Fortification vs Gunslinger Targeting

[DarkGod]

I am DMing a high-power campaign with several house rules designed to increase the power level of both PCs and important NPC villains and allies. One of my players is playing a gunslinger. Some of my custom undead champions are equipped with greatswords and medium fortification armour as standard. The gunslinger PC likes to use the Targeting deed to disarm obviously martial foes. I currently rule that the undead champions can roll their 50% fortification chance against the targeting effect, as it protects against sneak attacks, and Targeting does not work against targets immune to sneak attacks. My player is vehemently arguing that the undead champions must have complete immunity to sneak attacks before they get any sort of protection from his gunslinger's Targeting deed, and thus the fortification of their armour offers no protection.

For ease of reference, here is how the fortification and Targeting deed are worded:

Quote:

This suit of armor or shield produces a magical force that protects vital areas of the wearer more effectively. When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally. The chance is 25% for light fortification, 50% for moderate fortification, and 75% for heavy fortification.

Quote:

Targeting (Ex): At 7th level, as a full-round action, the gunslinger can make a single firearm attack and choose part of the body to target. She gains the following effects depending on the part of the body targeted. If a creature does not have one of the listed body locations, that part cannot be targeted. This deed costs 1 grit point to perform no matter which part of the creature she targets. Creatures that are immune to sneak attacks are immune to these effects.

This has been causing a lot of problems both on and off the table, as the player with the gunslinger PC is also the only player that does not accept my ruling. My only hope of resolving this issue one way or the other is to gain a consensus from more experienced players and DMs, so here is the question:

Does the Fortification special property protect against the Targeting gunslinger deed as though it was a sneak attack?

[Jiggy]

As written? No, it doesn't prevent targeting. It's a simple "if/then" situation: If a creature is immune to sneak attacks, then it is immune to targeting.

A creature with fortification is not immune to sneak attacks. Therefore, it fails to satisfy the "if" condition, and we therefore do not apply the "then" effect.

That's the rules answer.

As for your situation, you can of course houserule as you like in your home games (and thematically, your houserule does make sense; I like it). The important question, then, is this:

In what way is my houserule increasing the table's fun?

If you have a good answer for that, then explain it to the player. He's probably feeling picked on, since a houserule was invented whose only effect is to make him, and only him, weaker. But if you can explain the benefit of the houserule, he'll probably feel better.
Alternatively, if the rule is not increasing the table's fun, then you should probably drop it and let him enjoy all his class features just like everyone else gets to.

[Claxon]

I don't see houserules really involved that much here. It's a question of how do you rule on this specific interation of two things that are not (commonly?) encountered.

I would say a 50% chance (per medium fortication) against the attack is fair. It has a 50% chance that it doesn't work, as though the attack were a sneak attack which had a result of dealing something other than damage.

You could also pose a similar question of how would this work against someone with Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge since they can't be flanked and are effectively immune to sneak attack unless attacked by a rogue 4 levels higher than they are?

Also, I would say your martial undead (if sentient) and prepared so far as to have fortification armor then they would probably use weapon cords. The cost like 2sp, and I would never make a character with a weapon that didn't have one. Heck, even mordern bows have one Martial characters shouldn't be dumb and would take procautions against being disarmed when its as simple as a 2sp piece of cloth.

[fretgod99]

It has a 50% chance to be "immune" to that particular sneak attack, so I think your interpretation makes perfect sense. That's how I'd adjudicate it, absent a clearer directive from developers.

[Jiggy]

Claxon wrote:

I don't see houserules really involved that much here. It's a question of how do you rule on this specific interation of two things that are not (commonly?) encountered.

What does the frequency/rarity of an interaction have to do with whether something is a houserule?

Quote:

I would say a 50% chance (per medium fortication) against the attack is fair.

I totally agree that it's fair and makes sense, it's just not the way the published ruleset works. Something doesn't have to be unfair or arbitrary to be a houserule. Being a houserule isn't bad.

Paizo published some rules. Anything that is stated in published text is a published rule, and everything else (including some very fair and good things!) is a houserule. The term "houserule" is not some kind of derogatory label against which you need to defend your ideas. I would be very leery of a GM with no houserules in their home game.

[Claxon]

Jiggy wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I don't see houserules really involved that much here. It's a question of how do you rule on this specific interation of two things that are not (commonly?) encountered.

What does the frequency/rarity of an interaction have to do with whether something is a houserule?

Quote:

I would say a 50% chance (per medium fortication) against the attack is fair.

I totally agree that it's fair and makes sense, it's just not the way the published ruleset works. Something doesn't have to be unfair or arbitrary to be a houserule. Being a houserule isn't bad.

Paizo published some rules. Anything that is stated in published text is a published rule, and everything else (including some very fair and good things!) is a houserule. The term "houserule" is not some kind of derogatory label against which you need to defend your ideas. I would be very leery of a GM with no houserules in their home game.

I think where I got confused was because I only saw one house rule (fortification provided its bonus against Targetting because of similarity to Sneak Attack) and people saying multiple house rules. So I just wanted to make sure I was missing multiple house rules that would complicate the situation.

I think mostly it was a PEBKAC.

[DarkGod]

To clarify, the game uses the following house rules:

35pts in point buy for stat generation (considered a house rule since the official cap is 25pts).

Two traits at character generations + one trait per 5 levels. The campaign started at level 12, meaning 4 traits per character.

A 'sub-class' bolt-on similar to Final Fantasy 11's sub-class system (for example, the 12th-level gunslinger also has the class features and weapon/armour proficiencies of a 6th-level fighter).

Much of the content in the 3.5 Epic Handbook (though the campaign has not yet entered epic level, so this particular 'house rule' is not yet in force), and additional spells from the 3.5 books, converted as necessary as per the 3.5 conversion guidelines.

My undead champions (known as Revenants) are fully sentient, but both dual-minded and mentally unhinged by their traumatic creation method. Their gear is not designed to counter the gunslinger PC, but rather to enforce the theme of a dangerously powerful melee combatant by making them resistant to increased damage from special attacks. This argument is simply a clash of interpretations - as a DM, I interpret it simply that fortification, which specifically protects against sneak attacks, should also protect against an attack that fails to work specifically against sneak-attack-immune creatures. My two other players also agree with this ruling, however the ruling does not affect their PCs, a deliciously overpowered jousting cavalier(fighter) and a crit-build fighter/paladin(oracle), so I am hesitant to strictly enforce my interpretation by majority. Thus far we have been treating fortification to protect against the gunslinger PC's targeting, yet this ruling still rankles the player it concerns despite the fact that he has been reassured that I am not specifically targeting him - hence my outreach here. The player has graciously backed down to allow the game to continue, but as a DM I prefer my games to be fun for all, and a large number of my houserules are designed specifically to bring that feeling of stupendous power to my players' fingertips.

Though the Revenants themselves don't particularly have the presence of mind to employ a weapon cord, the 18th-level lich necromancer genius with Int 40 that is creating and gearing them probably should have thought of that, so thanks!

[Claxon]

Also, for what it's worth, locked gauntlets.

[Kazaan]

The key is in the nature of Fortification. It doesn't give a "chance to be immune to sneak attacks". It gives a "chance to negate a sneak attack". So, outright, Negating the sneak attack isn't the same as Immune to it. Targeting itself isn't a sneak attack; it's targeting is merely contingent on sneak attack vulnerability. A creature with Fortification is still vulnerable to sneak attack, therefore it is vulnerable to Targeting. I'd say that's the best way to rule it. If you want cinematic flair, he's spending a full-round action to line up his sights; that can include compensating for a magical force barrier and it just means that the target opening is smaller, not absent.

[DarkGod]

My current ruling is that the 50% chance comes into effect. If the d% comes up 51-00, then the fortification fails and the weapon flies from the revenant's hand, just as it would normally. If it comes up 01-50, then the fortification effect prevents the targeting effect from functioning because the targeting effect fails whenever a sneak attack would fail. This is now a house rule in my game that applies both to my revenants and to the PCs themselves, and the player playing the gunslinger PC has graciously chosen to accept my ruling for that game. In the absence of an official ruling, this has become an interesting little debate between games, and I'd be interested in getting as many different views as possible.

By your logic, Kazaan, I could argue that a creature with fortification should have a percentile chance of being protected against targeting just as it is against sneak attacks, as targeting is contingent on sneak attack vulnerability. This immune/negation wording is exactly where my player and I are butting heads: exactly how is negation (an active or passive prevention of an attack form at a single given time) different from immunity (a blanket prevention of an attack from from working at all given times) for the purpose of whether sneak attack properties should be applied to gunslinger targeting?

Having looked through the rules, I can see that there are many other attack forms that fail to function against immunity to critical hits or sneak attacks that my ruling could apply the fortification chance to, including Stunning Fist, the critical effects of burst-type weapon special properties such as flaming burst, and the thundering weapon special property. I'd be interested in seeing how people determine exactly how each of these effects interacts with the fortification special property, as each one has a subtly different wording ('...and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be stunned', 'deals an extra 1d10 points of fire damage on a successful critical hit', etc.)

[Jiggy]

If my enemy fails his critical confirmation roll, does he treat me as "immune" to crits for that attack? No. What if he succeeds but I use a forced re-roll ability to un-confirm it? Nope, I'm still not "immune" to crits, I just caused that one to not happen. Fortification doesn't make you "immune" either, even on a successful d% check; it just negates an individual crit.

If something happens unless I'm immune to crits, fortification doesn't change a thing. If instead something only occurs when I actually get critted, then preventing/negating the crit does factor in.

It's a simple matter of "the rules mean what they say". We have a whole other forum for "I'd like it to work differently than the rules say because it's thematically appropriate and also pretty cool".

[Reecy]

OK So the Consensus after reading everyone's posts here...

This suit of armor or shield produces a magical force that protects vital areas of the wearer more effectively. When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally. The chance is 25% for light fortification, 50% for moderate fortification, and 75% for heavy fortification.

So basically

Targeting gets a Miss Chance. That is really what it is saying here.

25% Light
50% Medium
75% for Heavy

[Claxon]

On the opposite end, you could just ignore the whole thing and tell your player they all have weapon cords. And seriously, every melee worth their salt has a 2sp weapon cord.

Either that or you should start building creatures that use disarm tactics against your players. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.