Had a debate with Cesmary last night on deflect arrows affecting guns. So question is should they affect guns? She thought yes simply for the sake of balance. I unfortunately disagree since… Automatic weapons fire multiple bullets so when you can't possibly deflect them all.
but first before I continue let me get the feat word for word and we will dissect the issue.
You can knock arrows and other projectiles off course, preventing them from hitting you.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn't count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can't be deflected.
Okay so there is rules against unusually massive sized ranged weapons… now. the feat describes as deflecting an arrow as though like a karate chop or some shit like that… but lets be real. try that with a .44 caliber bullet or even a burst from a tommy gun. It only can deflect ONE arrow as it is implying; so why should one deflect 24 all at once? It's stupid. My brother even said it "Hahaha deflecting a bullet? sure you could do it… but you won't have a hand after words." Alright so how should deflecting bullets work? because as Cesmary says it under powers monks even more than they already are. Which is absolutely correct, simply making it "Not work" would deal a bit of a blow to monks even though other unusually massive ranged weapons are already unaffected. The feat says nothing about ballistics. Deflecting a bullet is bullshit… and catching one is also bullshit. Hell even in Watchmen it was weird when Ozymandias did it; and even when he did it his entire hand was bloody as shit.
Also, looking at a picture of a monk using deflect arrows (I think back of the monster manual 3.5 it shows ember karate chopping an arrow in half to stop it from hitting her by hitting it in the middle (the part with out a blade) that part being harmless…) In anatomy a bullet is a LOT different than a arrow. Of course there comes the case of balance and Cesmary's argument "It's a fantasy game so is kay". Which I must say I hate the whole "It's a fantasy" argument statement mostly because you could say that about anything and I just find it to be an excuse when losing arguments pertaining to things like this (yes I have been guilty of that excuse too). I mean hell lets just take a look at your average bullet
Now another thing that recently dawned upon me is shurikens… how are they deflecting that with blades all around the edges. Now a shuriken isn't going to move at the speed of a bullet but still how does one deflect without getting a little hurt?
Another interesting topic… Deflecting thrown grenades… if it's jarate your Karate chopping the jar breaking it open your still being hit, or another grenade… or hell an alchemist bomb explodes when it HITS an enemy. Deflect arrows requires you to DEFLECT. Meaning you aren't simply ignoring the attack but your rather hitting it to knock it away or even destroy it. Are you really going to touch an alchemists bomb? I mean really. Now my brother had a simple ruling idea that he believes makes the absolute most sense and I for one actually agree with him.
Automatic Weapons are NEVER allowed to be deflected.
Other Guns can be deflected but will cause the deflector to take half damage and the Shooter is allowed a sunder check to sunder the hand of the deflector (this is more than fair considering there shouldn't be a check in the first place with a bullet going many miles an hour not to mention it's unusual size.) However, it is totally fine if one where to have a gauntlet. Then it works like normal. I requested that for balance. My brother originally felt it shouldn't be possible AT ALL unless your deflecting the arrow with a weapon (See Duelist Prestige Class and possibly swashbuckler)
That is my simple solution to the issue. Unless you have a protective metal casing then yes im sorry but chances are your hand can be sundered! lol guns HURT; it's true. It is not good to be shot in the hand at all. and when you deflect your knocking the projectile back somehow with your unarmed. I mean hell look at El-Mariachi he will never play the Mariachi again; because his hand got shot. Gun's exist… it's just something we have to come to terms with just like magic exists.
Another issue this has brought up is "Are guns TRULY balanced yet?" were using the d20 modern style. So don't yell at me yell at those people, and possibly Mr.Gygax and or Wizards of The Coast. I would say guns are balanced mostly because they are mechanically built to have failures; first of all on a natural 1 (or in some cases 2) the guns have a break chance. That SUCKS if it's a magic weapon. Now when I was talking with Ces last night she said that it also normally happens when you roll a one with a bow. I disagreed; upon looking into the Pathfinder SRD there is NO MECHANIC that states a bow breaks when trying to fire with a natural one.
As a note, Natural Ones and Critical Failures and bad things that happen with them are completely arbitrary and not actually written in any rules. The ideas behind critical failures and something bad happening such as a bow breaking unless stated otherwise is completely and totally up to the DM. For flavor reasons; the folks at Enworld also discovered this before I even did. Since there is no mechanic for that that puts an edge above guns; but instead of doing it this way lets just look at a simple compare and contrast
Gun Pros
- Higher Damage - Guns do considerably more damage than bows ranging from 2d4 to a max of 2d12 guns (IN THE BEGINNING*) can easily out damage a bow. Explosive dice also contributes to this.
- Range - Many guns have good range (some have super shitty range like only 20ft. no bow has that) and are capable of having a scope placed on them. This is really just nitpicking though in the favor of bows; because a scope can easily be put on a crossbow. So really this is just being rude to guns in the favor of bows arguemet.
- Sizes - Many Guns are EASY to conceal; their damage isn't the best and neither is their range but concealing some guns is usually never an issue. Unlike bows that cannot be concealed
- Automatic - Automatic weapons are… well their okay. two extra attacks at -6 to autofire and it can't be on the same subject without a certain feat? very reasonable very fair.
- Grenade Guns - another nitpick since you can simply purchase alchemist fire arrows and that this truly means very little.
- Two Weapon Fighting - Guns have this feature over bows very easily and can fire dual weapons. This can be very nice. A shame it doesn't work out when your using a long arm IE: a Rifle.
- Smaller Ammunition - another way that makes guns more concealable than bows
Bow Pros
- Free action to draw ammunition - (except when it is a crossbow) This is very good and really beats guns and crossbows. You need a feat for guns and crossbows in order to fire multiple times a round (unless you have an automatic weapon)
- Stealth - Bows will always beat guns in stealth unless your a sniper and firing from miles and miles and miles away on a big tower and very well concealed. Bows can fire and give the firer a chance to be concealed at -4 stealth to bonus. a good archer doesn't give a care about -4. "Chad Warden wipes his ASS with -4 to stealth" Guns aren't given that stealth and unless they are truly far away. Their position is ALWAYS revealed.
- Reliable - They don't break. Their are no breaking mechanics what so ever. Means you can have a magic bow and not give a care while the guy with a magic gun could be fucked sideways at any point in time.
- Large varieties of ammunition - there are many different variants of arrows that guns don't have the courtesy of having. Guns only get a few extra bullets: Armor Piercing, hollow point, and buckshots. Bows have… (Insert really long table here from Races of the Wild). As I said more choices with ammunition for bows.
- Cheap - Bows are in expensive and easy to purchase.
- Out damages guns - "BUT DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY-" I know what I said but if you read the parenthesis I said in the beginning. Bone bow from frost fell lets you add your full strength mod to all of your bow attacks. It requires an exotic feat to use but is 10 times better than a composite bow. There is no opportunity for guns to ever get a strength based weapon like this or similar to this. a Bonebow does 1d10+str. Very useful for your versatile ranger warrior, or fighter, or barbarian, or anything that likes to pick up big weapons and smash people with them. It's very easy to eventually do 1d10+15. Mean while guns will ALWAYS be stuck with whatever enhancement bonus they are given. 2d8+5 on a +5 weapon. WOW… that just… that just sucks. meanwhile Mr.Bonebow will be out damaging you immensely. Which is very easy for him too because he doesn't need to take a feat to fire multiple times per round. There are also many other methods that this can be accomplished. This is a simple blunt route to out damaging guns.
- Poisons - You can't put poison on a bullet I do not think. So bows win here too.
- Multipurpose - Unless your using The Apache revolver, bows beat guns in multipurpose use. An arrow can be used as a make shift dagger in times when you need a light weapon. Such as when you get grappled and all you got are AN ENTIRE QUIVER OF VAMPIRIC ARROWS Need I say more? Sorry but you can't stab people with bullets. You just can't but arrows work just nicely!
- Feats - there are LOADS of feats for bows that simply just help as well as prestige classes.
As we can see from listing pros the bow is more versatile than a gun and that a gun is simply a higher damage out put and even then that could be beaten. I was more than fair in my critique and in fact I was arguably unfair to guns because I nitpicked a lot of crap that really isn't a real Pro.
Now lets take a look at Cons…
Gun Cons
- Breaks on a natural 1 - In some cases a natural 2. Do you have any idea how much it sucks when you go and buy your super duper magic gun and guess what. You rolled a 1 and your gun breaks first day; and magic items are about as expensive as guns themselves are. So chances are you are only going to have ONE and ONLY ONE magic gun at a time unless your higher level or an artificer. Either way, a broken gun is about as useful as a half a sword. USELESS
- Requires Feats - You need feats to get the best out of a gun, meanwhile the bowman is going to be taking fun feats which allow him to grab things like improved toughness and extra ranged weapon feats which simply is already on its way to out classing the gun.
- Eventually out damaged - as stated above in the pros for bows.
- No Stealth - Unless your a reasonable number ft away, then yeah your gun gives away your position.
- Expensive - Just look at the gun chart. You'll see what I'm talking about.
- Not a lot of extras - No poisons, only a few kinds of ammo, meanwhile arrows get an entire chart.
Bow Cons
- Poor Starting Damage - KEEP CRYING BABY! sorry but seriously, if your bitching and moaning about not doing enough damage then your are facing the following problems: A: your just whining, B: Your a new character and need to learn patience to wait to out damage a gun, C: your building wrong, D: You just don't like the idea of guns despite being in a steam punk setting where guns will play a major role like it or not. If you want to play fantasy play fantasy, if you want steam punk then come to terms with the fact "GUNS HURT VERY BADLY" much like fantasy has to come to terms with "MAGIC EXISTS".
- Not Easily concealable - Like Crime? sorry the bartender is gonna see you walking in with that bow unless you pull some wacky magic shit like shrink item or something. Your arrows are also going to need it.
- Range - sure you can make very long range, but you can't put a scope on a long bow; thats just silly!
So overall through analysis of things that I have noticed. You can do a lot less with guns and a lot more with bows and bows can be more dependable than guns at times, yet guns do good about getting the job done. So is it really over powering to let common sense take over in the gun field and rule it as real life rules it? Touching a bullet flying at you is a BAD idea.
However I leave this all to you guys to discuss for now we will use my younger brothers ideas and ruling until I get community opinions on what should be ruled.
Hope we can draw to a reasonable conclusion!
~BIRDMAN
