Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Viktyr Gehrig" data-source="post: 5779931" data-attributes="member: 9249">Can't give you XP yet for your comment about the gun rules in the Pathfinder. I'm a Spelljammer guy and I really like guns in my D&D, but the special firearms rules in Pathfinder-- especially the Gunslinger class-- are just infuriating. They're not magic death wands, and plate armor in the D&D era was more than capable of deflecting bullets.Hell, they let Monks deflect bullets with the Deflect Arrows feat. With their hands, and still they insist on this nonsense.Honestly, just take the rules about making firearms attacks as touch attacks out and there's nothing I can see wrong with the firearms rules at all; they're only as unrealistic as everything else in the game, which is exactly how I like it.My understanding is that all of the archetypes are intentionally weaker-- except the Qinggong Monk-- and the rare exceptions were accidents. The Qinggong Monk is outright better, but that's deliberately trying to make up for a very very weak class. (My Monk is better, too, in a different way.) The Hungry Ghost Monk can be pretty devastating in the right hands.And I've got a soft spot for the Zen Archer, because it can actually do what it's supposed to be able to do-- the Monk stuff actually works when you can do it with a bow.Call me old-fashioned, I guess, but I really think the martial classes should be the best classes in physical combat. I don't like that some classes get pets that can replace entire other members of the party. There's a guy on Paizo complaining about the fact that Eidolons don't have enough Intelligence to double as skillmonkeys.I'm just waiting for the class that gets a pet that has its own spellcasting progression.</blockquote>

Verification