duraiel_ri's page

It seemed a natural extension of the idea that certain materials were heavy enough to bode exception, so I guess the question really does boil down to whether guns penetrate armor, regardless its composition, or not... I suppose it would just come down to playtesting... Oh, well. Anyway, if anybody is curious, here's the section from the book, word-for-word, for future use.

Ultimate Combat, Pg. 136-

"Early Firearms: 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. At higher range
increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking
the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range
increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms
have a maximum range of five range increments.
Advanced Firearms: Advanced firearms resolve their
attacks against touch AC when the target is within the
first five range increments, but this type of attack is not
considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats such as
Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves
normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2
penalty for each full-range increment. Advanced firearms
have a maximum range of 10 range increments."

A couple of things: If you read in the Ultimate Combat guide, yes, you can deflect bullets with the deflect arrows feat. You cannot deflect scatter-shot or siege-style shots, FYI.

Additionally, the reason I suggested the idea that a gunshot would end the mage-armor spell is because in all the other examples I've seen force effects played out (such as wall of force and forcecage), you can't "punch holes" in a force-effect. It either absorbs the attack (possibly taking an abstract amount of damage, as per pathfinder's hardness and hp rules for wall of force and forcecage) or is destroyed if it's already taken significant damage.

Additionally, I'm not asking about how I can protect myself against firearms with magic, I'm merely asking, as a DM, if armor made from a force-effect can be ruled to grant its armor bonus against firearms?

...Look, I must be wording this wrong, so let me make this clear: This isn't fundamentally a balance-question. I'm not asking ways to make firearms and magic fair and on equal-footing. What I'm asking, basically, is whether firearms should trump all armor bonuses and function universally as a touch-attack, or if there are some armor materials (adamantine and force effects, for example) that might conceivably be considered strong enough to grant armor bonuses against firearms?

A few friends and I have been piecing together a campaign that involves advanced firearms AND arcane magic, though one of my fellow contributors and I have come to loggerheads on a very specific issue: Firearms resolve as touch-attacks within so many range-increments, effectively making armor bonuses useless against them. Should force-effects, like Mage Armor, provide an exception? Would considerations dictate firearms being powerful enough to bypass ALL armor bonuses, even those provided by force-effects?

I'd like to mention, as an aside, that said fellow contributor seems to have no issue with adamantine armor providing an armor bonus. I can't help but feel that his bias against arcane magic is what's fueling his judgement against Mage-Armor likewise functioning in such a way. If it's powerful enough to punch through Mage-Armor, then should it also be ruled to cause the spell to end early?