Guns, the Tarrasque's worst nightmare


Gunslinger Discussion: Round 1


NightWing wrote:


2. According to game designer Stephen Radney-McFarland, firearm attacks always ignore DR, regardless whether it is against Touch AC or normal AC.

Key points on the Tarrasque:

touch AC 5, DR 15/epic; HP 545

This means, arm some (~120) common soldiers (warrior 1) with Muskets and the Tarrasque will be dead in 3-4 rounds. Yes, you'll have some losses among the men, but he doesn't have a chance.

Forget the party of level 20 heroes who have a horrible battle against him, just pump some money into the town guard and the biggest fear in the realms is a lawn decoration.
So what if he raises from the dead in 3 rounds. Just keep the soldiers with a readied actions contantly pumping rounds into him whenever he starts to twitch.

Sorry guys, the rules for guns have me disliking them more and more. Won't find them anywhere in my games.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
InfoStorm wrote:
NightWing wrote:


2. According to game designer Stephen Radney-McFarland, firearm attacks always ignore DR, regardless whether it is against Touch AC or normal AC.

Key points on the Tarrasque:

touch AC 5, DR 15/epic; HP 545

This means, arm some (~120) common soldiers (warrior 1) with Muskets and the Tarrasque will be dead in 3-4 rounds. Yes, you'll have some losses among the men, but he doesn't have a chance.

Forget the party of level 20 heroes who have a horrible battle against him, just pump some money into the town guard and the biggest fear in the realms is a lawn decoration.
So what if he raises from the dead in 3 rounds. Just keep the soldiers with a readied actions contantly pumping rounds into him whenever he starts to twitch.

Sorry guys, the rules for guns have me disliking them more and more. Won't find them anywhere in my games.

Am i missing something... How do you get through the DR of 15/Epic?


Dragnmoon wrote:
Am i missing something... How do you get through the DR of 15/Epic?

You are. From the post you quoted:

"firearm attacks always ignore DR"

Silver Crusade

Pfsrd wrote:
A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

So, any creature with a DR/epic theorically can only be hurt and get it's DR bypassed by +6 Weapons. Any DM will do it like this.

Good luck to find 120 level 1 warriors with +6 Guns. As written just now though, I understand that it needs some rewording and precision about how guns work exactly in all situations...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
Am i missing something... How do you get through the DR of 15/Epic?

You are. From the post you quoted:

"firearm attacks always ignore DR"

I don't remember that is the playtest document, did I miss that or is that a change coming?

Sovereign Court

Dragnmoon wrote:
I don't remember that is the playtest document, did I miss that or is that a change coming?

In other threads it was dug up that touch attacks ignore DR.


Maxximilius wrote:

So, any creature with a DR/epic theorically can only be hurt and get it's DR bypassed by +6 Weapons. Any DM will do it like this.

... did you read the first post of the thread?


Maxximilius wrote:
Pfsrd wrote:
A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

So, any creature with a DR/epic theorically can only be hurt and get it's DR bypassed by +6 Weapons. Any DM will do it like this.

Good luck to find 120 level 1 warriors with +6 Guns. As written just now though, I understand that it needs some rewording and precision about how guns work exactly in all situations...

It doesn't matter WHAT DR anyone has if it is being ignored. It could be DR 100/-- and it wouldn't matter if you are using an attack that bypasses DR.


Kind of "meh," but I don't really care. Guns need any crutch they can get.

Silver Crusade

Quote:
... did you read the first post of the thread?

Did you read the second half of my post ? ;p

Quote:
As written just now though, I understand that it needs some rewording and precision about how guns work exactly in all situations...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I guess the level one mooks ignore the 300 foot frightful presence aura?


magnuskn wrote:
I guess the level one mooks ignore the 300 foot frightful presence aura?

ok 120 level 3 paladins with guns lol


ignoring DR is just not ... right. Why make silver bullets then?


Anburaid wrote:
ignoring DR is just not ... right. Why make silver bullets then?

Agree here. It kills a topos.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm guessing that they will reword the entry to mention that even though it negates armor and shield bonus, it is not treated as a normal ranged touch attack.


Ok, I confess that I'm just using the Tarrasque as an example. There are MANY monsters out there that are supposed to be difficult to hard because of various DR's and such. This comment from a designer besically blows all those monsters away.

Basically is says that any fine mundane object, given enough force, can ignore DR.


GODZILLA!!

120 guns will cost what? 240.000gp?

I always thought the Tarrasque was an in-game joke tbh...

Give it a +25 aircraft carrier to even things out. :D

sorry for trolling o_O

Dark Archive

How do touch attacks ignore DR? Only thing I can find:

PFSRD wrote:
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

All that's saying is that it doesn't negate the special effects of a touch attack because the touch attack doesn't deal damage.

People who are trying to say that a firearm attack automatically ignores DR are taking the above sentence out of context.

Dark Archive

YuenglingDragon wrote:

How do touch attacks ignore DR? Only thing I can find:

PFSRD wrote:
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

All that's saying is that it doesn't negate the special effects of a touch attack because the touch attack doesn't deal damage.

People who are trying to say that a firearm attack automatically ignores DR are taking the above sentence out of context.

+1,000,000

Firearms DON'T ignore DR


YuenglingDragon wrote:

How do touch attacks ignore DR? Only thing I can find:

PFSRD wrote:
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

All that's saying is that it doesn't negate the special effects of a touch attack because the touch attack doesn't deal damage.

People who are trying to say that a firearm attack automatically ignores DR are taking the above sentence out of context.

It's not touch attacks that ignore DR, it is all firearm attacks that ignore DR, wether they are touch attacks or normal AC attacks. (see first post.)

EDIT: Name Violation, Read first post.


InfoStorm wrote:
YuenglingDragon wrote:

How do touch attacks ignore DR? Only thing I can find:

PFSRD wrote:
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.

All that's saying is that it doesn't negate the special effects of a touch attack because the touch attack doesn't deal damage.

People who are trying to say that a firearm attack automatically ignores DR are taking the above sentence out of context.

It's not touch attacks that ignore DR, it is all firearm attacks that ignore DR, wether they are touch attacks or normal AC attacks. (see first post.)

EDIT: Name Violation, Read first post.

Again we are saying that isn't official just that guys belief.

Look at Vital Strike example.
Officially no Spring attack, but one designer thinks it should. Still not officially allowed.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

InfoStorm wrote:
NightWing wrote:


2. According to game designer Stephen Radney-McFarland, firearm attacks always ignore DR, regardless whether it is against Touch AC or normal AC.

The problem is that they were lazy in making guns a touch attack. What they want is guns to have a bonus to hit equal to, say, the lesser of +5 or the value of the armor bonus plus the natural armor bonus of the thing you are attacking. I chose +5 arbitrarily. If one wants guns to be more powerful, they would up that to, say, +10.

This way guns behave as weapons, but have their legendary ability to make heavy armor obsolete. You can stll use deadly aim with guns, for example.


It's actually probably my fault for perpetrating this on the forums. It's also because of a mildly confusing post here.

I initially thought this was the trade off for no deadly aim. Deadly aim ends up becoming -5/+10 by 20, so by having it bypass DR instead of getting that bonus, you would do more damage against creatures with DR, but less against those without.

Turns out this is probably not the intention of the devs. Instead, only a level 11 gunslinger can make full iterative attacks (might be possible before if the stats for the pepper-box are ever released), for which he gets no deadly aim, and has to bypass DR like everyone else.

Sucks, yes. That's why I'm eagerly hoping there's a revision soon.

The Exchange

I do wish they would revise the wording on that, and get some kind of separation between "touch attack" rules and the rules for firearm attacks that are resolved against a touch AC. As I've explained before, I believe there is a fundamental difference. Like InfoStorm, I strongly disagree with the idea that firearm attacks should ignore all DR. I could accept them ignoring any armor and shield bonus, and perhaps DR provided by armor, but not natural DR such as that of lycanthropes, demons and the like.

As for whether that is the rule for firearms, or whether it is simply "that guy's belief," as someone stated, the problem is that "that guy" is one of the game's designers (see the link from EI's post above). I may have been misreading Stephen's intent, as he may have been speaking only in reference to Deadly Aim, but that wasn't clear in his post.

PS - InfoStorm, it is Nightwish, as in the Finnish metal band, not Nightwing, as in Batman's former sidekick. Sheesh, you'd think my own player would get my screen name right, hehe! :P


Starbuck_II wrote:

Again we are saying that isn't official just that guys belief.

Look at Vital Strike example.
Officially no Spring attack, but one designer thinks it should. Still not officially allowed.

This is a bit different, because the PF gun rules aren't complete, and this is the guy that's writing them talking.

So, no, that doesn't force you to officially play guns that way in your games right now, but it's an excellent forecast of how you'll play them this time next year, if you go by RAW.

Liberty's Edge

"Resolved against touch AC" is separate from being a Touch Attack. If guns used a touch attack, they'd say "Touch Attack" as part of their rules text. Touch attacks are also resolved against Touch AC, but that doesn't mean all attacks that do so are Touch Attacks: Touch Attacks are a very specific game term. A firearm attack is a normal attack in every way, except that it is resolved against a different AC. That means you can use Deadly Aim, and you don't ignore DR. Unless there is an official source (not just a single developer saying so, I'm talking an official FAQ or Errata entry), that's the way the rules work as written. And whatever your personal preference for guns, "as written" is all we've got.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Guys, come on, Stephen's comment was obviously a typo. I seriously doubt he meant to make gun attacks bypass DR.

Let's look at Stephen's comment from E I's link, in context.

You have this quote from the core rulebook:

CRB pg 561 wrote:
Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains

To which he responds:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Wow, I don't like that wording. DR does not negate damage done with firearm attacks, even those made against touch AC.

A. He doesn't like the wording of a rule quoted in support of touch attacks bypassing DR, heavily implying that he disagrees with that interpretation.

B. He clarifies, at the end, "even those made against touch AC." Why? Because we might mistakenly assume gun attacks against Touch don't bypass DR, even though regular gun attacks apparently do?

C. While you might be able to argue that saying Touch gun attacks already bypass DR, making it so that all gun attacks bypass DR is definitely not a rule provided in the playtest. If he's changing the gun rules (which they've said they won't do), why does he not specifically mention he's making a change?

It seems pretty clear to me he meant to say gun attacks don't bypass DR, and just goofed while typing his message.

At the very least, his comment was not entirely clear, and we should wait for confirmation before we jump on it like a pack of ravenous jackals, yes?

Grand Lodge

What kind of reach does the Tarrasque have?

And you want these low level guys to fire ranged weapons from how far away from him?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Mok wrote:
In other threads it was dug up that touch attacks ignore DR.

In that thread I'm not convinced he said it ignored DR.


magnuskn wrote:
I guess the level one mooks ignore the 300 foot frightful presence aura?

Not to mention 40 hp regeneration per round.

Sovereign Court

James Risner wrote:
Mok wrote:
In other threads it was dug up that touch attacks ignore DR.
In that thread I'm not convinced he said it ignored DR.

No, I'm not either. I actually buy JRutterbush's view. I just wanted to get people up to speed on the zeitgeist of the threads :)

The big problem is that the rule as written required a degree of RAW-ish reading precision that is above what most other rules in the book expect from a reader.

It seems implausible to me that when the final Gunslinger is published that it will allow guns to invalidate DR, save for some fancy high level grit ability.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Mok wrote:
The big problem is that the rule as written required a degree of RAW-ish reading precision that is above what most other rules in the book expect from a reader.

I've always thought (and I guess some think I'm wrong) that paragraph was rather easy to interpret. I posted my interpretation of it's implications in the other thread and for simplicity I'll post a link to it HERE.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

What kind of reach does the Tarrasque have?

And you want these low level guys to fire ranged weapons from how far away from him?

I'm pretty sure that a decenty played tarrasque would lay waste on the marksmen before being killed, but generally speaking, getting rid of the "I will use for it a silver bullet" is getting rid of something you find a lot of times in tales.

Is this for the greater good? maybe. But it's something to consider.


Nightwish wrote:
PS - InfoStorm, it is Nightwish, as in the Finnish metal band, not Nightwing, as in Batman's former sidekick. Sheesh, you'd think my own player would get my screen name right, hehe! :P

Good to know that there's other people out there with a taste for good music (if it's pre-2007).

Back on topic, if you can find a statement that touch attacks ignore DR then I'd buy it.

Dark Archive

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Guys, come on, Stephen's comment was obviously a typo. I seriously doubt he meant to make gun attacks bypass DR.

Let's look at Stephen's comment from E I's link, in context.

You have this quote from the core rulebook:

CRB pg 561 wrote:
Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains

To which he responds:

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Wow, I don't like that wording. DR does not negate damage done with firearm attacks, even those made against touch AC.

A. He doesn't like the wording of a rule quoted in support of touch attacks bypassing DR, heavily implying that he disagrees with that interpretation.

B. He clarifies, at the end, "even those made against touch AC." Why? Because we might mistakenly assume gun attacks against Touch don't bypass DR, even though regular gun attacks apparently do?

C. While you might be able to argue that saying Touch gun attacks already bypass DR, making it so that all gun attacks bypass DR is definitely not a rule provided in the playtest. If he's changing the gun rules (which they've said they won't do), why does he not specifically mention he's making a change?

It seems pretty clear to me he meant to say gun attacks don't bypass DR, and just goofed while typing his message.

At the very least, his comment was not entirely clear, and we should wait for confirmation before we jump on it like a pack of ravenous jackals, yes?

This.

Even if he meant to write that, there is no RAW that supports this ridiculous claim. If Jason Bulmahn himself told me that Lightning Bolt could be made into a spiral I'd call it bullsh*t until it was written down because RAW specifically contradicts it.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013

Reading the rules straight from the CRB, gun don't bypass DR. A flaming bullet could still deal its fire damage, even if the B/P damage was reduced to 0. Not much help to your small army of musketeers. That village is going to die.

Liberty's Edge

In all honesty?

A Tarrasque *should* be a smear on the ground after eating 500 bullets fired in a 360 degree arc over the course of 24 seconds from a Company of Musketmen. (Assuming they could get that rate of fire -- which they can't at the "objectionably low levels" people are inferring)

Point is, I'm not too sure that there is a thing on planet earth that has ever lived that wouldn't be insta-dead from that. T-Rex? A smear.

I don't think a Blue Whale is getting by that one either.

So where's the "woah" in all of this. Magical, schmagical. There's a limit to suspending disbelief.

Now, if you don't *like* the idea of it? Ok. Fair enough. But there's nothing *wrong* with that result. It's spot on.

What? They can't hit it? Are you kidding me? It's as big as a BIG barn. They literally shouldn't be able to miss. Touch AC of 5 is too high, imo. It ought to be a 2.

So either the bullets magically bounce off... or they don't. If they do, it lives. If they don't - it's a smear and everybody around it is walking splat-splat/ squish-squish in Tarrasque juice.


Steel_Wind wrote:

In all honesty?

A Tarrasque *should* be a smear on the ground after eating 500 bullets fired in a 360 degree arc over the course of 24 seconds from a Company of Musketmen. (Assuming they could get that rate of fire -- which they can't at the "objectionably low levels" people are inferring)

Point is, I'm not too sure that there is a thing on planet earth that has ever lived that wouldn't be insta-dead from that.

Well I just want to point out that the Tarrasque is hardly of this earth in any shape or form. It's a fictional super monster, impossibly large and destructive in a way that is more akin to a force of nature then a real creature. Personally I would place it in the same category as the Japanese Kaiju monsters. Tarrasque frankly has more in common with Godzilla then with a T-Rex, so those 500+ bullets are just not a serious threat.


Zouron wrote:
Steel_Wind wrote:

In all honesty?

A Tarrasque *should* be a smear on the ground after eating 500 bullets fired in a 360 degree arc over the course of 24 seconds from a Company of Musketmen. (Assuming they could get that rate of fire -- which they can't at the "objectionably low levels" people are inferring)

Point is, I'm not too sure that there is a thing on planet earth that has ever lived that wouldn't be insta-dead from that.

Well I just want to point out that the Tarrasque is hardly of this earth in any shape or form. It's a fictional super monster, impossibly large and destructive in a way that is more akin to a force of nature then a real creature. Personally I would place it in the same category as the Japanese Kaiju monsters. Tarrasque frankly has more in common with Godzilla then with a T-Rex, so those 500+ bullets are just not a serious threat.

How about a tank, not a modern main battle tank or anything, one of those Renault French tanks from WWI? That's about the type of armor I see a Tarrasque having, maybe even better since I see those tanks had less than an inch of armor plating and this thing can reflect spell effects. You could fire 50,000 musket balls at that tank and it wouldn't feel a thing unless you got lucky and a ball made it in a viewing hole or something, which seems about right for the tarrasque since only a confirmed critical hit will do anything to it(though the regeneration would negate that too.

Liberty's Edge

idilippy wrote:


How about a tank, not a modern main battle tank or anything, one of those Renault French tanks from WWI? That's about the type of armor I see a Tarrasque having, maybe even better since I see those tanks had less than an inch of armor plating and this thing can reflect spell effects. You could fire 50,000 musket balls at that tank and it wouldn't feel a thing unless you got lucky and a ball made it in a viewing hole or something, which seems about right for the tarrasque since only a confirmed critical hit will do anything to it(though the regeneration would negate that too.

Ah. The Renault 17! I must digress here for a moment:

Back when I was 6 and 7 years old, my father was in the Canadian Armed Forces and we lived in Base Borden in Ontario. They had this thing nearby our home called the Tank Park. Imagine a small park in the suburbs where you might ordinarily see swings, slides and maybe a little-league baseball diamond? OKay?

Now: take all that boring crap way and add trees and little hillocks, around which – and upon -- a couple of dozen vintage WWI and WWII tanks from all the nations in the wars were positioned along with a half-dozen artillery pieces, too. Many were on these small 10 foot high hillocks with trees planted by them so they had some “cover” and camouflage. They had all been painted with this mondo thick coat of OD green rust paint – and they had been decommissioned and pretty much stripped inside and welded shut.

STILL. It was the Coolest. Place. Ever. for a bunch of boys to play guns at. So we played with our Daisy Smoke and Ricochet Air Rifles there all the time, throwing pine cones at each other as “grenades” and reliving every glorious battle that ever was, or ever would be, as young boys do.

One summer afternoon, my friend Sylvain “won” a game of “Best Man’s Fall” by dramatically jumping/falling off the side of a Renault R17...and cutting his forehead open as he slid from the (then) 50+ year old tank. We took him home to get “medicked” and his mother freaked and BANNED our playing at the Tank Park on the spot. The look of shock and devastated horror -- and patent injustice -- on our young faces must have been moving, because Sylvain’s father immediately over-ruled her and let us go back and play guns at the Tank Park. (He held the rank of Major and I’m pretty sure he “got” how cool the Tank Park was for boys to be able to play guns at, in and upon.)

So we got to play there all summer. However, we decided not to go climbing on the rusty, squat and weird looking Renault 17 after that though. (Not that we knew at the time what the model was – we were 6 and 7. It was just an old cool rusting tank). Point is, we knew even then it was a death trap and looked really odd compared to the other tanks.

All by way of saying: – if you want to face 50,000 musket-balls in a Renault 17? Good-luck-with-all-that! Hope your will has been filled out and signed – ‘cause you ain’t making it out there alive :) Small arms fire would (and did) routinely penetrate those tanks and the spaulding flying around the inside of the crew compartment would cut you to pieces.


Dire Mongoose wrote:

This is a bit different, because the PF gun rules aren't complete, and this is the guy that's writing them talking.

So, no, that doesn't force you to officially play guns that way in your games right now, but it's an excellent forecast of how you'll play them this time next year, if you go by RAW.

Except that this is exactly why PF has open Beta playtesting...

The example of the Tarrasque is a poor one (as even admitted by the OP) because even if you get through the DR and turn it into a "smear", the damn thing just gets up again in a little while anyway. Plus there's still the whole 300' frightful presence, 6 ranged attacks per round (ave dmg 26 each, 120' range increment), and can charge the ranged attackers from 300' away. Given all that, even without the DR, I'd rather be the Tarrasque than a random commoner in this situation.

idilippy wrote:
How about a tank, not a modern main battle tank or anything, one of those Renault French tanks from WWI? That's about the type of armor I see a Tarrasque having, maybe even better since I see those tanks had less than an inch of armor plating and this thing can reflect spell effects.

I dunno, why NOT a modern main battle tank? The Tarrasque can take anything you throw at it except for the PF equivilent of nukes (epic weapons). I'd say it's "armor" rivals that of an M1 Abrams.

Regardless, I disgree with the interpretation that touch attacks automatically bypass DR. DR doesn't prevent spell effects, energy drain/damage, or other special conditions. DR prevents physical damage, unless it's of a type that bypasses the DR, and that's pretty much it in my book. If a special effect is tied to an attack that requires damage to be done first (Stunning Fist for example) and the DR prevents all damage, the effect doesn't work. I suppose those arguements have already been covered in the other thread though.


Steel_Wind wrote:
All by way of saying: – if you want to face 50,000 musket-balls in a Renault 17? Good-luck-with-all-that! Hope your will has been filled out and signed – ‘cause you ain’t making it out there alive :) Small arms fire would (and did) routinely penetrate those tanks and the spaulding flying around the inside of the crew compartment would cut you to pieces.

Very awesome story, sounds like the kind of place I wish I had around my house as a kid. There was a Field Artillery museum that had walkways full of artillery pieces but it wasn't an open park where you could run around.

Still, you're absolutely right that small arms fire could penetrate WWI tanks, however by that point the bullets themselves were dramatically improved over the lead balls a flintlock would fire. The spitzer bullet is superior in many ways to the easily deformed balls of lead muskets used, or even the round nose cartridges that came into being after that. Also, there were armor piercing bullet designs in WWI that were used against the tanks, and my use of 50,000 musket balls was a bit hyperbolic.

If the Renault FT-17 is a bad example for the Tarrasque, maybe a slightly more recent tank like a T-34 would make a better example, something without riveted armor that would go bouncing around the compartment killing everyone.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Starbuck_II wrote:

Vital Strike example.

Officially no Spring attack, but one designer thinks it should. Still not officially allowed.

Not quite right there. If you are referring to what I think you are, he said it would be "a reasonable house rule" to allow them to work. The official state is Vital is a standard and can't be used with any other Standard.


Nightwish wrote:


PS - InfoStorm, it is Nightwish, as in the Finnish metal band, not Nightwing, as in Batman's former sidekick.

How do you explain that Walking in the Air part then, huh? ;-P

Also, since we're talking about Pathfinder here, Nightwing should more correctly refer to that one type of Nightshade! :)

Shadow Lodge

The Tarasque also has combat reflexes granting a total of 4 AoO with a reach of 60ft, so even with far shot the attackers are inside its reach. Looking at an average of 10 deaths each round. I actually have the urge to playtest this fight, using the presumed touch bypasses DR thing, just to see who'd win.

P.S
I know this isn't really the point the OP is making.

Grand Lodge

Steel_Wind wrote:

All by way of saying: – if you want to face 50,000 musket-balls in a Renault 17? Good-luck-with-all-that! Hope your will has been filled out and signed – ‘cause you ain’t making it out there alive :) Small arms fire would (and did) routinely penetrate those tanks and the spaulding flying around the inside of the crew compartment would cut you to pieces.

Just a point...muskets did not have anywhere near the pentration capacity of WWI era longarms and not even some of the sidearms. Muskets were weak enough that bits of armor was still in use when muskets were used. They had bucklers that was thick enough to deflect musketballs and some late era plates were thick enough to deflect SOME musket rounds (although the musket was pretty much the firearm to obsolete armor). And this is just personal armor...not even an 1/8 inch thick. The bucklers were about 1/4 inch thick and that was plenty thick enough. 1 inch and the musket doesn't stand a chance.


Here's a concept for resolving firearms' ability to penetrate armor and natural armor: incorporeal touch AC. The red-headed stepchild of AC, the one that improves from touch courtesy of force-effect armor and shield bonuses. Makes bracers of armor, mage armor & shield relevant. This is also the AC that other attacks that normally ignore armor/shield and natural armor, as well as giving additional value to the +3 ghost touch armor/shield property, since that property effectively does the same thing to the enchanted gear in question.

Doing this makes the odd assortment of stipulations regarding Deadly Aim removable while retaining value for the high-end projectile weapon combat feats.

Just a suggestion.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Quoting from the Ultimate Combat Playtest "Range and Penetration: Armor, manufactured or natural, provides little protection against the force of a bullet at short range. When firing upon a target within a firearm’s first range increment, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally (including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full-range increment). Unlike other projectile weapons, most firearms have a maximum range of five range increments."

RAW, it doesn't seem like firearms are, in any way, a touch attack. They simply resolve against touch AC conditionally, as a modification of the standard rules for attacking with a ranged weapon.

If the rules were otherwise, the game is already broken, as the aforementioned level 3 Paladins would really just need 15-20 flasks a piece of Liquid Ice (the Tarasque not being immune to cold). Those also target touch, but are not touch attacks.


Thank you! i've been reading these forums trying to see if there was anyone's opinion that i agreed with. Personally i like the gunslinger but when all this talk of touch attacks ignoring DR made me want to defenestrate myself. thank you for being able to read and comprehending what the text says. Rereading it myself i saw that the attack resolves against their touch AC, not making it a touch attack itself.


Unfortinately, a number of people posting in this thread brought over an argument about touch attacks being the source of the "ignoging DR". This is NOT the case. I'm really hoping that Stephen Radney-McFarland will make a post to clarify the issue. The original post in the thread quoted him as saying "Firearm attacks always ignore DR, regardless whether it is against Touch AC or normal AC."

This has NOTHING to do with touch attack and DR... It's FIREARM ATTACKS that ignore DR.

I personally dislike the entire touch attach rule on firearms, and a number of things asbout gunslingers, posted in other threads.

I'll hold all judgement until version 2.0 comes out.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Combat Playtest / Gunslinger Discussion: Round 1 / Guns, the Tarrasque's worst nightmare All Messageboards
Recent threads in Gunslinger Discussion: Round 1