Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Rouge 07-01-07, 08:45 AM	Ive got a guy in my group that likes guns. Ever since he found out about Lantan, hes been naging me about guns. He wants them, he wants to use them all the time, and he wants to get improved guns, like shotguns and rifles. Should i allow guns in my campain? i had a few for a time, but i had to cut them out beacuse they were to powerful. Somewone please help me. Rules for guns would be nice.
MarkusTay63 07-01-07, 02:06 PM	Allow it, they are only as useful as a bow anyway (ranged combat), you can only get off one shot (usually) before melee begins, and the Smokepowder is WAY expensive and extremely hard to get (Lantan, Thay, Shou, possibly Halrua). Think of Pirates of the Caribbean - they actually made a big deal of the one and only time he shot his gun. The big difference it could conceivably make is in frigtening folks and animals. Horses not trained for the noise would bolt, and I could see a bunch of Orcs turning tail and running (although a more sophisticated bunch {Obould} might think its a type of 'magic wand' and want to take it from the character). Orcs with gunnes.... now theres a thought. :devil:
Dr_Tough 07-01-07, 02:37 PM	Well, it's your game, so end the it's the DM's decision. Keep in mind that rifles weren't invented until the 1800's on Earth so there's no way they'll be in FR. Shotguns are in the same boat. Best case scenario for the guy is going to be a matchlock gun. Basically it's a musket looking thing with a clamp that holds a match. When the match burns down the weapon fires. For all intents and purposes it can be fired only once every combat. I would imagine it would do something like 2d8 damage with a crit of 19-20/x2. Range increment of like 60 feet. He's better off with a crossbow in other words.
godbeepit 07-01-07, 02:42 PM	Yeah, there's nothing wrong with guns as written for D&D. I mean, in my game I let someone use a gun and it turns out its about as good as a crossbow. He's using a pistol which does the same damage as the crossbow but is much more expensive. As for the shotguns and such, you create the weapon around the same weapon damage as other guns but change mechanics. For instance your shotgun could be a 15-foot cone for damage (assuming pellets not slug). But overall, I've really found guns to be expensive cosmetics.
MerrikCale 07-01-07, 09:14 PM	I never allow guns myself. They just don't seem to fit. However, they are no overly powerful by any means. So if you have no prob with them from a flavor point, go for it.
dragonheart 07-02-07, 09:14 AM	Well, it's your game, so end the it's the DM's decision. Keep in mind that rifles weren't invented until the 1800's on Earth so there's no way they'll be in FR. Shotguns are in the same boat. Best case scenario for the guy is going to be a matchlock gun. Basically it's a musket looking thing with a clamp that holds a match. When the match burns down the weapon fires. For all intents and purposes it can be fired only once every combat. I would imagine it would do something like 2d8 damage with a crit of 19-20/x2. Range increment of like 60 feet. He's better off with a crossbow in other words. actually rifles go way back and all a shotgun really is is a musket firing many smaller balls instead of just one large one (a slug) for reference here is an approximate timeline for guns in our world (and related dates in FR): gunpowder discovered-Europe: 1250 AD first guns - basic matchlock canons and hand canons: 1300 AD (1350DR) first decent matchlock muskets 1350 AD (1350 DR - gond's begining invention) first rifled musket 1375 AD (now? 1375 DR?) remember that initially rifling was not for accuracy but for keeping barrel fouling to a minimum first wheellocks: 1400 AD First snapping locks: 1550 AD (these are the predecessors of the flintlock) first true flintlock: 1675 AD first flintlock rifles: 1685 AD first (and only) effective mechanical breechloading "rapid Fire" flintlock: 1775 AD (this is the Ferguson rifle actually capable of the game rule firing rate of 1 shot /round (6 sec) - at least untill the barrel fouled "kentucky" long rifle: 1800 AD first percussion caps: 1805 AD percussion caps replace flintlocks: 1820s AD first effective multishot weapon (colt Pistol) 1835 AD first metal cartridges: 1855 AD first repeating rifles (henry/winchester): 1860 AD first "machine gun" (GAtling Gun): 1862 AD "smokeless powder": 1890 AD first true automatic weapons (early colt auto, "broom handle" mauser pistol, Maxim Machinegun": 1895 AD if you follow a similar timeline for innovations then sure allowing very simple firarms is not really unbalancing. If yoru interested in making it a bit more realistic then I would reduce the fire rate from 1 shot/round to a more realistic 1 shot every 3 rounds (4 shots /minute). this means that its not a reapeating weapon but rather a one shot weapon in combat and this was the real reason you saw pirates etc wearing many pistols - no time to reload in combat so you carried a pistol for each round you thought you would be able to fire. I would also introduce a -2 to hit chances for the first shot because of the inherent innaccuracy of a smoothbore; and a -4 (stacking) to each additional shot for both the PC and any characters next to or behind him due to the accumulating smoke from the weapon - do give them bonuses to AC as well for "cover" because of the smoke :D . I would limit the weapons allowed to matchlocks and wheellocks but would include rifled weapons at an even slower firing rate (1 shot/ 4 rounds (3 shots/minute)) but without the initial minus to accuracy.
ThornTheWanderer 07-02-07, 01:58 PM	I would have to go with MerrikCale, guns of any kind just take away from the flavor of D&D
MarkusTay63 07-02-07, 08:34 PM	Not D&D, just FR. They're are plenty of fantasy worlds that gunnes fit into just fine, like Swashbuckling Adventures or Warcraft: RPG. It's certainly not 'high fantasy', but Steampunk is part of the genre. However, in response to the OP, a gun won't unbalance the game, so if the players want it, go for it. In my own game I gave my players a choice. They were all avid WoW players BTW, yet they didn't want guns around. Smart kids. ;)
Dr_Tough 07-02-07, 09:49 PM	actually rifles go way back and all a shotgun really is is a musket firing many smaller balls instead of just one large one (a slug) for reference here is an approximate timeline for guns in our world (and related dates in FR): gunpowder discovered-Europe: 1250 AD first guns - basic matchlock canons and hand canons: 1300 AD (1350DR) first decent matchlock muskets 1350 AD (1350 DR - gond's begining invention) first rifled musket 1375 AD (now? 1375 DR?) remember that initially rifling was not for accuracy but for keeping barrel fouling to a minimum first wheellocks: 1400 AD First snapping locks: 1550 AD (these are the predecessors of the flintlock) first true flintlock: 1675 AD first flintlock rifles: 1685 AD first (and only) effective mechanical breechloading "rapid Fire" flintlock: 1775 AD (this is the Ferguson rifle actually capable of the game rule firing rate of 1 shot /round (6 sec) - at least untill the barrel fouled "kentucky" long rifle: 1800 AD first percussion caps: 1805 AD percussion caps replace flintlocks: 1820s AD first effective multishot weapon (colt Pistol) 1835 AD first metal cartridges: 1855 AD first repeating rifles (henry/winchester): 1860 AD first "machine gun" (GAtling Gun): 1862 AD "smokeless powder": 1890 AD first true automatic weapons (early colt auto, "broom handle" mauser pistol, Maxim Machinegun": 1895 AD I'm going by when the mentioned weapons came into widespread use. Which for both shotguns and rifles was the 1800's. I believe you're confusing a shotgun with a blunderbuss Before the 1800's, people used muskets, only sharpshooters used rifles. Also, it's highly unlikely someone can shoot a musket 4 times a minute. During the Civil War a trained soldier could only fire 3 times a minute and his weapon was leaps and bounds ahead of the old muskets from the 1600's and 1700's. With those muskets (like a brown bess) a trained soldier got about 2 shots off a minute. EDIT: I think a common mistake with guns in D&D is that people want to make them too badass. Really, what made the guns so good, wasn't their rate of fire (which was awful) but their damage. Hence why a musket does, like, 2d8 damage, twice as much as a longbow.
selunatic2397 07-02-07, 11:25 PM	Guns and D&D just never seem to fit to me...:confused: Heck! If I want guns and magic I'll go play Shadowrun :D
Agudo Archmage 07-02-07, 11:34 PM	Ya guns make RPing boring But if you must...just tell everyone that magic makes gun powder very unpredictable:D You know BOOM at the wrong times, not working when you want them to In fact if Bards/Wiz/Cler,Druids are in your group, then everytime they use magic, you DM use a dice rol and see if it makes the guns have a odd reaction....Adds tension that way :cool:
Zsych 07-03-07, 04:07 AM	... or you could just make guns suitably expensive(otherwise everyone would be buying them). Plus, you wouldn't be able to go back to get more bullets easily, and wouldn't have the tools around most of the time to build decent bullets. (could put in a suitable quest, to earn the Feat required to make smoke-powder, and another quest as a pre-req to a Feat that allows making bullets and maybe guns) ... and lets not forget yet more feats for increasing accuracy or reloading speed to decent levels(not that accuracy is as important with a shot-gun) ... Plus, if he wants to improve his gun or bullets... yet more crafting feats :P ... there would also be the issue that like a mage, he might be more vulnerable while he is preparing his weapon. Alright so, so many feats might not be needed, but penalties can be placed on having such a novelty item on hand. You'd just need a suitable balance. I'm kinda imagining the guy as a one trick pony, sorceror like character, or maybe close in effective value to a (more magically limited)warlock being in the team. ... Also, a gun would be a serious problem if you were trying to be silent, and not alert half the world to your presence(quest opportunity to discourage its use... at least in some circumstances)
MarkusTay63 07-03-07, 02:58 PM	EDIT: I think a common mistake with guns in D&D is that people want to make them too badass. Really, what made the guns so good, wasn't their rate of fire (which was awful) but their damage. Hence why a musket does, like, 2d8 damage, twice as much as a longbow.Also, bear in mind the level of surgery at the time - it was practically neolithic! With most weapons, even arrows, you can pull it out - not so with bullets. More people died from infections from wounds then the wounds themselves.
BadCatMan 07-03-07, 09:58 PM	I've been playing a gunslinging cleric of Gond (that's a renaissance pistol by D&D stats). It's a fun concept, but the backup maul is seeing more use. So far (online game, so it's slow) I've fired one shot at a wolf, and it missed. It's a standard action to reload, and another standard action to fire the pistol. That's two rounds to do what I could do in one by moving and attacking with that maul, and more effectively too. Casting a spell would be even better. I'm not even sure Rapid Reload applies. The renaissance era guns from the DMG are known in FR, and I think they're just fine. The modern era guns are a whole different story though.
dragonheart 07-04-07, 09:44 AM	I'm going by when the mentioned weapons came into widespread use. Which for both shotguns and rifles was the 1800's. I believe you're confusing a shotgun with a blunderbuss Before the 1800's, people used muskets, only sharpshooters used rifles. Also, it's highly unlikely someone can shoot a musket 4 times a minute. During the Civil War a trained soldier could only fire 3 times a minute and his weapon was leaps and bounds ahead of the old muskets from the 1600's and 1700's. With those muskets (like a brown bess) a trained soldier got about 2 shots off a minute. lets correct a few misconceptions here :D I'm going by first appearance but realistically rifled weapons are fairly common from about 1450 on - just not as military weapons. In game terms the first appearance is more useful than the common appearance as a military weapon since these things are so new. Because they are slower to reload but considerably more accurate they get used as hunting pieces (and dueling pieces- more in a minute). THe basic process of reloading a muzzle loader is the same no matter what the lock type: 1. pour the powder charge down the barrel 2. drop the patch & ball down the barrel 3. ram the ball down on the powder to make it packed so it explodes like a firecracker rather than burn slowly like a pile of powder 4. codk the lock 5. either put powder on the frizzen or cap the nipple (after 1805) 6. put to shoulder-aim and fire. Military training often left out the aiming since they were basically using massed fire at a tight line - so put to shoulder- point at oppsing line and fire. after training this can be down with anything from a matchlock to a percussion musket in about 15 seconds. the problem wiht using civilwar rates is that they were no-longer using straight muskets (smoothbores) the weapons were actually "rifled muskets - ie rifles and the tighter fitting ball and patch take longer to ram down the barrel without deforming. these have greater range and accuracy but otherwise are not particularly superior to smoothbores - in fact most of them were older smoothbores that had been reworked adding the rifling. You also need to take a little longer to aim because of the increased range capacity. A better time period top use for comparing reloading/rate of fire is the Revolutionary war or napoleonic wars - ther ethe accepted rates are as I stated - muskets 4shots/minute; rifles 3 shots/minute. about the only force of that era to regularly use rifles as a major portion of hte military arms was the american militia - especially the western units where they were taking their hunting rifles to war. the only british unit to use them for anything more than limited sniper duty was col. ferguson's brigade which he equiped wiht a breechloading rifle of his own design that was highly effective - in his hands he could get off 12 shots/minute - at least till the barrel fouled with powder residue. fortunately for the american forces at Kings mountain he got very sick before the battle and the british commanders took away the rifles form his unit and issued them muzzle loaders - their lack of firepower resulted in them losing a major battle of the southern campaign. The flintlock/caplock rifle comes into its own only in the US where the need for a common man's hunting & defense weapon on the frontier develops. Here the flicnt lock sort of "overstays" its use as its generally possible to find anda shape a usable flint out in the wild while once you run out of caps your weapon is useless. still as soon as regional trade and supply centers for caps develop (around 1820-1830) the flintlock quickly dissappears except for native american use. The term shotgun does indeed only appear in the late 1700s/early 1800s as an alternative to the increasingly common rifled hunting weapons but what a shotgun is, is a smoothbore weapon firing either a slug (a musket) or a charge of smaller objects (a shotgun). When the common weapon is a smoothbore there is little or no reason to destinguish between them. the other big difference between shotguns and muskets is that shotguns are breechloaders - initially they are breakdown breeches like a modern double barrel. this only shows up following the development of the metallic cartridge by Smith & Wesson around 1850. untill that time they are more commonly known as fowling pieces (muzzle loading multi-pellet guns). The blunderbuss's wide muzzle was less for spreading the charge and actually primarily to make reloading on a moving stage/wagon/horse easier (you dropped less of the charge outside the barrel with the wide muzzle). Realisticlly all of this is unimportant since guns in Faerun are/should be at the 1350 AD-1400 AD stage - basic matchlocks and maybe the first wheellocks - firing rates ( and skills ) still being devloped and a huge amount of misundrstandings about ballistics, bullet effects etc. in the real world there were ideas like hexagonal bullets being better on infidels (for game use float such ideas as certain shapes being better for different monsters or agasint different foes of Gond etc :P ) and the manufacture was still subject to considerable problems - this was the era that spawned the phrase "hoist by his own Petard" (a type of early hand cannon/musket) for waht happened to the unfortuante gunner who had his gun blow out at the breech if he packed it to tight or with too much powder and the hammer welding at the breech was unsatisfactory. SHortly after this time we get the phrase "Going off half cocked" from the tendancy of even flintlocks with a worn or bad lock to slip out of this "safety" position on the lock and fire by accident. these earliest weapons have no safety so setting them off by accident should be a regular part of the game - just the thing for rolling 01 on your "to hit" roll :D Lastly despite my interest in firearms I am not a fan of them in the game - at least not for FR. They do exist but as written are almost too powerful in my own campaign I tend to downplay them and then to alter the rules to make them more realistic - longer reload times, less accuracy, creating cover problems etc. oh yes - dueling many dueling pistols turn out to be "hidden rifled pistols" the last half inch ot inch of the barrel is unrifled and of the same bore as the rifling grooves while the remainder of the barrel is actually rifled making the weapon much more accurate than a smoothbore pistol. a number of dueling sets actually are horrible cheats - one pistol is rifled while the oither is not so the owner knows which pistol to take to get the accuracy while leaving himself relatively safe from harm due to the inaccuracy of the other pistol.
Derren S. 07-05-07, 08:22 AM	Guns are simply a part of the FR (Thay also has cannons, or?) and they also fit with the technology level of D&D. For example full plate armor was invented because of guns. Its just a question if you want your game to be more "romantic medival" or "grim&gritty medival".
captaincarot 07-05-07, 09:58 AM	Well, it's your game, so end the it's the DM's decision. Keep in mind that rifles weren't invented until the 1800's on Earth so there's no way they'll be in FR. Shotguns are in the same boat. Best case scenario for the guy is going to be a matchlock gun. Basically it's a musket looking thing with a clamp that holds a match. When the match burns down the weapon fires. For all intents and purposes it can be fired only once every combat. I would imagine it would do something like 2d8 damage with a crit of 19-20/x2. Range increment of like 60 feet. He's better off with a crossbow in other words. plus on a roll of a natural one a bow don't blowup taking both you're nose and right hand with it. would suggest something like on a natural 1 roll 1 d10 1-4 nothing happens. 5 you point the barrel downwards slightly, ball and powder fall out of end, reload. 6 lots of flash but not much else damp powder causes a slow burn powder lost ball lands on floor at your feet. 7 leave ram rod in barrel roll again if this hits add 1d6 dammage as ram rod fired at opponent, gun now useless untill you get another ram rod. 8 ram rod left in barrel gun fires wildly back flash burns hand doing 1d4 damage -1 to everything involving firing hand. 9 pull trigger nothing happens, then in a fit of pure idiocy you stare down the barrel, gun goes off right up your nose roll damage on self. 10 barrel explodes removing your firing hand roll damage on self applying it to firing hand and arm, flash takes off eyebrows, leaving you dazed and blinded for 2 rounds. bullet lands on floor at your feet. hope fully your opponent will see the funny side of it and be too busy laughing to kill you
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 07-05-07, 06:11 PM	plus on a roll of a natural one a bow don't blowup taking both you're nose and right hand with it. would suggest something like on a natural 1 roll 1 d10 1-4 nothing happens. 5 you point the barrel downwards slightly, ball and powder fall out of end, reload. 6 lots of flash but not much else damp powder causes a slow burn powder lost ball lands on floor at your feet. 7 leave ram rod in barrel roll again if this hits add 1d6 dammage as ram rod fired at opponent, gun now useless untill you get another ram rod. 8 ram rod left in barrel gun fires wildly back flash burns hand doing 1d4 damage -1 to everything involving firing hand. 9 pull trigger nothing happens, then in a fit of pure idiocy you stare down the barrel, gun goes off right up your nose roll damage on self. 10 barrel explodes removing your firing hand roll damage on self applying it to firing hand and arm, flash takes off eyebrows, leaving you dazed and blinded for 2 rounds. bullet lands on floor at your feet. hope fully your opponent will see the funny side of it and be too busy laughing to kill you Good idea, because weakening an already underpowered class of weapons with a punitive table is never going to make the game more complicated or less fun. Lets look at the basic fire arms. Pistol, 1d10 damage, 50ft range, 250gp for normal. Standard action to reload. Rifle, 1d12 damage, 150 ft range, 500gp full round action to reload No feats to aid them in core environment by raw. Cost for 50 rounds: 15gp + the Smoke powder. Lets compare those to a longbow, the composite type. 1d8 damage, same crit threat as a firearm, 110ft range free action to reload, for the price of a rifle yuo can have it add +4 of your strength mod to damage, shoot upwards of 5 arrows a round every round till you run out of arrows with the right feats, and for the cost of just 50 bullets not counting the powder you get 300 arrows. Letts compare 2 1st level fighters, 16s in Dex and str, relevant feats Archer: Pint blank shot and Rapid shot Gunman: exotic weapon prof: firearms, weapon focus rifle. over 5 rounds Archer: attack bonus with bow +4, can either take 5 shots at +4 to hit doing d8+3 each average 35 damage, or Rapid shot for 10 attacks at +2 doing an average of 70 damage over 5 rounds. His weapon costs a mear 400gp. Gunman: Attack bonus +5 with his rifle, he shoots on the first round, spends a full round reloading on the second, shoots on the third, reloads on the forth, and shoots on the fifth, 3 rounds at a flat 1d12 damage, avg 18 damage. Both his weapon and its ammunition cost more, hes down a feat just to use his weapon, and still his damage lags behind a man with a piece of bent yew. Please note Ive assumed that all attacks hit, and that none crit as I'm not up to the math on those, but I think my point is made. Conclusion: either flat out ban firearms, or give them an edge, the last thing they need is a nerf.
MarkusTay63 07-06-07, 12:13 AM	... guns of any kind just take away from the flavor of D&D Guns and D&D just never seem to fit to me...I was doing some research last night, trying to find the original name of something, and I wound up looking through a list of old Dragon articles either set in the Realms, or written by Ed Greenwood (and usually both). In issue #60 Ed wrote the first rules for gun use in D&D! :eek: A couple issues later Gary Gygax wrote an editorial expressing EXACTLY the attitude the two above posts have. So in issue #70, Ed wrote a follow-up article with even MORE gun rules. :twitch: There seemed to be some friction over this point, which came to a head when the SJ setting was released. Gary insisted on NO guns in GH, and Ed wanted them, but using Smokepowder. So Toril ended up with the only guns using smokepowder, and Oerth ended up the only planet in its sphere where guns wouldn't work. The SJ designers then went right ahead and let guns work normally everywhere else that Gary and Ed didn't have a say. Nothing like a little nostalgic friction in the ranks. :D So, guns may not be D&D, but they sure as hell are FR... Ed himself wrote the book. :P
captaincarot 07-06-07, 02:26 AM	Originally Posted by ThornTheWanderer ... guns of any kind just take away from the flavor of D&D Originally Posted by selunatic2397 Guns and D&D just never seem to fit to me... but if you consider that i wholeheartedly agree with these 2 sentiments. then Good idea, because weakening an already underpowered class of weapons with a punitive table is never going to make the game more complicated or less fun. becomes an exceedingly good idea, if you both cripple and overcomplicate, (not that i consider that table to be even the slightest bit complicated) (possibly you are playing the wrong game if you think roll a dice then read the result off a table to be complicated :P ) then people won't use them. i'm definitely in the gygax camp on this one D&D don't need guns and they don't add to the flavour, so you won't find them in any world i run. guns weren't originally a part of D&D and us old farts liked it that way, it's only when the slide into warhammer and games workshop itis came along that they appeared in the game. they are a perversion of the truth, heresies i say.
MarkusTay63 07-06-07, 03:11 AM	But if you run a pirate-style campaign, and FR sure has a lot of those, then guns would add to the flavor. It really depends on the kind of game your running. My players don't want guns, so it hasn't come up. I'm hoping to get them involved in some sea-going adventures, and perhaps things will change. I really don't see it chaging much at all - they are harder to come by, difficult to find smokepowder for, misfire fairly often, and only allow you to get off one shot before melee. Even bows will give you a few shots if you have the range and take the right feats. Plus bows are quiter, for those 'stealthy' moments. And think about it... you shoot a gun in a dungeon and you will get richochets, not to mention attract EVERY monster in a fifty mile radius. As a DM, thats sound like tons of fun to me! :D
True_Atlantean 07-06-07, 07:39 AM	Not only will I start by saying that as the DM it is ultimately your decision, but I'd also poll the other players - do they want guns in the Realms? Their perceptions and enjoyment are just as important. Most people see guns as the end of the 'feel' of the game. The biggest controversy in Dragonlance at the moment is that in the latest novels gunpowder has been invented. There are cries of "end of Dragonlance" and even one quote I read from a fan review said something like 'now we'll hear no more stories about valiant knights, rather all we'll see are sniper stories". Over-reaction is usually the first reaction in this case. As far as sophisticated guns, I'd say a flat-out no. If you really want guns of that calibre (no pun intended) check out the Iron Kingdoms Character Guide. It is probably the best blend of fantasy and tech I've seen to date. The stats, prices and game mechanics are quite well balanced, but fit the setting. You and your players are the only ones who can tell if they likewise fit the Realms setting. I have allowed them in a very small capacity (the PC's have seen them) but they were in the hands of a rogue priest of Gond. This automatically piqued their interest and they have asked about Halruaa and Lantan as possibilities to pick up this type of weapon, but they have already leapt to the assumption that it will be a pricey venture. Let the party have them if you will but perhaps include: 1. The price 2. Availability of ammunition 3. Unlikely to ever find a magical version (unlike every other weapon in the campaign). Does this matter, though? 4. The attention they bring; usually just by carrying them. Do some folk see them as cowardly, and by extension the wielder? Do others covet them? Even the theme of technology vs magic vs nature can come into play. Have fun and let us know the outcome. I can probably learn a lot from your experience and add it ot my own. And remember, failing all of the above, just let them play Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. :D
Sigurd van Norhusen 07-06-07, 08:49 AM	I for one would not have problems with guns in a DnD campaign, much less a FR or Spelljammer one, where they already officially exist. It's not as if modern sniper rifles would just pop up everywhere after all.
Purple Dragon Knight 07-07-07, 01:34 PM	Gnome Gunner [Regional] Prerequisites: Gnome (Lantan, Thesk, The Western Heartlands). Benefits: You are proficient with all weapons powered by smokepowder or designated as firearms. All firearms are listed in the DMG under "Exotic Weapons (Firearms)". A weapon is considered powered by smokepowder if its description lists a smokepowder or gunpowder requirement. In addition, thanks to both the intimate level of worksmanship and skill that the Forgotten Folk have devoted towards the development of the firearm, you have a natural knack at loading these devices in an optimal fashion and drawing the full potential of a charge of smokepowder: when using a firearm, you gain a +1 racial bonus to damage and only require a move action to reload the weapon. This application of the feat only applies to the use of firearms, and not to other weapons covered by this feat (i.e. such as large siege engines powered by smokepowder). Normal: Without this feat, you must select the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearms) feat, as per p.144 of the DMG, to eliminate the nonprofiency penalty you take when wielding any firearm. Also, a firearm normally requires a standard action to reload. Special: You may select this feat only at a 1st level character. You may have only one Regional feat. A fighter may select Gnome Gunner as his 1st level fighter bonus feat.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 07-07-07, 02:38 PM	becomes an exceedingly good idea, if you both cripple and overcomplicate, (not that i consider that table to be even the slightest bit complicated) (possibly you are playing the wrong game if you think roll a dice then read the result off a table to be complicated :P ) then people won't use them. i'm definitely in the gygax camp on this one D&D don't need guns and they don't add to the flavour, so you won't find them in any world i run. guns weren't originally a part of D&D and us old farts liked it that way, it's only when the slide into warhammer and games workshop itis came along that they appeared in the game. they are a perversion of the truth, heresies i say. Over complicated: No Its not more complex than I can cope with, but your adding a new rule and new table just to discourage a class of weapon. I'm of the opinion that the fewest rule that can possibly create a stimulating rules environment is the best path. If you don't want guns there is a simpler rule than your punitive table to discourage there use: just don't allow them. there done. Conversely if you do allow them, don't Nerf as there already far weaker than a composite longbow. Personaly I like the idea of a gunslinger as a character, I don't see how one existing in any way impinges on a Fantasy setting, Id draw the line at Break loaders, revolvers or Rifling, but a soothe boar barrel loader would be fine, we've had the tech for hundreds of years, flintlocks and full plate coexisted, so why the heck not? its an oddity that in all likelyhood Id improve to make it worth the exotic weapon prof. I'd put a rifleman squarely along side a spiked chain weilder, an unusualy traned combatant, not some hideous affront to D&D. And I almost hate to say this, but if you don't like guns in D&D then allowing them but nerfing them is the 'I smoked but I didn't inhale' option, you wont be please, because there are still guns in your game and the people who like guns wont be happy because there being punished for nor sharing that preference.
Darakhoranon 07-07-07, 03:48 PM	True, Eled. Either allow guns or donīt allow them. Adding dozens of extra rules wonīt help you in any way. If my players really wanted guns, Iīd probably go the FF XII-way: They are SLOW and - in the end - less powerful than "normal" weapons. Not really worth the trouble of getting them (and ammunition/powder) from an "efficiency" point of view. Which will discourage those players who want to wield the "strongest" weapon, while those who want them for character reasons will still take them.
dragonheart 07-07-07, 04:14 PM	flintlocks and full plate coexistedThis is the kind of thing I object to - like humans and dinosaurs flintlocks andf full plate did NOT co-exist. matchlocks and full plate did just as mammals and dinosaurs did. However a matchlock, especially an early matchlock, is a very ineffective weapon for combat. "proofed" shields and plate armour were "bullet proofed" by firing a matchlock pistol at it from about 5 feet away - if it didn't penetrate the armour (only dented it) it was "proofed" or Proof armour. Like "bullet proof" vests today this meant that they were fairly resistant to small charge backed shots or distant shots from a musket (and their curves helped in this much like the sloping of a tank's battle armour increases its resistance to direct shots). but a musket up close with a full charge of powder might well actually penetrate and kill. As matchlocks got lighter and better they also became more powerful and more common and the thickness and qualkity of make of a "proofed" armour became truely exorbitant so armour was phased out and the "knightly" class basically changed from front row fighters to group commanders (officers) generally leading from behind - especially at the higher ranks. this changed the whole make up of armies (again). By the middle of the 1600s full plate was out (except for occasional display purposes), it is only at this time that the predecessors to the flintlock are developed wiht the first true flintlocks emerging around 1700 - well after the end of full plate armour or essentially any armour at all. Something else to remmember - the quality of steel that was "proof" against bullets was also proof agasint even the best "armour piercing" arrows as well. Even as early as the end of the hundred year's war the long bow started to be phased out of English armies (the only ones that had relied on them heavily) because they found the bodkin points didn't penetrate the new french plate mail armours - Henery's great victory agasint the odds at Agincourt was actually won not by the longbow but by superb choice of terrain and the luck to be fighting the day after heavy rains so the ground was so muddy the french could only find solid ground on a very narrow curving line.
captaincarot 07-08-07, 04:48 AM	smoke powder exists in cannon FR. so as a Dm i try to keep the flavour of the setting i can't get rid of em, but personally i would prefer them no to be there. secondly early guns were about as likely to go off inyour face when the bad welding failed as to fire the shot at the enemy. so my introduction of the failure consequences to the game is all in the quest for balance. just because a gun can't fire as fast as a long bow doesn't mean that it shouldn't have it's real world traits of blowing off fingers, blinding you and causing severe burns when it goes wrong. or are you suggesting that the realms first guns are better than ours. if you want things that go bang you have to deal with the consequences of them going bang at the wrong end or the wrong time. the reason guns took off was that they were easy to train people in long bow men were built like mutants and took years to train. guns don't. so you train the serfs in pointing them and pulling the trigger, no matter if one goes off and kills a serf, they're expendible.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 07-08-07, 12:18 PM	But the thing is its NOT easier to train a peasant to use a gun in D&D, it takes a feat with a +1 Bab prerequisite to use them, for which you get something slower than a longbow, more expensive than a longbow, and which you want to make more dangerous than a longbow to its wielder... Am I the only one who sees the problem here? Critical failure tables only ever hurt PCs as a Pc will in his career make more attack rolls, here your using one to punish PCs using a poor weapon on all fronts using RL reasoning that simply isn't backed by the mechanics of the game as applys to that weapon. The renaissance firearms as written in the DMG make a sub-par martial weapon, it then goes on to make them an exotic one, one completely unsupported by most feats typical ranged based character will take. Right now I do not care what they were like in RL, them is the rules this is how guns work by RAW in D&D, and to this package of hard to master, slow to fire, and expensive you also wish to add that they are a complete hazard to the weilder. Quote beyond the fact that anyone in a world where Fireball is a common spell carrying several pounds of primitive explosive is already living life of the edge. As for the relitave quality of Rl to Fr Firearms I would expect that with the more resilient materials and access to minor magic (Absorbed in that 500gp price tag of a rifle) that the weapons were of generally higher quality, Adamantile alloy barrels and finer tolerances being the norm and with Gnomes, an inherantly magical race of skillful alchemists with centuries of life to master the art I'd entirely expect a Rock Gnome gunsmith to turn out a weapon more reliable and robust than a renaissance gunsmith even when he was not making a masterwork piece.
captaincarot 07-08-07, 01:03 PM	But the thing is its NOT easier to train a peasant to use a gun in D&D, it takes a feat with a +1 Bab prerequisite to use them, for which you get something slower than a longbow, more expensive than a longbow, and which you want to make more dangerous than a longbow to its wielder... exactly so they can have em if they want em, therefore we don't get the rules mokeys saying well gond let them be invented. and i get to stop them being used by making them utterly useless. :evillaugh you may not realise the whole point of my reasoning is to get the durned things out of the game cos i don't like em.
Eled_the_Worm_Tamer 07-08-07, 01:11 PM	So why not man up and just ban them? thats my point, either allow them and don't make an already poor choice any weaker, or just say 'I don't like guns, there for in my realms, they don't exist.' there end it.
captaincarot 07-08-07, 01:19 PM	So why not man up and just ban them? thats my point, either allow them and don't make an already poor choice any weaker, or just say 'I don't like guns, there for in my realms, they don't exist.' there end it. because if some one is daft enough to use the things after i've gone to all the effort of dissuasion then i want the chance to have a good laugh at them for blowing their own head off. believe me critical fumble tables can cause many humourous moments, and rules like that do not phase me, having run rolemaster campaigns for 20 years. with guns that worked occasionally and blew up occasionally, tone good thing is to out fit a full squad or war trolls with powered armour and plasma repeater rifles they found on a crashed ship, then watch your party run away. when i play D&D it's a nostalgia trip back to the days before ED wrote the rules for guns for me. it's not that i dislike guns per se, just D&D with guns in it, it's just not right.
Diffan 07-12-07, 10:13 AM	I read in a novel, Realms of Magic, i believe that there were a short story about Gunns (as the FR spelling). In it, a mageling ended up attacking a shotgunn slinging orc (or half-orc, I can't remember) which was enchanted with the spell Silence on a flying ship. The gunn went off without a sound, almost killing him, destrying half the ship, and he would've died hadn't it been for his trusty Feather Fall spell as the ship went down into the great harbor of Waterdeep. Upon landing safely, Khelben scolded him for interfering with such things as gunns and smokepowder, saying that they were dangerous and should be destroyed so the common man wouldn't have the upper edge against mages and such things. Point being, they exist throughout the Realms, usually on the black market, but are disliked by many of the people in positions of power. I personally like the idea, they're not over-powerful but watch out for Gunn hatin' wizards.
captaincarot 07-13-07, 02:22 AM	and if you think they are made out of expensive materials and they don't explode then maybe you should read page 72 of waterdeep (avatar series). this is now crying out for the introduction of the rules relating to them failing.
Diffan 07-13-07, 07:40 AM	and if you think they are made out of expensive materials and they don't explode then maybe you should read page 72 of waterdeep (avatar series). this is now crying out for the introduction of the rules relating to them failing. Hmm, exploding weapons when PC's use them.....:plotting: I think they do a system of that in the Warcraft campaign setting. It requires a DC check to see if you don't blow yourself up. When I have the time, I'll go check it out.
Zsych 07-14-07, 04:21 AM	The Lantan lot are apparently creating non-magical portals, and lightning generators. I wonder what kind of personal weapon they can develop if they want to.
MarkusTay63 07-15-07, 01:31 PM	I would use the Iron Kingdoms rules for a Lantan-based adventure. Arcane generatores, Mechaniks, lightning lances, and Gunmages. If my PCs ever make it over there, it will twist their little minds. :devil:
Captain_Impulse 07-18-07, 06:48 AM	Guns easily have a place in D&D, particularly on Faerun. If you think Dwarves and Gnomes aren't going to be playing around with the idea of gunpowder and guns, you're really limiting yourself. Someone mentioned the idea of Orcs and guns being an interesting idea; believe me, it is. I ran a campaign where orcs intercepted a shipment of dwarven guns and went on a shooting rampage throughout several towns, and it was amazing. Of course, they ran out of powder and ammunition, so they went berserk again trying to find more, causing even more mayhem.
Alyss 07-20-07, 09:07 PM	Guns suck. Keep the western medieval flavour and ignore anyone that says otherwise.
Blue_Hill 07-24-07, 02:01 PM	Remenber that reloading a gun is very slow.. For example in 1800th century, reloading a gun took 15minutes... ;) THAT would be thing that ur players won't (maybe) like guns anymore... I don't like guns in FR, guns do not belong in fantasy world, i thought...
The WarOverlord 07-24-07, 07:04 PM	Ive got a guy in my group that likes guns. Ever since he found out about Lantan, hes been naging me about guns. He wants them, he wants to use them all the time, and he wants to get improved guns, like shotguns and rifles. Should i allow guns in my campain? i had a few for a time, but i had to cut them out beacuse they were to powerful. Somewone please help me. Rules for guns would be nice. Well, Chinese "firesticks" are "weapons of the gods and demons" and there is artwork of a Demon trying to shoot one of the gods with what is basically a gun They are as old as gunpowder and basically was a strong baboo shaft stuck on a pole that was filled with gun powder, a fuse was stuck in and lit, and then you would ram the thing with the pole at the enemy then KAboom. Overloading led to the Idea of gernanades, not holding the firestick hard enough led to the idea of Rockets, and stones and such other "impurities" stuck in the firestick that did extra shapnel damage led to the idea of the gun. Anyways to your question Being that the Fantasy world is based on European Technology time line and not Chinese Technology Time line guns shouldn't appear for the "white man" adventurer until the Renaissance age Lantan in Forgotten Realms allows for guns but there are a few clevets: 1) Smoke powder is illegal in most places like Waterdeep where mere possesion of the stuff can get you thrown in jail (A gnome blew up a few blocks when his lab went KABOOM!!!!) 2) You can only get Smokpowder or guns from Merchants from Lantan or your PC has to be from Lantan. 3) You have to be a gondsman or a Mage from Lantan to make your own Smokepowder if you can't find a lantan Merchant to sell you the stuff And more importantly: 1) a Pistol will do 1d4 normal damage, a Riffle does 1d10 damage...no critials, no stregth bonus, and noe of the additional roll on 4,10 like 2nd addition. 2) Unless the bullets are enchanted even a machine gun's bullets will just bounce off a Ancients Red Dragon's +5 to hit, +5 to Damage Hide and just mildly irritate the thing. Lots of creatures will be simularly imune to a guns bullet cause all a gun is is a launching device like a sling or a bow but it just uses combustion to throw it's bullet instead of kinetic or symetrical force. 3) Likewise if a PC is carrying a gun, It will only be fair to have at least occasional confrontations with monsters with guns if not just so the PC can loot the Guns and Smokepowder of the bodies. (Gremlins use "zip guns" for instance, and a mad Gnome might use a machine gun he made on the PC)
MarkusTay63 07-25-07, 02:40 PM	Smokepowder has been around for quite a long time in Kara-Tur, as per that CS. This would mean that amongst the many Shou-expatriates in the UE there could be expert/alchemists able to whip the stuff up. Because of the Shining Legion, Amn obviously has Smokepowder, and I'm sure someone is producing it by now in maztica (probably a temple of Gond). Also, although Waterdeep is obviously out, and Wa doesn't allow visitors, Cormyr does allow Spelljammers in its port so their should be someone there capable of converting gunpowder weapons to Smokepowder, along with having some Smokpowder on hand for sale. Obviously, Smokepowder would be available in The Dock (along with everything else you vould possibly imagine), although traveling there without a helm would be a nightmare (it's even too high for Halruan ships - thin atmosphere at that altitude).
Tyshanis 07-25-07, 08:43 PM	I don't mind them. I only use them around pirate setting and if a pc gets one well he's damn lucky. Most fall over board, no ammo, etc. But in a pirate campaign it gives them flavor
The WarOverlord 07-26-07, 05:58 AM	oooh, Just remembered another Sinister DM side effect of Carrying Smoke powder Weapons..... You have to carry smokepowder on you and Everytime a fire breathing creature or a fireball goes off on you/around you the Smokepowder might explode causing additional damage to the unfortnate carrier of 10-20 pounds of the stuff (KABOOM!!!!) SMokepowder like it's blackpowder couterpart can also go off everytime the carrier trips and falls, sustains a crushing blow (like a giant throwing a rock at the Carrier....think marble bomb), or is knocked down like how a dragon might send a carrier flying back into the wall or floor...all causing friction in the rather unstable smokepowder/blackpowder Likewise humidity and the stuff getting wet from rain or a water related spell makes it unable to combust until properly dried out (which is risky as stiring and baking the the thing over a flame to reset it can result in a KABOOM!!!! if done improperly)
MarkusTay63 07-26-07, 10:37 AM	Not sure if dampness would effect Smokepowder though, as it is magical in nature. If it's that similar to RW gunpowder then perhaps it can be made into dyamite and used to create magical Nitroglycerine. :devil:
GoldDragon 07-27-07, 08:07 AM	Not sure if dampness would effect Smokepowder though, as it is magical in nature. If it's that similar to RW gunpowder then perhaps it can be made into dyamite and used to create magical Nitroglycerine. :devil: If it needs fire to go off then fire and water don't mix...especially if the water saturates what the fire is trying to light The Lantanese do use smoke powder grenades, Kegs, rockets,and cannons....just isn't bought as much by Adventurers wanting to blow themselves up....er...."experiment with such curiosities"
dragonheart 07-27-07, 09:17 AM	Not sure if dampness would effect Smokepowder though, as it is magical in nature. If it's that similar to RW gunpowder then perhaps it can be made into dyamite and used to create magical Nitroglycerine. :devil: Ah another common misconception about explosives :D gunpwder (aka smokepowder) has nothing to do wiht either nitroglycerin or (true) dynamite. he problem and misconception starts with a product used in blasting in the early 1800's called "giant powder" which was effectivly a giant firecracker - a paper roll filled with gunpwder and fused for use in mining and blasting. It looked much like the later dynamite sticks because both were manufactured to fit down more or less standardized rock drill holes. gunpowder is what is known as a flamable or low explosive - that is it has a burn rate below the speed of sound so it has to be contained until enough pressure builds up to rupture the container to create a blast wave (the paper packing of a firecracker or giant powder "stick");. High explosives like TNT and nitroglycerin have burn rates faster than the speed of sound so the gases released are already moving at supersonic speeds and don't need containment to create a shockwave. the original dynamite was a way to stabilize nitroglycerin by storinging it in the pores of packed diatomaceous earth. THis worked for 2-3 basic reasons: the earth acted like a shock absorber and insulator limiting the the thermal and mechanical energies affecting any given molecule of nitro. By limiting the contact between molecules somewhat it may also have decreased the frequency/likelyhood of self-ignition. So smokepowder bombs should be possible but they are going to be weak compared to modern "ourworld" explosives - about on a par with the gunpowder grenades of the 1600-1800s which lead to the military units known as grenadiers, or such illegal devices as "ashcans or M-80s" -effective agasint unarmored or poorly armored foes but not very effective against those well armored as the speeds of any shrapnel are seldom going to be enough to penetrate good armor.
1 ton ghost 08-01-07, 01:04 AM	conflicting to be sure. same problem, differernt campaign (on Faerun). a Gondar mystic theurge (recommended btw) went w/ the arquebus and pistols w/ judicious True Stikes and use an avian familiar as a spotter, some basardized version of sniping i suppose. i was of the opinion (from time to time) that perhaps gun(smoke)powder weapons should be ranged touches given that they made armor obsolete, yes? knight's full plate was useless, punched right through. the trade off of course is reload time, etc. i mean, isn't that why we ditched armor after the Rennaissance? but even some creatures have been known to stop a bullet, ex)a bear's skull is think enough at some points to deflect a bullet. so, maybe real high natural armor, something, anything? what is a good working solution? otherwise, wouldn't everyone just keep using bow and/or x-bow?
Derren S. 08-01-07, 09:05 AM	gun(smoke)powder weapons should be ranged touches given that they made armor obsolete, yes? knight's full plate was useless, punched right through. Actually full plate armor was invented as response to firearms and could very often stop bullets.
The WarOverlord 08-11-07, 06:54 AM	i was of the opinion (from time to time) that perhaps gun(smoke)powder weapons should be ranged touches given that they made armor obsolete, yes? knight's full plate was useless, punched right through. the trade off of course is reload time, etc. i mean, isn't that why we ditched armor after the Rennaissance? That's a common Misconception, but it was actually Economics and not Guns that did the Knights in as Plate Mail of quality was often shot with a Pistol and the dent buffed out to show as a "mark of Quality". The Field plate and Full Plate a Knight would wear was also effectively "Bullet Proof" for the Expense and care but it being Cheaper to Field Gunners then Knights did the Knight in. For Example Cost of 1 Knight Full Plate Armor 4000gp Field Plate Armor 2000gp Plate Mail 600gp Basic Weapon set 700Gp (Lance,Broad sword,Long Sword, Mace,jvlns) Back up Weapo 700 GP Horse (Trained) 2000gp Back up Horse 2000gp Plate Barding 3000gp Support Crew 25000gp (3 Squire's Gear, 10 pack mules and tenants,wages for Armorer,Huntsmens/Cooks, gear and equipment, and rations..1 month...remember as nobility Knights travel with a lot of Servants and all the Creature comforts an Encampment can hold) ----------------------------- cost of fielding 1 Knight for a month 40,000gp (with some cost reaccuring...namely Wages, food, and materials for maintaining and repairing weapons and Armor) v.s. 500 Gunners (salary 6 gp a month) 3000gp 500 Guns (500x500Gp Arbuqcus) 25000gp 100 bullets each (5gpx500) 2500gp Short Swords (10gpx500) 5000gp Smoke powder Barrel 500gp 500 marching Boots (5gpx500) 2500gp 3 Huntsman/cooks&Chuck Wagon 1500gp ---------------------------------------- Cost for fielding 500 gunners for month 39000gp Now which would you field in a Battle? 10 Knights or 5000 gunners? Note that for 3000gp you could even give 500 gunners Leather? Armor v.s. 1 Field plate for 1 Knight though adding a Armorer to the retainers to turn captured cattle flesh to Armor is possible Having a Lantan Alchemist as a retainer to make more smoke powder in the field the way Napolean's Army could make Gunpowder in the field is also possible though 1 barrel of Smokepowder should work for 500 guns for a while as it doesn't take more then a few pinches of powder to set off a gun and can cover 5000 shots easy
MarkHall 08-13-07, 09:03 PM	FWIW, I've long allowed guns in D&D. No one has taken me up on it. Forgotten Realms Adventures includes a fair bit about firearms... they're supposed to be available in "large stores at the listed price" as of 1363. Included, along with arquebus and blunderbusses, are the Bombard (a 2000# cannon), the Ribald (twelve side-by-side barrels), and the starwheel pistol (not native to the Realms, but essentially a wheel-lock).
The WarOverlord 08-14-07, 02:04 PM	.... it's not that i dislike guns per se, just D&D with guns in it, it's just not right..... Why? Fundamentally it is just a projectile launcher that use uses combustion instead of kinetic force(bow,crossbow) or Symmetrical force (sling) to hurl a bullet or bolt or dart at a target....and as a result there is the added risk of the thing blowing up in the users face instead of being cut or slashed by a breaking bow string or being hit in the head with the rock still in the sling because of a lack of coordination/concentration And as much as I emphasis it being cheaper to have 5000 gunners over 10 Knights, if I have the 10 Knights wear their Full plate Armor and Strap their 2 handed swords on their backs, have them have a mace and a Iron shield in their hands and have them huddle in a roman turtle formation and slowly march against the 5000 gunners from 1000 feet and have all 5000 gunners firing at will at the 10 Knights....all the Knights will make it into the Gunners Lines and start bashing away on the gunners with their maces like Butcherers bashing Baby Seals or will hack through them like warm butter with their 2 Handed Swords. (Most would be fleeing with their line compromised as the Short Swords are useless against fully armored Knights and it is almost impossible to shoot them up close,,and you'll maybe cause a dent as the bullet ricochets back at you at the most even if you get a shot off at a Fully Armored Knight at Close Range). My Personal Preference would be to have "Bowmen" Trained with the Comosite Short bow with their Mele Weapons being 2 handed Pole Axes (15lbs, Hammer head side, Piked Axe side, and Long pike on top, mounted to wooden handle 4 feet in legth with metal strapping, designed for opening armor like a can opener or just bashing or stabbing through it...it IS a "Anti-Knight" weapon). The Reason for the Composite bows are heavier Blunt headed arrows with little "teeth" that cut through Armor like Butter (There is also "Armor" piercing bolts but the Heavy Crossbow is required to shoot them while the Composite Bow gives more poundage for less pull
dragonheart 08-17-07, 09:18 PM	time to weigh in again no real problems with the costs (and training problems) between knights and arquebusiers (musketeers), but this: Fundamentally it is just a projectile launcher that use uses combustion instead of kinetic force(bow,crossbow) or Symmetrical force (sling) to hurl a bullet or bolt or dart at a target....and as a result there is the added risk of the thing blowing up in the users face instead of being cut or slashed by a breaking bow string or being hit in the head with the rock still in the sling because of a lack of coordination/concentration and this: The Reason for the Composite bows are heavier Blunt headed arrows with little "teeth" that cut through Armor like Butter (There is also "Armor" piercing bolts but the Heavy Crossbow is required to shoot them while the Composite Bow gives more poundage for less pull set me off again. :rant: :teach: Bows of all types are simply springs that store and release a kinetic/muscular force. Slings use rotational speed and torque laws as a storage mechanism to translate muscle power into velocity. guns use chemical power to produce the kinetic energy - but all use kinetic energy to power the projectile. next short of seige weapons (150+ pound crossbows included realistically)its not the type/shape of the point that matters for armour penetration - its the material of the point. arrowheads are almost always made up of relatively soft iron or at best case hardened iron or very cheap (scrap) steel. agaisnt segmented armours or plate armours of similar material they are reasonably effective at penetrating armour and doing damage. agasint superior armour materials (good quality steel, alloy steels, etc) they are essentially useless - unless you can hit an opening accurately, quickly and on the move - not the easiest of feats even for the Robinhoods. THis is probably best shown by comparing the battles of Crecy and Agincourt (yes - again). At Crecy the french nobility were wearing mostly chain and platemail made of soft steel (so it wouldn't shatter) and the hardened iron armor peircing arrows of the English proved to be a merderous weapon. By Agincourt their armor had changed to high quality Hardened and tempered plate steel and the english arrows mostly bounced off. The same concept is why we use things like tunsten and depleted Uranium for the antitank sabots - they are harder and denser than the steel and other armour materials of most tanks and so can better penetrate. An older (WWII) hardened steel antitank shot would just bounce off or simply go "splat" on the front of the armour today because its way too soft. now why did I limit things to under 150 lbs? simple - if you put enough kinetic energy behind a sharpened projectile it will start to penetrate materials that it would normally shatter agasint - like a straw penetrating a telephone pole under the force of a tornado. However, these weapons are very slow - minutes to crank and load effectively. About the most anyone can manage to load quickly is what you can pull/push wiht yoru muscles - around a 150 lbs combined between arms and feet in an unbraced position. this is why light crossbows have the speed they do and heavy crossbows have a slower speed and can[t be used from horseback. Picture the poor guy on horseback with his crossbow trying to hold on, stick his foot in the bow's "stirrup" top hold it down while he jerks the string back behind the stop to **** the bow all while the horse is galloping. Now imagine him trying to do that with a bow whose pull is greater than his weight and watch him flying off his mount at speed as he goes one way, the bow a second and the horse a third.:P
MarkHall 08-19-07, 02:04 AM	THis is probably best shown by comparing the battles of Crecy and Agincourt (yes - again). At Crecy the french nobility were wearing mostly chain and platemail made of soft steel (so it wouldn't shatter) and the hardened iron armor peircing arrows of the English proved to be a merderous weapon. LOL! Was that intentional, or a happy accident of misspelling?
SassyMoses 08-19-07, 08:19 PM	Heavier crossbows can be reloaded on horseback by way of the crannequin. Their slowness is greatly exaggerated because such measurements as originally recorded included aiming which is an advantage. Of course such information tends to be left out by droll toxophiles. For my gaming group it makes no difference because no one wants to bother with any sort of mounted combat ever. Any kind of history crap aside, because it never goes anywhere, for instance there is no penetration of anything in Dnd because it's determined by your stats plus masterwork/ensorcellment of the weapon, what is the gameplay purpose to limiting the martial choice to bows? Their progression is exceedingly dull and uninspired. You may get a short one at first, then you trash it for a long then you trash that one for a comp long. Yawn. With no real "competitors" they effectively have no identity. They might as well be Star Wars blasters. Considering how fast you can spam arrows out they practically are. I don't think even Crow from Hawk the Slayer shoots as fast as Dnd characters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzCIVF2QRv0 And at least in Hawk there's a crossbow guy who also shoots super fast too. It's kind of sad that a cheesey movie from the 80's has better variety and weapon balance than Dnd. Hopefully they fix this in 4th edition.
The WarOverlord 08-19-07, 09:49 PM	Heavier crossbows can be reloaded on horseback by way of the crannequin. Their slowness is greatly exaggerated because such measurements as originally recorded included aiming which is an advantage. Of course such information tends to be left out by droll toxophiles. For my gaming group it makes no difference because no one wants to bother with any sort of mounted combat ever. Any kind of history crap aside, because it never goes anywhere, for instance there is no penetration of anything in Dnd because it's determined by your stats plus masterwork/ensorcellment of the weapon, what is the gameplay purpose to limiting the martial choice to bows? Their progression is exceedingly dull and uninspired. You may get a short one at first, then you trash it for a long then you trash that one for a comp long. Yawn. With no real "competitors" they effectively have no identity. They might as well be Star Wars blasters. Considering how fast you can spam arrows out they practically are. I don't think even Crow from Hawk the Slayer shoots as fast as Dnd characters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzCIVF2QRv0 And at least in Hawk there's a crossbow guy who also shoots super fast too. It's kind of sad that a cheesey movie from the 80's has better variety and weapon balance than Dnd. Hopefully they fix this in 4th edition. Yeah, Only ever Managed firing 1 arrow a second in Gym when in Highschool with relative aiming (within 3 inches of where I wanted it) Takes a minimum of 5 Seconds to put a Arrow into the bullseye then another 5 seconds to put arrow through the back of the first arrow. The Pistol crossbow, is about 1 every 2 seconds with no problems hitting where I want to, though I always miss greatly with a pistol gun unless I unload all rounds without aiming (cowboy style shooting) Much better shot with a Riffle then a Pistol though I personally feel disconected from the proccess and would rather use a Bow and Arrow over a gun riffle when choosing a means of target practice. (every one Looking at me when I am using a Bow and Arrow to shoot Clay disk is Hillarious)
FlikViktor 08-20-07, 02:31 PM	Of course you could always used the stats for guns in your DMG on page 145 and just modify them if you don't feel they are as they should be.
thrallmaster 08-20-07, 06:24 PM	[QUOTE=I think they do a system of that in the Warcraft campaign setting. It requires a DC check to see if you don't blow yourself up. When I have the time, I'll go check it out.[/QUOTE] Its a seperate skill called used technolgical weapon, the tinker class uses that, personally I think the way the warcraft RPG blends magic and technology is abosolutley brillant, I use the warcraft system instead of the D&D system I like it so much!
MarkusTay63 08-20-07, 07:55 PM	I have a feeling guns will become somewhat more standard in 4e - considering they are taking a lot of their ideas from MORPGs. Also, guns ARE part of the FR setting, and FR is going 'core', so either FR loses guns, or guns will become part of the core setting (and rules).
Sigurd van Norhusen 08-21-07, 02:29 AM	I have a feeling guns will become somewhat more standard in 4e - considering they are taking a lot of their ideas from MORPGs. Also, guns ARE part of the FR setting, and FR is going 'core', so either FR loses guns, or guns will become part of the core setting (and rules). How much more core than being in the DMG would you like guns to be? :confused:
MarkusTay63 08-21-07, 06:12 PM	Guns are NOT available in Greyhawk, and ergo are NOT part of the Core setting. My apologies - I was differentiating between the rules and the setting. ;) In 4e, they will be one and the same.