Talk:5.56 NATO Machine Gun (3.5e Equipment)

Ratings

	Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	I would add that on semi-auto, the bonus to damage from dex doesn't stack with other things that add dex to damage. Also, I don't think full attacking as a standard action should be gained so easily.

Why do you think that Full attack as a standard action is so OP/should be rarer (in this case, it's with a significant penalty)? What would you recommend to fix it? Fluffykittens (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason that a full attack (normally) is a full-around action is because it creates parity between ranged characters and melee characters. Let's pretend for a moment that it's at the point in the game where people have reach (so you can't just escape a meleer by using a 5' step). A ranged attacker has a few options. The first is to shoot while the meleer is in their face (taking a few AoOs in the process, complete offensive option), to back off with a withdraw, sacrificing offense for defense entirely, or try to move away (with or without tumble) in order to go for the hybrid option (sacrifice some offense, but be much safer).

The reason for a ranged character needing to make that decision is because ranged weapons are by their very nature safer and more effective than melee weapons. A ranged character can shoot from across the battlefield, and doesn't need to waste move actions every round to be able to fight at full effectiveness, nor do they need to deal with difficult terrain to strange types of mobility in order to keep up with their target. In fact, I would probably be much more comfortable with meleers making full attacks as a standard action. For ranged characters, it's not good for the game.

Of the three above options, the weapon removes the first entirely, as it allows you to fight at full effectiveness while still getting out of their threatening range. This creates less of a risk vs. reward scenario, lowering tactical options and reducing the sort of play that makes a game really interesting. I don't think that the options are adequate as they are, but they're what we have, so we make due with them. Hopefully that makes sense.

As for a different option... hrmmm... *ponders* How about an underarm grenade launcher? Perhaps roll damage (without any bonuses), affecting all enemies within a 10' radius burst (so 20' circle) with a save for half, or something similar? I like the Suppressing Fire option, though personally I'd make it a penalty (and damage) instead of straight up causing people to lose their actions. Still, I like the fact that it increases your tactical options in combat, so that's always a plus from my end. --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Retouched a bit.Fluffykittens (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how it works. Maybe give an example beneath at each of the relevant levels? --Ghostwheel (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Retouched again. Fluffykittens (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

	Eiji-kun likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	I do believe I want to use this. It looks pretty cool, and offers options beyond normal attacks.

Interesting

I though Burst (auto) might be broken, but it's really just TWF, but with one weapon.

Dat price though, wtf... -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.Fluffykittens (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, burst is a bit more than TWF with it's extra attacks. It's more like rapid fire, with TWF on top of that opening up at BAB 6. Or the other way around I guess, it's not really important. Either way it's a lot of attacks as a standard action, but not so many that I really care because tactical EWP and it cost you a move action to turn that on (so it's full-round anyway, unless you just run around in auto).

The only thing that I'm unsure of is the lack of targeting limitation for burst. As written you could Legolas it and take your lots of attacks at lots of people very far apart from each other, and that doesn't seem a particularly burst fire thing to do. Limiting it to attacks in a cone out to 2 range increments might be worth considering.

Also, what's going on with suppressing fire? It's a full-round action that has an attack penalty on attacks you're not actually making, and it doesn't seem to consume any ammunition. And it seems like it's only a thing that happens on your turn, which isn't bad but feels weird in the fluff. It might be better written as a 1-round action zone control thing that causes anyone who enters one of those squares to make a reflex save or lose a move action, maybe even falling prone in the space if they don't have a move action to lose at that point. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 02:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Aforementioned abilities" Better now? "It might be better written as a 1-round action zone control thing that causes anyone who enters one of those squares to make a reflex save or lose a move action, maybe even falling prone in the space if they don't have a move action to lose at that point." How would you word that? Fluffykittens (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Suppressing fire (auto): As a 1 round action, you may target a number of contiguous squares up to your BAB with suppression fire. When a creature starts in or enters one of these spaces, they must immediately make a reflex save (DC 10+1/2 HD+DEX) or immediately lose a move action. Creatures who do not have a move action remaining this round end their movement immediately, and lose a move action from their next round. Creatures immune to morale penalties cannot be staggered this way. Suppression fire costs you X." Then just make X something like "2 rounds per targeted square" or "2 rounds per triggering creature". - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Better?Fluffykittens (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think both abilities are more clear now. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 05:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

1000' Range?

What is this, a machinegun for ants? --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

1000 ft? Seems right. Actually if anything it seems overly large, I imagine accuracy suffers at that range so it might be 2 or 3 increments in. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Good luck hitting something with a 556 NATO at 1000 yards. Fluffykittens (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

With this machinegun, it's physically impossible to even try. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There's far shot, distance enchantment, etc. While you can get a 556 to go 3k feet IRL, you'll only be able to land a shot anywhere near your target with a bolt action (which this gun is not) or insane luck. Upped the range a little anyways. Fluffykittens (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

150' is much more reasonable. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain that the -18 penalty to hit exists for your insane luck situations. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)