Mage Armor Versus Firearms?

[duraiel_ri]

A few friends and I have been piecing together a campaign that involves advanced firearms AND arcane magic, though one of my fellow contributors and I have come to loggerheads on a very specific issue: Firearms resolve as touch-attacks within so many range-increments, effectively making armor bonuses useless against them. Should force-effects, like Mage Armor, provide an exception? Would considerations dictate firearms being powerful enough to bypass ALL armor bonuses, even those provided by force-effects?

I'd like to mention, as an aside, that said fellow contributor seems to have no issue with adamantine armor providing an armor bonus. I can't help but feel that his bias against arcane magic is what's fueling his judgement against Mage-Armor likewise functioning in such a way. If it's powerful enough to punch through Mage-Armor, then should it also be ruled to cause the spell to end early?

[Hendelbolaf]

I have not played around enough with firearms to be able to give a good, play-tested answer as to whether force effects, like Shield and Mage Armor, should apply against firearm ranged touch attacks to hit. I would hope to think that the developers play-tested and feel that it is fine as is. I am, however, the DM of a brand new campaign where one of the characters plans to use a firearm so time will tell on my opinion.

I do not think that in any would should a successful hit by a firearm end the spell early. I am not even sure of the reasoning behind that. Is the gun now a dispel magic weapon as well?

Also, I am not sure what you were talking about but adamantine armor provides a character with DR but does not provide an armor bonus other than the armor bonus provided by the type of armor, such as chain shirt or full plate. There may be some variant rules but that is not how it is normally run in Pathfinder.

[ShadowcatX]

By RAW, firearms bypass all armor, including force effects.

Advanced firearms are bonkers good. If you're going to be using advanced firearms, I'd seriously consider using armor as DR.

[TimrehIX]

If you have advanced fire arms i would say put in "bullet proof" for armor as if it were a special material. For 200g per +1 to the shield or armor bonus the armor bonus also applies to firearms. If fire arms are the primary weapon in your world i would make all AC boosting magic apply to fire arms. If firearms do not come up often the make a metamagic feat for it. At +1 or +0 Caster level.

[Artanthos]

Use alternate defenses.

Reduce person, blur, displacement, cloak of winds.

Protection vs Arrows offers DR10/magic with a duration of 1 hour/level.

Obscuring mist to protect the group melee until they can close range.

At higher level, there are spells that simply shut down ranged attacks.

How many spell slots you dedicate would depend on the frequency of the firearms.

[Hendelbolaf]

Artanthos got me thinking. Would Deflect Arrows be able to deflect a bullet (not the scatter)? It is not on the list of ranged attacks that cannot be deflected.

[Tarantula]

Hendelbolaf wrote:

Artanthos got me thinking. Would Deflect Arrows be able to deflect a bullet (not the scatter)? It is not on the list of ranged attacks that cannot be deflected.

By RAW it works!

[duraiel_ri]

A couple of things: If you read in the Ultimate Combat guide, yes, you can deflect bullets with the deflect arrows feat. You cannot deflect scatter-shot or siege-style shots, FYI.

Additionally, the reason I suggested the idea that a gunshot would end the mage-armor spell is because in all the other examples I've seen force effects played out (such as wall of force and forcecage), you can't "punch holes" in a force-effect. It either absorbs the attack (possibly taking an abstract amount of damage, as per pathfinder's hardness and hp rules for wall of force and forcecage) or is destroyed if it's already taken significant damage.

Additionally, I'm not asking about how I can protect myself against firearms with magic, I'm merely asking, as a DM, if armor made from a force-effect can be ruled to grant its armor bonus against firearms?

...Look, I must be wording this wrong, so let me make this clear: This isn't fundamentally a balance-question. I'm not asking ways to make firearms and magic fair and on equal-footing. What I'm asking, basically, is whether firearms should trump all armor bonuses and function universally as a touch-attack, or if there are some armor materials (adamantine and force effects, for example) that might conceivably be considered strong enough to grant armor bonuses against firearms?

[Hendelbolaf]

It would be cool to see a monk use Snatch Arrows to actually snatch the bullet out of the air.

[Tarantula]

duraiel_ri wrote:

This isn't fundamentally a balance-question. I'm not asking ways to make firearms and magic fair and on equal-footing. What I'm asking, basically, is whether firearms should trump all armor bonuses and function universally as a touch-attack, or if there are some armor materials (adamantine and force effects, for example) that might conceivably be considered strong enough to grant armor bonuses against firearms?

RAW they do not grant armor bonus to firearm touch attacks.

By not asking for RAW, you are asking a balance-question. You are asking if it is a good idea to house rule that adamantine or force effects should grant armor to firearm attacks. The answer is, if you want to. Try it, let us know how it worked, then either keep it or get rid of it from your game.

[Artanthos]

duraiel_ri wrote:

Additionally, the reason I suggested the idea that a gunshot would end the mage-armor spell is because in all the other examples I've seen force effects played out (such as wall of force and forcecage), you can't "punch holes" in a force-effect. It either absorbs the attack (possibly taking an abstract amount of damage, as per pathfinder's hardness and hp rules for wall of force and forcecage) or is destroyed if it's already taken significant damage.

Mage armor does not take damage. While most touch attacks ignore it, mage armor remains in effect.

[duraiel_ri]

It seemed a natural extension of the idea that certain materials were heavy enough to bode exception, so I guess the question really does boil down to whether guns penetrate armor, regardless its composition, or not... I suppose it would just come down to playtesting... Oh, well. Anyway, if anybody is curious, here's the section from the book, word-for-word, for future use.

Ultimate Combat, Pg. 136-

"Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack
resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is
within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type
of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes
of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range
increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking
the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range
increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms
have a maximum range of five range increments.
Advanced Firearms: Advanced firearms resolve their
attacks against touch AC when the target is within the
first five range increments, but this type of attack is not
considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats such as
Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves
normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2
penalty for each full-range increment. Advanced firearms
have a maximum range of 10 range increments."

[Hendelbolaf]

duraiel_ri wrote:

A couple of things: If you read in the Ultimate Combat guide, yes, you can deflect bullets with the deflect arrows feat. You cannot deflect scatter-shot or siege-style shots, FYI.

Additionally, the reason I suggested the idea that a gunshot would end the mage-armor spell is because in all the other examples I've seen force effects played out (such as wall of force and forcecage), you can't "punch holes" in a force-effect. It either absorbs the attack (possibly taking an abstract amount of damage, as per pathfinder's hardness and hp rules for wall of force and forcecage) or is destroyed if it's already taken significant damage.

Additionally, I'm not asking about how I can protect myself against firearms with magic, I'm merely asking, as a DM, if armor made from a force-effect can be ruled to grant its armor bonus against firearms?

...Look, I must be wording this wrong, so let me make this clear: This isn't fundamentally a balance-question. I'm not asking ways to make firearms and magic fair and on equal-footing. What I'm asking, basically, is whether firearms should trump all armor bonuses and function universally as a touch-attack, or if there are some armor materials (adamantine and force effects, for example) that might conceivably be considered strong enough to grant armor bonuses against firearms?

We understand you clearly and the answer is as long as you are within the first range increment on early firearms and five range increments on advanced firearms, mage armor does NOTHING to help the defender as it does not apply to their touch AC. I think, however, that you know this and you just want somebody to say "I think you are right and if I were the DM I would let it apply." You can do that in your game as a houserule, but this is the "rules questions" sub-forum and all we can do is state what the rules are or what they are not.

If you want to know if people agree with you, then I would suggest the homebrew or advice sub-forums. Otherwise, you will be frustrated as we keep saying the same thing regarding the rules.

#1 Mage Armor does not affect touch AC so it has no effect for firearms that are making ranged touch attacks.

#2 Firearms should in no way dispel the Mage Armor or other spell effects.

#3 Adamantine and other materials do not normally affect touch AC so they are not part of the conversation other than the DR granted by adamantine would reduce the firearm damage.

Also, I am not sure what you are referencing but only 2 spells can affect a Wall of Force or a Forcecage and no physical damage can. Those spells are Mage's Disjunction and Disintegrate. So I think your question has been answered as far as the rules accuracy portion of it is concerned. For the homebrew portion I would say that I just don't know, try it out and see if you like it.

[Snapshot]

Hendelbolaf wrote:

Also, I am not sure what you are referencing but only 2 spells can affect a Wall of Force or a Forcecage and no physical damage can. Those spells are Mage's Disjunction and Disintegrate.

You need to update you knowledge of wall of Force and Force Cage to pathfinder.

Wall of Force
Forcecage

[Hendelbolaf]

I stand corrected. The funny thing is that I double checked the PRD right before I posted. I guess I need to keep reading the next line down.

[Astellanax]

I think I may have found the answer under the common terms section:
Bonus (Armor)

An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with natural armor bonuses) except other armor bonuses. An armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks, except for armor bonuses granted by force effects (such as the mage armor spell) which apply against incorporeal touch attacks, such as that of a shadow.

[jerrys]

this has nothing to do with pathfinder firearms rules, ... but in a sort of steampunk victorian 3E D&D we played a couple of years ago, i think the rule we came up with was that firearms ignored up to 4 points of armor-based AC. Force armor still worked, though. We didn't have adamantine, but there was an order of crazy fighters who trained with extra-heavy plate that was more bullet resistant. I think those guys all had 20 strength or something, though - they were pretty a$%~!@!.

[Zachrid]

Of course a lot of ways to dodge a bullet in the RAW....

...but if you want to have more than just a few encounters in your campaign, you will need to come up with something new at some point. Also I assume, that you don't want to build every encounter around the fact, that some one wielding an advanced firearm has an fairly easy job to hit his enemies.

Just assume that there are some types of armor that were specifically made to protect the wearer from bullets, so their armor bonus also applies for bullets. Assume that the price to create an Amulets of Bullet Protection is a lot cheaper, because people developed techniques to create them faster and cheaper. Assume that most of the constructs are so heavily armored that you can't hit them on touch with a gun.

[Knight Magenta]

Don't try to bring realism into PF gun rules. It already does not make sense that guns pierce metal armour, because early firearms in real life could never do that. Just accept that guns in PF are some kind of magic and move on. You will be happier if you ignore it :)

[Kazaan]

Astellanax wrote:

I think I may have found the answer under the common terms section:

Bonus (Armor)

An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with natural armor bonuses) except other armor bonuses. An armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks, except for armor bonuses granted by force effects (such as the mage armor spell) which apply against incorporeal touch attacks, such as that of a shadow.

Firearm attacks are not incorporeal touch attacks.

Force-based armor is going to protect you in the same manner that tangible armor will; it has a chance to deflect the attack away from your soft, squishy parts. Even with Mage Armor/Bracers of Armor, you can still be hit if they beat your AC; even a normal sword can get through the force-effect if they roll attack high enough. So it stands to reason that a bullet traveling at high speed will only be negligibly affected within the "target Touch AC" range.