Guns; To Target Touch AC or Not To Target Touch AC? That Is The Question.

[Fnipernackle]

So I ask the Paizo community on this;

Would you rather be able to have your attacks with a gun target touch ac and make it easier to hit, or would you rather attack the regular ac and be able to do more damage/use feats like Deadly Aim?

For those who are for at least a little bit of realism (if we had none, we'd all have fly speed and we explode each other with our minds as a free action, no save), not all shots, especially powder and shot, were able to penetrate armor (this has been proven on Spike's The Deadliest Warrior). The times you would hit would have been at a weak point in the armor or a lucky shot, etc.

I can go either way on this, i just wanted to see what the PC thought on this topic. And as always, lets keep this clean and civil. stick to the topic, dont attack others opinions. Thanks. Look forward to seeing what others think about this topic.

[TriOmegaZero]

I think it should target normal AC. Armor Class is an abstraction anyway, so there is no need to say "bullets penetrate armor" at any time to justify touch attacks. Just say "it deflected off" or "just grazed the flesh" like we do with any other weapon.

[Tim4488]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I think it should target normal AC. Armor Class is an abstraction anyway, so there is no need to say "bullets penetrate armor" at any time to justify touch attacks. Just say "it deflected off" or "just grazed the flesh" like we do with any other weapon.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Easier to figure out balance this way too.

[Matrixryu]

I like the idea of guns having armor penetration abilities, but it doesn't really work with the way armor works in 3.5/pathfinder. It makes sense for a bullet to go through leather armor. However, you would think magical plate mail would work just as well if not better than a real-life bullet proof vest

Also, it doesn't make sense with the way other armor penetrating weapons (aka adamantine ) work. Adamantine weapons already give armor penetration by ignoring Hardness, not by getting touch attacks. Why do guns work differently?

I'll go with whatever method Paizo uses for showing guns' power, but touch attacks just don't fit with the way all the other game mechanics seem to work.

[TriOmegaZero]

Yeah, getting rid of the touch attack would allow toning down the cost of munitions and the high chance of misfire. That might make people like the class more.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

Normal AC, but with pickle action (one bullet that can cause multiple iterative attacks, as per the "giving up" and "respect the pickle" threads)

[Madcap Storm King]

If we're talking about armor that's the weight it is in the book, it's roughly twice the weight of real armor, which means it could well turn a bullet.

Either that or rocks with twine on them are considered part of your armor outfit.

[Cartigan]

If they have to be "realistic," then make them target flat-footed AC.

[Daniel Gunther 346]

Or, to go with the whole realism with guns in a magic/fantasy setting, add a penetration rating to guns, whereby the gun ignores X amount of Armor Bonus provided by the armor.

[The Purity of Violence]

Yea some +5 vorpal relic forged by the god death doesn't get armour penetration but bullets should. Right on.

Touch attacks for guns make me sick.

What Cartigan said.

[Theo Stern]

Don't like it,won't use it.

[Taliesin Hoyle]

Cartigan wrote:

If they have to be "realistic," then make them target flat-footed AC.

My sentiments exactly.

[Mok]

Daniel Gunther 346 wrote:

Or, to go with the whole realism with guns in a magic/fantasy setting, add a penetration rating to guns, whereby the gun ignores X amount of Armor Bonus provided by the armor.

The problem there is that it is kind of a fussy rule, where GM and players need to constantly make extra calculations in their head when making attacks.

One element to game design is fine tuning the speed of actual play. The more modifiers and small adjustments that have to be made to individual rolls starts to add up and slow the game down.

That's why I'm totally in favor of the touch AC system. I'd even suggested that awhile ago on rpg.net and got the same hail of complaints that I've read here.

Why I'm swayed is that it is an elegant way of using the existing categories of the rules system to help emulate (but not simulate) the potency of firearms compared to ancient/medieval defenses. Rather than giving tables full of penetration ratings or other modifiers that just add more cruft to the game, you just use and existing AC defense that is recorded on every character sheet and stat block in the game already.

Pathfinder, all the way down it its D&D roots, is not a simulationist system. It's always been very abstract, and while it does try and model things to some degree, it doesn't go into hyper specifics.

So the touch AC does give the flavor of punching through armor, because it ignores those bonuses, but not other defensive bonuses. It's simple and clean, without causing all sorts of other cascading effects through the system.

As Cartigan mentioned, you could go farther and add in flatfooted AC. The problem there is that at that point you start to have little variation on to hit values, so that almost any gun shot results in at least a 50% chance of success. By keeping dex and other options still working for targets, it keeps to the abstract model where people that are nimble and know how to make themselves less of a target are simply harder to hit, because of course any "hit" with a weapon isn't always contact.

Whitch then of course gets the response of, "then why have it model punching through armor if it isn't really hitting!" The only thing I can say is that you need to look at each rule element as kind of a lump of tofu. The tofu represents the abstracted nature of the rules. You then add in spices, flavoring, and then cook it in a particular way so that it can then represent what you're after. If you want it to seem like an actual hamburger, then you add in the flavoring, mash it up so it seems like ground beef, fry it and color it. It ain't a hamburger, but for plenty of people it kinda tastes like one.

One other aspect of the touch AC that I like is that, putting aside the awful misfire, it just makes guns better than a lot of other weapons.

That's an important aspect that I want to see, that guns ARE superior to other weapons. Just as a greatsword is superior to a club, firearms ought to be an apex type of weapon. However, it doesn't mean that the entire game has to collapse to gunfire, there are a host of ways of making it balance out with other game elements, such as through feat trees, reloading, etc.

Overall, there are two ways that I would have wanted to see guns being handled in Pathfinder.

First is the touch AC approach. I don't think the misfire rules are good, but the inherent superiority of touch AC is spot on.

or

Second, make guns mundane versions of potent low level magic. That is, the guns are essentially one shots that aren't intended to be reloaded in a combat. Instead you have PCs that look like this guy. You'd have a bandolier of pistols and you'd just draw, fire and drop them two at at time for the first couple of rounds, then draw your're melee weapons and wade into the fight. Pistols would do 3d6 damage, on average dropping a mundane humanoid per shot. You'd stick to regular AC just to keep the weapons from going overboard in power.

[cranewings]

Cartigan wrote:

If they have to be "realistic," then make them target flat-footed AC.

That's awesome.

I might make that the rule. There is no more reason to believe someone with an AC of 15 got it through a suit of mail than an 18 dex and dodge.

If guns do come into my game, that might be it.

[Galahad0430]

To think that it is just as easy to hit a moving, dodging target as one that is cumbersome and slow is even less realistic than the "punch through armor" touch AC method. As Mok said, the touch AC method nicely integrates with the existing rules. I think they hit on a nice balance. It only hits touch AC in the first range increment, the range increments are rather short, and the loss of velocity is well simulated with the max range of 5 increments as opposed to 10 with other missile weapons.
The damage part could be tweaked. I like what Arcanis did. Instead of 1d12, they made the damage 3d4. This means bullets tend to have much more average damage. Maybe something to think about.

[Galahad0430]

Madcap Storm King wrote:

If we're talking about armor that's the weight it is in the book, it's roughly twice the weight of real armor, which means it could well turn a bullet.

Either that or rocks with twine on them are considered part of your armor outfit.

A chain shirt weighs 25# in the book, a real chain shirt weighs usually 30#-40#.

[Theo Stern]

The thing is, by using the D20 mechanics, we are sort of deciding to use a very loose emulation for speed and simplicity as opposed to a more accurate one like that used in Metal and Magic. D20 uses HPs as an abstract for damage and armor adds to the difficulty to hit you, instead of the difficulty to damage you. As soon as you try to make one aspect of the system emulate a weapon having armor penetration while keeping with the abstraction, you are IMHO causing issues because you are trying to add an element of realism to an abstracted system for one weapon while keeping it abstracted for the rest. If the advantage of a gun is in its power, it should be represented by larger damage dice which keeps to the emulation being used. If you do want to look at what guns did historically, un-bored barrels shooting lead balls were actually far less accurate then crossbows even at close range, but when they hit they were devastating. So give them bigger damage dice low crit ranges with big multipliers and keep the touch AC thing out of it.

[Avanter]

What if the Gun was only a touch attack if you are adjacent to who you are firing at... that way it provokes an AOO, and if they hit you, you have a chance of missing? or not... I love the idea of a gun slinger, but giving him d10 hp, medium armor and full bab... and making him a "ranged" combatant, drive me nuts. (Which is the same reason I don't like archer Rangers... get on the front line and soak some hits!!!)

[Fnipernackle]

Avanter wrote:

What if the Gun was only a touch attack if you are adjacent to who you are firing at... that way it provokes an AOO, and if they hit you, you have a chance of missing? or not... I love the idea of a gun slinger, but giving him d10 hp, medium armor and full bab... and making him a "ranged" combatant, drive me nuts. (Which is the same reason I don't like archer Rangers... get on the front line and soak some hits!!!)

Lmao. Can my sorcerer have d10 hit dice please?

[Avanter]

Fnipernackle wrote:

Avanter wrote:

What if the Gun was only a touch attack if you are adjacent to who you are firing at... that way it provokes an AOO, and if they hit you, you have a chance of missing? or not... I love the idea of a gun slinger, but giving him d10 hp, medium armor and full bab... and making him a "ranged" combatant, drive me nuts. (Which is the same reason I don't like archer Rangers... get on the front line and soak some hits!!!)

Lmao. Can my sorcerer have d10 hit dice please?

The best is " The monk will tank while the ranger shoots arrows from the back..." uh new characters anyone?

[Matrixryu]

Cartigan wrote:

If they have to be "realistic," then make them target flat-footed AC.

I like that idea even less than guns hitting touch AC honestly, no offense. The Dex bonus to AC doesn't assume that have to see the sword swing or bullet coming at you. You get your Dex bonus once battle has started just from taking general evasive action. Also, if you see someone pointing a gun at you, do you just stand there and take it? No, you try to dodge or jump to the side so that when the gun fires you aren't in front of the barrel!

[Hunterofthedusk]

Gee, the whole "guns hitting touch AC" thing bothers me quite a bit for a few reasons. First, that the guy wearing +5 Heavy Fortification Adamantine Full Plate is easier to hit than the guy wearing nothing at all (due to Max Dex Bonus). Just to say that it completely ignores all armor if you're within X range is ludicrous, especially since they are using very early guns. Historically, longbows were able to punch through full plate, and that is what led to full plate being used less; the benefit of early guns was that they required little to no actual training to use. That's not even mentioning how many very scary weapons that are inside the game that don't ignore armor, as people have said.

Second, that there is a full BAB class that utilizes these as it's core concept. Touch attacks were generally the staple for casters because their "to-hit" rolls were a far cry away from anyone in the front lines, yet if the Gunslinger is within the first range increment there is very little chance that he will ever miss (assuming a competent player), because Touch AC doesn't scale quite as fast as normal AC.

[Cartigan]

Matrixryu wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

If they have to be "realistic," then make them target flat-footed AC.

I like that idea even less than guns hitting touch AC honestly, no offense. The Dex bonus to AC doesn't assume that have to see the sword swing or bullet coming at you. You get your Dex bonus once battle has started just from taking general evasive action. Also, if you see someone pointing a gun at you, do you just stand there and take it? No, you try to dodge or jump to the side so that when the gun fires you aren't in front of the barrel!

Guns, even primitive ones, being weapons having a higher velocity than crossbows? You just "jump out of the way?" Have the rest of the absurdity for guns work the same but change touch to flat-footed.

And guns just punch right through adamantine? Hell, we have an adamantine door, let's get a pistol and shoot its hinges off!

[Galahad0430]

Hunterofthedusk wrote:

Historically, longbows were able to punch through full plate, and that is what led to full plate being used less;

Actually there are no historical examples of longbows punching through full plate armor. Even at Agincourt, the deaths were mainly caused by killing or wounding horses and then the riders drowning in the marsh. Also, longbows were around for a couple hundred years before full plate started being used less, it was the advent of gunpowder weapons that led to the demise of armor.

[ratlord]

Matrixryu wrote:

I like the idea of guns having armor penetration abilities, but it doesn't really work with the way armor works in 3.5/pathfinder. It makes sense for a bullet to go through leather armor. However, you would think magical plate mail would work just as well if not better than a real-life bullet proof vest

Also, it doesn't make sense with the way other armor penetrating weapons (aka adamantine ) work. Adamantine weapons already give armor penetration by ignoring Hardness, not by getting touch attacks. Why do guns work differently?

I'll go with whatever method Paizo uses for showing guns' power, but touch attacks just don't fit with the way all the other game mechanics seem to work.

Something myself and some friends thought of was having guns target AC normally but giving them a static bonus to hit in the first range increment. Since hitting AC abstracts some ability to land a solid blow and penetrate armour perhaps this might help simulate what paizo were wanting to demonstrate?

[Galahad0430]

Cartigan wrote:

[Guns, even primitive ones, being weapons having a higher velocity than crossbows? You just "jump out of the way?" Have the rest of the absurdity for guns work the same but change touch to flat-footed.

You aren't dodging the bullet, you are dodging the aim. Random movement is by far the best defense against ranged weapons.

[Matrixryu]

Cartigan wrote:

Guns, even primitive ones, being weapons having a higher velocity than crossbows? You just "jump out of the way?" Have the rest of the absurdity for guns work the same but change touch to flat-footed.

And guns just punch right through adamantine? Hell, we have an adamantine door, let's get a pistol and shoot its hinges off!

Have you ever seen someone fire an arrow from a modern compound bow? If you're within a hundred feet (or possibly even further) there is no way you can see an arrow from one of those coming in time to dodge it, it is like trying to dodge a bullet in flight. It is kind of scary to see actually (especially after thinking that all bows worked like the cheap ones you see in boy scouts). I would expect a crossbow to be similar, though honestly I haven't seen one in action.

Now, assuming that magical bows and crossbows in game are better than our modern ones, if guns hit Flat Footed AC there is no reason why bows and crossbows shouldn't do the same at close ranges.

Also, I never said that guns should just punch through adamantine. I was just saying that the way they're currently having guns pierce armor doesn't fit with the way other armor piercing weapons work.

[James Risner]

Target normal AC, I have a major problem with targeting Flat Foot or Touch AC with Guns.

Optimized Damage should be close to (+/-) Crossbows.
Feats should be usable (like Deadly Aim/Rapid Shot if you can reload that fast) as opposed to blocked.

I won't be using touch ac guns if they do get released, it would be one of two house rules (the other deals with never changing initiative order)

Risner

[Cartigan]

Matrixryu wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Guns, even primitive ones, being weapons having a higher velocity than crossbows? You just "jump out of the way?" Have the rest of the absurdity for guns work the same but change touch to flat-footed.

And guns just punch right through adamantine? Hell, we have an adamantine door, let's get a pistol and shoot its hinges off!

Have you ever seen someone fire an arrow from a modern compound bow? If you're within a hundred feet (or possibly even further) there is no way you can see an arrow from one of those coming in time to dodge it, it is like trying to dodge a bullet in flight.

Well THAT argument is over, I'm glad you agree.

[Matrixryu]

Cartigan wrote:

Matrixryu wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

Guns, even primitive ones, being weapons having a higher velocity than crossbows? You just "jump out of the way?" Have the rest of the absurdity for guns work the same but change touch to flat-footed.

And guns just punch right through adamantine? Hell, we have an adamantine door, let's get a pistol and shoot its hinges off!

Have you ever seen someone fire an arrow from a modern compound bow? If you're within a hundred feet (or possibly even further) there is no way you can see an arrow from one of those coming in time to dodge it, it is like trying to dodge a bullet in flight.

Well THAT argument is over, I'm glad you agree.

*Sigh* Are you intentionally twisting what I say?

Alright sure. I agree that if you stand still and let someone aim a gun or bow at you at you then you should lose your Dex bonus to AC. If you look at the last post of mine that you quoted you'll notice I said that you can dodge bullets by not being in their way in the first place. As in, by being a moving target and not foolishly thinking you can dodge the bullet after it is fired. You can do the same thing with arrows.

[Galahad0430]

Again, you are missing the point. You aren't waiting for the person to shoot then dodging the bullet (or arrow), you are continually dodging so that the person shooting does not have a steady aimpoint and may miss.

[Cartigan]

Galahad0430 wrote:

Again, you are missing the point. You aren't waiting for the person to shoot then dodging the bullet (or arrow), you are continually dodging so that the person shooting does not have a steady aimpoint and may miss.

Listen, if you are going to pretend guns are realistic, then having them be able to hit flat-footed AC within their asinine range is much more preferable to letting them void a dozen other in-game rules by targeting touch AC.

[Matrixryu]

Cartigan wrote:

Galahad0430 wrote:

Again, you are missing the point. You aren't waiting for the person to shoot then dodging the bullet (or arrow), you are continually dodging so that the person shooting does not have a steady aimpoint and may miss.

Listen, if you are going to pretend guns are realistic, then having them be able to hit flat-footed AC within their asinine range is much more preferable to letting them void a dozen other in-game rules by targeting touch AC.

Hmmm. I think the difficulty involved in dodging a high speed projectile from a skilled opponent at very close ranges is shown in the Point Blank Shot feat, though maybe the bonus should be a bit higher.

Realistically, dodging a projectile from a gun or a high powered bow at close ranges are probably both equally difficult. I'd prefer if Paizo found a different way to show gun's power rather than trying to have them follow laws of physics that the rest of the game is ignoring.

[Mr.Fishy]

Guns shouldn't ignore armor. That's broke as hell. Crossbows and long bows can and have punched through armor. So guns should follow the same rules.
Make all guns masterwork, the damn things are expensive enough. Give the bullets an armor piercing value small arms AP 1[ ignore 1 point of armor] each point of armor piercing ignores 1 point of armor. The bullets are expensive too.

Range touch is very powerful, one level of gunslinger and a few levels of rogue equals touch SNEAK ATTACK! Hell, allow guns to sneak attack at greater range but don't let it hit as a touch attack.

[Galahad0430]

Wasn't arguing the realistic point, just that in the given rule system, touch is a better representation than flat footed. Even at 10', if I were to rig a mannequin so that it could jerk around, the average trained person would miss it 40% of the time (been done at several police depts. and LA SWAT has a similar set up to teach reactive aiming).

[Mok]

I get what's being said with flat-footed, I was a bit too hasty in somewhat agreeing with it.

Flat-footed is a specific state where you aren't able to react to a threat.

Once again, combat is abstracted and a round is representing six seconds. Combatants aren't standing frozen in place in that period of time. Because the game needs turns to keep things moving along in an orderly way you do have this weird artificial state where everyone seems to be chess pieces on the board. Still, people in these chunks of time are assumed to be shuffling about a bit, ducking and generally reacting to what is happening around them.

Flat-footed however is being in a unreactive state. Someone who is flat-footed is surprised, or just being totally caught unaware.

If a lord was strolling about the marketplace, decked out in his plate-mail to impress his subjects, but then along comes an assassin who pulls out a pistol and fires point blank at the lord, then he'd have touch AC and flat-footed target.

The assassin fires and easily punches through the armor, and the vain level 1 lord drops to the ground unconscious.

A guard runs up to take on the assassin, he sees the assassin pull another pistol from his belt. This is where his Dex comes into play. The assassin brings the pistol the bear on the guard, but the guard knows this is a threat and makes an effort to avoid the shot, crouching lower and shifting to the right in response to the assassin's aim.

So it's not that the guard goes into bullet time like in the Matrix and literally dodges the bullet, instead he's being reactive to threats. The guard likely only has at best a +2 Dex bonus, so he's not actually doing a whole lot to help himself.

But get some highly skilled rogue-acrobat that has on magical boots that help him react to situations at an inhuman level (lets say +10 Dex bonus all together) then suddenly the assassin is finding it frustratingly hard to get a bead on this rogue, who seemed to anticipate where the gun was being aimed even before the assassin could pull the trigger.

[Galahad0430]

*applauds vigorously*

So well put and exampled :)

[Cartigan]

Galahad0430 wrote:

Wasn't arguing the realistic point, just that in the given rule system, touch is a better representation than flat footed.

No, it's not.

How does it interact with adamantine armor?
Natural armor?
Mage Armor?
Any spell that grants a Shield bonus?
The ring that gives you a floating wall of force as a shield?

It doesn't make the remotest amount of sense to hit touch AC - it doesn't even have the excuse "It's magic!"

[Galahad0430]

Thats easy to fix, just add the word nonmagical. And Natural armor would definitely be pretty useless.

[Mr.Fishy]

@ Cartigan
It's not magic it's broke as hell.

Even magic has to hit.

[Cartigan]

Galahad0430 wrote:

Thats easy to fix, just add the word nonmagical. And Natural armor would definitely be pretty useless.

No more so than versus an arrow or bolt.

[Jadeite]

Cartigan wrote:

Galahad0430 wrote:

Wasn't arguing the realistic point, just that in the given rule system, touch is a better representation than flat footed.

No, it's not.

How does it interact with adamantine armor?
Natural armor?
Mage Armor?
Any spell that grants a Shield bonus?
The ring that gives you a floating wall of force as a shield?

It doesn't make the remotest amount of sense to hit touch AC - it doesn't even have the excuse "It's magic!"

It'll also ignore Damage Reduction.

Galahad0430 wrote:

Thats easy to fix, just add the word nonmagical. And Natural armor would definitely be pretty useless.

Tell that to the Tarrasque.

[Mr.Fishy]

Galahad0430 wrote:

And Natural armor would definitely be pretty useless.

Right, so shoot a rhino or a gator and tell Mr. Fishy that natural armor is useless.

[Allard]

sorry but got to say no to the touch AC, due to the fact that i just DM'ed kingmarker part 1 and one of the players made up a Alchemist and the bomb attacks just killed the main NPC's due to the low hit rolls needed, so guns can not be touch attacks

[Galahad0430]

Just like incorporeal undead, say that the touch ability does not work against force effects. solves the whole problem of mage armor, shield, and similar magical effects.

Now for some real physics :)
impact energy is mass x velocity squared. Therefore it is the velocity of the round much more than the mass of the round that matters.
A 100# pull bow firing a combat arrow (about 1300 gn) has a velocity just under 200'/second. The earliest gun powder weapons had muzzle velocities in excess of 700'/sec and the bullets actually massed more than the typical longbow arrow. Even assuming they were the same mass, that means the impact energy of the bullet was over 12 times that of the arrow. If that isn't a case for armor having a negligable effect on point blank shots, then I guess all of history was wrong too.

[Galahad0430]

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Galahad0430 wrote:

And Natural armor would definitely be pretty useless.

Right, so shoot a rhino or a gator and tell Mr. Fishy that natural armor is useless.

It's not the armor that was effective, but the size of the animal. Even with a target .22 pistol, at point blank range I'll put holes through that gator all day. It just might not hurt it as much (hey look!! hp's in real life :))

[Cartigan]

There is also this thing about arrows being pointy and designed to make holes in the target and bullets being lead balls.

[Mok]

Cartigan wrote:

Galahad0430 wrote:

Wasn't arguing the realistic point, just that in the given rule system, touch is a better representation than flat footed.

No, it's not.

How does it interact with adamantine armor?
Natural armor?
Mage Armor?
Any spell that grants a Shield bonus?
The ring that gives you a floating wall of force as a shield?

It doesn't make the remotest amount of sense to hit touch AC - it doesn't even have the excuse "It's magic!"

Those are good points.

All I can say is, "it works very well against them!"

What trumps those concerns for me is that:

The rule is simple and clean, just a binary on/off.

It also instills a metaphysical implication within the rules that science and technology can overcome magic. That the themes of many stories, including Tolkien, is that there is a way in which magic can ebb from the world.

[Mr.Fishy]

Galahad0430 wrote:

It's not the armor that was effective, but the size of the animal. Even with a target .22 pistol, at point blank range I'll put holes through that gator all day. It just might not hurt it as much (hey look!! hp's in real life :))

The size of the animal? And no a .22 wouldn't "put holes through that gator all day." Piss him off pretty good though.

Hunt an alligator with that .22 Mr. Fishy will sell tickets.

[voska66]

Galahad0430 wrote:

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Galahad0430 wrote:

And Natural armor would definitely be pretty useless.

Right, so shoot a rhino or a gator and tell Mr. Fishy that natural armor is useless.

It's not the armor that was effective, but the size of the animal. Even with a target .22 pistol, at point blank range I'll put holes through that gator all day. It just might not hurt it as much (hey look!! hp's in real life :))

They are designing newer ballistic armors today based off natural armor found in nature. Like the scales of a certain eel are showing some very impressive results. It's a very small eel but they want to use the concept of it's natural armor for bullet proof vest and armoring tanks.

Personally I don't think guns should target touch AC. A gun should give a bonus to hit and depending on the accuracy of the gun that bonus could be larger or smaller. Achieves the same result mostly. If say gun gave +4 to hit that means light armors are useless against it.