Hello.
My actual playtesting has been limited, because my time is limited. I've been reading the playtesting of others, though, and their opinions - particularly regarding guns versus various forms of armor.
It is my opinion and suggestion that armor properties - preferably magical and mundane - that allow armor(s) to resist gunfire (in part and / or in full) be included in Ultimate Combat, setting a price for "bulletproof" armor.
(My personal suggestion is something along the lines of Fortification - a scaling set of bonuses against guns, for a scaling set of costs. But I'm at best an armchair designer, at this point.)
I'd further suggest a Feat or series of Feats that benefit creatures with high levels of natural armor when they are shot.
If Paizo doesn't include such abilities, they will come about - DMs will house-rule them into existence. And that's not inherently bad! But I - in general - trust Paizo to design better Feats and Magical Armor abilities than, say, me. Or most others.
Thank you for your consideration.
I think it's a bad idea for there to be a magical enhancement specifically for an armour to resist bullet impacts, as such an enhancement would be essentially mandatory in a campaign with guns. No enhancement, other than the generic ac enhancement bonus, should ever be something that a character has to put on their magical equipment.
Personally I think that if guns have been around long enough and/or guns are common enough, that GM's should just rule that armour technology has 'caught up', so to speak, to guns and can resist gunshots.
Daisuke1133 wrote: No enhancement, other than the generic ac enhancement bonus, should ever be something that a character has to put on their magical equipment. (Some) Players in my games treat "Fortification" as "must-have", and "protection from gunfire" is certainly no more must-have than Fortification. But for players, and GMs, for whom this is a "problem", having a balanced-and-available solution seems like a prudent idea.
Daisuke1133 wrote: Personally I think that if guns have been around long enough and/or guns are common enough, that GM's should just rule that armour technology has 'caught up', so to speak, to guns and can resist gunshots. I don't find this inherently objectionable, but it suggests to me that you're one of those who feels "guns (can) use Touch AC" is out-of-whack with the real-world effects of firearms. I neither agree, nor disagree, with this.
Truthfully, I don't care if the guns in Pathfinder are "real-world-accurate". I care if they're game-balanced. Paizo has decided to balance them based on "guns hit touch AC". I believe strongly they have the talent and skill required to balance guns around this point.
What I'm suggesting - including rules for how, mechanically, to make armor work against guns (fair GP / feat costs for doing so, that is) - allows Paizo to "have it's cake and eat it, too". They get to stick with "guns hit touch AC", which they've more or less committed to (a lot more, rather than less, from what I've seen). But they include rules on how to "work around that". If I as a GM want bulletproof red dragons, they've included rules for that.
I think it's a compromise that might end up with both parties having access to the option(s) they want for their game.
Note - I do realize that "bulletproof" armor will be immensely desirable in one game, and virtually useless in another, but in that sense, it's about the same as "Bane Vs. Undead" weapons, or blindly picking a Ranger's favored enemy. If the BBEG of your campaign is a Gunfighter, well, "bulletproofing" is prudent - just as, if the BBEG is a Rogue, Fortification is an excellent idea. But, just as with Fortification, it can be - has been - done.
Ben Kent wrote: having a balanced-and-available solution seems like a prudent idea. I'm not disputing this. But in a game where guns are ubiquitous, it basically becomes mandatory for armour to even be a worthwhile investment. But I do concede that different people will consider different abilities to be more important than others.
Ben Kent wrote: it suggests to me that you're one of those who feels "guns (can) use Touch AC" is out-of-whack with the real-world effects of firearms Saying this is untrue would be a lie, I admit. However, I'm also against introducing rules that would at least seem unnecessary (at least to me, anyway), instead of just sticking with rules that work fine already. I like keeping things simple. For example, guns doing more dice of damage than other weapons is a tried-and-true method that has always worked just fine for me.
Ben Kent wrote: Paizo has decided to balance them based on "guns hit touch AC". I believe strongly they have the talent and skill required to balance guns around this point. On this point, I must respectfully disagree. I think that such an idea is inherently unbalanced and cannot be made balanced, but such is only my own opinion on the matter. Make of it what you will. I've already stated my piece on this subject many times already, and will say no more here.
Ben Kent wrote: Note - I do realize that "bulletproof" armor will be immensely desirable in one game, and virtually useless in another, but in that sense, it's about the same as "Bane Vs. Undead" weapons, or blindly picking a Ranger's favored enemy. If the BBEG of your campaign is a Gunfighter,... I agree with you there, but I just think that applying a *Bulletproof* enhancement is just rather expensive for what it does. Again, just my opinion. But aside from guns being used by enemies, there is also the matter of friendly fire to consider. Some folks would rather get the reload time down before considering ways of keeping from hitting their allies.
just give this to gunslingers and errata out Touch AC from Inner Sea World Guide:
1pt of shield/armor/natural bypass per gunslinger level for all creatures except undead and constructs, in which case it's 1pt of shield/armor per gunslinger level; I would also extend this against objects for 1pt of hardness per gunslinger level. This is reduced by 2 pts for each increment above the 1st, same amount as attack roll penalties.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote: just give this to gunslingers and errata out Touch AC from Inner Sea World Guide:
1pt of shield/armor/natural bypass per gunslinger level for all creatures except undead and constructs, in which case it's 1pt of shield/armor per gunslinger level; I would also extend this against objects for 1pt of hardness per gunslinger level. This is reduced by 2 pts for each increment above the 1st, same amount as attack roll penalties.
That would be massively annoying to keep track of and would slow play to a crawl.
Hecknoshow wrote: Purple Dragon Knight wrote: just give this to gunslingers and errata out Touch AC from Inner Sea World Guide:
1pt of shield/armor/natural bypass per gunslinger level for all creatures except undead and constructs, in which case it's 1pt of shield/armor per gunslinger level; I would also extend this against objects for 1pt of hardness per gunslinger level. This is reduced by 2 pts for each increment above the 1st, same amount as attack roll penalties.
That would be massively annoying to keep track of and would slow play to a crawl. You have a point there. I'm an engineer though, so I'll take accuracy over speed anytime. :) After a while anyone moderately good with mental math could figure this out quickly just looking at a monster's AC breakdown. (i.e. gunslinger 12, max 12 bypass pts; vs critter with natural 4, armor 6, total: 10... he bypasses the whole thing... not too hard)
But still, you have a point...
Purple Dragon Knight wrote: Hecknoshow wrote: Purple Dragon Knight wrote: just give this to gunslingers and errata out Touch AC from Inner Sea World Guide:
1pt of shield/armor/natural bypass per gunslinger level for all creatures except undead and constructs, in which case it's 1pt of shield/armor per gunslinger level; I would also extend this against objects for 1pt of hardness per gunslinger level. This is reduced by 2 pts for each increment above the 1st, same amount as attack roll penalties.
That would be massively annoying to keep track of and would slow play to a crawl. You have a point there. I'm an engineer though, so I'll take accuracy over speed anytime. :) After a while anyone moderately good with mental math could figure this out quickly just looking at a monster's AC breakdown. (i.e. gunslinger 12, max 12 bypass pts; vs critter with natural 4, armor 6, total: 10... he bypasses the whole thing... not too hard)
But still, you have a point... I'm an engineer too(well, training to be)! Mechanical, you?
I agree that I could do the math, but I know most people can't even approach highschool math once they're out of school a few years. It'd be like watching that guy who plays a fighter in 3.x calculate his power attack for the 9th time that fight, it'd drive everyone insane. Especially since he mostly got it wrong(mysteriously always in his favor).
If you want accuracy over speed why do you play pathfinder, it has neither? /joke.
We are having issues with balance from the gunslinger. Basically, the gunslinger in our campaign can hit anything with a 14 or below touch AC without even rolling the dice.
Also, since he's firing 3 shots and has just the right set of feats, he can do 30-50 hp damage every round at level 5. With no save.
So, we're needing to implement a house rule to have some balance before we ditch the class entirely.
We're leaving the touch ac attack as is, but allowing a save.
Since firearms basically resolve like a ray spell, and most of those have a save, it only makes sense for the firearm to allow a save.
We are trying a few ways of this to see which feels better:
- Reflex Save to take half damage (or none with evasion). DC of the save = 10 + gunslinger level + dex modifier (or ranged attack bonus - still debating). Still, the DC will 22 for the character in question at level 6 (22 dex min/maxed with buffs/racials). The advantage is that this is a simple existing mechanic and is our first choice.
- Allow reflex save to negate dex or dex-related damage (deadly aim for example). The bullet still gets through, but you negate their ability aim accurately to increase damage. Harder to calculate, but more in the spirit of firearms. Other thought was to negate the bonuses on the attack side, or even both. But it doesn't feel right to save before you know if you are hit.
- Hardness adjustments to touch ac vs. firearms. Every 5 hardness of armor adds +1 to touch AC vs. firearms. Each +1 enchantment that would add hardness to the armor adds +1 to Touch AC vs. firearms. For example, full plate would grant +2 to touch AC, +1 full plate would grant +3.
- Hardness grants damage reduction vs. firearms. Using the same calculation, +1 full plate would grant DR 3 vs. firearms.
We did some test and are going to go with this for now (as a home rule):
Hardness grants adjustments to touch ac vs. firearms. Every 3 hardness of armor adds +1 to touch AC vs. firearms. For example, full plate (hardness 10) would grant +3 to touch AC, +1 full plate would grant +4 (hardness 12).
The touch ac vs. firearms can never be greater than the ac granted by the item. Only the item with the greatest hardness bonus to touch ac vs. firearms is used (like a deflection bonus).
Of the ideas put forth, this seems to be the fairest, just not the easiest. We could also try other calculations (like every 4 or 5 hardness).
Mithral and Adamantine in effect become the Pathfinder equivalent of Kevlar.
For force armor and shields granted by spells we will use the same hardness calculation as armor enchantments. For example a shield spell that grants +4 magical bonus to AC would have 8 hardness (2 hardness for each +1 enchantment) granting +2 to touch ac vs. firearms. Most force objects are considered 30 hardness, but that might be too much.
For natural armor, each +1 will equate to +1 hardness. Natural armor +9 would give +3 to touch ac vs. firearms.
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (+1 hardness) grants no additional benefit to touch AC vs. firearms. An ancient dragon with 30 natural armor would have +10 to touch ac vs. firearms.
Breastplate +1 (+10 hardness for metal + 2 hardness for enchantment) gives 12 total hardness and +4 to touch AC vs. firearms.
Mithral Shirt (hardness 15) would grant +5 to touch AC vs. firearms. Since a mithral shirt would typically grant only +4 to ac, only +4 is granted to the touch ac vs. firearms.
A mithral shirt +1 would have a hardness of 17 and normal AC of +5 so a total of +5 is granted to touch AC vs firearms.
An adamantine breastplate +2 (hardness 24) would grant +8 to touch ac vs. firearms (plus the appropriate DR).
Lostwriter wrote: We are having issues with balance from the gunslinger. Basically, the gunslinger in our campaign can hit anything with a 14 or below touch AC without even rolling the dice.
Also, since he's firing 3 shots and has just the right set of feats, he can do 30-50 hp damage every round at level 5. With no save.
Can you post this characters stats?
Hecknoshow wrote: Lostwriter wrote: Also, since he's firing 3 shots and has just the right set of feats, he can do 30-50 hp damage every round at level 5. With no save.
Can you post this characters stats? Agreed - this seems to exceed most other playtests, by a significant margin. It would seem very useful to see how this character has been optimized, because your numbers - if accurate - may in fact indicate a significant problem.
Ben Kent wrote: Hecknoshow wrote: Lostwriter wrote: Also, since he's firing 3 shots and has just the right set of feats, he can do 30-50 hp damage every round at level 5. With no save.
Can you post this characters stats? Agreed - this seems to exceed most other playtests, by a significant margin. It would seem very useful to see how this character has been optimized, because your numbers - if accurate - may in fact indicate a significant problem. Sure thing. I sent him an email to send me his character sheet.
I know he has +6 dex mod, is getting +13 damage to each shot, and is using a pair of revolvers and a shotgun (depending on the situation - he makes his own and another player is an alchemist). If he loads an alchemical charge, it goes up from there. The entangle shot is brutal.
He has deadly aim and a few other feats to up the damage. He took out a level 7 oracle (built using the 20 point build with a touch ac of 18 and 72 hit points) and 5 level 5 bloody skeletons in a few rounds by himself.
The players excel at min/maxing (the gunslinger's total ac is around 32 when buffed). Part of this is my fault as I'm letting two of them work together to make the items, so cost really isn't a limiting factor for the firearms. The party can mow through creatures faster than they spend money.
A cleric, a gunslinger, and an alchemist walked into a dungeon, there were no survivors.
Lostwriter wrote: A cleric, a gunslinger, and an alchemist walked into a dungeon, there were no survivors.
Lol. I hadn't actually taken buffing into account. My players tend towards the frugal with spells. Most sessions see the casters with about half their spells left, and the Fighter grumpy about being "excessively damaged".
How did he get a 22 Dex though? Am I overly suspicious?
Hecknoshow wrote: Lostwriter wrote: A cleric, a gunslinger, and an alchemist walked into a dungeon, there were no survivors.
Lol. I hadn't actually taken buffing into account. My players tend towards the frugal with spells. Most sessions see the casters with about half their spells left, and the Fighter grumpy about being "excessively damaged".
How did he get a 22 Dex though? Am I overly suspicious? +2 dex from an item, +2 dex from race, starting with 18 dex (20 point build) = 22 dex.
Attack = 5 (level 5 BAB) + 6 (Dex) + 1 (Focus) + 1 (Point Blank) + 1 (Size) + 1 (Magic) - 2 (Deadly Aim) = +13 attack
Damage = 1d6 + 6 (Gun Training) + 4 (Deadly Aim) + 1 (Point Blank) +1 (Magic) = 1d6 +12 damage.
Dual wielded revolvers with rapid shot allows 3 such attacks. For anything with a 14 touch or lower, he is just rolling for misfires and fumbles.
Damage is 3d6+36 each round with a reload on the 3rd round. He usually drops his revolvers to pull out the shotgun at this point.
He also used a pair of double-barrel pistols (as a test) for 4d6+48 and then swapped out the shotgun.
They started at level 4 with 6,000gp.
He wants to pay a craftsman to enchant both the revolvers to add Shock and Acid attributes. I'm still stalling. This would add another 1d6 per shot.
You're forgetting his total of -6 to hit when dual-wielding and using Rapid Shot (since Revolvers aren't light). Even if you house-rule them to light, he's still at -4.
So he actually only has a +7 to hit when doing this.
Deadmanwalking wrote: You're forgetting his total of -6 to hit when dual-wielding and using Rapid Shot (since Revolvers aren't light). Even if you house-rule them to light, he's still at -4.
So he actually only has a +7 to hit when doing this.
Good point. Yea, I didn't take that out of the calc above. He did take multi-weapon fighting, so is only at -4 (+9 total) on all attacks.
Advanced firearms will probably disappear for us (and maybe all of the firearms). The ability to apply all that dex to the damage hurts. If it were only applied to the primary weapon that might help.
We all agree that armor penetration is a much easier stat to deal with. We've been doing mock battles with variations.
The current version of what we are testing is an even simpler form from last time.
A Penetration Resistance Bonus (PRB) is granted by armor vs. projectiles resolving as a touch attack (i.e., firearms at close range, etc.).
- Shield (Wood/Iron/Steel): Base 1 PRB
- Shield (Mithral): Base 2 PRB
- Shield (Adamantine): Base 3 PRB
- Light Armor: Base 1 PRB
- Medium Armor: Base 2 PRB
- Heavy Armor: Base 3 PRB
- Mithral Armor: Add +2 PRB to base (Mithral Light Armor would grant +3 PRB)
- Adamantine Armor: Add +3 PRB to base
- Enhancement: +1 PRB for every +1 enhancement bonus to AC
- Natural Armor: +1 PRB for every +2 Natural Armor
- Force Armor (i.e., Mage Armor, Force Shield, Blade Barrier): +1 PRB to every +2 bonus to AC
Only the highest bonus from a single source is used. A dragon with 30 natural armor would get +15 to touch AC vs. firearms. The same dragon wearing adamantine heavy barding, would still only get +15.
EDIT: for math/adjustments
Lostwriter wrote: A Penetration Resistance Bonus (PRB) is granted by armor vs. projectiles resolving as a touch attack (i.e., firearms at close range, etc.).
- Shield (Wood/Iron/Steel): Base 1 PRB
- Shield (Mithral): Base 2 PRB
- Shield (Adamantine): Base 3 PRB
- Light Armor: Base 1 PRB
- Medium Armor: Base 2 PRB
- Heavy Armor: Base 3 PRB
- Mithral Armor: Add +2 PRB to base (Mithral Light Armor would grant +3 PRB)
- Adamantine Armor: Add +3 PRB to base
- Enhancement: +1 PRB for every +1 enhancement bonus to AC
- Natural Armor: +1 PRB for every +2 Natural Armor
- Force Armor (i.e., Mage Armor, Force Shield, Blade Barrier): +1 PRB to every +2 bonus to AC
Only the highest bonus from a single source is used. A dragon with 30 natural armor would get +15 to touch AC vs. firearms. The same dragon wearing adamantine heavy barding, would still only get +15.
EDIT: for math/adjustments
I like this a lot. It does require figuring it out and putting it somewhere on a character sheet, so it's technically another AC number (so now we have AC, Touch AC, Flat-footed AC, and Bullet AC), but it's a simple, usable system that makes sense. I hope this or something like this gets added, at least as an optional rule.
Lostwriter wrote:
Good point. Yea, I didn't take that out of the calc above. He did take multi-weapon fighting, so is only at -4 (+9 total) on all attacks.
Actually, no. -2 from Two Weapon Fighting assumes the use of light weapons, such as daggers or short swords. Revolvers are not defined as such, making what he's doing the mechanical equivalent of using two long swords, so -4 from the Two-weapon Fighting. Now this is a perfectly reasonable thing to House Rule away, but it is a House Rule.
Deadmanwalking wrote: Lostwriter wrote:
Good point. Yea, I didn't take that out of the calc above. He did take multi-weapon fighting, so is only at -4 (+9 total) on all attacks.
Actually, no. -2 from Two Weapon Fighting assumes the use of light weapons, such as daggers or short swords. Revolvers are not defined as such, making what he's doing the mechanical equivalent of using two long swords, so -4 from the Two-weapon Fighting. Now this is a perfectly reasonable thing to House Rule away, but it is a House Rule. Aren't we saying the same thing? -4 (-6 reduced by 2) to primary, -4 (-10 reduced by 6) to off-hand (Table 8-7 on page 202)? Which brings his total to +9 from this base of +13.
Lostwriter wrote:
Aren't we saying the same thing? -4 (-6 reduced by 2) to primary, -4 (-10 reduced by 6) to off-hand (Table 8-7 on page 202)? Which brings his total to +9 from this base of +13.
Apparently yes. In that case you're leaving off the Rapid Shot -2. With the rules as they stand, you don't get three shots a turn at 5th level or less with Revolvers at only a -4, it's a total of -6.
Deadmanwalking wrote: Lostwriter wrote:
Aren't we saying the same thing? -4 (-6 reduced by 2) to primary, -4 (-10 reduced by 6) to off-hand (Table 8-7 on page 202)? Which brings his total to +9 from this base of +13.
Apparently yes. In that case you're leaving off the Rapid Shot -2. With the rules as they stand, you don't get three shots a turn at 5th level or less with Revolvers at only a -4, it's a total of -6. You're right, I wasn't adding that in (he probably was though). Thank you! That's what I get for trying to do PFRPG math and real work at the same time.
All that is complicated.
Why not just give gun a normal attack roll, and give the guns a + to hit.
Pistol +2 to hit
Musket +4 to hit
Revolver +6 to hit
Rifle +8 to hit
.................
Then you just add that +2 to hit, to your normal attack roll.
This would reflex as better change to penetrate armor.
................
Might not be a realistic example of how firearms worked, but then again, this is a game, and i prefer simple or realistic any day. This would solve both the Armor problem and High level large creature problem with Touch attacks.
Oliver McShade wrote: All that is complicated.
Why not just give gun a normal attack roll, and give the guns a + to hit.
Pistol +2 to hit
Musket +4 to hit
Revolver +6 to hit
Rifle +8 to hit
.................
Then you just add that +2 to hit, to your normal attack roll.
This would reflex as better change to penetrate armor.
................
Might not be a realistic example of how firearms worked, but then again, this is a game, and i prefer simple or realistic any day. This would solve both the Armor problem and High level large creature problem with Touch attacks.
I'm much more in favor of this than yet another AC-- personally I count CMD as a form of AC, too. At that point we might as well go 4e D&D and attack your reflex defense!
Oliver McShade wrote: All that is complicated.
Why not just give gun a normal attack roll, and give the guns a + to hit.
Pistol +2 to hit
Musket +4 to hit
Revolver +6 to hit
Rifle +8 to hit
.................
Then you just add that +2 to hit, to your normal attack roll.
This would reflex as better change to penetrate armor.
................
Might not be a realistic example of how firearms worked, but then again, this is a game, and i prefer simple or realistic any day. This would solve both the Armor problem and High level large creature problem with Touch attacks.
A good idea as well. We discussed that too (and increasing base damage in compensation). As many of the discussions show, there is no perfect solution. Yours truly is the easiest to comprehend and use. The method I presented is distillation from a work of art with no playable value (it looked like a rolemaster table).
Recent threads in Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2
|
