Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Cyber-Dave Aug 11, 2008 13:06:46	I posted a thread, that looked much the same, in the Eberron forums. However, I didn't get as much help as I would have liked, so I am trying again (with the changes that I made after making this post the first time) here in the house rules forum. I am planning on introducing fire-arms to my Eberron setting. My goal in creating the bellow weapons is to create a weapon that is in some ways superior to all other (non magical) weapons... at least in terms of fluff and "feel". However, I want certain balancing aspects that will stop this weapon from out and out replacing conventional D&D weapons (such as swords, bows, and the like). The balancing aspects I chose are its cost, ammunition cost, superior weapon proficiency requirement, and load time. At the same time, I wanted this weapon to "feel" like a weapon that could, in some ways, turn a "common peasant into a threat against a mounted knight". The "caster" property is what I used to do this. I would really appreciate some thoughts on my success, or failure, of balancing this weapon. Suggestions on what I should change, if anything, are also welcome. Casters Shortly after the end of the last war, and the signing of the Treaty of Thronehold, rumors claim that a new type of weapon was found amongst the artifacts of Xen’drik by an archeological expedition from Morgrave University. This weapon, called the caster by those who whisper about its existence, is claimed to be an artifice designed to fire small metal slugs, via a magic infusion, at incredibly fast speeds. Morgrave claims that it has found no such object, but many conspiracy theorists whisper that in fact the university is simply attempting to keep research about the newly found artifact secret lest any second parties take offense to the university studying a new weapon of war after the signing of the Treaty of Thronehold. Cannith mage-wrights and artificers have occasionally been reported claiming that, theoretically, such an artifice could exist. Some combination of a metal slug, a Khyber shard bound with a fire elemental designed to create a small explosion, and a hollow wand or staff designed to aim the flight of the projectile, might, theoretically, produce a weapon much like a sling, but capable of launching its ammunition at a much higher and more deadly speed. Still, all Cannith mage-wrights have been quick to state that no member of house Cannith is involved in researching such new magic weaponry. Indeed, Cannith’s quick disavowal of any research into the creation of such an item have led certain conspiracy theorists to believe that Barron Merrix d’Cannith, or perhaps Barron Zorlan d’Cannith, may in fact be researching how to produce such a weapon for either Breland or Karnnath, a claim which both nations claim is foolish in the extreme.
#2 Cyber-Dave Aug 11, 2008 13:18:21	I just thought I would post some quick thought process notes, on why I did certain things, before people start suggesting changes. The reason why the proficiency bonus is only +1: On one hand, I wanted this weapon to feel like its easy to use. You pick it up, point it, and fire. On the other hand, I knew this weapon had to be a superior weapon in order to help balance its higher damage dice. Also, I wanted these weapons to feel like the first generation of such weapons being produced, and as such I wanted these weapons to feel like they are not very accurate (sometimes you are pointing in the right place, but it just doesn't shoot where you want it to). Thus, I chose to go with the +1 proficiency bonus. Its low enough that there is not a big difference between someone proficient in the use of these weapons, or someone who is not proficients, at least at first. On the other hand, all the feats for these weapons are keyed off having a proficiency feat in them, so a proficiency is still required to trully become a memorable caster-slinger. The reason for the "caster" weapon property: It both makes the weapons feel like they are better at penetrating armor then other weapons, but doesn't totally invalidate armor bonus (which the weapon should not... especially with heavier armors such as plate). A +2 bonus to hit armored opponents also helps this weapon feel like it can make a peasant a threat against a mounted knight... caster's are a better weapon choice than other weapons in the hands of someone who is not trained in the use of any weapon. The reason for the high damage dice: I was mirroring damage dice of the numbers used in 3.5 edition firearms (found in d20 Modern and d20 Past), but adapated to match the damage progression table of 4e. Also, I wanted these "new" weapons to feel like they are superior then other weapons, and higher damage dice seemed the best way to do this. Basically, I want the first appearance of these weapons to "feel" like they are ushering in a new age of weaponry, but at the same time, I want the actual game to play out in a manner where characters who focus their feat and power choices on other weapons to turn out virtually equally powerful. The reason for the very high cost of these weapons and their ammunition: Because to some extent, these weapons are obviously much better than other choices. Thus, I felt that a character who ends up deciding to use one should pay for this superiority the same way a character who buys a magic weapons pays for its superiority in gold. The weapons are better, but they cost a LOT more to buy and use. The reason why the "heavy" iterations have a "high crit" property: The six shooters can be fired six times before they need to be reloaded. Over time, that equals a lot more potential damage than the heavy weapons, which only have a higher damage die, but AT THE VERY BEST can only be fired once every second round. I felt giving the heavy weapons a high crit property makes them a little more attractive compared to the six shooters.
#3 Cyber-Dave Aug 12, 2008 12:07:21	No input from anyone, on the current balance (or perhaps lack thereof) of my house rule creation?
#4 ocarina_guy Aug 12, 2008 16:49:49	I like it. I'm certainly not an authority on balance, and can't help you there. But I like the idea of a firearm-wielding ranger, etc. Would that be a TWF or a ranged ranger? Mechanically, though, guns are easier to use than a superior weapon would indicate. In most cases, just point and shoot. Also, I think they're a bit overpowered. Are the slugs pointy and are the barrels rifled? Otherwise, I just don't see how it could be that they could cause that much damage with a little chunk of non-pointy lead. Are these things made of wood? If so, see Mythbusters.
#5 Cpt_Micha Aug 12, 2008 16:58:31	I hate to sound mean but they're too good for what they are. Way too good. Especially given the "armor piercing" you've given them.
#6 bagelsan Aug 12, 2008 20:04:46	ok here is a simple idea to this, break down a gun mechanically and its a trigger, a form of propulsion, ammunition and path of travel for ammunition. in 3.x in forgotten realsm gnomes had an impliment called a dart thruster that was a spring loaded dart..umm..thruster it was shaped similar to a modern 9mm of equal size and weight, had a 3 round load and took a move action to reload. damage was only 1d4 i believe actually i'll quote the section Dart thruster 40 gp 1d4 19–20/
#7 bagelsan Aug 12, 2008 20:13:11	double post sorry
#8 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2008 13:51:43	I like it. I'm certainly not an authority on balance, and can't help you there. But I like the idea of a firearm-wielding ranger, etc. Would that be a TWF or a ranged ranger? Mechanically, though, guns are easier to use than a superior weapon would indicate. In most cases, just point and shoot. Also, I think they're a bit overpowered. Are the slugs pointy and are the barrels rifled? Otherwise, I just don't see how it could be that they could cause that much damage with a little chunk of non-pointy lead. Are these things made of wood? If so, see Mythbusters. That would be a ranged ranger. As for the superior/easier to use argument, the guns are already modeled to represent that: The proficiency only grants a +1 to hit, and the guns special ability grants a +2 to hit against armor. Most people who use them would basically be using them without a proficiency. What the proficiency is required for is to get the firearm special feats, and become a true gunslinger... or caster slinger as the case may be. They are made of metal, not wood, though I seriously doubt Mythbusters has an episode on magic firearms and their materials. As for the slugs and how they are designed... they are magic. These are magic firearms, not regular firearms. So honestly, I never really put any thought into whether they are pointy or not. I always sort of imagined them being like the guns of the wild west though, so I guess pointy is what I am going with. That being said, guns and the damage they do have nothing to do with how pointy the bullet is. Guns don't work based on how well they pierce your body. They work based on how much ftlb (a measurement of their kinetic energy) they transfer into your body. Rifled barrels with pointy bullets do "more damage" not because they are pointy, but because they are more aerodynamic (and accurate) and thus lose less of their kinetic energy traveling to their target. But, in a world where magic exists, you don't need aerodynamic rounds to avoid loosing kinetic energy to atmosphere... an enchanted round of any shape will work just as well.
#9 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2008 13:55:56	I hate to sound mean but they're too good for what they are. Way too good. Especially given the "armor piercing" you've given them. Do you care to quantify that statement in some way, because otherwise its of very little help to me. Too good in what way? Too good as in they are not balanced mechanically, or too good because you feel guns should not be that effective in comparison to swords and whatnot? If its the first, and your statement is in relation to a balanced game, what would you change? If its the second, I humbly disagree... and so do D&D's game designers. In 3.5 edition the equivalent real world firearms were stated (by the game designers) as doing 2d6, 2d8, and 2d10 damage, which is directly relational to 1d10, 1d12, 2d6, and 2d8 damage in 4th edition. Also, in the real world, firearms really are that much better than sword;, its why they totally replaced swords as the weapon of choice on the battlefield.
#10 Cyber-Dave Aug 13, 2008 13:57:46	ok here is a simple idea to this, break down a gun mechanically and its a trigger, a form of propulsion, ammunition and path of travel for ammunition. in 3.x in forgotten realsm gnomes had an impliment called a dart thruster that was a spring loaded dart..umm..thruster it was shaped similar to a modern 9mm of equal size and weight, had a 3 round load and took a move action to reload. damage was only 1d4 i believe actually i'll quote the section Dart thruster 40 gp 1d4 19–20/
#11 Cpt_Micha Aug 13, 2008 19:34:12	Do you care to quantify that statement in some way, because otherwise its of very little help to me. Too good in what way? Too good as in they are not balanced mechanically, or too good because you feel guns should not be that effective in comparison to swords and whatnot? If its the first, and your statement is in relation to a balanced game, what would you change? If its the second, I humbly disagree... and so do D&D's game designers. In 3.5 edition the equivalent real world firearms were stated (by the game designers) as doing 2d6, 2d8, and 2d10 damage, which is directly relational to 1d10, 1d12, 2d6, and 2d8 damage in 4th edition. Also, in the real world, firearms really are that much better than sword;, its why they totally replaced swords as the weapon of choice on the battlefield. For one, Guns are not nearly as effective against armor as you have them listed at. (the Caster benefit needs to go and your damage is too high) They are also far too good mechanically speaking. Also, Modern D20 is not a good reference material to use with guns aside from making -all- weapons do around the same damage. Modern d20 is not meant to be employed in conjunction with standard D&D. If you want your guns to do more damage then you have to raise up the other damage as well. There is another Gun Thread posted up on here, I recommend you check that out for some references (there's several different versions of guns there) Here's what I did with my guns. Rifles, +2 d12 15/30 range 2 handed, Superior Load minor action Pistols +2 d8 10/20 range 1 handed, Superior. Load minor action For a more magicy gun I have these Rifles +2 d10 20/40 range, 2 handed Superior, Load free action Pistols +2 2d4, 15/30 range, 1 handed, Superior Load free action. The Reason Fire Arms really replaced swords, is not due to the damage they inflict but the fact that they are -ranged- and -easy to use-. Training someone in the proper way to use a sword is expensive work. Nor have guns totally replaced Cqc. There is a reason soldiers still train for it, and are every bit as skilled in it, if not more so than medieval counter parts. For more teched out Scif weapons I have these http://naegunfael.proboards61.com/index.cgi?board=tech&action=display&thread=77