Why Touch AC, and not Flat-Footed?


Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So far, the three sujestions i have seen that i like are:

1) Armor Damage Reduction = Guns get the touch attack. But for every point of AC the armor has. It reduces the damage of the shot down by 1 point down to a minimum of 1 point. (If the player chooses to take a normal attack over the touch attack... then ADR would no apply). This idea fixes PC and Monster AC problems

2) Just give guns a simple + to Hit. May not be relistic, but very simple, easy, and non-game breaking. This would for (example: Pistol +2, Musket +4, Advanced Revolver +6, Advanced Rifle +8). This idea fixes PC and Monster AC problems.

3) Gun Reistance (non-magical) = Well creatures with GR just happen to be the same creatures that have Spell Resistance. The amount of GR just happen to be the same amount as that of Spell resistance. Before guns were created, who new ??. Now that people are using guns, with a touch attack... well WOW, some creatures have Gun Reistance vs Touch attack. ( resasoning aside). This idea fixes the Magic/Highlevel Monster AC problem, while allowing guns to work as Pathfinder Designers have intended. Which is to say, gun ignoring armor, shield, and natural armor.

.................

Right now i perfer option number 2. It would be the fastest easiest, and simplest way to solve the problem. (The road i wish pathfinder did take)

If pathfinder keeps with is design idea, option 3, is my backup plan. As SR is already listed for all creatures in Beastray 1 & 2. This still let people, mundain creatures, animals and dinosaurs be vunerable to guns touch attack. While still providing SR creatures with a saving throw to convert the touch attack back to a normal attack.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

I love the SR = GR idea. Very innovative. Bravo!

Now, please fix the AC 8 iron golem too! LOL! :)

Edit: wait, I think you just did... SR = GR, so golems being immune to magic means they are also immune to guns. Nice! that makes complete sense if you think about the fact that the iron golem is a creature MADE OF SOLID METAL... :) Did you happen to eat pickles today, btw? :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Golems aren't solid, they are hollow. Else they'd weigh MUCH more then they do. Look towards the back of the Book of 9 Swords...there's a dwarf smashing the leg off an Iron Golem, and it's hollow. SKR did some calculations of weight of metal and size and concluded they'd have to be hollow, or they'd weigh 4-5x the amount listed.

Also like to point out that adamantine bullets aren't going to go through armor any better then adamantine swords do. Plus, the reason lead bullets are used is the same reason they are the preferred sling ammo...more weight = more kinetic energy delivered. The softness of lead actually helps dump the energy into the target, whereas something hard might just go right through, or be moving so fast that it gets deflected easily and just bounces off. Armor penetrating ammo is a mix of heavy and hard for this specific purpose...you need the mass for the energy to drive the hard point through the target. Teflon AP rounds work because they 'grease' the way through armor...hardness has nothing to do with it.

I'm behind the + against Armor/Nat Armor by weapon. It showcases the penetrating power of the weapon (chainmail is useless against a gun!), but something with +40 Nat Armor can soak gunfire just like it can arrows. Possibly you might increase the Armor Penetration with enhancements (effectively giving double duty against rigid armor), but that's debateable. It also is realistic from the standpoint that a really big gun really can smash through just about anything (+30 vs armor for a cannon?)

===Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Well, I have read a lot of these posts. Argumentum Verbosum. We used the Gunslinger in quite a few sessions now, and the Touch AC works just fine. Wasn't a game changer at all. Sure people got stung with a shot or two sometimes, but players quickly adapted tactics. Closing with the Gunslinger, Grappling (not really necessary), using gins of their own. Slow loading times and the fact that the firearms don't really do that much damage worked out fine.

The shots that hit people were not as crippling as the rouges sneak attack damage.

As a matter of fact Long Bows and Crossbows should get this same treatment in my opinion. If people want realism don't watch "Deadliest Warrior", read some history books, the Long Bow changed the battlefield for good, taking the mounted Knights right off the horse, penetrating armor easily.

Number Crunchers and Rules Lawyers go away.


Rakshasa wrote:
Number Crunchers and Rules Lawyers go away.

Number crunchers and rules lawyers test the game to make sure it works from a mechanics perspective. Powergaming/optimizing characters is one way to play the game. Some of us like a mechanically functional, relatively balanced (by math!) game. If you don't like that way of playing the game, that's fine, but don't just tell the people who do like that method that they don't count.


I can see the thinking behind this and commend it. Touch AC it total b%$!%&!+, especially with how innaccurate the type of weapons they use are historically and only magical weapons with brilliant energy can hit touch AC.

I'm sure everyone has heard this argument 50 times before. Id be all for a much nasier crit and flatfooted as bullets should be far harder to dodge, though so are crossbows so I'd instead say they hit normal AC, but get a far nastier crit.

This is a big problem because of Numerian technology. As the picture shows in the inner world sea guide you see a large robot, both firing two machine guns and a laser weapon on it's scorpion-like tail.

If these old fashioned weapons hit touch AC, then what advantage above the old guns would these alien and futuristic weapons have? I can assume energy weapons would have the effect of brilliant energy as the picture of the Technic League Captain has a glowing green energy sword. I also suggest that only energy weapons, both mellee and ranged should hit touch AV like the Druid's flame blade spell.

That's one of the big issues that I'd just realised is that how do you make the futuristic weapons more powerful if these old fashioned and quite weak weapons aim for tough AC already?

Grand Lodge

Melissa Litwin wrote:
Rakshasa wrote:
Number Crunchers and Rules Lawyers go away.
Number crunchers and rules lawyers test the game to make sure it works from a mechanics perspective. Powergaming/optimizing characters is one way to play the game. Some of us like a mechanically functional, relatively balanced (by math!) game. If you don't like that way of playing the game, that's fine, but don't just tell the people who do like that method that they don't count.

Point taken.

I kinda like the Touch AC thing though.

Grand Lodge

Rakshasa wrote:
Melissa Litwin wrote:
Rakshasa wrote:
Number Crunchers and Rules Lawyers go away.
Number crunchers and rules lawyers test the game to make sure it works from a mechanics perspective. Powergaming/optimizing characters is one way to play the game. Some of us like a mechanically functional, relatively balanced (by math!) game. If you don't like that way of playing the game, that's fine, but don't just tell the people who do like that method that they don't count.

Point taken.

I kinda like the Touch AC thing though.

And now its probably going to die, like so many other great ideas.


Flatfooted for Archaic Firearms and Touch AC for Advance Firearms.

On Deadliest Warrior, some plate armor did stop ancient firearms except for shotguns or the Blunderbuss because of the caliber being used.

When I think of advance firearms, the first that comes to mind is the Colt 45 Long Colt and the Spencer Repeating Rifle. Both weapons would easily penetrate medieval armor.


Anderlorn wrote:

Flatfooted for Archaic Firearms and Touch AC for Advance Firearms.

On Deadliest Warrior, some plate armor did stop ancient firearms except for shotguns or the Blunderbuss because of the caliber being used.

When I think of advance firearms, the first that comes to mind is the Colt 45 Long Colt and the Spencer Repeating Rifle. Both weapons would easily penetrate medieval armor.

A gun penetrating medieval armor is a poor argument for this mechanic because of the following reasons:

A. At the range that this rule is set for, so could a crossbow and so could a longbow easily.
B. Medieval armor is not Magic armor or adamantuim armor.

I dislike having a separate mechanic for this one weapon type myself. This is a game system where armor determines whether you get hit or not, it does not provide DR as it would in a more realistic system. its like the design intent is to give guns some advantage, since they are such a pain to reload and so lame. So the system takes an abstracted combat simulation and attempts to make it more "Real world" while not doing the same for Crossbows and Bows, it does not fly with me at all and I will never use it.


Theo Stern wrote:


A gun penetrating medieval armor is a poor argument for this mechanic because of the following reasons:

You can't beat real life test results. In addition, you can not wear armor light enough to stop modern bullets. There is evidence where medieval armor did stop some gun shots but once you entered the .70 caliber range, armor was bypassed with the sake of argument potentially deadly results.

Quote:

A. At the range that this rule is set for, so could a crossbow and so could a longbow easily.

B. Medieval armor is not Magic armor or adamantuim armor.

Well, you can argue that magical armor and protection from normal missiles will effectively stop gun shots. However, if the gun ammunition is magical or made from those said materials, then we are back to original firearms rules of touch AC.

Quote:


I dislike having a separate mechanic for this one weapon type myself. This is a game system where armor determines whether you get hit or not, it does not provide DR as it would in a more realistic system. its like the design intent is to give guns some advantage, since they are such a pain to reload and so lame. So the system takes an abstracted combat simulation and attempts to make it more "Real world" while not doing the same for Crossbows and Bows, it does not fly with me at all and I will never use it.

The archaic weapons are pretty lame but they were in real life too and that is why they were eventually phased out. The advance firearms with rapid reload is reasonable. Even the M-16A2 is in the slow process of being phased out with gas piston designs.

My group is currently testing the gunslinger with reasonable modifications such as nothing heavier than light armor, no load, and a modification to Gunslinger Dodge which equals Gunfighter\Slinger luck.


An alternate rules if you are strong enough, perhaps you can wear gun resistant armor but. In the real world, you would either get too tired, could not move in it, or would keel over from dehydration wearing such armor but this is Pathfinder.


Anderlorn wrote:
Theo Stern wrote:


A gun penetrating medieval armor is a poor argument for this mechanic because of the following reasons:

You can't beat real life test results. In addition, you can not wear armor light enough to stop modern bullets. There is evidence where medieval armor did stop some gun shots but once you entered the .70 caliber range, armor was bypassed with the sake of argument potentially deadly results.

Quote:

A. At the range that this rule is set for, so could a crossbow and so could a longbow easily.

B. Medieval armor is not Magic armor or adamantuim armor.

Well, you can argue that magical armor and protection from normal missiles will effectively stop gun shots. However, if the gun ammunition is magical or made from those said materials, then we are back to original firearms rules of touch AC.

Quote:


I dislike having a separate mechanic for this one weapon type myself. This is a game system where armor determines whether you get hit or not, it does not provide DR as it would in a more realistic system. its like the design intent is to give guns some advantage, since they are such a pain to reload and so lame. So the system takes an abstracted combat simulation and attempts to make it more "Real world" while not doing the same for Crossbows and Bows, it does not fly with me at all and I will never use it.

The archaic weapons are pretty lame but they were in real life too and that is why they were eventually phased out. The advance firearms with rapid reload is reasonable. Even the M-16A2 is in the slow process of being phased out with gas piston designs.

My group is currently testing the gunslinger with reasonable modifications such as nothing heavier than light armor, no load, and a modification to Gunslinger Dodge which equals Gunfighter\Slinger luck.

The point is at a range of 30' or less a 100 lb bow or crossbow will also penetrate armor, so why have this mechanic just for guns?

Additionally, armor in Pathfinder and indeed in all D&D through out its history, does not provide Damage reduction, which is what armor really does in real life, in D&D it makes you harder to hit or you could argue harder to do any damage to. By having a mechanic that uses touch AC for guns, we are implying that for guns, the armor does nothing to make you harder to hit/do damage to, which goes against the grain for the abstraction we use for armor, would be dependent on the type of gun and ammunition used and which is just as true for Bows and crossbows at 30' as it is for guns against armor that a gun could penetrate.


Anderlorn wrote:


You can't beat real life test results. In addition, you can not wear armor light enough to stop modern bullets. There is evidence where medieval armor did stop some gun shots but once you entered the .70 caliber range, armor was bypassed with the sake of argument potentially deadly results.

You are missing some information I think namely the velocities of the shots and the mass of the projectiles.

Armor penetration is a combination of mass, velocity, impact area, and the structural strengths of the materials. In general as mass, velocity, or the structural strength of the projectile increase, so does the chance for penetration. However, area of impact has an inverse relationship as the force of the impact is concentrated rather than spread out over a larger area. An ice pick penetrates better than a .5 inch diameter metal bar because the impact area is significantly smaller.

Deadliest warrior is not scientific. It takes one a single incident example as the sole data source with no control or isolation of variables.


Rakshasa wrote:


As a matter of fact Long Bows and Crossbows should get this same treatment in my opinion. If people want realism don't watch "Deadliest Warrior", read some history books, the Long Bow changed the battlefield for good, taking the mounted Knights right off the horse, penetrating armor easily.

As it happens, I've read rather a lot of history books that address this very topic.

Since I encounter the claim that the longbow was some sort of quasi-magical armour-piercing weapon so very often on the internet, I have a pre-prepared essay that I like to post in response whenever I find myself confronting this regrettably common myth:

Quote:

The English longbow was not as good at piercing plate armour as its fanboys frequently claim.

Remember that at Agincourt the French armoured men-at-arms did in fact reach the English line, and were defeated in hand-to-hand combat, not by archery. The high casualty figures for the men-at-arms are probably the result of Henry ordering all prisoners to be slaughtered after they were captured and bound.

Also, remember that Agincourt is the last of the great English longbow victories. It did not prove as effective against advancing armour technology. Plate armour won the conflict with the longbow. Sure, there was a back-and-forth, and at times the longbow even had the upper hand at a few points in the 14th century, but ultimately plate armour prevailed. It took the advent of effective firearms to drive armour from the battlefield. William Turner, writing hudreds of years later in the late 17th century argues that longbow use should be revived because, "...arrows would do more mischief than formerly they did: since neither men nor horses are so well armed now to resist them, as in former ages they used to be." Essentially, he believed that a force of longbowmen would be effective in battle since they can shoot more quickly than musketeers, but also because soldiers would be vulnerable to the arrows precisely because they no longer made a practice of wearing armour into battle. He acknowledges that armour defeated arrows and drove the longbow from its once-exalted position on the battlefield. A century later, none other than Benjamin Franklin would echo his words.

The longbow won at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt simply because the English got to pick the battlefield and made the French fight on their terms, which included placing their longbowmen behind substantial field fortifications. What conclusion should we draw from the results of other battles in which English archers were ridden down by the very heavy cavalry whose bane they supposedly were? In the batle of Patay, that's just what happened. Where was the longbow's armour-piercing power then?

I submit the following passage from Dr. Michael Lacy's paper on the Effectiveness of Medieval Knightly Armour. This portion deals with the battle of Flodden (1513) wherein the Scots fielded a force clad in the latest plate infantry armours mass-produced on the Continent:

"...the longbow, so decisive in the wars of the last century, was defeated by the heavy German armour of the Scottish front ranks; a contemporary accounts describe them as "most assuredly harnesed" in armour, and that they "abode the most dangerous shot of arrows, which sore them annoyed but yet except it hit them in some bare place, did them no hurt." Bishop Ruthal, writing 10 days after the battle remarked "they were so well cased in armour that the arrows did them no harm, and were such large and stout men that one would not fall when four or five bills struck them."

That's right, contemporary English chroniclers reveal that the longbow did not pierce armour. Other accounts from Poitiers and Brouwershaven (1426) tell similar stories, to say nothing of reports of battles from the English dynastic struggle known as the Wars of the Roses in which both sides turned the longbow on each other, in which it is specially pointed out that Lords Clifford and Dacre were not vulnerable to arrows until they had lifted their visors to drink or shout or breathe.

More near the time of Agincourt, here is a passage from the biography of Don Pero Niño, a Spanish privateer, who raided the English coast a couple of years before Agincourt:

"...they (the Spanish) were so near them (the English) that they could easily tell the fair men from the dark...the standard and he who bore it were likewise riddled with arrows, and the standard bearer had as many round his body as a bull in the ring, but he was shielded by his good armour"

For what it's worth, that standard bearer was none other than the author of this account himself, Gutierre Diaz de Gamez. It is noteworthy that his plate armour enabled him to survive a close-range arrow onslaught and live to write this passage years later.

The longbow was not the "king of the battlefield," the magical nuclear armour-piercer that its fanboys want you to believe. It was only effective under certain controlled circumstances, and even then was mostly an anti-cavalry weapon. Don't buy the hype. Don't misunderstand me--the English were awesome during the early part of the Hundred Years War, but it was because of their strategic expertise, and canny use of combined arms tactics, not because they possessed some magical, battle-winning wonder weapon.

I do not say that most of the casualties at Agincourt are the result of Henry's slaughtering of prisoners, but it can't be denied that that action did indeed inflate the numbers of men of rank who perished there.

I think I do make mention of the fact that the English were caught out in the open as being a decisive factor in the French victory. Again, IMO the English longbow seems to prevail over armoured men only if the English get to choose the ground and have time to set up their stakes and such beforehand.

I have lately dug up another account in support of armour stopping arrows. This is from a letter written by one Jehan Baugey, and dated 16 September 1475:

"That Monday after supper the English (mercenary longbowmen) quarreled over a wench and wanted to kill each other. As soon as the duke (of Burgundy) heard of this, he went to them with a few people to appease them but they, not recognizing the duke, as they claimed, shot two or three times directly at him with their bows. (The arrows went) very near his head and it was extraordinarily lucky that he was not killed, for he had no armour on at all."

The Burgundians had been hiring English longbowmen as mercenaries for decades at this point, and would have been intimately familiar with the power of the longbow. Yet they still expected that plate armour would have saved a man if he were struck by one of those arrows. What conclusion should we draw from this?

Here is a passage from Vaughan's Philip the Good that deals with the battle of Brouwershaven:

"...they (The English) returned fire with their deadly long-bows and drove the Dutch back in disorder. However, arrows could make no impression on Philip and his heavily-armed knights, who now arrived on the scene. The chronicler points out that Andrieu de Valines was killed by an arrow in the eye because he was not wearing a helmet."

Here, not only do we again have the expectation that a helmet would have saved one man, but a direct statement that the arrows from those longbows made no impression on the (presumably plate-clad) knights.

So there you are: evidence from several primary sources attesting to the ineffectiveness of longbows against steel plate armour. I can't seem to find any sources stating that arrows killed men through plate armour.

I politely call on you to graciously reconsider your position on the subject.

Lantern Lodge

On that note, the mongol bow has been proven to shoot farther and harder than the english longbow combined with the asian style arrows.

They themselves state repeatedly the way they could defeat their armored foes was to ride up as if charging the enemy lines then to turn away and shoot them point blank in the face while the enemy tried to run them down.

Just another point to support armor did stop arrows.

Also the chinese(yuan/ming/qing dynasty) light armours were all known for stopping bullets from those eras. It was several layers of heavy cotton and sometimes had small plates of metal. (this is where the guys who made the first effective bullet proof vests got their ideas from)


Oliver McShade wrote:

While i do not like Touch AC.

I have come to the Homebrew HouseRule, of using a creatures Spell Reistance, as a saving throw.

If you beat the creatures SR, then you get the Touch Attack.
If you do not beat the creatures SR, then you get a Normal Attack.

.......

That way i can both use Guns as presented in Pathfinder, and Monsters as presented in the Bestiary, without having to make any changes.

A dinosaur, that has no SR = Is still a sitting duck for guns
A Dragon, that has SR = Has an extra save vs being Touched attacked.

FWIW : I hate the idea of Guns in a Fantasy campaign but, this is a reasonable compromise.

A mechanic similar to SR is all that is needed to balance ammo.

Roll to hit AC as usual with all bonuses and penalties applied, then using the 1/2 level + D20 + other bonus / penalty mechanic make an Armor Penetration roll versus the AC to see if the bullet penetrates if it does roll full damage if it doesn't beat the AC of the target then apply half damage. Simple, IMO, but elegant.

Example:
If a Target has AC 23
Then a Gunslinger of level 15 that rolls and hits AC 35 would then roll a D20 + 7 (half lvl 15) to see if the bullet penetrates the Armor (AC 23) wihout any other bonuses the maximum Armor class that could be penetrated would be 27 and a minimum of 8, this result would determine full damage to signify a penetrating bullet and flesh wound or half damage to signify a bullet stopped by the Armor but bruising the recipient in the process.

If you want to add an element of uncertainty in the equation too modify it with the bonus provided by whatever type of Armor is worn using the normal AC bonus from the Handbook. "I'll target the one in robes first as the full plate Armor is going to reduce the damage somewhat!"


ArmoredSaint wrote:
Rakshasa wrote:


As a matter of fact Long Bows and Crossbows should get this same treatment in my opinion. If people want realism don't watch "Deadliest Warrior", read some history books, the Long Bow changed the battlefield for good, taking the mounted Knights right off the horse, penetrating armor easily.

As it happens, I've read rather a lot of history books that address this very topic.

Since I encounter the claim that the longbow was some sort of quasi-magical armour-piercing weapon so very often on the internet, I have a pre-prepared essay that I like to post in response whenever I find myself confronting this regrettably common myth:

Quote:

The English longbow was not as good at piercing plate armour as its fanboys frequently claim.

Remember that at Agincourt the French armoured men-at-arms did in fact reach the English line, and were defeated in hand-to-hand combat, not by archery. The high casualty figures for the men-at-arms are probably the result of Henry ordering all prisoners to be slaughtered after they were captured and bound.

Also, remember that Agincourt is the last of the great English longbow victories. It did not prove as effective against advancing armour technology. Plate armour won the conflict with the longbow. Sure, there was a back-and-forth, and at times the longbow even had the upper hand at a few points in the 14th century, but ultimately plate armour prevailed. It took the advent of effective firearms to drive armour from the battlefield. William Turner, writing hudreds of years later in the late 17th century argues that longbow use should be revived because, "...arrows would do more mischief than formerly they did: since neither men nor horses are so well armed now to resist them, as in former ages they used to be." Essentially, he believed that a force of longbowmen would be effective in battle since they can shoot more quickly than musketeers, but also because soldiers would be vulnerable to the arrows precisely because they no longer made a practice of

...

Yes yes, I have seen that article posted all over the internet. But there are a number of factors that make it irrelevant to this discussion. Range, armor type and angle play a huge role in determining armor penetration. First off, range. While plate armor may or may not have been relative proof against arrows depending on the range (At 30' fired straight on with a 100 lb longbow or crossbow, instead of arc fired I have my doubts at the effectiveness of any armor). Secondly armor type, chain and leather probably wasn't as good of proof against arrows, certainly at 30' an arrow could punch through either. Lastly angle of attack. An arrow shot straight on at plate would have a much better chance of penetrating then one shot at an angle. So what are we to do, start having differing results for differing types of armor? What about different materials that were not available like adamantium, do we then need to match ammunition materials to armor materials? And then there are shields, could an arrow or even a musket ball penetrate a shield and plate armor? I doubt it. All these variables make armor penetration way to complex for an abstracted game system based on AC. The system is abstracted for simplicity, when you try to add realism to one weapon I.E. guns and not the rest, it breaks down IMHO. And let us not forget, HPs are abstracted anyway so a hit does not necessarily represent a weapon actually penetrating the armor, but instead means some sort of loss of vitality. Is that from dodging? did the target just get nicked? All this abstraction makes it silly to try to add realism and again, if you choose to, you should do it across the board, not selectively for consistency.


It seems to me that the point in the "touch AC" rule for firearms is that there is no difference between "a lot of protection" and "a lot less protection"...

Personally, I do not like any of the ideas proposed in this thread, so I came up with one which would solve the problem without adding too much calculation or bookeeping...

We'll have to add a new box to the AC line in which to put one of 3 values: soft (S), medium (M) or hard (H)...
This would simplify the "toughness" of the combined protection on the character or monster... Efficiency of firearms will be decided by that value...

Guns will never use touch AC against Hard protections, would use it at first range increment for Medium protections and in the first two range increments for soft protection...

Muskets, wich are longer and more powerful, could use touch AC at 1st increment for H, in 1st and 2nd for M and in the first three increments for S... Alternatively, you could just give them more range and use the same rule as for guns...

How we define the protection value?
Armor is based on its type: light armor or no armor = soft, medium armor = medium and heavy armor = hard...
Wooden small shields are soft, wooden large shields and small metal shield are medium, large metal shields are hard... Bucklers are always soft and tower shields are just like large shields...
Natural armor is soft if it's less than 5, medium if it's between 5 and 9 and hard if it's 10 or above...
You keep the best value... You can also rule that added protection betters the value by one point (for example, light armor and small wooden shield could be medium), but I would just use the better value of the three types of protection, for simplicity sake...

This would give back to the armored dragon his legendary toughness, while allowing the gunslinger to be more efficient at penetrating armors and protections with his costly equipment, and at the same time be simple to calculate...


Hate to say it but here is a simple solution.

Firearms simply work as regular ranged weapons in combat. No special "Touch AC" rules. No bull$H!T. plain and simple. Maybe just up the critical multiplier.

Reasons:
-In 3.5 there is no difference from a bow to crossbow to firearms. They all worked the same mechanically.
-D&D/Pathfinder use an "ABSTRACT" combat system. Here's the definition of what abstract means: "You're given a number, its call your AC. If you roll below that number it assumes the hit misses or does not hit in a meaningful way that would pierce your protect to actually cause damage. If you roll above that number then congrats, you punched through the armor, and deal damage." There you go, simple and easy. The system in Pathfinder makes zero effort to try and determine where and how you got hit and why damage gets through. Otherwise you'd have a mess of rolls and modifiers determining angle, velocity of impact, mass and size of weapon, targeted area, ect, ect, ect.
(this type of combat system is also politely called: so realistic I need to have a forensics degree just to figure out my one to hit roll and how much damage it caused/too much math homework for a game).

But no, guns have to be different??? WHY?? (And if you justify that question then be prepared to justify why all weapons then should not have special characteristics and rules governing impact, penetration ect. Hope you enjoy that canister of worms if you decide to open it).

To make life simple just treat the blasted gun like any other ranged weapon in this abstract combat system. I've seen it when people have tried and failed to turn D&D into a gritty reality based hit and damage system. It's not pretty. Doesn't anyone remember "Combat & Tactics" from AD&D 2nd edition. The critical hit tables that told you where the hit landed and the effect. It was a mess.

Its just an idea, but its the simplest ones. I used guns in 3.5 this way and never had an issue. I'm assuming since Pathfinder is essentially 3.75 then there still shouldn't be an issue.

disagree if you like, I said my peace and offered my solution.

AK

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

I agree with Anthony: no special AC for guns and up the critical multiplier instead.

Anthony: the problem is that Paizo has already published the Touch AC rule in the Inner Sea World Guide a month or two ago, and that some people at Paizo hesitate to produce a simple Errata that would delete that paragraph and perhaps up the crit multiplier in the firearms weapons table (also published in that book).

I also fear (but I do not know for sure) that the Ultimate Combat book may be "locked in" at this point and that it may have gone with the assumption that the Touch AC rule wouldn't change, and thus, I fear that the gunslinger class has been designed around that Touch AC concept. If this is the case, as I have said before, I will not use the gunslinger in my campaigns or as a player.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Oliver McShade wrote:

While i do not like Touch AC.

I have come to the Homebrew HouseRule, of using a creatures Spell Reistance, as a saving throw.

If you beat the creatures SR, then you get the Touch Attack.
If you do not beat the creatures SR, then you get a Normal Attack.

.......

That way i can both use Guns as presented in Pathfinder, and Monsters as presented in the Bestiary, without having to make any changes.

A dinosaur, that has no SR = Is still a sitting duck for guns
A Dragon, that has SR = Has an extra save vs being Touched attacked.

What caster is the gun user using? Their class level? Remember SR checks count your caster....

Unless you make everyone have psuedo caster levels with guns.

I like to use #8 caster shells. Weren't those the ones that trapped people's souls?

Now THAT'S a gun to make a class around.


We've been using guns and gunslingers and I am also unhappy with the touch attack rule.

1. I think crit adequately models damage penetration and that's "how it's done" in d20 - see the pick. Guns have x4 crit multipliers and that's to model that.

2. This changes the touch attack to a flat-footed attack as "armor penetration's taken care of already." Is this still necessary, is the question... Well, bows and crossbows don't get any special dispensation, so that's a strike against. Rays kinda do, in that they get a touch attack, and it might be interesting to have a weapon that fills in the other niche of flat-footed attack. But rays are certainly "faster" than bullets right, and if they don't deny someone dex/dodge why would a bullet?

Also, it means rogues are going to be loving having a hold-out pistol to get a spare sneak attack in. But, that may not be a deal-killer to me, as I have upped damage and reduced rate of fire/extended reload times, which is both more realistic and helps some of the balance problems. If a pistol does 3d6 but requires two full round actions to reload, you get a better "feel." No, you can't have someone "DPSing every round with a gun," but the whole wild west gunslinger thing seems too anachronistic to me, I'd prefer an arquebusier/musketeer at the most feel. And if you can't be doing that special thing three times a round, then "oh but the rogue can get SA on it" or other stacking problems are much reduced in severity.


i agree the x4 crit is good and i guess if its still not enough benefit up the gun weapon damage abit. i could see taking a shot and then reload time if the gun did a x4 crit and 2-3d6 and you could still keep the pickle shot thingy for your gunslingers and they would still reload noticeable faster then non so it could still work for them.


Honestly, it sounds to me like the simplest way to model how guns actually work would be to give each gun an Armor Pen stat that applies a simple flat penalty to the opponent's AC, but can never take it below 0. Don't bother with "Well this only works on armor and shields" or anything like that, because guns are both more difficult to dodge than normal weapons (Due to having a faster-moving projectile, and it being a little more obvious when the guy with the longbow is aiming at you than when the guy with the pistol is) and will punch through armor to some degree (But not through an AC 40 dragon's hide. That's just silly), and would thus logically make any source of AC less effective.

MAYBE have said penalty not apply to magical deflection, since that's only one thing to check, and would come up less often than other forms of armor. Probably not even that, though.


Wasn't 2nd edition arquebus that used a mechanic that translates to armor bonus= DR vs. shot? If you up the damage on the gun but deduct armor bonuses (natural, armor, shield) as DR it might reflect better. Of course, one could argue that it should be used that way for all attacks... (wasn't star wars rpg like that?)

As a hunter with personal experience of moving targets, flat footed should only be used if the target is really flat-footed such as unaware of the danger or unable to move defensively.


Ebonstone wrote:

Wasn't 2nd edition arquebus that used a mechanic that translates to armor bonus= DR vs. shot? If you up the damage on the gun but deduct armor bonuses (natural, armor, shield) as DR it might reflect better. Of course, one could argue that it should be used that way for all attacks... (wasn't star wars rpg like that?)

As a hunter with personal experience of moving targets, flat footed should only be used if the target is really flat-footed such as unaware of the danger or unable to move defensively.

The arquebus did 1d10 damage, could be fired only once every 3 rounds (only if the character is not attacked while loading), And all range penalties are doubled. It also Backfires on a roll of 1 or 2 (inflicting 1d6 damage, and becoming useless until cleaned, which takes about 30 minutes), and all damage rolls of 10 are rerolled and added to the total (exploding dice).

2e is a very different game, and hp are not high.

Grand Lodge

Read a few comics, or watch Batman The Animated Series, they will show you how to dodge bullets, keep in mind that it requires a degree of physical ability normal people are physically incapable of accomplishing. Heroic characters, like player characters, should be capable of dodging bullets, plus armor wasn't reliable against bullets until modern times.


Ok, so I'm late to the game here, because I haven't been using Pathfinder until recently. I'm an old school AD&D 1st & 2nd Ed player/DM who was dragged into 3.0/3.5 some years back, and more recently have been convinced of the virtues of Pathfinder.

There are alot of great ideas given here, some simplistic - which I like both as a player and a DM - and some more complicated, but more realistic. I like realism, as long as it's fairly easy. A 6 second combat round for a character, taking 6 minutes and a calculator for the player isn't usually my idea of fun.

I'd like to present, late to the game as it is, the rules I developed for my homebrew campaign which has had guns since AD&D 2E, and that I adapted to 3.0/3.5. Each of these is a special quality for a weapon, just like trip or double weapon.

Firearm - +2 on rolls to hit

Scatter - +2 on rolls to hit. 5 foot burst, roll attacks against all creatures adjacent to the target. Double all range increment penalties.

Rifled - Considered to have Far Shot feat while using this weapon.


Here are some facts.

Plate armour
Probably the most recognised style of armour in the World became the plate armour associated with the knights of the European Late Middle Ages, but continuing to the early 17th century Age of Enlightenment in all European countries.

By about 1400 the full harness of plate armour had been developed in armouries of Lombardy[8] Heavy cavalry dominated the battlefield for centuries in part because of their armour.

In the early 15th century, advances in weaponry allowed infantry to defeat armoured knights on the battlefield. The quality of the metal used in armour deteriorated as armies became bigger and armour was made thicker, necessitating breeding of larger cavalry horses. If during the 14–15th centuries armour seldom weighed more than 15 kg, than by the late 16th century it weighed 25 kg.[9] The increasing weight and thickness of late 16th century armour therefore gave substantial resistance.

In the early years of low velocity firearms, full suits of armour, or breast plates actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance. Crossbow bolts, if still used, would seldom penetrate good plate, nor would any bullet unless fired from close range. In effect, rather than making plate armour obsolete, the use of firearms stimulated the development of plate armour into its later stages. For most of that period, it allowed horsemen to fight while being the targets of defending arquebuseers without being easily killed. Full suits of armour were actually worn by generals and princely commanders right up to the second decade of the 18th century. It was the only way they could be mounted and survey the overall battlefield with safety from distant musket fire.

The horse was afforded protection from lances and infantry weapons by steel plate barding. This gave the horse protection and enhanced the visual impression of a mounted knight. Late in the era, elaborate barding was used in parade armour.

Later Armour

Gradually starting in the mid-16th century, one plate element after another was discarded to save weight for foot soldiers.

Back and breast plates continued to be used throughout the entire period of the 18th century and through Napoleonic times, in many European (heavy) cavalry units, until the early 20th century. From their introduction, muskets could pierce plate armour, so cavalry had to be far more mindful of the fire.

Though the age of the knight was over, armour continued to be used in many capacities. Soldiers in the American Civil War bought iron and steel vests from peddlers (both sides had considered but rejected body armour for standard issue). The effectiveness of the vests varied widely- some successfully deflected bullets and saved lives, but others were poorly made and resulted in tragedy for the soldiers. In any case the vests were abandoned by many soldiers due to their weight on long marches as well as the stigma they got for being cowards from their fellow troops.[10]

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Anthony Kane wrote:

Hate to say it but here is a simple solution.

Firearms simply work as regular ranged weapons in combat. No special "Touch AC" rules. No bull$H!T. plain and simple. Maybe just up the critical multiplier.

I agree. There are actually quite a few muscle powered weapons that bypassed armor-- cross bows, bodkin arrows vs. chain mail, the english longbow. It is inconsistent and silly in some circumstances for guns to go against touch AC.

I guess that the idea is that guns should have the potential for changing the paradigm of warfare, and monster hunting the the same way they changed real life warfare. But it is not particularly reasistic. It would have been better if they gave guns a bonus vs. armor equal to the armor bonus of the target (max X).


moon glum wrote:
Anthony Kane wrote:

Hate to say it but here is a simple solution.

Firearms simply work as regular ranged weapons in combat. No special "Touch AC" rules. No bull$H!T. plain and simple. Maybe just up the critical multiplier.

I agree. There are actually quite a few muscle powered weapons that bypassed armor-- cross bows, bodkin arrows vs. chain mail, the english longbow. It is inconsistent and silly in some circumstances for guns to go against touch AC.

I guess that the idea is that guns should have the potential for changing the paradigm of warfare, and monster hunting the the same way they changed real life warfare. But it is not particularly reasistic. It would have been better if they gave guns a bonus vs. armor equal to the armor bonus of the target (max X).

Everyone seems to forget it's a fantasy world. In that fantasy world even the earliest and most primitive firearms have access to alchemical pure gunpowder that is as powerful and stable as modern gunpowder. The barrels would be made out of the same nearly unbreakable steel that swords are made from. With both the superb steel and the modern equivalent gunpowder even a muzzle loaded pistol would have enough power to blow through 1 inch of solid steel. The speed of said bullet would be supersonic, traveling between 1000 and 1500 feet per second, whereas a heavy crossbow bolt would only travel less than half as fast. At supersonic speeds nobody except mystically enhanced creatures/characters would be able to dodge a bullet, making attacks against touch AC not only plausible but necessary.


I don't see the issue with the whole touch AC thing. All of the melee types are hitting more often than I am due their extra attacks and my slow reload speed. I am in two games as a GS and it seems to meld pretty well with the rest of the crew. When we have wizards and guys swinging around 12 pound swords like wiffle ball bats are we really going to complain about the guy with semi-mythical gun? The Gunslinger needs the extra help to offset only being able to shoot every round if he stands still and uses alchemical cartridges.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I gave the GS a try the other night, I was not overly impressed.

He was a 1st level Dwarf with a musket(1D12 damage, 40ft range). I played in a PFS game. In the last combat, which lasted 8 rounds I did a total of 8 point of damage. In the first round I shot, hit, 7 points of damage. Second round, full action reload. Third round, shoot, hit, rolled a big 1 point damage. Fourth round, full action reload. Fifth round, missed with a one on the die<insert slapped forhead here>.Sixth round, standard action Quick Clear. Yes I know I could have spent a Grit and cleared it as a move action, but it's still a full round action to load a musket at this point. Seventh round, full action reload. Eighth round, no action, bad guys all died before my turn.

Yeah, I had some bad luck, but that what happens every so often. Anyway I did 8 points of damage in 8 rounds out of a possible 24 points of damage. If I would have rolled avg damage 6-7 I would have done 13 points of damage. That's not really overwhelming. If he would have been shooting at AC one of those would have missed, at which point I would have be nothing more than a tree stump. With the rapid reload feat and use of a grit point, I could have got off another shot. I have point blank shot as a feat right now. Another shot would have brought my total possible damage up to 36 and avg damage would have been about 17-19 points of damage. I can't wait until level 5 when I can add my Dex mod(3) to my damage rolls.

I had a couple decent combats, and one with a crit and confirm. My crit did 31 points of damage. I rolled avg damage in most of my combats nothing to exciting. However, I was still shooting every other round and if I had to hit AC I would have missed a few times, making me practically useless.

After the game we talked about the gunslinger a bit, and most agreed that it's was underwhelming. The Crit was awesome, but everything else was eh, okay at best. The tables opinion was that the GS was more fluff than substance. Yes we all understood it was a level 1 GS. Most also understood GS don't begin to shine until about level 5. Which is about 11 more PFS games for him at one every 2 weeks.

At this point I will continue to play my GS just to see what he can do at higher levels, but I'm going to have to multiclass into something else so I can make my self useful during reload rounds. Bard or Inquisitor maybe. I would like to get him to level 6, but that's going to take some time in PFS. But if I get him that high before the ultimate combat comes out I'll follow up with another post.

Well, as for which AC to hit, Touch AC with in a certain range works for me. The force of the bullet, at close range, is what does the damage, much like the force of a mace, quarterstaff, or most blunt weapons. Most blunt weapons don't penetrate armor, yet they still do lethal damage. It's the force of the impact that does the damage. Why don't blunt weapons hit touch AC? Maybe because you have to generate enough force to do damage through the armor. While a bullet has enough force to do damage through the armor, without penetration, at close range.

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Combat Playtest / Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2 / Why Touch AC, and not Flat-Footed? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2