Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Negflar2099" data-source="post: 6423765" data-attributes="member: 65944">Ever since WoTC released the early sample of the DMG with firearms and explosives rules I've been curious how people would react, but strangely I haven't seen a lot of discussion. I'm just wondering, what does everyone think? Personally they seem to do more damage than I was expecting (especially the modern firearms). I saw one person who thought that invalidated wizards, which has been a bane of past attempts at introducing firearms to D&D. I mean if a fighter can grab a few grenades and an M-16 and be better than a wizard with more HP, why even have the wizard class at all?So is that what's going on here? If you wanted to balance it would you reduce the damage or is it fine as is? What about proficiency? How would that work?I was also working on a set of rules for introducing modern armor into the game but I ran into a block. I didn't want modern armor to just be better AC (which would ruin the bounded accuracy system) so instead I thought all guns could do ballistics damage (instead of piercing). Then modern armor would grand resistance to ballistics damage. Also some monsters, such as dragons and demons, might have ballistics resistance as well.What does everyone think about that? Would that make firearms more balanced or would that defeat the purpose of having guns?</blockquote>