Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Cyber-Dave Nov 28, 2008 14:20:54	Ok, so, time for round two. I'm still interested in creating a "wand" (pistol) and "staff"(rifle) "caster"(firearm) for my Eberron setting. Basically, magic firearms. This thread is not about their fluff, only their mechanics. Basic goals: I want to capture the historic "feel" of firearms (simple to use, lots of damage, makes "the peasant a danger to the mounted knight" in flavor) while capturing the reality of D&D mechanics (balanced, and the peasant is not actually a danger to the mounted knight unless they are about the same level). Decision: So, we have bows and crossbows. Crossbows were historically a success due to their ease of use. Thus, crossbows tend to be simpler to use then bows in D&D 4e. I wanted to stick with that theme in 4e. Crossbows are harder to load then a bow, however. 4e captures this feel by giving bows a load free property, while crossbows have a load minor property. Now, firearms are a more powerful weapon then crossbow. This is (part of the reason) why they eventually took over the field of war. However, they were even slower to load (generally speaking). This is what I have decided to do in order to create a balanced firearm: I will base my firearm off the crossbow. To figure out the stats of any firearm I take a crossbow, increase the damage die by one step, but increase the load time from load minor to load move. Thoughts?
#2 aluman Nov 28, 2008 15:07:00	Now, firearms are a more powerful weapon then crossbow. This is (part of the reason) why they eventually took over the field of war. However, they were even slower to load (generally speaking). Actually it depends on what time frame you are talking about the early firearms had nothing on the Crossbow in stopping power of knights (remember they wore thick iron around them, it takes a fair amount of umph to get past it). The reason (imo) early firearms saw so much use was the hybrid. They had the range of a welsh longbow with the simplicity in use of a crossbow. It wasn't until the Wheel/Flintlock days that crossbows were Less powerful then firearms. This is what I have decided to do in order to create a balanced firearm: I will base my firearm off the crossbow. To figure out the stats of any firearm I take a crossbow, increase the damage die by one step, but increase the load time from load minor to load move. Thoughts? Don't use move. Move actions are suppose to be reservered for actual movement. Its not historically unrelastic for it to take the place of a standard action. Most really early guns (Up through the flintlocks) took upwards of a half minute for an expert to reload, thus why they would fire a volley and charge or carry a brace of pistols instead of just one.
#3 Cyber-Dave Nov 28, 2008 17:31:08	Actually it depends on what time frame you are talking about the early firearms had nothing on the Crossbow in stopping power of knights (remember they wore thick iron around them, it takes a fair amount of umph to get past it). The reason (imo) early firearms saw so much use was the hybrid. They had the range of a welsh longbow with the simplicity in use of a crossbow. It wasn't until the Wheel/Flintlock days that crossbows were Less powerful then firearms. Yea... I definitely didn't study the same history as you. I'm not saying that I am right and you are wrong, as history is notorious for being inaccurate, and history text books seem to get revised at regular intervals. But, that is not what I was taught. It also doesn't seem very logical to me. 1) As far as I know early firearms had the same FTLB as later flintlock weapons. They should thus have the same damage potential. 2) As far as I know early firearms did not have great range. Sure, the bullets through far, but they traveled erratically. You could not reliably hit what you were aiming at. This did not change until rifling was introduced to firearms. 3) I was always taught that the major innovation of firearms was their capability of punching through armor. Its sort of why armor fell out of use... whats the point of wearing heavy plate if a peasant with a gun can shoot through it with ease? Don't use move. Move actions are suppose to be reservered for actual movement. Its not historically unrelastic for it to take the place of a standard action. Most really early guns (Up through the flintlocks) took upwards of a half minute for an expert to reload, thus why they would fire a volley and charge or carry a brace of pistols instead of just one. You know, I might have been inclined to listen to this suggestion, except for your reasoning. I really don't like it. I mean, standard actions are usually reserved for attacks. Guess we can't use those either! Not to mention that technically, reloading a weapon is a form of movement... After that your reasoning is all about realism and simulationism, which I am not so interested in. I care more about making a weapon mechanically balanced from the point of view of the game then I do of making it realistic. The nice benefit of playing in a fantasy game is that you can throw realism out the window when it helps the games mechanics. All I want to do is throw a nod to the "feel" of history/realism. I could care less about staying strict to its letter. With that being said, I cannot give a firearm a higher damage die AND range then a crossbow, with its only drawback being reload time. Characters will just bypass this drawback by carrying around a brace of preloaded weapons. It might be realistic, but its **** poor from the point of view of balance. So, either the damage die gets increased, or the range gets increased, not both. I tend to prefer the damage die method (for the reasons listed above). Next the question becomes, what should its reload time be. I don't mind making the reload speed a standard action. However, I worry that this is too much of a drawback. The weapon will only be capable of being fired once every second round (at best). This seems a bit much... With a reload of a move action it both reloads one action slower then the crossbow (a direct correlation to the fact that the weapon deals damage of one step higher), and allows a character to attack once per round. Of course, in order to do so, the character will have to stay stationary (moving and firing will force the character to fire once every second round, as before). This just seems more balanced to me... On the other hand, if balance dictates that with a damage die increase of one step (and the same required proficiency) a reload speed of one step is not enough, I don't mind making it reload at a speed of one standard action. Thoughts?
#4 Lugritor Nov 28, 2008 20:17:12	These are the guns I am using in my game They are base off of crossbows I increased the load by 2 steps and gave them Brutal 1 and High Crit to balance them
#5 Cyber-Dave Nov 28, 2008 20:53:29	I'm sorry Lugritor, but I am not a big fan of your version. A simple weapon that does the same damage as the longbow, but is also a brutal 2 high crit weapon? Um... ok. I think it is overpowered. I'm not a big fan of the reload mechanics either. I would prefer to stick to a single action of some sort (minor, move, or standard). I would rather stick to something simple... like a crossbow +1 step on the damage scale and a load move action. Of course, either brutal 2 or high crit would work just as well as a +1 step on the damage scale... but not both. And, I am not the biggest fan of the brutal mechanic, so its not what I want to use with my firearms. I will use it where it already exists in the RAW... but when I add mechanics of my own I prefer to add mechanics that do not add extra rolls to the game.
#6 Lugritor Nov 28, 2008 23:05:52	I see what when wrong they were supposed to have brutal 1 not brutal 2. I wanted the load time to be long but still allow them to fire every round and I wanted to factor in players taking a reload feat to speed this up but I never wanted it to be a free action. Looking at the other weapons this allows for 2 increases feeling that increasing the damage was a bit to much I gave them brutal 1 and high crit. By the way I never had a simple weapon doing the same amount of damage as a longbow I had a martial weapon doing the same amount of damage, I had a weapon doing the same amount of damage but taking a minor and a move action to load but granting high crit and brutal 1
#7 Cyber-Dave Nov 29, 2008 2:09:31	Whoops. I misread your table. Ok, balance wise, I don't mind it... but its not quite what I am looking for. I think I am going to just go with one damage die size up, but load move action. I will allow a feat that changes that to a load swift (basically meaning that with a feat, essentially making the weapon exotic, it deals what an exotic crossbow would normally deal and will have the same load time). I don't plan on including military versions of this weapon at all (only simple and perhaps one superior rifle that replaces the "great-crossbow"). Alternatively, if the damage die size up is overpowered, I can instead give these weapons the high critical property (in return for their slower reload speed). Basically, your version, except I won't include military versions, I remove the swift action from the load speed, and I remove the brutal 1 property.
#8 Lugritor Nov 29, 2008 12:38:25	Personaly for what you are looking for I would use High Crit instead of increasing the die type if only to keep bows doing more damage also no ranged weapon has high crit so it give your firearms a distinct difference from crossbows. If you do this I would however make an epic feat in increase crits to 19-20 like they have for most weapons
#9 Cyber-Dave Nov 29, 2008 14:38:57	I don't know. I am still leaning towards the bigger damage die. Something in me likes the idea of a simple weapon that does the same damage as a bow, but is a lot easier to use (but also much slower to reload)... that just seems to scream firearm to me. It also explains why the weapon would become so prevalent on the battlefield while simultaneously leaving the weapon essentially mechanically balanced by the rules.