Talk:Major Threat .45 Pistol (5e Equipment)

These weapons work off of realistic physics. Strictly speaking, they are examples of what Major Threat weapons should behave like. Any modern gun can tear through fantasy armor, and because of their speed, are virtually impossible to dodge. They're also typically always deadly without medical attention, hence the high damage output. Major Threat weapons are not meant to appear at normal intervals, and this design accommodates their use specifically in a setting in which they normally don't appear. It is a rough job, and definitely needs reworking, which I'm almost finished with. The newer design for this will feature lower damage (To that of a mundane weapon) but this damage will stack and not be easily healed except through magical means.

• I don't understand how the automatic hit works through nonmagical means. It it's magical, it needs to be moved to magic items.
• It emphasizes how high the recoil is, and yet it has the light tag. Not even normal pistols have the light tag. Marasmusine (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

The weapon also deals strictly too much damage, an automatic pistol in the DMG deals 2d6 damage and does not have the light property, and when you attack with a weapon that deals damage you shouldn't be required to make a check and creatures you hit shouldn't be required to make a saving throw. The weapon should also have the reload property, modern weapons don't have cost, and the overall mechanics behind how the weapon works are janky.--Blobby383b (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

The automatic hit is like magic missile, and the AC cut off could make an interesting gradient. It would have to be blocked by shield though. I might take that idea for a more traditional magic item.

But it's unclear what kind of campaign this is gun for. Marasmusine (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

The Major Threat weapon ruleset should already tell players that only those who have proficiency with the weapons can actually use the armor defying main trait of the weapons, since AC is also based on the ability to dodge as much as the protection their armor provides. Additionally, that automatic hit is based off the fact that modern guns have ammo that travels too fast and with too much force for normal AC to work against them. The revision of the ruleset I'm making will include altered rules based on dealing with magic, since these weapons are still inherently mundane so AC affected by magic should cause the automatic hit to NOT be automatic.

It's meant to be mundane, but modern technology that is mundane is inherently as powerful as (Some) magic in these settings. This ruleset was made to ensure that can be done properly, since most games (Including other Homebrew D&D content) actively nerf such weaponry to make it balanced towards the rest of the game.

To be clear, it is designed for a fantasy campaign where modern technology is there, but unusual. If you'd like to help make this work better be my guest, but please don't forget the point of these weapons, to BE Major Threats to players. --Supersmily5 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

Thank you for that explanation, your idea of how to make a weapon a major threat does feel very appropriate, even if it doesn't quite fit in the typical modern fantasy setting. Based on your explanation of how you make the weapon a major threat, the weapon should keep it current properties, though I do want to pose a question to you. Do you believe these weapon falls far enough outside the bounds of the standard 5e rules to warrant a {{Design Disclaimer}}? I ask this because of my misunderstanding of the intentions behind weapon and for the fact that you can both explain what is not standard about the weapon and say why it was designed in such a way on the design disclaimer.--Blobby383b (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

If it completely throws established attack mechanics out of the window, it needs to be segregated into its own sourcebook.

Personally I think this is completely topsy turvy. The automatic hit rationale is 1) speed of the projectile and 2) armour piercing.

1) The game already establishes that even a beam of light would use a normal attack roll vs. AC. Something that's harder to avoid would have a higher attack bonus. An attack roll also abstracts in the effect of recoil foiling your aim, which you've separated out into its own mechanic.

2) You acknowledge that AC is a combination of armor and evasiveness. Why not do something like Firearms (5e Variant Rule)#Armor Piercing. Marasmusine (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

Yes

Part of the reasoning that created this ruleset was the gimped modern weapons in the DMG. Therefore, it is in direct contrast to that variant ruleset. I don't know how many of the tags work, but if you do then feel free to add it to the pages.--Supersmily5 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

I'm just having trouble making sense of it. It's supposed to be "realistic physics". But it doesn't matter if the wielders Dexterity is 3 or 30. A person with the worst aim in the world automatically hits, which isn't realistic. You allow a target to actively dodge a bullet, which isn't realistic. Marasmusine (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

The automatic hits are based on your proficiency bonus in the Major Threat ruleset. With guns, you can have terrible dexterity and still be able to aim if you were trained properly. However, the way you said that does make it seem like I can do better. I'm thinking a change to it in which the AC you automatically hit is lower if you have a lower ability score modifier for the weapon (I say it that way because at least in theory you can have Major Threat weapons that aren't guns and therefore use other modifiers, though I haven't made any examples yet.), but can only be raised to a certain point depending on the weapon itself. Good point. --Supersmily5 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2018 (MDT)

By the way, thank you for you time on this. I could record things on my own with notepad but I put these things on the wiki so that they can be challenged. I know I don't know everything about D&D, and anything I put on here I want to know if it's balanced or not. So thank you again. --Supersmily5 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2018 (MDT)