Why Touch AC, and not Flat-Footed?


Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2

1 to 50 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been wondering this since Playtest 1.

I can see a firearm negating low levels of armor, but better armor blocks bullets (Mythbusters). I don't understand why a firearm would get through Natural Armor 10+Platemail. Personally I'd have thought an Armor Penetration mechanic (subtract 3 from armor(or natural armor if no armor is worn)) would fit the bill better in that part, combined with: Flat Footed-ness. I can't see how you get to dodge bullets, but armor never stops them. It seems a tad too weird to me.

If I'm a high dex rogue (even more so for monk) I have a better chance of avoiding being hurt than if I'm wearing plate mail (which seems backward).

I'm aware this isn't likely to change; I just wanted to point out another possible alternative.

They could convert it to an AP/Flat-Footed mechanic that preserves their hit chance in general, and just have the targets be affected more regularly.

Sczarni

+1 i like this idea and it does make a lot more sense.


That rogue or monk also has the advantage when it comes to rays being shot. That's not different from shooting a gun. It might even be faster, since you just have to point your finger (if you need to do even that!)


Mobile targets are harder to hit than static targets. A projectile treating a mobile target as static makes no more sense than that same projectile being able to punch through padded armor and an ancient dragon's hide with equal ease.

Dark Archive

KaeYoss wrote:
That rogue or monk also has the advantage when it comes to rays being shot. That's not different from shooting a gun. It might even be faster, since you just have to point your finger (if you need to do even that!)

But with a ray, the armor simply doesn't matter from a logical standpoint. That shield you're wearing isn't defensive, it's just somewhere else for me to aim at.

Spes Magna Mark wrote:
Mobile targets are harder to hit than static targets. A projectile treating a mobile target as static makes no more sense than that same projectile being able to punch through padded armor and an ancient dragon's hide with equal ease.

True, it's harder to hit a moving target than a stationary one. But while someone might sidestep a thrown axe or a crossbow bolt (or duck, or whatever), a bullet is going too fast for you to do that. They shooter has to predict where you're gonna be still, but once that bullet leaves the chamber you're not going to get out of the way.

I've been playing alot of nond20 based games the past few weeks, and I got the idea from how guns are handled in other systems, and it gave me some other thoughts on how to look at the guns for Pathfinder.

1. AP: I can see the logic behind bullets bypassing some armor; I just can't see it applying in higher cases. I could see it making their armor count as though it were 3 lower or something though.
2. Dex: You're right, a moving target is harder to hit; but as mentioned above; they aren't going to outrun the bullets (unless theyre using magic to do it). you could deal with Dex Like I proposed for Armor instead of ignoring it completely (you'd get better results if you did both of these things.)


Because they are trying to model armor penetration. One of the reasons that the gun rose to prominence on the battlefield while the knight faded away was the fact that guns could penetrate all but the heaviest of armors. And it wasn't the weight of the armor that led to it's decline but rather the cost of armor that would withstand a bullet vs the cost of equipping a squad of musketeers (or a pike square).

A thick enough plate of metal will stop a bullet. The problem is it is extremely expensive and time consuming to work that thickness of metal into a suit of armor. By the time guns started to dominate the battlefield, it was only cost effective to form back and breast armor. The rest would be unlikely to stop a bullet and be too costly to manufacture if it did.

Once the armor became more costly than the man wearing it, you lost the incentive to increase protection. The resurgence in modern body armor is because effective armor is becoming less expensive than the man wearing it.

Touch AC is still a kluge for the fact that the armor rules don't handle penetration.

The guns in question are firing sub-sonic projectiles. You will hear the shot before it gets to you. Therefore flat footed makes even less sense.


Freesword wrote:
Because they are trying to model armor penetration.

Then, to beat the dead horse, "they" ought to model armor penetration. The current system isn't armor penetration. It's armor ignore-ation. Many modern firearms can't reliably penetrate the hides of certain large animals (such as crocodiles and hippos), but what is essentially a black powder weapon is supposed to punch through an ancient dragon's hide or an iron golem's plating as easily as it would padded armor?

Dark Archive

Freesword wrote:

Because they are trying to model armor penetration. One of the reasons that the gun rose to prominence on the battlefield while the knight faded away was the fact that guns could penetrate all but the heaviest of armors. And it wasn't the weight of the armor that led to it's decline but rather the cost of armor that would withstand a bullet vs the cost of equipping a squad of musketeers (or a pike square).

A thick enough plate of metal will stop a bullet. The problem is it is extremely expensive and time consuming to work that thickness of metal into a suit of armor. By the time guns started to dominate the battlefield, it was only cost effective to form back and breast armor. The rest would be unlikely to stop a bullet and be too costly to manufacture if it did.

Once the armor became more costly than the man wearing it, you lost the incentive to increase protection. The resurgence in modern body armor is because effective armor is becoming less expensive than the man wearing it.

Touch AC is still a kluge for the fact that the armor rules don't handle penetration.

The guns in question are firing sub-sonic projectiles. You will hear the shot before it gets to you. Therefore flat footed makes even less sense.

I saw the episode of deadliest warrior where they did knight vs. pirate. 9 times out of 10, the percussion cap pistol (more advanced than the "emerging" guns) were stopped by a regular steel breastplate. It stopped all the pistol rounds, and all of the pieces of shrapnel in the blunderbuss but 1 or 2. The Metal doesn't need to be that thick unless you're using shotguns and modern pistols and whatnot.

I didn't mean flat footed in the sense of "didn't see it coming", I meant it more in the sense of "your agility won't get you out of the way."

Why *Cant* they add in armor penetration rules? This seems the perfect book to do it in.

Sczarni

Spes Magna Mark wrote:
Freesword wrote:
Because they are trying to model armor penetration.
Then, to beat the dead horse, "they" ought to model armor penetration. The current system isn't armor penetration. It's armor ignore-ation. Many modern firearms can't reliably penetrate the hides of certain large animals (such as crocodiles and hippos), but what is essentially a black powder weapon is supposed to punch through an ancient dragon's hide or an iron golem's plating as easily as it would padded armor?

Actually Black Powder had better penetration the modern firearms, they just didn't have any accuracy after 100ft.

Plus when it comes to penetration Bows and Arrows have almost always beat firearms.
I've done this one myself by firing a pistol and rifle into a bucket full of sand and the bullets were stopped. The arrow almost completely placed through the bucket.

Grand Lodge

Thats true gunpowder would at close range put a whole in a suit of armor. I fact I do believe one of the first elephant guns were black powder.

Sczarni

Critzible wrote:
Thats true gunpowder would at close range put a whole in a suit of armor. I fact I do believe one of the first elephant guns were black powder.

So I would rather see a shortened effective range with touch AC

Dark Archive

Critzible wrote:
Thats true gunpowder would at close range put a whole in a suit of armor. I fact I do believe one of the first elephant guns were black powder.

That's not black powder + pirate era or earlier guns, thats perfected black powder plus much better guns.

http://www.spike.com/full-episodes/scsc5s/deadliest-warrior-pirate-vs-knigh t-season-1-ep-104
There's the episode of deadliest warrior that illustrates how black powder firearms interact with metal armor.

If you're going to model armor penetration, it would be preferable to model armor penetration. It's not a hard mechanic. You give the gun a bonus to hit, and limit it by the opponent's armor+shield+nat.armor. Add a new box to the character sheet if you like so it doesn't need to be allied each time.

Example: Pistol: +3AP.
"Hey Joe, you have a natural armor bonus?"
"Nope."
"Shield?"
"Nope."
"What's the bonus on your armor?"
"+2."

V2: Add a box to the character sheet for faster checking. On the sheet:
"Hey Joe what's your shell bonus to ac?"
Joe looks at the box: "+2"

Alright, I have an extra +2 when I attack Joe's character with my pistol. (Since my bonus can't pass his armor+shield+natural armor - which is 2)

Scarab Sages

Deadliest Warrior is well known for their frequent inaccuracies, biases, and flat incorrect findings. I strongly recommend not using that show to try and prove a point.

Also, this exact show was cited recently in one of the "threads which shall not be named." The video referenced shows a knight, in armor, being visibly injured by the bullets fired. So, even if it isn't accurate or scientific anyways, the argument doesn't stand.

Dark Archive

Davor wrote:

Deadliest Warrior is well known for their frequent inaccuracies, biases, and flat incorrect findings. I strongly recommend not using that show to try and prove a point.

Also, this exact show was cited recently in one of the "threads which shall not be named." The video referenced shows a knight, in armor, being visibly injured by the bullets fired. So, even if it isn't accurate or scientific anyways, the argument doesn't stand.

Blunderbuss: 1 bullet gets through out of the 6-10 that hit the armor.

I'm not saying the show is entirely accurate. I'm just saying that the bullet can't go through things indefinitely. Regardless of what gun you use and what bullets you use, at some point the bullet gets stopped. Whether it's 1/8 of an inch of steel or 3 inches of steel will depend on the gun and the bullet. Shooting a stone golem with a pistol shouldn't do much - for example.


The thing is, everywhere else in the game, better armor penetration is represented by a higher damage die, or a higher crit chance. The fact is, armor is resistant to bullets, the term "bulletproof" comes from the testing of armor to show that it would resist a bullet. Guns did not destroy the armored knight, the death of feudalism did. Leather armor is less resistant than plate, but that's one of the reasons for the lower AC bonus.

It just seems wrong that a suit of +5 fortified full plate, something that, if it existed would be massively stronger than today's bulletproof vests, in game is going to be useless in stopping even mundane bullets.


northbrb wrote:
+1 i like this idea and it does make a lot more sense.

+1 from me too.

Ball and shot isn't a deathray. They should save that stuff for rules for phasers from Aaramor, not flintlocks from Alkenstar.

Flintlocks should be more like a hybred composite bow/hand-heavy crossbow: One hand firing without penalty like a hand crossbow, strength-based bonuses to hit and damage like a composite bow (a strong arm can handle more recoil, so able to use stronger powder charge), high base damage but terrible reload rate like a heavy crossbow, balanced by making it worse than Hvyxbow reload + cost for diffulty to make and rarity. That would work and also be more what flintlocks actually were.


Spes Magna Mark wrote:


Then, to beat the dead horse, "they" ought to model armor penetration. The current system isn't armor penetration. It's armor ignore-ation.

That's why I have referred to it in this and other threads as a kluge. It's a crude substitute.

As for the bullet vs armor debate, what it the composition and thickness of the armor being used? Is it forged and properly heat treated or merely rolled and cold hammered? There are numerous grades of steel, each with different properties. How it's worked will also effect it's ability to stop bullets.

There's a LOT of physics going on here. Mass, velocity, angle of impact, area of impact, hardness of materials, elasticity of materials, density of materials, and shape of the projectile.


That whole line of debate ignors Bows and other projectile weapons. None of those model penetration.

Debate's really about why have this projectile weapon works by such profoundly different rules than any other projectile weapon (especially were the others actually were/are comperable).

Instead they made them kind of like a half a bow-half a ray spell kind of thing. Could be balanced mechanically, but misses the mark (ha!). Flintlock's no where near 'technology so advanced as to be magic'. It's a projectile weapon. It throws rocks. It throws them very hard and very fast, but it's really just a buffed up sling. Mistake for them to break rules for them, stepping on magic's territory, and unneccessary to make the cool imo. Other ways to go about it, same as how composite bow is different than a hand crossbow.


Asphesteros wrote:
northbrb wrote:
+1 i like this idea and it does make a lot more sense.

+1 from me too.

Ball and shot isn't a deathray.

It is the same if you're arguing that flat-footed AC doesn't apply. And that's what I argued: Flat-footed AC would not make sense: Rays don't catch you flat-footed, and it's even easier to get someone with that than with a gun.

The current model of "armour penetration" has the advantage that it's relatively easy. Just look at the touch AC when you're close enough.

No introduction of a "gun AC", no armour bonus especially for firearms.


KaeYoss wrote:
No introduction of a "gun AC", no armour bonus especially for firearms.

+1 to you too! I was more concurring with the anti-touch attack, than in favor of flat footed. Tried to make that clear in the other posts.

Totally agree guns shouldn't have thier own AC rules. At best they're just buffed up slings/hand crossbows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A .45 has trouble stopping a male boar. Yet we're supposed to believe a pistol chews through dragonhide like lettuce.


There's plenty of debate concerning the legitimacy of a firearm having special capability when it comes to damaging an individual in armor. My stance is that no, they don't necessarily always ignore armor, and for many of the reasons cited. To further represent the point, review rules concerning sundering and see that firearms are no more capable of sundering items than other weapons (including shooting a glass bottle on a fence).

Additionally, removed from logical intuitions of realism and moving closer to the flavor of the gunslinger, I suggest the iconic scene from Fistful of Dollars, easily found on the internet by searching for "The Heart, Ramon. Don't Forget the Heart." or some such. While the scene offers nothing but a representation of 'something cool' that isn't possible using the system, I think it's worth consideration.

Lastly, the argument of kinetic force. Bullets, even without breaking through armor, can cause bruising and bludgeoning damage. Whether one chooses individually to buy into this argument is personal choice, but the rules don't exactly back up the suggestion of punch, particularly considering the sundering rules. By the rules, a bullet intended to sunder the armor of the target would deal no damage, while a bullet targeting the armor's wearing would ignore that armor in order to deal damage.

I can only imagine that the continued beating of this dead horse is part of some necromantic ritual that will lead to an undead horse impervious to bullets entirely, and that is something I support.


Dirlaise wrote:
Additionally, removed from logical intuitions of realism and moving closer to the flavor of the gunslinger, I suggest the iconic scene from Fistful of Dollars, easily found on the internet by searching for "The Heart, Ramon. Don't Forget the Heart." or some such. While the scene offers nothing but a representation of 'something cool' that isn't possible using the system, I think it's worth consideration.

You incidentally hit on something there. When building this concept they seem to really be thinking six shooters, westerns - that the class is a 'gunsliger' not a 'musketeer' or 'grenadier' or somesuch shows it - As though in the upcomming martial power their thought was to add a medeavalised Clint Eastwood class, to go with their fantasised Tishiro Mafune and Ninja Assassin classes. But this isn't a Westerns RPG, and that far a genre leap makes for more of a disconnect than necessary (or desireable IMO).


Everyone is aware that WotC had released a class in 3.5 that was very well received and it was able to make ranged touch attacks each round, unlimited, and the damage actually continued to increase and was allowed various methods of adjusting the original damage, right?

It was called the Warlock :P

Last I remember, no one freaked out over the touch attack deal. Neither should we with guns, which is far weaker in comparison, I'd say, without magical adjustments of course. But even still, damage increase comes from a few extra bonuses and energy attacks, which is subject to resistance.


Asphesteros wrote:
You incidentally hit on something there. When building this concept they seem to really be thinking six shooters, westerns - that the class is a 'gunsliger' not a 'musketeer' or 'grenadier' or somesuch shows it - As though in the upcomming martial power their thought was to add a medeavalised Clint Eastwood class, to go with their fantasised Tishiro Mafune and Ninja Assassin classes. But this isn't a Westerns RPG, and that far a genre leap makes for more of a disconnect than necessary (or desireable IMO).

To be honest, I was pretty stoked with the idea. Once upon a time in an Eberron campaign I played a Shifter Gunslinger that was totally a riff from the western concept. It was a lot of fun, and one of my more memorable characters.

That's not to say I think the idea of firearms should be pigeonholed into one concept. It's not a massive leap of intuition to assume that the developers watched True Grit while conceptualizing this class. The "No Name" feat serves to drive the point further home. I'd like to see the blatantly obvious references toned back and a creative alternative flavor added in order to allow multiple interpretations of what the gunslinger can become.


Razz wrote:
It was called the Warlock :P

I don't disagree with what you're saying. However, it would be remiss to ignore the penalties involved with that mechanic - the most glaring omission being a smaller base attack bonus. Also a smaller hit die, and an inability to enchant the eldritch blast without advancing in the class and gaining new blast invocations.

Most importantly, though, with guns potentially available to everyone it would be similar to providing the eldritch blast as an option to every class, complete with enhancements and customization.

Silver Crusade

RJ your point about a .45 not stoping a male bore is somewhat in accurate. If you shot a male bore with a 45/40 from the 1860s you would have one dead boar. as the m1911 has a shorter barell and te podwer do not full burn thats why you get a large muzzzle flash from a 1911 or other modern .45 pistols.

one thing that most of you are not
considerng is that the armor penatration is for a lead round. replace the lead bullet with adamintine and you ammor penatration goes way up or just use a steel jacketed lead ball and your armmor penatration goes way up

Touch AC seems a bit overpowered but when you consider diffret ammo types its not really overpowered.

its very hard to make a playable armmor penatration rules as most bulletts would ignore leather and chain and lose penatration vs plate armor and dragon type hide and that of other mythical beasts that have a high natural armmor rating.

Perhaps if the Toch AC is eliminated you could give black powder pistols a +5 to hit vs AC under 20 and black posder rifes/musketts
a +5 to hit vs AC under 25. Give adamintine ammo a +5 bonus to what ever weapon fires it and give sliver a -2 to hit to whatever weapon fires it Cold Iron would get a +2 modifer.


Dirlaise wrote:
Razz wrote:
It was called the Warlock :P

I don't disagree with what you're saying. However, it would be remiss to ignore the penalties involved with that mechanic - the most glaring omission being a smaller base attack bonus. Also a smaller hit die, and an inability to enchant the eldritch blast without advancing in the class and gaining new blast invocations.

Most importantly, though, with guns potentially available to everyone it would be similar to providing the eldritch blast as an option to every class, complete with enhancements and customization.

Don't forget that the eldritch blast was a standard action meaning you only got 1 shot per round. No Iterative attacks or TWF.

Touch attacks are meant for ignoring armor and are being used as a substitute for actual rules for penetrating armor because they are simple. Actual armor penetration requires additional bookkeeping and we all know someone who has trouble adding up their attack bonuses as it is without adding in adjustments for armor penetration. This is a case of it being a problem but the solution is at least as bad (for different reasons).

My personal opinion, they chose the best from a list of bad choices.


Freesword wrote:
My personal opinion, they chose the best from a list of bad choices.

Well, I'd hazard to say the best choice would've been to stick to the tried and true "weapons have to hit AC" option. What they did instead was effectively provide a single type of weapon with a marginally conditional, better 'brilliant energy'. That's a free +4 bonus equivalent, and ignores natural armor in addition to manufactured armor.

Mind you, in order to accomplish penetration, all of the potential options are a little dicey. If it was an absolute necessity, I'd have favored AP ammunition over the blanket ruling, though.


Dirlaise wrote:
Freesword wrote:
My personal opinion, they chose the best from a list of bad choices.
Well, I'd hazard to say the best choice would've been to stick to the tried and true "weapons have to hit AC" option.

Not having seen this figurative list, I presume "forget armor penetration all together" was either not an option or tagged "no one will accept guns that don't penetrate armor". Frankly I think it's the only option that is better than touch AC, but if one insists on armor penetration, then my opinion stands until I find a better option.

Sovereign Court

As a GM I'm glad that they collapsed the whole issue of punching through armor into just looking at the Touch AC because it just makes the game rule quicker and smoother.

If it was something like "Ignores 5 points of AC from armor" then you suddenly need to look over stat blocks in detail, figuring out where the creature is deriving their AC from and then making the calculations for that one party member who happens to be using a gun. It's too much of a hassle.

Since to-hit rolls, AC and hit points are all intensely abstract qualities anyway, having a crude way of differentiating guns from everything else by stressing the armor penetration seems fine with me. It's very easy to settle into an idea that the rules are somehow being a very accurate model of physics, but all you have to do is step back and see how abstract the whole thing is.

For me the important things are:

1. Ease of use.
2. Makes guns function differently from other weapons
3. Guns (at least advanced guns) are simply superior weapons

That all does a better job to me than the old standby of making them just cause more damage. It's a feature that has existed long before 3.0 and it just kind of... it's just boring. For 30 years I've wanted guns in D&D, and while we had Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and issue 100 of Dragon magazine where the party went to London, England, aside from that it's been pretty sparse. Finally we're getting some real attention put to them (though the Gunslinger so far just isn't cutting it in value to me) and so I welcome the gun with open arms.


If it were me, I'd just say that guns gain a flat +4 bonus to strike while within their effective range. Just like all the other abstractions in the system, a flat +4 takes care of all the different ways a gun is more dangerous than other weapons.


cranewings wrote:
If it were me, I'd just say that guns gain a flat +4 bonus to strike while within their effective range. Just like all the other abstractions in the system, a flat +4 takes care of all the different ways a gun is more dangerous than other weapons.

+1

I don't think we needed a new mechanic. Even one of my group who is a gun nut (spent years coming to the conclusion they would never work in the abstract system the way he felt they truly should) thinks the touch attack is too much.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that such a touchy and pivotal issue was introduced without doing play tests or feelers first. Now it is set in stone (for their game world anyway) and has divided the fanbase quite passionately.


Ronin Pi wrote:
...and has divided the fanbase quite passionately.

Passionately? Well, maybe for some, but not for me. I may eventually include gunslingers in my campaign. (Right now, they just wouldn't fit.) What I won't include, however, are official PF firearms. Instead, I'll use my own system. Seems simple enough to me.


Ronin Pi wrote:
cranewings wrote:
If it were me, I'd just say that guns gain a flat +4 bonus to strike while within their effective range. Just like all the other abstractions in the system, a flat +4 takes care of all the different ways a gun is more dangerous than other weapons.

+1

I don't think we needed a new mechanic. Even one of my group who is a gun nut (spent years coming to the conclusion they would never work in the abstract system the way he felt they truly should) thinks the touch attack is too much.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is that such a touchy and pivotal issue was introduced without doing play tests or feelers first. Now it is set in stone (for their game world anyway) and has divided the fanbase quite passionately.

Thanks -

I've actually had gun rules sense the game came out. I'll probably just keep using those and maybe I'll let fighters take some of the grit abilities with their fighter feats. I'm probably not going to allow the class.

You should post your groups firearm rules in the house rules section. I haven't seen much of it.


Spes Magna Mark wrote:
Ronin Pi wrote:
...and has divided the fanbase quite passionately.

Passionately? Well, maybe for some, but not for me. I may eventually include gunslingers in my campaign. (Right now, they just wouldn't fit.) What I won't include, however, are official PF firearms. Instead, I'll use my own system. Seems simple enough to me.

+1


Honestly, the wobbly firearm rules bother me less as a GM than as a designer. It's simple enough to use different rules for firearms than those presented. However, if I want to put something in print that uses firearms, I'll be up against a de facto standard for Pathfinder, optional or no. The mighty Paizo juggernaut, thou two-edged sword! :)


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.


IIRC the dominance of firearms in warfare came about partially because of their increased range. Even though inaccurate, when you line up a firing squad, the hail of bullets reaches farther than a similar hail of arrows. When you can then reach your enemies with ranged weapons before they can reach you, you gained a significant tactical advantage.

Ironically, firearms like crossbows, tended to take less training time, which is another reason for their dominance.

I think I am of the opinion that the suggested "armor penetration" number would work best. If you have a crappy, inefficient, early pistol, it probably doesn't ignore ALL armor in the first range band. Maybe it only ignores up to 2 points. Where as your rifle has got the technology to spin that bullet out and make the most of those expanding gases, granting something like 4-6 points of armor penetration.

What this also does is give some ground back to magic armors, or creatures, such as dragons with absurdly high natural armors. These armor values would not just "disappear" in the first range band, but would just be appropriately lessened.

This also paves the way for magic "armor-piercing" bullets that grant greater armor pen than normal. +1 for magic bullets that may or may not do the devil's work (think you can save them all for your bad days, well ...)

Dark Archive

Anburaid wrote:

I think I am of the opinion that the suggested "armor penetration" number would work best. If you have a crappy, inefficient, early pistol, it probably doesn't ignore ALL armor in the first range band. Maybe it only ignores up to 2 points. Where as your rifle has got the technology to spin that bullet out and make the most of those expanding gases, granting something like 4-6 points of armor penetration.

What this also does is give some ground back to magic armors, or creatures, such as dragons with absurdly high natural armors. These armor values would not just "disappear" in the first range band, but would just be appropriately lessened.

This also paves the way for magic "armor-piercing" bullets that grant greater armor pen than normal. +1 for magic bullets that may or may not do the devil's work (think you can save them all for your bad days, well ...)

+1

It would also make room for armor piercing enchantments for other weapons.


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.


Freesword wrote:


Don't forget that the eldritch blast was a standard action meaning you only got 1 shot per round. No Iterative attacks or TWF.

Touch attacks are meant for ignoring armor and are being used as a substitute for actual rules for penetrating armor because they are simple. Actual armor penetration requires additional bookkeeping and we all know someone who has trouble adding up their attack bonuses as it is without adding in adjustments for armor penetration. This is a case of it being a problem but the solution is at least as bad (for different reasons).

My personal opinion, they chose the best from a list of bad choices.

There were Warlock builds that granted more than 1 attack/round. In fact, there's an invocation for it, melee only though, and not sure if it was considered a touch attack or not but I believe it was.

Warlock's may have Medium BAB, but a few levels of a warrior class and it's fine. Also, the HP is a d8, not really all that bad to be in combat with considering Monks, Clerics, Druids, and others are in the fray with that much hp


Razz wrote:
Freesword wrote:


Don't forget that the eldritch blast was a standard action meaning you only got 1 shot per round. No Iterative attacks or TWF.

Touch attacks are meant for ignoring armor and are being used as a substitute for actual rules for penetrating armor because they are simple. Actual armor penetration requires additional bookkeeping and we all know someone who has trouble adding up their attack bonuses as it is without adding in adjustments for armor penetration. This is a case of it being a problem but the solution is at least as bad (for different reasons).

My personal opinion, they chose the best from a list of bad choices.

There were Warlock builds that granted more than 1 attack/round. In fact, there's an invocation for it, melee only though, and not sure if it was considered a touch attack or not but I believe it was.

Warlock's may have Medium BAB, but a few levels of a warrior class and it's fine. Also, the HP is a d8, not really all that bad to be in combat with considering Monks, Clerics, Druids, and others are in the fray with that much hp

The warlock invocation allowed as a full round action to create a glaive that worked on touch attacks, gave you all the attacks your base attack allowed for, and lasted until your next turn. You could actually use it for attacks of opportunity and if you crit, then you got quite the damage. The balancing factor of warlocks was that they used spell like abilities. Those provoked AoO. The gunslinger has an easy fix for that.


Ah yes, the Eldritch Glaive Invocation, which was added in a later book after Skip Williams in his capacity as the Sage overruled the author with regard to how the Hideous Blow Invocation worked because as the author intended it violated the rule that using a spell like ability provokes an AoO.

That was such a mess.


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.

In the case of Gun.

Will just use the Character level.
This way there is no penailty for Muli-classing.

5th level Fighter = Counts as 5th level
3rd level cleric/2 level sorcerer = Counts as 5th level.

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

Dark Archive

Here is a solution from a GM's side when wanting to have bullets not penetrate armor or creature. We'll call it the "Bullet-proof" special quality:

Bullet-Proof (ex): Against Firearms, this creature applies its normal AC rather then let the firearm resolve against its touch AC.

There. Now we can toss that around for monsters/armors that might come up that should be bullet-resistant (such as Grizzly Bears or Dragons).

Otherwise, the rule is simple as is. Nothing better than simple.


Oliver McShade wrote:
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.

In the case of Gun.

Will just use the Character level.
This way there is no penailty for Muli-classing.

5th level Fighter = Counts as 5th level
3rd level cleric/2 level sorcerer = Counts as 5th level.

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

works pretty good.

But one question.
how does that work against things like magic armors or just mage armor for that matter.

Silver Crusade

DamnIAmPretty wrote:

Here is a solution from a GM's side when wanting to have bullets not penetrate armor or creature. We'll call it the "Bullet-proof" special quality:

Bullet-Proof (ex): Against Firearms, this creature applies its normal AC rather then let the firearm resolve against its touch AC.

There. Now we can toss that around for monsters/armors that might come up that should be bullet-resistant (such as Grizzly Bears or Dragons).

Otherwise, the rule is simple as is. Nothing better than simple.

... I like it.

I know it will seem stupid because it should almost be an evidence, but this monster quality could be included as an option aside gun rules - just to remind GMs that some monsters could naturally resist to bullets. I don't know the exacts effects on balance, but it is an interesting option for especially tough creatures.


Damian Magecraft wrote:
Oliver McShade wrote:
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.

In the case of Gun.

Will just use the Character level.
This way there is no penailty for Muli-classing.

5th level Fighter = Counts as 5th level
3rd level cleric/2 level sorcerer = Counts as 5th level.

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

works pretty good.

But one question.
how does that work against things like magic armors or just mage armor for that matter.

That is a different problem. This is not ment to fix the whole magic armor debate.

.....

This is just ment to give creatures with SR, a extra saving throw vs gun touch attacks by converting the attack back to a Normal attack.

(or if they have very High SR like Ancient Bronze Dragons SR 29, 29-20 = 9 th level before a gun even has a chance of doing a Touch attack).


Maxximilius wrote:
DamnIAmPretty wrote:

Here is a solution from a GM's side when wanting to have bullets not penetrate armor or creature. We'll call it the "Bullet-proof" special quality:

Bullet-Proof (ex): Against Firearms, this creature applies its normal AC rather then let the firearm resolve against its touch AC.

There. Now we can toss that around for monsters/armors that might come up that should be bullet-resistant (such as Grizzly Bears or Dragons).

Otherwise, the rule is simple as is. Nothing better than simple.

... I like it.

I know it will seem stupid because it should almost be an evidence, but this monster quality could be included as an option aside gun rules - just to remind GMs that some monsters could naturally resist to bullets. I don't know the exacts effects on balance, but it is an interesting option for especially tough creatures.

You could use that but IMHO there should be something aswell as making some critters extra weak vs bullets. Imagine snails, maggots etc.

As I think further all previous books should be adjusted for these abbilities as well.
I like the Idea but don't think it will work.

1 to 50 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