Thoughts on Guns and Gears, and the setting?

[S.L.Acker]

Charon Onozuka wrote:

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.

Knives (or more accurately stone handaxes) were likely among the first manufactured weapons used by humans against other humans. Along with the sharpened stick and thrown rocks; knives absolutely changed warfare. It just happened so long ago that we take for granted that people use weapons to kill other people.

Guns also don't deal more damage than a spear or a knife that imparts the same energy. A .38 round will do less damage than a 9mm which will do less damage than 5.56. It's just easier and safer for the attacker to use a gun and bullets can do a better job penetrating armor and clothing than a knife.

This all said I don't think this forum is the right place to discuss terminal ballistics and studies of harm caused in cases of IRL trauma. I prefer a more gritty lethal game than many people here and often wish that Paizo had taken more risks in game design with PF2, but even I can see that this conversation can't go any further without getting too graphic for this forum.

[Charon Onozuka]

S.L.Acker wrote:

Charon Onozuka wrote:

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.

Knives (or more accurately stone handaxes) were likely among the first manufactured weapons used by humans against other humans. Along with the sharpened stick and thrown rocks; knives absolutely changed warfare. It just happened so long ago that we take for granted that people use weapons to kill other people.

Kinda defeat your own point here. Stone axes (+stone hammers) changed warfare, literal pointed sticks (early spears) changed warfare, knives changed tool use while being functional enough as a secondary (or tertiary) weapon.

S.L.Acker wrote:

This all said I don't think this forum is the right place to discuss terminal ballistics and studies of harm caused in cases of IRL trauma. I prefer a more gritty lethal game than many people here and often wish that Paizo had taken more risks in game design with PF2, but even I can see that this conversation can't go any further without getting too graphic for this forum.

Fair enough. My original response to this thread was meant to answer the OP's question of, "What are your thoughts on incorporating guns in your games, and on Guns and Gears in general?"

In general, my thoughts are that I'd prefer a system that supports a more "gritty lethal game" when mixing firearms into my fantasy. That's not what I come to Pathfinder for, and don't personally feel like it mixes well enough into the system for my tastes. Fine if you feel differently, but at this point I've said my piece and there is little point in me commenting further in this thread.

[D3stro 2119]

Frankly all the aforementioned examples on this topic seem more like implicit criticisms of hp as a mechanic than any real contribution to the thread. Which isn't invalid by any means of course, just an observation.

[Gamerskum]

No weapon or game accurately portrays real combat, that is a pretty simple thing to understand. In addition I really do not want to play a non-wargame with a single character that can die instantly at any level from Hydrostatic Shock from a gunshot or a nicked femoral from a sword, probably not alone in this.

[Temperans]

Compromise: Firearms should deal more damage than they currently do, but not deal so much damage that they outclass other weapons. Or alternately make them simple weapons with an innate stacking bonus to hit, you can still limit usage by making them uncommon or rare.

On the thread topic: Guns in fantasy are great. Guns/cannons have been a thing in some form or another since the invention of gunpowder so age is not an issue. The world having magic is not a reason not to have guns, its a reason why guns should be even better as non magic people try to compete with what a person who can wield magic can (or should) be able to do.

In my mind guns should take the place of a weapon created and upgrade so that non-magical people can compete with magic. Which is part of why I dislike the implementation of them in PF2.

[Karmagator]

Temperans wrote:

In my mind guns should take the place of a weapon created and upgrade so that non-magical people can compete with magic. Which is part of why I dislike the implementation of them in PF2.

I mean... don't they do exactly that, just like about any other weapon? Tbf, runes are still a thing (or you use ABP). But it isn't like everyone makes their own guns, so adding one step to the manufacturing/upgrade process isn't exactly a dealbreaker imo. The user still doesn't need a drop of magic to use them.

On the rules side, a firearm with the appropriate runes is absolutely competitive. Or at least some of them are, depending on the build, just like all other weapon types. Especially the sniper gunslinger is one of the most consistent and strongest damage dealers in the game.

[Karmagator]

Gamerskum wrote:

No weapon or game accurately portrays real combat, that is a pretty simple thing to understand. In addition I really do not want to play a non-wargame with a single character that can die instantly at any level from Hydrostatic Shock from a gunshot or a nicked femoral from a sword, probably not alone in this.

To expand on that point a bit, I think 2e does exactly what it is intended to do - capture the idea of combat in heroic fantasy. Enough realism to have a sense of "reality" about it and the feeling of danger; However, with the "heroic fantasy" part come additional elements that replace or remove the aspects of combat that make it ultimately... not fun. Nothing is less heroic that dying to the first hit of a random mook or a peasant with a musket.

That includes loss of HP instead of being flattened by the first hit of an ogre's club. Weapons that would have no business being your primary weapon in such a dangerous line of work - daggers, swords (against anything armoured), rapiers, flintlock-era guns and so on - become viable, because fun. Ripping open the castle gates with your bare hands, fist-fighting an adult dragon (that was fun) and taking a direct hit from a cannonball like it was barely an inconvenience. Not having to reload your musket for 20-30 seconds. And so on.

So, I can say with confidence that guns are implemented well. Not perfect, but well.

[Temperans]

Karmagator wrote:

Temperans wrote:

In my mind guns should take the place of a weapon created and upgrade so that non-magical people can compete with magic. Which is part of why I dislike the implementation of them in PF2.

I mean... don't they do exactly that, just like about any other weapon? Tbf, runes are still a thing (or you use ABP). But it isn't like everyone makes their own guns, so adding one step to the manufacturing/upgrade process isn't exactly a dealbreaker imo. The user still doesn't need a drop of magic to use them.

On the rules side, a firearm with the appropriate runes is absolutely competitive. Or at least some of them are, depending on the build, just like all other weapon types. Especially the sniper gunslinger is one of the most consistent and strongest damage dealers in the game.

Not really.

If we go from what the setting said a few years ago to what the setting says now magic and firearms have become weaker when up until the transition they were getting stronger.

The way I see it melee, bows, and thrown weapons were doing their own thing getting better by the techniques developed. While Magic and Firearms were in an arms race both serving the niche of "limited use easy to hit massive damage". From there the rational progression is that as magic becomes better non-magical people improve the use of firearms to be competitive. That rational also falls perfectly in line with the development that happens in Starfinder where firearms have effectively out competed magic to the point the highest spell level is 6th (note how melee and bows are still useable there).

In this way PF2 heavily nerfing magic (removing touch attack, reducing damage, etc, limiting quickened to 1/day, etc) and some what nerfing firearms (removing touch attacks, lowering damage, lowering range, etc) goes directly against what I had seen as the settings direction.

Its the same as the saying "two step forward one step back". Great weapons got refined and more traits were added. Bad that firearms are just tacked on and feel purposely undertuned (see other threads about that subject).

[Malk_Content]

Trying to complain about mechanics and balance changes between editions spoiling narrative is honestly stupid. Narratively everyone now is simultaneously faster and slower (everyone can move faster and do something at level 1 than they could have before, but their max sprinting speed is slower.) All sentient creatures suddenly got tougher (addition of racial hp.) Gravity changed (fall damage calculations.) People suddenly discovered runes of power and has begun mass producing them, even the people who are dead and in the past have had the courtesy to do! And so on, for basically every mechanic in the game.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

Temperans, how about you start a "Temperans isn't happy that PF2 exists, here are the reasons why" thread where you collect all your random dunks on the system and thus spare us from having to endure your off-topic rants in other threads?

[Squiggit]

I don't really get the "magic and firearms arms race" thing. Technology vs Magic was never really a theme in Pathfinder and these things occupied different niches. Nevermind that magical firearms were just as prevalent in PF1 too.

Talking about "nerfed" is off base too. Different systems have entirely different assumptions about math.

And I mean, to be blunt, lots of things were "nerfed" in the transition, if you want to frame it that way. My fighter can no longer drop dragons in a single round with a greatsword. In PF1, that was just a regular thing the character did.

Like, I'm not entirely happy with how reload weapons are balanced in PF2 (doubly so for reload 2 weapons), I think Paizo missed the mark in some respects, but in terms of changes from PF1, most of the changes are positives and have made crossbows and firearms more usable in the new edition, not less.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, the only reason on Golarion for Magic and Technology to not coexist constructively is either some sort of institutional bias against one or the other (like Hobgoblins don't like magic) or things like "Alkenstar exists in a dead magic zone."

Otherwise, if you're trying to build a better mousetrap rationally you should use both. Great societies previously brought low by apocalypses large and small certainly did.

[Kaspyr2077]

S.L.Acker wrote:

I prefer a more gritty lethal game than many people here and often wish that Paizo had taken more risks in game design with PF2,

You have used this argument in more than one thread. We have very different understandings of the words being used. See, the way you're saying it, "I wish they had taken more risks" seems to suggest "I wish they had made the specific product I want, that isn't very much like the product they made at all. I will imply that they wanted to make the game I wanted, but chickened out and played it safe."

Game design is not a linear progression toward the game you imagine, and failure to evolve in that direction is not cowardice. They made the game they wanted to make. You can like it or dislike it, but insisting that the game would be specifically what you would like, if only Paizo were bold enough, is just... weird and disrespectful.

[S.L.Acker]

Kaspyr2077 wrote:

S.L.Acker wrote:

I prefer a more gritty lethal game than many people here and often wish that Paizo had taken more risks in game design with PF2,

You have used this argument in more than one thread. We have very different understandings of the words being used. See, the way you're saying it, "I wish they had taken more risks" seems to suggest "I wish they had made the specific product I want, that isn't very much like the product they made at all. I will imply that they wanted to make the game I wanted, but chickened out and played it safe."

Game design is not a linear progression toward the game you imagine, and failure to evolve in that direction is not cowardice. They made the game they wanted to make. You can like it or dislike it, but insisting that the game would be specifically what you would like, if only Paizo were bold enough, is just... weird and disrespectful.

The Devs have literally said that they couldn't make certain changes they had planned for fear of alienating a vocal segment of their audience. The entire way shields work and the rune system weren't what the devs wanted to do. The Witch's development was stunted by another dev leaving and never really got finished which leads to an odd class. The Alchemist had to get a large amount of errata before it was on the same lap as the rest of the classes.

If you think the game we got is the game the devs wanted to make, I'm not sure what I can say to you. I also admit that the game they wanted to make wasn't that much closer to the game I want, but I would have respected the choice to stick to their intent and release what they wanted to.

[Kaspyr2077]

S.L.Acker wrote:

The Devs have literally said that they couldn't make certain changes they had planned for fear of alienating a vocal segment of their audience. The entire way shields work and the rune system weren't what the devs wanted to do. The Witch's development was stunted by another dev leaving and never really got finished which leads to an odd class. The Alchemist had to get a large amount of errata before it was on the same lap as the rest of the classes.

If you think the game we got is the game the devs wanted to make, I'm not sure what I can say to you. I also admit that the game they wanted to make wasn't that much closer to the game I want, but I would have respected the choice to stick to their intent and release what they wanted to.

Here, you're talking about individual rules that the devs weren't satisfied with or had to compromise on. That's just how such things work. "Perfect" doesn't happen. This is not the same thing as you were saying before, here or elsewhere, which is making an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND OF GAME. Paizo wanted to create a heroic fantasy game, and they did that. You want a more gritty, grounded kind of game. Paizo "taking risks" would not do what you continually suggest it would - inevitably move the game more in the direction of your preferences.

[The Raven Black]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the only reason on Golarion for Magic and Technology to not coexist constructively is either some sort of institutional bias against one or the other (like Hobgoblins don't like magic) or things like "Alkenstar exists in a dead magic zone."

Otherwise, if you're trying to build a better mousetrap rationally you should use both. Great societies previously brought low by apocalypses large and small certainly did.

Interesting that civilizations on Golarion that rose high enough in magic and technology just crashed.

[Karmagator]

The Raven Black wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the only reason on Golarion for Magic and Technology to not coexist constructively is either some sort of institutional bias against one or the other (like Hobgoblins don't like magic) or things like "Alkenstar exists in a dead magic zone."

Otherwise, if you're trying to build a better mousetrap rationally you should use both. Great societies previously brought low by apocalypses large and small certainly did.

Interesting that civilizations on Golarion that rose high enough in magic and technology just crashed.

Given that Golarion is basically a death world, it is impressive that they made it that far in the first place :).

[D3stro 2119]

Squiggit wrote:

I don't really get the "magic and firearms arms race" thing. Technology vs Magic was never really a theme in Pathfinder and these things occupied different niches. Nevermind that magical firearms were just as prevalent in PF1 too.

Talking about "nerfed" is off base too. Different systems have entirely different assumptions about math.

And I mean, to be blunt, lots of things were "nerfed" in the transition, if you want to frame it that way. My fighter can no longer drop dragons in a single round with a greatsword. In PF1, that was just a regular thing the character did.

Like, I'm not entirely happy with how reload weapons are balanced in PF2 (doubly so for reload 2 weapons), I think Paizo missed the mark in some respects, but in terms of changes from PF1, most of the changes are positives and have made crossbows and firearms more usable in the new edition, not less.

It's mostly an awkward byproduct of flawed fantasy works that got written early enough in the lifespan of conventional fantasy that it kind of weirdly got grandfathered in. Heck, iirc it's not even an explicit thing, just a weird conclusion people tend to make.

Also, on the above posts concerning "apocalyspses" (can't really quote rn), I agree it's important to remember that Golarion is massively post apocalyptic. Personally, I play this up a lot in my homebrew Golarion setting (as well as reducing some of the overly large timespans, since as written they make little sense), which I have also set up with a crossover with some other campaigns I run/have ran.

More on topic, judging from Guns and Gears alone, there is clear precedent in mechanics and lore to integrate guns, and probably equally, if not more interesting, inventions and gadgets into the campaign as a normal feature.