Ultimate Combat Playtest: Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai

[Banshee16]

The disconnect in your post (and in the rules!) is that one melee attack roll represents multiple swings, parries, thrusts, and reversals, while one ranged attack roll is (almost always) one unit of ammo expenditure.

Why do you say that? I haven't assumed that at all. If you break it down, this was more inherently true in 2nd Ed. than it was in 3E, because the standard round was 60 seconds, as opposed to 6 seconds.

Back in 2nd Ed., a fighter might have 2 attacks a round....maybe 3, if they are fighting with two weapons. And that's for a lvl 20 fighter. I think the absolute best was a lvl 20 fighter, with the two-weapon fighting proficiencies/skills, and weapon specialization in the weapon they were fighting with. And it had to be paired weapons....since I think they could only specialize in one weapon. So if you were specialized in shortsword, and had two of them, and were lvl 20, you had 5/2 attack for each weapon, or 5 in total for the two weapons (3 with your main hand, and 2 with your second). Most characters had far less.

So, at most, if taken literally, a lvl 20 fighter in 2nd Ed. could have 5 attacks in 60 seconds....or one every 12 seconds. In a fencing bout, 12 seconds is an *eternity*. And for most characters, they only had 1-2 attacks per round. A rogue with two weapons would be 2 attacks in a round, and a cleric or mage would be 1 attack in a round. One action in 60 seconds. That just doesn't make sense....hence, it was interpreted that they're not just standing there for 55 seconds twiddling their thumbs, and then taking 5 seconds to take an action. It was stated that they were moving back and forth, circling, feinting, attacking and parrying etc. and all this was resolved by the one attack roll. It was abstracted.

3E was abstract with respect to hp, but I'm not so sure it was with actions. The round was much shorter. In 3E, a lvl 20 fighter would have 4 actions, minimum, unless he was moving around more than 5'. If he had two weapons and also the feat chain leading to greater numbers of attacks with his second weapon, he could get up to 4 extra attacks, for a total of 8 in a round. So, 4 actions in a round could be 1 action every 1.5 seconds......or as much as 1 action every 0.75 seconds. This is far closer to realistic than 2nd Ed. was, so I'm not convinced that melee attacks are abstracted whereas ranged attacks are not.

Thinking back to fencing, and what my the master at our salon had mentioned, fencers tend to be quicker than those who fight with "real" blades. It's a different mentality. He commented about an argument/dispute that arose between a fencer and a sword fighter about which discipline was better. The fencer won in seconds...but only because he was working under a different set of parameters than someone using live blades would be used to. He was just looking for a touch. Fencing tends to be more direct, with fewer flourishes than are used in sword fighting. It likely may have been a different story if live blades were being used. The point being that fencing is faster. Some hits are scored so quickly that the eye doesn't even register it. It's all counted via the sound of hits, or the signal going off to indicate a point scored. So though I'm convinced that there may be more than 1 attack a second occurring at certain points of a fencing bout, it's averaged out, because there are also spans where it's all footwork and manouvering, where there are no actual attacks with the sword taking place. And in a battle with live blades, it might be a little slower, because even more work has to be put into defense.

So, with two experienced fighters, each getting 4 attacks per 6 seconds, that's a total of 8 exchanges in 6 seconds, or one every 0.75 seconds.

If you break it down that way, I'm not so sure that the # of actions in melee are nearly as abstract as it was in 2E.

Banshee

 

[Starbuck_II]

Why do you say that? I haven't assumed that at all. If you break it down, this was more inherently true in 2nd Ed. than it was in 3E, because the standard round was 60 seconds, as opposed to 6 seconds.

Back in 2nd Ed., a fighter might have 2 attacks a round....maybe 3, if they are fighting with two weapons. And that's for a lvl 20 fighter. I think the absolute best was a lvl 20 fighter, with the two-weapon fighting proficiencies/skills, and weapon specialization in the weapon they were fighting with. And it had to be paired weapons....since I think they could only specialize in one weapon.

Incorrect, a Dart Fighter had 5-6 attacks a round with weapon mastery, etc. Weapon speeds are important back then (darts were very fast).

 

[gamerprinter]

Yeah, in 2e weapon speed factor was very important. In fact its what made katana badass in 2e, It had the damage properties of a long sword, but the speed factor of a short sword - which was a big deal. Its interesting all the different ways to go with 3x/Pathfinder - how to make katana a better sword without making it too much better. Its never been achieved well, that I've seen.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Why do you say that?

Because you said:

Having been a fencer when I was younger, I can say that in the space of 1 minute, you can have *a lot* of attacks......many fencing bouts only last a minute, and in that time you may have had 10-20 attacks each...or more.

 

[Banshee16]

Because you said:

But nowhere in what you quoted did I make the statement that a round in 3E accounts for a bunch of attacks. As I stated......in a minute in a fencing match, you could easily have 10-20 attacks each....or more.

10 rounds a 1 minute. Thus, *minimum* of 1-2 attacks per 6 seconds.

You sure the analogy of one melee round representing multiple swings, parries etc. isn't a 2nd Ed-ism? Because I was just reading through the Actions in Combat section of PHB 3.5, and didn't see anything stating that.....though I seem to remember it *was* in the 2nd Ed. PHB.

The impression I had in 3E was that the contention that 1 action didn't actually equate to one action was no longer true.

Unless you want to do something like equate one attack action = step in, balestra, feint or disengage, then strike. Theoretically, yes, those are multiple actions, but they are part of one attack sequence. I'd still credit them as one 5 foot step + attack.

It's not exact....obviously....but the point remains that melee combat appears much faster than missile combat (before the arrival of automatic weapons etc.). There's no reload time. The multiple actions you have in a round are a better approximation of the speed of melee combat. But I'm not so sure about bows, crossbows, or primitive firearms. The Auld Gump has me there....sounds like he's got much more experience with those than I. The only one of the three I've shot was the bow and arrow......and I frankly don't remember how quick or slow it was. Pawsnplay made the valid point that the whole 10 arrows a minute thing probably didn't involve shots at single, moving targets. Theoretically, a 20th lvl fighter with a longbow and rapid shot would be a veritable medieval machine gun, launching 50 arrows a minute, which seems a tad fast I found a few posts online, indicating a rate of about 1 arrow every 4 seconds is realistic, hitting a target at 40 yards...but that's about it.

Anyways, I think we've kind of gone off topic here. All I had intended to say was that the combination of rules suggestions I was referencing for firearms, based on the rules I found in Swashbuckling Adventures, gave the quality of verisimilutude to the inclusion of firearms in the game, and might work a bit better than making firearms touch attacks at short range.

I figure they should be dangerous, but limited somehow, and firing rate seemed a good way to do it. I remember a quote on a plaque in the Canadian War Museum....it was from a Canadian officer in the Boer War, I believe....he said something to the effect that "a new recruit with a $20 pistol could end the best trained swordsman in the world from 50' away, or something to that effect."

Sounds like Paizo still has some work to do to get it right...but hopefully they're able to. They still have like 6 months or so, so you'd think they could work it out.

I just hope "True Grit" doesn't stay. Two years from now, that name is going to seem kind of silly

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

With respect to the thread topic.....

It would be good if the ninja had a few more non-magical type abilities. Evasion......maybe Improved Unarmed Strike....and some kind of bonus to AC when not wearing armor.

I haven't really read many accounts of ninja running around in armor, and all the depictions I've seen have typically been the "black pajamas" type. With AC of 10+Dex Mod, this class will get creamed if it gets into a fight.

Maybe Improved Unarmed Strike could be a Ninja Trick. If you don't want the martial artist ninja, don't use one of your tricks on the ability. If you do, then take the ability. And there is already an example of a ninja trick being equal to a feat......Weapon Training, which gives the Weapon Focus feat.

Hidden Master seems pretty powerful in some ways. At lvl 20, I basically have a choice:

1-Sneak attack an opponent and do 10d6 damage (average of 35).
2-Sneak attack an opponent and give up all the sneak attack dice, to do 10 points of CON damage. Against a lvl 20 opponent, that would do 100 points of damage in one attack, and....I think....force a save vs. massive damage.

I guess it makes their sneak attack still pretty scary at high levels. Maybe that's what they're going for.

Banshee

 

[gamerprinter]

With respect to the thread topic.....

It would be good if the ninja had a few more non-magical type abilities. Evasion......maybe Improved Unarmed Strike....and some kind of bonus to AC when not wearing armor.

Why would you want to make Rogue completely ineffective compared to a Ninja? Ninja fit one role, a rogue fits another. Evasion fits the rogue and would make Ninja a lot more powerful compared to a rogue, because of its already existing ki powers access. I don't want to eliminate Rogue with Ninja. Giving ninja Evasion would do just that.

I haven't really read many accounts of ninja running around in armor, and all the depictions I've seen have typically been the "black pajamas" type. With AC of 10+Dex Mod, this class will get creamed if it gets into a fight.

Of course 'black pajamas' are a complete fiction invented by Japanese theater to help the audience know who the ninja is. At no time in history did ninja ever wear black pajamas. You won't see 'black pajama wearing' ninja in my soon to be published setting which will include Shinobi as a subculture.

Maybe Improved Unarmed Strike could be a Ninja Trick. If you don't want the martial artist ninja, don't use one of your tricks on the ability. If you do, then take the ability. And there is already an example of a ninja trick being equal to a feat......Weapon Training, which gives the Weapon Focus feat.

I can agree with this, Improved Unarmed Strike is fairly marginal of an ability that Ninja shouldn't be denied access to that too.

Hidden Master seems pretty powerful in some ways. At lvl 20, I basically have a choice:

1-Sneak attack an opponent and do 10d6 damage (average of 35).
2-Sneak attack an opponent and give up all the sneak attack dice, to do 10 points of CON damage. Against a lvl 20 opponent, that would do 100 points of damage in one attack, and....I think....force a save vs. massive damage.

Of course shinobi of my setting don't get Sneak Attack at all, instead they get a tweaked version of Death Attack, as that is far more ninja like than SA could ever be.

In my Kaidan setting, Shinobi is an archetype for Bard, Monk, Ranger, Rogue and Sorcerer, with the possibilities of an included Prestige Class ninja.

Sneak Attack is precision damage in combat. To me a Ninja should avoid combat at all costs (not always possible, but definitely a preference.) A ninja is supposed to be a spy and an assassin, not a tricked out fighter for combat.

GP

 

[Adso]

Both the gunslinger and the gun rules themselves are utterly terrible to the point of being neigh unusable.

I would say that is an uncharitable way of looking at it, but not without a glimmer of truth. Guns in the oldest RPG are a difficult nut to crack. They need to be different but not overpowering. They need to feel right. With the gun rules and the gunslinger we are attempting to achieve those very important design goals.

Another design goal is that guns in Golarion are rare and expensive. That's part of the world’s story.

What you are seeing now in the playtest is a partial and targeted design. I had specific questions I need to have answers for about the gunslinger. The structure of the current class was designed to give me those answers, and give a taste of what they’ll see in the final book.

Yes, the playtest serves a lot of masters…that’s the nature of playtest. The class needs work; that is why we have a playtest. Problems come to light, and they get fixed thanks to the dedication of the fans and the many folks working on the product.

Just add to the feedback, and wait for the final result. I think you’ll be much happier with it than you are with the current iteration.

 

[Banshee16]

Just add to the feedback, and wait for the final result. I think you’ll be much happier with it than you are with the current iteration.

That's pretty much what I thought.

You can't get feedback and improve it, without putting *something* down on paper, and identifying what people like/don't like about it.

Hopefully you can do make the changes needed to try and find the sweet spot.

If it's any use, I think you can still do fantasy with guns. Tad Williams' Shadowmarch series includes guns and cannons....but still knights and armor, gods and faeries, shadechanging, and magic spells. And it works.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Of course 'black pajamas' are a complete fiction invented by Japanese theater to help the audience know who the ninja is. At no time in history did ninja ever wear black pajamas. You won't see 'black pajama wearing' ninja in my soon to be published setting which will include Shinobi as a subculture.

Apparently I don't have any "good" sources on ninjas. The books I've read seemed to indicate that they did wear camo which might be black at night, or white in the snow, or whatever....but it was only for specific assignments, and in many cases, they were "invisible" by looking like the regular populace so they couldn't be distinguished from any other peasant.

But that armor was cumbersome, and difficult to use stealth with, and they tended not to wear it, unless it was specific items like a very light chainmail, or metal arm bracers or nekode used for blocking sword blows, etc...

In any case, that's what I've read. Doesn't mean it's right. I'm not a historian, nor have I taken Japanese history courses or anything of the sort.

I have a book "Art of the Ninja" by Peter Lewis, and "Warriors of Medieval Japan" by Stephen Turnbull....that's about as much as I've read about them. I'm not saying this to argue...I'm just establishing that I know I don't have a good historical knowledge of the period, and my understanding of the topic has ranged from "they were real", to "they were a complete fabrication and never existed" to "they might have been some form of special forces" and people made up stories about them to exaggerate their exploits.

Banshee