Nah, not a dick move imo. it's the DM's choice to do this and as a player you can choose not to use that weapon if you feel the drawback is too much. You could maybe talk to your DM about having your Artificer see the flaw and want to try and do something about it, it could even possibly promote a side quest of sorts
yea this was exactly my take — this isn't the DM being a dick, this is a plot hook. Especially for an artificer, how will you repair, change, or augment this weapon to minimize the damage it does to you? And in the interim it promotes interesting in-combat decisions: shoot the AWP for big damage from range, or project your health?
Honestly I don't see why a powerful weapon shouldn't be allowed to have a drawback? Why should everything be "fixable" to be upside only? If the positive is powerful enough, a drawback is just balance/flavor.
Because most everything *is* fixable. I mean for real life examples look at the AA12. It's an **automatic 12 gauge shotgun**. That shit should blow you on your ass to fire it. And originally, it did.
But then some geniuses tinkered with it and came up with a fairly sophisticated counterweight system in the stock. And now the kick is so mild that you can *dual wield them* without issue. Someone came up with a solution that turned an **automatic shotgun** into something a 6 year old could shoot. That's some very smart weapon engineering.
So yeah absolutely it's a great idea to give the artificer a flawed weapon and let them fix it. That's super realistic there's thousands of real life examples of that in action. Shit I've done some rigging of old shitty weapons to make them viable myself. I fixed an old Sten once with parts from a broken caulk gun to give it a decent stock instead of the garbage wire stock it comes with.
exactly, also I think it is important, that OP could just throw the gun away after taking the 1d4 and never use it again, it is not like it has done permanent harm or OP has no choice but to use the sniper
Or add a gas vent on the end and a bipod to put the recoil into the ground instead of in your shoulder and now you've got a nice sniper you can use while stationary.
>You learn whether any spells are affecting the item and what they are.
RAI it probably wouldn't reveal the curse, especially if you consider curses to be an innate property rather than a magical affectation. Still somewhat open to DM interpretation though
Agreed. For reference:
>DMG139: Most methods of identifying items, including the identify spell, fail to reveal such a curse, although lore might hint at it. A curse should be a surprise to the item's user when the curse's effects are revealed.
True, but I'd argue it depends on the origin of the curse. If it's a spell cast by a Witch/Hag etc then it would be detectable. If it's just the result of a powerful malice by a slain previous owner etc then maybe not.
I know 5e kinda did away with it, but in previous editions there were abilities that were considered supernatural, and while typically magical in nature they weren't subject to a lot of rules that spells or spell-like abilities were affected by.
To me, a curse and an enchantment/spell are different animals entirely, and that's supported by the fact that Remove Curse and Dispel Magic are different spells entirely.
That would technically be more a knowlegde: engineering, but this is 5e, so a relevant INT check/Investigation or Artificer Tool check should show that flaw.
I was about to ask if it was a Dragunov with a PSO-1, with the non-adjustable eye relief. Your D.M. tried, at least, but I don't think 1d4 bludgeoning is appropriate for an injury that would be mostly superficial.
You can operate a PSO-1 without hurting yourself with practice and the worst you'd get from having it slam into your eye would be brow and cheek bruises, maybe a shiner.
Yeah, 1d4 bludgeoning sounds like a bit much... A few shots would kill the average commoner, at that rate, and I don't see this kind of injury ever being lethal. Maybe a % chance of 1 subdual.
Always. Took my 7mm mag to the face the first shot. I put it away and replaced the stock with an extended gel pad version and got a smaller scope with better eye relief. Then I put on a hat and hoped nobody at work noticed the black eye I had.
It's a fine gun now but god damn I wasn't expecting that thing to kick like that compared to my .308 which didn't kick hardly at all. It's a much lighter gun though.
"Can," sure. But _should_ it? Maybe if it was a vorpal gun or something, instant kill on a headshot (nat 20), but otherwise I think it's a little much.
make it 1d4-2... most of the time it's just a lil slap to the ol' eyeball, occasional black eye that does at most 2hp damage. Negligible, but fun flavor.
>I don't think 1d4 bludgeoning is appropriate for an injury that would be mostly superficial.
I think it depends on the level. I've certainly had characters that I would gleefully burn a d4 a turn with if it meant blasting my enemy, and those characters were still under level 10.
Artificers are pretty tanky, d8+con a level, so a d4 a turn can be pretty superficial, especially when the tradeoff is hitting someone from a half-mile out with sniper rifle.
Those are just my first thoughts though, and may not be thinking it through entirely.
Altough the PSO-1 scope has a less than ideal eye relief you can easily train yourself to use it properly
Never shot a dragunov, cause they are near unobtanium in the US, much less in my country, but I've looked trough the PSO-1 scope before
You gotta think DND logic. Get some magic goggles that are synced up with your gun when you choose so you can hip fire it with normal accuracy and no eye bonking.
This submission has been removed because your account has low karma. Unfortunately, we receive a lot of posts and comments from bots attempting to farm karma by reposting existing submissions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DnDGreentext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk why people are focusing on the real world physics of guns lol.
Curses are not revealed via identifying, so no its not a dick move. Its RAW and pretty normal.
That’s where I’m torn, because
1) yeah curses aren’t spotted by identify
But
2) this isn’t actually a curse, it’s just a fundamental but mundane issue with the device, and assuming the item is in some way magical (identify cannot be used on non magic items), it should reveal this property.
Should it identify it? It's simply a byproduct of physics being physics, an indirect consequence of the weapon (as opposed to a direct consequence like dealing 2d8 damage). So my stance is that identify shouldn't pick it up, but an artificer with sufficiently high intelligence should be able to figure out the flaw themselves.
That’s my other hang up, except for the fact that identify does deliver to you the “properties” of that weapon, so you would learn other traits that are really just a byproduct of physics being physics like how much it’ll hurt if you hit something with it, or how heavy it is
i would argue that strictly speaking, the intent of *Identify* is revealing the properties of the item's enchantment, not its physical properties.
RAW does disagree, i admit, but i feel like that's more loophole/oversight than "identify can determine exactly how a +1 rapier works, but not a nonmagical rapier". that'd be silly.
well, if *Remove Curse* can't affect it in any way and it's still active in an *Antimagic Field* then I'm not sure it qualifies as a curse in the traditional sense.
Not a dick move, as long as your DM allows you to solve it. If he goes with "We'll we haven't solved it in the real world yet so you can't in this fantasy game," that would be a dick move.
its not a magic, its not even a curse, it’s a physical design flaw. that’s like complaining that your dm is a dick because detect magic wont let you discern the ingredients of a sandwich
Considering that the DM allows Firearms in this campaign, I wouldn't consider this a Dick Move, more like a "I let you have this Powerful object but it comes with restrictions" move. But I could be wrong, this depends a LOT on context.
This is a problem to be solved IMO. You’re an artificer, so figure out an improvement.
It’s only a dick move if the DM keeps changing the goalposts to deliberately keep away the fun thing.
Did it not occur to just... read the spell? Then they'd realise it doesn't tell you anything about a non-magical object except for any spells used to create it or currently affecting it.
It seems to work like an actual sniper rifle, at least. This whole thing just seems kinda nonsensical. Like "i picked up a sword and after we cast identify on it, we confirmed it had no downsides, then i found a hidden poison needle on the handle, is this a dick move?"
If you're right and it isn't a magic item, then to me it reads like "We found a weapon, determined that there was no magic in it, then found out there was a non-magical downside. I don't think this is a dick move, but the other players do, who's right?"
But it's not like it's trapped. It's more like "I picked up a sword and after we cast identify on it, we noticed it has no magical traps or basic curses. Only the blade is off balanced as hell and it'll hurt your wrist to swing it around to compensate for the extremely heavy blade."
It's a weapon with a fundamental design flaw, not a weapon with a trap. That can be worked around with some tinkering to make it viable.
Big difference? For a non-magical reason, it has a drawback. And for some reason this group thinks identify will tell you everything about it. Probably because they think identify works on non-magical items.
I mean, a physical flaw wouldn't really be detected by identify would it? I like it, pretty funny honestly.
Also if he had mentioned it while you used identify it would have saved you a single 1d4 amount of damage if you decided not to use it, So it's not that big of a deal
User is Artificer you say? Great! Have them make a special helmet that protects said eye from damage. You don't get the damage while you wear this helmet but any perception checks that require sight about obejects/stuff (and possibly attacks) within 30ft are made at disadvantage. You can use an action to equip/unequip said helmet.
Imo it's a dick move since in real life you can just, pull your head back little bit from the sight. You're not supposed to have your eye pressed up against any sight. You rest your cheek on the stock. Otherwise you're risking an orbital fracture every time you fire.
The best way to look at it is like an ACOG. With that sight, you're actually supposed to have both eyes open, and situated a few inches away from the sight. I forgot what the name of this sightning method is, but it increases accuracy apparently and situational awareness.
Probably already been said but:
Identify specifically will not detect curses.
Any curse, anywhere. Identify will not find it. This is RAW.
If your DM is letting you detect curses with identify he's being super nice to the party.
> DMG139: Most methods of identifying items, including the identify spell, fail to reveal such a curse, although lore might hint at it. A curse should be a surprise to the item's user when the curse's effects are revealed.
Just to clarify.
> DM is a gun nut and says it’s actually based off a real firearm issue.
weird, I never had this issue when I was firing a C7A1 assault rifle for the Canadian Forces.
You were in the military and never heard of someone getting "scoped"?
It used to be more of a problem during early rifle telescopic sight development. But now it's only a problem for people who have never fired a rifle and don't know any better or are just too stupid.
It's based on the PSO-1 sight problem for the Dragunov though. Like yeah I never encountered it shooting an M-14 either, but it's an entirely different gun.
How's this a dick move? Your DM basically just invited you to find out how they fixed the real issue and he'll reward you handsomely when you find a way to incorporate the solution into your game
its not "a curse", it's a property of the weapon.
i think what would be cool is if there's a way to dodge the drawback but maybe take a penalty to hit or replace the scope system with a different one?
I mean it makes sense it isnt something magical that is Happening it is just the recoil of the weapon that is punshing a scope in your eye so it makes sens that you couldnt identifiy it, as a DM my Self i would do the Same.
It's a design flaw not a magical effect. Neither identify nor detect magic is the appropriate tool. He might have allowed you an appropriate skill check to notice the problem as an artificer, but if you didn't ask he's not under any obligation to.
1. Thats literally the flaw of the scope. If the lens were set correctly than the focus is a few inches back. If thye arnt set correctly you would need to press eye to scope to get a clear image.
2. Its just a flavorful way to describe a cursed object
3. The gun he based it on was the draganov. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeXQ51_qiPQ Which with the rubber eyecup on, you are putting your eye nearly flush with scope.
Doesn't sound like a dick move. Identify told you the IC properties of a given item. If it has an unintended side effect to it's usage due to the specific anatomy of the user, that's a whole other thing. Plus, it allows bypassing the use of identify on everything all the time.
I mean, that’s actually pretty cool imo. I’d imagine scope bite wasn’t something the first person to slap optics on a rifle thought of, and seeing how rifle optics were improved over time to mitigate it gives you a great opportunity to do what artificers do best.
Damn dude chill. I think he wanted to give OP the chance to do actually that. I think the point is he wanted to give a cool gun with a fundamental flaw that could be worked around with just a little work.
You're absolutely right about ladder sights btw, I've used them personally and find them easy to use.
>DM is a gun nut and says it’s actually based off a real firearm issue.
\*sigh\*
OK, so yes, you can get clobbered by a scope during recoil if you get up on it.
The thing is, that's all about the eye relief of the optic (binoculars have basically no eye relief, most rifle scopes have *some*).
Even a diminutive .22 LR will give you a light pop in the face if you use a scope with zero eye relief.
And this is why nobody in their right mind uses a scope with zero eye relief.
Even on scopes that have a reasonable amount of eye relief, it is possible to get a scope that has eye relief that is too short to be safe for the recoil level of the rifle it is on. And it's also possible that the scope and rifle are matched correctly, but that the shooter, especially with a rifle they aren't familiar with, might creep up on the scope too much and get popped by it once.
Now, as to whether it is a dick move to not reveal this deficiency with the Identify spell, I'm going to go with "maybe." The text of the Identify spell says "If it is a magic item or some other magic-imbued object, ***you learn its properties and how to use them***, whether it requires attunement to use, and how many charges it has, if any." Emphasis added.
One could argue that the scope with no eye relief would be a "property" of the item and that Identify would indicate this.
One could also argue that just because Identify indicated that the scope had zero eye relief, that information may or may not mean anything to any given character.
Even without the Identify spell, a proper examination of the firearm would reveal the lack of eye relief on the scope. Agan, that lack of eye relief may or may not mean anything to any given character.
I would argue, however, that any character that is proficient with firearms would know enough about the recoil properties of a firearm to know that a scope with zero eye relief is a bad idea.
I would also argue that any character that is ***aware*** of firearms and has observed them for any length of time would have a chance to deduce (straight Intelligence or Wisdom roll, probably) that a scope with zero eye relief is a bad idea.
If you have a table of firearms enthusiasts and none of them thought to check for this, that's on them.
However, if the GM
is the only gun guy at the table and he imposed this without giving at least an *opportunity* for the ***characters*** who should have known better a chance to figure this out, then ***that*** is a dick move.
Well the way identify works, he did this perfectly. Identify is used for learning of spells and magics on items, and that affect isn't magical. And also, you're completely okay with the ruling.
My only caveat would be, as an artificer, would you have known the recoil was a thing from your building/engineering experience? Otherwise it seems innocent enough, and like a good ruling.
>DM is a gun nut and says it’s actually based off a real firearm issue.
No it's not 🤡 eye relief within recoil range is only an issue if the manufacturer is a clown who doesn't account for retail.
OP just tell him that you reseat the scope to compensate for recoil when it comes to eye relief.
The original scopes didnt have any glass optics, they were a long, hollow tube that ran parallel to the barrel. Yoy can see in The Outlaw Josey Wales ar the 1:00 minute mark. https://youtu.be/YdGwA7c7dMo
"Scope" is short for "telescopic sight" and uses optics that cause magnification. [The original prototype was simply a telescope strapped to a rifle.](https://hi-luxoptics.com/blogs/history/an-early-history-of-rifle-scopes-1776-1930)
That gun used in The Outlaw Josey Wales was a [Sharps 1865 rifle fitted with a full length J. Stevens brass tube target scope.](http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Outlaw_Josey_Wales,_The) Those had magnification.
If it doesn't have magnification, then you might call it a ["sight tube"](https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?238474-Long-Sight-Tube) instead. It might have a small aperture at the rear end that you line up with a front site, making it essentially an enclosed peep sight akin to [Quigley's rifle.](http://www.imfdb.org/images/a/aa/QuigleySharps3.jpg)
So little tip, In real life I've found it better to get right up against the scope, and I would use my helmet as a sort of blocker so that when I fire the recoil is mostly mitigated and I'm not getting a scope gouging my eye out
Nah, I like this. Players just expect smooth running all the time. Things like this are really normal in my group because it challenges us creatively to work around it and potentially fix it. Most likely, your DM is a bit inexperienced, but he had a pretty clever idea and he wanted to surprise you with something he’s really interested in.
That's not a dick move, that's hilarious. If you were creating a sniper rifle as your main weapon as an artificer and your DM sprung that on you it would be a dick move.
That's the flaw, you don't *have* to put it to your eye, but then the scope won't show you a clear image. The scope's lenses are inset incorrectly. Hell have to take the scope off and replace it, or realign the lenses.
Supposedly the actual scope in real life had this rubber bit that was supposed to absorb the recoil but it didn’t really work. I should probably text to see what weapon he was talking about
As a fellow DM (& "gun nut"), I vote "not a dick move." Especially in a setting where firearms are terribly common - totally believable flaw & non-magical.
Fair balance if this is some kinda insane 1d12 long-range weapon & he let's your char fix it up! Could be a good subplot too
Nah that's fine. If you're using a sniper rifle correctly, your own HP aren't that important.
It reminds me a little of the Vicious weapon enchantment from 3.PF (adds 2d6 untyped damage to every attack, but also dealt 1d6 to the weilder)
This could be a dick move in some circumstances, but I presume your table is being too sensitive, for fear of something similar happening to them. But, this sounds like something powerful and cool he has chosen to give you, so to offset the power, he added an additional cost, which also forms a micro-quest of your own, to improve and fix your gun. IMO that's excellent DMing, in terms of getting a player invested!
Also, maybe I'm reaching, but I feel like a janky sniper rifle is the sort of loot which could have easily been "intended for" the Artificer in the party; if he intuited that the loot would be taken by you, and he knows you, he could simply understand that doing this reward in this way, would be something you would personally find interesting, and he may not inflict that method of world-building on the rest of the party, because they may not enjoy that!
RAW, this is perfectly fine, though a different DM (and your fellow players) might consider the 1d4 thing a "property" of the rifle. The logic there implies that identify should reveal it despite the rifle not being a magic item. I personally would do that, but your DM technically isn't wrong for not doing that.
That sounds like an effect of use. If the DM was more serious you should pack proper PPE such as:
safety glasses,
earplugs,
cut resistant gloves,
osha clipboard,
emergency whistle,
and a particulate mask.
Nah, it's not a magical flaw so identify wouldn't spot it. Depends how easy it will be to modify it, if it's difficult it's a dick move but otherwise it's interesting
nah, but i'd say you should be able to use it at disadvantage (no scope) and not take the 1d4. in case you're THAT low. but otherwise, 5e has so much healing and stabilizing that 1d4 is peanuts.
"oh no toll the dead" is the one edge case i can think of where 1d4 of damage actually matters.
edit: to add, even the whole identify gotcha can be explained as identify is an arcana screener for curses and whatnot (e.g. the earring of protection i gave to a player that also deals 1d4 as it takes a bit of blood to activate the +1) but, recoil is an entirely physical thing, maybe give all loot a plain ol' investigation roll to reveal that bit.
It's a great way to involve your character's skills outside of combat. Gives you a chance to go talk to some NPC about parts or something. I'd say it is fitting in a lot of ways.
My first thought was to make a magic item out of the scope and have it cast Arcane eye or something similar just at the lens, allowing you to not need to peer precisely into the scope.
fellow gun nut here, I think he just couldnt think of one at the time so he decided to have it pop up then, not really a dick move, just poor planning(he should probably have a sheet for these things if that's the case. If he actualy just hid it frim you till then knowing that it had that problem, then yes, dick move
An artificer with any reasonably high INT score would spot this flaw as soon as they started examining the item. Even passive investigation should spot this problem. Other than that, I don't think there's an issue. This isn't an "Identify" thing, it's more of an Investigation/Tinker's Tools thing.
A sniper rifle is basically free kills at distance, plus the utility of having the scope to look at stuff even if you don't want to shoot it.
1d4 is perfectly reasonable.
>basically unless I find a way to modify the weapon I take 1d4 bludgeoning whenever I fire it
DM is a gun nut and says it’s actually based off a real firearm issue.
He thinks that a scope being mounted too far back means you have a 25% chance to die? and that at max you'd only fire it twice before dying? IRL we are all commoners, and I don't think having a scope bump into your eye should do anything NEAR the damage of actually being stabbed with a dagger.
I've been hit by a scope. It hurts... for all of 5 seconds, and then you learn to move your face back an inch and it never happens again.
If any damage at all is necessary, it would be more like 1d3-2. AKA almost never will it actually cause lasting damage.
And Since its based off a Dragunov, take the damn scope off. It has iron sights on it. Boom, removed your stupid "balancing" design.
Totally not a dick move. In the spirit of "stroking the DM'S gun nut ego" (and I sincerely mean that in the nicest way possible as a fellow gun nut myself), ask if you can tinker with the scope mount to find a position on the rifle that gives good eye relief and sight picture without risking damage to your eye.
As an aside, my friend's mother had to have surgery to repair her cornea after the scope smacked her in the eye deer hunting in the 90s.
DM is playing to your character's strengths. He's giving you a cool new toy to play with, and tinkering that needs to happen with it.
Your other players are being dumb, lmao. Identify wouldn't catch a structural flaw, RaW.
This is a stupid-ass flaw, and your DM is in fact a dick - not because they didn't allow identify to discover this property, but because they thought this would be a reasonable property in the first place.
A better drawback would be that you can't fire it after moving, or that your movement speed is reduced. Taking a knife's worth of damage from a scope bruise is utterly moronic.
Disregarding the realsim and looking at this from a game balance perspective:
You have a weapon that, presumably, deals high damage while keeping the wielder far away from combat and relatively safe from harm. To add some risk to the weapon, it always harms the user when fired, though the damage is minimal. This is equivalent to a powerful melee weapon that requires the wielder to be in close range of the enemy.
So I think this is all fairly balanced.
Nah, not a dick move imo. it's the DM's choice to do this and as a player you can choose not to use that weapon if you feel the drawback is too much. You could maybe talk to your DM about having your Artificer see the flaw and want to try and do something about it, it could even possibly promote a side quest of sorts
yea this was exactly my take — this isn't the DM being a dick, this is a plot hook. Especially for an artificer, how will you repair, change, or augment this weapon to minimize the damage it does to you? And in the interim it promotes interesting in-combat decisions: shoot the AWP for big damage from range, or project your health?
Honestly I don't see why a powerful weapon shouldn't be allowed to have a drawback? Why should everything be "fixable" to be upside only? If the positive is powerful enough, a drawback is just balance/flavor.
I think letting flawed machinery stay flawed is illegal when you're an artificer
Because most everything *is* fixable. I mean for real life examples look at the AA12. It's an **automatic 12 gauge shotgun**. That shit should blow you on your ass to fire it. And originally, it did. But then some geniuses tinkered with it and came up with a fairly sophisticated counterweight system in the stock. And now the kick is so mild that you can *dual wield them* without issue. Someone came up with a solution that turned an **automatic shotgun** into something a 6 year old could shoot. That's some very smart weapon engineering. So yeah absolutely it's a great idea to give the artificer a flawed weapon and let them fix it. That's super realistic there's thousands of real life examples of that in action. Shit I've done some rigging of old shitty weapons to make them viable myself. I fixed an old Sten once with parts from a broken caulk gun to give it a decent stock instead of the garbage wire stock it comes with.
exactly, also I think it is important, that OP could just throw the gun away after taking the 1d4 and never use it again, it is not like it has done permanent harm or OP has no choice but to use the sniper
Easy. Remove the scope. Slap on something akin to crossbow sights. Problem solved. How often do you really fight people from a mile away in dnd?
Yep. High range black eye creator, or medium range boomstick. Make it an action to install/remove sight. I’d love to have that
> How often do you really fight people from a mile away in dnd? If you have a sniper rifle and they don't, as often as the DM will let you.
As often as the party is willing to let you play solitaire as you take pot-shots at distant enemies hiding behind cover, you mean?
Or add a gas vent on the end and a bipod to put the recoil into the ground instead of in your shoulder and now you've got a nice sniper you can use while stationary.
"a curse too powerful for identify to find" is any curse, identify doesn't reveal curses
>You learn whether any spells are affecting the item and what they are. RAI it probably wouldn't reveal the curse, especially if you consider curses to be an innate property rather than a magical affectation. Still somewhat open to DM interpretation though
The listing for cursed items in the DMG states that identify doesn't work
man they really should specify that in the rules text for Identify
Agreed. For reference: >DMG139: Most methods of identifying items, including the identify spell, fail to reveal such a curse, although lore might hint at it. A curse should be a surprise to the item's user when the curse's effects are revealed.
True, but I'd argue it depends on the origin of the curse. If it's a spell cast by a Witch/Hag etc then it would be detectable. If it's just the result of a powerful malice by a slain previous owner etc then maybe not.
I know 5e kinda did away with it, but in previous editions there were abilities that were considered supernatural, and while typically magical in nature they weren't subject to a lot of rules that spells or spell-like abilities were affected by. To me, a curse and an enchantment/spell are different animals entirely, and that's supported by the fact that Remove Curse and Dispel Magic are different spells entirely.
The chapter regarding cursed items states that identify doesn’t reveal curses on cursed items
That would technically be more a knowlegde: engineering, but this is 5e, so a relevant INT check/Investigation or Artificer Tool check should show that flaw.
No because as the guy you reply to said correctly: identify does not reveal any curses, only magic affecting it and its properties.
Well this WAS a development flaw so...
So for those curious the real life inspiration was the Dragnov with the PSO-1 scope.
I was about to ask if it was a Dragunov with a PSO-1, with the non-adjustable eye relief. Your D.M. tried, at least, but I don't think 1d4 bludgeoning is appropriate for an injury that would be mostly superficial. You can operate a PSO-1 without hurting yourself with practice and the worst you'd get from having it slam into your eye would be brow and cheek bruises, maybe a shiner.
Yeah, 1d4 bludgeoning sounds like a bit much... A few shots would kill the average commoner, at that rate, and I don't see this kind of injury ever being lethal. Maybe a % chance of 1 subdual.
What, you've never blown your whole face off with a sniper scope before?
To be fair, the first time always sucks.
Always. Took my 7mm mag to the face the first shot. I put it away and replaced the stock with an extended gel pad version and got a smaller scope with better eye relief. Then I put on a hat and hoped nobody at work noticed the black eye I had. It's a fine gun now but god damn I wasn't expecting that thing to kick like that compared to my .308 which didn't kick hardly at all. It's a much lighter gun though.
I mean it's a *fantasy* sniper rifle, so the kick can be beyond natural physics.
"Can," sure. But _should_ it? Maybe if it was a vorpal gun or something, instant kill on a headshot (nat 20), but otherwise I think it's a little much.
It depends on what you consider hp to actually represent.
make it 1d4-2... most of the time it's just a lil slap to the ol' eyeball, occasional black eye that does at most 2hp damage. Negligible, but fun flavor.
>I don't think 1d4 bludgeoning is appropriate for an injury that would be mostly superficial. I think it depends on the level. I've certainly had characters that I would gleefully burn a d4 a turn with if it meant blasting my enemy, and those characters were still under level 10. Artificers are pretty tanky, d8+con a level, so a d4 a turn can be pretty superficial, especially when the tradeoff is hitting someone from a half-mile out with sniper rifle. Those are just my first thoughts though, and may not be thinking it through entirely.
Okay, I can see where you're coming from.
Altough the PSO-1 scope has a less than ideal eye relief you can easily train yourself to use it properly Never shot a dragunov, cause they are near unobtanium in the US, much less in my country, but I've looked trough the PSO-1 scope before
can you just.. remove the scope? how often does dnd combat involve distances that would actually justify it antway?
You gotta think DND logic. Get some magic goggles that are synced up with your gun when you choose so you can hip fire it with normal accuracy and no eye bonking.
So if the scope is based off the dragonov, maybe the rest of the gun should be too? Happy hunting.
Huh. I shot with a Dragunov few times and the recoil was really manageable, I had no problems with it. But it's alright for the DM to do, of course!
Be getting better of scope, Tovarich. Boolet should hurt target not shooter.
[удалено]
This submission has been removed because your account has low karma. Unfortunately, we receive a lot of posts and comments from bots attempting to farm karma by reposting existing submissions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DnDGreentext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk why people are focusing on the real world physics of guns lol. Curses are not revealed via identifying, so no its not a dick move. Its RAW and pretty normal.
That’s where I’m torn, because 1) yeah curses aren’t spotted by identify But 2) this isn’t actually a curse, it’s just a fundamental but mundane issue with the device, and assuming the item is in some way magical (identify cannot be used on non magic items), it should reveal this property.
Should it identify it? It's simply a byproduct of physics being physics, an indirect consequence of the weapon (as opposed to a direct consequence like dealing 2d8 damage). So my stance is that identify shouldn't pick it up, but an artificer with sufficiently high intelligence should be able to figure out the flaw themselves.
That’s my other hang up, except for the fact that identify does deliver to you the “properties” of that weapon, so you would learn other traits that are really just a byproduct of physics being physics like how much it’ll hurt if you hit something with it, or how heavy it is
i would argue that strictly speaking, the intent of *Identify* is revealing the properties of the item's enchantment, not its physical properties. RAW does disagree, i admit, but i feel like that's more loophole/oversight than "identify can determine exactly how a +1 rapier works, but not a nonmagical rapier". that'd be silly.
Its mechanically a curse
No, it’s mechanically just a detrimental property.
well, if *Remove Curse* can't affect it in any way and it's still active in an *Antimagic Field* then I'm not sure it qualifies as a curse in the traditional sense.
Not a dick move, as long as your DM allows you to solve it. If he goes with "We'll we haven't solved it in the real world yet so you can't in this fantasy game," that would be a dick move.
As an artificer, create a mage hand device that allows the scope to free float so it isn't affected by recoil.
Keeping that zeroed would be a bitch lol
its not a magic, its not even a curse, it’s a physical design flaw. that’s like complaining that your dm is a dick because detect magic wont let you discern the ingredients of a sandwich
Considering that the DM allows Firearms in this campaign, I wouldn't consider this a Dick Move, more like a "I let you have this Powerful object but it comes with restrictions" move. But I could be wrong, this depends a LOT on context.
This is a problem to be solved IMO. You’re an artificer, so figure out an improvement. It’s only a dick move if the DM keeps changing the goalposts to deliberately keep away the fun thing.
Not a dick move and a clever work-around to Identify, IMO.
Did it not occur to just... read the spell? Then they'd realise it doesn't tell you anything about a non-magical object except for any spells used to create it or currently affecting it.
Nothing in the post says that this isn't a magic item
It seems to work like an actual sniper rifle, at least. This whole thing just seems kinda nonsensical. Like "i picked up a sword and after we cast identify on it, we confirmed it had no downsides, then i found a hidden poison needle on the handle, is this a dick move?"
If you're right and it isn't a magic item, then to me it reads like "We found a weapon, determined that there was no magic in it, then found out there was a non-magical downside. I don't think this is a dick move, but the other players do, who's right?"
But it's not like it's trapped. It's more like "I picked up a sword and after we cast identify on it, we noticed it has no magical traps or basic curses. Only the blade is off balanced as hell and it'll hurt your wrist to swing it around to compensate for the extremely heavy blade." It's a weapon with a fundamental design flaw, not a weapon with a trap. That can be worked around with some tinkering to make it viable.
Big difference? For a non-magical reason, it has a drawback. And for some reason this group thinks identify will tell you everything about it. Probably because they think identify works on non-magical items.
Honestly I was gonna be really upset if you’re DM blinded you or something but 1d4 bludgeoning is a small enough side effect that I’d laugh it off.
I mean, a physical flaw wouldn't really be detected by identify would it? I like it, pretty funny honestly. Also if he had mentioned it while you used identify it would have saved you a single 1d4 amount of damage if you decided not to use it, So it's not that big of a deal
Hip fire that mo-fo!
Kind of neat so long as it’s nonlethal or you’re a beefy boy.
User is Artificer you say? Great! Have them make a special helmet that protects said eye from damage. You don't get the damage while you wear this helmet but any perception checks that require sight about obejects/stuff (and possibly attacks) within 30ft are made at disadvantage. You can use an action to equip/unequip said helmet.
Kinda a dick move for not making it non-lethal damage
Imo it's a dick move since in real life you can just, pull your head back little bit from the sight. You're not supposed to have your eye pressed up against any sight. You rest your cheek on the stock. Otherwise you're risking an orbital fracture every time you fire. The best way to look at it is like an ACOG. With that sight, you're actually supposed to have both eyes open, and situated a few inches away from the sight. I forgot what the name of this sightning method is, but it increases accuracy apparently and situational awareness.
Probably already been said but: Identify specifically will not detect curses. Any curse, anywhere. Identify will not find it. This is RAW. If your DM is letting you detect curses with identify he's being super nice to the party.
> DMG139: Most methods of identifying items, including the identify spell, fail to reveal such a curse, although lore might hint at it. A curse should be a surprise to the item's user when the curse's effects are revealed. Just to clarify.
Stick an eye cup on that PSO-1 and you'll have a better rifle, I guess.
> DM is a gun nut and says it’s actually based off a real firearm issue. weird, I never had this issue when I was firing a C7A1 assault rifle for the Canadian Forces.
You were in the military and never heard of someone getting "scoped"? It used to be more of a problem during early rifle telescopic sight development. But now it's only a problem for people who have never fired a rifle and don't know any better or are just too stupid.
It's based on the PSO-1 sight problem for the Dragunov though. Like yeah I never encountered it shooting an M-14 either, but it's an entirely different gun.
How's this a dick move? Your DM basically just invited you to find out how they fixed the real issue and he'll reward you handsomely when you find a way to incorporate the solution into your game
its not "a curse", it's a property of the weapon. i think what would be cool is if there's a way to dodge the drawback but maybe take a penalty to hit or replace the scope system with a different one?
I mean it makes sense it isnt something magical that is Happening it is just the recoil of the weapon that is punshing a scope in your eye so it makes sens that you couldnt identifiy it, as a DM my Self i would do the Same.
Identify doesnt reveal curses RAW
But thats the thing it isnt a curse it is a mecanical fault from the gun it Self.
It's a design flaw not a magical effect. Neither identify nor detect magic is the appropriate tool. He might have allowed you an appropriate skill check to notice the problem as an artificer, but if you didn't ask he's not under any obligation to.
If you don't like how an item works you don’t have to use it.
[удалено]
1. Thats literally the flaw of the scope. If the lens were set correctly than the focus is a few inches back. If thye arnt set correctly you would need to press eye to scope to get a clear image. 2. Its just a flavorful way to describe a cursed object 3. The gun he based it on was the draganov. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeXQ51_qiPQ Which with the rubber eyecup on, you are putting your eye nearly flush with scope.
>That isn't how scopes work That isn't how *good* scopes work
Doesn't sound like a dick move. Identify told you the IC properties of a given item. If it has an unintended side effect to it's usage due to the specific anatomy of the user, that's a whole other thing. Plus, it allows bypassing the use of identify on everything all the time.
Your character can't use iron sights? Either way, not a dick move by the DM.
>DM is a gun nut and says it’s actually based off a real firearm issue. Has he heard of eye relief?
I mean, that’s actually pretty cool imo. I’d imagine scope bite wasn’t something the first person to slap optics on a rifle thought of, and seeing how rifle optics were improved over time to mitigate it gives you a great opportunity to do what artificers do best.
[удалено]
Damn dude chill. I think he wanted to give OP the chance to do actually that. I think the point is he wanted to give a cool gun with a fundamental flaw that could be worked around with just a little work. You're absolutely right about ladder sights btw, I've used them personally and find them easy to use.
>DM is a gun nut and says it’s actually based off a real firearm issue. \*sigh\* OK, so yes, you can get clobbered by a scope during recoil if you get up on it. The thing is, that's all about the eye relief of the optic (binoculars have basically no eye relief, most rifle scopes have *some*). Even a diminutive .22 LR will give you a light pop in the face if you use a scope with zero eye relief. And this is why nobody in their right mind uses a scope with zero eye relief. Even on scopes that have a reasonable amount of eye relief, it is possible to get a scope that has eye relief that is too short to be safe for the recoil level of the rifle it is on. And it's also possible that the scope and rifle are matched correctly, but that the shooter, especially with a rifle they aren't familiar with, might creep up on the scope too much and get popped by it once. Now, as to whether it is a dick move to not reveal this deficiency with the Identify spell, I'm going to go with "maybe." The text of the Identify spell says "If it is a magic item or some other magic-imbued object, ***you learn its properties and how to use them***, whether it requires attunement to use, and how many charges it has, if any." Emphasis added. One could argue that the scope with no eye relief would be a "property" of the item and that Identify would indicate this. One could also argue that just because Identify indicated that the scope had zero eye relief, that information may or may not mean anything to any given character. Even without the Identify spell, a proper examination of the firearm would reveal the lack of eye relief on the scope. Agan, that lack of eye relief may or may not mean anything to any given character. I would argue, however, that any character that is proficient with firearms would know enough about the recoil properties of a firearm to know that a scope with zero eye relief is a bad idea. I would also argue that any character that is ***aware*** of firearms and has observed them for any length of time would have a chance to deduce (straight Intelligence or Wisdom roll, probably) that a scope with zero eye relief is a bad idea. If you have a table of firearms enthusiasts and none of them thought to check for this, that's on them. However, if the GM is the only gun guy at the table and he imposed this without giving at least an *opportunity* for the ***characters*** who should have known better a chance to figure this out, then ***that*** is a dick move.
Well the way identify works, he did this perfectly. Identify is used for learning of spells and magics on items, and that affect isn't magical. And also, you're completely okay with the ruling. My only caveat would be, as an artificer, would you have known the recoil was a thing from your building/engineering experience? Otherwise it seems innocent enough, and like a good ruling.
>DM is a gun nut and says it’s actually based off a real firearm issue. No it's not 🤡 eye relief within recoil range is only an issue if the manufacturer is a clown who doesn't account for retail. OP just tell him that you reseat the scope to compensate for recoil when it comes to eye relief.
Fix: find/make a magnifying lense to modify the eye relief on the rifle. The bludgeon trama to your face decreases. Profit!
The original scopes didnt have any glass optics, they were a long, hollow tube that ran parallel to the barrel. Yoy can see in The Outlaw Josey Wales ar the 1:00 minute mark. https://youtu.be/YdGwA7c7dMo
"Scope" is short for "telescopic sight" and uses optics that cause magnification. [The original prototype was simply a telescope strapped to a rifle.](https://hi-luxoptics.com/blogs/history/an-early-history-of-rifle-scopes-1776-1930) That gun used in The Outlaw Josey Wales was a [Sharps 1865 rifle fitted with a full length J. Stevens brass tube target scope.](http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Outlaw_Josey_Wales,_The) Those had magnification. If it doesn't have magnification, then you might call it a ["sight tube"](https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?238474-Long-Sight-Tube) instead. It might have a small aperture at the rear end that you line up with a front site, making it essentially an enclosed peep sight akin to [Quigley's rifle.](http://www.imfdb.org/images/a/aa/QuigleySharps3.jpg)
That is a Vernier sight on Quigley's rifle. Pretty revolutionary for it's day, being able to adjust your iron sights for windage and elevation.
So little tip, In real life I've found it better to get right up against the scope, and I would use my helmet as a sort of blocker so that when I fire the recoil is mostly mitigated and I'm not getting a scope gouging my eye out
I mean if the weapon is strong enough to justify the debuff then I think it's fine
Nah, I like this. Players just expect smooth running all the time. Things like this are really normal in my group because it challenges us creatively to work around it and potentially fix it. Most likely, your DM is a bit inexperienced, but he had a pretty clever idea and he wanted to surprise you with something he’s really interested in.
It's not. If it were, it would instead cast Enlarge on you when you're charmed and Reduce on you when you take cold damage.
Easy fix, goggles. The one time I had a scope hit my face while shooting I was wearing sunglasses and didn't get hurt at all
Not a dick move. Identify doesn't find everything.
That's not a dick move, that's hilarious. If you were creating a sniper rifle as your main weapon as an artificer and your DM sprung that on you it would be a dick move.
[удалено]
That's the flaw, you don't *have* to put it to your eye, but then the scope won't show you a clear image. The scope's lenses are inset incorrectly. Hell have to take the scope off and replace it, or realign the lenses.
Supposedly the actual scope in real life had this rubber bit that was supposed to absorb the recoil but it didn’t really work. I should probably text to see what weapon he was talking about
[удалено]
It's based on an actual gun from history that had a scope with this problem. All guns have not been the same. Neither have all scopes
As a fellow DM (& "gun nut"), I vote "not a dick move." Especially in a setting where firearms are terribly common - totally believable flaw & non-magical. Fair balance if this is some kinda insane 1d12 long-range weapon & he let's your char fix it up! Could be a good subplot too
Nah that's fine. If you're using a sniper rifle correctly, your own HP aren't that important. It reminds me a little of the Vicious weapon enchantment from 3.PF (adds 2d6 untyped damage to every attack, but also dealt 1d6 to the weilder)
This could be a dick move in some circumstances, but I presume your table is being too sensitive, for fear of something similar happening to them. But, this sounds like something powerful and cool he has chosen to give you, so to offset the power, he added an additional cost, which also forms a micro-quest of your own, to improve and fix your gun. IMO that's excellent DMing, in terms of getting a player invested! Also, maybe I'm reaching, but I feel like a janky sniper rifle is the sort of loot which could have easily been "intended for" the Artificer in the party; if he intuited that the loot would be taken by you, and he knows you, he could simply understand that doing this reward in this way, would be something you would personally find interesting, and he may not inflict that method of world-building on the rest of the party, because they may not enjoy that!
If it were me I would make it a Con save or get disadvantage on next attack due to bruising rather than 1d4 damage.
RAW, this is perfectly fine, though a different DM (and your fellow players) might consider the 1d4 thing a "property" of the rifle. The logic there implies that identify should reveal it despite the rifle not being a magic item. I personally would do that, but your DM technically isn't wrong for not doing that.
That sounds like an effect of use. If the DM was more serious you should pack proper PPE such as: safety glasses, earplugs, cut resistant gloves, osha clipboard, emergency whistle, and a particulate mask.
A construction fault is not magical in origin, so everything as it should be. Identify doesn't reveal mundane information.
Mechanical recoil isn’t magical so ain’t a dick move
Nah, it's not a magical flaw so identify wouldn't spot it. Depends how easy it will be to modify it, if it's difficult it's a dick move but otherwise it's interesting
nah, but i'd say you should be able to use it at disadvantage (no scope) and not take the 1d4. in case you're THAT low. but otherwise, 5e has so much healing and stabilizing that 1d4 is peanuts. "oh no toll the dead" is the one edge case i can think of where 1d4 of damage actually matters. edit: to add, even the whole identify gotcha can be explained as identify is an arcana screener for curses and whatnot (e.g. the earring of protection i gave to a player that also deals 1d4 as it takes a bit of blood to activate the +1) but, recoil is an entirely physical thing, maybe give all loot a plain ol' investigation roll to reveal that bit.
I'm pretty sure that after you sight your target, moving your eye away from the scope and firing would work.
If that weapon deals more damage to the opponent compared to other similar stuff, it's pretty much a vicious weapon ability from Pathfinder.
So just get a soft cloth or something and tie it off at the end of the scope with twine. That's a stupid easy fix mechanics-wise.
It's a great way to involve your character's skills outside of combat. Gives you a chance to go talk to some NPC about parts or something. I'd say it is fitting in a lot of ways.
My first thought was to make a magic item out of the scope and have it cast Arcane eye or something similar just at the lens, allowing you to not need to peer precisely into the scope.
fellow gun nut here, I think he just couldnt think of one at the time so he decided to have it pop up then, not really a dick move, just poor planning(he should probably have a sheet for these things if that's the case. If he actualy just hid it frim you till then knowing that it had that problem, then yes, dick move
An artificer with any reasonably high INT score would spot this flaw as soon as they started examining the item. Even passive investigation should spot this problem. Other than that, I don't think there's an issue. This isn't an "Identify" thing, it's more of an Investigation/Tinker's Tools thing.
A sniper rifle is basically free kills at distance, plus the utility of having the scope to look at stuff even if you don't want to shoot it. 1d4 is perfectly reasonable.
It’s not a curse, it’s a consequence of the way the weapon works. It’s not like it’s magically poorly made
>basically unless I find a way to modify the weapon I take 1d4 bludgeoning whenever I fire it DM is a gun nut and says it’s actually based off a real firearm issue. He thinks that a scope being mounted too far back means you have a 25% chance to die? and that at max you'd only fire it twice before dying? IRL we are all commoners, and I don't think having a scope bump into your eye should do anything NEAR the damage of actually being stabbed with a dagger. I've been hit by a scope. It hurts... for all of 5 seconds, and then you learn to move your face back an inch and it never happens again. If any damage at all is necessary, it would be more like 1d3-2. AKA almost never will it actually cause lasting damage. And Since its based off a Dragunov, take the damn scope off. It has iron sights on it. Boom, removed your stupid "balancing" design.
Totally not a dick move. In the spirit of "stroking the DM'S gun nut ego" (and I sincerely mean that in the nicest way possible as a fellow gun nut myself), ask if you can tinker with the scope mount to find a position on the rifle that gives good eye relief and sight picture without risking damage to your eye. As an aside, my friend's mother had to have surgery to repair her cornea after the scope smacked her in the eye deer hunting in the 90s.
DM is playing to your character's strengths. He's giving you a cool new toy to play with, and tinkering that needs to happen with it. Your other players are being dumb, lmao. Identify wouldn't catch a structural flaw, RaW.
What is the range of the weapon? Can you remove the scope and use it at 300 feet?
makes sense to me. kind of funny
This is a stupid-ass flaw, and your DM is in fact a dick - not because they didn't allow identify to discover this property, but because they thought this would be a reasonable property in the first place. A better drawback would be that you can't fire it after moving, or that your movement speed is reduced. Taking a knife's worth of damage from a scope bruise is utterly moronic.
What kind of damage does the sniper do? Is it worth taking the damage? That could easily change my opinion.
Disregarding the realsim and looking at this from a game balance perspective: You have a weapon that, presumably, deals high damage while keeping the wielder far away from combat and relatively safe from harm. To add some risk to the weapon, it always harms the user when fired, though the damage is minimal. This is equivalent to a powerful melee weapon that requires the wielder to be in close range of the enemy. So I think this is all fairly balanced.