At first we need to take a look at why many people feel that firearms should not be allowed in game and then dissect those reasons. This method runs the risk of being a straw man argument; however, I will try my best to keep on task. Moreover, I rely on you, the reader, to keep me honest.
The first reason that is often given for why firearms should not be allowed is the “It’s fantasy!” argument. This is often not summed up, as it is more of a position that the DM takes for his world. I cannot offer a counter to this, as the vision for a world is very dependent on the DM. I only offer the observation that other fantasy world use firearms. *cough* WoW *cough*
Another common reason given against the use of firearms is that wizards wouldn’t bother making them due to having superior magic. This is a true statement and I have no argument against it; however, this argument seems to rest on the premise that only wizards would be able to create firearms. Why do I treat this as false? Simply, this assumes that all intelligent people are wizards. Can Bob, the farmer, not have an intelligence of 15 or maybe even 17? I grant that is unlikely, however, it would not be the first time that someone was unable to do something due to their station in life. Also, this assumes that other intelligent people – say the third son of a noble – would have no desire to develop firearms.
A closely related argument is that there is no reason for firearms because of magic in general. The position reasons, that if you have a torch that can never be extinguished (or at least takes a really long time to go out), you don’t need electricity to create streetlights. A magical long bow can be extremely powerful, as can magical armor. However, does this mean that all “lesser” technological advancement will cease because magic is available? I can’t see the average farmer having access to magical methods to bless his fields and increase his crops on a regular basis. Would not Bob, the farmer, be interested in crop rotation? Particularly, if he has an intelligence of 17 and pays attention to what goes on around him? If farmer Bob knew about gun powder, or blasting powder, or anything else firearm related, he might decide to burn a little of the midnight oil and try to figure out how it works. Realistically, this would most likely be the purview of the aristocrats, as they would have the leisure time to devote to such studies. However, the point is that people could and would experiment despite “better” magic.
Another argument occasionally made is that wizards (or sometimes royalty) would not allow the development of firearms as they pose a threat to their powerbase. I suppose that there could be those that would object, however, I can’t see royalty turning down a weapon that could be used against enemies. Also, the queen may well be persuaded of the advantage of a weapon that is easy to teach to troops. An individual wizard may or may not worry about firearms; however the increased use of firearms may prompt wizards to develop spells that specifically protect against bullets.
Certainly, the mass production of firearms is not feasible in a medieval setting. Neither however, is the mass production of anything feasible in a medieval setting. Even swords are not mass-produced in the setting; hence, the cost of a long sword is one that no commoner could realistically afford.
Given that D&D is fantasy, there is no reason that the two cannot coexist. The only question in my mind, is what should firearms statistics be? That is an answer that I cannot give as it is highly dependent on the DM. As a DM, I would keep the tech-level low as that is all that my position supports. Therefore, I would allow a blunderbuss, a cannon and perhaps a single shot pistol. What about balance? This is a meta-game issue that can only be resolved between players and the DM.
The only question in my mind, is what should firearms statistics be? That is an answer that I cannot give as it is highly dependent on the DM. As a DM, I would keep the tech-level low as that is all that my position supports. Therefore, I would allow a blunderbuss, a cannon and perhaps a single shot pistol. What about balance? This is a meta-game issue that can only be resolved between players and the DM.
Firearms are described page 145-147 of the DMG and in the D20 modern system. They are exotic weapons and if your DM allows them great, they aren't incredible. If your campaign has a place for guns there’s nothing in the rules that says you can't use them. The thing with renaissance guns is they really aren't that effective compared to alternatives, in game terms they are exotic crossbows at best. And cannons really aren't worth the effort, its cheaper to have a wand of fire balls that weighs nothing does more damage and is more accurate then the cannon. Sure they're great for NPCs and such, but for players unless the entire campaign is based off of them they really aren't worth it.
More modern weaponry can be included into campaigns also and in the DMG it describes how you should deal with them.
As a DM, in a custom world that I am building, I added guns [flintlock, rifle, a 3-shot flintlock, a blunderbuss, and a cannon the dwarves made]. A single feat makes you proficient in all of them. The states are close to that of the DMG, but not the same. I felt they didn't carry the flavor well (IMO). As my players play through the world, they see no game balance problems and love the idea. It does forward the time period a bit more then some players may care for, but I don't force anyone to play in my games. Now, the prices are higher than what a 1st level character should have, unless he doesn't buy any armor.Now, the in-game reason for guns existing in my world is a emperor years ago (now dead) want some of his finest minds (mainly wizards) to construct something that his troops could easily use, has a powerful/magical like effect without being magical. They (the wizards) through alchemy discovered explosives. Not that far of a leap considering alchemist fire. In a fantasy world, I say that the guns are NOT real world guns and should NEVER be compared to such.
Now, the out-of-game reason for having guns is so I can have "Pirate of the Caribbean" style games if I wanted. Or even western style game. I can move the time period up some to a more Renn time period all while holding a Roman-esque empire. This is a fantasy world and there is no reason to say things didn't develop in a different order than it did in ours.
This ties in nicely with the low-magic D&D post I read here not long ago. The two in combination... Very nice.
Since firearms don't allow the use of your Str modifier, they're sub-par for an 'archer' builds damage, being about as damage effective as crossbow (actually, less damage effective than an x-bow actually).
So:
Bows:
+1
Crossbows:
+0
Firearms:
+0
Bows and Crossbows will probably fire more often (and using the +1 Crossbow of Reloading out of the Mini Handbook, you can use a crossbow as fast as a bow) than most firearms.
Bows:
+2
Crossbows:
+1
Firearms:
+0
Also, the 'bows' let you use magical arrows, there are no magical 'bullets' out of the box.
So:
Bows:
+3
Crossbows:
+2
Firearms:
+0
However, all weapons can be magic-ed! This is a firearms only saving grace; except for one problem; so can bows and crossbows:
So:
Bows:
+4
Crossbows:
+3
Firearms:
+1
Final analysis: Bows are able to shoot faster than a crossbow (this can be gotten around for about 4,000 gp to make a +1 light crossbow into a +1 Reloading Light Crossbow), and you can use your strength bonus for extra damage.
Crossbows and Bows can both use Magical Ammunition. Finally, Firearms can be made magical (but so can Bows and Crossbows).
Bows are
> Crossbows (better than)
and
>>>Firearms (as much as three orders of magnitude better than firearms)
Crossbows are
< Bows (worse than bows)
and
>>Firearms (as much as two orders of magnitude than a firearm)
Really, primitive firearms won't be used that much, and those that do use them will be out performed by traditional bow-users in terms of attack speed, base damage output, or potential damage output. The only difference is that a crossbow user will have slightly less average damage than the firearm users. So, armies of conscripts in your campaign world will use firearms, but will probably use crossbows just as much since they're cheaper to create ammunition for.
On the other hand, professional mercenaries will have squads of Rapid Shotting (and perhaps, even Arrow Storming) musketeers, -7 to your attacks rolls for +3 attacks per round can really add up to quite a lot of fire if you're using the grouped fire rules from Heroes of Battle.
The funny thing is that, regardless of what I just said; those same men with crossbows will do more damage with 1-50 +2 bolts thanks to a Greater Magic Weapon cast on every 50 bolts. So, really, the 'purists' are actually right, but not for reasons that they would care to acknowledge: Guns aren't commonly used b/c they suck as weapons. Legolas beats Athos, Porthos and any other musketeer in a shoot-out.
The reasons people think that a firearm > Bow, is that they never consider the fact that magic is forgotten in such a thought. If the natives of the Americas had +1 Icy Longbows with Flaming Arrows (thanks to a Flame Arrow spell cast on 50 arrows ahead of time), they would have wiped the floor with the English and their +1 Flaming Muskets.
The inherent power of a firearm won't be seen by the players since they aren't groundpounders in His Majesties Royal Shortbowmen who face The Dauphin's Imperial Musketeers, using shortbows vs muskets.
Instead of being Grundgar, Dwarven Hunter with his tamed Polar Bear Snuggles; they'll be Soveliss, Rapid-Arrowstorm-Shotting the enemy hordes of the Duergar 34th Ice Muskets Brigade with a +4 Penetrating Shot Composite Longbow with +1 Flaming Icy Keen arrows; while his foes are stuck with +1 Icy Shock Muskets at best.
In any case, it doesn't matter whether a PC uses a Bow or not from a flavour point of view. The mechanics of your character can be represented with whatever the hell you want. For example, you could be Grundgar, the Dwarven Hunter. Who uses a mithral rifle with adamantine bullets and has a Polar Bear companion. Just write down that you have a darkwood weapon that uses adamantine ammunition that you buy in lots of 50 for the exact same cost as adamantine arrows. Since really, flavour can be have it's neck twisted to represent anything you want it to.
Mechanically, the above works exactly like a bow user using adamantine arrows, but no one knows any different. Sort of like the 'soulknife' that I made for a campaign; he was a ranger as well. He just had 'soulknife channeling knuckles' that he wore on his fingers (instead of a bow) and 'psychic bullets' that he carried in a belt pouch (instead of arrows).
Really, I could play a 'fighter' but have all of my class levels in wizard. It's easy; I have the 'Furious Growth' fighter feat (aka Enlarge person); I fire 'unerring daggers' (magic missile) and I drop 'One Thousand Flaming Caltrops!' on my enemies at a distance (aka... fireball).
Really, if players want guns, let them, just re-write your bows and arrows and presto! You've got rules for guns that only a really savvy player will figure out.
When it comes down to it, it is up to the dm to decide on his setting. That said, I think DMs should consider or at least listen to a player’s suggestion about the setting.
I would like to bring up one more point that you didn't mention, some people say that firearms would not be invented because of the power of a magical longbow. That said, I see no reason that (in the right setting) a wizard could not enchant firearms! Sure this might come off cheesy in thrown into your medieval fantasy world, but D&D can be used to create a wide variety of settings.
The funny thing is that, regardless of what I just said; those same men with crossbows will do more damage with 1-50 +2 bolts thanks to a Greater Magic Weapon cast on every 50 bolts.
Alternatively, you can affect as many as fifty arrows, bolts, or bullets. The projectiles must be of the same kind, and they have to be together (in the same quiver or other container). Projectiles, but not thrown weapons, lose their transmutation when used. (Treat shuriken as projectiles, rather than as thrown weapons, for the purpose of this spell.)
Not only can "bullets" explicitly be affected (it doesn't say they have to be sling bullets), but the category of "projectiles" is also clearly stated to be larger than the three types listed. Similarly, there are consistent rules for making magic ammunition, so "there are no magic bullets 'out of the box'" is kind of a nonstarter as an argument. (Unless, of course, you are assuming that characters are relying entirely on randomly-found magic ammunition, in which case no ranged weapon was ever invented because they wouldn't have been able to find the ammunition already made.)
Rate of fire is an issue, but as you explicitly reference the Crossbow Of Reloading, there's again no reason people wouldn't make a Musket Of Reloading if muskets were equivalent or superior to crossbows at an equivalent rate of fire. I haven't run the math, but some of your arguments are on shaky logical grounds here.
Kobolds with access to gunpowder are not to be messed with!
Also giving different lands in your world different technological levels is fun. I DMed a campaign with Conquistador types who found their way into a Celtic influenced D&D magic filled world.
Maybe your "fantasy world" could be post-nuclear war, with 21st Century (or higher) weapons the "magic weapons" Maybe the rational, scientific mind actually weakens magic - so magic up = technology down. Rationalists could have spell resistance.
I would also assert that both Kings and Wizards might have a big problem with firearms. Guns are a great equalizer in many ways, they rendered mounted Knights and archers obsolete, an untrained peasant armed with a firearm is almost as effective as a trained soldier, an untrained peasant with a bow is not. Now this may not hold true mechanically in D&D, but it is not the mechanics I am worried about here.
Now of course I have no problems with games including firearms, but I feel this is an important flavor issue which should be spelled out from the beginning. Personally, I loved a PC game called Arcanum which did a masterful job of integrating Victorian era technology into a fantasy setting. Typical, though not what I want in D&D.
Therefore, any seasoned adventurer is far better off with the bow or sword--which is in accordance with the performance of early firearms.
Note that the longbow in reality can fire faster than a revolutionary war musket, to a greater effective range. But it can't be put in the hands of an untrained soldier--and training a bowman takes YEARS.
If guns are really primitive than most mounts won't be trained to deal with them. So riders should have to make a Ride check to control their frightened mounts. (In the first battle guns were used, that's what happened - they didn't hit anything but they caused panic in the enemy cavalry!)
If that, then riders should also have to make Ride checks to control their frightened mounts when a fireball explodes nearby, if they aren't already dead of course... since fireballs do hit and kill things in D&D.
Otherwise, I agree with Judging Eagle's analysis.
To add to that, I think the only way firearms will get developed to the point of usefulness, is if you removed the reliability and availability of magic. In other words, you need to change your setting from default D&D.
For example, a warlord might be eager to spend lots of resources to develop firearms in spite of the fact that early firearms will be somewhat less powerful than magic if say wizards were really rare, or there are a lot of dead magic zones in the world in which magic doesn't work.
You would also need to introduce a new skill, Craft (firearms) say, or give Alchemy to non-casters.
It would be similar to Fireball with the Explosive Spell feat (Complete Arcane). One difference might be that full cover actually does help (making the effect a burst, not a spread). Something that more than makes up for this, it is non-magical.
This would be something that any character can use as long as they have a tendertwig and a long enough fuse. This is almost the equivalent of a 5 level spell, normally only available to 9th level Wizards. Varying sizes can be made of course, some similar to a hand grenade. Others would be larger.
Please keep these points in mind if you plan to allow 'black powder' into the game.
What I would address is the place of guns in a magical world. Despite the presence of magical means, firearms would still have a sizeable niche in many campaign worlds due to the distribution of magic power. Magic demographics in the world at large tend to recommend an extreme paucity of wizards and other magic users in many worlds. I am thinking 1%-10% of the population in most cases I have dealt with personally. PCs are more often magic users and deal with magic users more often because they belong to and interact with largely the elite of the world. For the average commoner/warriors, having people capable of magical artillery would be very rare, and even magical items would be uncommon due to the limited number of craftsmen.
Therefore, assuming you are not playing in a very common-magic game, firearms could play a vital role as force equalizers for the masses of mundane armies that would carry out the brunt of the action. This is somewhat similar to the actual role of firearms in the very beginning. Archery was more effective, but handguns provided a cheaper and less trained (though less effective) ranged fighting force.
With the new warlock invocation rods (of eldritch spear) in the complete mage, you could build a rifle (which I did). Use a Scepter and an invocation rod, that both attach to a stock--my DM even let me enchant a spyglass that would lock onto the top of the rifle--and now you have an eldritch sniper rifle.
I realize that this isn't a true gun, but my point is, if you want the image, then you've got options. You don't even have to be a warlock, I think an artificer would be even better.
An often skipped point in these discussions: What if someone wants to instead make an explosive instead of a firearm. Isn't this a small logical leap as well? Yet I'm not sure how well D&D is equipped for such a weapon. Let's think about it:
It would be similar to Fireball with the Explosive Spell feat (Complete Arcane). One difference might be that full cover actually does help (making the effect a burst, not a spread). Something that more than makes up for this, it is non-magical.
This would be something that any character can use as long as they have a tendertwig and a long enough fuse. This is almost the equivalent of a 5 level spell, normally only available to 9th level Wizards. Varying sizes can be made of course, some similar to a hand grenade. Others would be larger.
Please keep these points in mind if you plan to allow 'black powder' into the game.
Yeah and you'd have some real fun in a dungeon carrying a sack load of gunpowder when the kobolds start throwing torches at you! I just reread the DMG. The rules for Renaissance explosives are way off since it states that you don't need proficiency. Grenadiers were considered elite troops (and the name stuck in modern armies). Renaissance explosives were extremely dangerous to the user.
I think that bombs should be exotic weapons and guns either martial or even simple weapons. How about a TWF ranger, rogue or swashbuckler with the quick draw feat and a brace of 8 preloaded pistols? I also think that:
If you add a bayonet you should be able to use a musket as a spear. (Maybe that's already in the DMG?)
You shouldn't provoke AoO with a preloaded firearm.
You should be able to use pistols in melee.
I ran a campaign where the PC's traveled to the modern day US. The Paladin tried to melee combat a station wagon (he was on a quest of atonement) and later befriended the driver after being run over. An evil cleric set him self up as a TV evangelist (2E, evil clerics could heal), the PCs bought loads of guns and even brought some back through the portal that lead home and a case full of Uzis (like every Englishman, I always imagine that all Americans have Uzis) fell into the hands of a goblin warband. It all worked out fine. The PCs destroyed the guns and just kept a couple of grenades (you can buy them in any shop in the US right?). Just as the DMG says, treat anything powerful the way you treat powerful magic items and you can keep your campaign world stable.
An often skipped point in these discussions: What if someone wants to instead make an explosive instead of a firearm. Isn't this a small logical leap as well? Yet I'm not sure how well D&D is equipped for such a weapon. Let's think about it:
It would be similar to Fireball with the Explosive Spell feat (Complete Arcane). One difference might be that full cover actually does help (making the effect a burst, not a spread). Something that more than makes up for this, it is non-magical.
This would be something that any character can use as long as they have a tendertwig and a long enough fuse. This is almost the equivalent of a 5 level spell, normally only available to 9th level Wizards. Varying sizes can be made of course, some similar to a hand grenade. Others would be larger.
Please keep these points in mind if you plan to allow 'black powder' into the game.
Good point. This is part of what I like to call the "Law of Unintended Consequences." While I personally wouldn't have a problem with grenades, I tend to favor higher levels of technology anyway. I am currently working on a guide for where firearms fall out for a given setting in D&D. I hope to post it to Regdar's soon. Perhaps I should add a bit about incendiaries as well ....
Thanks for the comments!
The second is you’re ignoring the lack of need for firearms. Necessity is the mother of all invention after all. Let us say, that earth technology would work, the question is will a need for technology ever show up? Many people think how modern technology would improve the lives of the peasants. But ignore all the factors that lead up to modern technology.
You’re going to go though centuries where it technology is vastly less effective than magic, and even when it reaches modern levels it will still be MORE EXPENSIVE AND LESS EFFECTIVE than magic as presented in D&D.
Then you’re ignoring who gets technology, technology isn't freely replenished unlike magic, in our world only the rich have access to it and we've developed it quite a bit but it still costs resources to use unlike magic in D&D where resources are refreshed daily. So despite those centuries of development only the rich can use it. The rich mind you, also would have access to magic, which as I've noted is cheaper and more effective.
Here’s an interesting point, magic is far more likely to fall into the hands of the poor in D&D than technology on earth. Druids, Clerics and Sorcerers don't require educations to obtain there magic, that’s solely the domain of wizards. Therefore a poor farm boy is as likely—if not more so--to become a druid than the prince.
Actually, the people most likely to develop firearms would be the wizards themselves, as backup non-magical weapons and because of sheer scientific curiosity. But because of the fact it’s less effective than magic would remain a curiosity among the most magical of all people and not a major social force like on earth. The non-wizards would stick with the more reliable, cheaper and more effective magic.
Magical realism ftw.
Guns, the early matchlocks and the later flintlocks where vastly inferior to bowmen but they where dirt cheap. Whereas a bowmen needs months of training you can instruct a man on the use of a gun in a few days. This means you can train and field armies a lot quicker. Sure bowmen are better but who cares if you outnumber your foe ten to one? Individual rifles are still bloody useless compared to bows. And since the game tends to focus on 4 characters, giving them firearms instead of bows seems rather suboptimal.
In the campaign I'm putting together, I'm remembering one of the reasons guns became common in warfare--while not being common for streetfights and the like for much longer. They were simple to train even a commoner to use.
(...)
Note that the longbow in reality can fire faster than a revolutionary war musket, to a greater effective range. But it can't be put in the hands of an untrained soldier--and training a bowman takes YEARS.
True, but you also have to think of why they moved to crossbows before that, which was the same reason, and it doesn't need a BAB penalty to anyone proficient with a simple weapon!
Smooth-bore guns are like crossbows that ignore armor, and take longer to reload. That's the trade off, and it was one many were willing to make, once the methods of mass producing firearms were advanced to a suitable level. I myself see firearms as being used more as a show of wealth and a sovereign's favor (such as the Musketeers) in Fantasy settings. At least, until it is cheaper to produce them, at which point they will replace the crossbow.
But, in all honesty, the point of my above argument is already moot. What it truly boils down to is the character and flavor of the setting. Sometimes it works for the setting, and other times it doesn't. In a magic flooded world like Eberron, gunpowder isn't likely to come about, simply due to the wide availability of magic and magical items. What is more likely to occur there is a wand-type weapon that anyone can trigger with, well, a trigger, like in Harry Turtledove's Darkness books. For the same reasons, other technologies in Eberron are likely to simply not develop, because there are magical alternatives that are both easier and simpler to obtain.
However, in a world where magic is less pervasive, gunpowder is far more likely to take off, as people seek to harness the sheer power of magic in a relatively simple and efficient form. Likewise, technology will step up to make life easier, because magic won't be there to do it instead.
In a fantasy RPG, you have to decide where on that spectrum the world you are in lies, be it option 1, option 2, or some number in the middle. It's all about the world, and what works.
Early grenades were FAR less effective than modern ones--and more dangerous. I'd call it a move action to light the fuse--if you have some slow match going--then an attack action to throw. Fuses would go out, fall out, or burn too fast or slow. They were also heavy. Definitely far less effective than even a low level fireball. (A giant, with a "grenade" that consists of a 50 pound barrel of gunpowder with stones mixed in, is a different story--but fusing is once again critical.
The rapier and the reliable gun are contemporaries for a reason: Once guns could punch through armor, armor became less common, and big, heavy swords for bashing plate became less needed--hence the rapier.
Making rockets accurate is not easy--even by the War of 1812, when cannons and muskets were the main weapon of war, rockets were dangerous to the firer--and seldom hit.
The failure rating goes up considerably with the weather, since they're flint-lock weapons. Heavy mist/fog, +1; Light Rain +2; Heavy Rain +3; Underwater, doesn't work at all. I should probably put something for wind, too.
In my campaign setting, the gnomes and dwarves use firearms and explosives, but humans rarely do partially due to paranoia and technophobia and also due to the fact that a dwarven city was blown up once when goblin saboteurs blew up a gunpowder/explosive factory.
While there are still no firearms per se, munitions have been developed by an insect/humanoid race known as the Moranth and are used as explosives. These explosives are used by the Malazan sappers to take down walls and destroy large masses of enemy troops.
They are especially effective in ambushes as well as in building and digging fortifications. They are divided up into various categories depending on explosive yield. The weakest of them beeing a cracker, then a sharper and finally a cusser which can take down city walls.
However the munitions are somewhat unreliable which is why everyone else considers the Malazan saboteurs to be crazy since they often blow themselves up or mess up the fuses causing disasters.
One of the characters has also devised a crossbow which can fire sharpers and burners and later on even cussers, so that there is less chance of being blown up himself.
One of the best ideas in this book was that the interaction of Moranth munitions and magic (known in the book as Warrens) causes catastrophic damage, in one case even destroying an extremely powerful magic creature which had just defeated several ancient dragons.
The way in which it was incorporated into such a high magic setting really seems to jive with the DnD setting as a whole. If anyone wants an idea on how to incorporate explosives, or explosive firing crossbows should seriously investigate the series. Oh and it’s also an amazing book to read.
Sites:
http://www.stephenking.com/DarkTower/
http://www.darktowercompendium.com/
Images:
http://www.stephenking.com/DarkTower/gallery/dt31.jpg
http://www.darktowercompendium.com/dt1-04.jpg
http://www.darktowercompendium.com/dt1-06.jpg
http://www.darktowercompendium.com/dt1-08.jpg
http://www.darktowercompendium.com/dt5-11.jpg
The (incomplete) website for my campaign which borrows some elements from the Dark Tower (or at least uses the same reasons for guns existing as the D.T.)
http://www.harvestmooncampaign.com
If they fit your game and style of play, go for it.
Realistic? Maybe not, but is a spiked chain realistic? No, but its good because its a exotic weapon and you have to spend a feat to use it. And you have to think about your players, if they want guns in their/your setting, those guns should be a fun and effective tool for your players. No need to gimp them!
Sort of the reverse of Wizards using all their spells and switching to crossbows, you fire off a shot and close in with your blade or whatnot. Or if you're ever disarmed, Quick Draw and pistol are your friend.
1) Better than bows. In which case they'll be unbalanced, kinda by definition, unless you make them prohibitively expensive, or require the Exotic Weapon feat (which makes very little sense, since guns are designed to be easy to use).
2) On a par with bows. In which case there's no IC reason to develop them.
3) Less good than bows. See 2, but more so.
My campaign uses different progress levels for each land. Currently no land is above PL 3 (and it's a steampunkish region). However, 25,000 years ago, a progress level 8 extraterrestrial colony evacuated the world in a big rush to escape the gamma ray burst that caused a mass extinction and introduced magic to the world. So there are 25,000 year-old Expedition-to-the-Barrier-Peaks style ruins scattered around the world. There have been three cataclysms since then, so the ruins are very rare now.
All of the high tech stuff (PL>3) (unless I want it to already be fixed) requires a DC 60 repair check, an already-repaired toolkit of the same progress level, and 1d6 identical broken items for parts. That keeps the PL8 weapons out of commission until around 12th level (they have to find the parts and cannot make new ones without the factory machines, which also must be found). PL3 items are exported from the City of Cleuen, but PL3 weapons must be smuggled out of the city. 5 ranks of Knowledge (Technology) gives a +2 synergy bonus.
Also, functional PL4+ items are sufficiently scarce that it will attract various governments, some of whom will send out agents to collect them. Guns and laser weapons are a lot like wands, in that they are limited to as many charges as you give them ammo. Since they can't buy bullets they have to find them, and 25000 years have not been kind. One other thing is that PL4 through 7 items are even more rare than PL8 ones, since the civilization was already PL8 when they began colonization. I multiply the price in the d20 future price guide (a third party supplement that ROCKS) by the item's progress level - 2.
Mechanically, the items work out fine, and are balanced roughly like magic wands or wondrous items. If the party can have a wand of fireballs, a 5d6 plasma rifle with enough armor for 50 shots is pretty much the same. A polyvox is super expensive and has the same function as a helm of comprehend languages.
It's all just a matter of flavor for the campaign. If you want low-tech high fantasy, don't use guns. If you like guns, use them. I have lots of backwater regions that don't have guns or magic, I have a high-magic kingdom that shuns technology, I have a seafaring nation that has cannons but not muskets, I have a city state with muskets, and I have a time-warped region that's like Thunderclap in Stephen King's Dark Tower books.
On a side note, I also assign different planar traits to some regions, basically taking Eberron’s "closeness" a step farther, effectively making each region a demiplane coterminous with the prime material plane. It really opens up the possibilities for supernatural landscapes.
There are a number of factors you’re ignoring. The first is the world’s physics, D&D is a world wherein it is possible for a completely non-magical human to swim 20 seconds in lava and survive. Sure it might sting, but he’s perfectly fine. What applies to our universe will not always apply in D&D. The most possible reason for a lack of firearms is merely physics.
The second is you’re ignoring the lack of need for firearms. Necessity is the mother of all invention after all. Let us say, that earth technology would work, the question is will a need for technology ever show up? Many people think how modern technology would improve the lives of the peasants. But ignore all the factors that lead up to modern technology.
You’re going to go though centuries where it technology is vastly less effective than magic, and even when it reaches modern levels it will still be MORE EXPENSIVE AND LESS EFFECTIVE than magic as presented in D&D.
Then you’re ignoring who gets technology, technology isn't freely replenished unlike magic, in our world only the rich have access to it and we've developed it quite a bit but it still costs resources to use unlike magic in D&D where resources are refreshed daily. So despite those centuries of development only the rich can use it. The rich mind you, also would have access to magic, which as I've noted is cheaper and more effective.
Here’s an interesting point, magic is far more likely to fall into the hands of the poor in D&D than technology on earth. Druids, Clerics and Sorcerers don't require educations to obtain there magic, that’s solely the domain of wizards. Therefore a poor farm boy is as likely—if not more so--to become a druid than the prince.
Actually, the people most likely to develop firearms would be the wizards themselves, as backup non-magical weapons and because of sheer scientific curiosity. But because of the fact it’s less effective than magic would remain a curiosity among the most magical of all people and not a major social force like on earth. The non-wizards would stick with the more reliable, cheaper and more effective magic.
Magical realism ftw.
The Monte Cook campaign setting of Ptolus (perhaps the coolest RPG accessory of 2006) makes excellent use of fire arms and has an entire chapter devoted to interesting fantasy firearms and other technology.
I have been running fantasy worlds with firearms for about 25 years or so now, and have never had too many problems. In fact, magic is *much* more tricky to deal with. We tend to under estimate the huge social impact that a technology as potent as magic would have on a society.
However, I will say that a DM who is planning on incorporating firearms into a campaign should consider the following:
1. Magic firearms.
2. Barrels of gunpowder being detonated
3. Tinkerer type players wanting to advance the state of the art
4. Which cultures in the world have firearms and which cultures don't and how this effects they way they deal with one another. Here you will find that magic (rather than the gun) is the great equalizer.
5. How various existing spells might affect various forms of technology.
6. New spells that might affect various forms of technology.
I've really been looking at the setting Dragonmech, and yeah, technology takes a hold because there's no other choice. The mages have failed or are unfeasible, and it’s simply easier to just get a thousand men cracking on building your salvation than one or two old men reading a book to fix it.
There are gun rules out the wazoo. There are probably gun rules for EVERY setting. D20 Modern, Future, Past, the DMG, 3rd party material.
It’s probably just going to boil down to the flavor of the setting. D&D has been going on for a long enough time that a lot of people simply don't like cross pollination like that. :P
1. I never allow firearms in my campaigns.
2. I break that rule with Ravenloft or trips into it on occasion (our Halloween games or someone requests a trip so they can go ghoul hunting or something).
In my basic home brew, no, we never use firearms. In fact when some dwarves and gnomes developed gunpowder and firearms/cannons, some vicious gnolls raided them. This of course prompted PC intervention and everyone thought it best to rid the world of such weapons as they were cast into a lava flow after the manufacturers were killed by NPC and monster attackers. Basically, that put an abrupt end to the fire arms (which my players were very thankful for).
However, on occasion, I use the Ravenloft systems and the players have used firearms in Ravenloft especially when touring the realms on the west coast. These "disappeared" in the mists when they made their return trip home to the home brew world.
Should there be fire arms? I am an old D&D purest so I say "no" for me. My players are even more against fire arms than me, save when they are in Ravenloft and everyone else has them lol. But, I have to give a hearty yes to everyone else who wants them. I just don't want to see the majority of D&D products tainted with them. The option is always nice, but I don't want to see the fantasy aspect of the game's core supplements and accessories ruined by fire arms.
Or various other elements... *cough*latestgameworlds*cough*
The race that comes immediately to my mind when I think about firearms in Dungeons and Dragons are the Dwarves. They are, after all, (often according to flavor texts) expert metalworkers and master smiths with an affinity for mechanical contraptions and a general lack of arcane spellcasters and most divine casters. Without access to most of these spellcasting classes (particularly wizards and sorcerers), the Dwarves are forced to rely on their clerics of Moradin for most of their magical resources. As we all know, clerics cannot compete with wizards when it comes to the explosive, devastating types of spells that might otherwise mitigate the desire for one to develop firearms. In the stead of these spells, then, I do not think it unreasonable that the technologically apt Dwarves might develop firearms. Given, also, their skills with this type of construction, it may indeed be a very formidable weapon.
Of course I realize that restricting Dwarven access to arcane magic and some classes with divine spellcasting is in itself a case of group preference, but I am working with what I can recall is present in source material for Dwarves.
So what I can suggest, as an alternative to crossbows/bows, is the shotgun type of gun.
No precise aiming, just a cone in the general direction, and -1 to damage after every 5 feet or so. That would be very handy for people with crappy BAB, pretty dangerous, and can't be dispelled.
I'd really say it'd be Exotic, since Crossbows are still much more cheaper to give to peasants forced to fight in a war.
The first reason that is often given for why firearms should not be allowed is the “It’s fantasy!” argument. This is often not summed up, as it is more of a position that the DM takes for his world. I cannot offer a counter to this, as the vision for a world is very dependent on the DM. I only offer the observation that other fantasy worlds use firearms. *cough* WoW *cough*
You could also point out that Tolkien, the great fantasy writer himself, used firearms in his story "Farmer Giles of Ham."
The basic problem with guns in D&D is that there are three ways they can be implemented.
1) Better than bows. In which case they'll be unbalanced, kinda by definition, unless you make them prohibitively expensive, or require the Exotic Weapon feat (which makes very little sense, since guns are designed to be easy to use).
2) On a par with bows. In which case there's no IC reason to develop them.
3) Less good than bows. See 2, but more so.
The firearms in the DMG are none of the above. Firearms in the DMG are exotic because, although they exist, they're not common enough for the average person to have training with them. Exotic does not only describe weapons that are more complex and/or more difficult to use, but also weapons that are so rare that the average adventurer is less likely to have ever trained with them (and as such, lacks proficiency). Hand and Repeating Crossbows are exotic, and they really there's nothing about their function that makes them more difficult to use than simple, let alone, most martial weapons.
The problem with firearms in D&D is that everyone thinks that they have to be based on the technological/historical model/consequences of firearms in reality. None of the weapons in D&D are designed to be realistic compared to their real world counterparts. They're all more concerned with being balanced against each other, and the armor, and combat rules in the game.
The DMG firearms are so incredibly simple and workable. I've seen them used in many a campaign (and even in my own) and aside from the "Hey, what kind of funky boomstick" reaction you get from certain PCs when first encountered, they have no other dramatic affect on the game or setting.
I think that in this case, the question of the firearm's development is being undermined by the focus. In a fantastic setting like those that most Dungeons and Dragons games occur in, one isn't bound to examine only the socio-economic classes that analog those that were present in our world's medieval history, but rather is free to wander into a different and perhaps more unusual territory: races.
The race that comes immediately to my mind when I think about firearms in Dungeons and Dragons are the Dwarves. They are, after all, (often according to flavor texts) expert metalworkers and master smiths with an affinity for mechanical contraptions and a general lack of arcane spellcasters and most divine casters. Without access to most of these spellcasting classes (particularly wizards and sorcerers), the Dwarves are forced to rely on their clerics of Moradin for most of their magical resources. As we all know, clerics cannot compete with wizards when it comes to the explosive, devastating types of spells that might otherwise mitigate the desire for one to develop firearms. In the stead of these spells, then, I do not think it unreasonable that the technologically apt Dwarves might develop firearms. Given, also, their skills with this type of construction, it may indeed be a very formidable weapon.
Of course I realize that restricting Dwarven access to arcane magic and some classes with divine spellcasting is in itself a case of group preference, but I am working with what I can recall is present in source material for Dwarves.
Tolkien suggested in "The Hobbit" that goblins probably invented most modern weapons (his way of making an anti-technological statement): Sauromon tries to industrialise The Shire at the end of LOTR, so technology is part of it.
I reckon kobolds are the most likely inventors of firearms in D&D - they're inventive, mean and weak. And damn right they'd use explosives in traps.
Warhammer is fantasy with Renaissance level technology.
Also, ever read the Darksword books where everyone (except the hero) has magical abilities (even babies) and technology is considered the Dark Art?
As for Medieval flavour, most of the alchemical supplies, like "tindertwigs" are way more detrimental to medieval flavour. Swashbucklers are not medieval and Monks don't fit in anything like Medieval Europe.
One might argue that firearms kill a person instantly. Well, so do swords. One might argue that the impact of a firearm is startling... well, so is the impact of a warhammer. The average human only has 4 hit points for heaven's sakes.
I see no reason to make any standard handgun more or less than 2d6 damage. A smaller gun, you might want to make 2d4 simply because it's easy to recover from wounds by those weapons. Even rifles should only be about 2d6. Only high-powered supersonic rifles would venture into the 2d8, 3d6, or 3d8 range. That's putting big holes in steel and flesh.
I really don't understand why such high damage values are assigned to firearms. It makes zero sense to me. They should do more damage than a bow, I suppose, but not a lot more. Swing a greatsword at someone's head and see what happens. I'd say a revolver doesn't do much more to a flesh-and-blood creature than that.
One might argue that firearms kill a person instantly. Well, so do swords. One might argue that the impact of a firearm is startling... well, so is the impact of a warhammer. The average human only has 4 hit points for heaven's sakes.
I see no reason to make any standard handgun more or less than 2d6 damage. A smaller gun, you might want to make 2d4 simply because it's easy to recover from wounds by those weapons. Even rifles should only be about 2d6. Only high-powered supersonic rifles would venture into the 2d8, 3d6, or 3d8 range. That's putting big holes in steel and flesh.
Yeah and a dagger doing a maximum damage crit (8hp damage) assuming average can't even kill a first level fighter. In fact said fighter can ignore it and run around, go out dancing and jump over holes as if nothing had ever happened.
In UK statistics show that you’re more likely to survive a gunshot wound than a knife wound.
The rapier and the reliable gun are contemporaries for a reason: Once guns could punch through armor, armor became less common, and big, heavy swords for bashing plate became less needed--hence the rapier.
Depends on what you consider a 'reliable' gun. Handgonnes weren't overly reliable. But the arquebuss wasn't bad at all for its time. Not -as- good as later guns, but then - early swords weren't -as good- as later swords, either.
And guns could never reliably punch through armour until armour had -already- been largely abandoned. Guns ending the era of plate is a myth. Likewise, 'heavy swords for bashing plate' never existed. You do not fight man in plate by 'bashing a heavy sword' against him. Indeed, you'd be hard pressed to -find- a historical, war-worthy sword that is 'heavy.'
And the rapier was introduced prior to the decline of plate armour. It was a civilian weapon, so was unaffected by the existence of battlefield armour. Silly man.
As for guns - -yeah sure, why not? There's no logical reason to exclude them just because they're guns. At the very least it can be said that somewhere, at some point, SOMEone would have thought of it. And someone else would have thought to improve on it even if it wasn't that great to start with. After all, real world crossbows and firearms were pretty sucky when they first showed up, but people kept trying to make them better. There would always be a market, real world or fantasy world, for ranged weapons that are cheap to produce and easy to use.
I really don't understand why such high damage values are assigned to firearms. It makes zero sense to me. They should do more damage than a bow, I suppose, but not a lot more. Swing a greatsword at someone's head and see what happens. I'd say a revolver doesn't do much more to a flesh-and-blood creature than that.
Agreed. In fact, even in our world of modern medicine, knife and other blade wounds are generally harder to treat than gunshot wounds. You are -still- more likely to survive the latter than the former, all things being equal.
Economics (as in the breakdown of the Feudal/Vassalage system) killed the Armored knight long before the firearm ever could have.
Ask yourself this, if Firearms are so good at penetrating Plate Armor, why do modern "Hard Armor" vests use Steel Plates to help stop high powered rifle rounds (far and away more powerful than their 16th century counterparts)?
Early Firearms *could* penetrate late Armor, at a perfect angle, and close range. However, in this regard, they were merely the equal of the powerful English Longbow and were by far inferior to the Arbalest (that’s Crossbow to you and me)
The worry of the Plate Armored warrior, with regard to the firearm, was his relative immobility in the face of massed gunfire (an entire formation firing at you) rather than the proverbial lone gunman.
In D&D, humans advance. It takes a lot of shots to take down someone with 100 hp, and even then, for some reason, they would be fighting just as well as normal. Think about it, you take a shot at a wizard, and he roasts you right back with a massive fireball.
Much more recently I played in a 3rd Ed campaign in which some celestials had managed to transport a whole city of humans from a world being conquered by the evil god Glaaki (from Cthulu) and bring them to the world where our PCs ended up getting transported too. We came from a "standard" D&D world (someone else's campaign actually) while the humans, the only to exist in the new world at the time, came from a more technological society, akin to maybe late 18th or early 19th-century Britain. I don't recall if they had railroads, but they certainly had firearms. Technology had the weird effect of interfering with magic, so when we eventually traveled to the human city (we spent much of the campaign hanging out in one of two gnomish cities) we had some intermittent problems using magic.
I'm not sure what the DM was using for statistics on the firearms. I don't recall any of us ever actually getting shot, as we used a lot of tact and stealth while on our mission in the human city. The DM had talked about creating a base class called the shootist, but as the story evolved before the campaign started we ended up bringing in all our PCs from that standard universe so nobody in our group had any connections to the humans with technology. I'm not sure if he created all the details of the shootist or not. I mean you could have made a shootist just a fighter who took feats all related to a firearm and that would probably work reasonably well. I seem to recall having run-ins with some city watchmen who had firearms, but I don't recall ever actually getting shot. I don't think that the firearms where such that they would have overwhelmed our party, and I think we were fairly adept at beating these guys (literally, since we used "subdual" damage as it was called in 3.0).
Anyway, I think the bottom line is that as long as you maintain the game balance and the guns provide some interesting flavor, I don't see any reason not to use them.
Bows and arrows will have already been ensorcelled to the point that firearms are redundant, and mages render even the finest of these conventional weapons obsolete. All of Napoleon's artillery couldn't best a single archmage. In fact, not until the first atoms were split has there been technology that can compete with magic.
If you want firearms for flavor, spice it till the taste is right. If you want realism, firearms will not be invented in a magical world.
Guns are cool and all but are basically useless in a fantasy setting. The reason that they work great in real life is because it does 1d8 dmg and the common human has probably about 4 hp.
In D&D, humans advance. It takes a lot of shots to take down someone with 100 hp, and even then, for some reason, they would be fighting just as well as normal. Think about it, you take a shot at a wizard, and he roasts you right back with a massive fireball.
This is an utterly flawed argument because it applies equally to virtually every ranged weapon in the game.
Armor became obsolete because of firearms.—In its broadest sense, true.
Generally speaking, the above statement is correct as long as it is stressed that it was the ever-increasing efficiency of firearms, not firearms as such, that led to an eventual decline of plate armor on the battlefield. Since the first firearms appear to have been in use in Europe as early as the third decade of the fourteenth century, and the gradual decline of armor is not noticed before the second half of the seventeenth century, firearms and plate armor coexisted for more than 300 years. During the sixteenth century, attempts had been made to render armor bulletproof, either by hardening the steel or, more commonly, by thickening the armor or adding separate reinforcing pieces on top of the normal field armor. It should also be noted that a direct hit from a gun could, and usually did, effectively penetrate plate armor (Which is usually about 2mm thick).
From personal observation, a 7mm Ultra Mag will punch through at least 1/2 inch of steel at a range of 100 yards. No body armor on earth will protect you from this. Also a .357 mag will punch into an Iron Engine block at point blank range and render it inoperable.
Also on topic, in medieval warfare, bows and crossbows were used more for massed volleys of fire than for individual accuracy. And the gun certainly didn't replace the crossbow for being more accurate - not until rifled barrels, anyway. So a trained Archer or crossbowman would still be better at killing than a "Musketeer".
Cast lead bullets were also easier and cheaper to make than Arrows and bolts.
I contend that in a high fantasy game, guns would never have been invented. There's really just no demand for them. It is idiocy to research gunpowder, ballistics, and industry when you have fireball, magic missile and fabricate. Imagine trying to market an internal combustion engine in a world powered by cold fusion. Technology came into being to solve certain problems. In a society saturated with magic, these problems have already been solved.
Bows and arrows will have already been ensorcelled to the point that firearms are redundant, and mages render even the finest of these conventional weapons obsolete. All of Napoleon's artillery couldn't best a single archmage. In fact, not until the first atoms were split has there been technology that can compete with magic.
If you want firearms for flavor, spice it till the taste is right. If you want realism, firearms will not be invented in a magical world.
I disagree. Training a magic user is far more expensive than training a rifleman and giving him a gun. Give a whole bunch of flunkies some guns. I might agree with your sentiment regarding artillery, but with Shaper Psions and Creation spells, you can bet your button that training your casters to create artillery for flunkies to use is even better than having mages who can cast.
I think people should do some homework before posting in Regdar’s to make sure their facts are straight. Just a thought.
The best advice is heeded by those giving the advice. Plate armor is well-documented as having been on the decline due to social and economic factors, well before the advancement of firearms could even become an issue. Firearms certainly helped put the nail in plate's coffin, but they did not contribute as heavily to the decline as is commonly believed. Popular myth does not equate to fact.
The best advice is heeded by those giving the advice. Plate armor is well-documented as having been on the decline due to social and economic factors, well before the advancement of firearms could even become an issue. Firearms certainly helped put the nail in plate's coffin, but they did not contribute as heavily to the decline as is commonly believed. Popular myth does not equate to fact.
Armor was so expensive that only princes and rich nobility could afford it.—Wrong.
This idea may stem from the fact that much of the armor on exhibition in institutions like the Metropolitan Museum represents equipment of especially high quality, while much of the plainer arms and armor of the common man and lower nobility has been either relegated to storerooms or lost over the centuries.
It is true that, unless looted from a battlefield or won in a tournament, the acquisition of armor would have been a costly affair. However, as there are certainly differences in the quality of armor, there also would have been differences in price. Armor of low to medium quality, affordable to burghers, mercenaries, and lower nobility, could be bought, ready-made, at markets, trading fairs, and in urban shops. On the other hand, there were also the high-end, made-to-measure products of the imperial or royal court workshops, and of famous German and Italian armorers. Armor made by some of these celebrated masters represented the highest art of the armorer's craft and could cost as much as a king's ransom.
Although examples of the price of armor, weapons, and equipment are known from several periods in history, it is difficult to translate historical monetary value into modern terms. It is clear, however, that the value of armor ranged from low-quality or outdated second-hand items quite affordable to citizens and mercenaries, to the cost of an entire armory of an English knight, the contents of which were valued in 1374 at over £16. This was equivalent to about five to eight years of rent for a London merchant's house, or over three years' worth of wages for a skilled laborer, a single helmet (a bascinet, probably with aventail) being worth the purchase price of a cow.
At the upper end of the scale, we find examples such as a large garniture (a basic suit of armor that, through the addition of further pieces and plates, could be adapted for various purposes both on the battlefield and in different types of tournament) commissioned in 1546 by a German king (later emperor) for his son. For this commission, the court armorer Jörg Seusenhofer of Innsbruck received on completion a year later the enormous sum of more than 1,200 gold coins, equivalent to twelve times the annual salary of a senior court official.
The first reason that is often given for why firearms should not be allowed is the “It’s fantasy!” argument. This is often not summed up, as it is more of a position that the DM takes for his world. I cannot offer a counter to this, as the vision for a world is very dependent on the DM. I only offer the observation that other fantasy world use firearms. *cough* WoW *cough*
If the highest your world-building aspires to is World of Warcraft, you should try harder. I'm have many period of avid WoWing, but the strength of the game is that it is a game. While there's lots of really amazing lore, consistency and continuity and a thousand other things which are important in building pervasive and believable fantasy worlds play second-fiddle to game balance and gameplay.
Putting that aside, the argument that "other fantasy worlds have it, so your should, too" is a fundamentally flawed one. STAR WARS has lightsabers, so BATTLESTAR GALACTICA should have them, too? Tolkien has hobbits so George R.R. Martin should, too?
Creating a quality fantasy world is as much about what you DON'T include as it is about what you DO include.
Another common reason given against the use of firearms is that wizards wouldn’t bother making them due to having superior magic. This is a true statement and I have no argument against it; however, this argument seems to rest on the premise that only wizards would be able to create firearms.
Actually, there are many shadings to this argument:
1. Necessity is the mother of invention. The reason people futzed around with dangerous chemicals, worked to refine dangerous and unreliable gunpowder, and generally did all the things that led to the creation of reliable firearms in our world is that they had no other option. In a fantasy world with plentiful magic, why does the would-be inventor of guns not simply get the local wizard to make the device that he needs?
2. Where are the brains of the world putting their efforts? In our world, smart people looking to explore the hidden mysteries of the universe explored chemistry. In a fantasy world with plentiful magic, these people are more likely to invest their time and energy in the more powerful and proven methods of magic.
3. In a world with plentiful magic, maybe the wizards don't want the competition. "Hey look," says the bright-eyed inventory. "I've invented a small, handheld device that anyone can use to inflict lethal damage easily! Just like a magic missile, but anyone can use it!" And the next thing you know, the Wizards' Guild has descended upon him, destroyed his research, and liberally spread amnesia spells around on anyone who might have heard about it.
In a world without plentiful magic, the first two reasons wane (fewer people have access to magic and it's more expensive, so there's more incentive to find non-magical solutions). But that may only mean that the third is even more prevalent: The handful of powerful wizards who wield enormous power don't want that power undermined by any peasant with a gun. And unlike the nobles of our world, the wizards have the ability to not only get rid of the gun -- but make everyone forget that guns ever existed.
None of this means that you can't have a world where magic and firearms mix. But it does mean there's plenty of reasons why you may not have them mix.
I can’t see the average farmer having access to magical methods to bless his fields and increase his crops on a regular basis.
Actually, given the DMG stats on population distribution, there's plenty of magic lying around for some crop improvement. All it takes is a wise ruler or a clever organization to see the opportunity and capitalize on it.
Would not Bob, the farmer, be interested in crop rotation?
Part of your assumption here is that Bob knows there's something called "crop rotation" waiting to be discovered. This gets back to the "why would you go looking for a solution you don't even know exists, when there's a solution you can pay the local spellslinger for and have tomorrow?".
Primitive technology just doesn't compete well with magic.
however the increased use of firearms may prompt wizards to develop spells that specifically protect against bullets.
They've already got those. It's called protection from arrows.
Given that D&D is fantasy, there is no reason that the two cannot coexist. The only question in my mind, is what should firearms statistics be? That is an answer that I cannot give as it is highly dependent on the DM.
I think you mean "highly dependent on the DMG". Crack the book open. The stats are in there.
I've been reading in on a bit of this ongoing thread and it’s quite interesting. I've been running a Napoleonic level D&D game for some years. To explain a bit more re: magic--it is on the whole a very low level magic setting. With some pockets of high magic and even psionics. But on the whole the world and society benefits little from these hard to understand forces. Firearms and even artillery work fine. They are appropriate to the setting. However, in the default D&D setting (Middle Ages Europe/high magic) the proliferation of firearms is I admit fairly unlikely.
But to the other point re: ongoing debate about the decline of armor due to firearms. I think it’s hard to dismiss the role of not only firearms but ranged weapons in general. English longbows (OK originally of Welsh design) began to undermine the eminence of the fully armored warrior since at least Poitiers. Further innovations in crossbows and arrows followed and the development of firearms continued this. The response of thickening armor to counteract this (and its failure) was a result of this threat. Now that isn't to say there weren't other contributing factors, but if you wish to give further eminence to social/economic some examples of what you're referring to might help.
As for stats, either make them equal with guns, or up the damage and lower the firing rate. I think it'd be really feasible to rule that since they're such PRIMITIVE weapons, they've got no better penetration than bows.
I'm thinking about using firearms in my campaign world, but I dunno yet. I've already got airships and stuff, so guns aren't a HUGE stretch.
Ptolus - The original setting by Monte Cook for playtesting 3.0. That world uses guns in it.
1) I make them simple weapons. Anyone can use a firearm after an hour of training.
2) They have long (realistic) reload times. The British army of the early 19th century was remarkable in being able to shoot four times a minute as standard which destroyed the French Old Guard at Waterloo, that's 1 or 2 full rounds reload time, so I make it 2 rounds, or 1 with Rapid Reload.
3) I use the DMG damage - 1d10 for a pistol, 1d12 for a musket. I reduce the range modifiers though, as these weapons were notoriously inaccurate at anything over fifty yards.
4) I assume Masterwork weapons are rifled, and have double the range values as a musket. All misfire on a natural 1.
5) I leave armor classes unchanged; muskets were no more effective at penetrating armor than long bows, they were just easier to use.
Armor was so expensive that only princes and rich nobility could afford it.—Wrong.
I never made this argument at all. Indeed, I don't disagree with what you're saying there at all. I'll even do you one better -- many low-born warriors by the end of the medieval period -would- have had access to plate armor in some form. English longbowmen sometimes had cuirasses, the Landsknechts wore three-quarter plate often enough, and the Genoese crossbowmen had a hodgepodge of plate-armored men.
why does the would-be inventor of guns not simply get the local wizard to make the device that he needs?
This is a non-point. Why didn't the Middle-easterners just have the Chinese make their firearms - since the Chinese had already developed black powder? Why bother doing it yourself when someone else is already a step ahead? Why did the Europeans do it themselves, instead of having the Chinese or Middle-easterners do it for them?
2. Where are the brains of the world putting their efforts? In our world, smart people looking to explore the hidden mysteries of the universe explored chemistry. In a fantasy world with plentiful magic, these people are more likely to invest their time and energy in the more powerful and proven methods of magic.
That doesn't make any sense either. Smart people in our world take up everything from computer sciences, to archaeology, to mathematics, to chemistry, to physics, to metallurgy, to literature, and beyond. The existence of magic would absolutely not pigeonhole all 'smart people' into its studies. What you'd have is what we -do- have in the real world. People would gravitate towards what interests them most.
3. In a world with plentiful magic, maybe the wizards don't want the competition. "Hey look," says the bright-eyed inventory. "I've invented a small, handheld device that anyone can use to inflict lethal damage easily! Just like a magic missile, but anyone can use it!" And the next thing you know, the Wizards' Guild has descended upon him, destroyed his research, and liberally spread amnesia spells around on anyone who might have heard about it.
That's certainly a possibility. But this would be setting-dependant and not an absolute for how a fantasy setting would -have- to operate. Equally we could say that magic-users wouldn't feel threatened by this invention. After all, they 'allowed' the development of crossbows and longbows, which are just as lethal. We can say if a magic-user would feel threatened by a firearm, they'd feel just as threatened by a heavy crossbow (which is actually -easier- to use than a firearm).
So if this is the logic in your setting ("your" as a general term, not you specifically), you should also consider not only keeping firearms out, but removing crossbows and even traditional bows. As well as any other medium-to-high damage ranged weapon that may exist in your world.
Part of your assumption here is that Bob knows there's something called "crop rotation" waiting to be discovered. This gets back to the "why would you go looking for a solution you don't even know exists, when there's a solution you can pay the local spellslinger for and have tomorrow?".
The problem is your assumption that they'd go 'looking for it.' Many discoveries, including crop rotation, were more accidental. Farmer Bob notices that a particular insect really likes a particular crop, but not another. Farmer Bob reasons that by growing something different for a season, he can avoid the spread of those pests, and then go back to his other crop. Farmer Bob has invented crop rotation. It cost him nothing to have done so, and he put no time into researching or looking for new technology. He simply used a bit of common sense. Common sense and chance discovery are not voided by magic.
I think you mean "highly dependent on the DMG". Crack the book open. The stats are in there.
I'd say he was right about 'highly dependant on the DM.' A lot of DMs that I've seen don't agree with the DMG stats. So it's highly dependant on the DM as to what material he uses from the RAW, and what he changes or makes himself.
I think it’s hard to dismiss the role of not only firearms but ranged weapons in general. English longbows (OK originally of Welsh design) began to undermine the eminence of the fully armored warrior since at least Poitiers. Further innovations in crossbows and arrows followed and the development of firearms continued this. The response of thickening armor to counteract this (and its failure) was a result of this threat. Now that isn't to say there weren't other contributing factors, but if you wish to give further eminence to social/economic some examples of what you're referring to might help.
The longbow didn't really do much to undermine the eminence of the fully armored warrior. It did undermine the eminence of the -mounted- fully armored warrior. Simple fact -- a man in full plate can survive arrow fire. A horse typically won't. As more than one battle attests.
The social and economic factors are varied and complex. But to simplify -- governments were changing, and with them their militaries. It was far less expensive to acquire a multitude of poorly-armored soldiers with firearms, crossbows, or polearms than to acquire a single knight. What happens is that you end up with armies consisting of more and more of the former, and less and less of the latter. The cost not only of armor itself, but of its maintenance, means that abandoning such armor for simpler kit makes you more attractive as a soldier.
And when you have 50 men with halberds, that plate-armored soldier isn't worth much to the opposing side. Those halberds are going to crack his plate open like an aluminum soda can. Polearms, not firearms, had become very effective at dealing with plate armor. Gone were the days where a single man in the heaviest armor was more than a match for over twice his number in 'lesser' soldiers.
This pushed the social factors: When a conscripted peasant can take down a knight with ease, the very concept of the 'knight' and all that goes with his title, becomes more ornamental. There is less reason to retain the panoply of his rank when his rank is essentially meaningless. Why cling to an outdated belief of superiority on the field, surely to die there, when you can hang up your harness and simply hire out a few dozen pikemen to take your place?
Plate armor, by the end, certainly was not protective enough. No doubt about that. But it also was not firearms that made this so. It was the use of other, melee, weapons which proved it. Poleaxes, halberds, the voulge -- common weapons in any army were now capable of dealing crippling blows to armored men with relative ease. Economic factors reduced the number of armored men and increased the number of everyone else. Social factors dealt a serious blow to even the -desire- to be an armored warrior in a time when they were becoming outdated.
All that combined (and a host of other issues) meant that plate armor, and even lesser armors like mail, were on the decline - appearing more and more rarely on the field. By the time firearms could punch through plate with -any- reliability, the only plate armor left on the battlefield anyway was simple cuirasses and breastplates, which were almost entirely in the possession of mounted soldiers like the Hussars. So, as I said, firearms, now capable of penetrating plate more often than not, put the nail in plate's coffin. But they were not responsible for its decline and the fact that it was fairly absent from the field well before that nail was driven home.
1) I make them simple weapons. Anyone can use a firearm after an hour of training.
And this folks, is the crux of the matter. It takes a very powerful wizard to damage the wall of an enemy castle, but an illiterate peasant with a barrel full of gunpowder can do the same. Firearms make regular everyday folks a force to be reckoned with. Why do you think we debate the right to bare arms in this country? As it stands the angry peasant mobs have pitchforks and torches. Are you REALLY sure you want to give them access to firearms?
I've always wanted to run or play in a Special Forces/Marine Squad/Army guys lost in game. Just to see how things would play out. Of course if I'm running I'd have to change the ROF for the weapons in the DMG. Hmmm.
That would be interesting indeed. Survival would depend on the level of the opposition and who got the drop on who.
In many ways, there were mixed messages about guns in D&D. Gunpowder is specifically stated as being "inert junk" in the original World of Greyhawk setting, yet we have S3 - Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Murlynd and his six-shooter "hoglegs" and articles in Dragon magazine of wizards facing off against WW2 Germans and their tanks.
In 2E, the basic rules stressed nothing more advanced than the arquebus, which was expensive and slow to load, as well as smokepowder was essentially a magical material. While we saw it appear in FR via Gond, the Wondermaker, it was definitely kept low-key and its existence all but ignored except in Maztica - which was set half-way across the world. Tale of the Comet reintroduced the "Barrier Peaks" experience to 2E, but was conceived as a "one-shot", just like "Barrier Peaks" that by its conclusion, would have no effect on the campaign world whatsoever, as far as the proliferation of guns and technology. In the latter part of 2E's life, guns started to make a show in Ravenloft, Spelljammer and supplements like A Mighty Fortress moved the D&D "timeline" from the middle ages to the Renaissance, where guns were growing in popularity and usage.
In the D&D (basic) world, the Red Steel campaign introduced guns to the world of Mystara. Of course, Red Steel was set half-way across the continent to keep from contaminating the "pure" fantasy of eastern Mystara. That is, if you discount "Temple of the Frog" and the "City of the Gods", as well as all of Blackmoor.
3E, like the previous editions, has cropped up a few rules on guns. You can use them or not, as fits your game world. I think though, there is a sort of "don't say, don't tell" attitude toward their presence in the game. A lot of D&Der's seem to decry that guns have never existed in the game or have no right to exist in D&D, despite the facts they have been around since the first few publications of the rules. However, there are places where it fits. The big question is, does it fit YOUR fantasy? You are no less a D&D player if you include or exclude them, and for me, I could go either way - though I prefer my pirates to have handguns and cannons...
Why guns and tech? Magic is difficult and capricious and cannot be passed on from one person to the next. When your master wizard dies, his apprentice isn't going to be as good, and you'll lose access to his magic and most likely any items of significance that he's made.
Unlike Science, magic is incredibly difficult to share and creates huge problems when you move beyond single person autocracies overseeing more than a few thousand people. Science can be created by a small core, or even a single specialist and spread to well, everyone- magic cannot. Enchantments and items must be maintained by the specialist who made them or at least someone of that level.
Imagine if every time a phone broke in this world Alexander Grahm Bell or someone of equivelent skill had to go fix it. There would simply be no point in having a telephone. There would be absolutely no way such a thing would proliferate through the world. Magic, unless it is simply on a massive, Eberron scale, is limited in its ability to shape society because of scale.
It takes years for someone to learn to fireball or magic missile, but once learned you can churn out cannons and rifles at an impressive rate and put them into the field in the hands of competent warriors in a matter of months. I daresay because gunpowder is used so prevalently by the NPCs, it's even more fantastic. It's certainly no LOTR, but something else entirely. Maybe Crouching Tiger or Once Upon a Time in China.
I've introduced repeating rifles and reliable pistols in my Asian game, along with bombs, rockets and demolition charges. This is in addition to a very heavy presence of magic and a bureaucracy run by dragons, along with monsters of every sort running around and an Empire founded upon Necromancy and Magic. Net effect? Still incredibly fantastic. Extensive dragon motifs on rifles and rockets add to the mystique.
Why guns and tech? Magic is difficult and capricious and cannot be passed on from one person to the next. When your master wizard dies, his apprentice isn't going to be as good, and you'll lose access to his magic and most likely any items of significance that he's made.
Unlike Science, magic is incredibly difficult to share and creates huge problems when you move beyond single person autocracies overseeing more than a few thousand people. Science can be created by a small core, or even a single specialist and spread to well, everyone- magic cannot. Enchantments and items must be maintained by the specialist who made them or at least someone of that level.
Imagine if every time a phone broke in this world Alexander Graham Bell or someone of equivalent skill had to go fix it. There would simply be no point in having a telephone. There would be absolutely no way such a thing would proliferate through the world. Magic, unless it is simply on a massive, Eberron scale, is limited in its ability to shape society because of scale.
It takes years for someone to learn to fireball or magic missile, but once learned you can churn out cannons and rifles at an impressive rate and put them into the field in the hands of competent warriors in a matter of months. I daresay because gunpowder is used so prevalently by the NPCs, it's even more fantastic. It's certainly no LOTR, but something else entirely. Maybe Crouching Tiger or Once Upon a Time in China.
You make a good point about the reliability and relative ease of diffusion of technology versus magic. I would just note, however, that bureaucracies like China's tended to stifle innovation rather drastically, such that technology improved very slowly compared to areas that had relatively more individual freedom to experiment, innovate, and benefit from those innovations. Having said that, however, your campaign setting sounds like a blast!
(Um, no pun intended.)I would personally take care about placing weapons developed after the start of the Industrial Revolution--like mass-produced repeating rifles of the 19th century--into campaign based on a pre-industrial setting, but that's just the economic historian in me. I do technically have an area of my world where, thanks to a battle of divine proportions 3 millennia ago, people have advanced technology (like blasters and light sabers) instead of magic. I've never fully fleshed out, however, that part of the world, but just had a couple of escapee Jedi characters each with one light saber. I'm not sure really why, if they can develop light sabers and blasters, they don't also have aircraft or even spacecraft capable of mass bombardment that would have allowed them to take over the world, even in the face of wizards armed with meteor swarms. Meteor swarms do very little indeed against mass bombardment from orbit. :D
Nineteenth century technology, however overwhelming in the real world, might not prove so overwhelming in a world with powerful magic. Even a squad of repeating riflemen, all played by Chuck Connors :D might fall prey easily to one meteor swarm, especially if you limit the number of shots fire per round to, say, what an archer could do using the Rapid Shot feat.
I think the bottom line here is that it's a game and the purpose is to have fun, and if you and your players enjoy having firearms or even advanced energy weapons, then it's fine to have such things.
With regard to DoctorRomulus' comment about wanting a game consisting of "a Special Forces/Marine Squad/Army guys lost in game," a couple of decades ago I read a book, or more likely the first short story in a book, that followed that idea exactly. As I recall they blew up a dragon by firing an RGP just as it opened its both to breath, the RPG going down its gullet and making quite a mess. :D I think it could be a fun campaign, but the fun might end abruptly once you ran out of ammo. :P
1) I make them simple weapons. Anyone can use a firearm after an hour of training.
I have to argue with that, able to use and proficiency are to different things. Having actually trained with both pistols and assault rifles, I can tell you that the amount of time to become fully proficient in a firearm is closer 10 to 20 hours of firing. Maybe you think proficiency means a person is able to hit a stationary medium-sized target 10 feet away 50% of the time, I understand it to be able to hit a stationary medium-sized target 30 feet away 100% of the time and a moving target medium-size 30 feet away 75% of the time. One hour of training gives someone the ability to attack targets with the -4 penalty, in my mind.
I have to argue with that, able to use and proficiency are to different things. Having actually trained with both pistols and assault rifles, I can tell you that the amount of time to become fully proficient in a firearm is closer 10 to 20 hours of firing. Maybe you think proficiency means a person is able to hit a stationary medium-sized target 10 feet away 50% of the time, I understand it to be able to hit a stationary medium-sized target 30 feet away 100% of the time and a moving target medium-size 30 feet away 75% of the time.
And it's probably a little more than that amount of training time where a period firearm is concerned. However, this is still 'simple weapon' territory by comparison. A sword is a martial weapon and requires -months- of training to use effectively, so around 200 hours compared to your 20 or 30. After all, your average knight, who might be considered proficient, as well as having a couple of feats specific to swords, would have been training in that weapon from childhood.
However, I think it's all a bit academic to even consider things like this. Simple. Martial. Exotic. These terms are absolutely meaningless to the actual difficulty of use of any given weapon. A flail, for instance, is a martial weapon. C'mon. Those things are damn hard to use. By basic logic, a longbow should be exotic, as they require a specific level of training and technique to use properly.
Simple, Martial, and Exotic all come down to the relative power of the weapons in the game. If we tried to make it all about training and technique, the Elven swords would be the best in the game, as they'd drop from Exotic to Martial and totally usurp the longsword, rapier, and bastard sword's places in the game. They are only swords, after all - no harder to use than any other.
Firearms could only be Simple weapons in the game if their stats were no better than other Simple weapons. I know some of you will be tempted to say "but any commoner can use a firearm." Yeah, that's true. But in D&D, remember that commoners only get proficiency in ONE simple weapon to start, which is most likely to be the Spear or the Club. Any other weapon they need to be proficient with will cost them a feat, and so it is exactly the same for them to become proficient in another simple weapon as it would be to be proficient with a martial weapon. So in the D&D Universe, it's just as 'easy' to train a Commoner to use a flail or a bow as to use a dagger or a shortspear, or a crossbow of any sort.
I have to argue with that, able to use and proficiency are to different things. Having actually trained with both pistols and assault rifles, I can tell you that the amount of time to become fully proficient in a firearm is closer 10 to 20 hours of firing. Maybe you think proficiency means a person is able to hit a stationary medium-sized target 10 feet away 50% of the time, I understand it to be able to hit a stationary medium-sized target 30 feet away 100% of the time and a moving target medium-size 30 feet away 75% of the time. One hour of training gives someone the ability to attack targets with the -4 penalty, in my mind.
To quote the swamp king in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, let's not argue and bicker over 'oo killed 'oo! :D
I think you to have a basic agreement that, 1 hour or 20 hours, it doesn't take much time to become proficient in the of a firearm as compared, say, to the years of apprenticeship needed to become proficient with spells.
He got some German platemail that nothing could go through. It cost a farm. Then some peasant with a musket took a pot-shot at him. It didn't go through the armor, it CRUSHED THE GUY INSIDE.
I have no idea how to translate that into game terms :D.
But, this is really only a concern if magic only caused damage and did nothing else. No firearm is going to replace the 'animate dead' spell, for instance, and no gun is going to go 'cure light wounds', either.
Of course, a bowman can obviously outdo a wizard in ranged damage already, and a warrior obviously outdo a wizard in melee damage - and do so until he gets tired.
Oh no, a 'gun' can do 2d6 or 2d8 damage up to a long long way away (100yds). (Talking age of rifles here, and the USUAL gun a 'peasant' might have). Is this REALLY a big concern, particularly in a dungeon-delving environment?
If you don't see a mage as anything but a Damage Dealer (TM), then, yes, he's in for some competition from a machine. But I don't think that a good campaign would find it much of a problem to deal with. It's not as if the entire system breaks down the moment you add an arquebus.
And what about wizards who might USE guns, themselves?
So, armies of conscripts in your campaign world will use firearms, but will probably use crossbows just as much since they're cheaper to create ammunition for.
This is not true. The major practical reason that armies in RL switched to guns from crossbows was ammunition costs.
A crossbow bolt is inefficient and expensive. It requires wood in good condition, feathers, a steel head. The wood has to be cut and shaped. The feathers plucked. The steel head made by a skilled blacksmith. Then they are all assembled by a skilled bowyer who can make, perhaps 5 - 10 an hour.
The gun on the other hand requires lead that can be poured into molds. The molds might cost a bit, but they are re-useable. You can make hundreds of balls an hour if you have enough molds. The powder is cheap as well--sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter. If you know how to do it, you can make plenty, real fast
As far as how guns come about, the rockets that first used powder were often attached to arrows to make them fly further. (I am sure this is going to be cheaper, if less reliable, than enchanting piles of +1 arrows of distance for an army) Eventually, the leap of logic gets made to use that same powder for the explosive capacity, then someone figures out that the explosion can be directed to move a small projectile with lethal force. The gun is not even in mind when the pieces needed to bring it about start appearing. By the time those wizards figure out that firearms have been invented, it's already too late, as the first steps have probably been around for centuries.
Yeah, as soon as you teach someone to use the percentages .75 .15. 10 for saltpeter sulfur and charcoal, the race is on to see who can make the best boomstick. Funny enough, you could probably use magic to help mass produce the materials that you need.
Lesser Planar Ally or Lesser Planar Binding: Call Djinni to use their greater creation ability to create food for your nation’s cattle to consume. Cattle dung and all dung and urine can be used to get the saltpeter.
As above: contact an earth elemental to mine sulfur from the elemental plane of earth; alternately fire elementals from the elemental plane of fire.
As above: call the dijinni to create wood; preferably hardwoods; slow-burn them to make the charcoal
If you’re feeling ballsy, you can Fabricate iron rounds or weapon using steel created from Wall of Iron.
Or, if you fancy rounds that will give when fired from the gun, use the above method to mine for lead on the elemental plane of earth. Using the 2nd lvl spell Unseen Crafter can really multiply the creation of ammo and weapon as well as the the grinding, mixing, soaking, baking, milling and sifting need to make power.
Magic wins. I’ll bet that really high level wizards with dreams of conquest run around with troops that wield +1 Animalbane pike equipped (animalbane for horse slaying) and +1 reloading arquebuses (crossbow of reloading out of the miniHB).
Since the above two items can be created by multiple bound Efreeti, with enough time you can create enough of the above weapons to utterly march over most mundane armies. I’m definitely gonna use that as an adventure idea. Air Hobgoblin aquebussers and Water Hobgoblin pikemen led by a planes-hopping mercenary commander.
Now let's face it, bows really don't have all that much to do with D&D. Sure, they're central to the LOTR culture of the Legolas elf and the myth of the Welsh Bowman, but there are plenty of other fantasy archetypes that are perfectly suitable to choose from. From 1400-Civil War, sword play had it's uses all over the battlefield and in adventurous situations. I mean, Dracula was won with shotguns and silver knives. Sounds like a mean game of Ravenloft to me. Not every D&D game has to be about Kings and Peasants. Eberron proves that.
So, that's what it really boils down to, a flavor issue.
Mechanically guns all the way up to modern assault rifles are pretty sound to use in D&D. Fighters, TOB, and Melee Prestige classes are more than suitable to fair against even 4d8 damage of burst fire from an assault rifle. Per Attack. Add 2d6 for magic. A Dungeoncrasher fighter can match that easily with 4d8, no-hit rolls per attack. He can pick up a rifle, fire while moving, and then beat the crap out of his opponent up close if that's what it takes.
Fundamentally, it's not going to change anything. Wizards still cream fighters, fighters won't be able to do squat about it, thieves will still disarm traps, clerics will still heal. Dynamics between ranged and melee will change slightly- meleers will be a little more canny about moving if everyone has a tough ranged weapon- but make every mook in the world bow-oriented and you'll see the same thing.
As far as D&D goes, flavor is flexible. Pretty much anything goes, as long as there's magic missile and darkness in the game. If you can make Dead Ale Wives references, it's D&D.
Do guns replace magic? No, certainly not. Do they replace swords? Not so much. Bows? Well, probably, yes. What's the end result here? You wind up with a game in which players are running around with swords, guns and magic instead of swords, bows and magic.
Whether guns would replace bows would depend on a balance of a number of factors: the damage done by the gun, the cost of the gun, the range increment of a gun, whether the DM makes a gun a simple, martial or exotic weapon, and whether the DM allows the creation of magic guns. If a gun does little more damage than a bow, requires an exotic weapon proficiency, has not much more range, and can't be enchanted, it's much less likely to replace a bow than if it's an enchantabe simple weapon that does far more damage than a bow at a much greater range.
Do guns replace magic? No, certainly not. Do they replace swords? Not so much. Bows? Well, probably, yes. What's the end result here? You wind up with a game in which players are running around with swords, guns and magic instead of swords, bows and magic.
Now let's face it, bows really don't have all that much to do with D&D. Sure, they're central to the LOTR culture of the Legolas elf and the myth of the Welsh Bowman, but there are plenty of other fantasy archetypes that are perfectly suitable to choose from. From 1400-Civil War, sword play had it's uses all over the battlefield and in adventurous situations. I mean, Dracula was won with shotguns and silver knives. Sounds like a mean game of Ravenloft to me. Not every D&D game has to be about Kings and Peasants. Eberron proves that.
Renaissance-level guns replace bows as missile choices for melee based characters and for your run-of-the-mill peasant armies. They don't necessarily replace them for adventurers, "elven" or "sylvan" forces, or for mounted horsemen.
It wasn't until the invention of the rifled musket that guns became especially accurate at distance. And it wasn't until the flintlock--or really the minee ball--that guns became a more deadly weapon than a long-bow. Had Napoleon had the use of Henry V's longbow squares from four centuries previous, he probably would have mopped the floor with Wellington and von Blucher at Waterloo. The longbow had a longer distance, vastly superior rate of fire, and as much likelihood of killing an enemy at distance as Napoleon's unrifled muskets. However, they required men who had trained for years, if not decades, for maximum efficacy, whereas you could slap a musket in a peasant's hands and get a relatively decent soldier out of him in a few weeks.
As such, PCs are probably going to lean towards bows anyways--they reload faster, they are more accurate, and they don't make a lot of noise--something that's pretty important in a dungeon. Specialist archer classes are available, while you don't have the same necessity for specialist musketeers--someone training for six weeks is going to do just as much damage as someone who's trained for six years, it's just a matter of accuracy and a few seconds better reload time.
If you have elves and centaurs running around, they are probably going to stick with bows as well--they live for a long time, and thus can be expected to master archery. Most Fighters are probably going to want to go with a musket rather than a bow if they aren't primarily ranged-types, but rangers and rogues are going to stick with bows.
So, that's what it really boils down to, a flavor issue. As far as D&D goes, flavor is flexible. Pretty much anything goes, as long as there's magic missile and darkness in the game. If you can make Dead Ale Wives references, it's D&D.
And the Gelatinous Cube. You can't forget the Cube, man.
In other words, you get a few extra points of free damage by using a gun for just one shot, and you can shoot from a mile away. Guns are only good for massive numbers , or as a first strike weapon, unless if you make them teched out for rapid fire (probably about as expensive as a minor magic item)
Second, no one smart enough to make guns/gunpowder would waste time on their development when they could be practicing magic or psionics. For example, Farmer Bob could try to make some weapon that's never been invented before, but why would he care to if he's smart enough to learn to cast spells? He knows what a powerful wizard can do, but he probably doesn't think anything he can make will be able to match the power of even a low level caster.
Bows > Guns & Spells > Guns IMO, so with that logic, there's no need for them anyway.
Wings? Fantastic. Planes? Not so much.
Dragons"? Fantastic. Bombers? Not so much.
Fireballs? Fantastic. Rocket launchers? Not so much.
Elephants and war trolls? Fantastic. Tanks? Not so much.
Similarly, Bows + other nonexplosive ranged weapons? Fantastic.
Guns? Not so much.
Swords? Fantastic. Chain saws? Not so much.
I mean, for some people,
, this might be your cup of tea. For me, it would be a diversion, but I don't think I'd use it as my default setting.Firstly, we take the standard fantasy world, with completely unreal sexual equality and magic. That is fine. We have different races, that is fine (and why must it always be the Dwarves that make guns? I thought they were more into axes and such?), the different races serve just the same difference as the different evolutions of humanity (as we stand now, and our long dead cousin, the Neanderthal).
Now, Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, and all other races without a penalty to INT must be assumed to be on a relative tech level(here I take tech as it would mean in D&D, both magic and unmagical means of doing things) and social stage as appropriate to their environment.
I mean that Elves would not just be living in village-communes because it is Elf culture, they would be living in such because they had not yet attained a higher development of technology, magical or no.
Extend that to all races. For instance, Orcs could be said to still be in a tribal state, right next to feudal humans, on the same land, purely because they are less able to make the innovations which make the transition from nomad-tribalism to village-commune because they are not as smart. One could say that they have clerics who could make some of the effects that wizards can, but I would reply: 'what does it matter if an Orc cleric can cast a spell on plants, making them better crops if he isn't smart enough to figure out that he should?'. Apply that to all races and societies as needed.
Now, assuming the societies in a late feudal stage of society, we see Nobles with their horses and their armor and their specialised way of fighting. We also see large peasant masses at battles to, but just like in RL history, they were there merely for the sake of having someone your nobles could kill with impunity. But not all nobles would go into combat as Knights. It is rather pointless. If there is magic, why? So we see that the smart ones, not the ones to realise the importance of magic, but rather the ones smart enough to have decent skill in magic, would turn to the Arcane.
High INT, being something you acquire and not something you are born with, will therefore be present in most of the aristocracy, taught from birth, and also, they will have the use of magic. In such a case, I will not say that the majority of the Aristos will be INT18, no, not at all, that would be stupid, as personal aptitude also comes into it, but most will be around INT11-13. Enough for a few levels of wizard spells anyway.
From this we see the manifestation of feudalism in this case being very different at a glance from that which dominated Europe, but only as different as that which dominated Japan was different. That is, only in looks. It is still feudalism. Now there are lots of other things to take into consideration, like the ability of high level wizards to bring beings from other Planes to ours. This will make the feudalism more resilient, or rather, it will make the epoch of 'High-Feudalism' longer, but there will still be the inherent conflict in the feudal class itself, the desire for unity, driving them at once toward central authority with the monarch, but also the desire for separation, driving them away. Also, we shall see the same situation as always occur in feudalism, like the one Aristos holding lands under one kind in one area, but holding other lands in another area under another king, but at the same time having his lands held as vassal by his own king. So we see the same social forces manifesting themselves and in the same way, just through different means. Magic, as opposed to steel.
But, this being late feudal, and not merely feudal, some changes to this conception have to be made. There are bankers in the towns, the ability to acquire the spell components so necessary to the maintaining of the feudal structure will come from trading, an occupation few Aristos will deal with as they are more interested in their feudal right to crush the serf. Not only will the spell components come from the traders, but also the luxury. These traders, possibly sorcerers, possibly down on their luck Aristos, in all cases not part of the economic structure necessary for the preservation of the old order, will get their goods and their wealth not from the always from the east, but from other planes possibly. It doesn’t matter. The fact that an Aristos wizard can create a nice ornate chair means nothing if a merchant can sell him one for half the price. But that half price chair is still a luxury, and as the output of the serfs farm increases not, the Aristos needs income. He presses his serf harder, taxes him. He takes out loans from the bankers and merchants. In some cases he leaves his own class and joins them. In every case the Aristos are destroying his ability to maintain himself as an Aristos. He has his feudal rights, and he fights to maintain them.
The merchants, the rising middle class has its own political agenda. The feudal obligations and dues expected of it as the third estate are a burden to its growth, and the feudal rights, exemptions and privileges of the Aristos are barring its way to political power, that which must always accompany economic power.
The kings in their ever lasting conflicts with the Aristos cease relying on them for their armies, if they are in conflict with the nobles, why are they using them as troops? They need their own armies. They begin to make their own armies.
As the Aristos are put further into debt by his luxury and his class occupation (the Arcane) he realises that he cannot get any more wealth out of his ever crushed serf. He sets him free. The serf buys himself his freedom. He buys with that his land.
But as always, the land is shrunken from the size he had as a serf. The Aristos takes the common land and the sizable portions stripped from the plots he gives to the now free peasant and turns it over to profitable agriculture. Here that was sheep. There? It matters not.
The serf, formerly crushed by the imposts of the Aristos, is now crushed by the taxes made on him as a landowning member of the third estate, combined with his now small land, he is poor. Worse off now than as a serf, though politically free. This class of yeomen develops, trained in a simple art of war. In England it was the Longbow, France used foreign merc's, Switzerland used Pikes. The weapon doesn't matter. Its democratic nature does.
This, combined in RL with the Trebuchet meant that the Aristos were no longer safe. Guns didn't pierce the Knights armor, the expense of the merchants goods deprived him of it. The cannon didn't batter down the Nobleman’s castle, the king's Trebuchet did. These weapons were only available because a class with considerable social power, the merchants, the middle class, the infant bourgeoisie, needed them to make its own revolution. The kings in their conflict with the Aristos used these forces against the Aristos, and won, but as soon as their victory was granted, the abandoned the bourgeoisie.
But just saying this happened is not enough. "Sure," you will say, "That is what happened here, on earth, but there? You yourself said that the Nobles had magic, and you make no mention of this applying to the middle-class apart from a few class-traitor Nobles and some Sorcerers. How can they compete?"
That is just my point, with such little magic on their side, just how can they? They do not have the priesthood, as the upper echelons of that are exclusively Aristos, and all the third estate priests, or clerics, or druids, are low level, with little experience outside their section of the town, or their peasant community, so they matter little. How does the bourgeoisie gain control? In any war like the English Civil War, or the French Revolution, they must surely be crushed, as Fireball beats Trebuchet, in fact, Fireball burns Trebuchet.
What is needed is something which nullifies the advantage of the Aristos and their Arcane ways. This may be a situation like that in England where a large portion of the Aristocracy was Bourgeoisie-ified, or it will simply be the advance of non-Arcane technology.
It has been said above that when someone invents gunpowder, wouldn't the wizards just kill/amnesia people to solve the problem? Yes, they would, however, inventions are made again and again, and those spell components are getting more and more expensive.
But then look at the other social phenomena associated with the decline of feudalism. There are the twin features of the already mentioned bourgeoisification of a portion of the Aristocracy, and the Aristocrification of a portion of the bourgeoisie. In each case, the exclusive nature of magic is lessening, and the instinct to simply dismiss gunpowder from the world is growing less and less in proportion.
Only when the commons have a level playing field, either by enough magic coming into their hands, or by a combination of magic and gunpowder, will they be able to create the bourgeois republic, whether its result is a compromise between the Aristos and the Bourgeoisie as in England, on as the complete destruction of the Aristos as a class in the territory of each particular state will depend in the given circumstances of that state.
But one must return, at the end of all that to the original question posed, that of the effects of these weapons on the world. Unlike in RL where the Aristos was defeated mainly through debt and then soundly crushed on the battlefield through pikes, bows and Genoese crossbows, the D&D Aristos can only be defeated by such if their wealth becomes so low that they cannot afford the components for Fireball, but if that case occurs, it will not matter as the third estate will have more advanced weaponry, be it low level magic devices, or gunpowder, mass produced.
So the answer is thus: If you see the feudal order in your campaign collapsing soon (not necessarily in the timeframe of your campaign, but soon historically, decades or so.) then gunpowder should by all means exist, and should be used against the Aristos whenever possible, but not only gunpowder. If, however, you see the feudal order lasting for centuries more, then gunpowder will not have been invented, as no one needed it yet.
However, most people will ignore this and say Elves live in the forest, cities being rare because they don't like them not because there weren’t many cities in the feudal age, and that Orcs live in tribes because they are not disciplined enough to settle, even if one gave them a +2INT modifier, and ignore all comparisons with history, because it is fantasy, and they want fantasy, not real life feudalism with magic.
Now, there's already a way to do this with bows and crossbows but those all require two hands. Bows require a substantial amount of physical ability (not to mention martial training), and crossbows have incredibly annoying reload times.
Then there's the hand crossbow; notice how much it looks like a 'gun?' But it's so difficult to use properly (exotic). Surely anyone with a decent Int and resources (such as a wizard) is going to tinker with this otherwise convenient and quite portable weapon...maybe add more metal, make the ammo smaller and easier to carry around, perhaps manufacture some alchemic explosive so you don't strain yourself pulling a winch into place :P...
Wands are also a lot like guns, and one might shape a wand to look like a gun upon creation. Problem is reloading it.
I'm still developing my own rules for firearms as I'd like to present them as an option. I'm thinking of making them simple weapons to fire, but without the appropriate martial proficiency feat, reloading takes twice the normal time. It's a work still in progress of course
For example, imagine someone lays a heat metal on your powder horn. Or throws a fireball at your munitions stockpile. Hell, if I were a Wizard, I'd research an aura of gunpowder igniting
. As the tech advances, it only becomes more deadly. Mage hand, anyone? Safeties, triggers, and grenade pins would be delightfully vulnerable. Of course, the extent to which this deters the everyman is dependent on how regularly the everyman expects to come across casters, so mileage varies by situation and setting.My general position is that I love the idea of incorporating guns (cap and ball tech at the most), but the possibility of my players buying a few barrels of powder and simply detonating my big bad does give me pause. I think the whole thing could be made to work by tinkering with the economics; if a barrel of black powder does the same damage as a fireball, making it cost as much as hiring a Wizard to cast such (or price for a single-use Wondrous Item) should keep it balanced.
1) Lack of good precedents in fantasy. As stated earlier in this thread, famous writers like Tolkien did not have guns in their fantasy settings. Since people draw inspiration from these writers, they tend to think of swords and bows as the principal fantasy weapons, rather than guns.
2) When most people think of guns, they think of modern weapons and warfare. Armor-piercing rounds, rapid-fire guns, etc.
However, guns did exist alongside bows, swords and armor in real-world history. D&D is primarily based on the Late Medieval period, roughly speaking the 14th century and early 15th century. The famous battle of Agincourt in 1415, where heavily armored French knights armed with lances squared off against English longbowmen, defines the weapons and armor that are common in D&D. However, gunpowder and cannons were already a part of warfare by 1380. In Froissart's Chronicles I found at least two references to gunpowder. In the first, the master of a weaver's guild in the city of Ghent was executed in 1381 for hoarding saltpeter during a time of war, saltpeter being a major component of gunpowder. Second, during a battle between the Flemish and the French in that same year, one side fired "big bolts feathered with bronze from their bombards and cannons." Obviously, guns and gunpowder were part of late medieval warfare, if not yet a major part.
Furthermore, plate armor, early muskets, and bows were all used alongside each other for a few centuries. The word "bulletproof" comes from how plate armor was often tested by firing a gun at it point blank, which left a dent. That dent was the proof that the plate armor could resist a bullet, thus the word "bulletproof". I have heard, though I can not vouch for its accuracy, that plate armor was developed specifically as a reaction to the growing use of firearms in western warfare.
Even after guns evolved into more dependable forms in the 16th century, bows remained a part of warfare. In India during the early 1500s, the Turks, who would afterwards form the Mogul dynasty, utilized cannons and muskets alongside archers. Their troops still wore armor and carried swords as well. Guns never replaced bows or swords overnight. It would take centuries for medieval weapons to be phased out completely. Heck, swords were still a part of warfare a mere 150 years ago.
By the way, rifling, repeating rifles, and revolvers are completely beyond the time era of D&D by at least 400 years. They are all products of a series of technological developments of the 19th century. The time of the early industrial revolution did not have rifled guns or revolvers. Major colonial powers in the 18th century conquered the world with smooth-bore muskets. In fact, flintlock guns might be too advanced for what we are talking about. They are actually the product of a few centuries of innovation.
Pistol - stats and functions as a light crossbow; bludgeoning; exotic.
Rifle - stats and functions as a heavy crossbow; bludgeoning; exotic.
Revolver - stats and functions as a heavy repeating crossbow with a reduced damage die; bludgeoning; exotic.
*snip*
While I like your post, and mostly agree, there are some big If's in there.
I'd like to chime in here and point out that while teaching someone to properly fire a gun may not take a whole lot of training, maintaining and (especially) reloading the weapon may be complex enough to warrant a martial or exotic weapon proficiency (probably martial in my opinion, but I'm no expert).
I'm still developing my own rules for firearms as I'd like to present them as an option. I'm thinking of making them simple weapons to fire, but without the appropriate martial proficiency feat, reloading takes twice the normal time. It's a work still in progress of course
It took me 2 trys to learn how to reload a Black Powder musket, it's relatively simple if you have the tools. And once you do it a few dozen times it comes pretty easy.
The reason I say it's a simple weapon is because it is as easy to use a gun as it is a club. Point and Fire for the gun, Swing for the club.
Now, It may take longer to learn to accurately fire a gun (Hell, I've been doing it 20 years), it is much easier to learn this than say learning to shoot a bow (I know, I've tried, and am hardly what one would call completely proficient).
It took me 2 trys to learn how to reload a Black Powder musket, it's relatively simple if you have the tools. And once you do it a few dozen times it comes pretty easy.
The reason I say it's a simple weapon is because it is as easy to use a gun as it is a club. Point and Fire for the gun, Swing for the club.
Now, It may take longer to learn to accurately fire a gun (Hell, I've been doing it 20 years), it is much easier to learn this than say learning to shoot a bow (I know, I've tried, and am hardly what one would call completely proficient).
It's not the ease of using the weapon, it's purely to balance them. Better weapons are in martial, and even better are in exotic. Why is the hand crossbow exotic but the mace simple? It's simply a balancing act and shouldn't be for actual ease unless you plan for people to not normally use other weapons, like in Modern.
By the way, rifling, repeating rifles, and revolvers are completely beyond the time era of D&D by at least 400 years. They are all products of a series of technological developments of the 19th century. The time of the early industrial revolution did not have rifled guns or revolvers. Major colonial powers in the 18th century conquered the world with smooth-bore muskets. In fact, flintlock guns might be too advanced for what we are talking about. They are actually the product of a few centuries of innovation.
Good post with lots of interesting information. I'd just add something about the Mogul, or Mughal Empire. The Turks who founded it belonged to the western branch of the Uighurs, and sound not be confused with the modern Turks, themselves descended instead from the Ottomans (whom the Uighur/Mughals defeated in the process of creating their empire in Persia and India). The Uighurs (pronounced WE ger) had themselves been defeated earlier by the Mongols. The Persians thought that the Uighurs were Mongols, and "Mughal" is the Persian term for Mongol. Babur, the first Mughal emperor, was himself an ethnic Mongol, descended from Timur, who had earlier conquered Persia as a late thrust of the Mongol expansion. Babur also claimed to be descended form Ghengis Khan himself, although this might have been political propaganda designed to smooth his way to power. Barbur though had adopted Turkish (Uighur) culture and used predominantly Uighur troops, especially at first, although he did indeed have some Mongol troops as well.
Thanks, I would just like to know where you think my 'ifs' go wrong. It is based on what happened in the real world, however taking note of magic.
I do think I was not as thorough on some points as I could have been, like all the non-combat magic stuff, but in general I feel that the post was correct in its appraisal of history, even if said history is not only fictional, but has never been compiled before...
My general position is that I love the idea of incorporating guns (cap and ball tech at the most), but the possibility of my players buying a few barrels of powder and simply detonating my big bad does give me pause. I think the whole thing could be made to work by tinkering with the economics; if a barrel of black powder does the same damage as a fireball, making it cost as much as hiring a Wizard to cast such (or price for a single-use Wondrous Item) should keep it balanced.
Smuggling that much gunpowder and placing it under a BBEG would be an adventure in itself. Any adept with burning hands or kobold with a torch could ruin the PC's day. Plus what if they fill the BBEG's palace cellars with gunpowder set to blow then find out that the PC's sister/ innocent peasants/ boyfriend is being held captive in the palace or that the king has come to parlay with the BBEG just as they're lighting the fuse.
Think what happened to Guy Fawkes. Oh, and think what kobolds could do with gunpowder
Furthermore, plate armor, early muskets, and bows were all used alongside each other for a few centuries. The word "bulletproof" comes from how plate armor was often tested by firing a gun at it point blank, which left a dent. That dent was the proof that the plate armor could resist a bullet, thus the word "bulletproof". I have heard, though I can not vouch for its accuracy, that plate armor was developed specifically as a reaction to the growing use of firearms in western warfare.
You are mostly correct in the assumption but by the time the "musketeer's" flint lock and match lock rifle had more then enough power to push ball through plate armor. Pushing threw armor is more the issue here a good musket would be more like a range touch attack with decent damage.
As for rate of fire Napoleon’s and Colonial troops with tremendous drill and practice could make 3 battle field accurate shots a minute. I myself am fairly proficient with my little .50 bobcat (percussion cap) rifle and to be honest I’m at about 1 shot per minute for an aimed accurate shot (about 6 inch groups at 100yards) And mine is rifled (adding accuracy).
I see almost no way to ever allow players to fire into melee without penalty with this kind of a weapon. And if for some reason higher powered firearms where used you would have to worry about the projectiles traveling threw you target and into a party member.
I won’t go into the fatality of critical shots as that’s a nightmare to do a mechanic for.
Shlohloh
It's not the ease of using the weapon, it's purely to balance them. Better weapons are in martial, and even better are in exotic. Why is the hand crossbow exotic but the mace simple? It's simply a balancing act and shouldn't be for actual ease unless you plan for people to not normally use other weapons, like in Modern.
I have yet to see a weapon published by WoTC that could be considered Broken. Making something Exotic is pretty much screwing any Melee type class, they need the extra boost more so than any caster. Even then, the most "Uber Broken" weapon still is going to pale in comparison to any kind of magical spell. Knowing this, many players that I know of pick weapons for flavor more than power issues. What good is a reach weapon when that wizard is 400+ feet away bombarding you with fireballs while invisible? Keep them simple weapons and make them like crossbows but with a lower range increments.
Casters have no need for any kind of weapon period. Their greatest weapon is their Magic. I myself when playing a Spellcaster rarely end up with any weapon with an enhancement bonus of higher than +1 because my resources go elsewhere, namely Scrolls, Rods, Staffs, and books.
TheDarkLord:
Thanks, I would just like to know where you think my 'ifs' go wrong. It is based on what happened in the real world, however taking note of magic.
I do think I was not as thorough on some points as I could have been, like all the non-combat magic stuff, but in general I feel that the post was correct in its appraisal of history, even if said history is not only fictional, but has never been compiled before...
The big If is always around when you talk about magic. Magic can give you the ability to create mundane items at modern "Assembly Line Efficiencies". A kingdom could pay a Spellcaster or two to come in and create golems or unseen servants for a price to build their own assembly line. You simply insert Raw Material, and a few minutes or hours later out comes a finished product. This line could be run entirely on magic.
Taking that into account. One could easily say that given enough raw materials, this Assembly line efficiency could produce roughly 1 gun per soldier if not more per week. It runs 24/7 all year long non-stop if you keep feeding it raw materials. A wizard could easily set this up in a couple years time.
Magic would still have a place in the world (Troubleshooting, Raw damage potential and whatnot), but Rich kingdoms could afford to produce large armies wielding relatively advanced weaponry at very low costs.
Also, once black powder comes into play, wizards can create that using magic as well, and probably figure out way's to make it more powerful, thus starting a new cycle of even more advanced weaponry.
There really is no good volley rule in d20. I think the best example of comparing the rifle and the bow was in the new world, and there it took the 19th century rifled barrel to significantly change the balance and cause the decline of the bow.
The second factor to consider between guns and bows is that the former when used in volleys generated considerable noise and smoke. The latter would produce concealment. This is where the term “fog of war” originates.
The third factor to consider is that guns, especially the guns most people like to talk about were simply horrid. I remember hearing a story about an early 18th century battle reenactment which most kids found quite boring. While there was plenty of smoke filled gun fire, there really weren’t many actors dying on the battlefield. Guns really were that inaccurate. Guns had a significant chance to misfire, and this lasted until well into the 19th century. There is an example of a civil war rifle which apparently misfired because in the heat of war its owner had stuffed 10 full rounds down the barrel.
Oddly enough if you push past to the point where they become effective (late 18th century in what in the United States was known as the “wild west” period) then one finds all sorts of odd counter examples in the western lore. A pocket watch is clearly inferior in terms of AC protection than a vest of plate, but it’s one of the biggest western proofs against bullets in the lore. The bottom line in the argument between bullets and arrows comes down to differences in the damage they caused and the primitive nature of injury treatment which existed until at least the start of the 20th century. The balance of power lies not with wizardly magic but the presence or lack of simple clerical healing.
http://www.pixelsagas.com/library/files/Free_Early_Firearms.pdf
Early reliable firearms go back to the 1400s. Muskets SHOULD be appearing in several official campaigns, frankly, because they appear in the ages that the campaigns try to mimic.
Oh, and if you're THAT worried about guns vs magic? Here's a single spell for you wizard-type-folks to pick up--it's called Protection from Normal Missiles. For the love of Pete, quit thinking that Wizards are just DDs.
Anyway, I see nothing wrong with a player using a gun. According to at least one of the manuals (I don't remember which one I read about them in), zeppelins are available in DnD. Zeppelins were invented almost 500 years later than guns.
I could see the dwarves coming up with fire arms (that count as ranged touch attacks) that can easily deal with armored foes. Where the other common races rely on magic and bows, the dwarves rely on superior fortifications and their superior weaponry.
Of course, you wouldn't see the firearms too much outside dwarf lands. Too expensive. Most would be in the hands of rich noblemen.
So the guy was jumping from rooftop to rooftop, after the PCs ran out of attack spells, shooting at them. Eventually, someone got the idea of throwing a grappling hook and taking the decanter of endless fire. At which point, the big bad evil guy closed to melee. And was incinerated due to the geyser form of the decanter of endless fire. Which was soon broken, in a massive explosion, by a kobold thief, in a kobold city. The players saw the explosion several miles away. And the gun was later taken, after someone attacked them with another one, sundered it at a range, then sundered the bows. It was just one player had a couple dozen slings.
You are mostly correct in the assumption but by the time the "musketeer's" flint lock and match lock rifle had more then enough power to push ball through plate armor. Pushing threw armor is more the issue here a good musket would be more like a range touch attack with decent damage.
As for rate of fire Napoleon’s and Colonial troops with tremendous drill and practice could make 3 battle field accurate shots a minute. I myself am fairly proficient with my little .50 bobcat (percussion cap) rifle and to be honest I’m at about 1 shot per minute for an aimed accurate shot (about 6 inch groups at 100yards) And mine is rifled (adding accuracy).
I see almost no way to ever allow players to fire into melee without penalty with this kind of a weapon. And if for some reason higher powered firearms where used you would have to worry about the projectiles traveling threw you target and into a party member.
I won’t go into the fatality of critical shots as that’s a nightmare to do a mechanic for.
Shlohloh
Of course, the era of the "musketeers" and Napoleon was around 300 years after the end of the middle ages. No firearm introduced into a typical medieval based D&D world would be anywhere near that powerful or accurate. For one, no early gun would be rifled.
In a setting like Dragonlance, there is someone who has the know how and the inspiration. Gnomes. They would probably make it on their own given one gnome's inspiration, and would be pretty excited with the explosive nature of the weapon and give it an even larger chance to backfire.
Now, finally, Eberron. It is a setting with a definite renaissance theme to it; people are finally finished with a 100-year long war, and have begun using their military machines as civilian tools. Guns were created during the real-life renaissance. And, obtw, there are guns in the campaign book. Magic-based guns, but guns nonetheless.
My freebie from a couple of weeks ago, in response to someone wanting a 'Pirates' D20 campaign. This is all pretty heavily researched, slightly tweaked for gaming reasons...
http://www.pixelsagas.com/library/files/Free_Early_Firearms.pdf
Early reliable firearms go back to the 1400s. Muskets SHOULD be appearing in several official campaigns, frankly, because they appear in the ages that the campaigns try to mimic.
Oh, and if you're THAT worried about guns vs magic? Here's a single spell for you wizard-type-folks to pick up--it's called Protection from Normal Missiles. For the love of Pete, quit thinking that Wizards are just DDs.
The name of the spell has changed in 3rd Ed to protection from arrows. It works against any ranged weapon.
I’m kinda new to this website, but I’m going to voice my opinion a little on this subject. First off, the first musket ever made dating back many many years ago where wide-barreled flint lock muzzel loaders. Now myself, I am a bit of a gun collector. These weapons took about 1 minute to load at full speed, were very inaccurate, would not fire unless the flint is right on with the lock and only if dry, they could do massive amounts of damage but it's really hard to hit with those, now unless you have a magically powered gun and a dead on ranger of some type. You'd probably be better off with a bow or crossbow. Guns are a nice addition but at the time of most old campaigns, they're obsolete.
If a DM wants to include firearms in an otherwise medievalish campaign, he (or she) might go one of three routes. He might try for some sort of historical accuracy, in which the gun takes 10 rounds to load (basically you have it loaded already, fire it once at the start of combat, drop it, and draw a sword), does a great deal of damage (maybe 2d6), has a relatively short range increment (more like a thrown weapon), has a percentage chance of exploding and doing damage to the wielder (and maybe to creatures within 5 feet), and perhaps a -4 inaccuracy (or circumstance) penalty. Because of its inaccuracy and the heavy damage it can cause on an accurate shot, the DM give it a critical of 20/x3.
The DM might, however, for the sake of fantasy roleplaying, dispense with all of that, and simply give the firearm the statistics of a heavy crossbow: the musket (or whatever you want to call the fantasy primitive firearm) does 1d10 with a range increment of 120 feet and requires a full-round action to reload. Then your musketeer can run around blasting away with the thing every other round, until he (or she) runs out of balls/gunpowder. To make it easy the DM could just set the same price per ten balls and the gunpowder needed to fire then balls as for ten heavy crossbow bolts.
The DM could take an intermediate route, giving balancing concerns for historical accuracy against a desire for ease of fantasy roleplaying. The DM might, for instance, start with the basic heavy crossbow statistics, but change a few of them. He might shorten the range increment considerably if historically the primitive firearms had a pretty short accurate range, change the critical to 20/x3, and perhaps charge a higher price for both the firearm and for the bullets.
If I were going to allow firearms, I'd probably go with the second or third route, since players who want to use primitive firearms in the game probably won't enjoy the exploding, imprecise more accurate first route. Remember that it's a game, and we play to have fun. So it's probably best, even if you value historical accuracy, to temper historical accuracy with a regard for the fun of fantasy roleplaying.
The range and power of a flintlock rifle is better than of an axe. If you search in the Internet, there were many real fights between soldiers with swords, axes and bows and soldiers with rifles. I give you and example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke%27s_Drift
I scanned the article you provided, but I didn't see any information comparing the ranges of hand axes to even the flintocks of the late 19th century (I'm not sure if they were rifled or not) much less the more primitive firearms of the 15th century.
I'm not actually making any claims about the effective range of a 15th-century firearm. I just drew from the previous poster's comments about flintlock muzzle-loaders being "very inaccurate." I certainly don't have the knowledge to compare the likely accuracy of a 15th century firearm versus a thrown hand axe given the same amount of basic training with each weapon. I was only suggesting that if the firearm were "very inaccurate" that one might give it a shorter range increment than a heavy crossbow--possibly, but not necessarily, as low as for common thrown weapons. I leave it to others with more knowledge to decide what shorter range might give the best degree of (playable) historical accurate.
Of course, the era of the "musketeers" and Napoleon was around 300 years after the end of the middle ages. No firearm introduced into a typical medieval based D&D world would be anywhere near that powerful or accurate. For one, no early gun would be rifled.
I've seen examples of Swiss match-lock rifled muskets, target weapons to be sure, but still c. 1500 technology. How early you mean?
I do not have a problem with allowing guns into a D&D setting. There are two reasons that I can see for why people do not think guns should exist in a setting:
1) Lack of good precedents in fantasy. As stated earlier in this thread, famous writers like Tolkien did not have guns in their fantasy settings. Since people draw inspiration from these writers, they tend to think of swords and bows as the principal fantasy weapons, rather than guns.
By the way, rifling, repeating rifles, and revolvers are completely beyond the time era of D&D by at least 400 years. They are all products of a series of technological developments of the 19th century. The time of the early industrial revolution did not have rifled guns or revolvers. Major colonial powers in the 18th century conquered the world with smooth-bore muskets. In fact, flintlock guns might be too advanced for what we are talking about. They are actually the product of a few centuries of innovation.
I replied to another poster on some of this, but here goes.
There are decent precedents in fantasy literature, China Mieville comes to mind, and RE Howards Soloman Kane to name a couple. No guns in Tolkien, but he isn't the only iron in the fire.
I've seen photos of a Swiss rifled matchlock musket-- c. 1500, it was a target rifle apparently. Flint-locks are a late 17th century tech I thought, maybe a little earlier, but they called them doglocks or snaphaunces, and then theres some other thing called a Miquelet(sp?) lock. In any case wheelocks are pretty complicated and those pre-date flintlocks.
There is other firearm technology that I took to be only modern-- like grenade launchers. Apparently grenadiers used to carry around handmortars. Rifle grenades? Not all that new. A cup-launcher was a military innovation of the 17th century. Twist it on to the end of the musket, stick a grenade in there, and use a blank charge to launch it. Not something I'd enjoy doing-- do you light the thing first, or set it up so the firing of the gun does it?
I ran into a number of these sort of things when I did some work fleshing out the old Mighty Fortress book's rules on firearms. I'm no expert on guns by any stretch, but I was curious due to gaming needs and learned a few things.
Certainly. There are tropes and symbols you need to have a game that's recognizable. A D&D game has a King, it has a thieves guild, and it has a wizard's guild. It has knights that run around and plate armor and barbarians who live on the frontiers. It has magic.
Does there need to be any logical precedent that needs to follow economic, political, historical, or scientific logic?
No.
You could have a perfectly functioning game of D&D that everyone would be happy with, as long as those tropes and symbols were observed. As a player, do you -really- care about the political and economic conditions which the thieves guild arose, or how the crossbow was developed? Do you question why castles are built? No. As I DM I could shortcut, and say "Well, none of the historical development crap happened, god just put it there one day and that was that." And everyone would be perfectly fine with it, because that's how D&D works.
Sometimes, crap just happens.
So again, I iterate, guns are fine if you like guns. If you want assault rifles and bazookas in your game, you can actually import them from the D20 Modern book without much fear.
Think about it. OMG- a 15th level fighter with a bazooka can deal 10d6 damage per attack. With a machine gun in burst mode he can roll out 4d12. That's piddle sticks in D&D- you can use magic swords and fireballs to do the same amount of damage. And this is even if this fighter could do that amount of damage all the time, every day, every round, every second.
It still wouldn't really matter -how- much damage the fighter does- your zombie hordes, Angels of Death and Balors are -still- going to be a ***** to fight against. Maybe the golems aren't going to fair that well but...well I never thought much of them anyway.
Alot of people argue that guns don't fit within the D&D historical perspective, I argue that's because those people don't like guns in their D&D. D&D was never about correct historical and economic development and the incorporation of functioning ecosystems and logical world structures. All of the campaign settings, and every fantasy world develops it's own illogical eccentricities- Guns would be part of that
In the end- Guns are a matter of preference. Do you like them, or do you not? Will you create your own rules system to support them? These are the important questions. It's been proven guns are a viable part of high/low magic fantastical settings in any era, and like optional component, it's a question of correct implementation.
Some one mentioned how magic was cheaper and more affective than 'modern' technology. While the statement is partly correct (magic is more affective), claiming its more expensive is just silly. For one the prices in the DMG are less than any magical weapon in the game I know of.
Someone also said that the advances in metallurgy were not sufficient. Also wrong, does your game have any constructs? If that doesn't convince you look up the 'harden' spell. Magic could be used in the production of firearms rather than their implementation.
I used Firearms in a homebrew game I ran. They were simple weapons that had a permanent -4 penalty to represent their inherent lack of accuracy. I also created a feat that allowed a character to make a full attack and reduce the attack penalty to +0. With the right feats a character with a musket made a pretty scary sniper.
As for world authenticity, What are you people crazy? This is fantasy! The realm of imagination. If it can be imagined then theres a place for it in d&d. You don't have to like it, but thats how it is. Most of the Final Fantasy games have guns in them by the way. So those of you out there who say guns are 'unrealistic' or claim they ruin the 'authenticity'
get a clue. We throw fire at each other for goodness sake.If it's something like Planescape, then sure. If Eberron, then no. To me its not about balance issues, but about the history and style of the campaign and whether or not it makes sense to see them in it.
Does anyone allow a firearm to be used as a melee weapon in a pinch? There are a few, non-magic, examples of ranged weapons being used as melee weapons in various books such as the Yuan-Ti Serpent Bow, Bladed Crossbow, Elven Longbow and bayonets to support that they could be used to club someone. I'd say give the musket the stats of a quarterstaff, without it being a double weapon, and give the pistol the stats for a club, without the range increment. It would also go a little way toward making them worth an exotic weapon feat.
This is generally how it went anyhow. There are some hybrid weapons that combine fire-arms with melee weapon( dagger-pistols and such) and all those huge pistols with the big nobby handles are like that for a reason.
Of course, this may already be addressed somewhere else, and some firearms might be more functional (such as those with a bayonet attached).
First: in the real world, firearms ended the age of castles and armor. A real bullet would ignore armor bonuses or at the very least mitigate them to a minimum. Aside even from that, with the advent of firearms castles were no longer feasible to build because cannons could take down their walls in a day.
Secondly: my characters like explosives. They bring in kegs and tear down doors and barriers in their way. The use powder kegs to kill major enemies and even to tear down entire fortifications.
Thirdly: If the characters are carrying firepowder, they usually take a lot of damage the first time they fail their save against fireballs or dragon breath. The result is a lot of character fatalities.
Lastly: before you let firepowder into your campaign, remember, you have from 30 to 50 orcs in a dungeon, all potentially getting off 1 or 2 shots on the characters. Your 4 characters might get of 12 to 25 depending on how well they plan ahead. This will wear down players quickly, and even if you don't intend it to, it will create a dark sort of mood. The players will depend more on stealth, dumping their armor in favor of camouflage and sharkskin boots. They will quickly recognize that good is on the losing side.
i don't use gunpowder in my adventures for these reasons, but if another dm chooses to i don't really mind. Just don't let your monsters pass up the chance to use alchemist fire.
i have played with firearms and found a few problems.
First: in the real world, firearms ended the age of castles and armor. A real bullet would ignore armor bonuses or at the very least mitigate them to a minimum. Aside even from that, with the advent of firearms castles were no longer feasible to build because cannons could take down their walls in a day.
While this was the received wisdom for quite a while, more modern analysis suggests that firearms did not end the age of armor and castles. Armor use continued to be used for several centuries alongside early firearms (which were in common use as early as ca. 1325), and plate armor was developed after the introduction of firearms. That is surely not because commanders were unintelligent or inexperienced.
Castles likewise continued to be built after the age of gunpowder had begun. The big difference was that castle design moves away from the traditional rounded shapes and the "star fort" came to be the dominant layout for later castles.
I'd recommend reading Dr. Bert S. Hall's "Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe." It is a great read and offers the more modern view of the effect of black powder weapons on medieval warfare.
Secondly: my characters like explosives. They bring in kegs and tear down doors and barriers in their way. The use powder kegs to kill major enemies and even to tear down entire fortifications.
I question how this is done, though it's certainly possible. What BBEG would stand there net to the powder keg while a fuse burned slowly down?
As for fortifications, powder kegs do not make for devastating explosions in every single case. The way they were used is in undermining of walls. By digging a tunnel and exploding the keg there, you confined the blast and enabled it to do more damage. If you placed a single powder keg out in the open next to a thick stone wall and blew it up, much of the force of the explosion would be reflected outward and wasted. The wall might be blackened, maybe there'd be a crack somewhere, but it wouldn't be obliterated. (Keep mind that gun powder is a "low explosive"—not a high explosive—even the variety of it used in explosive charges.) Even with undermining, fortification walls often were strong enough to withstand repeated explosions.
In any event, obviously the answer is "enforce game balance" rather than "reality." Even if gunpowder kegs really do act like area of effect disintegrations, in real life, that has to be scaled back for realism purposes.
(It's also interesting to note that the black powder used in explosive charges is a different quality than that used in firearms, and different again from that used as a "fuse" to light charges. The three were not completely interchangeable in terms of properties.)
The second thing is the decline of armor. True armor was worn by knights the elite cavalry of medieval Europe. Knighthood was an institution of church and state; with the decline of the church in Europe knighthood went out of fashion. The nobility migrated to the rapier, small sword and other weapons suited to a less armored style. It can be highly debated if armor was “proof” against musket. It certainly wasn’t any good against a canon ball. “Incoming!”
The fact is that firearms barely were useful even into the 18th century. I remember hearing an old radio play about an early 18th century American battle recreation where most of the children were bored because very few people were dying compared to the guns being fired. Rifles were simply that inaccurate. Moreover they were prone to misfire. A civil war (19th century) rifle was found with 10 loads rammed into it; during the panic of war the soldier never knew his rifle wasn’t firing!
Based on “the real world” the stats for a musket given in the DMG would have been considered a “wonder weapon” even by 18th century standards. An 18th century musket had a max range of 60 yards or 90 feet. It could be fired by experts (the equivalent of a rapid reload feat) at 4 shots per minute.
Short Land Pattern musket, 1777 model, called "Brown Bess".
These limitations determined 18th century battle tactics, which employed long lines of men trained for speed of loading rather than accuracy. They were expected to average four rounds per minute. The soldiers typically pointed their arms and fired in controlled volleys at enemy troops positioned 50 to 60 yards away. The typical battle was decided by a disciplined bayonet charge ending in a hand-to-hand melee.
First: in the real world, firearms ended the age of castles and armor. A real bullet would ignore armor bonuses or at the very least mitigate them to a minimum. Aside even from that, with the advent of firearms castles were no longer feasible to build because cannons could take down their walls in a day.
and then:
Castles likewise continued to be built after the age of gunpowder had begun. The big difference was that castle design moves away from the traditional rounded shapes and the "star fort" came to be the dominant layout for later castles.
Sorry, but that "star fort" you mentioned was just that, a fort, not a castle. A castle was the residence of a noble, it was a fort, but a fort is just any fort.
The reason castles declined was the cost. In short, the aristocrats did not develop their land, they let the serfs work, and took the produce, nothing more, so over the centuries they got generally the same amount of produce, and the same amount of stuff in return for said produce.
Once the great trade routes were developed and expensive luxury goods became available, the nob's needed more cash, so they worked the serfs harder. This helped but wasn't enough, so eventually, they let them out of the corvee in return for cash, this helped a lot, but still not enough, so finally, they let the serfs buy their freedom, this, combined with the fact that they kept most of the serf's land, worked, but that only happened late, like around the 16-1700's in France. But while luxury goods were getting more expensive, better weapons were developed against them. The pike, not so much a development, but rather a re-adoption, crossbows and trebuchets against the castles rendered them impotent militarily, and if their castles were to be of any use, they needed to be upgraded to the "star forts" Panda mentioned. That was just way too expensive, so, after centuries of uniting with the king against other nob's, and then fighting against the central authority of that same king, they were beaten, they could fight no longer. They no longer counted as a military presence on the field either, as while that armor was around, and developed /because of/ crossbows and guns, it too was expensive, and had to be abandoned.
But aside from this, I just want to ask, why do people cry out: "Not in my game, but it's ok if you have them in your game" when the thread is
Guns Should be Allowed in D&D
.
Why are people talking about campaigns when the question is about the game itself?
[I note here that there are those that do argue for or against it objectively(that there shouldn't be decent rules for them in the PHB) and not do it subjectively (based on the campaign), I am only complaining about everyone else.]
Sorry, but that "star fort" you mentioned was just that, a fort, not a castle. A castle was the residence of a noble, it was a fort, but a fort is just any fort.
This statement suggests that, as a few quick examples, (i) the Castle of Good Hope is not a castle because it is a star fort, (ii) the Star Castle of Scilly is not a castle because it was a star fort, and (iii) none of the "crusader castles" (such as the Krak Des Chevaliers) were "castles" because they were primarily fortresses and not palaces. In fact there were "star forts" used as noble residences as well, for example Corgarff Castle and Braemer castle, both in Scotland.
The definition of "castle" surely does include fortified medieval residences, but it also includes medieval fortresses (or "forts") used to control surrounding land or waterways, even when they were not used as noble residences. See for example the definition here, defining castle as:
1. fortress: a large fortified building or complex of buildings, usually with tall solid walls, battlements, and a permanent garrison, built especially during the Middle Ages
2. fortified house: especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, a large magnificent house built to resemble a fortified castle of the past
You're free to use the definition you prefer, but you should be careful in telling other people that they are wrong in their opinions without double checking whether your preferred definition is the only recognized one. Calling a medieval stone "fortress that is designed to project power into the surrounding territory a "castle" seems perfectly acceptable to me.
As a matter of architectural history, star forts were, in fact from what I have read, a direct extension of castle building techniques updated to deal with cannon. Another line in the evolution of castles turned them in the 18th and 19th centuries into little more than stylized stone palaces, with no fortifications of which to speak.
The fact is that firearms barely were useful even into the 18th century. I remember hearing an old radio play about an early 18th century American battle recreation where most of the children were bored because very few people were dying compared to the guns being fired. Rifles were simply that inaccurate. Moreover they were prone to misfire. A civil war (19th century) rifle was found with 10 loads rammed into it; during the panic of war the soldier never knew his rifle wasn’t firing!
The facts seem to fly in the face of what folks were doing. The smoothbore muskets( you confuse rifles and muskets sir) are inaccurate-- but the usefulness I think of these weapons is hard to refute based solely on a radio drama. The anecdote about the Civil War muzzle-loader speaks only to the intensity of battle-- not the usefulness of the weapon.
Another argument occasionally made is that wizards (or sometimes royalty) would not allow the development of firearms as they pose a threat to their powerbase. I suppose that there could be those that would object, however, I can’t see royalty turning down a weapon that could be used against enemies. Also, the queen may well be persuaded of the advantage of a weapon that is easy to teach to troops. An individual wizard may or may not worry about firearms; however the increased use of firearms may prompt wizards to develop spells that specifically protect against bullets.You know me being a younger kind of man and only playing through the new age games such as Warcraft, WOW, Elder Scrolls and styarting DnD when it was in 3 and 3.5 editions. I have always thought guns and firearms would be a cool kind of alternative to crossbows and bows. As a DM i don't have a problem using them and their damages SEEM realistic. The problem i see is this. The bullets of the Fantasy worlds would most likely be like revolutionary guns that used steel or iron balls right? If so that would mean that they used Non-rifled guns that shot iron or tin balls. These balls did not pierce the skin through the front and then exit with nothing more than a hole. These shots would pierce a person and shatter bones and get wedged into a person body most of the time ending in infections or amputations. the damage is fine but how would we represnt the after effects of such weapons?
Another argument occasionally made is that wizards (or sometimes royalty) would not allow the development of firearms as they pose a threat to their powerbase. I suppose that there could be those that would object, however, I can’t see royalty turning down a weapon that could be used against enemies. Also, the queen may well be persuaded of the advantage of a weapon that is easy to teach to troops. An individual wizard may or may not worry about firearms; however the increased use of firearms may prompt wizards to develop spells that specifically protect against bullets.You know me being a younger kind of man and only playing through the new age games such as Warcraft, WOW, Elder Scrolls and starting D&D when it was in 3 and 3.5 editions. I have always thought guns and firearms would be a cool kind of alternative to crossbows and bows. As a DM I don't have a problem using them and their damages SEEM realistic. The problem I see is this. The bullets of the Fantasy worlds would most likely be like revolutionary guns that used steel or iron balls right? If so that would mean that they used Non-rifled guns that shot iron or tin balls. These balls did not pierce the skin through the front and then exit with nothing more than a hole. These shots would pierce a person and shatter bones and get wedged into a person body most of the time ending in infections or amputations. the damage is fine but how would we represent the after effects of such weapons?
For the easiest option, especially if you're going to make firearms common, just ignore the chance of infection and broken bones. You could certainly get an infection from being punctured by a crossbow bolt or arrow, and broken bones from a club or mace, to say nothing of catapult shot. Yet the game ignores the possibility of disease and broken bones with these attack methods too. D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game, so the rules needn't be too realistic, just workable with the right flavor.
If you wanted to inject a bit more realism, you could require a Fortitude save against some disease by the target of a successful firearm attack. Most likely this will just complicate the lives of low-level characters, who have enough trouble staying alive as it is, and just require yet another, basically irrelevant roll for higher-level characters. If you're going to do that I'd recommend doing it for other weapons as well, especially piercing and slashing weapons. I don't recommend though that you add the complexity of disease to firearm attacks at all. As for broken bones, I can think of nothing offhand in the game that does that. Perhaps there's a spell or some other effect somewhere that can break bones, but in general physical damage is represented already by hit point damage, less frequently by ability score damage, and even less frequently still by the loss (or loss of the use) of eyes, ears, limbs or the head (decapitation). Throwing in broken bones for every firearm strike would unnecessarily complicate the game.
and then:
But aside from this, I just want to ask, why do people cry out: "Not in my game, but it's ok if you have them in your game" when the thread is .
Why are people talking about campaigns when the question is about the game itself?
Guns are statted up in the DMG. Thus they are ALLOWED in D&D, on a general note, as an optional addition.
However, they are each DM's CHOICE as to whether his CAMPAIGN is technologically advanced enough to have them... Much like magic is allowed in D&D... But if the DM is running a no magic setting, don't ask to be a wizard.
snip
Now imagine mages using guns. Look at Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms. There is a prestige class called Gun Mage, that allows the gun to be a focus for the mage. He can channel his spells into the gun giving increased damage or even spell effects. Devastating...
snip
Sorry about the nitpicking, but Gun Mage is a base class in Iron Kingdoms. The setting is beautifully crafted for steampunk, and the way they've combined magic and technologic (Mechanikal devices) is very well done. I suggest taking a good look at it if you're considering a "high" technology (when compared to core D&D, anyway) game.
However, there are some things I want to comment on, both good and bad. I've only skimmed the five pages of article, but I have a couple points I want to bring up.
1. Limiting the range of firearms is stupid. It doesn't make sense. It may make them more in line with the D&D system, but that's a silly reason. Firearm range was measured in yards, not feet. So to say that a musket was "innacurate past 60 yards" is to say that it's innacurate past 180 feet. Do the math.
2. Tzor's "battle recreation" radio play cannot be taken at face value. The truth of the matter is that reenacements do not have the numbers necessary to accurately portray a military engagement from the time period and make it last more than a full volley. Most battles try to last a half-hour to forty-five minutes for the spectators. Even if you go to large scale reenactments (145th Gettysburg only had a couple thousand reenactors total, for both sides), it's not going to be accurate at all.
3. People seem to be thinking that dropping firearms in the world includes dropping the most advanced tactics with them, as well. This is not the case. Tactics using firearms developed in response to conditions placed on their development. If you change the inherent conditions (such as including a wizard in the opposing army) then you'll adopt different tactics. Volley-fire and open field movements were a direct descendant from the field movements of the Late Middle Ages and were advanced on until Napoleon standardized them to become the tactics of the early 19th century. It was European nobility that caused officers to line up across from each other just as much as it was an inherent restriction in firearm design. When conditions changed again in the Civil War (this time because of advancements in firearm and artillery accuracy, reloading systems, and damage), tactics started to change toward smaller skirmish units and trench warfare.
4. Magic is the most devastating thing ever invented in core D&D. There's nothing that can compare to it. Which is rightly so. No dice damage amount for firearms, nor reload time, can compare to any thing magical. Like most non-magical attacks, firearms have the capacity to dominate lower levels (depending on the type of firearm), but can be restricted through costs and other factors to mitigate them.
5. Dice Damage. Despite the debate of firearms and whatever damage type they do (projectile vs. bludgeoning - though d20 Past used ballistic), firearms are a lot more powerful than other projectile weapons. Powerful in this sense when compared to bows. The ignition systems used on firearms that channel the explosive power of the blackpowder vastly outproduces the potential energy of a bowstring, even a cranked crossbow. That's why most people (such as myself) decide to use two dice worth of damage. In relation to the rate of fire of most firearms (muzzleloaders), this seems like a fair assessment.
6. Firearm advancement is a concern. Specifically, technology. Firearms, up until the mid 1800's were largely muzzleloading single shot weapons with varying ignition systems. Specificially (and broadly) one went from handmatches to matchlocks to wheellocks to flintlocks to caplocks for muzzleloading ignition. Breechloaders were implemented with caplocks, which gave way to in-line weapons and cartridge ammunition Each firing mechanism had a set limitation and benefit over earlier ones, so its unfair to really lump all firearms together. I mean, crossbows and bows are the same thing, realistically, but they have different firing mechanisms - firearms should be treated the same way.
Well, that's me blathering enough. I'm a fan of muzzleloading firearms because I know how they work. I can actually realistically stat them out mechanically because I'm aware of their capabilities. I do not see the problem with firearms being put into a fairly high-medieval style game, and it doesn't have to be world-shattering technology brought about by wizards. I just thought I'd add my two cents and will kindly direct anyone who has questions about my interpretation of firearms over to my firearm document in my signature.
I'd also like to point out that I'm developing a D&D setting with three distinct technological differences in it, which seem contradictory to the main tech level of the middle ages. I'm incorporating muzzleloading firearms, naval technology from the Golden Age of Pirates, and biplanes from World War I while keeping it a middle-age society on the bring of change.
Cheers.
As long as we're talking about flavor...
With the new warlock invocation rods (of eldritch spear) in the complete mage, you could build a rifle (which I did). Use a Scepter and an invocation rod, that both attach to a stock--my DM even let me enchant a spyglass that would lock onto the top of the rifle--and now you have an eldritch sniper rifle.
I realize that this isn't a true gun, but my point is, if you want the image, then you've got options. You don't even have to be a warlock, I think an artificer would be even better.
Kudos! For a pirate-y campaign, I wanted a "Firefly"esque crew of NPCs, and I just gave 'em Magic Missile wands set into metamagic rods (thus, you could get 3 maximized magic missile castings/day out of one). The rods? Shaped like pistol-grips, bored out so the wands would slide into 'em.
Flaaaaaaaavor.
However, this is not what I was talking about. That some specimens may be "star forts" is not beyond dispute, all I was saying is that the two are completely different things, namely, two architectural tendencies in the art of fortification. That in one, we see examples of the other is besides the point. I was offering a definition which seems correct to me, and not only that, but represents the historical tendency and purpose(with the whole nobles and such.)
Just as my opinion goes guns have a place in DND, but not in any game I am running. Like I told the player that wanted to use a wish for a M16 1. You have no idea how to make one so you can't wish for one 2. You get one then every kobold the party meets is gonna have a glock.
Cause that is what everyone who wants guns in D&D wants not a musket but a couple 9mm and a pair of black shades. Never mind that damage reduction would make guns useless very quickly. Say each bullet does 1d8 average roll of 6 golems will never fall to that.
Regular weapons also break bones and make infections. Yet the rules speak nothing of it. I always wondered why I couldn't focus in slicing an arm from an opponent.
It's sort of antithetical to the D&D combat abstract. It is home-ruled on in there by plenty of folks I'm sure, but HP cover the nut as far as all that stuff goes.
But, this was a real long weapon and it has the ability to fit a bayonet on the end. In ironic fact references I’ve seen even used the word “reach.” Brown Bess on Wikipedia
Many variations and modifications of the standard pattern musket were found over its long history. The earliest version was the Long Land Pattern of 1722, 62-inch long (without bayonet) and with a 46-inch barrel. … It could be fitted with a 17-inch (430 mm) triangular cross-section bayonet.
That’s a 5 ¼’ to 6 ½’ weapon. This is clearly the size of a reach weapon.
The 18th century rifle had a range of three times that of the musket. Unfortunately it took longer to load and had no provision for a bayonet. Having an Attack of Opportunity should someone decide to get into melee with you is a nice although small benefit.
In a magic-heavy world full of constructs, arcane machines and materials impossible in the real world, not only will there be guns of real quality - there will be guns of superb quality and fantastic configurations. There will be enchanted guns available to adventurers, foes and the aristocracy. There will be spells and items designed to counter the threat guns pose just as there are spells and items to counter arrows and melee attacks. No DM can sit down and come up with as many feats, spells, psionic powers, wondrous items, item enchantments, skill uses, class and race abilities, and prestige classes as WotC has created for particular classes of weapons, but having some of these used in the world by other gun-wielders will not only make them feel natural to the world, but will balance them against other weapons. What follows are a few ideas along those lines -- obviously not a complete list, but enough to get some thinking started.
Spells:
There are a lot of spells already useful to both gunners and those defending against guns. In the latter case, most things that will stop a 'classic' D&D projectile will work against a gun - entropic shield, wall of force, blur, etc.. Offensively, true strike, greater magic weapon, and all the other ranged attack standby spells are just as useful; certainly no sniper would want to be without silence. If you're nerfing a gunner by making them keep powder dry, etc., then endure elements ought to do the trick just fine (though why you're not making your archer keep his bowstring dry is beyond me.) Creative uses of spells should be rewarded - Tenser's Floating Disk, for example, makes a great surface for a shooter to rest her elbow on in a pinch if she can't lie prone to steady her aim. And there are certainly going to be some new spells, like smooth action (to prevent misfires and jams) or traceless shot (to hide gunsmoke and bullet casings, if they exist.) Fun higher-level spell: piercing shot - swift action spell that lets a single shot make an attack against all creatures in a line, within one range increment plus one increment per four caster levels, up to the weapon's maximum range.
Item enhancements and enchantments:
Most ranged-weapon enhancements will work just fine here, but remember that to get around material damage reductions you'll need bullets of varying manufacture. Depending on how advanced your guns are, your weapon's enchanter might want to add packing (magically tamps powder and ball down in the barrel, reducing reloading from (and remember that I'm just making things up here) a full-round action to a standard action), smokeless (no other weapons in D&D really leave a trace behind), boring (bullet's caliber increases when it leaves the barrel, increasing the damage die one step), or ricocheting (can shoot around corners if there's a solid surface to bounce the bullet off of, at a -8 penalty to attack.)
Don't be afraid to let your artificers and blacksmith invent bizarre and unusual weapons, too. A cannon that creates and fires delayed blast fireballs (without the blast exploding the pellet) would be wonderfully devastating, and bound to occur to anyone who says "you know, if not for the deadly explosion you could fire that pellet from a gun." Homonculi that are basically walking revolvers, magically charged gunpowder to add damage or effects, bullets that do subdual or ability damage - let magic be magic. Don't limit yourself to what you know guns can do right now. Go crazy.
Wondrous Items:
Gloves of Arrow Snaring may not work against a bullet, but a more expensive version - Gloves of Bullet Catching - are the obvious next step. Devices to steady your aim, load balls and powder, etc. are sure to be made.
Feats:
Most of the ranged feats would work just fine here; new feats might depend on what sort of guns have been invented. One example: Rapid-fire weaponry would obviate feats like Manyshot, but a feat to increase the number of targets you can spray with bullets in a round would be useful. I'd suggest that you think of things that are hard to do, and then invent feats to let characters do them.
I could continue, but I think I've made my point. If the PCs are the only characters with guns, they'll feel wrong no matter how "balanced" they are. It's only when guns are part of the world, like swords or wizards or cows, that they'll not break the illusion that's part of a fantasy world. But one last suggestion: Just as a powerful magic sword will look different from a plain longsword, powerful magic guns should look different too. Heavily decorated, engraved with the weapon's name, gleaming brightly or oddly shadowed - give the weapon features that will keep your players from picturing it as weapons they already know from real life. Make them, well, fantastic - it'll keep them engaged and keep them from wondering about irrelevant details like "who thought of this first, anyway, and why?"
In UK statistics show that you’re more likely to survive a gunshot wound than a knife wound.
I would argue that's the result of accuracy and range, not tissue damage.
In making my argument, I am going to stick to "D&D physics," the statistics provided for ranged weapons and magical items in the game. In doing so, I am going to argue that Renaissance era firearms are not only viable, they are on some levels superior to bows or crossbows.
0. Muskets Are Superior Weapons in Long-Range Encounters:
-Heavy Crossbow: 50 GP, 1d10 Dmg (5.5 Avg), 120 ft. Range, 19-20/x2, 8 lb., ROF 1/2 rounds (Full to Reload), 10 bolts 1 lb. 1 GP
-Composite Longbow: 100 GP,1d8 Dmg (4.5 Avg), 110 ft. Range, x3, 3 lb., ROF 1/round, 20 Arrows 3lb 1 GP.
-Musket: 500 GP, 1d12 Dmg 6.5 (Avg), 150 ft. Range x3, 10 lb., ROF 1/2 Rounds (Standard to Reload) 10 bullets 2lb. 3 GP + powder horn (32 shots) 2 lb. 35 GP.
Ease of Use (Feat reqs): Longbow, then Crossbow
Cost Advantage: Crossbow, then Longbow
Range Advantage: Musket, then Equal (a readied action to fire when the opponent comes into range makes this quite significant).
Encumberance: Crossbow and Longbow, then Musket
Defensive Fire (Firing Prone): Crossbow and Musket
Rate of Fire: Longbow, then Musket (significantly, you can move and reload a Musket, but not a Heavy Crossbow, granting a tactical advantage).
Damage Advantage: Musket and Crossbow. Significantly, it takes twice as many average shots from a Composite Longbow (Str. 10) to kill a 1st level Fighter (Avg HP 5.5) as it does a Musket or Crossbow (twice as many because "Kill/Not Kill" is a 1 or 0 step-function), reducing the longbow's Rate of Fire advantage.
Conclusion:
Much of our experience in D&D combat is focused on extremely short-range encounters...generally melee combat or combat that starts within one range increment. But how often do two massed armies start 100 ft. apart?
A Musket is significantly advantageous in the hands of a Sharpshooter or for long-range, massed combat, where the Far Shot and Rapid Reload feats can be used to attack targets at a better range and higher lethality than Longbows or Crossbows. A trained Sharpshooter (Far Shot) can fire a shot at -4 at 775 ft., wheras a Longbowman is limited to 495 ft. It takes unencumbered Longbowmen four rounds to double move to that range (they start 4 range increments away, or -8), or eight rounds of single moves with one attack. At long range, Musketeers will be able to get off multiple volleys before the Longbowmen can engage, reducing or eliminating the RoF advantage. Add to that that Muskets are on average more lethal, and you can quickly see the advantages the innovation of firearms provides.
Moreover, Muskets have significant advantages over other weapons when defending a position, where prone firing grants an AC advantage against ranged weapons, shot and powder can be stored in large quantities (negating encumbrance, and effective kill zones (establishing max range) can be established ahead of time.
The main disadvantage to a Musket remains the cost... it takes roughly five times as much GP to equip a Musketeer as a Longbowman, which means you need them to be five times as effective on the battlefield before it becomes worth it.
For Infantrymen, a one-shot Heavy Crossbow followed by melee is still the way to go. For Adventurers, where one-shot kills are unlikely and a high rate of accurate fire becomes available (through iterative attacks, magic items and feats), Longbows remain the way to go.
2. Firearms are generally less expensive than Magic.
In the above example, lets say our Musketeers have orders to fire at 775 ft.. A long-range Fireball is perfectly accurate...but you have to be 10th level to fire one that far. How common are level 10 Wizards, how much do they cost to retain or train, and will they run out of Fireballs before a Musketeer platoon runs out of bullets? While it's true that a Wizard will also have obfuscation and maneuverability advantages, these will be negated by your army having similar magical resources (or a slightly lower level Wizard, with more money spent on Musketeers for support).
Furthermore, a Wand of Fireballs is not nearly as effective as its made out to be... a max range of 600 ft. to use, not to mention being as costly as 18 Musketeers (assuming 650 GP to arm each). Of course, a Wizard sneaking into range will be effective, but what happens if the Musketeers have the benefit of cover (ie are attacking from behind a fortified position)?
A Wand of Sorching Ray does only comparable damage to a Musket (with a better Attack), but has horrible range and costs as much as 8 Musketeers.
Some Other Notes:
3. A Firearm or Crossbow is More Dangerous in the Hands of an Average Individual: The standard attribute array for a human is straight 10s. We can't speculate on the prevalence of "above normal" humans, but we should expect that someone with a Dex 12 is far harder to find that someone with a Dex 10, and a Dex 14 rarer still, and so on.
To get the most out of a firearm or crossbow, you need 1 Good stat (Dex), 1 Average stat (Str, for encumberance). For a firearm, you also need a lot of money (weapon provided by your King).
To get the most out of a Longbow, you need 2 good stats (Str and Dex). Statistically, it should be much harder to find skilled individual in two stats than one.
Significantly, you can arm a Commoner with a Str. penalty with a Musket or Crossbow, at no penalty to damage, which is not true for a Longbow. A Commoner 1 with a Str. of 8 does just as much damage as a Commoner 14 with a Str. of 14 with a Musket or Crossbow.
The tradeoff on this is that Longbows will always retain a RoF advantage, and all things equal a Crossbowman or especially Musketeer needs more feats to catch up to a Longbowman's proficiency with the weapon (for example, to increase RoF). But, were you to get the cost of the Musket down to something approaching parity, the ready availability of individuals who could be trained to effectively use a Musket would fast outstrip those who could be as effective with a Longbow.
The usability of firearms versus magic for the average human is hardly worth mentioning, since a 10 Int isn't enough to cast any spells of note.
4. What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander: If Crossbows can be enchanted, then Muskets can be as well. A Musket with the Quick-Loading property (+1; Magic Item Compendium) lets you pre-load 100 bullets and reload as a Move action (based on the normal time to re-load, it should also let you reload powder at no additional penalty), though the price increases to 4800 GP + ammunition. This effectively removes the encumbrance advantage of a Crossbow over a Musket.
On the other hand, you are trading a 450 GP and a Feat for 2 points of extra damage and 40 ft. of extra range (60 per increment w. Far Shot). Again, Muskets remain superior as Long-Range weapons, but now are nearly comparable to Crossbows at Short-Range, though they are still surpassed by Longbows (which need neither the Feat nor the enhancement for RoF).
5. Don't Put All Your Eggs in One Basket: I keep reading arguments here that Magic Users would never let these be built, or magic would rob firearms of their utility. Well...what about secular rulers? Why would they allow Magic Users to hoard the most effective means of violence in a society?
The answer...they wouldn't. Just as Kings used standing armies and conscription to destroy the power of nobles as the Renaissance gave way to the 16th and 17th centuries, Kings in a Fantasy setting would use technology and technological weapons to offset the power of their magical advisors and the Wizards' Guilds.
High Intelligence is not the universal domain of Wizards. Once the utility of Gunpowder became obvious, Kings (and it would have to be Kings in large Kingdoms, to afford the economies of scale necessary to build their own armies), would hire non-magical alchemists and engineers to develop and improve upon firearms technology, which they could then use to keep the badly outnumbered Wizards in check. Remember, it may be more expensive to arm a 1st level Musketeer than a 1st level Wizard, but this economic advantage should fall away quickly as levels increase, to the point where a platoon of low-level Musketeers with a low-level Wizard can threaten a mid-level Wizard.
Rifles were simply that inaccurate. Moreover they were prone to misfire.
I have issues with you saying that, because, to put things in a very simple manner, all rifles are guns, but not all guns are rifles, as a rifle is a gun with a long barrel with grooves on the inside which greatly improve accuracy.
Rifles compare to bows very well, especially the infamous "sniper rifles". The reason rifles are better than bows, and eventually replaced them, is because they are accurate at long ranges, and you only have to judge where to aim on a horizontal axis (point and shoot), along with the fact that the bullets travel at such a velocity, that it has more force on impact than an arrow.
Supposedly, the greatest Mongolian horse archers of the Dark Ages, were able to shoot their arrows nearly half a kilometer. To do this you have to aim at a high angle and strain your arm, and expend your ability to aim at a target and figure the angle to raise your bow to reach the distance. With rifles from the Napoleonic era, anyone who could hold a rifle could fire ammunition that same distance, and could rely on it to reach the first object in the way,nearly regardless of how far away it was, simply by pulling the trigger.
So, a highly skilled archer has a better ability to kill than just anyone holding a rifle, but a highly skilled rifleman can fire a farther distance with greater accuracy than most of those archers.
If there are no magic buillets in D&D, how do they make magic ammo for slings? Those are bullets too, and frequently made in a similar manner (for lead sling bullets, that is).
One would think that it would simply require a higher crafting DC, as the bullets are smaller.
I have issues with you saying that, because, to put things in a very simple manner, all rifles are guns, but not all guns are rifles, as a rifle is a gun with a long barrel with grooves on the inside which greatly improve accuracy.
Rifles compare to bows very well, especially the infamous "sniper rifles". The reason rifles are better than bows, and eventually replaced them, is because they are accurate at long ranges, and you only have to judge where to aim on a horizontal axis (point and shoot), along with the fact that the bullets travel at such a velocity, that it has more force on impact than an arrow.
Supposedly, the greatest Mongolian horse archers of the Dark Ages, were able to shoot their arrows nearly half a kilometer. To do this you have to aim at a high angle and strain your arm, and expend your ability to aim at a target and figure the angle to raise your bow to reach the distance. With rifles from the Napoleonic era, anyone who could hold a rifle could fire ammunition that same distance, and could rely on it to reach the first object in the way,nearly regardless of how far away it was, simply by pulling the trigger.
So, a highly skilled archer has a better ability to kill than just anyone holding a rifle, but a highly skilled rifleman can fire a farther distance with greater accuracy than most of those archers.
It is hard to dispute that rifles are more accurate and powerful than bows. However, the kind of firearms that are most likely to be seen in a medieval D&D campaign would probably not even be muskets, let alone rifles. In any case, even if a gun has superior accuracy and range, until the invention of repeating firearms, bows have a higher rate of fire.
By the way, the historian in me has to point out a few issues with your post:
1) "sniper rifles": Considering that snipers as they exist today did not come into existence until WWII, I am not sure it is appropriate to talk about sniper rifles in the context of early firearms.
2) "Mongolians in the Dark Ages": The Dark Ages is specifically a time period in European history. It is not appropriate for describing peoples and events in Central Asia. Furthermore, the Dark Ages ended in the 8th or 9th century. Gengis Khan led the Mongols to the height of their power in the 12th and 13th centuries, at the time of the High Middle Ages in Europe. Finally, the term "Dark Ages" has been discredited by modern historians.
Anyways, why is everyone always referencing 18th century guns? Wouldn't 14th, 15th, or 16th century guns be a more appropriate comparison? The arquebus, the main firearm in use during the 15th and 16th centuries, was supposedly less accurate than a longbow, but much easier to learn how to use and more powerful. However, it still could not necessarily pierce plate armor, which was still commonly worn in the 15th and 16th centuries.
0. Muskets Are Superior Weapons in Long-Range Encounters:
-Heavy Crossbow: 50 GP, 1d10 Dmg (5.5 Avg), 120 ft. Range, 19-20/x2, 8 lb., ROF 1/2 rounds (Full to Reload), 10 bolts 1 lb. 1 GP
-Composite Longbow: 100 GP,1d8 Dmg (4.5 Avg), 110 ft. Range, x3, 3 lb., ROF 1/round, 20 Arrows 3lb 1 GP.
-Musket: 500 GP, 1d12 Dmg 6.5 (Avg), 150 ft. Range x3, 10 lb., ROF 1/2 Rounds (Standard to Reload) 10 bullets 2lb. 3 GP + powder horn (32 shots) 2 lb. 35 GP.
Ease of Use (Feat reqs): Longbow, then Crossbow
Cost Advantage: Crossbow, then Longbow
Range Advantage: Musket, then Equal (a readied action to fire when the opponent comes into range makes this quite significant).
Encumbrance: Crossbow and Longbow, then Musket
Defensive Fire (Firing Prone): Crossbow and Musket
Rate of Fire: Longbow, then Musket (significantly, you can move and reload a Musket, but not a Heavy Crossbow, granting a tactical advantage).
Damage Advantage: Musket and Crossbow. Significantly, it takes twice as many average shots from a Composite Longbow (Str. 10) to kill a 1st level Fighter (Avg HP 5.5) as it does a Musket or Crossbow (twice as many because "Kill/Not Kill" is a 1 or 0 step-function), reducing the longbow's Rate of Fire advantage.
Starting with an example:
10 2nd level dwarf warriors, Str 10, Dex 10, armed with heavy crossbows. Assume dedicated squad trained to specialize in ranged weaponry. As such, they have the Rapid Reload feat. The new stat block for the weapon becomes:
-Heavy Crossbow: 50 GP, 1d10 Dmg (5.5 Avg), 120 ft. Range, 19-20/x2, 8 lb., ROF 1/round (Move to Reload), 10 bolts 1 lb. 1 GP
The same squad, armed with muskets, takes for their feat, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearms).
Both groups fire at +2 to hit, giving the musketeers a slight advantage in reach. The Crossbow users, however, have a significant Rate of Fire advantage. Switch to Light Crossbows and they get mobility AND Rate of Fire, at the expense of an average of 1 damage.
Further, the average target would be a 1st level warrior, not a first level fighter, whose average hp is 4.5. This puts muskets on parity with longbows and light crossbows for shots fired versus kills gained, on average. Thus, now every medieval ranged weapon given above, assuming 1 feat characters, is superior to Muskets in every way except range. Muskets also lose out in durability (as they require special care - keep powder dry).
What about 2 feat characters? Let's take those warriors, and through the magic of hypothetical reason, change them to humans.
*POOF*
Now they each get bonus feats.
Musket wielders, logically, take a variant of rapid reload, allowing for, say, move equivalent reloads. This puts them on parity with heavy crossbowmen, and superior in range. Great move.
Medieval troops, they choose Weapon Focus (medieval weapon used). Now, they have a 5% accuracy advantage with heavy crossbows, or the same advantage with movement on light crossbows and longbows). This is still offset by a 5% disadvantage at greater ranges. Still, no troop with this attack bonus would be likely to fire past the 2nd range increment.
3 feat troops... The elite sharpshooters of the army. Trained to take out critical targets with impunity... The 3rd level human warrior. Likely you won't see higher level shooters in a standard army, unless they're heading a squad. As such, only the best receive this kind of training. Let's assume Dex 13 for all troops involved.
Musketeers - Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Firearms), Rapid Reload, Weapon Focus (Firearms). Total hit bonus: +5. Average Damage: 5.5. Now we're likely no longer aiming at 1st level warriors any longer, so that extra damage is actually gonna be useful now.
Medieval Troops - Rapid Reload, Point Blank Shot, Far Shot.
Total hit bonus +4. Average damage (5.5 Heavy)(4.5 Light)(4.5 Longbow).
Range
Musket - 10-145 ft - +5/ 150 - 295 ft - +3/300 - 445 ft - +1.
H. Xbow- 10-30 ft - +5/35-175 ft - +4/180-355 ft -+2/360-535 ft - +0.
L. Xbow- 10-30 ft - +5/35-115 ft - +4/120-235 ft -+2/240-355 ft - +0.
L. bow- 10-30 ft - +5/35-145 ft - +4/150-295 ft -+2/300-445 ft - +0.
C.Lbow- 10-30 ft - +5/35-160 ft - +4/165-325 ft -+2/330-490 ft - +0.
Now the disparities become smaller. The musketeers trade their ranged advantage down to equality for a bit of accuracy against the Longbows, though the longbows still have mobility. This means that wizard sniping might be better at range with longbows, as the ability to be out of harm's way is at a premium. Muskets are superior here as battle support, where movement is not as necessary, and accuracy is prized. They gain accuracy and keep range against light crossbows (mobility is still kept by light crossbows, though they begin to be used in tighter spaces, where range isn't so much an issue as mobility and cover, or in close range sniping, such as city fighting, when mobility is at a premium).
But wow, look how they stack up against the Heavy Crossbow. They have now been significantly outdone in range, whilst keeping rate of fire and mobility equal. Damage is equal. Accuracy goes to the muskets at shorter ranges, the crossbow at longer ranges. The Crossbow is still more cost effective, even if you masterwork it (which would then make the heavy x-bow superior or equal in accuracy at all ranges).
Thus, at all tiers, muskets can find a place, though to the less skilled troop, crossbows will always outshine the musket for general use, and at more skilled soldier levels, the crossbow will attain range and accuracy advantages.
Let's not forget the one advantage all of these medieval weapons have over powder weapons. Visibility. Snipers who give away their position become targets, and deafening sounds with visible smoke call attention. With medieval projectile weapons, a really sharp eye is needed to pinpoint location, promoting the longevity of your ranged support.
The second, more mechanical, problem is that it is hard to fit the guns as they are presented in the DMG into a game.
In a normal D&D game everyone who wants to seriously use ranged combat either gets bows because of the range and firing rate or thrown weapons to utilize some sort of strength bonus they have. Crossbows are seldom used seriously because they take too long to reload. And guns are even worse as they require a feat in addition. Except for style there are no reasons to use a gun.
I propose that when you want to include guns in your game you have to change the stats of guns, bows and crossbows to "make room" for guns in the weapon pyramid.
Guns should be simple weapons doing about d10 damage and require a full round action to reload.
Crossbows should be martial weapons doing the same or a die higher damage than guns. The reload time is the same like in the PHB.
Bows are exotic weapons. Otherwise they are unchanged.
That way all ranged weapons have their role in the game and guns are what they were in real live, a weapon for the people which require not much training while bows are only useful in the hand of masters to use in combat.
The problem is people are trying to make guns into the elite, ultimate, unbeatable weapon, which is bad for balance. I can see 1d12, exotic, full round reload, its basically a heavy crossbow, with higher damage, but exotic. However, 2d8 damage and stuff is getting into the unbalanced territory.
What's funny is that D20 modern, a game set up on a much lower power level has guns with 2dX damage, how then would it be unbalanced to bring them into DnD?
Bows still do more damage, swords and axes as well, you can't add strength to damage with a gun. The only way to boost it is with magic.
2) "Mongolians in the Dark Ages": The Dark Ages is specifically a time period in European history. It is not appropriate for describing peoples and events in Central Asia. Furthermore, the Dark Ages ended in the 8th or 9th century. Gengis Khan led the Mongols to the height of their power in the 12th and 13th centuries, at the time of the High Middle Ages in Europe. Finally, the term "Dark Ages" has been discredited by modern historians.
The Dark Ages, or the Early Middle Ages, runs from the fall of Rome in 476 to the end of the Norse/Magyar invasions circa 1000. The Magyars accepted Christianity and stopped pushing westward in 1001. Arguably the Norse "invasions" of Great Britain don't end until 1066, when Harold Godwinson defeated Harald Hadrada at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. The year 1000 is also the year when the Althing in Iceland voted to make Iceland officially Christian, and as the whole concept of both the Dark Ages and indeed the Middle Ages grew largely out of Christian perceptions, the year 1000 seems about as good an end to the Early Middle Ages as any.
Ghengis Khan, or Chingis Khan as the Russian historians call him, did lead the first great wave of Mongol conquest in the 13th century, going as far east as Hungary (founded by the aforementioned Magyars rather than the earlier Huns) before he died and his lieutenants set about splitting up his empire. It's worth note that like the Mongols after them, the Magyars had been horsed archers and had come west over the steppes of Eurasia too.
Of course that has little or nothing to do with firearms in D&D, but it's always fun to discuss history. I started out as a Medieval Scandinavia specialist before I switched to US history and got my first master's degree with a major in US since the Civil War and minors in Russian history and in economics.
One question that I don't recall seeing anyone address (although this thread's been around for so long that I might just have forgotten) is why have guns on D&D? I have no particular objection to them, and as I've said one of my DMs a few years back had them, but I don't see any need for them in my campaign world. In his world though I believe the humans had 19th-century firearms, including revolvers and rifles, but not gatling guns. The standard D&D campaign has either a Middle Ages or Middle Earth feel to it, so the flavor doesn't include firearms.
But if you want to run a campaign with more Renaissance flavor , why not throw in the Renaissance pistol and musket? Sure, the musket is a little better than the light cross bow, but you need an extra feat to gain proficiency with Renaissance firearms, and it's still not really as good as a longbow or composite longbow unless you take a second extra feat, Rapid Reload (assuming the DM even allows Rapid Reload to apply to firearms). Even then the melee specialist with a two-handed sword, Strength bonus and Power Attack is rapidly going to outshine the musketeer unless you have primarily ranged combat in the campaign.
*edited for accuracy* -- WizO_Mimir
Feats:
Most of the ranged feats would work just fine here; new feats might depend on what sort of guns have been invented. One example: Rapid-fire weaponry would obviate feats like Manyshot, but a feat to increase the number of targets you can spray with bullets in a round would be useful. I'd suggest that you think of things that are hard to do, and then invent feats to let characters do them.
I agree. You wouldn't really need extra feats, and as I said before, you could borrow rules and feats regarding guns and gun-like weapons from other sources that use the core mechanic, such as the WarCraft RPG or Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic, one of my favorite games. The feats included in KotOR are Rapid Shot, Power Shot, Sniper Shot, etc. Again, you could take the rules for creating and operating the guns from the "World of WarCraft: The Roleplaying Game" source book. I hope I was helpful.
) If you want them to be something that perhaps nobles and most affluence of the middle classes would use, such as in the Italian city-states of the Renaissance, then make them martial weapons. If you want them to be common hunting weapons used by a wider middle classes, including a mass of free farmers such as in 18th century England, then make them common weapons.The musket might seem a little strong for a common or even marital weapon, but remember that these weapons will quickly be outmatched by melee specialists with Power Attack once characters start to rise above 1st level. If you have broad middle classes of free people, especially rural free people who can't hide from armed knights behind the protective walls of a city, then the very availability of these more powerful weapons might help account in part for the freedom of those middle classes. While not impossible, it's harder for armed knights to enslave free farmers armed with muskets instead of just pitchforks.
This assumes that things progress in a reasonable fashion similar to the history of earth. Sometimes things don't progress reasonably. In a roleplaying game, there are ostensibly insane individuals who do dangerous, inefficient and downright stupid things for 'fun'. Even on Earth, wildly successful inventions have come from the stupidest, most inane things. Like potato chips. And Coca Cola. I think Antarctica might be the only place in the world without Coca Cola.
Guns are balanced in D&D. After all, they're balanced in Science Fiction and Modern Settings where melee weapons are also omnipresent. Nonmagical melee weapons, even. With less feats. Your main factor is guns vs. magic, and quite frankly, magic wins by a long shot. Will other ranged weapons be kaput? Yes. Naturally crossbows and bows will be put down to rest. Is this an issue? Not particularly, unless you have some kind of desire to have them in your game. Some people do. Some people don't.
Why do people want guns? A lot of people like guns. They form -gun associations-. They join in -gun competitions- and go to -gun shows-.
Last time I counted, every member of every military in the world uses a gun. That's more than the people who use bows, swords AND even maces -combined-. Is it that mysterious that people like guns and want them in their games?
Well I only read a little bit of the topic and replies posted but I felt compelled to put in my 2cp on the topic of guns. I use guns in my game (home-brewed campaign world) with the slats as follows;
PISTOL-onehanded ranged weapon. Cost:250gp
Dmg(m) 1d10/1d4* Critical x3 range increment 50ft
Weight 3Lb Damage type piercing or bludgeoning*
MUSKET-twohanded ranged weapon. Cost 500gp
Dmg(m) 1d12/1d6* Critical x3 range increment 150ft
Weight 10Lb Damage type piercing or bludgeoning*
*damage and type listed is for using the firearm in melee combat as a club.
The firearms presented above are (as I'm sure you can tell) pretty much stock straight out of the DMG with a couple of modifications;
- Learning how to use firearms is as the book-E.W.P. (firearms) covers both weapons
- They are both a full round action to reload instead of the listed standard action
- Firearms are resolved as ranged touch attacks
- Firearms are considered to be 'Orcish' weapons for weapon proficiencies
That being said, my orcs are not standard orcs (they live on the surface) and the orcs that are considered 'familiar' with these weapons are a variant from even those orcs (they have black skin and are more robust/sharp-witted. Think black orcs for Warhammer fantasy). Firearms and the knowledge on how to build them was a divine gift granted to them by their Orc god - something they guard zealously from even there green skinned brethren.
There is more (much more) information on firearms and the hows and whys of their workings in my game but this is what is pertinent for this topic thread.
And yes, those that have run afoul of Black orcs and there firearms most assuredly want them.
Name: Behldamh Title: She Who Cares (For Her Children) Associated Phenomenon:
Alignment: None/All/N Rank: Lesser Deity Race: Human/all Gender: F(?)
Symbol: Fireworks Weapon: Firearms
Totem: Howler Herald: Allies:
Portfolio: Madness, Obsession, Unreason and Insight, Compassion
Domains: Madness and special – see description
Associated Orders: Alchemists guilds
Description: In the absence of psychological theories, Behldamh concerns herself with all facets of mental “instability” in terms of societal norms. While most, from the “village idiot” to the craftsman who has become utterly obsessed with his work, are tolerated and usually cared for by their respective communities, her clerics run “Hostels of the Lady” in many regions where they care for those without such support or who pose a danger to themselves or others. Perhaps the most attentive of all the deities, to abuse or otherwise deliberately harm on of “her children” is to court her invitation to join them. (Centuries ago, a number of alchemists in various parts of the world who were seeking to develop firearms appear to have simultaneously hit upon the idea of convincing those too simple to know better to assist them in testing their new devices, resulting in the rather unique association between her church and the Alchemists' Guilds.) While her clerics are not directly associated (most days) with the orders of any other deities, they often cooperate with the church of Melanar, The Hands of Peace and the Servants of the Way, primarily in matters of healing or taking those who cannot be healed into their care. Clerics of Behldamh receive the Madness domain and one other. This second domain may be any other domain at all, revealed at random each day. As such, her ethos and insight encompasses all viewpoints, holding to none. Judging no one, she shows compassion for all. Firearms are her chosen weapons and it is universally held that you would have to be crazy to use one.
What people forget is that the gun in effect evolved from the cannon. It wasn’t that guns ruled it was that cannons ruled. Technically a cannon was not superior to the major weapon of the time, the trebuchet. But the trebuchet required assembly on the battlefield and used an arched trajectory. The cannon could shoot a flattened trajectory towards weak spots in castle defenses, like doorways. It was also the ideal weapon for sailing vessels where the sails got in the way of catapults and trebuchets.
The gun was an attempt to downsize the cannon. The question of guns should really be the question of cannons.
I’m going to change my general pro-gun attitude and suggest that the notion of medieval guns is to some extent backwards. Medieval guns had a number of problems that are not well reflected in the rules. Powder was not always reliable, especially in non dry climates. Materials were often not of a quality that ensured that the weapon would work as advertised every time and would not explode with significant damage to the wielder.
What people forget is that the gun in effect evolved from the cannon. It wasn’t that guns ruled it was that cannons ruled. Technically a cannon was not superior to the major weapon of the time, the trebuchet. But the trebuchet required assembly on the battlefield and used an arched trajectory. The cannon could shoot a flattened trajectory towards weak spots in castle defenses, like doorways. It was also the ideal weapon for sailing vessels where the sails got in the way of catapults and trebuchets.
The gun was an attempt to downsize the cannon. The question of guns should really be the question of cannons.
Bows could be problematic in wet weather too. I seem to recall that in one battle of the Hundred Years' War that one side let the other sit all day in the rain with their bows strung, not knowing when the one side would attack, and the rain ruined their bowstrings and caused them to lose. Probably someone with a better memory knows which one I mean.
The gun was an attempt to downsize the cannon. The question of guns should really be the question of cannons.
I actually deal with this question, indirectly though it may be, in the post linked above, and in the post linked in my sig... What can I say, I am very proud of that post.
However, what it comes down to is the following question: What classes exist, who rules, how, and are there any competing classes, and how do they maintain their existence?
Cannons came about as an extension of the trebuchet, which was used by the merchant-bourgeoisie to batter down the walls of feudal strongholds, and by the Monarchy in alliance with the Merchant-bourgeoisie to destroy the military might of the Nobility.
Firearms came about in the exact same way, instead replacing Crossbows on the continent and the longbbow in the isles.
Also, ever read the Darksword books where everyone (except the hero) has magical abilities (even babies) and technology is considered the Dark Art?
Yes. Very interesting. It seems like a standard fantasy trilogy, but in the third book the magic kingdom is invaded by an army of hover-tanks :D
Have you read Eldest? The king of Surda is an alchemist (in the real-world sense), who says that with one spell from an associated mage, he was able to discover three new elements. The elves, the most magical race in this world, invented many scientific theories. Many were disregarded by humans, but the King proves one true ("blasted elves always seem to get it right"). When asked for the use of knowing that a vacuum is possible, he says something like "Use? There is no use, at least none that I can think of. [But it expands our understanding of the world]". I can easily see firearms coming into existence in this world - magic is mistrusted, not available to everyone, and often dangerous.
Has anyone considered that weapons might not just be enchanted, but require magic to operate? There's a real-world gatling weapon that fires thousands of bullets in a fraction of second (it wasn't made to be practical, just to see how fast they could go). Now imagine this weapon attached to a magical effect that generates unlimited bullets, or spun by telekinesis.
It all comes down to what sort of fantasy you want to have. If your world has a high renaissance flavor, then guns and rapiers are just the thing. Same goes for people who want pirates in their games. It's hard to imagine swashbuckling pirates and boarding actions without canons, muskets and flintlock pistols.
In the Forgotten Realms setting, guns are relegated to those pesky Gnomes from Lantan - so that the presence of early firearms becomes a regional flavor element.
But if you prefer a more early-medieval, even semi-Arthurian setting for your D&D games, then guns are really wrong for that setting. I recall all the games that we played back in the 70s and 80s were strongly oriented towards an early-medieval setting steeped in chivalry. We thought nothing of flinging fireballs, but quailed at the thought of our characters actually packing firearms.
OTOH, one of the earliest articles in the official D&D fanzine was called "Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery" - about pitting D&D wizards & orcs against WW2 Germans, so the idea of mixing magic and technology is no new one.
YMMV, --- Wheldrake