Why is gunslinger so little thought of?

[CyberThread]

Quick question, other then cool I get to use guns!


Why do folks think so little of the gun slinger?

[JusticeZero]

Because the only thing they are really designed to do well is to deliver HP damage. As stylishly as they may be able to deplete the HP from an enemy, at least the Fighter can start tripping people or whatever if "red numbers" aren't the best strategy.

[avr]

Not everyone wants guns in their campaigns. It's the same sort of thing as the magitech which turned some people off Eberron.

[Crasical]

Because the only thing they are really designed to do well is to deliver HP damage. As stylishly as they may be able to deplete the HP from an enemy, at least the Fighter can start tripping people or whatever if "red numbers" aren't the best strategy.

They do get some nice class skills.

[JusticeZero]

That too. I solved the issue by making the guns a focus item instead of a functional piece of technology.

[Dusk Eclipse]

PF gun's mechanics are quite clunky and they (gunslingers) realy a lot more on WBL since they need to constantly buy/make more ammunition, there are several threads that have calculated how much gold they spend on an average encounter; IIRC it was something along the lines of 70-80 GP per 5 round battle and it does adds up quickly.

[Bhaakon]

As mentioned, their primary use is damage dealing, which makes them something of a one-trick pony (though it's admittedly a good trick). They get perception, which is nice, but their other class skills are only good relative to a fighter.

They're also expensive to run, as ammunition and weapon both are quite pricey, which is a problem at the low levels where most games are played. Yes, you can craft black powder kegs at a profit, but, in my experience, that kind of economy exploitation gets the rulebook thrown at you. Ranged combat is also feat intensive, so they're crunched for those as well as cash early on.

Third, the firearms rules are a bit of a mess. Weapon-specific feats only applies to one specific gun, so if you start off with a pistol but find a revolver at level 10, suddenly you need to re-take rapid reload to use it. And some of the mechanical aspects are just head-scratching (particularly for scatter weapons, where hitting more things means less chance of a misfire, for some reason).

Finally, most characters would be better off switch out to another class after level 1, 5, or 7 (depending on the build) because the gunslinger's best class features are front-loaded. (The exception to this is the pistolero, where there's a pretty strong incentive to go all the way for the signature deed/up close and deadly combo).


As stylishly as they may be able to deplete the HP from an enemy, at least the Fighter can start tripping people or whatever if "red numbers" aren't the best strategy.

Well, there are called shots. The leg shot, in particular, bypasses size bonuses to trip CMD (though it's useless against quadrupeds or higher).

[Lord Vukodlak]

Because the only thing they are really designed to do well is to deliver HP damage. As stylishly as they may be able to deplete the HP from an enemy, at least the Fighter can start tripping people or whatever if "red numbers" aren't the best strategy.

I presume you haven't seen the targeting deed then. Gunslingers can trip, its limited to two legged creatures and by grit but no matter the targets CMD if you hit his legs he falls prone.


PF gun's mechanics are quite clunky and they (gunslingers) realy a lot more on WBL since they need to constantly buy/make more ammunition, there are several threads that have calculated how much gold they spend on an average encounter; IIRC it was something along the lines of 70-80 GP per 5 round battle and it does adds up quickly.
Hmm does that take into account that using the gunsmithing feat the gunslinger can craft ammunition at 10% of the market price...(and make 1,000gp in ammunition per day) I highly doubt it.

[JusticeZero]

That is affected by the tech level of the guns. Since the guns were focal items, I dropped "guns are everywhere" prices on people, which cuts it down a lot.

[Snowbluff]

The mechanics are pretty bad and poorly planned and integrated.

1) Guns are hard to use, with feat requirements.

2) Guns are touch attacks in the first increment.

3) Gun ammo is expensive. With Alchemy I believe it's actually half off, but it's still rather expensive.

4) Grit is interesting, but the generation, usage, and overall implementation are lacking.

5) Misfire rules.

6) Pistolero gets dex to damage twice.

[Bhaakon]

That is affected by the tech level of the guns. Since the guns were focal items, I dropped "guns are everywhere" prices on people, which cuts it down a lot.

The thing about the "guns are everywhere" rules is that it turns gunslingers into the ultimate 1-level dip class, since you get full firearm proficiency and Dex to damage at level 1. After that, there's little reason not to go with a more rounded class the rest of the way.

[JusticeZero]

Dex to damage was at level 5, last I checked. And reducing the cost of ammo doesn't change how the class is structured. Furthermore, that exact argument can be made toward the Monk, and yet most builds don't.

[Bhaakon]

Dex to damage was at level 5, last I checked. And reducing the cost of ammo doesn't change how the class is structured.

For the baseline gunslinger, which assumes the "emerging guns" level of firearms. "Guns everywhere" explicitly moves it to level 1:


The Gunslinger loses the gunsmith class feature and instead gains the gun training class feature at 1st level. (Ultimate Combat, pg 135)

[Lord Vukodlak]

That is affected by the tech level of the guns. Since the guns were focal items, I dropped "guns are everywhere" prices on people, which cuts it down a lot.

Really I see firearms as being better at attacking PC's then as weapons to be used by PC's. *excluded advanced firearms* The whole ignoring armor allows NPC's of a much lower level to hit and damage PC's.
If your a party of four 8th level PC's and burst into a room with a dozen 1st level warriors ready to attack with their swords you laugh. If those warriors instead have double hackbuts... well you could TPK the party if the PC's do poorly on initiative.


Dex to damage was at level 5, last I checked. And reducing the cost of ammo doesn't change how the class is structured. Furthermore, that exact argument can be made toward the Monk, and yet most builds don't.

Guns Everywhere:
Guns are commonplace. Early firearms are seen as antiques, and advanced firearms are widespread. Firearms are simple weapons, and early firearms, advanced guns, and their ammunition are bought or crafted for 10% of the cost listed in this chapter. The gunslinger loses the gunsmith class feature and instead gains the gun training class feature at 1st level.
The Gunslinger's feat to craft firearms and ammunition isn't all that necessary at the 10% prices.

[JusticeZero]

I dropped "guns are everywhere" prices on peopleObviously, gun TRAINING isn't as common when 99.x% of the population considers them, CORRECTLY, to be an inert block of useless metal, springs, and salts that the 0.(1-x)% are willing to pay good money for. Thus the choice of the word "prices".

[Prime32]

PF gun's mechanics are quite clunkyAnd don't work much like real guns either. Real guns became popular because any peasant could use them after about a minute's training, compared to archery taking years, and a small lump of metal is easier and cheaper to make than an arrowhead + wooden shaft + fletching. They had the drawback of poor armour penetration compared to crossbows and warhammers (which D&D calls picks), but only commanders were rich enough to afford armour anyway.

Compare to PF guns, which are harder to use than any other weapon, have more expensive ammo, and are more effective against armour than any other weapon. Also, crossbows were high-maintenance weapons that easily jammed, yet they don't have special rues for it.

[Keneth]

Crossbows were actually easier to use, more accurate, packed more of a punch, and were more reliable, at least compared to early guns. So while any peasant could fire a gun, they were nowhere near as effective, and usually took even longer to load. It took centuries before guns became small and reliable enough to replace other, more conventional weapons, and even then it took a long time before rifling, breech loading, and modern cartridges became commonplace (~19th century).

But PF guns certainly are a far cry from reality and they're not even consistent with weapons in their own universe. But then it's not like any of the developers actually know much about historic weapons, they're just winging it for the most part. :smallbiggrin:

[Lord Vukodlak]

Crossbows were actually easier to use, more accurate, packed more of a punch, and were more reliable, at least compared to early guns. So while any peasant could fire a gun, they were nowhere near as effective, and usually took even longer to load. It took centuries before guns became small and reliable enough to replace other, more conventional weapons, and even then it took a long time before rifling, breech loading, and modern cartridges became commonplace (~19th century).

But PF guns certainly are a far cry from reality and they're not even consistent with weapons in their own universe. But then it's not like any of the developers actually know much about historic weapons, they're just winging it for the most part. :smallbiggrin:

Define early firearms, as your definition may differ from Pathfinder. The crossbows from the 3rd century BC could barely penetrate light armor, but could reload faster then the platemail penetrating crossbows of the medieval era. Both weapons had long development periods.

The Arquebus(the precursor to the musket) could penetrate armor just as well and fire faster then any crossbow. The crossbow was more accurate and had a longer range, but this didn't mean much on the battlefield. The Arquebus was the weapon that phased the crossbow out of the battlefields of Europe in the 1500's

So while crossbows were indeed better then the early firearms, the "early" firearms pathfinder presents are the ones that replaced crossbows. The Musket fired faster, packed more punch and penetrated armor better then any crossbow, but hey it was the 17th century the crossbow had faded away from warfare a century earlier.

Realism in weapons doesn't work to tell in a fantasy game about elite heroes. For an elite warrior the English longbow beats a crossbow hands down, longer range and five to six times the rate of fire. So in order to make guns or crossbows remotely viable they need unrealistic boosts.
.
The image of early firearms are inaccurate, loud and jamming weapons that phased armor from the battlefield. So this is reflected in misfire, touch attacks and a short range increment. .

[Snowbluff]

touch attacks

Except this part is questionable. The heavy crossbows could penetrate armor. What aren't they touch attacks?

EDIT: Actually, the faster firing time isn't represented, either. They both take a full round action.

Finally, the guns are somehow able to penetrate adamantine alloys, even when they are reinforced with magic. You know, the stuff 5 times stronger than steel.

[Slipperychicken]

The Gunslinger's feat to craft firearms and ammunition isn't all that necessary at the 10% prices.

If you have both, that does mean you can craft powder-kegs (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/ammunition/black-powder) for 10gp each, which given their 5d6 radius damage makes them a cost-efficient means of generating damaging explosions, perhaps as part of a Bag of Holding bombing-run or clever bomb placement. Although it's fire damage, it should be pretty effective against enemies who aren't resistant or immune to it.

Also, the wording of the Gunsmithing feat ("Crafting bullets, black powder, or cartridges takes 1 day of work for every 1,000 gp of ammunition (minimum 1 day).") might allow you to, in that case, craft up to 100 powder kegs a day, since it only takes 10gp to craft them.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Except this part is questionable. The heavy crossbows could penetrate armor. What aren't they touch attacks?

Because that's not the image of crossbows, and despite there existence they didn't cause people to discard armor. It was gun powder that made European armies abandon armor for mobility.

People keep talking about early firearms not packing the punch of crossbows, this is true but those early firearms predate the "early firearms" presented in Ultimate Combat. 16th Century guns rendered armor and crossbows obsolete. and that's the century give or take where Pathfinder draws its early guns.

Personally I don't like the idea of touch attacks, heavy plate should provide some protection.
Id prefer something softer such as -6 to Armor in the first range increment, -4 in the second and -2 in the third and no AP beyond. Heavy Crossbows could get -3 in the first range increment and -1 in the second.(they also have four times the range increment). Could penetrate doesn't not mean always or that it it penetrates enough to wound.


Actually, the faster firing time isn't represented, either. They both take a full round action.

Did I not say going for realism didn't work you had to go for image? The image for how long it takes to reload a heavy duty crossbow often falls sort of reality.

[Snowbluff]

People keep talking about early firearms not packing the punch of crossbows, this is true but those early firearms predate the "early firearms" presented in Ultimate Combat. 16th Century guns rendered armor and crossbows obsolete. and that's the century give or take where Pathfinder draws its early guns.
It's not a matter of packing punch, it's a matter of this not making any sense in the PF universe. You have people running around in kevlar armor on a regular basis in game. How is this wimpy musket supposed to work against that?

This image stuff is entirely inconsistent. Any attempt at accuracy only to leads to issues within its own rules.


If you have both, that does mean you can craft powder-kegs (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/ammunition/black-powder) for 10gp each, which given their 5d6 radius damage makes them a cost-efficient means of generating damaging explosions, perhaps as part of a Bag of Holding bombing-run or clever bomb placement. Although it's fire damage, it should be pretty effective against enemies who aren't resistant or immune to it.

Also, the wording of the Gunsmithing feat ("Crafting bullets, black powder, or cartridges takes 1 day of work for every 1,000 gp of ammunition (minimum 1 day).") might allow you to, in that case, craft up to 100 powder kegs a day, since it only takes 10gp to craft them.
:smallbiggrin:

I've so got to use this to take down a building or something.

[Lord Vukodlak]

It's not a matter of packing punch, it's a matter of this not making any sense in the PF universe. You have people running around in kevlar armor on a regular basis in game. How is this wimpy musket supposed to work against that?
Whose running around in Kevlar armor?

Finally, the guns are somehow able to penetrate adamantine alloys, even when they are reinforced with magic. You know, the stuff 5 times stronger than steel.
House rule adamantine armor to stop bullets then, unless of course they use adamantine bullets.

[Snowbluff]

Whose running around in Kevlar armor?

Steel is Hardness 10 in d20. +5 Adamantine is 30 hardness. This is what the musket has to punch through to deal damage to the foe.

If you think through it using the rules on the game, like sundering, to punch a hole in the armor (and effectively ignore it) you would need to deal 30 damage to even try. Muskets don't even have that kind of damage innately.

Even if you had actual kevlar or ceramic composite armor, the guns would still poke holes in it.

EDIT: Adamantine bullets would not work any better against magic armor. 22 is higher than 20.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Steel is Hardness 10 in d20. +5 Adamantine is 30 hardness. This is what the musket has to punch through to deal damage to the foe.
Again I have said I'd prefer it partially ignore armor rather then negate it completely. What I'm trying to put out there is people are thinking pathfinder's early guns are the 11th century ones not the 16th century ones. Its a huge difference in terms of power.

A few tiny bullet holes in a suit of platemail wouldn't really have much effect on how well the armor holds up to other weapons, the guy inside the armor might be dead but his armor could be more or less Ok with a dozen tiny holes in it.

And really how does a sword get around adamantite fullplate? you're more or less completely in cased in metal how do you get the pointy end into the other man? Are you trying to make an armor as hit points argument.

And again its about image, crossbows could penetrate armor but no where near as well as guns from the 15th or 16th century. The image of guns are weapons that rendered medieval armor obsolete so that's the path Pathfinder chose. Aside from armor Penetration of somekind how would you make muskets and such different then crossbows mechanically in terms of an advantage



EDIT: Adamantine bullets would not work any better against magic armor. 22 is higher than 20.

What if its a +5 Gun firing adamantine bullets the enchantment is bestowed in the ammunition.

[Keneth]

The Arquebus(the precursor to the musket) could penetrate armor just as well and fire faster then any crossbow.

How exactly did the the arquebus or musket fire faster than a crossbow? I've seem some pretty deft reloading of muskets by professionals, and it takes longer than the vast majority of crossbow designs. Unless you're talking about projectile velocity. :smallconfused:

But yeah, now that I actually look at the list, Pathfinder does actually consider a musket to be an early firearm. I'll admit that I've never used any firearms in Pathfinder, I've just read the general rules a couple of times. Not that I'm surprised, the technology in Pathfinder ranges from ~2000 B.C. to modern and even future tech. Saying that Golarion (and Pathfinder) is a European middle-ages setting would be a gross misrepresentation, even though we like to imagine that it's a lot like that.

[Slipperychicken]

If you think through it using the rules on the game, like sundering, to punch a hole in the armor (and effectively ignore it) you would need to deal 30 damage to even try. Muskets don't even have that kind of damage innately.


Sometimes I want to have rules for armor being damaged or broken from damage dealt to the wearer, although it would probably be a huge bookkeeping hassle, and a disincentive from spending money on armor, depending on how much it costs to fix it.

Also, armor is absolutely absurd in D&D. There has got to have been a better way to represent it.

[Snowbluff]

Again I have said I'd prefer it partially ignore armor rather then negate it completely. What I'm trying to put out there is people are thinking pathfinder's early guns are the 11th century ones not the 16th century ones. Its a huge difference in terms of power.
My peeve is the fact that the rules are arbitrarily different for heavier crossbows and guns. After you get past that, you have to deal with the implications of the touch attacks.

Honestly, if I were to implement guns I would have skipped to semiautomatics detachable magazines or revolvers. Crossbows are single shot and a pain in the butt to reload and single shot just like guns. Guns would be good in a different way, like being able to shoot with them without reloading for a few rounds.


And again its about image, crossbows could penetrate armor but it was gunpowder that rendered them obsolete. A few tiny bullet holes in a suit of platemail wouldn't really have much effect on how well the armor holds up to other weapons, the guy inside the armor might be dead but his armor could be more or less Ok with a dozen tiny holes in it.
Yeah, but even at that point crossbows were defeating armor and changing the face of warfare. They were killing knights before it was cool.



And really how does a sword get around adamantite fullplate? you're more or less completely in cased in metal. Are you trying to make an armor as hit points argument?
You have to strike the weak points, in between the gaps, and on the thinner areas. Look at page 133 of the PHB, for example. It has a nice little diagram as a back drop.


What if its a +5 Gun firing adamantine bullets the enchantment is bestowed in the ammunition.
Newp. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ozzsURtdUI):smalltongue:

[Bhaakon]

Steel is Hardness 10 in d20. +5 Adamantine is 30 hardness. This is what the musket has to punch through to deal damage to the foe.

That's never the way armor has worked in D&D. You could make the same argument for every other weapon. As mentioned previously, punching a bullet-size hole in the armor isn't the same as sundering it.


How exactly did the the arquebus or musket fire faster than a crossbow? I've seem some pretty deft reloading of muskets by professionals, and it takes longer than the vast majority of crossbow designs. Unless you're talking about projectile velocity.

He's probably thinking of a crossbow with a cranequin, which you need for the most powerful, armor-piercing-est examples. While I've never actually seen a side-by-side with muzzle-loading gun, it has a considerable load time.

I'd note that the description of the heavy crossbow in Pathfinder mentions needing a hand-cranked winch to draw the weapon.


Even if you had actual kevlar or ceramic composite armor, the guns would still poke holes in it.

Never mind that a simple kevlar vest wouldn't provide any more defense against most melee weapons than padded cloth.

[Snowbluff]

That's never the way armor has worked in D&D. You could make the same argument for every other weapon. As mentioned previously, punching a bullet-size hole in the armor isn't the same as sundering it.
:smallsigh:

You don't seem to understand the difference and implications between beating Armor to AC, and ignoring it entirely.

Even if you punched a hole in it, that would mean that it took damage, which is not possible for the gun alone.


Never mind that a simple kevlar vest wouldn't provide any more defense against most melee weapons than padded cloth.
But not against bullets.

[Lord Vukodlak]

How exactly did the the arquebus or musket fire faster than a crossbow? I've seem some pretty deft reloading of muskets by professionals, and it takes longer than the vast majority of crossbow designs. Unless you're talking about projectile velocity. :smallconfused:

There are many kinds of crossbows, light crossbows could be drawn by hand but they didn't pack a lot of punch. You had more medium crossbows that you braced against the ground stuck your foot in a loop then pulled back on the string or a lever. Those crossbows could load and fire four times in a minute. But heavier crossbows the ones that packed the most punch required a winch could manage two or three shots. You don't see them much because lighter designed crossbows are better for hunting.

A properly trained unit of Musketmen could load and fire four times a minute. To be considered a crack shot by the British you had to manage five times a minute.


He's probably thinking of a crossbow with a cranequin, which you need for the most powerful, armor-piercing-est examples. While I've never actually seen a side-by-side with muzzle-loading gun, it has a considerable load time.


Yes that's what I was thinking of. If you were to have mighty crossbows they'd be cranequin.

[Bhaakon]

You don't seem to understand the difference and implications between beating Armor to AC, and ignoring it entirely.

Th implication is that it's passing through the armor without significantly impacting its structural integrity. The only difference being highlighted is that guns are far more effective than other weapons at piercing armor (which is problematic as a blanket statement).


Even if you punched a hole in it, that would mean that it took damage, which is not possible for the gun alone.

The same is true with most other weapons, unless you fluff every single hit as somehow missing the armor.

While it would be more realistic, I'm quite glad that my PCs don't have to repair their armor every 10 minutes like an Elder Scrolls character.

[Snowbluff]

(which is problematic as a blanket statement).
It's problematic. I would even argue it works as a blanket statement due to range increments, but the very idea is beyond absurd.



The same is true with most other weapons, unless you fluff every single hit as somehow missing the armor.

While it would be more realistic, I'm quite glad that my PCs don't have to repair their armor every 10 minutes like an Elder Scrolls character.
Except that hitting someone's AC means you hit them somewhere the armor is weak. You don't stab straight through the breast plate (the thickest area of the armor) and deal damage. You stab him in the neck and he goes "ah, my neck!" and falls down.

[Bhaakon]

Except that hitting someone's AC means you hit them somewhere the armor is weak. You don't stab straight through the breast plate (the thickest area of the armor) and deal damage. You stab him in the neck and he goes "ah, my neck!" and falls down.

How it works is not defined beyond the mechanics, IIRC. All it means is that you deal hit point damage (another abstraction with little connection to reality). Whether you want to fluff it as an arrow finding the eye slit in the knight's helmet or driving through his breastplate and into his heart is up to you.

[Kane0]

A whole lot of people don't really want historical accuracy, steampunk, magitech or other things in their D&D fantasy. And the mechanics don't really support it that well either.

And people often come into conflict with the rule's interpretation of real-world equivalents, like this thread points out.

[CockroachTeaParty]

My biggest problem with the gunslinger is the cost over time, especially in the low-to-mid levels. Compare the cost of a revolver or double-barreled musket to a wand of Scorching Ray...

You could always just play a sorcerer who casts magic missile through a cardboard tube and wears a cowboy hat. It'll be a lot cheaper, and charmingly insufferable rather than just hamfistedly anachronistic.