| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We already discussed the historical precedence of firearms in this thread and the conclusion was that it doesn't make much sense when the place from where firearms mostly come (Alkenstar) is meant to replicate westerns which covers the 1800-1900s.
Also, the system and setting clearly favors fantasy over "realism" in pretty much every department (ignoring obvious stuff like people taking fireballs and greatsword stabs in the chest and healing them overnight or in the spam of 2 seconds if someone uses Medicine on you, most people with even the smallest knowledge about IRL weapons recognizes that weapons in PF2e usually tend to replicate the fantasy of the weapon and not how the weapon was actually used), so trying to go overboard with realism for firearms in specific feels really weird when weapons tend to be designed around their fantasy, which in the case of firearms (and specially firearms in westerns) are fast six-shooters used by deft gunslingers (Like the Han Solo shoots first meme, even if Star Wars isn't a western).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Define what you mean by inferior?
Early firearms were incredibly slow to reload, but were plenty powerful in terms of how much damage they could do. They also required substantially less training than bows to use. However the training portion isn't really captured in Pathfinder, as there are simple, marital, and advanced firearms.
The problem is that from a proficiency standpoint, I would want to see martial firearms be roughly as good as a bow. Remember, game balance honestly trumps any concerns about historical accuracy.
And also the level of firearm technology in Pathfinder isn't early firearms. We have (air powered) repeating guns, and magazine fed weapons, alongside flintlock style weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This might have a point if PF2's firearms weren't clearly significantly more advanced than that. They're at least late golden age of piracy level which is well into the age where matchlock pike and shot tactics had given way to line infantry armed with flintlock muskets and bayonettes. The idea that plate armour could protect you was long dead and the melee weapon of the day was the hanger or saber.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I don't know if you've tried to shoot a bow, but take it from me, it is not something you will be able to do competently if you don't know how to use one either. As others have mentioned, firearms as listed are far more advanced than the point at which they superseded bows and arrows IRL, so if we're going by this kind of justification they should be easier to use and deadlier than medieval weaponry. Obviously, that argument doesn't really fly in a game that aims for balance, and I don't think it really makes sense either to use balance to wall off an entire range of weapons from most classes in a game that aims for diversity of gameplay. In my opinion, the most convincing argument you could make is that you wouldn't want guns in a medieval fantasy game where you don't want that kind of flavor, and that is easily addressed already by firearms being uncommon. If you don't want gun-toting characters in your medieval fantasy, just don't allow them; no need for the game to also make them undesirably weak on nearly everyone.
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.I don't know if you've tried to shoot a bow, but take it from me, it is not something you will be able to do competently if you don't know how to use one either. As others have mentioned, firearms as listed are far more advanced than the point at which they superseded bows and arrows IRL, so if we're going by this kind of justification they should be easier to use and deadlier than medieval weaponry. Obviously, that argument doesn't really fly in a game that aims for balance, and I don't think it really makes sense either to use balance to wall off an entire range of weapons from most classes in a game that aims for diversity of gameplay. In my opinion, the most convincing argument you could make is that you wouldn't want guns in a medieval fantasy game where you don't want that kind of flavor, and that is easily addressed already by firearms being uncommon. If you don't want gun-toting characters in your medieval fantasy, just don't allow them; no need for the game to also make them undesirably weak on nearly everyone.
Archery was one of my childhood hobbies. As was black powder hunting. Loading the proper black powder charge tamping it and ramming the bullet and wad has a complexity and training all of it's own. And that's with the powder being supplied ready made and with measuring devices. None of which is available easily to the this far away from home medieval/early renaissance world.
Thing is comparisons only work in terms of the criteria. Most would argue that a crossbow is slower then a bow and sure it is over a short time. But over a longer endurance run the crossbow wielder can get more shots off while maintaining accuracy because it's not as tiring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archery was one of my childhood hobbies. As was black powder hunting. Loading the proper black powder charge tamping it and ramming the bullet and wad has a complexity and training all of it's own. And that's with the powder being supplied ready made and with measuring devices. None of which is available easily to the this far away from home medieval/early renaissance world.
Thing is comparisons only work in terms of the criteria. Most would argue that a crossbow is slower then a bow and sure it is over a short time. But over a longer endurance run the crossbow wielder can get more shots off while maintaining accuracy because it's not as tiring.
Did you use a period-accurate bow, bow strings, and arrows, or are you comparing a modern hunting bow to a black powder weapon? Additionally, PF2 features breachloaders and at least paper cartridges, which suggests some level of mass production of powder and shot. Combine this with spells that can aid in manufacturing, and it's probably more comparable than you'd expect.
PF2 almost never does endurance runs, nor does it even have rules for such, so why are we bringing that into this conversation? We might as well hypothesise bows versus crossbows cocked by magic.
Archery was one of my childhood hobbies. As was black powder hunting. Loading the proper black powder charge tamping it and ramming the bullet and wad has a complexity and training all of it's own. And that's with the powder being supplied ready made and with measuring devices. None of which is available easily to the this far away from home medieval/early renaissance world.
Thing is comparisons only work in terms of the criteria. Most would argue that a crossbow is slower then a bow and sure it is over a short time. But over a longer endurance run the crossbow wielder can get more shots off while maintaining accuracy because it's not as tiring.
Did you use a period-accurate bow, bow strings, and arrows, or are you comparing a modern hunting bow to a black powder weapon? Additionally, PF2 features breachloaders and at least paper cartridges, which suggests some level of mass production of powder and shot. Combine this with spells that can aid in manufacturing, and it's probably more comparable than you'd expect.
PF2 almost never does endurance runs, nor does it even have rules for such, so why are we bringing that into this conversation? We might as well hypothesise bows versus crossbows cocked by magic.
First off you are incorrect that PF2 currently features any breech loaders. You are thinking back to PF1e. All firearms other then the Rare Shobad rifle all describe themselves as being muzzle loaders. Of these the ones that have the capacity trait are multi barreled and chambered. The only exception being the harmonica gun which historically had massive flaws for the same reason that revolver rifles never took off, aka chain fires.
Second my example was to illustrate there is never a one size fits all comparison criteria. Gunslingers are implemented as to being able to do incredible things with firearms in a setting that most find to unreliable or cumbersome to use. And thank goodness touch AC is gone. And while doing that the class is also so well balanced that it can utilize a crossbow just as effectively in a more lower-tech part of the world or with a group that doesn't like firearms in their fantasy TTRPG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off you are incorrect that PF2 currently features any breech loaders.
The art for Chapter 5 in Guns and Gears Remastered appears to disagree with you. Also, Spitzer-type rounds that appear on pages 169 and 171 suggest otherwise, as you wouldn't want to load a pointed bullet with a ramrod. The fact that they have modern-looking mobility aids and clockwork automations (pages 58 and 59) also suggests the capacity for making such weapons as does the air repeater. The flingflenser and spoon guns may literally be breech-loaded by their descriptions. The scoped weapon on page 180 may be a left-handed breech-loader with the plunger coming off the action serving as a means of opening the breech. The weapon on page 200 looks like it may be a break-action weapon. The gun on page 232 is clearly lever-action.
But, I'm gilding the lily when I could just drop this:
"In Alkenstar, most firearms are crafted with a flintlock firing mechanism and folding breech, a hinged barrel that allows the weapon to be quickly opened and reloaded with new prepackaged paper cartridges of powder and shot."
And:
"Dongun Hold are some of the most powerful and sought-after firearms in the Inner Sea, using a simple but ingenious clockwork system built directly into the weapon to eject a firing tray that wielders can load with powder and shot and then quickly prep to fire with minimal effort."
And:
"A round of ammo can vary in its composition but is typically either a prepackaged paper cartridge, including wadding, bullet, and black powder, or loose shot packed in manually."
So the text itself disagrees with your assessment.
First off you are incorrect that PF2 currently features any breech loaders.The art for Chapter 5 in Guns and Gears Remastered appears to disagree with you. Also, Spitzer-type rounds that appear on pages 169 and 171 suggest otherwise, as you wouldn't want to load a pointed bullet with a ramrod. The fact that they have modern-looking mobility aids and clockwork automations (pages 58 and 59) also suggests the capacity for making such weapons as does the air repeater. The flingflenser and spoon guns may literally be breech-loaded by their descriptions. The scoped weapon on page 180 may be a left-handed breech-loader with the plunger coming off the action serving as a means of opening the breech. The weapon on page 200 looks like it may be a break-action weapon. The gun on page 232 is clearly lever-action.
But, I'm gilding the lily when I could just drop this:
"In Alkenstar, most firearms are crafted with a flintlock firing mechanism and folding breech, a hinged barrel that allows the weapon to be quickly opened and reloaded with new prepackaged paper cartridges of powder and shot."
And:
"Dongun Hold are some of the most powerful and sought-after firearms in the Inner Sea, using a simple but ingenious clockwork system built directly into the weapon to eject a firing tray that wielders can load with powder and shot and then quickly prep to fire with minimal effort."
And:
"A round of ammo can vary in its composition but is typically either a prepackaged paper cartridge, including wadding, bullet, and black powder, or loose shot packed in manually."
So the text itself disagrees with your assessment.
You are aware that even muzzle loaders used a paper cartridge right? A cartridge can be anything form simply holding all the proper amount of something to reload a firearm to self enclosed and loaded projectile, propellent, and primer.
As to the rest actually read the description on every firearm available. Only the Shobad Rifle describes a chambering mechanism. The Barricade Buster specifically describes having eight rotating barrels connected to a common trigger and firing mechanism meaning that each barrel is also a muzzle loader because it doesn't describe a common chamber or loading mechanism.
So as usual specific case overrides general case flavor text. Regardless as it is irrelevant to the true function. Firearms are perfectly balanced and so is Gunslinger in 2e. One of the few classes they really nailed making it available for the flavor without being OP like it was in 1e, while at the same time leaving it viable for use in a no firearms game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, another thing that's likely going to come up sooner or later are current (or well, at least 1920 current) firearms to be a thing in PF2e at some point. Stasian technology was introduced (I think?) in G&G and that's quite literally Earth tech on Golarion, and I think that kinda means we are going to receive revolvers and the like in PF2e at some point too. I don't think its going to be in its own book, but rather like in AP or something similar (which ironically I think would be for the better because AP content tends to be kinda broken and I feel most people would want "broken" firearms to be a thing. If you don't like them, just ban them like how some tables automatically ban AP content or don't even know it exist to begin with.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are aware that even muzzle loaders used a paper cartridge right?
Yes, did I ever imply otherwise?
As to the rest actually read the description on every firearm available.
I have none of them mention specific features, giving only a very general description of the weapon being described.
Though looking again, I do see this:
"Double-Barreled Musket: This flintlock breech-loader has two side-by-side barrels."
"Some scatterguns are crafted with a clockwork firing tray that can quickly sort and load black powder and shot without needing a prepackaged cartridge, though this is largely an aesthetic feature with no real mechanical benefit."
"Flingflenser: A flingflenser is a goblin-designed weapon ending in an ovoid tube with a hatch and handle on the narrow end. A cluster of circular blades held together and attached to a black powder packet with a thin leather strap serves as ammunition and is loaded through the hatch before being fired with a flintlock or other external ignition mechanism."
No other weapons describe any specific loading mechanism, though it could be argued that the Hand Cannon suggests it is muzzle-loaded.
So perhaps you might try reading the source you're claiming I should read.
So as usual specific case overrides general case flavor text.
This isn't a TCG, and nothing in the description of any firearm besides the Hand Cannon suggests any specific method of being loaded.
Regardless as it is irrelevant to the true function. Firearms are perfectly balanced and so is Gunslinger in 2e. One of the few classes they really nailed making it available for the flavor without being OP like it was in 1e, while at the same time leaving it viable for use in a no firearms game.
I, and others in this thread, would and have been disputing this, so this is hardly a robust argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firearms are perfectly balanced and so is Gunslinger in 2e. One of the few classes they really nailed making it available for the flavor without being OP like it was in 1e, while at the same time leaving it viable for use in a no firearms game.
I mean, its clear you like firearms, but there's mathematical evidence to prove that firearms are weaker than they should so this is just wrong. I also would hardly call 1e firearms "OP" when firearms were widely accepted to be weak and their only saving grace was to pretty much never miss, which in PF1e is actually not that great when the math was hella broken and most characters by 5th level onwards didn't miss with way stronger weapons either.
The gunslinger class itself was also known to be really weak as well. In fact, it was the opposite case than in PF2e because in PF1e you had 0 reasons to play a gunslinger when everybody was equally as good with them as gunsligers. Their only real benefit was free access to them, which wasn't in most tables since I feel it was quite a common house rule to habe firearms be simple weapons instead since they were that weak.
|
I've seen a good number of gunslingers in play and they've been consistently fun and useful.
One thing that bugs me about the remaster changes however is that drifter is shoehorned into combination weapons. It's nice that they're more accurate now but their options are much more limited given the small number of one handed combo weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archery was one of my childhood hobbies. As was black powder hunting. Loading the proper black powder charge tamping it and ramming the bullet and wad has a complexity and training all of it's own. And that's with the powder being supplied ready made and with measuring devices. None of which is available easily to the this far away from home medieval/early renaissance world.
Excellent, so you do have experience in shooting! Then surely you must know that repeating weapons with ammo cartridges such as the barricade buster are far more advanced than the intentionally obsolete black powder weapons you used? That reloading such a cartridge, which takes three actions in-game, would take far less time than the loading, tamping, and ramming process for a single black powder bullet, which is all done within two in-game seconds? If so, then surely you must agree that firearms are far more advanced in-game than you're giving them credit, and that Pathfinder doesn't balance around realism?
I also noticed you avoided comparing the training necessary to properly use bows and black powder guns. In a world where simply being an adventurer of any sort means you're trained to use dozens of different weapons, including a musical instrument, an oar, and a wheelchair, is it really a stretch to include firearms? You do get training in simple firearms already, even if you don't have access to them, so again, it seems to me like the game favors smooth gameplay over verisimilitude more often than not.
Thing is comparisons only work in terms of the criteria. Most would argue that a crossbow is slower then a bow and sure it is over a short time. But over a longer endurance run the crossbow wielder can get more shots off while maintaining accuracy because it's not as tiring.
Okay, so what criteria are you using to make your point here? Because it's not verisimilitude, given that Pathfinder's mechanistic depiction of guns isn't realistic. It's not historical accuracy, given that Pathfinder's firearms are much more advanced than the antiquated weapons you're claiming they're meant to emulate. It's not balance either, given that Pathfinder's firearms are demonstrably weaker than other weapons. So what is your point?
|
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.
If it's the case that one shot from a dueling pistol favourably compares to two attacks from a shortbow by a generic martial when below 30% or above 70% chance to hit, that's better than you'd think from this thread - it's pretty easy to be above a 70% chance to hit when targeting mooks. For a level 5 martial, you're at a 75% chance to hit a same-level enemy with high AC who is off-guard and got a -1 status penalty to AC, and an on-level enemy is as powerful as a mook is normally going to get. At level-1, that's 80%; at level-2 that's 90% (or to flip things around, for a level-2 mook you don't need to debuff them at all to be at 75% chance). On top of that, the 2-action routine is assuming the 2nd action is useless to the gun-user, but the intent is definitely to have some sort of rider on it that makes it more useful (though that does have a feat/class cost, there's not much that bow users can take to raise the ceiling too much, they're already at it). If one is only fighting higher-level solo enemies, I guess you wouldn't see these chances too frequently, but those numbers aren't bad for most situations actually.
If it's the case that one shot from a dueling pistol favourably compares to two attacks from a shortbow by a generic martial when below 30% or above 70% chance to hit, that's better than you'd think from this thread - it's pretty easy to be above a 70% chance to hit when targeting mooks. For a level 5 martial, you're at a 75% chance to hit a same-level enemy with high AC who is off-guard and got a -1 status penalty to AC, and an on-level enemy is as powerful as a mook is normally going to get. At level-1, that's 80%; at level-2 that's 90% (or to flip things around, for a level-2 mook you don't need to debuff them at all to be at 75% chance). On top of that, the 2-action routine is assuming the 2nd action is useless to the gun-user, but the intent is definitely to have some sort of rider on it that makes it more useful (though that does have a feat/class cost, there's not much that bow users can take to raise the ceiling too much, they're already at it). If one is only fighting higher-level solo enemies, I guess you wouldn't see these chances too frequently, but those numbers aren't bad for most situations actually.
Why is the Gunslinger, who can only do single-target damage, the one who should be dealing with mooks? Isn't that the job of a spellcaster, Bomber Alchemist, and Kineticist who can ravage such rabble with large AoE effects? No single target damage dealer or weapon should ever have a niche solely against PL-1 or lower enemies.
|
|
If it's the case that one shot from a dueling pistol favourably compares to two attacks from a shortbow by a generic martial when below 30% or above 70% chance to hit, that's better than you'd think from this thread - it's pretty easy to be above a 70% chance to hit when targeting mooks. For a level 5 martial, you're at a 75% chance to hit a same-level enemy with high AC who is off-guard and got a -1 status penalty to AC, and an on-level enemy is as powerful as a mook is normally going to get. At level-1, that's 80%; at level-2 that's 90% (or to flip things around, for a level-2 mook you don't need to debuff them at all to be at 75% chance). On top of that, the 2-action routine is assuming the 2nd action is useless to the gun-user, but the intent is definitely to have some sort of rider on it that makes it more useful (though that does have a feat/class cost, there's not much that bow users can take to raise the ceiling too much, they're already at it). If one is only fighting higher-level solo enemies, I guess you wouldn't see these chances too frequently, but those numbers aren't bad for most situations actually.Why is the Gunslinger, who can only do single-target damage, the one who should be dealing with mooks? Isn't that the job of a spellcaster, Bomber Alchemist, and Kineticist who can ravage such rabble with large AoE effects? No single target damage dealer or weapon should ever have a niche solely against PL-1 or lower enemies.
None of my comments were about the gunslinger, they were about guns. I was pointing out that if the 2-action routine of [strike, reload] does more damage for a dueling pistol than a shortbow's [strike, strike] if you have > 70% chance to hit, then that gives guns a solid, class-agnostic niche of being better in fights against larger numbers of enemies, and then reload actions can help you differentiate your gameplay further. Gunslingers would fit into that by boosting the level of enemies where it's trivial to get that threshold - for instance, a sniper gunslinger who reloads to Hide and gets the enemies flat-footed is going to be hitting that 75% chance against a same-level enemy from the previous example, and a single -1 from something like Demoralize would get them to that point against a level+1 enemy.
None of my comments were about the gunslinger, they were about guns. I was pointing out that if the 2-action routine of [strike, reload] does more damage for a dueling pistol than a shortbow's [strike, strike] if you have > 70% chance to hit, then that gives guns a solid, class-agnostic niche of being better in fights against larger numbers of enemies, and then reload actions can help you differentiate your gameplay further. Gunslingers would fit into that by boosting the level of enemies where it's trivial to get that threshold - for instance, a sniper gunslinger who reloads to Hide and gets the enemies flat-footed is going to be hitting that 75% chance against a same-level enemy from the previous example, and a single -1 from something like Demoralize would get them to that point against a level+1 enemy.
Why should there be single-target weapons that are designed to be effective only against PL-1 (or worse) enemies that only become useful against tougher foes if used by a Gunslinger? This seems like poor weapon design when no other weapon, or class of weapon, has to deal with being so narrowly useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to know why the Gunslinger who wielding a Capacity firearm or crossbow in one hand and nothing in the other, cannot "fan" the weapon and essentially shoot, then switch barrels as a free action.
It's because they wanted to make Crossbow using and Gun using Gunslinger different
Then let them rapid reload their weapons fatser than any class...
Slinger's precision is really weird. Why would crossbows have a lower bonus when they are way weaker than firearms?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And while doing that the class is also so well balanced that it can utilize a crossbow just as effectively
I like how you imply this is some kind of feat of balancing ingenuity despite crossbows and firearms having functionally identical underlying mechanics. The only reason we even notice a difference is because there are some arbitrary mechanical choices to limit certain options to one weapon or the other.
The flintlock musket is a crossbow that trades 50 feet of range and a die size for concussive and fatal. There's nothing revolutionary or special happening here.
I uh... don't understand what you are trying to say.It's because they wanted to make Crossbow using and Gun using Gunslinger differentThen let them rapid reload their weapons fatser than any class...
I misread your comment. What you're asking to make crossbow gunslingers feel different from firearm gunslingers... and I read as if you wanted gunslingers as a whole to feel different from other classes ^^;
My point still stands that I wished Gunslingers could reload their weapons much faster.
For instance, if they're using a Capacity weapon, they should access a feat that allow them to switch barrels as a free action after each shot and maybe cut the reload time by one action.
My other gripe is how the Repeating trait has so far NOT being properly applied to a specific weapon, the Repeating Heavy Crossbow. For an "automatic" weapon, it shouldn't have a Reload of 1 action. Gunslingers, again, should be able to cut down on Reload times on any weapon, and in the case of Repeating weapons, to cut the Reload time from 3 to 2 actions.
Before saying that "you shouldn't Strike 3 times in a round", well, if the option is given, then it should be available at all time.
None of my comments were about the gunslinger, they were about guns. I was pointing out that if the 2-action routine of [strike, reload] does more damage for a dueling pistol than a shortbow's [strike, strike] if you have > 70% chance to hit, then that gives guns a solid, class-agnostic niche of being better in fights against larger numbers of enemies, and then reload actions can help you differentiate your gameplay further. Gunslingers would fit into that by boosting the level of enemies where it's trivial to get that threshold - for instance, a sniper gunslinger who reloads to Hide and gets the enemies flat-footed is going to be hitting that 75% chance against a same-level enemy from the previous example, and a single -1 from something like Demoralize would get them to that point against a level+1 enemy.Why should there be single-target weapons that are designed to be effective only against PL-1 (or worse) enemies that only become useful against tougher foes if used by a Gunslinger? This seems like poor weapon design when no other weapon, or class of weapon, has to deal with being so narrowly useful.
Most simple weapons are this narrowly useful in practice; the crossbow is a good example. Yes, everyone can use one. This also means that the only people who will use it are weird gunslingers and people who can't use any better ranged weapon.
Most weapons are narrowly useful for specific builds, period. And you often aren't going to pick your weapon without taking your class, subclass, and available feats into account, either. To me, complaining that gunslinger locks you into guns—a weapon type with a massive variety, frankly, more than most other kinds of weapons—makes about as much sense as complaining that Starlit Span is a ranged magus.
Playing gunslinger doesn't even force you into being pure ranged, even. Drifter and Triggerbrand have significant melee capability, even if they're obviously worse than pistolero and sniper.
This complaint always feels off to me. The list of guns is massive, and practically every build in the game specializes in using one weapon (or a specific paired set of weapons) anyways because using more than that is too expensive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most simple weapons are this narrowly useful in practice; the crossbow is a good example.
I don't agree the crossbow is a good example. The gap between a lot of simple weapons and their martial equivalents are pretty marginal (though the simple weapon list is small enough that there aren't always good ones).
Like a club is a longsword minus one die size, that's a pretty small gap.
The crossbow is comparatively much worse than a good ranged martial weapon like a composite shortbow or boomerang.
Again it's not really about guns as a concept it's just that Paizo underprices the negative of reload by a significant amount.
PF2E designs lot of ranged weapons as special purpose weapons rather than constant-use weapons. For the average build, a ranged weapon is a sidearm you use for when something is preventing you from getting into melee, for a first round big whammy, taking advantage of an incredible opening, or for a high value target finisher. A sneak attack with an arbalest is a nice start to an encounter before you close for melee, etc.
Most simple weapons are this narrowly useful in practice; the crossbow is a good example. Yes, everyone can use one. This also means that the only people who will use it are weird gunslingers and people who can't use any better ranged weapon.
Most weapons are narrowly useful for specific builds, period. And you often aren't going to pick your weapon without taking your class, subclass, and available feats into account, either. To me, complaining that gunslinger locks you into guns—a weapon type with a massive variety, frankly, more than most other kinds of weapons—makes about as much sense as complaining that Starlit Span is a ranged magus.
Playing gunslinger doesn't even force you into being pure ranged, even. Drifter and Triggerbrand have significant melee capability, even if they're obviously worse than pistolero and sniper.
This complaint...
Designing some weapons to be bad by design and others to be niche at best is pretty poor design. Sure, some weapons are just better than others and have historically dominated battlefields (namely spears and other polearms, axes, shields, hammers, picks, and lances in the age when men in suits or plate armour clashed against each other) but the bow and crossbow equally filled the niche once the later was cheap enough to be mass produced. Daggers were used to finish off the dying or in the grapple to stab at a man through the weak points in his armour, even a simple club or staff could amply defend a man out walking the countryside. Stat weapons so that they make sense within the world, and design around that, don't design a world that needs weapons to fit into three poorly constructed buckets.
I definitely think there are different starting points here: when you take a weapon like the shortsword, the weapon by itself is already fully functional and smooth to use, and the many different builds you can create off of that weapon using different classes all focus on making that weapon even better. By contrast, guns are not that smooth to use as a baseline and need a lot of build support to get properly going, with the Gunslinger being a class made up almost entirely of remedial mechanics for firearms. This means that unless you're going for a Gunslinger or some extremely niche build that's designed to work around a firearm, you're likely to have a much better time with other weapons that play similarly without as many of the drawbacks. Even the Gunslinger struggles to stand on their own two feet, because they're too busy making firearms more workable. It would be to the benefit of build diversity as a whole for guns to be easier to pick up without needing to also use the dedicated gun class, the subclass specifically designed to work with that one firearm you were thinking of, and so on.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the problem with Ways is that it only provides you with a single baked in solution, so there becomes one 'thing' you have to do to fix your action economy. Not only does this sort of lock in your gameplan, but also makes you feel like you're losing part of your power budget if you can't do that one thing.
It would have made more sense if the class had, for instance, also gotten running reload for free as a minor example. Then there would be two things you could do to rehabilitate your action economy. Literally twice as much tactical depth to reloading!
To me that's how you make action economy checks interesting. You provide a small toolkit and let the player manage those options based on the circumstances.
The sort of disappointing thing is that Paizo kind of acknowledged this idea before the class came out. In their playtest post mortem they talked about how instead of simply negating reload they wanted to make reload feel meaningful, important, or part of your tactical decision making... but then they never actually did that for some reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would have made more sense if the class had, for instance, also gotten running reload for free as a minor example. Then there would be two things you could do to rehabilitate your action economy. Literally twice as much tactical depth to reloading!
Yep, much like the swashbuckler gets tumble through AND their special panache generation action so you have options.