Steampunk Assault Rifle

[Talamare]

With Hand Crossbow and Crossbow Expertise you're allowed to (at lv5) make 3 attacks with a Hand Crossbow per turn

Would you allow someone with such a build and tinkerer to create himself a Steampunk Assault Rifle

[Spectre9000]

With Hand Crossbow and Crossbow Expertise you're allowed to (at lv5) make 3 attacks with a Hand Crossbow per turn

Would you allow someone with such a build and tinkerer to create himself a Steampunk Assault Rifle

DMG Page 268. Restyle the Musket as a steampunk one. No need to tinker. Also, if you mean an "Assault Rifle", which there is no such thing, to mean an automatic rifle, those don't exist for good reason in the typical era of D&D, as you'll see on that page. They're listed as dealing more damage than any other weapon, as automatic rifles should.

[RickAllison]

With Hand Crossbow and Crossbow Expertise you're allowed to (at lv5) make 3 attacks with a Hand Crossbow per turn

Would you allow someone with such a build and tinkerer to create himself a Steampunk Assault Rifle

As a re-flavor to the crossbow? Why not! It makes plenty of sense to me that someone could restyle the hand crossbow as firing multiple smaller projectiles. No mechanical difference, but that sounds awesome.

[Laserlight]

With Hand Crossbow and Crossbow Expertise you're allowed to (at lv5) make 3 attacks with a Hand Crossbow per turn

Would you allow someone with such a build and tinkerer to create himself a Steampunk Assault Rifle

That depends on what you want the effect of the "assault rifle" to be. If you're just refluffing a hand crossbow into a different object that does exactly the same damage but has some gears and brass tubing, then sure. If you're upgrading from hand crossbow damage to damage suitable for an actual auto rifle, then no, definitely not. It'd be like saying "this feat gives me a guard dog, can I make it a war elephant instead?"

[Talamare]

As a re-flavor to the crossbow? Why not! It makes plenty of sense to me that someone could restyle the hand crossbow as firing multiple smaller projectiles. No mechanical difference, but that sounds awesome.

Essentially yea, he will be doing what he can already do.

Cool, thanks

[lebefrei]

Even in the most backwater world I'd probably accept that there is one mad inventor coming up with unique ideas. As long as it is just a reflavor and not a power grab, it has no mechanical effect. As a concept to improve your view of your character, I'd allow it in my game.

Like a lot of things, this is DM dependent. I've heard of DMs allowing the modern firearms in games.

[RickAllison]

Even in the most backwater world I'd probably accept that there is one mad inventor coming up with unique ideas. As long as it is just a reflavor and not a power grab, it has no mechanical effect. As a concept to improve your view of your character, I'd allow it in my game.

Like a lot of things, this is DM dependent. I've heard of DMs allowing the modern firearms in games.

The one way I could see it being abused would be using it to circumvent needing a free hand to attack multiple times. I don't think that is the intention of the OP, however.

[Spectre9000]

The one way I could see it being abused would be using it to circumvent needing a free hand to attack multiple times. I don't think that is the intention of the OP, however.

You could simply say it's bolt action.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

You could simply say it's bolt action.

Technically speaking, it would then not be an assault rifle, since assault rifles are by definition selective fire. Though personally I think a bolt action weapon or a single-action revolver would fit better anyway, so there's that.

[Spectre9000]

Technically speaking, it would then not be an assault rifle, since assault rifles are by definition selective fire. Though personally I think a bolt action weapon or a single-action revolver would fit better anyway, so there's that.

Actually, "Assault Rifles" by definition are nothing. There is no such weapon as an "Assault Rifle". It's a term used by people ignorant of firearms to denote "military looking" rifles, and there's a lot of misinformation and contradictory information as to what people define it from there. An example is you saying it's selective fire, whilst others would say fully automatic only. Whilst there are assumptions you can make based on that as to what people mean, there is actually no "Assault Rifle".

All that being said, any burst or full auto firearms in typical D&D settings are going to be OP and are already included in the DMG with warnings. If he wants something like that, it's simply outside of the technology of his era.

[Boci]

Actually, "Assault Rifles" by definition are nothing. There is no such weapon as an "Assault Rifle". It's a term used by people ignorant of firearms to denote "military looking" rifles, and there's a lot of misinformation and contradictory information as to what people define it from there. An example is you saying it's selective fire, whilst others would say fully automatic only. Whilst there are assumptions you can make based on that as to what people mean, there is actually no "Assault Rifle".

All that being said, any burst or full auto firearms in typical D&D settings are going to be OP and are already included in the DMG with warnings. If he wants something like that, it's simply outside of the technology of his era.

No, you're thinking of an assault weapon (which started as a marketing buzz word introduced by the gun industry to make a new model of guns sound cooler). An assault rifle is a weapon which can selectively fire automatically and semi-automatically, with a magazine size that exceeds 30 (I think) and a third clause about components being detachable or something, I don't understand gun mechanics enough to know what it means. But yeah, 3 pretty clear clauses if you know guns.

[Spectre9000]

No, you're thinking of an assault weapon (which started as a marketing buzz word introduced by the gun industry to make a new model of guns sound cooler). An assault rifle is a weapon which can selectively fire automatically and semi-automatically, with a magazine size that exceeds 30 (I think) and a third clause about components being detachable or something, I don't understand gun mechanics enough to know what it means. But yeah, 3 pretty clear clauses if you know guns.

Googles definition:
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Mirriam Websters definition:
any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Dictionary.com definition:
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

Sums up to "those rifles military people use". There is a federal definition of "Assault Rifle" now, as there is an "Assault Weapon", both of which are pretty arbitrary, and allow for some creative loopholes, considering some pistols can fire what's considered rifle ammo, and some rifles can fire what's considered pistol ammo, along with other things.

Here's some help with gun terminology, though it's still not completely clear cut, and was the first article I found off a google search that tried to explain some things:
http://www.gunsandammo.com/gun-culture/9-misused-gun-terms/

[Boci]

Sums up to "those rifles military people use".

That seems like a pretty functional definition, and the article you linked to disagree with your assertion that "Actually, "Assault Rifles" by definition are nothing". It say Assault Rifle is a legit term that the media, and through them regular people, misuse it.

You were talking about Assault Weapons, which is a far less clear term.

[Spectre9000]

That seems like a pretty functional definition, and the article you linked to disagree with your assertion that "Actually, "Assault Rifles" by definition are nothing". It say Assault Rifle is a legit term that the media, and through them regular people, misuse it.

You were talking about Assault Weapons, which is a far less clear term.

It does not say it's a legit term. It says it has a Federal definition, which is misconstrued by the general public and media. The article then continues using that DoD definition of "Assault Rifles". Just cause there's a federal description of something doesn't mean it makes sense, and is "legit". This is also why I qualified it with saying that article still isn't clear cut about it. I gave the article more as a means to enlighten people to many other common incorrect terms, such as using clips interchangeably with magazines.

Either way this has begun to go really off topic. I was just trying to enlighten people to incorrect usage of words.

[mgshamster]

That seems like a pretty functional definition, and the article you linked to disagree with your assertion that "Actually, "Assault Rifles" by definition are nothing". It say Assault Rifle is a legit term that the media, and through them regular people, misuse it.

You were talking about Assault Weapons, which is a far less clear term.

I'd agree with Boci here. Even when I was in the army (10-15 years ago), we called our m16s assault rifles.

I looked up the etymology of it, and the term assault rifle was used in ww2 by the Germans.

[Boci]

It does not say it's a legit term. It says it has a Federal definition, which is misconstrued by the general public and media. The article then continues using that DoD definition of "Assault Rifles". Just cause there's a federal description of something doesn't mean it makes sense, and is "legit". This is also why I qualified it with saying that article still isn't clear cut about it. I gave the article more as a means to enlighten people to many other common incorrect terms, such as using clips interchangeably with magazines.

The article seems pretty clear but to me:

"As noted by David Kopel in an article in the “Journal of Contemporary Law,” the U.S. Department of Defense defines assault rifles as “selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub-machine gun and rifle cartridges.” The AR-15 and other civilian carbines errantly called assault rifles do no such thing. They are semi-automatic, non-battlefield firearms."

That is saying "Assault Rifle is a legit term with a meaning". Otherwise they wouldn't bother pointing out that civilian carbines don't fit the definition. When it comes to using term, neutral is good. If they use a definition and don't explicitly say they disagree with it, then they are endorsing the proper use of the term.

You were wrong when you said there's no such thing as an assault rifle, its assault weapons that mean nothing, not assault rifle, that has a meaning.


Either way this has begun to go really off topic. I was just trying to enlighten people to incorrect usage of words.

And I was trying to enlighten you on your incorrect correction.

[mgshamster]

With Hand Crossbow and Crossbow Expertise you're allowed to (at lv5) make 3 attacks with a Hand Crossbow per turn

Would you allow someone with such a build and tinkerer to create himself a Steampunk Assault Rifle

Yes, I would. You'd need a sturdy & straight tube (rifled if you want accuracy at greater range), a small projectile to use as a bullet, and a source of steam. I would consider letting it be a cantrip for the source of a propellant, or at least to heat up the water to create the steam necessary.

Heck, I'm doing something similar in my OotA Campiagn right now. One of my players wanted a weapon specialized against large groups of fungus.

We came up with what is a essentially a flamethrower. It's a two handed ranged magic weapon with Bane against fungus, with a range of 20/40 and effects all creature in a line. Still working out the rest of the details, as his character is still working on crafting the weapon. I'm thinking of giving it "ammo" slots where he can input demonic fungal spores to power the weapon, and the closer the demonic spore source is to the fungal demon lord, the more powerful the weapon.

Example: if he gets the spores directly from the demon lord herself, the weapon is a +3. If he gets the spores from a creature that was infected by the demon lord, it's a +2. If he gets the spores from anyone else, it's a +1.

[Spectre9000]

Yes, I would. You'd need a sturdy & straight tube (rifled if you want accuracy at greater range), a small projectile to use as a bullet, and a source of steam. I would consider letting it be a cantrip for the source of a propellant, or at least to heat up the water to create the steam necessary.

Heck, I'm doing something similar in my OotA Campiagn right now. One of my players wanted a weapon specialized against large groups of fungus.

We came up with what is a essentially a flamethrower. It's a two handed ranged magic weapon with Bane against fungus, with a range of 20/40 and effects all creature in a line. Still working out the rest of the details, as his character is still working on crafting the weapon. I'm thinking of giving it "ammo" slots where he can input demonic fungal spores to power the weapon, and the closer the demonic spore source is to the fungal demon lord, the more powerful the weapon.

Example: if he gets the spores directly from the demon lord herself, the weapon is a +3. If he gets the spores from a creature that was infected by the demon lord, it's a +2. If he gets the spores from anyone else, it's a +1.

I would have made it a Cone, but that sounds like a pretty cool weapon. You could portray it as the player using a condensed Create Bonfire spell, or some ever-burning magical flame, inside the weapon, which with the fungal fuel is unleashed via the chamber when you press the trigger, or some such.

[mgshamster]

I would have made it a Cone, but that sounds like a pretty cool weapon. You could portray it as the player using a condensed Create Bonfire spell, or some ever-burning magical flame, inside the weapon, which with the fungal fuel is unleashed via the chamber when you press the trigger, or some such.

That's not a bad idea. As I said, it's still under construction, so I'm open to altering it. :)

[Boci]

That's not a bad idea. As I said, it's still under construction, so I'm open to altering it. :)

Yeah, I agree with Spectre9000. A line weapon is a bit weird with an attack roll, especially when you combine it with the range, since that means you then have to roll with disadvantage against further away creature, which is typically not how template weapons work.

Incidentally then, does it use an attack roll, or damage x with dex save to half?

[mgshamster]

Yeah, I agree with Spectre9000. A line weapon is a bit weird with an attack roll, especially when you combine it with the range, since that means you then have to roll with disadvantage against further away creature, which is typically not how template weapons work.

Incidentally then, does it use an attack roll, or damage x with dex save to half?

Originally, I was going to have it be an attack roll, but you're right - it is awkward for a line attack to also be an attack roll. I was hoping to have it affect multiple people in a row but still give the player the control of the die roll. What I don't want is for it to be automatic damage (which is what a save for half would do).

[Spectre9000]

Originally, I was going to have it be an attack roll, but you're right - it is awkward for a line attack to also be an attack roll. I was hoping to have it affect multiple people in a row but still give the player the control of the die roll. What I don't want is for it to be automatic damage (which is what a save for half would do).

If they save against it, you don't have to make it deal half damage.

[Boci]

Originally, I was going to have it be an attack roll, but you're right - it is awkward for a line attack to also be an attack roll. I was hoping to have it affect multiple people in a row but still give the player the control of the die roll. What I don't want is for it to be automatic damage (which is what a save for half would do).

Save for nothing since the ammunition disperses very quickly, with special cartridges being save for half instead?

[mgshamster]

Save for nothing with special cartridges for half is a good idea. Maybe those from the demon queen will be save for half, while anything else is save for nothing.

Now I have to decide how long each "cartridge" will last. And what kind of damage it will do. Originally, with the attack roll, I wasn't going to have the ammo expend.

Another idea is to not have the ammo expend, but instead have different cartridges have different effects. So the demon queen cartridge can do extra damage to fungus, while another demon cartridge could do extra damage to something else. Thoughts?

[Spectre9000]

Save for nothing with special cartridges for half is a good idea. Maybe those from the demon queen will be save for half, while anything else is save for nothing.

Now I have to decide how long each "cartridge" will last. And what kind of damage it will do. Originally, with the attack roll, I wasn't going to have the ammo expend.

Another idea is to not have the ammo expend, but instead have different cartridges have different effects. So the demon queen cartridge can do extra damage to fungus, while another demon cartridge could do extra damage to something else. Thoughts?

Why not model the damage types off the Dragonborn Breath Weapons? Each one is a special type of ammo, and then make specific creatures have vulnerability/resistance to various types. Fire's fire, but Acid is something else entirely. It wouldn't be just a flamethrower, but an Element Thrower.