Ok, I'll clarify. I've been reading posts about verisimilitude, posts about intrusion into theme and posts about anachronisms with flintlocks and Western-style abilities.
I'll say this, looking at the rules as they stand for the firearm, I'm surprisingly pleased by the result. I could take exception to a few things, but really in the end, it's a way to simulate fantasy firearms fairly well.
I had some experience designing musket rules for a fantasy Napoleonic 3.5E game I dreamed up. I wanted to make them impressive enough that they would be a useable weapon, realistic enough that you could nod towards realism but still jump towards heroic adventure stories, and playable enough that players wouldn't complain about them in the context of the game. It was a gold-plated pain in the a** to do it right, and I had to do it with a ton of optional rules from Unearthed Arcana and Star Wars. In the end, I achieved a semi-functional result that satisfied my desire for realism balanced with some playability. People fired and then switched to bayonets when things got too close.
What people didn't enjoy was spending five rounds reloading their guns when the guns were their primary weapons. And they were trained to reload faster with feats and class abilities.
So, onto what I do like in the gun rules. I like the fact that they're expensive to purchase/own. This makes them rare and pursued by only the folks that want to play that type of character. There is a very real fear that firearms would change the landscape of combat for D&D characters. That fear is real because firearms DID change the landscape of combat very dramatically. But by keeping the cost excessive, that fear becomes less important.
I would also think that they would be hard to sell for any price. After all, they require expensive ammunition, they're a new technology, an unknown quantity. If someone came up and offered you a bazooka, but you only had to pay half the asking price for it, aside from the novelty, would it be worth it to purchase, especially at that price? A bazooka is just a tube without a rocket. Especially since there are easier to use weapons that do just about the same thing readily available... (ok, so the bazooka isn't the best analogy, but still...) Will some characters use it anyways, with the price tag, sure! A pistol tucked into a belt is a classic element. Will it replace the longbow? Probably not. Which is as it should be. Otherwise
That aside, the rules give them something exceptional. Yes, you can hit a touch attack every round. Yes, the Tarrasque will be shot every round, with its touch AC of 5. Magic missile hits every time. You don't even need a roll! At first level!
And if you spend a few feats, you can perform full attacks with a musket. IRL, with a musket, three rounds a minute was impressive. A skilled gunslinger can reload six times or more! (Rapid Reload, Lightning Reload Deed, Signature Deed (Lightning Reload) and enough iterative attacks to make it worth their while). Even with revolvers, this ability doesn't get THAT out of hand. Especially since a revolver takes a heckuva lot longer to reload than a single barrel. Though the Lightning reload might need to be reworded or limited in that case, but not really. It's an 11th level minimum ability.
The archer in my game deals out heavy damage with deadly aim, and the same could apply to Gunslingers, so I see nothing that isn't comparable except for a bump in the price. Come to think of it, a masterwork composite strength bow probably cashes in around 1,000 gp, so the cost isn't that prohibitive, especially added to masterwork arrows. A +1 arrow is roughly 40gp. Is a +1 bonus worth touch attacks at close range? It's apparently worth around 1/4 of that.
Yes, lead balls should be cheaper, but again, maybe it's a limitation of the fantasy firearms. It works both ways. If you want to reload quicker, then you need to have better ammunition. Or, think about this one, if you want, you can buy the ammo cheap, but then spend ten rounds reloading.
As for the targeted shots, trick shots and extra fun things, those give a bit of fun abilities that cancels out the cost and action penalties that a gunslinger suffers from with the firearms.
The more I look, the more I see that the gunslinger is more than just a damage dealer. The limited amount of grit (since it's based on WIS, but not level), balances out some of the exceptional things they can do.
If anyone in my group is reading this, skip the next part:
I'm slipping in a gunslinger into the next game we have (I'm converting a certain Vampire Crossbowman into a Vampire Gunslinger, because I'm tired of my players knowing the exact abilities of everything out there, as well as the literal tank of a dwarf that I can never hit, due to an outrageous AC -- that's all she focuses on). So I'll know more, but building the character, it was fun to see the limits and exceptional abilities of the class. It'll be even more fun when they get past the gun and start fighting the vampire. Heh.
I do think that folks need to be reminded of the caveat that if you don't want it in your game, you don't have to have it in your game. Same goes for Ninjas, Monks, Rangers, Paladins, Fighters, Dragons, Longswords, Gold Pieces or that annoying guy that always eats anything that isn't behind a lock.
In the end, PF and D&D are cinematic games. We don't roll for infections, organ damage, broken bow strings or stubbed toes. Firearms misfire because it's cinematic for them to do so. They pierce armor because they function differently to give them a different feel. In the end, hit points represent luck, and not actual wounds, and firearms are just as abstract. Long may it be so. If I want wounds, I'll play a different game. If I want long reloading times, I'd probably play a different game.
Just my 2cp. Thanks.
I would also think that they would be hard to sell for any price. After all, they require expensive ammunition, they're a new technology, an unknown quantity. If someone came up and offered you a bazooka, but you only had to pay half the asking price for it, aside from the novelty, would it be worth...
Wait, so you want it expensive but not when selling? Aren't merchants selling it to PC?
Or are you saying it has it has a low price when PCs hold it but not when NPCS hold it?
The archer in my game deals out heavy damage with deadly aim, and the same could apply to Gunslingers, so I see nothing that isn't comparable except for a bump in the price. Come to think of it, a masterwork composite strength bow probably cashes in around 1,000 gp, so the cost isn't that prohibitive, especially added to masterwork arrows. A +1 arrow is roughly 40gp. Is a +1 bonus worth touch attacks at close range? It's apparently worth around 1/4 of that.
The rules say that it can't apply. Deadly Aim has no effect on touch attacks (yes the guns benefit is its folly).
Wait, so you want it expensive but not when selling? Aren't merchants selling it to PC?
Or are you saying it has it has a low price when PCs hold it but not when NPCS hold it?
Old DM trick. Prices are high because demand is low. So low in fact, that you are about the only one who wants it. So when you try to sell your gun, no one wants it. By the same token, almost no one sells it, so not only is your gun expensive, its hard to find, and almost impossible to sell.
Works great for odd magic items the party wants/has.
Wait, so you want it expensive but not when selling? Aren't merchants selling it to PC?
Or are you saying it has it has a low price when PCs hold it but not when NPCS hold it?
Old DM trick. Prices are high because demand is low. So low in fact, that you are about the only one who wants it. So when you try to sell your gun, no one wants it. By the same token, almost no one sells it, so not only is your gun expensive, its hard to find, and almost impossible to sell.
Works great for odd magic items the party wants/has.
Not in a game where a party has gilibness and bluff checks in the high 20's. Im sure they could convince plenty of other people that its a must have thing.
Not in a game where a party has gilibness and bluff checks in the high 20's. Im sure they could convince plenty of other people that its a must have thing.
Truth, however there is the Gold Piece Limit per town. You still can't sell it in anything (Within reason, 75% chance you might find it) in less than a Large Town. So even with Glibness, its probably not worth it. Bards have to be of 7th level to get the spell, and at that point the cost of a gun is minimal. As to Magic Items, maybe.
|
So, onto what I do like in the gun rules. I like the fact that they're expensive to purchase/own. This makes them rare and pursued by only the folks that want to play that type of character. There is a very real fear that firearms would change the landscape of combat for D&D characters. That fear is real because firearms DID change the landscape of combat very dramatically. But by keeping the cost excessive, that fear becomes less important.
...
In the end, PF and D&D are cinematic games. We don't roll for infections, organ damage, broken bow strings or stubbed toes. Firearms misfire because it's cinematic for them to do so. They pierce armor because they function differently to give them a different feel. In the end, hit points represent luck, and not actual wounds, and firearms are just as abstract. Long may it be so. If I want wounds, I'll play a different game. If I want long reloading times, I'd probably play a different game.
This misses the arguments against guns (as they are handled right now) entirely.
Realism does not equal verisimilitude. Verisimilitude implies that a thing models reality close enough to not produce paradox, plot holes, and breaks in the narrative. This is important. Magic is an acceptable means of extending verisimilitude over the fantastic in many cases.
It is not cinematic for pistols/etc. to equate to magic missiles. It isn't even cinematic for them to act as rays. And it destroys verisimilitude because similar rules are not applied to bows and crossbows. Verisimilitude demands consistency or well-defended exceptions.
It is not cinematic for pistols/etc. to explode 5% of the time. No one has yet named for me an occasion in film where a gun has detonated to kill its wielder. Some enterprising individuals have pointed to Sharpe and Hornblower and other Napoleonic fare. I am forced, again, to answer that the heroic themes of sword and sorcery, pulp, and D&D itself are not the heroic themes of Napoleonic fiction. They could not possibly be. As you observed, the cheap and ubiquitous firearm changed combat, battle and warfare. And this transformation correlates strongly with the growing sophistication and effectiveness of firearms over time.
Arguments about the relative expense of firearms fail because there is no stable economic model in play. The prices of lead, saltpeter and other components cannot come into play. The closest is the top-down declaration of prices and what adventurers of certain levels ought to have. In this case, firearms still fail because players can understand that they are a raw deal.
These are not even fantasy firearms, because that animal is undefined. Video-games do not count, because videogames allow you to keep pressing the x-button to keep firing. Videogames appeal to a different demographic and play style. They also tend to draw on the machismo of the 1980's action flick and/or the nonsense of anime gunplay. Neither of these belongs in my Tabletop RPG.
Why do some of us keep coming back to the musketeer, swashbuckler, and other black-powder and sabres era archetypes? Because that is the earliest era of standardized gunpowder usage, an era full of flavorful examples of swords and sorcery still holding their own with the occasional inaccurate ball of lead. Guns don't win in that era: they are things to fire into the oncoming charge before you draw a knife and sword to meet your enemies.
-
So, as long as we are disclosing preferences, here's what I don't like about firearms: from now on, in pickup games, I'll have to specify 'no six-shooters' when I want to run a fantasy game with pathfinder. It's a small problem -- insignificant almost -- but it represents an erosion of setting and theme. It's the kind of thing that, if contained in the "Alkenstar" setting book would not bother me. But, presented as it is, does bother me.
And this is without getting into the mechanical discussion. I think the subject of broken mechanics has been flogged to death by now.
Not in a game where a party has gilibness and bluff checks in the high 20's. Im sure they could convince plenty of other people that its a must have thing.Truth, however there is the Gold Piece Limit per town. You still can't sell it in anything (Within reason, 75% chance you might find it) in less than a Large Town. So even with Glibness, its probably not worth it. Bards have to be of 7th level to get the spell, and at that point the cost of a gun is minimal. As to Magic Items, maybe.
Would it make you feel better to point out that a 1st level skill focus bluff rogue/ bard could have a +10, and do the Tom Saywer white wash dance at a level where it matters.
Would it make you feel better to point out that a 1st level skill focus bluff rogue/ bard could have a +10, and do the Tom Saywer white wash dance at a level where it matters.
Yes.
Uh, there's video games with guns that aren't first person shooters.
Heck, the Wild ARMs series has swords, magic, ancient ruins, forgotten kingdoms, horrible monsters...and guns, in a psuedo-western style setting.
The Suikoden series takes place in a dramatically unromanticized setting with horrible wars, mass genocide, bizarre arcane rituals, mysterious cults, strange magical beings, cutthroat politics, knightly orders, peasant rebellion...oh, and it also has guns.
Expand your horizons a bit, man. LotR was fun and all but one cannot live in a cradle forever.
Yes.
Would it make you feel better to point out that a 1st level skill focus bluff rogue/ bard could have a +10, and do the Tom Saywer white wash dance at a level where it matters.
;) OK cool consider that I have done so.
The wealth by population size limit is a strong breaker to this problem to be sure. But I think serves more to show the breakdown in the macro-enconomics of the game. I really dont want to have to spend an hour micromanaging fictitious economies before or during my recreation time, others mileage may vary of course.
|
|
Uh, there's video games with guns that aren't first person shooters.
Heck, the Wild ARMs series has swords, magic, ancient ruins, forgotten kingdoms, horrible monsters...and guns, in a psuedo-western style setting.
The Suikoden series takes place in a dramatically unromanticized setting with horrible wars, mass genocide, bizarre arcane rituals, mysterious cults, strange magical beings, cutthroat politics, knightly orders, peasant rebellion...oh, and it also has guns.
Expand your horizons a bit, man. LotR was fun and all but one cannot live in a cradle forever.
Do you really want to get into this? Expand my horizons? Eh, it's late and I'm buzzed on coffee. Let's do it.
I played Suikoden II nearly a decade ago (it never really drew me in), and I don't remember much but I do remember that it was yet another menu-driven RPG where guns were just another attack. Same goes for guns in just about any Final Fantasy. FF Tactics at least made the gun an impressive direct fire weapon.
Firearms did not explode in either game, to my memory.
Wild ARMs was a rental for me. I remember mecha, anime cutscenes or at least an intro, and the rusty, dusty ruins of an industrial civilization. And guns being ubiquitous and cartridge driven enough that they didn't need a unique feel, they're just attacks like everything else. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make in bringing up Wild ARMs.
FPS don't use black powder weapons. Not a one that I've ever come across. If you know of one, let me know. More often, it's action games, and I am confronted with things like Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia. There is boy in this game named Albus whose over-sized pistol ought to be a carbine, and inexplicably features what seems to be a laser sight. It's also clearly a flint-lock, though he wears cartridges on his belt and bandoleer. And he fires on a whim without concern for reload, so it must be semi-automatic despite it's look. Which means that the gun is there just to look like a gun. It could be anything. Especially since it fires balls of magic and other stranger fare.
This does not impress me. I feel it misses the point. It's a video-game, so the weapon fires when you push the X button. Mechanics were never intended to 'feel' like a gun. So who cares? It doesn't search for verisimilitude, only "SHOOT BIGGER BULLETS! MAGIC BULLETS!" Calling this approach 'cinematic' doesn't really wash. It's just a 'push button for attacks' system. It's pure blubbering imagination and might as well be magic rays projected from a sword.
And, though I can appreciate your frustration, you are missing the point in trying to pin down my tastes. I'm not even a big LOTR fan. I'll take Gemmell over Tolkein in most cases. Or even Howard. Or Moorcock.
--
Off the top of my head (and it is late, so I may be forgetting something) I can think of two games that sort of embraced guns as something with limitations and unique strengths: Ultima 7, which had a musket that did some nice damage and was a bit unusual, and Arcanum, which embraced some Victorian revolvers, scatter-guns and other such things. And even these examples didn't really differentiate guns from other weapons much. All weapons obeyed the same rules.
Look, I'm willing to stand by my universal assertion that video-games are not a good well from which to draw the waters of inspiration in this case if you're willing to find counterexamples to challenge it. Maybe between the two we can find some common ground to work with.
Torchlight contains black powder weapons. EDIT: They don't blow up though.
The problem with wanting "unique strengths and weaknesses" is that no other weapon has to follow those guidelines.
Where's the bonus daggers get towards things like chainmail? Where's the bonus for bashing weapons against plate? Why don't I have to spend time oiling and cleaning my sword? How much does wax for my bowstring cost?
Why do guns and guns alone have to be different?
You complain that in video games guns are just "press X to shoot." How is it any different in D&D? Press X to full attack! Doesn't matter what melee weapon you're using, they all full attack the same!
The problem with wanting "unique strengths and weaknesses" is that no other weapon has to follow those guidelines.
Where's the bonus daggers get towards things like chainmail? Where's the bonus for bashing weapons against plate? Why don't I have to spend time oiling and cleaning my sword? How much does wax for my bowstring cost?
Why do guns and guns alone have to be different?
You complain that in video games guns are just "press X to shoot." How is it any different in D&D? Press X to full attack! Doesn't matter what melee weapon you're using, they all full attack the same!
This is a problem of it's own, and not very easy to fix without over-complicating things. There's a few things you can do, though, like different crit effects based on damage type and the like.
|
|
Guns aren't alone in being different. Quit that.
'Press X to shoot', if its still unclear, is shorthand for sloppy, inconsistent mechanics. It takes an action (of some kind) to reload a crossbow. This is different from other weapons, a unique feature. Is that wrong? If no, than guns should face a similar limitation. If yes, than revisions of the old weapon stats are in order.
'Press x to shoot' means guns that work like bows, blasting away without concern for ammunition, reload, rhyme or reason. Guns that shoot big magic bursts and laser beams and bolts of fire and ice bullets and other oddness. Arquebus that get highly accurate Touch Attacks, for instance. This approach may work in a videogame, and may be cool for some values of cool. But, for me, it is a non-starter in Pathfinder.
At present, Pathfinder guns are full of exceptions, are inconsistent with other weapons (thanks to the ranged Touch Attack strangeness) and fail to evoke the feeling of firearms for me. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, but that gets us into an argument of what the features and essential elements of guns are.
--
Look, the line has to be drawn somewhere. My preference is for more black-powder style weapons that are slower to fire but have large crit modifiers. That's their unique strength and weakness right there. I do not like the high cost of ammunition (it feels odd and forced) and obviously Touch attacks feel wrong to me. This is because the guns that I would be alright with in my Golarion and Pathfinder Core belong in the 1500's. Loud, smoke-belching, firing low-velocity balls of stone or lead. Often fired and discarded prior to melee.
So elements equal 'gun' to you? What resonates? Because if you can pin that down, it's possible to start talking about what guns ought to be in these rules.
As for Torchlight, I'll have to look into that one. Haven't played it yet.
If you're treating guns as full ranged touch attacks, then I would say they fully bypass DR, no?
Of course not. DR applies to any attack spells, spell-like abilities, or energy attack. A gun is none of those that by-pass it.
|
The problem with wanting "unique strengths and weaknesses" is that no other weapon has to follow those guidelines.
Daggers grant a +2 to Sleight of Hand checks when you hide them.
The rapier is a one-handed weapon that cannot be held with two hands but it can be finessed.The Elvish Curve Blade is the only two-handed weapon that can be finessed, and it's extra-difficult to sunder.
The net doesn't do damage, it lets you entangle people.
The bolas allow you to trip people at range.
The whip has lots of unique strengths and weaknesses.
The lance is a two-handed weapon that can be held in one hand while on a horse and deals double damage on a charge.
So... lots of weapons have unique strengths and weaknesses.
The problem with wanting "unique strengths and weaknesses" is that no other weapon has to follow those guidelines.Daggers grant a +2 to Sleight of Hand checks when you hide them.
The rapier is a one-handed weapon that cannot be held with two hands but it can be finessed.
The Elvish Curve Blade is the only two-handed weapon that can be finessed, and it's extra-difficult to sunder.
The net doesn't do damage, it lets you entangle people.
The bolas allow you to trip people at range.
The whip has lots of unique strengths and weaknesses.
The lance is a two-handed weapon that can be held in one hand while on a horse and deals double damage on a charge.So... lots of weapons have unique strengths and weaknesses.
All I've seen so far are strengths - and mostly minor ones at that. None of them explode. Most of them don't dramatically alter the way they work. None of them have their own separate set of rules.
Guns are the only weapon people think need their own set of rules entirely.
Wait, so you want it expensive but not when selling? Aren't merchants selling it to PC?
Or are you saying it has it has a low price when PCs hold it but not when NPCS hold it?
Old DM trick. Prices are high because demand is low. So low in fact, that you are about the only one who wants it. So when you try to sell your gun, no one wants it. By the same token, almost no one sells it, so not only is your gun expensive, its hard to find, and almost impossible to sell.
Works great for odd magic items the party wants/has.
So are you giving the PCs extra junk magic items to cover all the weird magic items that they are getting but can't use and won't sell for spit?
If you are making a mundane weapon cost prohibitive for "balance," DON'T INTRODUCE IT. It's a waste of your time to create it because the players will never bother buying one, especially if you provide FURTHER "balancing" to make it realistic.
|
|
Any weapon with reach can't hit creatures within five feet of your character. I'd call that a weakness.
The net deals no combat damage - how's that for a weakness? Oh yeah, and it has its own separate set of rules for what happens when you're trapped under a net.
And the whip gets its own set of rules, too. It has reach but threatens no squares, it can hit people near and far but deals nonlethal damage. It can perform all kinds of combat maneuvers but has a crappy damage die and critical.
The problem with wanting "unique strengths and weaknesses" is that no other weapon has to follow those guidelines.Daggers grant a +2 to Sleight of Hand checks when you hide them.
The rapier is a one-handed weapon that cannot be held with two hands but it can be finessed.
The Elvish Curve Blade is the only two-handed weapon that can be finessed, and it's extra-difficult to sunder.
The net doesn't do damage, it lets you entangle people.
The bolas allow you to trip people at range.
The whip has lots of unique strengths and weaknesses.
The lance is a two-handed weapon that can be held in one hand while on a horse and deals double damage on a charge.So... lots of weapons have unique strengths and weaknesses.
What's the weakness on the lance? The curve blade? The rapier even?
Only two of those have weaknesses - the whip and the net. And guess what? Almost no one ever uses them because they are awful. The only people using whips are bards using it to aid another while out of reach and they are only using it because they get it for free. No one uses nets. If you can use a net effectively, you can just go try and grapple the guy yourself easier.
Any weapon with reach can't hit creatures within five feet of your character. I'd call that a weakness.
You mean a "weakness" a swift action movement can fix?
|
|
The lance can't hit anything close to you.
The curve blade is an exotic weapon that only deals 1d10 damage in melee, and it requires both hands to do so. Also, it's incredibly rare and costs a bundle that many 1st-level characters can't afford.
The rapier has a glaring weakness. You can't hold it in two hands, despite the fact that it's a one-handed weapon. And two-handing weapons rocks the casbah.
Duh.
Now stop being so silly. I've proved your original statement to be inaccurate to my own satisfaction, and I will not belabor the point any more.
My point is that while guns may have MORE special rules than other weapons, they are not the ONLY weapons to have special rules. In fact there's a whole column on the frikkin' weapons sheet called 'special' just for special rules. Special rules are so common that it's almost not special to have them. You don't even notice specials like disarm, trip, and brace any more because they've been regular specials for so long.
And I haven't even left the core rulebook yet! There's tons more special weapons in this game, and the farther you go from the core, the more special they all get. It makes sense that a new weapon for a new class in a new book would have more special rules than all the weapons in the core. If it didn't, it could have just been included in the core.
The lance can't hit anything close to you.
I take an attack of opportunity on approach.
I 5' back on my turn and full attack.No weakness.
The curve blade is an exotic weapon that only deals 1d10 damage in melee, and it requires both hands to do so.
1d10? That's the same as the bastard sword except the curve blade has an extended crit range.
Also, it's incredibly rare and costs a bundle that many 1st-level characters can't afford.
And only costs 80gp - a Longbow costs 75.
This has less weaknesses than the lance.
The rapier has a glaring weakness. You can't hold it in two hands, despite the fact that it's a one-handed weapon.
Which is more than offset by the fact it is finessable and has an extended crit range.
Now stop being so silly. I've proved your original statement to be inaccurate to my own satisfaction, and I will not belabor the point any more.
You proved squat.
My point is that while guns may have MORE special rules than other weapons, they are not the ONLY weapons to have special rules.
Guns don't fit as currently included in Pathfinder. A mundane musket costs as much as full plate, and a pistol not much less. Their attack rules are completely unique and don't logically fit with other weapons. Their default range is worse than most balanced throwing weapons. And, oh yeah, they break at least as often as they threaten a critical. Find me one other item where a critical fumble result is built into the weapon as RAW.
I'm surprised they introduced a weapon that made crossbows actually look like a good choice for a primary ranged weapon.
|
No one uses nets. If you can use a net effectively, you can just go try and grapple the guy yourself easier.
I agree there a lot of seemingly useless weapons from a character-building perspective. Make a special tribe of kobolds that ALL have the net proficiency and you've got a golden encounter for your PCs. Some weapons are just meant for DMs to create fun encounters. Not all kobolds need to be maximized damage-wise.
On a side note, the recent Paizo blog articles introduce new intelligent magic items properties, one of which lets you use a weapon as if you had the proficiency (i.e. the magic sword "helps" guide your hand). This is GENIUS in my opinion, as you can now have a few backup weapons for those unusual situations without having to take the dreaded Exotic feats...
A few backup intelligent weapons? What?
SO what you have a bastard sword on your back that ask if it his turn to kill someone. Or a...Wait what do you use for a backup weapon, that you need a feat to use it?
"Hold on guys. Let Mr. Fishy get his repeating X-bow..."
"SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND!"
"Hold on guys. Let Mr. Fishy get his whip..."
Found it, I suppose so. Seems a bit silly to me. I as a DM wouldn't let float.
Then you have this weird pseudo weapon, which is a touch attack in all ways, except that it's not a touch attack in bypassing DR, so it's not really a touch attack.
Seems to me that if you're just gonna not treat it like a normal full touch attack, then you might as well an concede to give Deadly Aim, since a gun isn't really a 'touch attack' anyway.
I would. I just find the idea that something that does P and B damage bypasses DR 5/-.