I would totally dig a firearm that allows you to shot 3-6 times before requiring to reload one bullet at a time, possibly allowing someone to reload a single bullet and shoot immediately. This would be like repeating+ in a sense, so I guess it would be in the realm of advanced weapons?
The first double action revolver was invented in the late 1850s, so I would expect a fast forward invention like that to be a more likely to be in the hands of an inventor.
I get the impression that there's a desire for a Pathfinder: Deadlands mini-setting while Alkenstar is leaning a bit more piratey tech-wise.
Alkenstar's weird, because the visual direction Paizo's chosen for them is very Wild West/Victorian, but everyone there is using guns from up to several centuries before then. I much prefer how Arcadia's guns are a mix of fantastical air gun designs and explicitly magical firearms, because it conveniently dodges all of that strangeness.
A double-action revolver wouldn't cost an extra action for a follow-up shot. So it could be 6 shots as fast as you like, and then 3 to 6 actions to reload.So take a clue from actual history and just carry 4-6 flintlocks. Quick draw already exists so that's not a problem. That gets you through 2-3 rounds of combat before you need to reload, with zero change to the rules.
To be fair, this is where magic item cost is a factor. We'd need something like a Thrower's Bandolier for firearms - which don't get me wrong would be pretty fun, especially for Trigun fans who liked Meryl Stryfe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that Gunner's Bandolier exists, but explicitly does not work with quickdraw, which is a pretty crippling factor as it means it's not really any better than simply reloading normally, unless you're looking to save a feat on free-hand reloading, and don't want to just use a slide pistol or something instead.
I do often look at the Repeating Crossbow and Repeating Hand Crossbow and wonder why they're advanced weapons, especially when looking at the air repeaters. A Martial repeating firearm would by necessity likely need to lack fatal, but it would be nice for it to be there at all, for those classes who don't want to focus on crit-fishing, but still want to have it as an option.
|
It's worth noting that Gunner's Bandolier exists, but explicitly does not work with quickdraw, which is a pretty crippling factor as it means it's not really any better than simply reloading normally, unless you're looking to save a feat on free-hand reloading, and don't want to just use a slide pistol or something instead.
I do often look at the Repeating Crossbow and Repeating Hand Crossbow and wonder why they're advanced weapons, especially when looking at the air repeaters. A Martial repeating firearm would by necessity likely need to lack fatal, but it would be nice for it to be there at all, for those classes who don't want to focus on crit-fishing, but still want to have it as an option.
I find the most practical use for the gunners bandoliers is that you can diversify your firearms such as carrying dragon mouth pistols along with your dueling pistols or even having melee combination weapons such as a triggerbrand in the bandoliers.
That and if you're using risky reload, you can avoid clearing jams on your guns by simply drawing a new one which makes risky reload always a net positive on action compression with one handed guns as long as you have guns in the bandoliers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exemplar is now a second class that can properly use reload-weapons:
"When you Spark Transcendence, you can Interact as a free action to reload or draw a weapon ikon, either directly before or directly after your transcendence action."
(lvl 3, The Deft)
Going back to Outlaws of Alkenstar:
Our Gunslinger struggled a lot during the AP, there were lots of PL+2/+3 enemies where getting a crit was a 20 only thing, and the damage was pityful. Munition to trigger weaknesses saved his grace, and we loved him for fake out of course.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There were similar conversations going on around in the Starfinder 2e playtest discussion regarding guns and reloading, as many guns there also need to reload and that's not always factored into their power budget very well. In my opinion, there are essentially three kinds of guns when it comes to reloading:
I'll also third what Keftiu said for the same reasons as Claxon: guns are such a common element in fantasy fiction now that many players would like to incorporate firearms into their character in the same way they'd otherwise incorporate a sword, a bow, unarmed fighting, or some other style. A Ranger hunting with a rifle is an obvious example, as is a tricky pistol-wielding Rogue, a Fighter who applies their mastery of arms to guns, or even a gun kata Monk. Access should be the only gate here, and putting firearms on par with other weapons would give the Gunslinger much more room to shine on their own terms, whether it be exceptional action economy, skill-based support, or other benefits.
With this, and assuming guns were in a healthy spot, I wonder if the Gunslinger would then truly need expert-to-legendary attacks: sure, it's needed now in order to trigger more fatal gun crits, but it also means the Gunslinger can't make great use of non-fatal guns, so their weapon selection's even more restricted, and it's historically caused issues when attacking at lower proficiency with combination weapons, which required a slightly clunky fix. If the Monk can have trained-to-master proficiency and still be amazing with unarmed attacks, perhaps in an ideal world the Gunslinger could have a similar proficiency track and instead have a core feature that lets them be amazing at all guns, with explosive fatal crits being one of several valid playstyles. I think there's a lot of more out-there mechanics that could bring bits of the character's fantasy to life, like being able to take entire bonus turns just to shoot first or gain bullet-time, which a few current mechanics sort of touch upon but don't explore in great detail.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's high time someone in Alkenstar invent a proper revolver to solve these reload problems.
Edit: Ok, that was like half joking, but I just found out there were revolvers in Ultimate Equipment for first edition, what's the deal? Why can't we have those here? I might actually be kinda upset now cause those would be a big help lol.
At the time of Ultimate Equipment's release, the RPG line for PF1 was system-agnostic, and so when guns were introduced there was an expected standard fantasy set of firearms, similar in technology level to PF2's firearms, and which were used in Golarion. There were additional 'firearms are common' setting option, where things like revolvers were normal and available, but they were never intended to be present in the Golarion setting outside of niche situations from APs that might allow one or two to be present (iirc there were 2 PF1 APs were you could access those higher-tech weapons).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the time of Ultimate Equipment's release, the RPG line for PF1 was system-agnostic, and so when guns were introduced there was an expected standard fantasy set of firearms, similar in technology level to PF2's firearms, and which were used in Golarion. There were additional 'firearms are common' setting option, where things like revolvers were normal and available, but they were never intended to be present in the Golarion setting outside of niche situations from APs that might allow one or two to be present (iirc there were 2 PF1 APs were you could access those higher-tech weapons).I think it's high time someone in Alkenstar invent a proper revolver to solve these reload problems.
Edit: Ok, that was like half joking, but I just found out there were revolvers in Ultimate Equipment for first edition, what's the deal? Why can't we have those here? I might actually be kinda upset now cause those would be a big help lol.
I've yet to see any account that suggests a Gunslinger with those advanced firearms was competitive with even tier 3 classes, much less that they break things. I feel the same about PF2, you could likely give the Gunslinger Starfinder weapons and not break anything.
|
|
I've yet to see any account that suggests a Gunslinger with those advanced firearms was competitive with even tier 3 classes, much less that they break things. I feel the same about PF2, you could likely give the Gunslinger Starfinder weapons and not break anything.At the time of Ultimate Equipment's release, the RPG line for PF1 was system-agnostic, and so when guns were introduced there was an expected standard fantasy set of firearms, similar in technology level to PF2's firearms, and which were used in Golarion. There were additional 'firearms are common' setting option, where things like revolvers were normal and available, but they were never intended to be present in the Golarion setting outside of niche situations from APs that might allow one or two to be present (iirc there were 2 PF1 APs were you could access those higher-tech weapons).I think it's high time someone in Alkenstar invent a proper revolver to solve these reload problems.
Edit: Ok, that was like half joking, but I just found out there were revolvers in Ultimate Equipment for first edition, what's the deal? Why can't we have those here? I might actually be kinda upset now cause those would be a big help lol.
Comparing a pure martial to T3 classes is comparing apples and oranges - T1-T5 in PF1 optimization terms is talking about your power to control various situations, with higher tiers meaning you can consistently control situations you've specialized in more than anyone else (T3) or able to control situations even outside of your areas of expertise to a degree greater than what specialized characters in that area can (T1-T2). Gunslingers receive no benefits towards almost any of this - they can simply deal damage effectively, and so will never be able to compete with the narrative control the T1-T3 characters have, because the class is not designed to do anything like that. There's a reason there are no pure martials in the T1-T3 bracket.
In terms of damage, they gave you the equivalent of all the rapid reload feats, items, etc, gunslingers invested in for free. That's a meaningful power boost, but gunslingers already would kill any CR-appropriate threat in one round anyway, so it'll just make the point that happens faster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comparing a pure martial to T3 classes is comparing apples and oranges - T1-T5 in PF1 optimization terms is talking about your power to control various situations, with higher tiers meaning you can consistently control situations you've specialized in more than anyone else (T3) or able to control situations even outside of your areas of expertise to a degree greater than what specialized characters in that area can (T1-T2). Gunslingers receive no benefits towards almost any of this - they can simply deal damage effectively, and so will never be able to compete with the narrative control the T1-T3 characters have, because the class is not designed to do anything like that. There's a reason there are no pure martials in the T1-T3 bracket.
In terms of damage, they gave you the equivalent of all the rapid reload feats, items, etc, gunslingers invested in for free. That's a meaningful power boost, but gunslingers already would kill any CR-appropriate threat in one round anyway, so it'll just make the point that happens faster.
Since when have on CR foes been the measuring stick for PF1 character power in combat? Even a pure tier 5 party should dog walk on CR foes until the mid-teen levels, when even some T3 classes start to struggle. There's no point in restricting what a pure martial class can use as a weapon in PF1, as it simply doesn't matter.
In PF2, they missed the mark on firearms and have room to improve them across the board. The SF2 weapons are still on par with the Shortbow and thus are safe to introduce to PF2 without restriction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to take into account is that, while reloads seem to be main gimmick of the gunslinger in PF2e, most of the subclasses have really bad reloads and/or have reloads that don't interact with anything in the class itself. The drifter's reload sounds good on paper but its actually kind of bad when you realize you have to be in melee to use it, and the same happens with triggerband and specially with vanguard. The pistolero's reload is one of the better ones and most vanilla-like for gunslingers. What feat would most pistolero's take? Pistol Twirl. Too bad it doesn't interact with your reloads at all, huh?
I was really hoping that the remaster of G&G would update the gunslinger to have its reloads function like the Mobile Reload feature that operatives had in the Starfinder 2e playtest ("Whenever you Interact to reload a ranged weapon, you can also Step or Stride."). It wouldn't solve all of the problems with the class, but it would allow the class to interact with other things in the system and allow for fun combos.
Yeah, having even a very generic reload ability that was simply "you get to move (wherever you want) and reload at the same time" would help a lot to the overall feel I think. Currently there is a similar ability, but it restricts you to moving into melee range, and that really sucks.
Yeah, having even a very generic reload ability that was simply "you get to move (wherever you want) and reload at the same time" would help a lot to the overall feel I think.
I'm pretty sure that Running Reload does in fact exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Running Reload doesn't restrict you to running into melee. It is an annoying feat tax, though, and it comes at a level where you have other things you might want to take.
Yeah, having even a very generic reload ability that was simply "you get to move (wherever you want) and reload at the same time" would help a lot to the overall feel I think.I'm pretty sure that Running Reload does in fact exist.
Sorry, I meant as a Way not a feat.
I was thinking of the Drifter's initial Deed into the Fray, which lets you move closer to the enemy.
But you are right, Running Reload does exist and does help.
Now if only that were something built into the class chassis at level 1 instead. And had other similarly good options. Like Risky Reload, but without the misfire chance.
Actually honestly, with Running Reload and Risky Reload (which has flourish) if they just dropped the misfire chance on Risky Reload that would put the gunslinger where they need to be in terms of reload/action economy "required" fixers in my opinion. That would enable a slinger to start combat: fire, reload/fire, move/reload for 3 actions. Which is basically what I would hope someone should be able to do in a turn. And every gunslinger should have those at level 1 IMO.
And then offer as feats or as part of ways (which need to tie in better with the class and provide more incentive to use doing things that a gunslinger would actually want to do) more diverse options to do things while reloading. Because you're not always going to want to move. If pistol twirling allowed you to reload as well as do a feint that benefited ranged weapons that would be gold.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Running Reload is a specific action. The operative's Mobile Reload is each time you Stride you get to reload, so it interacts with every other action that includes a Stride in the system. I would want that to happen with each of the gunslinger's reload but specific to their action, so drifters would reload each time they strike with a melee weapon, pistoleros each time they create a diversion or demoralize, snipers each time they take cover or hide, etc.
Oh yeah, that seems like it would be a nifty advanced version.
Any time you do X activity, you get to reload. That seems like an appropriate Ways ability.
So anytime you stride (including when you get an extra stride from someplace), you could reload rather than having it be a specific action. I don't think that's a level 1 ability, but that's certainly something that should be available. I think it probably needs to be a Way, and there needs to be a Way that basically has running reload as its initial power.
As a Gunslinger Way, 'reload while moving' is so generic and so universally useful that it would be a flavorless must-pick. It would be like if Fury Instinct Barbarian was the most powerful Instinct of the set.
That is why Running Reload is a class feat available to all Gunslingers. I'm not thrilled with it being a level 4 class feat. I think it could be dropped to level 2 or level 1 without any problems.
As for changing the reload actions: currently they are effectively that 'when you reload, you also get to do {something else}', whether that something else is 'strike with a melee weapon', 'make one of a handful of Deception skill actions', 'hide', 'recall knowledge', or with a feat 'stride'. The proposed change is to have reload be an optional modification to those actions that let you reload as part of the action. So you would be using a Hide action or a melee Strike action or a Recall Knowledge action or a Stride action and being allowed to reload as part of that action.
The unfortunate part to me is that these reload actions from the various Ways and feats are their own separate actions rather than actually a modification of the standard Reload action. That causes them to run afoul of the Subordinate Actions rule - if you have an ability that lets you do a Reload action, then you can't substitute your Way's Slinger's Reload action in its place.
Technically, the same thing would happen in exequiel759's proposal if these actions were instead defined as their own action rather than a modification of the various existing actions such as Create a Diversion, Demoralize, or Stride.
So What I would counter-propose is that the Way Slinger's Reload actions be defined as a modification to the standard Reload action rather than as separate actions. The intent of the difference is that it is more reliably defined and predictable to create Gunslinger feats and abilities that grant Reload benefits or improvements and that will interact properly with all Gunslinger subclasses, rather than creating a feat for an unrelated class that gives benefits to (for example) Hide and having it interact with only Sniper Gunslingers.
This allows Reload actions to be created for further action compression reliably. Without causing strange unintended side effects.
My go-to example for this is Drifter's Juke. Even though it is only available to Drifter Gunslingers, you can't use Drifter's Reloading Strike in place of the melee strike that it grants. If it is intended that the Melee Strike is allowed to be replaced with Reloading Strike, then the feat can say so (or be houseruled so that it does). But having 'every Melee Strike you make also allows you to Reload your firearm' would have a lot more interactions than just Drifter's Juke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly we are probably a bit too late to ask for serious gunslinger changes since the G&G remaster already came out, and if there were a class I would argue needs to be remade way more than the gunslinger, it would be the inventor.
I expect some errata at some point, more so on a post-Starfinder 2e era when the gunslinger would (technically) compete against the ranged classes from that system.
As someone currently playing a low-level gunslinger, the d4 precision was a really helpful buff. Makes the noncrit damage feel less piddly.
Could use a mid-range gun-supporting swashbuckler build that lets them use them basically like thrown weapons. Swash already is already built around burning actions to power a big attack and you could do some fun Annie Oakley and piratey swashbuckler tricks.
As a Gunslinger Way, 'reload while moving' is so generic and so universally useful that it would be a flavorless must-pick. It would be like if Fury Instinct Barbarian was the most powerful Instinct of the set.
I don't really see what's wrong with that.
I typically see Dragon instinct recommended as the most generically good instinct because it boast one of the highest damage bonuses with virtually no drawbacks (technically you bonus damage might be resisted or negated by some creatures, but that can be mitigated to an extent by choosing an appropriate dragon type).
The next one I see a lot of is Giant because while it does have drawbacks (Clumsy) it also has the highest bonus damage (and also increased reach). Though the relatively new Ligneous instinct has the same bonus damage, but has a penalty to speed (which is easier to mitigate with speed increases than clumsy).
So yeah, having a generic "reload while moving" way might be generically good. I think that NEEDS to exist. And you can have slightly more specialized Ways that have certain bonuses, at other costs.
As it sits, all of the Ways are kind of bad IMO as I'm not interested in doing those things as my main thing.
Maybe the best answer is that every gunslinger should have Running Reload and Risky Reload (without misfire) as level 1 class features and the Way let's you specialize into doing ancillary things. Like occasionally you want to stride into melee and strike (while reloading). Or occasionally you want to feint your enemy (while reloading). Maybe they shouldn't be viewed as the fix to reload and firing cycle that firearms have, but rather an expansion and specialization to give players more options to keep the cycle of firing and reloading going smoothly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the "guns intentionally suck" narrative overblown. What Michael Sayre said is that "Even with composite bows being a bit overtuned, they're not actually particularly stronger than equivalent guns, they're just much easier to achieve optimal performance with."
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43q66&page=2?They-really-nerfed-guns-from- 1st-edition#61
Guns aren't less powerful, but they do require more system mastery to use. Which is at odds with the guns worked in the real world (it takes much less training to use a gun than a bow) and isn't necessarily satisfying to people either. But it is not the same as "intentionally suck."
Guns, and reload weapons in general, have interesting trade offs that bear consideration against bows: higher crit damage or better base damage dice, more flexible range increments, access to bludgeoning damage, and less demand on ability scores. Many guns are useful to specific non-gungslinger builds, though no gun is universally appealing. At low levels, my casters like to keep a ranged weapon in hand, but I usually don't have more than a single action per combat to use it, so it might as well be reloading since that single shot will be stronger than a shortbow. You've got crit fishing considerations for the magus and investigator. And combination weapons remain a good saver if you want to switch hit into the higher levels.
I personally think there are TOO MANY guns. And weapons in general, but especially guns. Too many of them rely on a specific combination of traits which will be subpar to 99% of builds, making them feel like trap options. But some people seem to like that content bloat more than I do.
I think it would be fine if Core had like 2-4 guns in it which were extremely simple. Something with repeating and something with regular reload, for both one handed and two handed. Just "gun" really. Make the repeating version the equivalent of a non-composite bow and let people have their fantasy. Then leave the more complicated weapons for the splat book (Guns & Gears.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say "play gunslinger to use guns" means that guns require more system mastery to use, but even then, if a particular option requires more system mastery to be useful then, based on the precept that PF2e sells itself on being a system that "allows every build to work" to effectively be bad design.
I don't think I need to mention that when people here say "guns suck" that they mean "guns are unnusable" but rather "guns underperform". Others and I mentioned that the gunslinger is a mostly fine class whose major failure is that it fails to fullfill its class fantasy, which mainly comes from the fact that the design of firearms forces the gunslinger to (or attempt to) fix those issues first which takes away a big chunk of the budget of the class.
Teridax mentioned earlier that the gunslinger's main shtick that makes it different from a fighter are its support/utility features, but because the class spends most of its budget on fixing guns, those support/utility features leave a lot to be desired. I think here is where most of the problems of the class come from because the class wants to both be a DPS class and a support class and ends up not being that good in either of the two, and I feel more people would accept a less shootist but more supportive gunslinger (if Paizo doesn't want a DPS gunslinger) if the class was actually good at supporting and not just a bit better than other martials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the "guns intentionally suck" narrative overblown. What Michael Sayre said is that "Even with composite bows being a bit overtuned, they're not actually particularly stronger than equivalent guns, they're just much easier to achieve optimal performance with."
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43q66&page=2?They-really-nerfed-guns-from- 1st-edition#61
Guns aren't less powerful, but they do require more system mastery to use. Which is at odds with the guns worked in the real world (it takes much less training to use a gun than a bow) and isn't necessarily satisfying to people either. But it is not the same as "intentionally suck."
This is not an accurate description of Michael Sayre's quote. Reading through the linked post, the comparison is specifically between a composite shortbow Fighter and a Gunslinger, i.e. the class designed to buff guns. Moreover, his comparison in favor of the Gunslinger hinges almost entirely on if the arquebus-wielding Sniper crits on their first attack, which is a pretty big "if". I would generally take what he says with a grain of salt (he once infamously defended the Shadow Signet, a 10th-level item, as designed to "help guide people into understanding how to play a spellcaster"), but in this particular case his post underlines what has been mentioned already: the Gunslinger is the class you pick to make guns look better than they do otherwise, they need to crit with fatal guns for their damage to look impressive, and non-Gunslingers will have a harder time making use of guns. In fact, Sayre straight-up says this in the post's last paragraph:
Non-gunslingers will have a harder time optimizing guns, and that's appropriate for a setting where guns are relatively uncommon and at a unique stage of technological development. A low-Strength spellcaster with a shield who uses true strike on the one actual weapon Strike they make in a given combat might find that one of the one-handed guns suits them better than a bow, while a flurry ranger does and should prefer a bow in most instances.
The post therefore explicitly confirms that guns are made intentionally hard to use properly on non-Gunslingers. In practice, I don't think that sure strike shield Fighter build has really materialized unfortunately either, as rad as the concept sounds. I therefore do think it is appropriate to say that firearms are made intentionally weaker than other ranged weapons, and that the Gunslinger is designed to make better use of firearms. If guns worked well without needing a bunch of compensatory mechanics first, that I think would clear a lot of room for the Gunslinger to spec into massive damage, skill-based support, and so on based on their subclass. It would probably help even more if ranged combat had a similar number of mechanical hooks to build upon as melee, but that's a whole discussion by itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly agree that gunslingers are usually the best choices for gun slinging, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. But I also think there are non-gunslinger use cases where a gun/reload weapon is still preferable to a bow. All you really need is running reload, which rangers get at at the same level gunslingers do and other characters can get at 6th with the Archer archetype. A ranger with a harmona gun is perfectly respectable.
I also agree with exequiel on this: "if a particular option requires more system mastery to be useful then, based on the precept that PF2e sells itself on being a system that "allows every build to work" to effectively be bad design."
Unfortunately, PF2 is trying to balance allowing every build to work with constantly churning out new content to give people more options and to sell more books. And once you start doing that you can't expect balance to be strictly adhered to.
Again, that's why I favor the idea of just having a couple core gun options which don't require that system mastery. If a new player says "can I use a gun" you can just say "sure here use this one."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, I'll echo again that as they're currently statted, I still do not fathom the two advanced repeating crossbows being... Well, advanced weapons at all, when compared to the likes of the shortbow. If you took both statblocks and made them martial firearms, would that truly cause any dramatic problems? Aside from maybe being better than some other existing niche martial weapons, but "there's a lot of bad weapons" is already I complaint I see even outside the discussion of firearms.
As far as gunslinger itself and the "issue" of needing to pay for running reload, it sorta feels like it suffers a similar problems some other classes do, where the budget for hardlocked class features seems to flat out not be large enough to actually encapsulate both fun situational nigh-ribbon abilities, as WELL as every foundational tool you'd assume them to get, just as a byproduct of trying to tie everyone to the class feat structure. It's not really something ruining the system, mostly minor inconveniences, but it's been a burr in my boot to have the (relatively rare, mind) times when looking at the feats at a given level for a class and you have one that is just so above and beyond the rest for what the class wants to be doing, that it just feels like a hard knowledge check on a new player.
By a similar token, it feels like Fake Out does an insane amount of heavy lifting for the idea of Gunslinger being a "support"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly would love less weapons too. I get print more feats and classes since that's what keeps the system and their wallets alive, but do we really need to have scimitar and panabas when one is a direct upgrade over the other? If anything keep the panabas and rename it "scimitar", after all 99% of the player base only knows what a panabas is because they discovered it in the moment they saw its name in the book.
This is also a reason why I would love the simple-martial-advanced paradigm to disappear as well, because it would allow Paizo to avoid making "dagger but martial", "dagger but advanced", or, a bit more relevant to the discussion at hand, "bow but simple" (crossbows).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By a similar token, it feels like Fake Out does an insane amount of heavy lifting for the idea of Gunslinger being a "support"
Funnily enough, in the gunslinger I mention I'm currently playing earlier I took Fake Out initially because I thought it was going to be an insane support. In practice, I ended up most turns with my crossbow unloaded so I literally couldn't use the feat at all. I'm using an arbalest so it could be expected, but I'm pretty sure capacity weapons don't count as exactly "loaded" since you have to switch barrels or chambers to shot the next round as well.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Waiting until 4th/6th level before you can even start to address some of your action economy issues is a pretty steep ask, in my opinion. I also don't think Running Reload is really the panacea it's made out to be: for sure, it's a good option if you're using a reload weapon, but unlike melee, ranged combat doesn't put as much pressure on you to move, so even though the feat offers good action compression, it's not necessarily compressing the actions you'd want. That same harmona gun-wielding Strength Precision Ranger wouldn't need a feat to make the most out of a composite shortbow, and if you do want to commit a feat, Hunted Shot at level 1 lets you make most or all of the attacks you'd want on your turn for just one action, no follow-up reload needed.
This isn't a case of Pathfinder churning out more content than they can balance properly, this is a case of guns being deliberately undertuned and reliant on compensatory mechanics to work, in my opinion. It's a principle that runs counter to 2e's larger design philosophy in a manner very similar to advanced weapons: some can be very good when you get to use them, but because you need to commit at least one feat towards using those properly, the investment is often considered too large to be worth it. 2e is at its best when it removes barriers to entry and lets builds be serviceable from the very start, and for the most part it does a very good job. Sometimes it's not always easy or even possible to accommodate every build from the get-go, but in this case I do think the obstacles are there by design, and that design would be better if it were different.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of like how for archery (and ranged combat in general) they removed the penalty for shooting into melee and removed Precise Shot as a required feat to negate it, enabling people to dabble ranged combat, without being incredibly penalized for not picking up required feats to "work" at a basic level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To follow up with my previous statement, reload weapons generally just aren't good enough to bother with for most characters.
If we wanted reload weapons to be roughly on par with bows, then they would need to deal like 2d6 or 2d8 damage. And honestly the system could have been built around firearms dealing twice as much base damage as other weapons, but with reload, and no action compression for reloading (and maybe some other mechanic to limit you to firing one per round, like having the attack count as 2 attacks for MAP). You do that, now firearms are almost as good as bow and a crit fishing now becomes interesting because it is very high burst damage.
Give the gunslinger some extra bonus damage still (because they're missing out on getting damage rune bonuses twice) and give them some interesting things that can do when the reload their weapons. Every round is one big shot, and the other action in the round are spent doing "interesting" things.
That would have been one route. The other is to make action compression more part of the base chassis of gunslinger, but that still make guns bad and needing a class to actually make them useful (which I'm not a fan of from an overall design standpoint). That's doing things like making Running Reload and Risky Reload (without Misfire but with Flourish) part of the chassis.
I honestly think I'd prefer the first one, so that guns are potentially interesting to every class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To follow up with my previous statement, reload weapons generally just aren't good enough to bother with for most characters.
If we wanted reload weapons to be roughly on par with bows, then they would need to deal like 2d6 or 2d8 damage.
MOST characters, sure. 2d6 is roughly even with a d12. The arbalest deals a d10+1 with backstabber, which puts it right up there at 1st level. It also does that at longer than bow range with no volley penalty. For a precision gravity weapon range who only gets their damage spike once per round, that's certainly worth considering. Especially since you don't need to invest in strength (no composite damage loss) and barely need CON with the running reload safety.
People always slept on crossbows, IMO. If you're an 18 strength fighter or rogue you'll do better with a composite bow, provided enemies are within your more limited effective range. But they are better than people think if you actually try to make them work.
Guns are a bit more limited since only legendary proficiency can fully maximize fatal, by there are a few non-fatal guns whose damage dice are bumped up a size.
I do quite like the idea of front-loading gun damage into one attack per turn, even if it's specific to your hand cannons and "one-shot, one kill" rifles. It would carve a much sharper identity for those firearms, and could allow other firearms to work differently for a different identity: for instance, you could have firearms that you could shoot twice a turn and reload maybe once every two rounds for somewhat above-average ranged damage, which would work well for dual-wielding, and you could also have firearms that you wouldn't need to reload at all, i.e. the current repeater firearms that tend to be the only ones most players would consider picking.
A few assorted thoughts on firearms and build diversity:
To follow up with my previous statement, reload weapons generally just aren't good enough to bother with for most characters.
If we wanted reload weapons to be roughly on par with bows, then they would need to deal like 2d6 or 2d8 damage.
MOST characters, sure. 2d6 is roughly even with a d12. The arbalest deals a d10+1 with backstabber, which puts it right up there at 1st level. It also does that at longer than bow range with no volley penalty. For a precision gravity weapon range who only gets their damage spike once per round, that's certainly worth considering. Especially since you don't need to invest in strength (no composite damage loss) and barely need CON with the running reload safety.
People always slept on crossbows, IMO. If you're an 18 strength fighter or rogue you'll do better with a composite bow, provided enemies are within your more limited effective range. But they are better than people think if you actually try to make them work.
Guns are a bit more limited since only legendary proficiency can fully maximize fatal, by there are a few non-fatal guns whose damage dice are bumped up a size.
I just want to say, that with way propulsive works I actually find myself not interested in investing in strength (because it only provides half the damage bonus it would otherwise). Likely best case scenario is you're adding +3 to damage (at a high level, because you're prioritizing Dex). At low levels you've probably only got a +1 damage. And low levels is when you need to static damage modifier the most.
There are some characters that can have a high strength as well as Dex, but I personally find that even on like an archery focused fighter I'd still prefer to focus on Dex, con, wis, and then something else. And that something else might be strength if I really want to focus on damage and atheltics. Or it might be charisma (or int) for certain skills. But the damage bonus is small enough in the long run that it's not a driving factor for me.
That said, I agree with you that people are sleeping on the Precision Ranger using things like an Arbalest. Even though you have to spend an action to reload, the precision damage bonus gets you to a place where it's like doing multiple attacks in a round. And the action to reload isn't as painful when you still have an extra action to do other things with. And with feats like Crossbow Ace for reload action compression and Hunter's Aim (which gives you an attack bonus for a shot at the cost of 2 actions, which works best with a Precision ranger) there's decent support.
You could even do things like use a Repeating Crossbow and pickup Quick Draw. If the first 5 shots don't get you through combat, being able to draw a second repeating crossbow and fire as single action, then you can keep firing it probably will.
And eventually you can get running reload, so you can kite enemies around and not need to hit twice to deal good damage.
Crossbows are really slept on FOR Precision Rangers. And I suppose those same thoughts could apply to a ranger using a firearm too.
I run Abomination Vaults for some friends. One of them has built a Precision Ranger, who uses an Arbalest with Gravity Weapon. And yeah, it's worked really, really well. I gotta admit, I don't think he has Running Reload. At least, I can't remember him using it. Still though, he generally casts Gravity Weapon before going through the door, and then gets himself into position first round. He never Strikes twice in one round... he'll use his third to reposition if needed, or do stuff like Recall Knowledge. Still, the Arbalest hits like a truck.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the "guns intentionally suck" narrative overblown.
I mean it's not a narrative really. The math that tells us that marginal damage increases don't make up for having to spend a downtime action after every strike isn't even particularly complex.
You're putting too much emphasis on the Sayre post, which came long after it was established that the math on reload weapons doesn't make sense (which tbh is something we knew way back when the CRB was printed way back in 2019). The only thing that post told us was that it was on purpose and not part of some error or misconception.
There's no narrative in putting a dueling pistol and a composite shortbow next to each other and realizing there was absolutely no attempt at balance.
I just did a little math, and I'm not sure the formula I used for DPR was correct because it's been too long since I paid attention to it.
But what I found was assuming a 2 action routine, the pistol comes out behind in all cases except at very low chance to hit, where the crit fishing nature of fatal helps it to pull ahead.
For dueling pistol (X*3.5)+((x-0.5)*11)
For shortbow I did [(x*3.5)+((x-0.5)*7)]+[((x-0.25)*3.5)+(x-0.75)*(7)]
And as I'm typing that out I'm realizing I did the fatal damage wrong, but the result is still generally the same.
I did account for a minimum crit chance of 0.05 though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Coming back to this, I believe I've fixed my calculation (although I will say I'm being slightly unfair to the shortbow by assuming no damage bonus from strength) and the inflection points I'm seeing are somewhere between 25% to 30% chance to hit and 70% and 75%.
Somewhere below a 30% chance to hit the dueling pistol does better, and then again at somewhere above 70% chance to hit.
The unfortunate thing though, is that with properly designed encounters we shouldn't see players facing encounters with those kind of chances to hit (on their first attack).
The majority of encounters should put our first attacks in the 55% to 65% chance to hit range. Thus we never see encounters where dueling pistols shine because of the games inherent math structures and the encounter building rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Coming back to this, I believe I've fixed my calculation (although I will say I'm being slightly unfair to the shortbow by assuming no damage bonus from strength) and the inflection points I'm seeing are somewhere between 25% to 30% chance to hit and 70% and 75%.
Somewhere below a 30% chance to hit the dueling pistol does better, and then again at somewhere above 70% chance to hit.
The unfortunate thing though, is that with properly designed encounters we shouldn't see players facing encounters with those kind of chances to hit (on their first attack).
The majority of encounters should put our first attacks in the 55% to 65% chance to hit range. Thus we never see encounters where dueling pistols shine because of the games inherent math structures and the encounter building rules.
In a way, I think this does show that some amount of smart math went into the balancing of guns, it's just that it was done to balance guns specifically around the Gunslinger and their proficiency track. The downside to this is that, as you also mention, fatal guns really don't get to shine in anyone else's hands except maybe the Fighter's (and they lack the action economy to make those work well), and even non-fatal firearms tend to be inferior in the Gunslinger's hands because there are no fatal damage spikes to leverage. In other words: firearms generally don't work well on non-Gunslingers, and among those many of those firearms don't work that well on Gunslingers either, so some firearms just don't work well, period. This feels like a waste of good content when firearms and the Gunslinger could each be changed a bit to be less silo'd into each other.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed.
I think my personal preference at this point would have been to position firearms uniquely as reload weapons without any action economy compression, but with roughly twice the damage of a normal ranged attack. That would have made firearms viable for anyone and you could argue that it's a least more representative of the time it took to load black powder firearms (although that would necessitate a choice of fixing firearm technology to the low end of what firearms could be, something I'm okay with but narratively is restrictive).
In any event, if we do that then gunslinger could open up its focus away from fixing the issues inherent to the use of firearms, and make the gunslinger a class with inherently unusual uses of firearms.
I agree with the above. At the very least, making one big explosive shot is the defining quality of several types of firearms, whether it's your sniper rifles, your hand cannons, or your shotguns. Making the equivalent of your first and second Strikes in one attack and requiring 1 action to reload would have the unique quality of front-loading your damage without forcing a nonstop loop of Striking and reloading every round, and would help solidify those guns' identity as weapons that deal massive but infrequent bursts of damage.
Along with the above, though, I think there's also room for other forms of gameplay with guns:
So ideally, despite being restricted to fewer weapons than the Fighter, the Gunslinger I feel could be made just as customizable through their subclasses: whereas the Fighter is committed to an expert-to-legendary proficiency track, the Gunslinger could be made to choose between that proficiency track or equally strong benefits depending on their subclass, in order to better accommodate a certain type of firearm. Whereas the Fighter gets Shield Block and Reactive Strike by default, the Gunslinger could instead have their subclass give them early, prepackaged access to certain feats that would let them make really good use of certain guns. This would also allow the class to spec into different playstyles, such as a Fighter-style damage-dealer or a skill-based utility expert, rather than be this middling combination of both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea that you could have gunslinger subtypes be about specializing into different kinds of firearms.
Big single shot per round guns that deal roughly twice the damage of a single bow shot
A scatter weapon focused subtype
A focus on repeater style or magazine weapons
I disagree. The Gunslinger is honestly wonderfully done class that can play with either firearm or crossbow and has a wide selection of weapons and traits. The Gunslinger is the class that can do incredible things with ranged weapons with a reload of 1+ through feats that no other class can do. Ranger at best can get a reload reduction of 1 while doing other actions.
Respectfully, the math shows that even with the action compression available to the gunslinger for firearms, firearms tend to fall short compared to simply using a bow.
Yes the gunslinger can use guns better than anyone else.
But everyone else looks at guns and goes "why would I bother?"
I would prefer that if we're going to have guns, that they be viable in some capacity for any class, and then the gunslinger get to do something special with them (not just fix the problems they have).
Respectfully, the math shows that even with the action compression available to the gunslinger for firearms, firearms tend to fall short compared to simply using a bow.
Yes the gunslinger can use guns better than anyone else.
But everyone else looks at guns and goes "why would I bother?"
I would prefer that if we're going to have guns, that they be viable in some capacity for any class, and then the gunslinger get to do something special with them (not just fix the problems they have).
That's kind of the point though. Firearms are inferior except by those that know how to use them. And this has real life historical precedence as well. Early firearms where inferior to bows and crossbows and then when they improved they where still incredibly slow to load so you had pike and shot formations that kept the firearms wielders from being overran by others.
Honestly Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 does a wonderful depiction of how early firearms 'handcannone' where more psychological then practical weapons.
Complaining about their lack of damage when they have fatal trait compared to deadly traits merely reinforces why Deadly is a horribly designed trait which should never have been implemented and is why weapons like the rapier always get used. And why no one that can use a bow over a crossbow ever uses a crossbow.