Firearms (Pathfinder)

[Valdras]

Are Pathfinder guns broken?

My GM has always been dead set against them, going as far as banning the Gunslinger Class, and firearms do not exist in his world.

I just can't see anything wrong with them, sure they hit touch AC if you are close enough, none of the feats that affect touch attacks affect them, they only carry a limited amount of ammo, and they misfire.

Are firearms broken?

[TheIronGolem]

I haven't had a problem with firearms in my own campaign thus far. The touch-at-close-range thing is scary on paper, true. But they're feat-hungry (EWP just to use them, plus Rapid Reload if you don't want your action economy to be complete garbage, plus your standard ranged feats like PBS, etc), misfires can ruin your day, and ammunition is easily ruined.

That said, banning firearms is a perfectly legitimate decision if the GM doesn't feel they fit his world thematically.

[Matticussama]

Is your DM against them for mechanical reasons or for fluff reasons? Lots of people ban firearms in their games not because of any mechanics concerns, but because they want to run more of a classical sword and sorcery campaign and they feel the presence of guns ruin that. If your DM doesn't like it for fluff reasons, you probably aren't going to change their mind.

If your DM is against it for mechanical reasons, i.e. thinking they're overpowered, I think it is silly to allow Wizards, Clerics, Druids, etc since they're far more powerful than the Gunslinger.

[CIDE]

I can say from experience as well trying to convince something isn't over powered is generally a difficult proposition on its own. Especially if they've never had experience with game-breaking Wizards, Druids, Clerics, Artificers, etc.

[shizukanashi]

I am currently DMing a "firearms everywhere" game here on the forums. We are just getting into our first real combat rounds now, so my opinion may change later but they don't really seem too powerful yet. That said the concept of my Game is an old west setting. All they really do is make armor useless, but there was no armor in the old west.

I am working with my Players to and feeling things out. They have not broken the game yet and I am actually surprised at how...mediocore they really are.

That said as has already been pointed out its not always a mechanical question. Its often a story one.

[AfroDyyd]

I'm about to start a "emergin guns" game soon as a gunslinger pistolero.
The other members of the party are A sorcerer and a Ranger in melee, we're using word casting rules.

My GM say's i'm going to suck. i plan on proving him wrong. Sure is feat heavy but i do get bonus feats every 4 levels which helps a bit also i'm human which is close to the only way to go when starting level one unless you feel like sucking in the beginning. By level 5 i think i'm gonna be the deadliest member of the party but not close to the most useful. I think it's gonna be alright but my GM says i'm gonna be a bit UP compared to the rest of the party. I hope to prove him wrong.

[VanIsleKnight]

Often I see and hear that Gunslingers are underpowered, though I personally don't see it. They're expensive to maintain is another thing that I hear, but I've never had a chance to play one myself.

Despite -really- wanting to.

EDIT: Also, in Pathfinder, you don't get a feat every 4 levels. You get one on every odd level. o.O

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Aside from flavor/setting concerns, I think the main problem with firearms in Pathfinder isn't really an issue of balance with regard to the system or how "exploitable" firearms are, but an issue of balance with regard to certain published modules. In other words, the problem with the gunslinger class and firearms is not that, like full casters, they can be broken, but that, with regard to modules not designed for their use, they're somewhat broken almost by default.

If an encounter is balanced to be a difficult "boss" battle on the assumption that only the caster can reliably target touch AC, a gunslinger can make the ostensibly epic battle pretty anticlimactic; rather than the sorcerer burning his few remaining spell slots and the rest of the party trying to survive long enough to overcome the baddie's high defenses and finish it off, the fight is going to turn into a one man show where the gunslinger fills the boss full of lead with rolls of six or higher while everyone else sits around hoping for nineteens and twenties. To compound this further, it's harder for a DM to "fudge" his or her way around; it's easy enough to believe the boss made his save against the optimized wizard's save-or-lose, but the party is probably going to notice that the gunslinger is missing his touch AC with better rolls than the ones with which they're hitting the regular AC.

[killem2]

I think a lot of the times, GMs/DMs just hear the word guns and equal it to one shot kills, and never actually have looked at how they work in d&d.



I've never thought to try fighting back with the concept of wizards/clerics/druids because it is a good arguement lol.

[Greenish]

EDIT: Also, in Pathfinder, you don't get a feat every 4 levels. You get one on every odd level. o.OHe means Gunslinger bonus feats.

[Edenbeast]

If I want to use firearms in a fantasy setting, I'll run Warhammer Fantasy instead.. Maybe there are even better systems, but this one I'm familiar with.

I also think paizo made the mistake to describe gunslingers like some cowboy firing two pistols, with "the thunderous rhythm of gunfire"... Then introducing early and advanced firearms like they can excist in the same setting. Of course they can if you're setting is a western one, but then most people will be using advanced firearms, and you really need to reconsider class choices and setup.

In a renaissance fantasy setting, one that I'd like, you only have early firearms, and those take a very long time to reload. If you've read books or watched any movie set in that era, like pirates, or maybe set as late as the Napoleonic era, you know what I mean. In Sharpe for instance, he says a good soldier is able to to fire three bullets a minute. THREE/MINUTE. Not three per round like many players try to accomplish with their character. In Warhammer Fantasy you can reload a gun in 2 full rounds, take Rapid Reload and Master Gunner, and you still stuck at a 'reasonable' 1 full round to reload. It's not only based on setting that one could ban firearms (because the GM set it in medieval times), but also based on realism related to these early type firearms.

It's nice to have firearms, and I believe paizo's rules are ok if you go for a western style fantasy setting with advanced firearms.

Edit: before someone goes mentioning the crossbow, yes I don't like that either. Reloading a heavy crossbow in free actions I find hard to imagine as well.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The musket and pistol? Not really. They're strong, but you have to take archetypes built for them and only them before they become really impressive, and even then their seriously limited range often puts the gunslinger in harms way.

Advanced firearms? Lol yes. I've used them once, and I don't think I'll allow them in future games.

[Averis Vol]

I know in my duo party of gunslinger and an alchemist/rogue I definitely am the primary damage dealer; the alchemist is just my damage sponge. But this is more a disparity between player skill, with me being a far bit better, but I have noticed that I can easily pump out twenty damage consistently every round (not amazing, but we're only level 5) he needs to get off a feint or flank for SA to get maybe 15 because of his multi classing.

This build also leads to problems later on....but I digress; against a tier one or other better optimized damage dealer gunslinger is "good" but not "broken". I will feel relevant but I wont be the all-star next to mumbo the magnificent and his glorious glitterdust.

[Ravenica]

They are playable but at best I'd rank the gunslinger a high tier 4 or low tier 3

and guns without gunslinger is pretty much worse than bows with anything

[Gnaeus]

Related Question. There is a 3rd party Pathfinder D20 modern supplement on the interwebs. http://www.d20modernpf.com/. I'm planning on using it for out-of crawl firearms combat in my X-Crawl games. Has anyone used it or seen balance issues with it?

[Squirrel_Dude]

They are playable but at best I'd rank the gunslinger a high tier 4 or low tier 3

and guns without gunslinger is pretty much worse than bows with anythingEh, they have a role. It's just that they're similar to crossbows in that they require a couple more feats than they are worth.

[Ravenica]

not exactly squirrel_dude, without gunslinger you get worse range than a crossbow, chances of explosions, no real ability to add additional damage (no focused shot without dm fiat, no gun training for dex to damage) your ammunition is significantly more expensive, your reload time is generally worse, they don't work at all under water...


you need a much heavier feat and magic investment to make guns work without gunslinger than you do with crossbow, and at the very least most classes at least START with some form of crossbow proficiency, and they don't double their chance to explode if you aren't proficient with them :smalltongue:

[Squirrel_Dude]

not exactly squirrel_dude, without gunslinger you get worse range than a crossbow, chances of explosions, no real ability to add additional damage (no focused shot without dm fiat, no gun training for dex to damage) your ammunition is significantly more expensive, your reload time is generally worse, they don't work at all under water...


you need a much heavier feat and magic investment to make guns work without gunslinger than you do with crossbow, and at the very least most classes at least START with some form of crossbow proficiency, and they don't double their chance to explode if you aren't proficient with them :smalltongue:True, but crossbows can't hit touch AC. :smalltongue:

It also depends on the level of firearm you're using. Advanced firearms are worth it because they can't totally explode and don't have limits on range. Pistols are worth it because they are easier to reload, and the blunderbuss/culverin can be worth it if only because scatter-firing decreases misfire chance (it's dumb, but it's how it works).

I would also add that there are classes like the musketeer cavalier (+luring cavalier) and spellslinger wizard that can make good use of a firearm as a non-gunslinger. Gunsmithing can be picked up as a feat. Rogues can gun grab proficiency as a talent. Fighters have the feats to spare that they can probably make it work, or at least use them and still have more options.

Is it optimal compared to a bow? Eh, probably not. That doesn't make them horrible options. I do think it depends heavily on what rules you're using with firearms, and whether or not advanced firearms are in the game.


Also, you can always turn a fire lance into an improvised explosive with the chance to daze or entangle everything within 20ish feet.

[Katasi]

They are playable but at best I'd rank the gunslinger a high tier 4 or low tier 3

and guns without gunslinger is pretty much worse than bows with anything

Pathfinder guns aren't bad, just expensive, and you have to know how to use them- having one gun and expecting it to handle everything, not good. Rifles/muskets you need to do one to two shots and then close to melee range using the butt or a bayonet.... or have a nice pile of muskets siting next to you loaded.

Pistols- there's a reason pictures of pirates have them covered in pistols- you can carry a good half dozen or so very reasonably, and possibly far more. You just trade out the pistols when you fire. Sure, you might run into needing to reload, but it'll likely be against a much weakened force by that time.

[Firechanter]

I haven't actually tried them, but just from reading I'll say I don't like them. They just don't seem to convey the proper feeling.

Unrelated to my own sentiments, some PF DMs I know consider the touch attack thing overpowered; however from playing with them I know they don't have a too profound grasp of game balance and mechanical interactions, so I take that with a grain of salt.

[starwoof]

I think guns are fine. I've played with gunslingers as both a party member and as a DM, and I've never noticed them doing significantly better or worse than other party members.

I mean, sometimes they roll a 20 and the recurring villain stops recurring...

[Yahzi]

The problem with guns in D&D is not with historical weaponry. A MW Heavy Crossbow or Arablest is probably as dangerous as a musket.

The problem with guns is science. You can only make a bow so strong; wood and horn have limits to their elasticity. But if your gun isn't big enough, you can just make a bigger one. Minie-ball not cutting it? Try a 3-pounder.

Firearms scale up, in a way that bows and swords can't.

[SassyQuatch]

Broken? No. They work, though they sometimes shift the balance of the game.

Factors to consider:
*fluff- the biggest drawback is trying to shoehorn firearms into a setting that does not properly support them. Guidelines need to be set and then adhered to.

*ease of use- generally the feat tax makes firearms worse than other ranged weapons. Otherwise they balance out, better accuracy and often higher crit damage vs. expense and misfires. Another problem is that with the feats almost being mandatory firearms builds start to go all the same.

*changes to CR- one of the biggest problems that DMs face is that of using the firearms resource without swinging CR too far in either direction. Well armored enemies may be taken out faster than expected, or the small mob of 1/2 CR enemy can wipe out your party because of the handful of firearms they carry (a room full of orcs with double hackbuts, brutal).


Firearms can be terrible or great in a game, but a lot of extra effort must be taken by the DM to provide in-story support and balance. Some DMs just can't handle that and fall back on the "broken" argument instead of articulating their concerns.

Me? Love firearms, but I had to rewrite a lot of the rules in my current campaign world to make them more accessible. But when you run a WWI tech level setting that should be already understood. I need to get working on that campaign journal.

[The Insanity]

Then introducing early and advanced firearms like they can excist in the same setting. Of course they can if you're setting is a western one, but then most people will be using advanced firearms, and you really need to reconsider class choices and setup.
Early and advanced firearms aren't really meant to be used together. Early firearms are assumed to be the only ones in generic Pathfinder (Golarion).


It's nice to have firearms, and I believe paizo's rules are ok if you go for a western style fantasy setting with advanced firearms.
I have advanced (and even some modern) firearms in my fantasy games. They're definitely not westerns.


Edit: before someone goes mentioning the crossbow, yes I don't like that either. Reloading a heavy crossbow in free actions I find hard to imagine as well.
I assume you have trouble with imagining wizards casting spells too?

[Mighty_Chicken]

Never played with them, but Pathfinder firearm rules enact exactly what firearms should be in a Renaissance setting: weird, expensive weapons that make heavy armor useless.

I was DMing a Discoveries Era inspired campaign with my friends and I think I should have used PF's rules for firearms. They're overpowered, but at the same time unreliable... I think you get the idea.

Corcerning they being unbalanced because they're touch attacks: so you mean touch attacks aren't unbalanced? It is totally unbalanced that a wizard can fry a Dragon the fighter is having a hard time to hit - but somehow it's beliveable from a fantasy viewpoint. I think people are mad at firearms because shooting a dragon down like it's an helpless chicken feels ridiculous, and it's almost an allegory of how firearms and technology killed the middle ages and imagination.

The solution is, give big monsters more deflection bonus instead of so much natural armor, or use "armor as DR" rules that make touch attacks less relevant for everyone. That fix touch attacks altogether, not just firearms.