Dunno if thats the right thread board, so sorry if thats the case.
The Class released and seems fine so far. Im kinda suprised how boring it looks. The High Roller seems funny though.
The thing i want to talk about though are the firearms. Can someone give me a good reasoning on why the new firearms should not add the abiliy mod. to the damage rolls? Im just so confused on why anyone thought it would be a good idea to make firearms basically cantrips. I see no reason to ever use a firearm and not just the finger gun cantrip. I know they get later the feature to add damage to it, but like why? I get it for the machine gun / gattling gun, maybe even the canon, but the rest? I find it already crazy that the gunslinger class works better with a bow, then with guns.
But yeah, maybe i see it to harshly or negative? Anyone else have an opinion on it? Haven't really seen any real feedback on this class yet.
It's likely an effort to balance the fact that firearms are flashy/powerful items generally with quite high damage dice, as intended to be uncommon or expensive in your average game, vs the fact the class relies on you using firearms for a large part of it. By not adding your ability modifier, you can keep the flashiness without spiking the damage output. This means that a pistol or rifle can be on par with a hand crossbow or longbow in terms of general performance damage wise.
I find it already crazy that the gunslinger class works better with a bow, then with guns.
Through the lens of purely damage, X being better than Y means X does more damage than Y and in a game where more damage = more chance of your character not dying, that becomes a non-choice. Also it gives the class flexibility so if you want to make a gunslinger that's also good at throwing daggers, or using any form of ranged attack (think Bullseye from Marvel comics), you can.
When it comes to giving the players options, you need to ensure there's no "strictly better" option, because then it stops being an option
I do not have the Valda: Spire of Secrets item, so I am flying blind here. From where did the 'gunslinger' come: was it Stephen King's 'Dark Tower' series, was it from the old 'Boot Hill' RPG or did it come from somewhere else? I have seen the various film series on the Discovery channel and the History channel that detail how firearms evolved from muzzle loaded hand cannons, to the matchlock muskets, to the wheel lock muskets, to the flint lock muskets, to the percussion cap muskets and so on to the modern breach loading multi-shot weapons of today. My question, then, is why do we need firearms in a fantasy setting? Does the average fantasy campaign have the physical infrastructure to mass produce full metal jacketed cartridges (essential to reload the magazine of an Automatik Kalashnikov 1947, aka, AK-47), or to mass produce the parts for an AK-47? If your fantasy campaign does not the necessary infrastructure, then keep firearms out of your setting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Dunno if thats the right thread board, so sorry if thats the case.
The Class released and seems fine so far. Im kinda suprised how boring it looks. The High Roller seems funny though.
The thing i want to talk about though are the firearms. Can someone give me a good reasoning on why the new firearms should not add the abiliy mod. to the damage rolls?
Im just so confused on why anyone thought it would be a good idea to make firearms basically cantrips. I see no reason to ever use a firearm and not just the finger gun cantrip.
I know they get later the feature to add damage to it, but like why? I get it for the machine gun / gattling gun, maybe even the canon, but the rest?
I find it already crazy that the gunslinger class works better with a bow, then with guns.
But yeah, maybe i see it to harshly or negative? Anyone else have an opinion on it? Haven't really seen any real feedback on this class yet.
It's likely an effort to balance the fact that firearms are flashy/powerful items generally with quite high damage dice, as intended to be uncommon or expensive in your average game, vs the fact the class relies on you using firearms for a large part of it. By not adding your ability modifier, you can keep the flashiness without spiking the damage output. This means that a pistol or rifle can be on par with a hand crossbow or longbow in terms of general performance damage wise.
Through the lens of purely damage, X being better than Y means X does more damage than Y and in a game where more damage = more chance of your character not dying, that becomes a non-choice. Also it gives the class flexibility so if you want to make a gunslinger that's also good at throwing daggers, or using any form of ranged attack (think Bullseye from Marvel comics), you can.
When it comes to giving the players options, you need to ensure there's no "strictly better" option, because then it stops being an option
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I do not have the Valda: Spire of Secrets item, so I am flying blind here. From where did the 'gunslinger' come: was it Stephen King's 'Dark Tower' series, was it from the old 'Boot Hill' RPG or did it come from somewhere else? I have seen the various film series on the Discovery channel and the History channel that detail how firearms evolved from muzzle loaded hand cannons, to the matchlock muskets, to the wheel lock muskets, to the flint lock muskets, to the percussion cap muskets and so on to the modern breach loading multi-shot weapons of today. My question, then, is why do we need firearms in a fantasy setting? Does the average fantasy campaign have the physical infrastructure to mass produce full metal jacketed cartridges (essential to reload the magazine of an Automatik Kalashnikov 1947, aka, AK-47), or to mass produce the parts for an AK-47? If your fantasy campaign does not the necessary infrastructure, then keep firearms out of your setting.