Superior Weapons
One-Handed
Pistol- +3 proficiency bonus, 1d10 damage, range 6/12, 30gp, 2lbs, Firearm, Reload Standard, Off-hand.
Two-handed
Musket- +3 proficiency bonus, 2d6 damage, range 10/20, 6lbs, Firearm, Reload Standard, Two-Handed
Proficiency Bonus- For both the pistol and the musket, either +2 to represent the inaccuracy of firearms, or +3 to represent firearm's ability to penetrate armor. I prefer +3, and to shorten the range relative to bows to represent inaccuracy.
Damage- Either 1d10 for pistols and 2d6 for muskets, or 2d6 for pistols and 2d8 for muskets. The former feels more balanced- they should be very damaging, but not overly so.
Range- 6/12 for Pistol, 10/20 for Musket. Again, relative inaccuracy of early firearms.
Price- Firearms should be more expensive than most other weapons, but not prohibitively so. Perhaps 30-40gp for a pistol and 40-50gp for a musket.
Weight- 2 lbs for a pistol, 6 lbs for a musket seem about right
Weapon Group- Firearms. For balance reasons, firearms would probably be a Superior weapon. To expand their usage, Rogues might be able to use firearms with some of their powers (since firearms are functionally similar to crossbows)
Properties- Reload Standard. The major negative of early firearms was their long reload time. Furthermore, any powers that allow multiple attacks (such as a Ranger's Twin Strike at-will) requires multiple loaded firearms. In addition, pistols have the off-hand property.
Considering that these weapons (as you have listed them) are load standard, these should be simple weapons. Then, you can add a feat that allows someone to reload a firearm with a move action. This way, anybody can use a firearm, but someone with extra training can use them a bit more effectively.
Load standard as the default sounds about right, though. Fire your pistols/musket, then draw your melee weapon. You're a hero, not a regiment of British soldiers. :D
@bastard_dm- Personally, I'd rather have them be simple weapons for the exact same reason. I'm a bit leery about the feat at this point though.
@Batshido- I agree, load standard makes it unpalatable for PC's. However, it is consistent with the weapons. Thats why military units used massed units of musketmen, so some could fire while the rest reloaded. Furthermore, even as late as the Napoleonic wars, firearm-using units needed to be either protected by melee-capable units, or be melee capable units themselves (FIX BAYONETS!!!)
@SeniorOcho- Good point about the rogues. And you have nailed the primary usage of guns.
@Batshido- I agree, load standard makes it unpalatable for PC's. However, it is consistent with the weapons. Thats why military units used massed units of musketmen, so some could fire while the rest reloaded. Furthermore, even as late as the Napoleonic wars, firearm-using units needed to be either protected by melee-capable units, or be melee capable units themselves (FIX BAYONETS!!!)
"Consistent" or not, it's going to relegate these sorts of weapons to campaign background material if your players have any sense at all.
Ask yourself this; do I want my primary ranged PCs using a bow and arrow in a setting with access to ballistic technology? If the answer is yes, then you're fine. If not, Load Standard needs to go.
Load Standard makes them practically useless for PCs.
I suppose it really depends on what he is trying to achieve. If his goal is to include them as an aesthetic symbol of changing times, but to largely keep them out of the hands of players, then load standard is a good idea. Moreover, players will still use them... they will use them about once per encounter when they expend their daily powers. With 1d10/2d6 or 2d6/2d8 damage guns, who wouldn't use such a gun with their primary high multiple [w] damage attack? Of course, that begs other questions, do you really want your PCs using them in this way? How will it effect the balance of the game?
Me personally, its not the route I went for with my Renaissance settings rules. I wanted characters dedicated to using guns to exist, and I didn't want to upset the balance of the game too much. But I can see his approach working in certain types of narratives...
I suppose it really depends on what he trying to achieve. If his goal is to include them as an aesthetic symbol of changing times, but to largely keep them out of the hands of players, then load standard is a good idea.
Ask yourself this; do I want my primary ranged PCs using a bow and arrow in a setting with access to ballistic technology? If the answer is yes, then you're fine. If not, Load Standard needs to go.
Great minds, and all that. ;)
Yes, you are right; The firearms are more for campaign aesthetics and NPC's use than for PCs to specialize in. And the concerns about high [w] damage attacks is why I'm leaning towards 1d10/2d6 damage rather than 2d6/2d8.
@Cyber-Dave- I would be interested in seeing your take on a Renassance setting sometime.
Yes, you are right; The firearms are more for campaign aesthetics and NPC's use than for PCs to specialize in. And the concerns about high [w] damage attacks is why I'm leaning towards 1d10/2d6 damage rather than 2d6/2d8.
If you want to take a loot at my Renaissance setting rules, check the link in my signature. It will direct you directly to the thread in which my Renaissance settings rules.
The setting I am currently running as a Renaissance setting is actually a slightly edited version of the 4e Forgotten Realms. In it, with the fall of Mystra, Gond has become a major deity. Many have turned to technology instead of magic, and firearms have become far more prevalent. My goal, with my rules, was to put firearms in the hands of MOST ranged characters (including PCs) without making them so powerful that there is no reason to use crossbows or bows, if that is what tickles ones fancy. They are designed using a fairly different narrative strategy then yours.
The mechanics fit perfectly, and balance isn't a worry.
Problem solved.
It brings to mind brigands armed with flintlocks and sabres. Enter a fray, release your lead, then drop the gun and try to skewer the rest of your opposition. These guns would be perfect for a swashbuckler story, or even a three musketeers era game.
A feat that allows for a move action reload seems out of touch with reality (standard reload is a bit of a historical stretch even if you use paper cartridges. Those puppies took way too much time and finesse to reload for a move action.), and is why bow and arrow would still be effective. Over the long run you fire faster (Fact: I can reload a bow faster than any mortal can reload a flintlock. A matchlock takes longer than a flintlock and is more difficult to use.)
To be sure, the damage isn't as high as I'd epect for a rifled weapon, but these are basic flintlocks and it can be explained by the ball's tendency to stray from the target. Can't really fix it unless you rifle the barrel or put some controlable spin on the ball... magic guns?
I think this is a great idea, and would approve these stats (though Military) in my games were magic not already a more potent option. There are 200+ years of military tradition with these kinds of weapons, but Cavalry remained throughout. Balanced in reality = fairly balanced in martial circles of fantasy.
I actually like the current stats for his guns, but I don't think you need it to be superior. Military tops, maybe with a +2 prof to account for the innacurate nature lead balls have.
It brings to mind brigands armed with flintlocks and sabres. Enter a fray, release your lead, then drop the gun and try to skewer the rest of your opposition. These guns would be perfect for a swashbuckler story, or even a three musketeers era game.
A feat that allows for a move action reload seems out of touch with reality (standard reload is a bit of a historical stretch even if you use paper cartridges. Those puppies took way too much time and finesse to reload for a move action.), and is why bow and arrow would still be effective. Over the long run you fire faster (Fact: I can reload a bow faster than any mortal can reload a flintlock. A matchlock takes longer than a flintlock and is more difficult to use.)
To be sure, the damage isn't as high as I'd epect for a rifled weapon, but these are basic flintlocks and it can be explained by the ball's tendency to stray from the target. Can't really fix it unless you rifle the barrel or put some controlable spin on the ball... magic guns?
I think this is a great idea, and would approve these stats (though Military) in my games were magic not already a more potent option. There are 200+ years of military tradition with these kinds of weapons, but Cavalry remained throughout. Balanced in reality = fairly balanced in martial circles of fantasy.
How much do you know about crossbows and how fast they can be reloaded? Because, if you are trying to capture pure historical accuracy, reloading a heavy crossbow with a move action is completely historically inaccurate. It was only possible to fire about 2-3 quarrels per minute. A standard action reload speed would be pushing it there too. And yet, it only takes a move action to reload a crossbow. Why?
Like I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with his stats. It just depends what one is trying to convey. If you want the weapon to be virtually useless for PC's, except as a once per encounter with a daily power damage booster, then his stats work fine. If you want them to be a regularly used weapon in the setting, not so much. If you are ok with the fact that his weapons will skew balance slightly by upping the damage dealt with daily weapon powers, his stats work fine. If not, not so much. If you want slightly more realistic stats than his stats work fine. If you want ones that work slightly better with the rest of the game, not so much. It just really depends what ones goal is.
They are not, however, bad stats. In some games I might run, I could see myself using them. In the more "fantasy Renaissance" setting I am running now, something more fable 2 inspired, I would not. The only part of his stats that I really don't like is the off-hand property. I would not give pistols the off-hand property. Save the duel pistol wielding for the rangers, or rogues who take the appropriate feat from martial power.
They are not, however, bad stats. In some games I might run, I could see myself using them. In the more "fantasy Renaissance" setting I am running now, something more fable 2 inspired, I would not. The only part of his stats that I really don't like is the off-hand property. I would not give pistols the off-hand property. Save the duel pistol wielding for the rangers, or rogues who take the appropriate feat from martial power.
You've got great points, and we are in agreement about the stats depending on what you're trying to convey storywise.
I did a little research (I googld it :D ). Aparently the top for flintlock reload time was somewhere in the realm of 15 seconds.
( http://www.answers.com/topic/flintlock and under crossbow use: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Crossbow_-_History/id/1270319 ).
I forget what tht translates to game time, but like Cyber-dave pointed out, it doesn't really matter.
How do you want your guns to behave? Form-fit stats to that.
Happy hunting :D
I would like to thank everyone for the advice and debate. I think I will take the advice on the prof. bonus (down to +2), and make them simple.
Also, I never thought about narrative purpose, but having the slow reloads and powerful damage fits what I want guns to be in the campaign. They are exotic, will not replace anything as a weapon of choice, and are used as, say, a 17th century pirate would have used them- get your shot off, then draw your sword.
Thanks all.
Why are they superior weapons? I thought the whole reason firearms started replacing longbows on the battlefield was because they required less training. Sure, they might cost more than a longbow, but that doesn't make them superior.
The reason firearms replaced longbows is that they were better at killing people, and I'd imagine that's what makes them superior.
The reason firearms replaced longbows is that they were better at killing people, and I'd imagine that's what makes them superior.
Actually, it was because they were easy to train people in their use. I mean, there is more to it then just that. They hit things very hard (and so penetrated armor easier) as well. But how easy they were to use was a big part of why they were so effective. Making them "superior" makes the the hardest weapon to use, not the easiest. To be honest, I think all firearms should be stated as simple ranged weapons... except for their higher quality superior counterparts of course.
That, coupled with the armor-piercing capability, rendered armored knights obsolete, as nobles with 14 years of training and the best armor money could buy were cut down by armies of peasants using guns.
First, there is an important distinction between battlefield weapons and individual weaponry that has an implication for their use in D&D. Matchlocks and flintlocks served armies well, in mass volley or line fire. But, they had serious limitations for individual personal combat (and hence why swords never really went away in dueling until the early 19th century). Since an Early Modern D&D setting still likely would focus on characters as a "band of heroes" rather than, as a previous poster humorously put it, a British regiment, possibly battlefield muskets and cannon really wouldn't be appropriate as regular, round to round D&D weapons.
In individual combat, a "brace" of pistols might be drawn and fired at the start and then simply thrown aside, allowing two shots before going to blades. The Renaissance era also produced numerous inventions that had little battlefield value due to high cost or complexity but considerable value for small groups of combatants or duelists. The wheellock is the best-known example, a (relatively) quick loading and highly reliable all-weather gun that was the premium choice in firearms from the late 1500s to the mid 1700s...but which never had much military impact because it couldn't be mass produced, required specialized skill to repair, and was hugely expensive to make. Another curious weapon that I myself personally saw (in a museum in southern France about 10 years ago) was a "sword-gun" from the 1500s: a modest longsword with a (very small) wheelock pistol connected to the hilt, so the blade could be pointed to line up the one pre-loaded shot. I have heard of (though not personally seen) other Renaissance inventions, such as bucklers combined with a wheellock pistol and muskets with multiple barrels to allow multiple shots before firing (such a weapon is depicted, though probably anachronistically, in the SHARPE movies from the BBC).
So instead of being regular "simple" or "military" or "superior" weapons, perhaps Renaissance firearms might be better conceived for D&D as "consumables" or wondrous "magic" items? As one-off use attacks or as items that provide a daily or encounter power? For example, I could envision the above "sword-gun" as a magic item with an encounter power like: "Standard Action. Make a ranged attack using your Dexterity vs. Reflex." Similarly, a "brace" of pistols could be an encounter power usable up to twice in a day, to make a similar attack. This would avoid the tedious problem of trying to decide how long it should take for a character to reload them in a combat round (in personal combat, you simply wouldn't even try) or how firearms should combine with class powers.
Additionally, the question of range and damage is important and complicated. Early firearms didn't replace bows because of range or accuracy (both high-quality crossbows and composite longbows continued to have the edge over firearms in those characteristics into the 1700s). As others have mentioned, the advantage of firearms was in easy training and armor-defeating power. Early firearms (typically around .75 caliber!) threw a ball of lead at a much faster velocity than any bow could launch a shaft, and by the early 1500s it proved impossible to make a suit of armor thick enough to stop a ball.
So, firearm range probably shouldn't be out of line with crossbows. However, they were more effective at closer ranges (easier to aim) than farther ones. There are battle accounts of musket fire being ineffectively exchange at distances of several hundred yards, but military wisdom was to hold musket fire until within 50 yards (and preferably even closer). So one way to balance this would be to give firearms a shorter close range and a larger long range. The "sword-gun" above might have a range like 5/15; a wheellock pistol might have range 5/20; a musket might have range 15/45.
Armor should be of no use against firearms (despite efforts into the 1500s to "proof" armor against balls, there's no evidence anything worked and even some evidence that all armor did was flatten a ball and increase the chance it would lodge fatally in the body instead of pass through). The best way to do this in D&D is to make firearm attack powers vs. Reflex, though possibly with a special note that any "shield bonus" to Reflex is lost.
Damage is trickier, and I never could resolve this to my satisfaction. Shot from early firearms was smaller and lighter but faster than an arrow/quarrel. As a result, it could do more damage than an arrow/quarrel...but it could also do less (like a graze). So how to reflect this in the D&D mechanic? I wasn't ever sure. Roll multiple little dice (4d4)? Roll one big die (1d12...or 1d20)? Another idea to consider comes from one of the earlier D&D Editions (I can't remember which, but it was a long time ago). The firearms in that edition rolled a single die (I want to say 1d10)...but if you rolled the maximum, you rolled the die again and added the result, and if that second die rolled the maximum you rolled again and added, etc. Hence, you had like a 10% chance for your firearm to do 11-19, a 1% chance for it to do 21-29, etc.
Anyways, hope these insights are helpful to you as you think about how to work things out for your campaign. Good luck!