The Woefully Incomplete Guide to a Renaissance Gun - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

The Woefully Incomplete Guide to a Renaissance Gun

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
tzor
Sep 23, 2003 10:26:00 If you want a controversial subject, you can go far just by mentioning the word gunpowder. People have been trying to put in modern guns and laser rifles since the days of 1E, and have been recovering from the headaches it caused for just as long. I remember back in those days our gaming group used to have rules for M16’s that would incapacitate limbs in a manner similar to the way a sword of sharpness (like a vorpal weapon only it would cut off any limb and possibly the head as well) would, only it was a little easier to heal since the limb didn’t really fall off. But I’m digressing here, so I’ll keep to the subject at hand.

First, I want to make clear what this article is about and what it is not about. This article is not about whether or not the medieval and renaissance firearm was the armor penetrating knight killer known in the many urban legends of the demise of armor. This article is not how to make the firearms in the DMG more powerful. In fact, I personally feel that they are already too powerful as it is! What this article is about is to take the reality of medieval, renaissance and even early industrial (18th century) firearms and come up with simple solutions that give the feel of black powder without slowing down combat or making firearms worthless.

The question: How is a firearm different from a crossbow? A medieval firearm differed from a crossbow in several very important ways. Firearms can be loaded improperly and as a result not fire. Medieval firearms can be overloaded and explode. Round bullets, unlike bolts or arrows are not designed to be aerodynamic. Finally, firearms make a loud noise and a lot of smoke.

Firing a firearm is just as easy as firing a crossbow. Loading a firearm, on the other hand is not, and required considerable training. One had to load the powder, load the wadding, load the bullet, pack it just right, load the priming pan with special powder, fix the source of ignition, be it a wick, or a flint stone. This process was exceptionally long, and prone to failure. Creating realistic reloading times might not be practical in the D&D setting.

What I propose, however, is to create a skill for firearm loading. The skill roll enables us to add all the random elements inherent in loading firearms while at the same time allowing higher-level players to be more heroic as they should be. The skill is based on dexterity because it requires nimble hands to load a firearm quickly. There are two DC numbers, one to get the weapon to fire at all, and the other to get the weapon to fire well. The DC will depend on the technology level of the weapon.

#2
mercurius
Sep 23, 2003 16:52:48 Very interesting and well thought out mechanics, but I am curious how these rules, which make firearms even more difficult to use (a skill check, a chance for the weapon to sunder itself, a chance to stun oneself, and the obligatory exotic weapon prof feat) make the firearm as printed in the DMG comparable to a crossbow (a simple weapon with similar damage, range, threat, and less complications)? Do you think a rule for the gun ignoring armor would justify these extra restrictions?
#3
zombiegleemax
Sep 24, 2003 14:48:31 Fortitude 15 seems a tad high for people who, for all effective purposes, are used to these bangs after a while. I'd say 10 is fine, still weeding out those weak in fortitude but letting the strong pull through.

For skill check - what do we think, Profession: Arquebusier? I figure that's the closest thing I can come up with at the moment.

And lastly, I've read / heard a few times that they were armor-piercing, and often sent knights reeling from battles from even the most meager of militia who were given these guns.

Maybe a small history of Arquebuses would help this article too. They were able to make the gunpowder so readily because they didn't need to find raw sources of it; the chemists of the time found a way to make it from a really common compound (which I forget at the moment), thus making the rarity of gunpowder a thing of the past.
#4
tzor
Oct 01, 2003 9:46:34 Thanks for the comments.

On the question of the DC 15 save. I admit I pulled that out of a hat. I guess I may have been biased by the fact that such a rule is standard in most war games I have seen that I just took it for granted that the save should be "Tough." Since it only took place once in a given combat and only impacted one round I didn't think it was that unbalancing, but you could use an "Average" DC of 10, on either the one firing the gun or by everyone.

On the question of the sunder. I mentioned that it wasn't everyone's cup of tea, and I probably wouldn't want to use the rule either. Logically it should only be applied to very early weapons, because with the numbers I gave for the example, a sunder simply can't occur (it takes 20 hp in my example, and you can't roll that on a d10 or d12). But a bronze arquebus should have a chance to blow up on you.

I avoided the "armor penetrating" thing on the first draft because there was something that was nagging me. (Actually there are several, and they go in opposite directions.) Armor has some benefit against weapons and should not be discounted all together. But even if a bullet cannot penetrate it can still do damage. Maces do not cut through armor, but the force of the impact can propagate through the armor to break bones etc. People who wear "bullet proof" vests can still suffer cracked ribs from a point blank gunshot wound.

After much consideration on the matter, I think it is best to consider the question in the light of "point blank range." (Defined by the feat as 30'.) Within point blank range one only needs to do a touch attack to cause damage, and that should apply to all the to hit rolls including those required to confirm criticals.

The crossbow should be easier to use than a firearm for at least medieval and renaissance weapons. But the heavy crossbow takes a full round action to reload. I'm proposing making the firearm reloading a standard action, which means you can move and load in the same round - a considerable benefit. The heavy crossbow has a slightly lower damage die. The question of critical ranges 19-20/x2 vs x3 which offhand I believe is that for firearms is complex and I think they balance out.

Given the above factors, a unit of firearm wielders would be more mobile than the equivalent crossbow unit, and probably as deadly. (Depends on the era of course.) Even in the Revolutionary war, the first shot was the most important one.

Yes a good history of firearms would probably help. I hand waved it somewhat by giving easier loading DC's based on the technology level. Gunpowder (which requires Salt Peter which is based on urine) is one element, but I think a greater factor was the evolution of the firing system itself. Original firearms had no firing mechanism to speak of. (There was a small hole, you put the fire to the small hole and hoped for the best.) This was replaced by a device that used a smoldering wick. Flint and steel was then used to make sparks, but then you needed a more refined gun powder in a priming pan and this made loading more complex. Eventually priming caps were invented. This is the method that is used by firearm bullets in modern times, placed in the back of the cartridge.

I'd would like to make a final thought, which I sort of assumed but didn't state specifically. All of the above items can easily be made better through magic. A magic powerhorn of improved loading, that adds +5 to the skill check, prices at 2.5 KGP. Ranged magic special abilities can be added to the firearm, and even though it is not on the table, I would even suggest one could add keen. Making a firearm "thundering" for example causing them to also do 2d8 sonic damage would be exceptionally nasty. (And here the x3 is vastly better than the x2 because it doubles the sonic damage.)

Given this, I think I did come close to my goal, to give the "feel" of firearms, without making them super powerful or super weak.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tzor Sep 23, 2003 10:26:00	If you want a controversial subject, you can go far just by mentioning the word gunpowder. People have been trying to put in modern guns and laser rifles since the days of 1E, and have been recovering from the headaches it caused for just as long. I remember back in those days our gaming group used to have rules for M16’s that would incapacitate limbs in a manner similar to the way a sword of sharpness (like a vorpal weapon only it would cut off any limb and possibly the head as well) would, only it was a little easier to heal since the limb didn’t really fall off. But I’m digressing here, so I’ll keep to the subject at hand. First, I want to make clear what this article is about and what it is not about. This article is not about whether or not the medieval and renaissance firearm was the armor penetrating knight killer known in the many urban legends of the demise of armor. This article is not how to make the firearms in the DMG more powerful. In fact, I personally feel that they are already too powerful as it is! What this article is about is to take the reality of medieval, renaissance and even early industrial (18th century) firearms and come up with simple solutions that give the feel of black powder without slowing down combat or making firearms worthless. The question: How is a firearm different from a crossbow? A medieval firearm differed from a crossbow in several very important ways. Firearms can be loaded improperly and as a result not fire. Medieval firearms can be overloaded and explode. Round bullets, unlike bolts or arrows are not designed to be aerodynamic. Finally, firearms make a loud noise and a lot of smoke. Firing a firearm is just as easy as firing a crossbow. Loading a firearm, on the other hand is not, and required considerable training. One had to load the powder, load the wadding, load the bullet, pack it just right, load the priming pan with special powder, fix the source of ignition, be it a wick, or a flint stone. This process was exceptionally long, and prone to failure. Creating realistic reloading times might not be practical in the D&D setting. What I propose, however, is to create a skill for firearm loading. The skill roll enables us to add all the random elements inherent in loading firearms while at the same time allowing higher-level players to be more heroic as they should be. The skill is based on dexterity because it requires nimble hands to load a firearm quickly. There are two DC numbers, one to get the weapon to fire at all, and the other to get the weapon to fire well. The DC will depend on the technology level of the weapon.
#2 mercurius Sep 23, 2003 16:52:48	Very interesting and well thought out mechanics, but I am curious how these rules, which make firearms even more difficult to use (a skill check, a chance for the weapon to sunder itself, a chance to stun oneself, and the obligatory exotic weapon prof feat) make the firearm as printed in the DMG comparable to a crossbow (a simple weapon with similar damage, range, threat, and less complications)? Do you think a rule for the gun ignoring armor would justify these extra restrictions?
#3 zombiegleemax Sep 24, 2003 14:48:31	Fortitude 15 seems a tad high for people who, for all effective purposes, are used to these bangs after a while. I'd say 10 is fine, still weeding out those weak in fortitude but letting the strong pull through. For skill check - what do we think, Profession: Arquebusier? I figure that's the closest thing I can come up with at the moment. And lastly, I've read / heard a few times that they were armor-piercing, and often sent knights reeling from battles from even the most meager of militia who were given these guns. Maybe a small history of Arquebuses would help this article too. They were able to make the gunpowder so readily because they didn't need to find raw sources of it; the chemists of the time found a way to make it from a really common compound (which I forget at the moment), thus making the rarity of gunpowder a thing of the past.
#4 tzor Oct 01, 2003 9:46:34	Thanks for the comments. On the question of the DC 15 save. I admit I pulled that out of a hat. I guess I may have been biased by the fact that such a rule is standard in most war games I have seen that I just took it for granted that the save should be "Tough." Since it only took place once in a given combat and only impacted one round I didn't think it was that unbalancing, but you could use an "Average" DC of 10, on either the one firing the gun or by everyone. On the question of the sunder. I mentioned that it wasn't everyone's cup of tea, and I probably wouldn't want to use the rule either. Logically it should only be applied to very early weapons, because with the numbers I gave for the example, a sunder simply can't occur (it takes 20 hp in my example, and you can't roll that on a d10 or d12). But a bronze arquebus should have a chance to blow up on you. I avoided the "armor penetrating" thing on the first draft because there was something that was nagging me. (Actually there are several, and they go in opposite directions.) Armor has some benefit against weapons and should not be discounted all together. But even if a bullet cannot penetrate it can still do damage. Maces do not cut through armor, but the force of the impact can propagate through the armor to break bones etc. People who wear "bullet proof" vests can still suffer cracked ribs from a point blank gunshot wound. After much consideration on the matter, I think it is best to consider the question in the light of "point blank range." (Defined by the feat as 30'.) Within point blank range one only needs to do a touch attack to cause damage, and that should apply to all the to hit rolls including those required to confirm criticals. The crossbow should be easier to use than a firearm for at least medieval and renaissance weapons. But the heavy crossbow takes a full round action to reload. I'm proposing making the firearm reloading a standard action, which means you can move and load in the same round - a considerable benefit. The heavy crossbow has a slightly lower damage die. The question of critical ranges 19-20/x2 vs x3 which offhand I believe is that for firearms is complex and I think they balance out. Given the above factors, a unit of firearm wielders would be more mobile than the equivalent crossbow unit, and probably as deadly. (Depends on the era of course.) Even in the Revolutionary war, the first shot was the most important one. Yes a good history of firearms would probably help. I hand waved it somewhat by giving easier loading DC's based on the technology level. Gunpowder (which requires Salt Peter which is based on urine) is one element, but I think a greater factor was the evolution of the firing system itself. Original firearms had no firing mechanism to speak of. (There was a small hole, you put the fire to the small hole and hoped for the best.) This was replaced by a device that used a smoldering wick. Flint and steel was then used to make sparks, but then you needed a more refined gun powder in a priming pan and this made loading more complex. Eventually priming caps were invented. This is the method that is used by firearm bullets in modern times, placed in the back of the cartridge. I'd would like to make a final thought, which I sort of assumed but didn't state specifically. All of the above items can easily be made better through magic. A magic powerhorn of improved loading, that adds +5 to the skill check, prices at 2.5 KGP. Ranged magic special abilities can be added to the firearm, and even though it is not on the table, I would even suggest one could add keen. Making a firearm "thundering" for example causing them to also do 2d8 sonic damage would be exceptionally nasty. (And here the x3 is vastly better than the x2 because it doubles the sonic damage.) Given this, I think I did come close to my goal, to give the "feel" of firearms, without making them super powerful or super weak.