Mundane ranged weapons and alchemical grenades are an integral part of most of my high-Dex PCs- especially Monks- to soften up foes and control the battlefield.
Among other things, a wizard with more kills to his name than the fighter (at second and third level) - not because of spells, but because he was a dab hand with a light crossbow.Haaaah, I stand corrected.
I always forget about those darn humans.
And [MENTION=6957]TheAuldGrump[/MENTION], how so? I'm curious.
Heh, now I am picturing a Pathfinder alchemist - in my head he is nicknamed Morty the Mortar....For me, I had a halfling ray/orb focused spellcaster...meaning he had several of the feats required to make for a decent D&D archer, so he carried a sling big enough for grenade-like weapons.
The "problem" is that D&D doesn't handle crossbows particularly well either, if your goal is to have missile weapons that can kill a man or a deer with one shot (or not with five or six).
We should probably be more precise. I can easily see a skilled fighter dodging a thrown axe or a long-distance arrow-shot -- especially if he has a large shield to put in the way -- but I can't see him dodging a bullet or a short-range crossbow bolt from an unseen attacker. More importantly, a skilled fighter would either get hit or not; he wouldn't get ground down by blocking and dodging the first five shots from a six-shooter, and he certainly couldn't charge a gunner knowing he'd be able to close the gap with zero chance of being stopped, even by a hit.It is easy to see why a skilled fighter could avoid lethal hits from a sword due to pure skill. It is not so easy to see why a skilled fighter could avoid lethal hits from a missile weapon due to pure skill.
But Pathfinder's hit points work like D&D's, right? So the first few shots are somehow shrugged off, like clockwork.Well Pathfinder's rule on firearms make more sense to me.
As is the first sword stroke, magic missile, giant rat nibble, etc..But Pathfinder's hit points work like D&D's, right? So the first few shots are somehow shrugged off, like clockwork.
But Pathfinder's hit points work like D&D's, right? So the first few shots are somehow shrugged off, like clockwork.
In Pathfinder your touch AC does not include Dex modifiers
This is untrue. Touch AC does include Dex, deflection, and size modifiers, but doesn't include any armor, natural armor, or shield bonuses.In Pathfinder your touch AC does not include Dex modifiers, thus you cannot effectively dodge a firearm discharge as it is a ranged touch attack.
WHAT?
I run 4e, but am playing in a Pathfinder campaign. I had NO idea of this.
This is untrue. Touch AC does include Dex, deflection, and size modifiers, but doesn't include any armor, natural armor, or shield bonuses.
That said, I do think the way PF handles firearms is one of the better systems I've yet seen in FRPGs.
I can see the logic of saying that all weapons are equally unrealistic, but I don't think they really are, because single-shot guns, which should work for dueling, hunting, or breaking the enemy line, simply don't work plausibly if that first and only shot has no chance of killing the opposing duelist, the deer, or the enemy officer.As is the first sword stroke, magic missile, giant rat nibble, etc..
As long as it is applied to all options then it does not fret me none.
The problem, as far as realism is concerned, is not that guns are insufficiently deadly; it's that they can't kill in one shot. (The only time they can kill with one shot is when the target is "weak" enough to be guaranteed to die in two shots.)Unless you're first level, then you might be dead. It's not 4e though, so hit point loss is real hit point loss, nothing that can be healed with a surge.
Two samurai are squaring off, neither has a chance to kill the other with that first strike.I can see the logic of saying that all weapons are equally unrealistic, but I don't think they really are, because single-shot guns, which should work for dueling, hunting, or breaking the enemy line, simply don't work plausibly if that first and only shot has no chance of killing the opposing duelist, the deer, or the enemy officer.
The problem, as far as realism is concerned, is not that guns are insufficiently deadly; it's that they can't kill in one shot. (The only time they can kill with one shot is when the target is "weak" enough to be guaranteed to die in two shots.)
This stands out, because (a) period guns only had one shot, and (b) guns should be able to stop some troops closing to fight hand-to-hand.
I can see the logic of saying that all weapons are equally unrealistic, but I don't think they really are, because single-shot guns, which should work for dueling, hunting, or breaking the enemy line, simply don't work plausibly if that first and only shot has no chance of killing the opposing duelist, the deer, or the enemy officer.
The problem, as far as realism is concerned, is not that guns are insufficiently deadly; it's that they can't kill in one shot. (The only time they can kill with one shot is when the target is "weak" enough to be guaranteed to die in two shots.)
This stands out, because (a) period guns only had one shot, and (b) guns should be able to stop some troops closing to fight hand-to-hand.
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT REALISM?!I can see the logic of saying that all weapons are equally unrealistic, but I don't think they really are, because single-shot guns, which should work for dueling, hunting, or breaking the enemy line, simply don't work plausibly if that first and only shot has no chance of killing the opposing duelist, the deer, or the enemy officer.
The problem, as far as realism is concerned, is not that guns are insufficiently deadly; it's that they can't kill in one shot. (The only time they can kill with one shot is when the target is "weak" enough to be guaranteed to die in two shots.)
This stands out, because (a) period guns only had one shot, and (b) guns should be able to stop some troops closing to fight hand-to-hand.