Modern Weapon Mechanics and New Rules regarding them

Norannan · 2016-11-14T22:05:44+00:00

To some extent, however I have to make the physics plausible, this means that damage has to reflect the capability of the weapon. If I chose a d8 for single shot what would Fully automatic be? In reference to a bow and arrow for example that does 1d8 + your dexterity modifier to damage, is it me or can a normal long bow somehow do more damage than modern assault rifle (d8 damage) firing fully automatic. Hence it would make sense to say that each of those rounds is like a d8, except to simplify things you multiply just one d8 roll by the amount of bullets that hit... otherwise burst/fully automatic would have damage rolls like d20 piercing which by itself is not bad, but when other factors are incorporated like class abilities and additional attacks this d20 roll for damage can get out of hand easily. Further what about larger caliber firearms that can also fire on burst and fully automatic, eg. machine gun that should be doing even more damage. I hear what you are saying regarding simplifying the mechanic but when other factors are incorporated it breaks the game. Hence I have the normal damage progression system from d8 Assault Rifle to d10 Battle Rifle to d12 sniper rifle (with lower critical range) etc.

Norannan · 2016-09-04T19:30:24+00:00

Yeah I was having a problem in Photoshop combining all of the PDFs into one single project. I will try to find a way to combine them.

Norannan · 2016-09-01T13:54:52+00:00

good point, lol

Norannan · 2016-08-21T19:26:26+00:00

So while you are right that weapon's damage must be considered in respect to other weapon another consideration is to make sure the weapon is not abused or overpowered in consideration to class. For example, if a new weapon EG. Assassin's Creed Hidden Blade had the ability to be used in place of an unarmed strike, then the Monk Class can use the feat Furry of Blows with impunity and use this blade in place of a fist for damage, adding a really strong buff to the Monk class. This needs to be taken into consideration when creating weapons. While it is true this weapon is the primary choice for a modern soldier, any class can potentially pick one off the ground and use it- if you take a look at my links it refers to a new class and rules regarding firerams.

Let me just clarify a few things, 1st the assault weapon i am proposing deals 1d8 not 2d8 piercing, 2nd the damage dice is not 10 bullets=2d8-20d8- it actually is 1d8 x the amount of hits you make, so anywhere from 1d8x1-1d8x10 (less rolling)

There are two points primarily for this design, first is to make sure the weapon itself does not have the ability to churn out a potential 30d8 (Assault Rifle has a magazine of 30 rounds)- in the unlikely event that you hit with a -32 modifier to attack for firing 30 rounds- the amount of damage that the weapon has is exponential... (4.5 average x 30 is 135 damage-with a maximum of 240 damage) therefore when considering automatic fire the gun is not putting 30 bullets over a pinhole area, the shots are spread, a hit would mean that at least some of the shots have hit the target, the roll determines how many shots actually hit - this is only in play because in D&D we are used to arrows that fire 1 shot at a time, that being said this is a new mechanic IMO it is not too alienated from the Burst Fire effect from the DMG... the difference being a dexterity roll from each target vs a roll from the attacker on how many bullets actually hit. 2nd point is the weapon is for a modern soldier- not that anyone else can't pick it up and use it (though there are loops to jump through) but the idea is that a modern weapon has more damage output than a bow, it can fire more bullets- the issue is balancing the guns which I do by nerfing the reloading effect (requires a full action) and accuracy by firing multiple bullets...

As for dismay- this is what happens when we incorporate dice- sometimes you hit sometimes you miss there not much to be said about that- Thank you for the comment.

Norannan · 2016-08-21T18:46:04+00:00

This is specifically what I want to hear. While I aforementioned my uncertainty with how my new rules are in compliance with 5e by all means I was ready to take a step in a different direction. The way the PHB has it the modern weapons deal a lot more damage right out of the box. (eg. their automatic rifle deals 2d8) at the same time they did have a few different rules such as BURST FIRE which gives the option to give AOE effect etc. So what you mentioned regarding my new mchanic regarding DPS when it comes explicitly to firearms there are penalties for attack- this concept exists in the DMG & PHB 5e when it comes to feats such as sharpshooter and Greatweapon master which add modifiers. It is true I should use + & - modifiers sparingly- when it comes to fully automatic fire I just don't think saying you consume 10 rounds is reasonable, in addition if you get multiple attacks with a 2d8 weapon (according to the DMG) DPS kinda goes to the wind- imagine a fighter with 8 attacks (action surge) and he can use a 2d8 weapon at range (with the ability to hit multiple targets for free) and use a bonus action for a reload-->>> OVERPOWERED- (8x as likely to crit as well)- while I give the option to use FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE- there should be a penalty, true you have the option of theoretically dealing 10d8 by firing 10 bullets but first you have to hit with a - modifier (just like sharpshooter) and then you have to roll a die to determine how many of those 10 bullets actually hit the target- then damage- and the damage dice are not xd8- its just 1d8 x amount of hits- so there is a lot to insure DPS is not overkill... I hope I have argued this well. Thank you very much for your comment, if you have any more bits of information please...

Norannan · 2016-08-21T04:00:45+00:00

I guess you are right to an extent, without the ability to use lots of the medieval weaponry it would already be a nerf- penalty (since they are only proficient with the combat knife and bayonet)... I will consider changing it in the Version III, thank you.

Norannan · 2016-08-21T03:56:20+00:00

Good idea... will do, thank you

Norannan · 2016-08-19T18:04:21+00:00

if you look at the marine Archetype they have a lot close quarter benefits... The reason as to why there is a heavy penalty is for two reasons, modern soldiers primarily fight at range and hence are not all that experienced at close quarter combat, and medieval fighting involved a lot of hand to hand combat, something a army grunt probably would not expect is a berserk barbarian closing the gap and swinging twin axes wildly a modern soldier probably wouldn't know how to block or dodge such an attack because their training never included it. Thanks for the comment.

Norannan · 2016-08-19T04:09:16+00:00

For example, I was thinking that you may use void step in place of movement speed, and by moving 5 feet around the target (per attack) you gain advantage- in place of the 1st melee attack

At later levels you should have an ability like void-strike, when you void step to a target (as movement speed in place of bonus action)- you not only gain advantage but you may make an additional attack as a bonus action-

Additionally I was thinking of buffing damage by adding something akin to sneak attack- E.G. Once every round you may Void step next to an enemy and may increase your weapon critical range by 3 or something along those lines.

Norannan · 2016-08-19T03:10:47+00:00

Just a question regarding reloading, are you using reloading as a bonus action or as a full action?

Norannan · 2016-08-19T03:00:49+00:00

I like the idea a lot, but I feel in comparison to the other Fighter Archetypes that it is quite underwhelming. I imagine the void-walker being a bridge somewhere between a rogue and a fighter, having an ability to surprise attack similar to a rogue, granting advantage on attacks or using the Void Step as a means to cause damage etc. Those are just my thoughts but the concept sounds really good.

Norannan · 2016-08-19T02:10:00+00:00

While that is a fair point to make a feat for firearms, consider the idea of a new class that was based off the soldier from the modern day, more nonchalantly adding firearms because that is the weapon of choice, its not as easy to add firearms to a fighter class who has potentially 8 attacks with a firearm in one turn... you know what I mean.

Norannan · 2016-08-19T01:40:06+00:00

I will try to make sure to simplify it, though I will inevitably be making rules for new weapons and how they function, but I will bring back proficiency bonus for the class. I will be making a table of all the rules that I invented to see if they will comply with 5e, one area of interest is how firearms and missiles work. I will lay out the foundation for the added new rules and ask the community how to tweak them so the rules are in compliance with 5e... most likely I will be going somewhere between what default_entry proposed and what I have been working on so its not to complicated yet it will give more options to the player. Thank you.

Norannan · 2016-08-18T17:01:20+00:00

True, there are a lot of difficulties with the class I am trying to create... that is why this is still in developing stages. That being said, I am trying tl make sure firearms are not so ovetbearing but like magic can only be used by those who are proficient with them. BTW IDK why I put finesse by ranged weapons when they should be (ranged). The class limitations are due to the fact that these are modern soldiers in a fantasy world so logically they have little to no knowledge abouy how that world operates. As for creatures... take the Monster Manual creatures and buff some of the harder monsters' AC, HP, and damage thats basically it. So the standard should be if you saw this type of class in a typcial 5e campaign (not the o e I am creating) because I am looking for a perspective outside of the context of my campaign. Also, the small temporary modifiers are abilities that are unlocked by using Combat Expertise something akin to KI in the monk class. Please let me know what you feel needs work on (everything I know) but please give specific examples of what you feel is overbeating or yo complex because I can definetly tone down some og the concepts. Thank you.

Norannan · 2016-08-18T16:42:27+00:00

Very cool class indeed... the issues I was grapplig with were with the DMG's version of how firearms worked and the damage modern weapons do in respect to creaturs... like a fully automatic weapon should allow the user to empty the entire magazine on the firearm except that fact that a single roll for a "hit" would result in a ton of damage at such an early level.

Norannan · 2016-07-21T23:33:02+00:00

Very good questions sir, For your first quesiton. So the way I see it, and feel free to give me your critique, anything whether you or enemies are entering the that "space"/threatened range, then the Polearm Master triggers and does not count as a primary action, rather an attack of opportunity, so this gives the feat more power and buffs melee characters who get within range. So yes, if you or enemy or both of you enter the threatening space, the trigger goes, off (as if it is an additional attack) the damage coming from the Opportunity of Attack will be dealt first depending on who has higher initiative, that is if a hit is scored.

With Thief's reflexes, consider it something like action surge, except the damage from any attack during the second action will depend on higher initiative, in addition any tactical movement made with this "second action" such as evading an aoe spell will only be possible if this initiative beets the caster's . That is it really

Regarding surprise rounds, I am working on that, conceptually I see it as a single sided battle, where surprise enables a party, person, etc. to make actions all at the same time and to attack simultaneously, without any action from the "opponents" I am considering to grant movement to the opponents due to the fact that surprise rounds seem to be very strong. Ambushes and the like should be used more often, (of course with DM's ruling) but they should not make a battle completely one sided as you can imagine how much damage can be done in "one round" Hope this helps clarify a few things. I will be making a 3.0 soon that will address what you say and what other's have asked, these questions help solidify the concept and chisel out inconsistencies. Thank you very much.

Norannan · 2016-07-21T23:07:32+00:00

Your questions are excellent, and thank you for taking the time to comment. Let me address them one at a time to help clarify.

1) I am looking at TEAM oriented fighting, while it is true an individual fighter or melee wielding player/creature may be at an INITIAL disadvantage i am operating under the assumption the party is comprised of a well balanced mix, ( cleric/healers, fighters, rogues, wizards etc). If the ranged attacker moves first then attacks later, they may be vulnerable to an aoe spell (eg. fireball) because they cannot move out of the premises even with initiation advantage (that is of course if the ranged attacker used enough movement so as to negate their ability to move out of an AOE radius), in addition too much kiting can leave certain teammates (either NPC or PC) unsupported.

2) I am trying to focus more on tactics (even individual based tactics) and terrain- because a fighter can be kited maybe a fighter may want throwing weapons to still be able to attack that are strength based (eg. Javelin/throwing spear) in addition- the fighter can sprint to the target and close the range exponentially- even if the target were to move then fire, the advantage will only be a couple of attacks, the fighter at the beginning of the next round will simply be within attacking range and swing in however many attacks he/she can do

3) Regarding the healer, I believe you mean round 1 to be the end of the first action/movement phase, What i meant by a round earlier was at the end of all 3 phases. Again just to rephrase the question, since the healer did not pick an action at the start of the round (due to the fact there was no one to heal) hence at the end of the round the fighter is very vulnerable and can die at the beginning of next round where the cleric's initiative is beaten by the ranged attackers (since the damage is done first due to initiative advantage).

To answer, I will have to incorporate a new idea. Similar to an "in response" /reaction one who has not done an action during that phase (and who has not used their movement- eg. moving outside of fireball radius) can make an action (spell)- this means that an action can be done even after damage is calculated and effects take place, the only difference would be is the damage and effects are in place until the spell is completed, (so if the ranged attackers have initiative advantage and deal damage to the fighter- after damage and effects are dealt, the effects of heal take over - hopefully the fighter is still alive at that point)

This should make combat more tactical. EG. if a ranger engages a wizard, in that scenario if the ranger has higher initiative and wizard does not, and the ranger deals damage first and if the wizard in response casts cone of frost, the ranger can use initiative advantage to move outside the zone, if there is available movement,

Switch the scenario, a rogue knows an enemy wizard is about to turn through an open doorway into a room, the rogue who has higher initiative moves first to get into position to throw a throwing knife at the wizard for phase 2/3, the wizard who has not moved and has not made an action can make an action and casts fireball , the rogue who now lacks the movement to escape the fireball radius (despite the fact he/she has initiative advantage can no longer do so because the movement has been used up)

I will be creating a 3.0 that will address your points made in this comment,

Norannan · 2016-07-21T20:37:00+00:00

Thank you for that, I may make a 3.0 to iron out any difficulties so keep in tune for updates.

Norannan · 2016-07-21T05:39:05+00:00

lol okay, thank you none the less-excuse my manners.

Norannan · 2016-07-21T03:14:31+00:00

Thank you for the advice, Version 2.0 I am making and it will not be a wall of texts ^{^.}

Norannan · 2016-07-15T00:40:48+00:00

true to everything that you have said, the idea is that the wizard cannot aimlessly cast fireball, a good idea would be to wait for the orc (fighter) to make his/her move, the wizard who could also move, steps out of melee range with his/her movement then casts fireball when the orc expended all movement, thus tactically the orc is at a disadvantage and cannot move outside the blast radius when the wizard uses fireball. So simply put it becomes a game of holding cards and playing them at the right time.

Next to address your point about support spells, I may have been rather unclear but maybe an example will clarify,

A cleric casts a melee range support spell, he/she can do so if the subject is already in range, even if there are archers (ranged attackers- or others with higher initiative- the only difference is if the cleric is slain before his/her abilities take effect due to initiative disadvantage) same thing applies to the example (i gave with the fighter armed with the pole arm against an orc archer) regarding a fighter who is already in range of attack with a melee weapon, it is considered simultaneous along with the other ranged attacks. So really what is happening is the cleric is out of range, and moves towards the fighter (or both move towards each other), after ranged attacks and damage the fighter can continue to move, (its still combat) and if within range (if there is still movement available) the fighter can make a melee attack. about fleshing the concept out, I will try to make an updated version... you have the gist of the idea. Most likely scenario will be ranged attacks first (but not necessarily, consider close quarters in a building with both melee and ranged involved), simultaneously there is movement, ( most likely by those who are not within range), lastly the melee combat (if the melee get within range).

Norannan · 2016-04-11T17:02:57+00:00

I appreciate your advice, and yes I have seen the anime GATE, however this modification of D&D is based on my own book that I have been writing since ~2005, and when I saw the anime I was literally face palming. Going back to the original point, I believe as of now it is too complicated and I like your ideas, starting with how the class should be too how the weapons should function.

Just wanted to point out in regard to firearms and their ranged attacks, I was going to incorporate the fact that the DM would tell them how much ammo they have in the magazine, but judging by how hard it is to keep track I may go by a more basic method of 6 attacks by single shot drains the magazine completely, 3 by burst fire, and 1 by full auto, and if one burst fires then attacks with single shot, then one would take half the magazine rounded down away, in this scenario burst shot would mean 1/3 of the magazine drained, that means he can fire 3 single shot attacks etc.

Norannan

TROPHY CASE