Pathfinder 1E Firearms Resolve on Touch AC (The Calculation)

[Uber Dungeon]

Easy Question, When calculating the attack bonus for a firearms, assuming that all proficiency are met such as a gun slinger, would be (DEX+Base attack) With feats added to that.

 

[brvheart]

It is ranged touch, same as if he was firing a crossbow.

 

[Uber Dungeon]

It is ranged touch, same as if he was firing a crossbow.

So you are telling me that crossbows resolve on touch AC. Is this a pathfinder thing, What book/page would I be able to quote that rule on?

 

[Cadence]

I think he meant the roll you make is a ranged attack just like any other ranged attack (whether ranged touch with a spell or firing a crossbow). What makes it touch is that you get to ignore the defenders armor. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Touch-Attacks

 

[TwoSix]

1) Crossbows don't resolve against Touch AC. Period.
2) Assuming identical/equivalent feats, rolling to make a ranged attack is the same whether you're attacking a normal AC or a touch AC. The only that's different about a touch attack is what number you're trying to hit. And that number has nothing to do with the character, and everything to do with the monster you're fighting.

 

[enrious]

brvheart is incorrect, a crossbow ranged attack is not a ranged touch attack - it is simply a ranged attack.

To answer your question, you would make a normal attack roll (Dex + BAB + feats that apply + other misc modifiers (like if it's masterwork)) vs. the target's touch AC.

 

[brvheart]

I did not mean that a crossbow is ranged touch, just the mechanics of computing the ranged attack is the same not the AC.

 

[foscadh]

Interesting that they did it that way. I haven't looked much at firearms but making them ranged touch implies pretty powerful ones.

 

[Starfox]

Interesting that they did it that way. I haven't looked much at firearms but making them ranged touch implies pretty powerful ones.

It's just easier than giving them an accuracy bonus that is totally out of bounds. It has dome odd effects tough, such as that the Boxer Rebellion idea that martail arts makes you "hard against firearms" is completely plausible. Well, this is fantasy, so I guess that is ok.

It may sound far-fetched, but what I think it really ought to have been is incorporeal touch attack. That way force effects would still provide protection. Well, that has an oddity too in that ghost touch would protect against firearms. Perhaps better to leave things as they are.

 

[Squire James]

In my game I house-ruled "gun AC" to be the average of normal AC and touch AC, and made that apply at all ranges for firearms (so a dragon 5 ft past the first range increment wouldn't suddenly gain +30 AC, for example). Basically, armor and natural armor had half normal effect. I feel this is a fair adjustment since most gun-users are at a +1 BAB/level progression so they should have good enough attack rolls that this is not a hardship. I also invented a "ballistic" armor/shield property that allows the item to count all its AC bonus for gun AC, so martial artists don't get to have ALL the fun. Some called this "too much math", but in my opinion no more so than figuring things like CMB and CMD (should I mention I also house-rule CMD to only use max[str, dex] rather than [str + dex], so mid-to-high level combat maneuvers may still succeed?).

Others have suggested using flat-footed AC rather than touch AC, to represent armor working against firearms but not dodging. This is probably okay for a campaign where guns are rare and primitive (primitive -> armor works, rare -> people can't dodge guns or don't because they don't know what they are). Perhaps a feats or class abilities can restore half or all the AC, analogous to that "ballistic" property.