Touch attacks need to go


Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2


I'd like to think that I've been fairly open-minded about all this guns in fantasy stuff. However, I cannot get behind the idea of a setting in which the presence of any of these guns is going to render all other weapons and characters that use them ineffectual. This is not conducive to the fun of people who are more interested in playing more traditional characters in a fantasy setting.

Now from what I've read the touch ac thing was to balance out the longer reload times, yes? But that is no longer necessary with all of the different ways to bring the reload time down in the current playtest version. And before anyone starts up with the guns penetrate armor stuff, let me remind you that there was already a mechanic for that, a X3 crit multiplier. That is what was being represented by the fact that bows and crossbows having a X3 multiplier and not the more stock standard X2 multiplier. There was never a need to invent a new mechanic to represent armor penetration when one already existed.

And before anyone accuses me of just being a whiny jerk who thinks guns should just go away from Pathfinder, let me divest you of that foolish and false notion right now. I have no problem with guns in fantasy, heck I play the Warcraft d20 rpg as well as Warhammer Fantasy Role Play second edition and all of the Warhammer 40,000 rpgs, and that last one has more guns than you could ever want. Now lets focus on that first one for a bit. It has no special rules pertaining to guns other than magical enhancements making malfunctions more frequent and enhanced gunpowders that can give minor enhancement bonuses to the attack (or damage, I'll have to go and check on that so don't quote me on it) and in one case make it so the gun can still fire even if the powder gets wet. Sword & Sorcery Studios felt no need to give Azeroth's guns the ability to ignore manufactured armor, which is a silly thing considering plate mail was created to provide plenty adequate protection against a gunshot.


You're also forgetting how expensive shooting them is. If they're allowed to craft their ammo it costs 1.1 gp PER SHOT. If you don't let them craft ammo, it costs 11 gp PER SHOT. Meanwhile it costs .05 gp per shot to use a bow and .1 for a crossbow. Oh yeah, let's not forget the randomly blow up in your face thing. Also bows / crossbows have massively longer range increments. So no the gunslinger isn't going to blow everyone out of the water.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 8

Crossbows don't have a X3 modifier, they have a X2 with a 19-20 range.

However, the halfling sling staff does have a X3 modifier, but I have a hard time imagining a rock penetrating armor.

Liberty's Edge

I think we've all been through this before. Stop "armchair designing" and playtest your theory.

How it looks on paper is important, but ultimately how it plays is what matters. So do the math. Stat up an example Gunslinger, an example Archer, and so on, and run the numbers.

Shadow Lodge

I hate to break it to you, but firearms are capable of piercing plate.
Arrows, crossbows and low velocity guns as in matchlocks were capable of piercing plate at close range. Muskets are much higher velocity and will go right through plate at any range if they actually hit which was unlikely due to the smoothbore at any real distance.


BobChuck wrote:

I think we've all been through this before. Stop "armchair designing" and playtest your theory.

How it looks on paper is important, but ultimately how it plays is what matters. So do the math. Stat up an example Gunslinger, an example Archer, and so on, and run the numbers.

+1. No, +10!


The touch attacks are a compromise attempt to model armor penetration in a rules set where armor is binary. By binary I mean it either applies or it does not. I'd prefer it to go away myself, but I don't see that happening. This is primarily because it seems to be part of the firearms rules set in stone by a book already on it's way back from the printers when this playtest started.


Freesword wrote:
The touch attacks are a compromise attempt to model armor penetration in a rules set where armor is binary. By binary I mean it either applies or it does not. I'd prefer it to go away myself, but I don't see that happening. This is primarily because it seems to be part of the firearms rules set in stone by a book already on it's way back from the printers when this playtest started.

I don't remember the announcement saying that Ultimate Combat was on its way to the printers. I know Ultimate Magic was sent to print.


BobChuck wrote:

I think we've all been through this before. Stop "armchair designing" and playtest your theory.

How it looks on paper is important, but ultimately how it plays is what matters. So do the math. Stat up an example Gunslinger, an example Archer, and so on, and run the numbers.

I have playtested the gunslinger thoroughly and my biggest gripe was the touch attack with guns, not the class itself. 90% of all monsters are reliant on natural armor for the majority of their AC. In my playtests the gunslinger had no problem being within short range so every attack was a touch attack and due to his high base attack he usually only missed on a 1.

With dexterity bonus to damage and magical guns he did more damage than the ranger per round due to that he never missed. It also made for a pretty boring class whose only tactic was to get into short range and full attack. I don't think he used his grit once in the six encounters we played through (three at level 5 and three at level 10).

It is a shame that the gun rules are not part of the playtest and I seriously doubt they will errata this so this is the first time I will ignore an official rule for Pathfinder.


I don't have a problem with mundane firearms ignoring mundane armor at close range.

I do have a problem with mundane firearms ignoring MAGIC armor at close range. Magic armor should provide protection from firearms at any range.

I believe magic should always trump mundane. Something like this:

Range and Penetration: Armor, manufactured or natural (when not magically enhanced), 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 ignores the target’s armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus but is not considered a touch attack. The attack does not ignore Enhancement bonuses. 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.


erik542 wrote:
Freesword wrote:
The touch attacks are a compromise attempt to model armor penetration in a rules set where armor is binary. By binary I mean it either applies or it does not. I'd prefer it to go away myself, but I don't see that happening. This is primarily because it seems to be part of the firearms rules set in stone by a book already on it's way back from the printers when this playtest started.
I don't remember the announcement saying that Ultimate Combat was on its way to the printers. I know Ultimate Magic was sent to print.

I've seen it said that they may be in the Inner Sea World Guide that comes out this month.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
erik542 wrote:
Freesword wrote:
The touch attacks are a compromise attempt to model armor penetration in a rules set where armor is binary. By binary I mean it either applies or it does not. I'd prefer it to go away myself, but I don't see that happening. This is primarily because it seems to be part of the firearms rules set in stone by a book already on it's way back from the printers when this playtest started.
I don't remember the announcement saying that Ultimate Combat was on its way to the printers. I know Ultimate Magic was sent to print.

The firearms rules are in the Inner Sea World Guide, which is shipping to subscribers this week.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ronin Pi wrote:


I've seen it said that they may be in the Inner Sea World Guide that comes out this month.

Sure, your name says Ronin, but I see you're a ninja.


Reckless wrote:
erik542 wrote:
Freesword wrote:
The touch attacks are a compromise attempt to model armor penetration in a rules set where armor is binary. By binary I mean it either applies or it does not. I'd prefer it to go away myself, but I don't see that happening. This is primarily because it seems to be part of the firearms rules set in stone by a book already on it's way back from the printers when this playtest started.
I don't remember the announcement saying that Ultimate Combat was on its way to the printers. I know Ultimate Magic was sent to print.
The firearms rules are in the Inner Sea World Guide, which is shipping to subscribers this week.

Well there's the all powerful tool called errata still. But I do stand corrected.


erik542 wrote:
Reckless wrote:
erik542 wrote:
Freesword wrote:
The touch attacks are a compromise attempt to model armor penetration in a rules set where armor is binary. By binary I mean it either applies or it does not. I'd prefer it to go away myself, but I don't see that happening. This is primarily because it seems to be part of the firearms rules set in stone by a book already on it's way back from the printers when this playtest started.
I don't remember the announcement saying that Ultimate Combat was on its way to the printers. I know Ultimate Magic was sent to print.
The firearms rules are in the Inner Sea World Guide, which is shipping to subscribers this week.
Well there's the all powerful tool called errata still. But I do stand corrected.

You're assuming there's going to be errata on the issue. Given how adamant they've been about the gun rules not changing, I'm betting on such an errata never coming.


Reckless wrote:
Ronin Pi wrote:


I've seen it said that they may be in the Inner Sea World Guide that comes out this month.
Sure, your name says Ronin, but I see you're a ninja.

::Returns to the shadows::


Inner Sea World Guide is the book I was referring to.


Decorus wrote:

I hate to break it to you, but firearms are capable of piercing plate.

Arrows, crossbows and low velocity guns as in matchlocks were capable of piercing plate at close range. Muskets are much higher velocity and will go right through plate at any range if they actually hit which was unlikely due to the smoothbore at any real distance.

This was a misperception due to very few surviving full plate armors in the era at the time of the emergence of firearms.

Recently on history channel they just showed some dug up armor using the same method of bulletproofing as modern day kevlar vest (obviously made of metal rather then kevlar) and they were fully adequate to stop the bullet of the firearms of their days even at close range.

They even tested using a modern rifle and it still stopped the bullet.

Sczarni

Gignere wrote:
Decorus wrote:

I hate to break it to you, but firearms are capable of piercing plate.

Arrows, crossbows and low velocity guns as in matchlocks were capable of piercing plate at close range. Muskets are much higher velocity and will go right through plate at any range if they actually hit which was unlikely due to the smoothbore at any real distance.

This was a misperception due to very few surviving full plate armors in the era at the time of the emergence of firearms.

Recently on history channel they just showed some dug up armor using the same method of bulletproofing as modern day kevlar vest (obviously made of metal rather then kevlar) and they were fully adequate to stop the bullet of the firearms of their days even at close range.

They even tested using a modern rifle and it still stopped the bullet.

+1. i am not a fan of the touch ac part of firearms but i do like how they are trying to make firearms worth while rather than just another weapon. if i had any sway i would have said just make it a part of the gunslinger class rather than a core part of guns but that's just me.


Soo... did the earlier, non-gun-specific-armor protect as well from firearm shots? Because in the "emerging firearms" era that the game assumes, I'm guessing people aren't making kevlar armor.

However, this does bring up an interesting point. Armor would advance to accomodate firearms as they become more prevalent.

So in an Advanced Firearms era, at the time that you are removing the missfire on firearms because of better quality weapons and powder, and lowering the cost due to mass production, you could also assume to eliminate the armor by-passing effects of the weapons.

How this relates to natural armor, I have no idea... whatever, it's a wrinkle I'm okay with. Perhaps since they can't bypass armor anymore anyways, the refined blackpowder/alchemical loads are designed for mass production and no longer have the same "oomph" to get through natural armor either.


Kaisoku wrote:

Soo... did the earlier, non-gun-specific-armor protect as well from firearm shots? Because in the "emerging firearms" era that the game assumes, I'm guessing people aren't making kevlar armor.

However, this does bring up an interesting point. Armor would advance to accomodate firearms as they become more prevalent.

So in an Advanced Firearms era, at the time that you are removing the missfire on firearms because of better quality weapons and powder, and lowering the cost due to mass production, you could also assume to eliminate the armor by-passing effects of the weapons.

How this relates to natural armor, I have no idea... whatever, it's a wrinkle I'm okay with. Perhaps since they can't bypass armor anymore anyways, the refined blackpowder/alchemical loads are designed for mass production and no longer have the same "oomph" to get through natural armor either.

It still doesn't make sense to ignore armor AC entirely, because this means a low level Gunslinger can just go through a pimped out +10 full plate artifact.

It is probably better to just give the Gunslinger a "insert name" bonus for being at point blank range or something.

Shadow Lodge

Gignere wrote:
Decorus wrote:

I hate to break it to you, but firearms are capable of piercing plate.

Arrows, crossbows and low velocity guns as in matchlocks were capable of piercing plate at close range. Muskets are much higher velocity and will go right through plate at any range if they actually hit which was unlikely due to the smoothbore at any real distance.

This was a misperception due to very few surviving full plate armors in the era at the time of the emergence of firearms.

Recently on history channel they just showed some dug up armor using the same method of bulletproofing as modern day kevlar vest (obviously made of metal rather then kevlar) and they were fully adequate to stop the bullet of the firearms of their days even at close range.

They even tested using a modern rifle and it still stopped the bullet.

No your making a serious error a kevlar vest won't stop a rifle. At close or long range. Flack vest yes, Kevlar vest no. Pure muzzle velocity wins even against most handguns a kevlar vest will only stop it from killing you. Stopping the bullet and the kinetic energy being transferred inwards killing the person are two very different and not mutually exclusive events.

Glaser safety slugs are a prime example of this. The typical method of killing people in plate was blunt force trauma not actual penetration of the armor.

Senior Designer

Touch attack is not going. Sorry folks. I don't like shutting down threads, but I'm going to do it here.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Combat Playtest / Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2 / Touch attacks need to go All Messageboards
Recent threads in Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2