Gunslinger Bypassing DR

[Joshua9093]

Howdy!

There are a few prior threads from a few years back, but I'm hoping to find something officially spelled out about gunslinger and DR. I am a relatively new DM and it would help to have the FAQ hammer to back me up. At my latest PFS table a gunslinger/bolt ace made the argument that touch attacks bypass DR. We read it at the table but ultimately I decided to ignore his interpretation. It didn't disrupt the game and everything went fine, though I did have to ignore is continuous comments about 'This attack bypasses DR".

Anywho, this seems to be the line in rule book that is causing confusion:

"Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage Reduction does not negate touch attacks , energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact."

The players argument seems to be that if a touch attach cannot be "negated", it would imply the damage cannot be reduced at all, therefore all gunslinger/bolt ace attacks that are touch attacks will always overcome dr.
I disagree, but I feel this argument is going to come up again if I can't find something solid. I tried looking through FAQ's but couldn't seem to find it.

I'd appreciate any help in locating a solid resolution one way or the other.

[Melkiador]

It could maybe use a FAQ, but what that sentence is probably meant to say is that Damage Reduction does not negate the special effects that accompany a negated touch attack.
**The next option over is more telling, "energy damage dealt along with an attack", tells us that the fire damage of a flaming sword would still apply even if the sword based damage gets completely negated.
**Further, "or energy drains" tells us that even if your DR negates the damage from a wight's attack, you are still subject to the wights accompanying energy drain.

So, at the most extreme, the gunslinger could have poison bullets/bolts that still deliver their poison even when the damage has been negated because of Damage Reduction. That still may not be the actual intention, but it is the most likely interpretation of what's written.

[Gabriel Cantrell]

I fully agree. DR can reduce the damage from almost any physical source. A Gunslinger's bullet is still a physical attack and thus can be reduced.

[Landon Winkler]

Guns aren't exactly touch attacks. They're normal attacks that resolve against touch AC under certain circumstances. To put it differently, if it were actually a touch attack, it would be a touch attack at any range.

Ultimate Combat wrote:

When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.

As a bonus bit of evidence, even spells that deal bludgeoning and piercing damage, like firearms, are effected by DR.

Cheers!
Landon

[Mark Carlson 255]

Landon Winkler wrote:

Guns aren't exactly touch attacks. They're normal attacks that resolve against touch AC under certain circumstances. To put it differently, if it were actually a touch attack, it would be a touch attack at any range.

Ultimate Combat wrote:

When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.

As a bonus bit of evidence, even spells that deal bludgeoning and piercing damage, like firearms, are effected by DR.

Cheers!
Landon

I agree, they are attacks that are resolved as touch attacks. They are not in and of themselves touch attacks.

MDC

[Claxon]

Agreed with everyone else.

That passage is talking about the fact that having DR doesn't protect you from the rider effects of a touch attack, like a shocking grasp delivered via touch. You will take the spell effects even though the touch deals no damage.

I agree that the passage could be more clear, but that is what it actually means.