Pathfinder 1E Firearms?

[Felorn Gloryaxe]

It isn't called "headshot" in the rules text. It's called "targeting".
Targeting the head is exactly what she's doing. She might even hit it, too. Just not always, y'know, perfectly dead-center.

I understand what you are saying, but the rules are pretty much implying a headshot, and if what you say is true about grazing, the the character is pretty much always grazing. I tend to think of battles cinematically, not in a rules context. If someone is saying they are going to use their targeting ability and they say they aim for the head, and it is normal race (dwarf, human, elf, hafling, etc), or a humanoid like race where the skull is penetrable with a lead slug-like bullet moving between 600 and 1300 (This is an example of a muskets FPS, 1300 being more modern-ish) and if it hits I think it hits, not graze, hit. I think its is going to incapacitate, or kill. Now if it is against say a bear or dragon (even some modern guns can't fully penetrate a bears skull) then I could see it doing normal gun damage.

Really to be honest the guns thing drives me crazy anyways and they are banned in my game. They are too hard to describe in battle adequately.

 

[gamerprinter]

They are too hard to describe in battle adequately.

No, it's too hard to conform with your unrealistic idea of the use of firearms as some kind of cinematic (more powerful than melee weapons) thing. It's no more difficult to describe than any weapon, melee or otherwise. War and combat was not less brutal nor deadly, before the firearm ever existed. Grand battles of sword, bow and lance are equally as devastating to living beings, as the firearm. There is no difference, not even cosmetically.

Your ideas seem to be based on fictional television/movie idea of what is the gun, not on any measure of comparable reality. It's fine not to include guns in your game, but at least base your reasons on reason, not what TV tells you is true.

 

[Felorn Gloryaxe]

No, it's too hard to conform with your unrealistic idea of the use of firearms as some kind of cinematic (more powerful than melee weapons) thing. It's no more difficult to describe than any weapon, melee or otherwise. War and combat was not less brutal nor deadly, before the firearm ever existed. Grand battles of sword, bow and lance are equally as devastating to living beings, as the firearm. There is no difference, not even cosmetically.

Your ideas seem to be based on fictional television/movie idea of what is the gun, not on any measure of comparable reality. It's fine not to include guns in your game, but at least base your reasons on reason, not what TV tells you is true.

Your post makes me sick. I never, in any post, said firearms are more powerful than melee weapons. But its complete to call something a headshot when it doesn't hit the head. And you really think there is no difference between weapons then and now? That shows how ignorant you really are. Try blowing up an entire city with a Jin Dynasty style bomb, or hitting someone in the head with an arrow 1000 yards away. I don't even watch TV anymore (no time) So why don't you think a little harder than what you did next time and stop pulling accusations out of your ass.

And if this post gets me removed off this forum then so be it. So far all I've met are self centered close minded twits.

 

[Morrus]

Your post makes me sick. I never, in any post, said firearms are more powerful than melee weapons. But its complete to call something a headshot when it doesn't hit the head. And you really think there is no difference between weapons then and now? That shows how ignorant you really are. Try blowing up an entire city with a Jin Dynasty style bomb, or hitting someone in the head with an arrow 1000 yards away. I don't even watch TV anymore (no time) So why don't you think a little harder than what you did next time and stop pulling accusations out of your ass.

And if this post gets me removed off this forum then so be it. So far all I've met are self centered close minded twits.

I really hate it when people make us ban them. You know, we don't want to ban people? We don't like it.

You know those rules you agreed to? Only a couple of days ago, in fact. They include a line which says:

"Finally -- if you break a rule and admit to knowing it at the same time, we won't bother asking questions. Posts which include phrases like "this will probably get me warned or banned" show you're pretty much sticking your fingers up at the rules and the moderators, and will result in a banning. We probably won't even bother emailing you to let you know in these situations."

You know what, I'll settle for an infraction and a thread ban this time. Please do NOT post in this thread again. If you'd like a reminder of the rules, you can find them here.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I hear that they are rather hit or miss, but you might as well bite the bullet and take a shot.

Watch out! He's got a PUN!

He had to rifle through his thesaurus a while to come up with that one...and I'm sure there's mortar come.

 

[gamerprinter]

Try blowing up an entire city with a Jin Dynasty style bomb, or hitting someone in the head with an arrow 1000 yards away. I don't even watch TV anymore (no time) So why don't you think a little harder than what you did next time and stop pulling accusations out of your ass.

We weren't discussing the difference between bombs and melee weapons, there is no comparison, rather melee versus personal firearms which are very comparable at least involving physical damage on a target. Also what does 1000 yards have to do with anything? The distance from the target isn't the issue, it's what happens to the target when the bullet, arrow or sword strike hit. I won't argue that a bow shot is ever going to go 1000 yards, but what happens when the arrow actually hits you in the head (no matter how far away the shooter was) as compared to a gunshot, that's the question.

Also your last argument involves 20th century firearms, which has nothing to do with the Pathfinder firearms rules. We're comparing muskets versus melee/bowshots, not Browning 50 calibur sniper rifles versus non-firearms. Pathfinder rules do not apply to such high calibur, modern weapons.

Also, I accused you of nothing. I did say your points 'seem' to indicate a lack of reality - I didn't say this is the case, only a guess, based on your posts - I don't really know if you are actually perceiving things this way or not. It just seems like that.

But don't respond to this as I don't want you to get into trouble, if you don't have to.

 

[Derren]

We weren't discussing the difference between bombs and melee weapons, there is no comparison, rather melee versus personal firearms which are very comparable at least involving physical damage on a target. Also what does 1000 yards have to do with anything? The distance from the target isn't the issue, it's what happens to the target when the bullet, arrow or sword strike hit. I won't argue that a bow shot is ever going to go 1000 yards, but what happens when the arrow actually hits you in the head (no matter how far away the shooter was) as compared to a gunshot, that's the question.

Also your last argument involves 20th century firearms, which has nothing to do with the Pathfinder firearms rules. We're comparing muskets versus melee/bowshots, not Browning 50 calibur sniper rifles versus non-firearms. Pathfinder rules do not apply to such high calibur, modern weapons.

Also, I accused you of nothing. I did say your points 'seem' to indicate a lack of reality - I didn't say this is the case, only a guess, based on your posts - I don't really know if you are actually perceiving things this way or not. It just seems like that.

But don't respond to this as I don't want you to get into trouble, if you don't have to.

One general problem when talking about firearms in D&D (and Co) is that pretty much all firearms get lumped together. Sure, the game did never differentiate between weapons all that well, but still you have different stats for a Roman Gladius than for a Gothic "Bastard" sword in addition to longswords, two handed swords which sometimes are split even further (Claymores, etc.). Also with bows you have short bows, long bows, composite bows etc.
But firearms? You have a pistol and a musket, no matter if it is a slightly advanced Ottoman arquebus of the 16th century or a British "Brown Bess" from the 18th century. Sometimes the arquebus and early rifles get also thrown into this single category. That makes it even harder to talk about firearms as a single weapon is supposed to represent the early guns taking put shots at knights who were more scared by the sound and smoke than by the bullet and also line infantry seen during the reign of Napoleon shortly before rifles became widespread.
It also doesn't help that most people do not know much about that time period. Many people don't know that knights and guns coexisted for a long time and that it was not guns who swept away knights from the battlefield (no, they were not armor piercing) but pikes and the cost of equipping pikemen versus knights. And about the period which followed they know even less. How many RPG players know for example that some nation already used rockets in the 18th century (or even a lot more early in case of the Chinese)?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How many RPG players know for example that some nation already used rockets in the 18th century (or even a lot more early in case of the Chinese)?

Like the Korean Hwachaa multi-rocket launcher, which was invented in the early 1400s, and by 1451, was in mass deployment.

 

[gamerprinter]

Chinese rockets and the earliest Chinese guns and cannons are circa 7th century, however, even then it was not implemented in all Chinese fighting forces then, nor even hundreds of years later. Just because some technology exists in the world, doesn't make it universal for the time period.

In my Kaidan (Japanese horror) campaign setting for Pathfinder, the Teppou Bushi was included as an available gunslinger archetype, and this is comparable to circa 1470 and the use of the arquebus as the representative of the gun in Japan at the time. However the archetype itself states "muskets" rather than arquebus to try to stick with some consistency with Paizo's firearms rules. When we created Way of the Samurai, I felt an obligation to include some kind of gunslinger to match other peoples ideas for use in a Japan analog. Despite, this I myself don't care for the flavor of guns, so I actually don't use this archetype even while playing my own setting of Kaidan.

While not being quite an expert on the history of the gun, I can't really say for sure when improvements to gunpowder was made, however much of the technological difference between an arquebus and a musket was the firing mechanism (matchlock, flint lock, spring lock, etc) and perhaps length of barrel, otherwise the gunpowder itself didn't change much until the later 18th century forward. Thus the differences in various firearms being described in one place are small beyond the gun's firing mechanism. The amount of velocity, calibur of bullet and ranges aren't much different until the powder sees great improvement - and that tends to be after the period included in Pathfinder firearms.

 

[Derren]

Like the Korean Hwachaa multi-rocket launcher, which was invented in the early 1400s, and by 1451, was in mass deployment.

Well that is new to me. I wasn't aware rockets were used that extensively that early.