I need the Community's Opinion

[ranter101]

So we just started a new campaign last night. I am playing a Gunslinger (because guns and wanted to see if it's as OP as people say). My DM decided to use the optional rule that turns armor AC into DR instead. The part I need your opinion on is he didn't make any adjustment for my firearms, the full armor DR applies to my firearm attacks.

Now, one of the things about firearms is they ignore armor and shield AC as long as I'm within the first range increment. I feel that he has nerfed my character because the DR figure applies to firearm attacks. I believe a firearm attack should ignore the DR provided by armor as long as it is within the first range increment.

From the PRD:
"Range and Penetration: Armor, whether manufactured or natural, provides little protection against the force of a bullet at short range.

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."

So, what does the community think? Am I overreacting in thinking that my character is unjustly nerfed or am I justified in insisting my DM allow firearm attacks ignore armor? Thanks.

[Chess Pwn]

Well yes it's a nerf to you. So how high is there AC's this way? but it sounds like most people will be able to hit all the time. One of the main advantages to gunslinger is you can take lots of to-hit penalties to up your damage and to get more shots and still hit cause you're going against touch AC.

My question is, did he do the AC is DR after he knew you were a gunslinger or before and did you know? If he did it in response to your pick that's a pretty jerk move. If he did it before and didn't tell you that's a pretty jerk move. If he told you and you picked gunslinger anyways then it's okay and on you for your choice.

[TriOmegaZero]

ranter101 wrote:

So, what does the community think? Am I overreacting in thinking that my character is unjustly nerfed or am I justified in insisting my DM allow firearm attacks ignore armor? Thanks.

No, you are not justified in insisting on how the GM should run his game. You're not the one in control.

[Deadmanwalking]

You are justified in saying this is weakens your character significantly, and are justified in getting the GM to admit this as long as you aren't a dick about it. You are justified in making a new character if it bothers you that much.

You are, as TOZ notes, not justified at all in dictating to your GM how he runs his game.

[Nathanael Love]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Armor as DR rules makes it easier for everyone to hit by removing the armor bonus to AC.

It's a small logical leap from "ignores the AC of armor within the first ranged category" to "ignores the DR provided by armor within the first ranged category".

[RedDogMT]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

ranter101 wrote:

So, what does the community think? Am I overreacting in thinking that my character is unjustly nerfed or am I justified in insisting my DM allow firearm attacks ignore armor? Thanks.

No, you are not justified in insisting on how the GM should run his game. You're not the one in control.

I agree wholeheartedly...do not attempt to browbeat the GM because you do not agree with his ruling...but I will add...

...you should be able to discuss your concerns about the change with him and ask if he intended for armor to not be ignored with this optional rule. Perhaps he will reconsider the change. If you can't accept it, then you should play another class or find another GM.

[Claxon]

I will say that you are correct that using Armor as DR does significantly weaken archers and gunslingers. Both focus on making many relatively "low" damage hits, which are very easily negated by DR.

However, I disagree that your GM is a jerk if he did it in response to your choice. It depends on how he explained it to you if he is a jerk for doing it.

If he said, "It's okay if you play a Gunslinger, but I'm worried about how powerful they are so I'm going to use the variant rules for armor as DR to mitigate this" then I don't think it's a problem. He's being honest and straight forward with you. He is within his right to have concerns about the overwhelming strength of gunslingers to always hit, and once a gunslingers gets dex to damage they can really out damage even the best archers.

He would only really be a jerk if he didn't tell you about it, or told you that he was going to do this and not let you change characters.

Every GM should reserve the right to alter mechanics to reduce things he feels are overpowered or to make the overall game play better for everyone at the table, not just you as an individual player.

[ranter101]

He made the decision to use DR after I made mine to play a gunslinger and I didn't know about the DR decision until after I made my character.

I'm on the fence as to whether to make a new character or to meta every ounce out of my gunslinger now. I used to be his DM and he argued all sorts of concessions out of me, but now that the table has turned, there's no quid pro quo.

There was no discussion as to how OP the gunslinger was to preclude this, he did the DR change in an effort to curb the HP to power ratio of the general escalation of the game.

Thanks for all the opinions guys. I feel better knowing that the forums are as divided on this as my table is. :)

[John Spalding]

Can't you just take clustered shot?

[Scott Wilhelm]

The DM's rule choice does make firearms relatively less powerful compared with how they were relative to other weapons.

The DM is not clearly being unjust.

It seems fair that you should raise your point with your DM. Ask him if the DR of armor shouldn't be something like 5/bullets. I advise you to make your point, but once you feel like your DM has heard you out, accept his ruling and move on in or out of his campaign.

I always felt the firearm's ranged touch attack ability was overpowered. It seems to me that if you are wearing magic armor, you should still enjoy the enhancement bonus even if you don't get the armor bonus. I also feel that armor made of special materials, like adamantine, should give the player the Armor bonus even against bullets. But that's just how I would run my campaign.

[Dukeh555]

What are your companions classes? Also, what's you race? That can make a huge difference.

[Dukeh555]

If your the only one this affects, then you are at an unfair disadvantage in comparison to your peers, and it would sound like the GM is gunning for you, if this affects more then one of you, then it's a group thing, and it's not a problem because you aren't at a disadvantage compared to you companions.

[wraithstrike]

You should inform your GM that you only took the gunslinger to see if it is as OP as some think it is. You can't really do that with alternate rules.

If he does not agree then just play something else. I for one, despise "surprise rules", and I think your group(no matter who GM's) should come to a consensus about WHEN rules changes should be brought up.

To answer your question, you do not have the right to tell a GM how to run a game, even if he were objectively wrong.

PS: I am not saying he was objectively wrong. I was just making a point.

[Claxon]

wraithstrike wrote:

If he does not agree then just play something else. I for one, despise "surprise rules", and I think your group(no matter who GM's) should come to a consensus about WHEN rules changes should be brought up.

I agree that surprise rules are usually bad. Though, it is very difficult to see all potential problems in advance and occasional when you encounter something for the first time you have to make a ruling or make changes.

This may be the first time someone has bothered to play a gunslinger in their group. If that is the case, it may be the first time the GM had thought to make a rule regarding gunslingers.

So, I can see it from both sides. It does suck to have a surprise ruling placed on you or your intended character, at the same time I can sympathize with GMs who aren't necessarily prepared for every situation with their own rulings given in advance to players for every situation that they may feel the need to change mechanics on.

That being said, gunslingers has been around long enough that the GM should have considered what to do about them and let the group know it more in advance.