|
Wow, I don't like that wording. DR does not negate damage done with firearm attacks, even those made against touch AC.
That goes back to the argument I just made in the post above. If indeed the firearm attack is meant to be a "touch attack," and not merely an "attack against touch AC" then it would ignore DR by the RAW, but only when it is made from a range that resolves against the Touch AC. But as I said, I don't think firearm attacks are "touch attacks" in the spirit with which that phrase is intended. After all, I don't think they intend for a lead bullet to bypass a werewolf's DR/silver, no matter how close you are when you fire.
Wow, I don't like that wording. DR does not negate damage done with firearm attacks, even those made against touch AC.That goes back to the argument I just made in the post above. If indeed the firearm attack is meant to be a "touch attack," and not merely an "attack against touch AC" then it would ignore DR by the RAW, but only when it is made from a range that resolves against the Touch AC. But as I said, I don't think firearm attacks are "touch attacks" in the spirit with which that phrase is intended. After all, I don't think they intend for a lead bullet to bypass a werewolf's DR/silver, no matter how close you are when you fire.
That same developer you are quoting has said that deadly aim dosen't apply to firearms when the playtest first started. As of right now we have to go with what they have laid out for deadly aim i think the ignoring DR and lack of deadly aim makes a good case for not having guns have any range increments using touch AC, but until the next round of playtest this is what we got to work with.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I see it, there is a difference between a "touch attack" and an "attack against a touch AC."
This is the part I hated about Wizard boards. The "what is a day" debates and other issues thta turned on slight variations on how to say the same thing.
There is no reasonable way I can see "touch attack" != "attack against a touch AC" as they are exactly the same thing, mean the same thing, and can essentially be interchangeable wordings.
You really need to quote a line in the core book that explicitly says they are not the same thing and gives some rules for how to handle one vs how to handle the other.
ignore DR by the RAW
The quoted line above to me doesn't suggest touch attacks bypass DR, as the type (and source) of the damage determines whether or not it bypasses DR and not that it is a touch attack.
good case for not having guns have any range increments using touch AC, but until the next round of playtest this is what we got to work with.
I'm totally in favor of removing a highly complex web of calculations based on how many feet I'm from the target:
1) When do I use Deadly Aim?2) When do I use Point Blank Strike?
3) When do I use Touch AC?
So, I hope they nix the touch attack option entirely.
What I don't understand is why the "Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks" part was needed at all. Firearms aside for the moment, are there any touch attacks in the core rules that would normally fall under this?
Put another way, would anything in the core rules stop working if the line was simply changed to "Damage reduction does not negate energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains?"
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Put another way, would anything in the core rules stop working if the line was simply changed to "Damage reduction does not negate energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains?"
This rule section:
Means the following (this is how I enforce these rules):
- Hit someone for 11 with a Poison dagger with DR 10/- and they take 1 point and save for poison.
- Hit someone for 9 and they take no damage and make no save.
- Hit someone for 11 with an IUS (for extra damage) while delivering a Bestow Curse with DR 10/- and they take 1 point and save vs curse.
- Hit someone for 9 with IUS while delivering a Bestow Curse with DR 10/- and they take no damage but they do (because of that line you question) still make a save vs curse.
- Hit someone for 3 and 5 fire with DR 10/- and they take no damage (the 3) and take 5 fire damage (because of that line you question.)
- Vampire hits you for 5 with DR 3/- and you take 2 damage and energy drain.
- Vampire hits you for 5 with DR 5/- and you take no damage, but still take the energy drain.
I don't know how to make all these cases resolve in the same way if we start inverting the meaning of that line to negate all DR (not what is intended by my reading) as suggested above.
|
|
Edit: redacted an example spell that on further review describes it as channeling negative energy. Of course this bring up the question "does channeling negative energy = energy damage if no HP damage is done".
I would say yes, negative and positive energy qualify as energy types, just like acid, fire, cold, electricity and sonic.
Positive and negative energy damage is generally not an energy type in the same way as the elemental types. A ring of unviersal energy resistance 10 doesn't protect you from heal/inflict spells or channeled energy.
As for some of the rules debates, I'll chime in. The other effects of a touch attack are not negated if the attack hits, even if DR eliminated damage from the primary effects of the attack. A lich can still paralyze you without dealing the hp damage. A flaming sword still deals 1d6 without dealing slashing damage. However, a poisoned (injury) blade does not poison you if the sword dosn't create an injury. DR works just fine against firearms.
I am not sure I understand the confusion over the ranged touch thing and Deadly Touch. FIrst range increment, touch attack, no Deadly Aim. Subsequent range increments, ranged attack, Deadly Aim.
I am missing a ruling where gunslingers can take feats that require fighter levels. Someone point me in the right direction? I struggle to appreciate the class without that ability, I think.
EDIT: Found it, I guess. Prefer the rules section make that very clear, instead of James allude to it in the introduction to the document. I do understand it's not the final version, though.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I would say yes, negative and positive energy qualify as energy types, just like acid, fire, cold, electricity and sonic.
It may be of note, that there is no example of an ability that lists the common 5 energy types and the 2 "life" energy types in the same ability.
In other words, in the whole of Paizo products, there is no example that says in effect:
Pick an energy type (cold, fire, elec, sonic, acid, negative, positive)
All effects/abilities/choices are either limited to less than 5 of the standard, all five of the standard, one of the two negative/positive, or the two neg/pos and energy drain/ability drain etc.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
First range increment, touch attack, no Deadly Aim. Subsequent range increments, ranged attack, Deadly Aim.
I am missing a ruling where gunslingers can take feats that require fighter levels
I don't think there is any confusion at all on Deadly Aim. It seems to me that everyone understands it can't be used with the touch attack or the first range increment. Now, that being said, I didn't catch on that the first range increment forces (you have no choice) you to make touch attacks.
As for the Weapon Spec on Gunslinger, in theory it is an alternate class of the Fighter. Since it is still "Fighter" then it can take things requiring Fighter levels. I guess in HeroLab it should say "Fighter (Gunslinger)" instead of "Gunslinger".
|
|
I would say yes, negative and positive energy qualify as energy types, just like acid, fire, cold, electricity and sonic.It may be of note, that there is no example of an ability that lists the common 5 energy types and the 2 "life" energy types in the same ability.
I'm not referring to all instances, I'm referring specifically to the question of whether channeled negative energy will still get through if it is delivered via a mechanism that does not otherwise get past DR. In those instances, I would say it would fall into the same category as other energy types, not in the category of injury poison, because it is a "radiant" effect, not one that depends on getting into a wound or into the bloodstream, it only needs to make contact. The general theme is that things which rely only on contact, and not necessarily injury (including a weapon covered with contact poison) will take effect regardless whether the weapon damage gets through the DR or not. Positive and negative energy do qualify in that regard.