| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How cheesy is it for a GM to give a monster a feat or special ability that makes their natural armor bonus count as a deflection bonus for the purposes of defending against firearm attacks?
Say, an ancient dragon?
What should a DM say when a monster like this is encountered and the gunslinger player begins howling about how his +1 Distance shotgun should be blowing right through the dragon's hide? "There may be things going on here that you don't know about"?
I can understand the point about it being kind of lame to tailor encounters around party configuration, but it would seem that in a world with firearms in it dragons would quickly go extinct unless they DID tend to take a "bulletproof skin" feat.
Tailoring encounters around party configuration is exactly what a DM should do.
If it helps the fun of your players to challenge up encounters this way, go for it.
If it helps, I present you this houserule I created for our one or two times we actually had a gunslinger at the table:
Instead of targeting touch AC in the first range increment, a gunslinger can ignore up to 1 point of armor bonus or natural armor (in any combination) per point of wisdom modifier, but only within the first range increment.
Cheesy?
It's clear from your post you have a problem with a gunslinger who is over-damaging in your combat encounters. Perhaps you should talk to your player and ask him to reduce his damage output.
Personally I don't allow the touch AC mechanic of guns in my world. I would instead allow them to target flat-footed AC. But!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you impose this after the player has already been playing they're going to feel cheated. So, there isn't a particularly good solution to your problem.
No, no, it is certainly a fairly valid move, allowing you to challenge the gunslinger without simply throwing out a monster with a high enough CR that you risk TPK.
I wouldn't exactly just randomly surprise the player, especially on such a staple creature. I would possibly throw it on a golem that has metal armoring which has bizarre angling on it (somewhat reminiscent of modern armored vehicles, like tanks). Putting an emphasis on those details might help the gunslinger realize your intent, instead of simply calling HAXXORZ. Also, do not make all the armor deflection, so that the gunslinger does not entirely feel cheated. Just throw enough in there that they have to carefully consider throwing all those usual penalties to get more shots.
Dodge bonuses and insight bonuses also seem like they might be effective too, and they certainly would fit well with the flavor (bullet time!). When you start parading in guys in trench coats and sunglasses with red potions and blue potions on them, I think that the player might start getting the message.
Anyway, don't ancient dragon's have usually have DR? I would imagine that could easily prevent them from simply being taken out by a small militia (even with muskets, they can't get past DR10/magic most of the time). It would probably represent a state of being 'bullet proof' usually. Enough so at least that they could only be hunted by highly trained specialists (hint hint) rather than every John and Jim wanting something to go over his mantleplace. A house rule doubling DR against bullets (but still allowing the normal methods to cancel it out, so again, you are being fair and still providing a good reason for why they need to hire well armed adventurers in the first place) could give even more room for their continued existence, even when they are just barely old enough to tear out throats.
Looking back at history you will see that when guns became common is exactly when the legends of dragons and such started to die off. It is also when a lot of normal animals started to become a lot less of a threat to humans. A lot of people are of the opinion that guns are unrealistically overpowered, and need to be toned down. For the most part if you are not a gunslinger guns are not that good. If you are a gunslinger they become a lot more deadly. Honestly I think this is fairly accurate and makes a lot of sense. In the hands of someone trained they are devastating which is why they eventually replaced all other weapons.
This is the reason I do not allow guns in my game. That being said I think it is a bad move to nerf something mid campaign. Changing the rules in the middle of a campaign without informing the player beforehand is a really low class move.
I can see magical means of protection against guns being developed. If the dragon has a spell that allows him to apply his natural armor vs guns that is a different story.
I like to apply the simple "What if it happened to me" metric to gauge this. If you were playing a gunslinger, and suddenly the major enemy you were about to fight happened to have core-ability defeating shennanigans, how would you feel?
prototype00
This exists in WotR...
I could see it as a spell or feat for this guy, but I don't feel it's over powered.
There was a spell in the 3.5 Draconimicon, I believe, that allowed dragons to change their natural armor bonus for a deflection bonus.
Plus the dragon should be using displacement and mirror image effects
And mage armor and shield, etc, etc.
I once had a dragon do this to a gunslinger, then crush him and pin him (and the party wizard) to the ground. Was scary for them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to apply the simple "What if it happened to me" metric to gauge this.
Bow archer: If a dragon's touch AC went up? I guess I'd just keep shooting till it died.
Crossbow archer: If a dragon's touch AC went up? I guess I'd just keep shooting till it died.
Dagger thrower: If a dragon's touch AC went up? I guess I'd just keep throwing till it died.
You mean like that? The ideal solution would be fixing the gun rules themselves, but the OP's idea is better than nothing. I do feel bad for the Alchemists of the world, who can't full attack touch AC till mid levels, don't get to Deadly Aim it, and only get so many bombs per day. Oh well...
A house rule you might consider would be limiting the armor and natural armor piercing capability of guns to their maximum base damage. This would let muskets shoot right through any non-magical armor and most natural armor too, but it would increase a CR16 ancient black dragon's effective AC against your Gunslinger from 8 to 34 (assuming Mage Armor is cast and the Gunslinger is using the 1d8 shotgun as you indicated).
I'm thinking that house rules which reduce his advantage rather than taking it away completely might be more palatable, and other players might tell him that they'd love to have a +8 to hit the dragon. Actually, talking to the other players might be a good idea too. If they feel the Gunslinger is too powerful and marginalizes their PCs they might be willing to give you some support on toning it down. If they think the Gunslinger is just fine and you're just trying to rip the group off maybe it would be better to leave the house rules for a future campaign.
@Odraude - The Mage Armor and Shield spells don't help against firearms making touch attacks. Another house rule I'd considered was allowing magical bonuses to AC such as those and the enhancement bonus on armor to count towards touch or at least gun touch AC. I felt that it didn't do much to help big monsters like dragons though.
I Houserule that Force Effects work on firearms. That just makes sense to me.
As far as your ability ... make it a spell he researched.
A house rule you might consider would be limiting the armor and natural armor piercing capability of guns to their maximum base damage. This would let muskets shoot right through any non-magical armor and most natural armor too, but it would increase a CR16 ancient black dragon's effective AC against your Gunslinger from 8 to 34 (assuming Mage Armor is cast and the Gunslinger is using the 1d8 shotgun as you indicated).
I'm thinking that house rules which reduce his advantage rather than taking it away completely might be more palatable, and other players might tell him that they'd love to have a +8 to hit the dragon. Actually, talking to the other players might be a good idea too. If they feel the Gunslinger is too powerful and marginalizes their PCs they might be willing to give you some support on toning it down. If they think the Gunslinger is just fine and you're just trying to rip the group off maybe it would be better to leave the house rules for a future campaign.
@Odraude - The Mage Armor and Shield spells don't help against firearms making touch attacks. Another house rule I'd considered was allowing magical bonuses to AC such as those and the enhancement bonus on armor to count towards touch or at least gun touch AC. I felt that it didn't do much to help big monsters like dragons though.
You're right. I had misread the spells. Sok, since it really didn't change the fight since the dragon went first and just landed on them.
Looking back at history you will see that when guns became common is exactly when the legends of dragons and such started to die off. It is also when a lot of normal animals started to become a lot less of a threat to humans. A lot of people are of the opinion that guns are unrealistically overpowered, and need to be toned down. For the most part if you are not a gunslinger guns are not that good. If you are a gunslinger they become a lot more deadly. Honestly I think this is fairly accurate and makes a lot of sense. In the hands of someone trained they are devastating which is why they eventually replaced all other weapons.
This is the reason I do not allow guns in my game. That being said I think it is a bad move to nerf something mid campaign. Changing the rules in the middle of a campaign without informing the player beforehand is a really low class move.
I can see magical means of protection against guns being developed. If the dragon has a spell that allows him to apply his natural armor vs guns that is a different story.
Well, at the time, guns were fair poor. Sure, cannons could be effective siege weapons, but over all, a crossbow was a better choice.
In fact, if you are going to pick a ranged weapon as the cause of the end of the 'chivalrous age', crossbows such as the arbalest would be the reason. While they were slower and less accurate than bows, they hit harder and needed less training to use (it takes years to learn how to effectively use a longbow). This meant that it would be relatively easy to take some random farmers and turn them into
As crossbows designs allowed for effective manufacture and armor piercing, it became much harder to be the guy running around in heavy platemail on a horse. When combined with a formation of pikemen for defense (mounted charges aren't that effective when you run into 10 foot pointed spears), they became a staple of late medieval and Renaissance warfare. It is a bit sad really that crossbows are so weak in this system (although, admittedly, their very advantages made them much more of a 'common man's weapon' and...well...that isn't very good for a game based around the idea of big damn heroes; same problem with spears, which are so effective in real life, but do not have that Errol Flynning mystique of swords).
Also, completely unrelated, but during my research for this, I found out that Medieval beekeepers had to commonly fight off bears during their work. I think I know what profession my next ranger is going to take.
Tailoring encounters around party configuration is exactly what a DM should do.
I disagree. I would find it obnoxious if I designed a character around, say, inducing fear in my enemies, and every encounter the party had involved opponents who were immune to fear.
If the "fearamancer" were overpowered, I would rather the DM just say so and deal with it directly than start gearing every encounter around neutering what I could do because it was too powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I would find it obnoxious if I designed a character around, say, inducing fear in my enemies, and every encounter the party had involved opponents who were immune to fear.Tailoring encounters around party configuration is exactly what a DM should do.
Which is not what tailoring encounters around party configuration means at all.
Which is not what tailoring encounters around party configuration means at all.I disagree. I would find it obnoxious if I designed a character around, say, inducing fear in my enemies, and every encounter the party had involved opponents who were immune to fear.Tailoring encounters around party configuration is exactly what a DM should do.
Things like this is why I suggested only converting some of the natural armor. Tweak it enough that it remains challenging, without invalidating people's builds.
Looking back at history you will see that when guns became common is exactly when the legends of dragons and such started to die off. It is also when a lot of normal animals started to become a lot less of a threat to humans. A lot of people are of the opinion that guns are unrealistically overpowered, and need to be toned down. For the most part if you are not a gunslinger guns are not that good. If you are a gunslinger they become a lot more deadly. Honestly I think this is fairly accurate and makes a lot of sense. In the hands of someone trained they are devastating which is why they eventually replaced all other weapons.
This is the reason I do not allow guns in my game. That being said I think it is a bad move to nerf something mid campaign. Changing the rules in the middle of a campaign without informing the player beforehand is a really low class move.
I can see magical means of protection against guns being developed. If the dragon has a spell that allows him to apply his natural armor vs guns that is a different story.
1. Dragons weren't real in the real world, and I think you may be confusing correlation with causality here.
2. Agreed about guns being more deadly in the hands of a gunslinger -- although I wonder what a fighter dedicated to firearms could do (but it's the same principle so yeah).
3. I generally agree about it being poor form to "nerf" something mid campaign, but I also think that's a dangerous guideline to refuse to deviate from. It encourages a certain sort of player to spring "gotchas" on the DM, which isn't cool either.
4. The spell "Scintillating Scales" existed in 3.5 (as has already been mentioned), and its most recent incarnation would be more powerful than having hide that was merely bulletproof. Although in a world with guns, the spell becomes SO important for dragons to have that any who were capable of learning it would probably do so -- and at that point, it might make sense for DMs to just give all dragons the "bulletproof skin" extraordinary ability, at least once they reach a certain age.
This exists in WotR...
** spoiler omitted **
Thank you, I actually posted this because I had read about that elsewhere. So it seems that even the good folks at Paizo are aware of the trouble that gunslingers bring to a campaign.
Enforce reloading works for me. Honestly I have never seen a really OP gunslinger.
There are SO many ways around the problem of reloading... I won't repeat them all here, but you might want to do a quick search if you're curious.
Which is not what tailoring encounters around party configuration means at all.I disagree. I would find it obnoxious if I designed a character around, say, inducing fear in my enemies, and every encounter the party had involved opponents who were immune to fear.Tailoring encounters around party configuration is exactly what a DM should do.
There's more than one way to tailor an encounter to your party. It really boils down to whether the GM is building encounters that should be fun and challenging for the party (the good kind of tailoring) or trying to counter all of their abilities and "win" the game (The bad kind of tailoring). Both types of tailoring happen.
After consideration it seems to me that a better solution would be to fix the problem with the gunslinger "touch AC" mechanics. I like these two ideas:
A. Force effects will protect against bullets normally
B. Instead of ignoring Armor, bullets should ignore Dex and Dodge bonuses to AC (except for maybe a very few creatures who you could justify being able to dodge bullets, such as quicklings)
Armor WILL stop bullets (for example, the civil war era musket ball found embedded in the shell of an alligator snapping turtle). I know IRL it is more complex than that, with armor piercing bullets being a real thing but doing less damage when they actually hit (and caliber being a real thing that also factors in, etc) but this being a game a certain amount of KISS should apply.
So, force effects ALWAYS protect against bullets, Dex and Dodge bonuses NEVER protect against bullets (regardless of range), and Armor always protects against bullets.
I could even see allowing bullets to penetrate armor at point blank range (ie adjacent to the target). Yeah, I could live with that. The gunslinger loses as little, gains a little, and if he REALLY wants to go toe to toe with an ancient dragon he's welcome to it (of course he'd have the ability to avoid AoOs when shooting at an adjacent target by then, I'd imagine).
Would this make the gunslinger a terrible class that no one would want to play? A character that the rogue would be glad to have around so he wouldn't feel so lame? Or does it sound like a decent set of houserule?
After consideration it seems to me that a better solution would be to fix the problem with the gunslinger "touch AC" mechanics. I like these two ideas:
A. Force effects will protect against bullets normally
B. Instead of ignoring Armor, bullets should ignore Dex and Dodge bonuses to AC (except for maybe a very few creatures who you could justify being able to dodge bullets, such as quicklings)
Armor WILL stop bullets (for example, the civil war era musket ball found embedded in the shell of an alligator snapping turtle). I know IRL it is more complex than that, with armor piercing bullets being a real thing but doing less damage when they actually hit (and caliber being a real thing that also factors in, etc) but this being a game a certain amount of KISS should apply.
So, force effects ALWAYS protect against bullets, Dex and Dodge bonuses NEVER protect against bullets (regardless of range), and Armor always protects against bullets.
I could even see allowing bullets to penetrate armor at point blank range (ie adjacent to the target). Yeah, I could live with that. The gunslinger loses as little, gains a little, and if he REALLY wants to go toe to toe with an ancient dragon he's welcome to it (of course he'd have the ability to avoid AoOs when shooting at an adjacent target by then, I'd imagine).
Would this make the gunslinger a terrible class that no one would want to play? A character that the rogue would be glad to have around so he wouldn't feel so lame? Or does it sound like a decent set of houserule?
Well, armor piercing was a serious issue, due mainly to the fact that it could only pierce once, and could not properly exit. Essentially, the bullet would bounce off the backplate, going back into your squishy, squishy insides. It is why no one wears traditional steel armor anymore.
Plus, I would say that being able to dodge seems like a much better solution than merely tanking when it comes to guns. How well you could actually do that in this system, where the general expectation is that everyone will stand in the middle of an empty field/small room and just stand there wailing on eachother instead of looking for cover, is of course debatable. So overall, I can't say much on that issue, since I am not really that much of an expert on game design.
Anyway, if you want to enforce your point blank thing, then you really should remove the AoO for using ranged attacks. I mean, it would just be vindictive to expect the lightly armored person, even if they had d10's, to do that.
I personally just think the originally suggested conversion of some of the natural armor to deflection might be best, since you can decide how much of their AC should be put into it. Force effects also seem valid, and certainly a tactic that an intelligent, magical creature like a dragon would look into to.
Overall, the kind of damage a gunslinger does per shot is not that radically different from a normal archer with a composite bow (sure, they are a bit less MAD since it doesn't use Strength, but is it really that alien?), and part of the problem with gunslingers comes from the fact that they take an already powerful style, archery, and gain a benefit that pays off a lot much later in return for a lot of trouble early on. The fact that they hit so easily (which, as a full BAB class at high levels, is not surprising even without guns) allows them to throw all the penalties they can just to get more shots and damage. Tweaking things enough that they have to go through the same debates that normal archers go through should generally suffice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Dragons weren't real in the real world, and I think you may be confusing correlation with causality here.
I realize dragons were not real. My point was that when guns came on the scene the world started to change. Prior to guns wolves for example were a lot more terrifying and seemed more supernatural. Once guns became common man became the most efficient predator and began to fear the world less. People stopped believing in the old ways and looked for rational explanations for what superstition had explained. This in turn led to more scientific discoveries which reduced superstition even more. Ultimately this is a good thing, but at times we all miss the idea that magic is real.
Obviously, all dragons just need to learn the Deflect Arrows feat. Since touch AC is so realistic, I figure that's realistic, too.
I realize dragons were not real. My point was that when guns came on the scene the world started to change. Prior to guns wolves for example were a lot more terrifying and seemed more supernatural. Once guns became common man became the most efficient predator and began to fear the world less. People stopped believing in the old ways and looked for rational explanations for what superstition had explained. This in turn led to more scientific discoveries which reduced superstition even more. Ultimately this is a good thing, but at times we all miss the idea that magic is real.
1. Dragons weren't real in the real world, and I think you may be confusing correlation with causality here.
Again, I think you may be confusing correlation with causality. IOW, there may be reasons besides the invention of firearms that these things happened.
Well, armor piercing was a serious issue, due mainly to the fact that it could only pierce once, and could not properly exit. Essentially, the bullet would bounce off the backplate, going back into your squishy, squishy insides. It is why no one wears traditional steel armor anymore.
Maybe, but I doubt this would be a problem with a dragon or other creature's hide. Moreover, some bullets WOULD be stopped by plate mail, as I said. This is a game and we aren't really trying to make it COMPLETELY realistic.
One problem is that some people have a pretty good working knowledge of how firearms work in the real world and will insist on bringing that knowledge into Pathfinder. Fewer people will dismiss the melee rules for, say, longswords as "ridiculous" because of their obscure knowledge of ancient Thracian blades and how they REALLY worked against the armor of the time.
Plus, I would say that being able to dodge seems like a much better solution than merely tanking when it comes to guns. How well you could actually do that in this system,where the general expectation is that everyone will stand in the middle of an empty field/small room and just stand there wailing on each other instead of looking for cover, is of course debatable. So overall, I can't say much on that issue, since I am not really that much of an expert on game design.
I would submit that no one "dodges" bullets. They might use evasive maneuvers to make themselves harder to hit, or dive for cover, but those aren't really the same thing.
Maybe a quickling could dodge bullets, as I said, but a human? I don't think so.
Anyway, if you want to enforce your point blank thing, then you really should remove the AoO for using ranged attacks. I mean, it would just be vindictive to expect the lightly armored person, even if they had d10's, to do that.
I would expect the gunslingers who wanted to capitalize on this ability to sprint for the ability to avoid the AoO that are usually suffered from making ranged attacks. I don't remember the feat chain or ability, but it already exists in-game.
I personally just think the originally suggested conversion of some of the natural armor to deflection might be best, since you can decide how much of their AC should be put into it. Force effects also seem valid, and certainly a tactic that an intelligent, magical creature like a dragon would look into to.
I could also see just saying that all dragons just have bulletproof hide as a special ability that quite possibly would have been given if gunslingers had been around when the original PF books came out.
What this conversation shows is that in a post gunslinger world, dragons are reduced to sniveling little skulkers who had better make sure to devote a significant percentage of their resources to partly countering the massive advantage that gunslingers will have over them if they want to have a chance at surviving. In such a world, even a party WITHOUT a gunslinger will benefit because the dragon will have prepped to deal with any gunslingers who might be out there, thus having less ability to optimize against a traditional party.
Overall, the kind of damage a gunslinger does per shot is not that radically different from a normal archer with a composite bow (sure, they are a bit less MAD since it doesn't use Strength, but is it really that alien?), and part of the problem with gunslingers comes from the fact that they take an already powerful style, archery, and gain a benefit that pays off a lot much later in return for a lot of trouble early on. The fact that they hit so easily (which, as a full BAB class at high levels, is not surprising even without guns) allows them to throw all the penalties they can just to get more shots and damage. Tweaking things enough that they have to go through the same debates that normal archers go through should generally suffice.
I more or less agree (I have noticed the results of all the goodies being gifted to archers as well). Once the gunslinger manages to finagle a way to TWF with pistols and reload nearly every round (and they WILL finagle a way unless the GM stonewalls them at some point by houseruling), they become fairly obnoxious.
Thank you, I actually posted this because I had read about that elsewhere. So it seems that even the good folks at Paizo are aware of the trouble that gunslingers bring to a campaign.This exists in WotR...
** spoiler omitted **
I'd hesitate to put words in their mouths, since it's only one creature that has that in the AP. Causation ain't correlation and whatnot. Course, I haven't had issues with gunslingers versus dragons. Even with the mage armor mess-up, that actually never came up in combat.
I'd hesitate to put words in their mouths, since it's only one creature that has that in the AP. Causation ain't correlation and whatnot.
You'll note that I said, "it seems".
|
There are SO many ways around the problem of reloading... I won't repeat them all here, but you might want to do a quick search if you're curious.Enforce reloading works for me. Honestly I have never seen a really OP gunslinger.
free action/swift action reloading at level 11. yay. he can full round attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I more or less agree (I have noticed the results of all the goodies being gifted to archers as well). Once the gunslinger manages to finagle a way to TWF with pistols and reload nearly every round (and they WILL finagle a way unless the GM stonewalls them at some point by houseruling), they become fairly obnoxious.
Are you sure it is not just an obnoxious player? I mean, if someone has been going around with the large advantages, most likely getting decent DPR already, and then they go out of their way to take an entire other feat tree and maybe dip into alchemist or something (only real way I know to do it now that now that weapon cords are nixed) just to cheese the encounter? And this is disregarding the fact that there is another style of gun entirely where people are perfectly happy with big one booming weapon.
This brings up a certain problem I feel is prevalent on these boards: skewed demographics. I mean, the people who hand around the advice boards are the ones who are familiar enough with the mechanics to give advice, which also has a slightly higher correlation with minmaxers (not to say that everyone is, but still, much more common around here). How often do people go for this dual pistol nonesense outside of...well this board?
Anyway, since pistols are one handed weapons, that is a -4 to each attack. Since the point of this thread of was to overcome the problem of monster AC vs guns so that these shenanigans can't happen, I say that it would hardly be a problem if you implement any of this deflection, force stuff. Just tweak things enough so they stop fooling around, and things will be fine.
I just dont allow Gunslingers in my games... but if I did there would be no dead to let them use touch attacks. Simple solution to the real issue with gunslingers. Other than the touch attacks they are just a unique archer.
|
I'm suddenly reminded of the personal Force Fields that appeared in the Dune books.
They only work against fast moving attacks, so fighters train to attack "slowly" to trick the force field into allowing the attack through.
May be something similar? Especially if the monster is a mechanical one from "that part of Golarion with a crashed space ship".
Monsters with personal force fields/shields that only work against fast attacks. Meaning firearms and maybe arrows/bolts.
As far as allowing Dex bonuses against guns goes, the idea of somebody "dodging" bullets might seem a little silly, but Dex and dodge bonuses might reflect somebody's ability to juke around and be tough to target. Allowing force effects to protect against bullets isn't a bad idea though it only protects a small portion of monsters and PCs, and the resulting AC might still be too low to make the various penalties for shooting faster count for much.
Using a custom spell to raise the dragon's touch AC would make that encounter much tougher for the Gunslinger but won't do much for other encounters unless you have the dragons start teaching the spell to other high CR monsters. This is one reason why I prefer the idea of just limiting how much AC the gun can bypass. This would also cut down on the double-barreled and TWF shenanigans since those attack penalties might really begin to hurt your chance to hit against high AC foes. Meanwhile, the gun would still give you a nice benefit to help make up for its various drawbacks (price per shot, exotic weapon proficiency, tendency to blow up, lack of stealth, somewhat tortured reload mechanics, etc)
As far as allowing Dex bonuses against guns goes, the idea of somebody "dodging" bullets might seem a little silly, but Dex and dodge bonuses might reflect somebody's ability to juke around and be tough to target. Allowing force effects to protect against bullets isn't a bad idea though it only protects a small portion of monsters and PCs, and the resulting AC might still be too low to make the various penalties for shooting faster count for much.
Using a custom spell to raise the dragon's touch AC would make that encounter much tougher for the Gunslinger but won't do much for other encounters unless you have the dragons start teaching the spell to other high CR monsters. This is one reason why I prefer the idea of just limiting how much AC the gun can bypass. This would also cut down on the double-barreled and TWF shenanigans since those attack penalties might really begin to hurt your chance to hit against high AC foes. Meanwhile, the gun would still give you a nice benefit to help make up for its various drawbacks (price per shot, exotic weapon proficiency, tendency to blow up, lack of stealth, somewhat tortured reload mechanics, etc)
My thoughts on the first paragraph- "Serpentine!"
Serious thoughts about the second: the limiting of how much touch AC is passed seems like a fair solution. By just saying that it ignores half of armor and natural armor, you still allow gunslingers a rather fair trade for all the trouble with guns, yet you still help to pen the slack that allows things like dual-wielding monstrousities (in all senses of the word if they do the alchemist thing)