In the spirit of again demonstrating the silliness of providing bullets the opportunity to ignore armor, I'd like to point out that by the rules, a bullet fired from a gun cannot even sunder the armor that it pierces. Steel, with 10 hardness, could take a pistol shot without denting. Harder substances, such as mithral and adamantine, would need massive bonus damage assigned to the gun before they even realized they were being shot.
The real kicker is that a pistol or musket, doing minimum damage, wouldn't even damage glass. A glass window has a 1 in 6 chance of surviving a shot from a pistol. Yet that same bullet punches through adamantine full plate to get that 1 point of damage on the armor's wearer.
I think they are actually trying to model that even if a bullet does not piece the armor, the sheer impact of the bullet will still break bones, rupture internal organs and the like. Maybe not 100% realistic, but we aren't playing Houses and Housewives here.
Which would fine if there were any precedent for this kind of mechanic. However, as has been stated in other posts, Gods still have to hit AC to deal damage. The terrasque has to hit AC to deal damage. It doesn't matter if the 1d8+9999 damage strike hits your touch AC - if it doesn't beat your AC, it doesn't deal damage.
I'm not sure the new quantification for damage is - a topic that has been of debate before - but the specificity of this particular weapon and the way it interacts with the main defensive mechanic of the game fails to make sense with the material already accepted and in use. Again, minimum damage fails to break glass - but will break bones? Will dent steel?
A glass window has a 1 in 6 chance of surviving a shot from a pistol.
Pistols do 1d8 damage, 1 in 8 chances.
A glass window has a 1 in 6 chance of surviving a shot from a pistol.Pistols do 1d8 damage, 1 in 8 chances.
Noted. I was skimming for my numbers, and saw the Small sized character damage. I revise to 1 in 6 for small, 1 in 8 for medium. I'm still feeling that a shot from a gun that can pierce (or dent, or bruise) should be able to make short work of a glass window.
True, but on the concept of armor, imagine this. You shoot a guy in full plate armor 6 times. Those 6 teeny-tiny holes are not going to impact the armors ability to stop a great axe. In other words, even if the gun did more damage, I cannot see it sundering armor.
But I agree with most of what you are saying.
Remember that the core rulebook states that some tool or weapon can ignore the hardness of some material if appropriate.
True, but on the concept of armor, imagine this. You shoot a guy in full plate armor 6 times. Those 6 teeny-tiny holes are not going to impact the armors ability to stop a great axe. In other words, even if the gun did more damage, I cannot see it sundering armor.
But I agree with most of what you are saying.
This brings to mind the classic scene in A Fistful of Dollars, where Clint Eastwood is shot repeatedly and keeps getting back up, because he's hidden a metal plate under his poncho to stop the bullets.
They parodied (payed homage to) the scene in the 3rd Back to the Future movie as well.
I remember that scene in back to the future. Good movie.
Quick note:
Ranged Weapon Damage: Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object's hardness.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html#smashing-an-object
I'm pretty sure that applies to all objects in general, including worn objects.
(So things like armor and swords when being sundered.)
...If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points...
The real kicker is that a pistol or musket, doing minimum damage, wouldn't even damage glass. A glass window has a 1 in 6 chance of surviving a shot from a pistol. Yet that same bullet punches through adamantine full plate to get that 1 point of damage on the armor's wearer.
By your longswords are just as silly in the hands of a character with no strength mod, meaning the glass has the same 1 in 8 chance of surviving. Really using item breaking rules to demonstrate that guns as written is silly because the breaking rules are themselves frequently silly.
By your longswords are just as silly in the hands of a character with no strength mod, meaning the glass has the same 1 in 8 chance of surviving. Really using item breaking rules to demonstrate that guns as written is silly because the breaking rules are themselves frequently silly.
The big difference here being that longswords don't get a chance to ignore armor. The rules suggest a unique level of stopping power assigned to guns, but the way it manifests in the description serves only to illuminate other mild flaws in the system. These flaws could normally be overlooked with a shrug and a 'it's just a game, not everything can be perfect', but this particular oddity - assumed to be an attempt at realism - is so counter-intuitive and patently absurd that shrugging it away becomes terribly difficult.