffer from not working well with the highest optimal dpr of attacking twice per round. It's very strange even at lower levels of hitting for 9 damage one round then critting for 32 the next.
As for the theme, we don't actually have cowboys at all. Maybe in a future book, but Alkenstar is all steampunk/clockwork and has no wild West themes. Otherwise I think they fit in, we perhaps have too much guy with gun takes on an army in modern media and not enough guy gets shot and cleaves the shooter with a greatsword. Because nearly everyone seems to think one bullet will always take someone out. That should only be true if your making one of those bad action flicks where one kick takes someone out of a fight for a minute so you can take on the rest of the goon horde.
Skalgrim recently did a video on guns in fantasy and part of his conclusion was he would rather be hit by a lever action rifle then a battleax. In that regard I agree, but considering how much movement everyone in PF2 has to make the best of ranged weapons you need to actually fight at long range, 100+ feet at least.
Longer engagements and more flying/wall crawling enemies would help. Ranged combat is situational and having your whole shtick be a situation that doesn't shine often can be a drag.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the theme, we don't actually have cowboys at all. Maybe in a future book, but Alkenstar is all steampunk/clockwork and has no wild West themes.
I don't know that this is entirely true: Alkenstar as a city is full of saloons, just had an entire AP about gunslinging outlaws and corrupt lawmen, and sits on the edge of a "lawless" desert whose inhabitants they have a pretty confrontational relationship with. It's more Wild Wild West than historical fiction, certainly, but the pieces are there.
The Deadshot Lands also exists, for an alternative Western flavor, but it's always been part of the Mana Wastes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firearms are always in a tough spot in games that use hitpoints and didn't even work well in systems like d20 Modern* which was apparently designed to integrate them. PF1's idea of having them hit touch AC was an interesting idea, but even then the expense of ammo and the lack of build support meant that they were gimmicks even there. In PF2 I think they're still slightly weak but closer to parity than they were in other editions.
As harsh as I can be with things I dislike about PF2, I have to give a pass here because there isn't a lot else that could be done within the balance ideals and gameplay mechanics they have to work with.
*My go-to example is that in that system a Bear has a non-zero chance to survive being hit with a Light Anti-Tank Weapon without even making the reflex save to avoid the explosion. Needless to say, that was a d20 book that my group never got much use from.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firearms are always in a tough spot in games that use hitpoints and didn't even work well in systems like d20 Modern* which was apparently designed to integrate them. PF1's idea of having them hit touch AC was an interesting idea, but even then the expense of ammo and the lack of build support meant that they were gimmicks even there. In PF2 I think they're still slightly weak but closer to parity than they were in other editions.
As harsh as I can be with things I dislike about PF2, I have to give a pass here because there isn't a lot else that could be done within the balance ideals and gameplay mechanics they have to work with.
*My go-to example is that in that system a Bear has a non-zero chance to survive being hit with a Light Anti-Tank Weapon without even making the reflex save to avoid the explosion. Needless to say, that was a d20 book that my group never got much use from.
Yeah. Btw, I think I recognize you from another thread, and if so, I actually do agree that 2e's system is a bit clunky things considered and that leads to problems.
More on topic, I honestly have no problem with modern and futuristic themes in my games. Golarion is very much a high "sci fantasy" setting, and depriving either of that is just wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Btw, I think I recognize you from another thread, and if so, I actually do agree that 2e's system is a bit clunky things considered and that leads to problems.
We spoke about our similar views on Cyberpunk and Eclipse Phase.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Btw, I think I recognize you from another thread, and if so, I actually do agree that 2e's system is a bit clunky things considered and that leads to problems.We spoke about our similar views on Cyberpunk and Eclipse Phase.
Yeah tbh I find it kind of astounding that Shadowrun attained the kind of popularity it did. And fwiw, Eclipse Phase was written by members of the team that wrote Shadowrun, which explains a lot (specifically, Shadowrun and EP are settings that fall into my "cannibalize for parts but don't actually run or play as is" category for rpgs).
More on topic, I find that the real "problem" with guns is more-or-less an offshoot of PF's inability to define what PCs can do, and making trivial things overly important. I mean, while not perfect by any means, at least a game like Mutants and Masterminds established some kind of standards for play at "different levels" so to speak, and abstracted some stuff (alongside other factors that work with that as well).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are your thoughts on incorporating guns in your games, and on Guns and Gears in general?
Personally, not a big fan. I know this type of content has its fans, but if I really wanted to mix guns/tech+magic - I'd rather look into playing something like Shadowrun.
Personally, I think 1d4 for the flintlock pistol is a pitiful amount, much for the same reason I think 1d4 for a baseball bat style club is too small. I would bump it up to 1d6 for both.
Agreed, a flintlock pistol generally hurts less than a thrown dart because the dart gets to add STR dmg due to the thrown trait. People mention that firearms have the fatal trait, but due to how crits work (+/-10), this makes firearms most effective for shooting lower level enemies, which feels backwards to me. While this helps to make them balanced according to system expectations, it doesn't meet the fantasy for me - especially when the majority of shots are thematically described as grazing the target due to not being a crit.
Overall, I don't feel like firearms mesh very well with a level-based setting because they violate the core assumptions of how most other weapons work in a swords/fantasy setting - i.e. that a novice is minimally dangerous compared to an expert being highly lethal. Part of the appeal of firearms (& crossbows) is that a minimum amount of training is required to punch above your weight class - and even a novice has a realistic chance to inflict serious harm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the unique space that firearms occupy mechanically in PF2. I like that there are ranged weapons that really hit hard on a crit, and that they take a bit of building into to use well. I wish there were more reloading+action feats accessible to more classes, but that is a really easy thing to homebrew. At first I kinda wished that the narrative of this mechanical space was tied to a more traditional fantasy weapon, but I agree with others that Golarion is such a kitchen sink setting that early firearms feel like a very natural fit here.
I think it is easy to forget that item level is less of a hard set rule, than a general guideline in PF2. A first level character could use a level 10 gun, but carrying one around would make that character a pretty target for anyone to come and steal it from. Item level is very useful for giving a sense of how difficult an item is to make and how valuable it should be considered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After a bit of searching, I found that there is a source for "World War" era stuff on Pathfinder 2e creations on reddit. What's most interesting is how the weapons all have a "Golarion" flavor (probably because they were made for a "World War Golarion" campaign). The document also seems to cover both WW1 and WW2 era stuff, though there are some missing parts due to it only being partially completed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the theme, we don't actually have cowboys at all. Maybe in a future book, but Alkenstar is all steampunk/clockwork and has no wild West themes.I don't know that this is entirely true: Alkenstar as a city is full of saloons, just had an entire AP about gunslinging outlaws and corrupt lawmen, and sits on the edge of a "lawless" desert whose inhabitants they have a pretty confrontational relationship with. It's more Wild Wild West than historical fiction, certainly, but the pieces are there.
I think the interesting thing about Alkenstar is that "watering holes", and "institutional corruption", and "outlaws", and "living in the habitable place adjacent to the uninhabitable place" are not especially rare in either fiction or history. When you put all those things together and add firearms this reads "western" to a lot of people but what makes something a "western" is a matter of some debate (for example- academics disagree about whether "anti-westerns" or "revisionist westerns" are the same thing as they have directly opposing themes regarding the myths of the genre, but the same trappings.)
So "Alkenstar is a fantasy wild west, just in fantasy SW Africa" is a valid perspective as is "Akenstar is not particularly Western." I would personally prefer to portray it in the Revisionist Western sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the appeal of firearms (& crossbows) is that a minimum amount of training is required to punch above your weight class - and even a novice has a realistic chance to inflict serious harm.
Is that part of the appeal? Most of the time when I see people interested in firearms or crossbows fiction, they're looking to play or tell stories about gunslingers, snipers, monster hunters, or other types of experts. Not novices who get lucky shots. I'd say it's more the fantasy that's incongruous with PF than the weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the theme, we don't actually have cowboys at all. Maybe in a future book, but Alkenstar is all steampunk/clockwork and has no wild West themes.I don't know that this is entirely true: Alkenstar as a city is full of saloons, just had an entire AP about gunslinging outlaws and corrupt lawmen, and sits on the edge of a "lawless" desert whose inhabitants they have a pretty confrontational relationship with. It's more Wild Wild West than historical fiction, certainly, but the pieces are there.I think the interesting thing about Alkenstar is that "watering holes", and "institutional corruption", and "outlaws", and "living in the habitable place adjacent to the uninhabitable place" are not especially rare in either fiction or history. When you put all those things together and add firearms this reads "western" to a lot of people but what makes something a "western" is a matter of some debate (for example- academics disagree about whether "anti-westerns" or "revisionist westerns" are the same thing as they have directly opposing themes regarding the myths of the genre, but the same trappings.)
So "Alkenstar is a fantasy wild west, just in fantasy SW Africa" is a valid perspective as is "Akenstar is not particularly Western." I would personally prefer to portray it in the Revisionist Western sense.
I mean, it's not just some universal themes about institutional rot and a dangerous frontier, it's also the people in leather dusters all over the place :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it's not just some universal themes about institutional rot and a dangerous frontier, it's also the people in leather dusters all over the place :P
I think one of the art themes they play with is that Alkenstar is a heavily industrialized city, and protective work clothes for things like "metalworking" are also made of leather. They're missing a "ample supply of cowhide" from their immediate environs, but the demand for leather goods in Alkenstar should be significant.
Bib aprons, sleeves, leggings, and gloves all made of heavy leather are appropriate for "working around hot metal". I will note that actual "dusters" were not common in the actual west or the mythical west before the advent of "Spaghetti Westerns." They were mostly IRL propagated in "western clothing" stores because of motorcyclists (who wanted protective gear that looked cool.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the appeal of firearms (& crossbows) is that a minimum amount of training is required to punch above your weight class - and even a novice has a realistic chance to inflict serious harm.Is that part of the appeal? Most of the time when I see people interested in firearms or crossbows fiction, they're looking to play or tell stories about gunslingers, snipers, monster hunters, or other types of experts. Not novices who get lucky shots. I'd say it's more the fantasy that's incongruous with PF than the weapon.
I don't see that element as part of the play fantasy too often, but the equalizing factor afforded by crossbows was considered a major disruption in history, causing immense worry across much of Europe (including some Papal legislation trying to restrict their use). Compared to the cost of a knight or the training of a bowman, you could stuff a crossbow into anybody's hands and they became a killer.
The Accidental Sharpshooter archetype was in G&G for a reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit I like the flavor of 16th and 17th century history - and think it is in any case closer to what most RPGs aim to emulate. Guns are part of that flavor to me. I tend to introduce traits that make guns more accessible (ancestry feats or backgrounds) so that they are used a bit more.
The reload mechanic still keeps them suboptimal as a main weapon for anyone but a gunslinger - but this makes them a preferred ranged weapon.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the power vested in me as a Texan, I officially grant Alkenstar the western seal of approval.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, what with all the new lore and stuff in the books (like Guns and Gears), I find myself really wanting to run a "World War Golarion" campaign, with industrial themes. Bonus points for being able to possibly include "mythic", and interworld stuff as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the appeal of firearms (& crossbows) is that a minimum amount of training is required to punch above your weight class - and even a novice has a realistic chance to inflict serious harm.Is that part of the appeal? Most of the time when I see people interested in firearms or crossbows fiction, they're looking to play or tell stories about gunslingers, snipers, monster hunters, or other types of experts. Not novices who get lucky shots. I'd say it's more the fantasy that's incongruous with PF than the weapon.
To put it another way, I see it as part of the appeal of the weapons historically, and find it harms my immersion when the weapons don't match that feel in gameplay (generally, because necessary balance to ensure they don't overshadow weapons that require more skill to use).
This especially becomes true if you're a lower-level PC, and shooting someone in the face is about as effective as slapping them with a wet noodle. With the flintlock pistol example from above, an average PC punching you will generally hurt more than getting shot unless a level difference makes crits more likely.
A person is able to punch above their mechanical weight is with a certain item is not really a niche a game with any semblance of balance is able to portray, ot without a much deadlier paradigm.
Part of it is that I feel an accurate portrayal of most firearms requires a system with a "much deadlier paradigm" than what is available in PF. Firearms either end up feeling unbalanced or inadequate to me with the standard D&D/level-based system, and neither of those are appealing.
For a recent in-game example, a player of mine is playing as a sniper in an adventure path. After setting up One Shot, One Kill + Vital Shot + Critical hit + Attacking a mook 4 levels below them, their first reaction is (as expected) "Boom! Headshot!" However, that would be unbalanced, so had to dial back expectations since the weakest mook in the adventure path (a random guard) had enough HP to survive the critical sniper shot.
In order for the PC to actually live out their sniper fantasy, they'd have to pull off their combo against something so low-level that it no longer gives xp for being defeated. At that point, the weapon doesn't feel thematically deadly enough to actually represent a firearm and instead feels inadequate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally really like firearms as part of fantasy. The best part is that they don't stop at copying real world examples, but try to integrate them into the world via goblin firearms, beast guns, cursed guns like the Pact-bound Pistol and my favourite - starmetal and starguns. The latter makes me really exited for Arcadia content ^^.
Mechanically, I think the overall representation of how firearms work is done well. Bullets are so small in comparison to say, a sword blade, and come in at such a direct angle, that you need quite a bit more contact to transfer all that energy. They are basically really nasty one-shot rapiers. So the low-ish damage die + fatal is a good solution.
The rest is sadly due to limitations of this style of system and playability in general. Limited die sizes mean that some things will just feel weird. Fists, gauntlets, massive claws, daggers and significantly sized pistols just don't feel comparable, even if you take superhuman abilities and magic into account. Same with the generally lower damage of ranged combatants, though the sniper gunslinger can't complain much.
All in all, I think they captured the spirit about as much as is possible.
Coming back to star(metal) guns, I think they have the greatest potential to marry firearms and fantasy. They just fit really well, in my opinion. Imagine a "grenade" launcher that opens a mini-portal to the plane of fire or a pistol that saps your blood to shoot it at the enemy in crystallized form. Or the "shoot the souls of your enemies at their colleagues" example given in GnG. Magic guns are just awesome and have a great amount of space to explore. Every gunslinger (who can use it) thirsts after the Rowan Rifle for a reason and that's not just because of it's awesome mechanics. Let's just hope Paizo finally get a grip on specific magic weapons until then...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To put it another way, I see it as part of the appeal of the weapons historically, and find it harms my immersion when the weapons don't match that feel in gameplay (generally, because necessary balance to ensure they don't overshadow weapons that require more skill to use).This especially becomes true if you're a lower-level PC, and shooting someone in the face is about as effective as slapping them with a wet noodle. With the flintlock pistol example from above, an average PC punching you will generally hurt more than getting shot unless a level difference makes crits more likely.
I guess I just don't see why that's materially different than replacing the gun with a sword or a knife, because those too can kill someone very quickly without significant training in the real world (while my fantasy fighter can take potentially hundreds of strikes from an untrained novice). At which point it just becomes a critique of HP as a mechanic more than anything else.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the power vested in me as a Texan, I officially grant Alkenstar the western seal of approval.
I miss real brisket every day of my life. Please, please, if you eat meat, have some for me soon. California's my home... but I tasted the forbidden fruit when I lived over there as a kid, and I haven't known peace since.
The image of a Donguni dwarf working a smoker is bringing me a lot of joy.
I guess I just don't see why that's materially different than replacing the gun with a sword or a knife, because those too can kill someone very quickly without significant training in the real world (while my fantasy fighter can take potentially hundreds of strikes from an untrained novice). At which point it just becomes a critique of HP as a mechanic more than anything else.
To put it another way, I see it as part of the appeal of the weapons historically, and find it harms my immersion when the weapons don't match that feel in gameplay (generally, because necessary balance to ensure they don't overshadow weapons that require more skill to use).This especially becomes true if you're a lower-level PC, and shooting someone in the face is about as effective as slapping them with a wet noodle. With the flintlock pistol example from above, an average PC punching you will generally hurt more than getting shot unless a level difference makes crits more likely.
Yeah lol. Frankly, I think the reason people expect guns to be so lethal is because of bias from irl. I certainly have no idea why anyone would think the capability of peasants to use something easily would allow for greater ability to take down "high level" things so to speak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just don't see why that's materially different than replacing the gun with a sword or a knife, because those too can kill someone very quickly without significant training in the real world (while my fantasy fighter can take potentially hundreds of strikes from an untrained novice). At which point it just becomes a critique of HP as a mechanic more than anything else.
The big difference I see is that it is a lot easier for me to thematically justify that your PC character can bat away sword blows from a less experienced combatant than dodge/resist bullets (while simultaneously being incapable of dodging slower projectiles). Also easier for me to justify that a warrior grits their teeth against a deep cut compared to getting critically shot in the head with a sniper (see above) and is still walking/fighting. A peasant ineptly waiving a sword around is laughable, while the same peasant pointing a flintlock at you should be much less comedic.
And there is a massive gulf in lethality (especially compared to training) when comparing a knife to a firearm. Even against unarmed civilians, mass stabbings tend to be much less lethal than mass shootings and more likely for victims to survive their injuries. Meanwhile, the historical introduction of firearms basically started a paradigm shift in warfare that would eventually make most other weapons near-obsolete.
Even with the earliest firearms, compared to a skilled archer requiring decades of training, a peasant with a musket could perform with a week of training. If levels are representative to experience/training - then the peasant with a gun is performing above their level in this situation.
At the end of the day, when the system math makes getting shot with a flintlock hurt slightly less on average than getting punched, I can't help but think that it fails at representing firearms in a compelling way for me. I don't know about any of you, but I'd personally much rather take a punch than a bullet.
We could bring back the old damage versus target size charts and make it so that knives and swords do about the same damage to humanoid and smaller targets while you need a larger weapon to do the same damage to creatures with more mass and thicker hides. Then bring in some kind of DR system for armor to replace armored AC and let certain weapons bypass varying amounts of DR, with guns being a weapon that bypasses more DR and bows bypassing far less. That way an arrow could well do more damage than a gun against a lightly armored foe but a gun is better overall because it just puts holes in things so long as you have a decent aim.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end Pathfinder is supposed to be a game where a badass with a dagger is on equal footing against a badass with a polearm who is on equal footing against a badass with a gun. The more you try to emulate the reality of how weapons work the less fun the people on the bottom of that tier list are going to have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end Pathfinder is supposed to be a game where a badass with a dagger is on equal footing against a badass with a polearm who is on equal footing against a badass with a gun. The more you try to emulate the reality of how weapons work the less fun the people on the bottom of that tier list are going to have.
I'd rather have that than unnecessary nerfs to weapons just because they're easy to use. There's very little logic behind the ineffectiveness of crossbows, maces, spears, and firearms relative to other weapons. Even between weapons that have both been nerfed due to being easy to handle; why would anybody use a firearm if in most cases a crossbow is cheaper and easier to use? Why don't more schools teach the flickmace if it has been found to be an effective weapon for many fighting styles?
You'd rather have a game where everyone just uses guns because they're flatly better than every other available weapon? All right.
You'd rather have a game where everyone just uses guns because they're flatly better than every other available weapon? All right.
Except that isn't entirely the case within the technological base of the setting as we still saw pikes, sabers, and bayonets used well into firearms starting to dominate battlefields. That and firearms, if represented properly, would have plenty of weaknesses like their long reloads and trouble working at all in anything worse than dry weather. An adventurer would probably want a musket, a brace of pistols, and a sword with spears likely being popular as tools against larger melee-only types that may survive a volley of shots from the party.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is not the simulationist game it sounds like you want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 is not the simulationist game it sounds like you want.
I'm well aware of that, what did you hope to accomplish by saying this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah lol. Frankly, I think the reason people expect guns to be so lethal is because of bias from irl. I certainly have no idea why anyone would think the capability of peasants to use something easily would allow for greater ability to take down "high level" things so to speak.
IRL firearms scale really well. There's very little that should stand between the party and taking the idea of a gun and scaling that up into something like a 4-bore or a punt and using that to take down high-level threats. Or taking an air repeater, enlarging the tank, and playing with the chamber and hose geometry to get higher muzzle energies without losing the number of shots between reloads. There is no reason for these weapons to stay balanced in the hands of intelligent beings who see them as a good way to defend themselves with minimal training.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am fine with guns in my fantasy, but I dislike that guns are bad for anyone bar gunslingers and fighters, and I die of boredom from the reload mechanic devouring actions and making your turns more repetitive.
Fingers crossed the foundation for Tian Gunslingers that was laid out in G&G pays off whenever we visit that continent more fully in 2e. I'm tickled by just about everything in that setting, but especially the note that they're proliferating throughout the southern regions, where all the extra cool countries are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end Pathfinder is supposed to be a game where a badass with a dagger is on equal footing against a badass with a polearm who is on equal footing against a badass with a gun. The more you try to emulate the reality of how weapons work the less fun the people on the bottom of that tier list are going to have.
Disagree! A polearm with reach + better damage dice is going to be superior to a dagger in most situations, as would be expected. If a dagger had better damage dice than a greatsword - you can be assured that many would complain for not being believable. "You can make it work" (with feats/options) is very different from the weapons themselves being equal as a baseline.
PF2 is not the simulationist game it sounds like you want.
For me, it comes down more to verisimilitude rather than simulation. I can accept the abstractions of hit points and grumble about small inconsistencies - but the treatment of firearms in a Pathfinder system starts to strain my belief. They feel tacked onto a system that originally wasn't made to support them - and either end up broken (& thus rightly banned) or feeling like Nerf knockoffs instead of a deadly weapon.
Overall, I feel PF2's system does a well enough job for swords/fantasy, but would rather play something else if I'm trying to represent firearms in my fantasy.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also easier for me to justify that a warrior grits their teeth against a deep cut compared to getting critically shot in the head with a sniper
Why is it just a cut for one but a shot through the head for the other? If it was a knife going through your heart or a bullet in your arm, would you still feel the same about their relative lethality and prefer the knife?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it just a cut for one but a shot through the head for the other? If it was a knife going through your heart or a bullet in your arm, would you still feel the same about their relative lethality and prefer the knife?
I used the headshot due to the in-game example I posted before of the sniper failing to be a sniper despite crit-shotting a mook 4 levels below them (player understandably immediately wants to flavor this as "Boom Headshot!" upon seeing the rolls/situation)... which is part of why I see the PF2 version of firearms as being an inadequate representation. (Obviously an adequate representation of this in the system would be broken, which is also unsatisfactory.)
But... are you seriously trying to compare the relative lethality of a knife to a firearm? Sure, have them both target the shoulder (normal hit, no vital organs to crit) or center mass (critical hit, plenty of vital organs); the firearm is going to leave a nastier wound, be harder to shrug off, and be far more likely to kill. And that's before considering that anyone actively resisting has a lot more defensive options vs a knife due to its vastly shorter reach.
There's a reason knives have never been a dominant weapon on battlefields across history or altered the nature of warfare like even early firearms did. Even with something like a knife bayonet, it is more effective attached to the end of a rifle (functioning like a spear) rather than using it as a knife.