Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fragsie" data-source="post: 6760045" data-attributes="member: 83065">Wow, so I had a week or so away from the boards, and come back to this thread having loads to read through! Thanks guys <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> There is a bit much for me to do individual quotes, but I will try to address all points made.So the setting is a sci-fantasy space opera, there hasn't been a 'dark age of technology' so using that trope to make the ranged weaponry more rare isn't an option. The game is set a number of centuries into the future of our own universe (magic comes back at some point in the future), so technology has advanced from our current standing.It's not that I want there to be a lack of advanced ranged weaponry, it's more that I don't want pure melee characters to feel like an unbalanced option.One or two of you pointed out that in D&D there are already characters that can sling spells and such. While this is true, in D&D these individuals are rare (or at least uncommon), and they require a natural talent, a magical patron, or extensive training, research and study. In a world where guns not only exist but are readily available, arguably any villager npc could use the ranged fire-power usually reserved for specific heroic characters; it's this imbalance I'm trying to address.Others have suggested that the imbalance could be mitigated by playing in cramped or inhibited environments, and while this is a cool option that I will definitely use, it is purely situational and specific to the campaign being played rather than the setting as a whole. I like the suggestion of the risk involved in using piercing ammunition aboard a ship or station. I could perhaps create a table to roll on if you miss with that type of weapon.I'm not too keen on changing the damage output of melee weapons as they are already a part of the balance structure of the game, I should be measuring myself to that benchmark, not moving it; that would just lead to balance issues later down the road. From a damage point of view; i'm adding lots of potential extra ranged DPR to the game, i need to add a way to potentially counter that without messing too much with the framework that's already in place.I'm pretty much set on using fields as a concept. After some points raised I'm thinking they should be effective against piercing damage only (which pretty much all non-energy ranged weapons deal). Energy based ranged weapons will be balanced with a charging mechanic of some description. This means that the fields would also be effective against piercing melee weapons, which isn't a bad thing thematically. There's no reason that fields couldn't be modified (i.e. magic items) to work against other damage types too.So it's the actual rules-fu part of this i'm trying to get down on paper. So far a few different options have been suggested:Fields grant disadvantage vs ranged attacksThis feels a bit much for me, a flat disadvantage on attacks against you seems pretty hench, especially for a piece of equipment. Expanding this a bit to say "... made at long range" could work, this would confer an added advantage to using Gauss weapons (guns that have no long range).Fields grant a bonus to AC In the vein of a deflection bonus from 3.5e; bonus to AC against attacks made from 10ft or more away. I don't think this fits thematically, the player would have to switch between 2 different ACs, which you don't see elsewhere in 5e, this becomes even more fiddly to track if it is vs only piercing damage. Fields grant resistance to piercing damageI like this because it won't completely counter damage, just reduce it. but as a flat bonus there is no room for scaling, it would be one piece of equipment that is as effective at 1st level as at 20th. Scaling could be achieved by using a mechanic to see if the field works or not, such as rolling a d6 and on a 1 or 2 the field fails. More advanced fields could allow more dice to be rolled, thus making them more reliable.Fields grant 'dice roll' damage reduction against piercing damageI like the randomness of this option, you are guaranteed a minimum DR, but could potentially completely soak a weak shot. Higher level options would give a higher number of soak dice. As suggested, if the field soaks maximum damage it could short or need to reset (read: short rest).</blockquote>

Verification