The mechanics of firearms though are exactly the same as crossbows. You roll a 1d20 add your BAB and any other modifies and see if it hits. If it does.. well you hit. If not, you missed just like if you fired an arrow.
And the laser thing.. As a level one character using the PHB I can make a character who does nothing but shoot "lasers" all day. Even though I have no intention of actually making a character with a lasergun.
cause arrows and slings can penitate armor.. but a small ball of lead propelled at a greater speed than a slinged bullet will bounce off armor.
this is the silliest thing that I've ever heard. Firearms are what made traditional armor obsolete.
The mechanics of firearms though are exactly the same as crossbows. You roll a 1d20 add your BAB and any other modifies and see if it hits. If it does.. well you hit. If not, you missed just like if you fired an arrow.
but then you would also have to model the armor penetration of bullets (and not just worn armor; this would have to include any sort of cover); also, the damage would have to be considerably more than other projectiles, do to hydrostatic shock -- all this is an enormous pain in the butt to model in order to maintain any sort of verisimilitude.
Also, if your looking to be even semi-realistic with something like a musket, you're looking at a 2-round reload time, and a misfire on any roll of 5 or less -- who the heck would want to use that?
it's just not worth the trouble.
true, older firearms are not nearly as effective as their modern counterparts; but how far down the rabbit-hole do you really want to go?
And the laser thing.. As a level one character using the PHB I can make a character who does nothing but shoot "lasers" all day. Even though I have no intention of actually making a character with alasergun.
Okay, but your "laser shooter" is in the form of a caster (warlock being the most logical; other casters simply lack the "ammo capacity", but is do-able), and is built to scale in a way as to be level-appropriate; also, this is a very weak chassis, so there's a trade-off. if you put your major blasting implement in the hands of a warrior-chassis, and it already has massive amounts of damage inherently in the base weapon, there's no trade-off, and thus potentially "unbalancing" -- especially at low levels (though higher levels shouldn't be an issue).
I've never really understood why some people are so hateful vs firearms in 3.5. I mean i could kinda understand the position of the fantasy "purists".
just stop right there, and you have the most prevalent answer.
It is a bit of a shame that there aren't any rules for them, although it does make sense. The fantasy world D&D portrays does not come with firearms. Adding them as a default option means changing a lot of lore on a lot of settings.
Though as an optional, or setting specific thing, they could be really interesting.
I was basically trying to introduce the idea of firearms slowly but after a certain point I gave up on the idea since our game had other stories to tell.
The main problem that I see is that, in our history, firearms revolutionized battles. In a D&D world, unless you make guns incredibly deadly, they just won't have the same impact. And making them more deadly than say, a crossbow, just doesn't really seem consistent. In a fantasy world there are more powerful and reliable options so it's tough to justify why anyone would develop them.
If you introduce firearms they can either be:
a) just another ranged weapon, or
b) the biggest thing to hit your campaign world since Orcus arrived riding an undead Tarrasque swinging his flail made of beholders (thanks Razzanor!)
cheers,
Meshon
Edit: Much later in that same campaign I integrated S1 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks so, for a little while, the characters were shooting lasers and chucking grendades. No, seriously.
also, think on this:
in D&D, magic reigns supreme. with all that readily-accessible magic, there is no need or motivation for advancement of technology. In other words, magic has replaced technology.
So, given that, why would there even be such a thing as a firearm (at least, our RL concept of one)?
YMMV, depending on how prevalent magic is in your campaign.
Just because there is magic, doesn't make it so every half-wit farmer is out using druid spells to grow is crops. And if there is.. Well we start getting more into ebberon where we have flying ships, trains and stuff that combine both technology and magic. If i remember correctly Ebberon had the abilty to make a stick with a trigger and enchant it kinda like a wand but any half-wit farmer could use it to cast magic missle. Basically, we approch lasers the more magic we have.
in D&D, magic reigns supreme. with all that readily-accessible magic, there is no need or motivation for advancement of technology. In other words, magic has replaced technology.
So, given that, why would there even be such a thing as a firearm (at least, our RL concept of one)?
YMMV, depending on how prevalent magic is in your campaign.
Anycase, I hope you saw most of what I said.
In Outlaw Star, there was 2 kinds of magic. Old Magic and Tao Magic. Old Magic combined together with technology to form "Casters" which were breachloaded guns that fired a single spell per caster shells.
cause arrows and slings can penitate armor.. but a small ball of lead propelled at a greater speed than a slinged bullet will bounce off armor.
this is the silliest thing that I've ever heard. Firearms are what made traditional armor obsolete.
Actually, plate armor was proof against bullets (hence the term "bulletproof") for the first couple hundred years of firearms development. As firearms developed, the only solution armorers had was to make the armor thicker. Eventually, armor became unwieldy. However, the Full Plate armors depicted the the D&D rule books weren't being made until after the advent of firearms.
Yes, firearms made traditional armor obsolete, but it didn't happen overnight.
From what I've heard (this might therefor not be true) a really heavy winch-loaded crossbow could shoot a bolt through the engine of a modern day car. Take that, armored knight.
(stuff)
wow, dude -- just ... wow. (I should have refreshed the page before submitting that last one)
that was a bit overly-vitriolic, don't you think? I take considerable time and thought to give my honest take on what seemed like an honest question, and I get that? what gives?
my mention of "silly" was to (what appeared to be) a 3rd-hand comment that you mentioned (which means that it wasn't directed at you).
now, lets cover some specifics:
Okay, they actually didn't make traditional armor obsolete the moment they first came into exisitence. It took a while before they could actually get that projection speed.
I never said that it happened over-night. Obviously, it wasn't like "oh no, they've got firearms now -- I guess all this armor stuff just became useless".
While it did take some time, there was a direct cause-effect (or at least a 1:1 corrolation)
Now thats just silly. Do you have hydrostatic shock when a wizard casts a fireball? Or when they fling you across the room with telepathy? Do you model anything that a wizard can do based on any of that? No. you don't. You don't need to create a billion new mechanics. You just use the same basic concepts of a crossbow.
show me a crossbow that does 10d6 (as does the fireball). apples and oranges, guy. apples and oranges.
and getting flung across the room can be modeled simply as falling, just in the horizontal. easy day.
who's being silly?
Again though, you are being silly. Using the dungeonscape book, It is possible to Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 t a wand inside a crossbow. Then play rogue. You don't need a good BaB for this. Just activate the wand when you make the enemy flatfooted and you pretty much just have to get a 10 to hit the enemy with sneak attack.
Now we have a "laser gun" that can do massive amounts of damage, all with fairly basic elements. (Since we could just use the want straight up instead.)
this is very situational. and, for the most part, this is not going to be happening untill you get up in levels (notice I said "for the most part").
but I'm the silly one?
I can understand their posistion because purists tend to almost always be the "Comic book Guy" type.
um .... is that supposed to mean anything? you lost me.
Anycase, I've actually been studying firearms, gunpowder, alchemy, and a few other things. During the 9th centery gunpowder was actually created to be a medicine. A surgeon in napoleons army had prepared.. I forget exactly what, but because they had no salt they used gunpowder a seasoning.
The spell fireball as presented in the PHB of 3.5 contains 2 out of three ingrediants for gunpowder. The last ingrediant, while traditionally charcoal, can be any kind of fuel. Sulfer was actually one of the main materials of alchemy, and represented back then by a triangle with a plus sign under it. Saltpeter is represented by a circle with a horizontal line and the lower hemisphere seperated by another line.
and none of this is relevant to what I was saying.
The handgonne, one of the first man carried guns, is a simple piece of iron formed into a tube. something like a broom handle goes into the back end of the tube to plug it up and provide the "stock". It was actually cheaper to make than a long bow and had an effecitve range of 50 feet.
this is a far cry from a flintlock (as you mentioned above). not even comparable.
you're all over the place in your discussion -- break it down to apples-to-apples, and I might continue with this.
Like I said, I was simply giving an honest perspective to what seemed like an honest inquiry -- I never said that you had to agree with it.
If you're looking to pick a fight, then say so in your opening post.
also, think on this:
in D&D, magic reigns supreme. with all that readily-accessible magic, there is no need or motivation for advancement of technology. In other words, magic has replaced technology.
So, given that, why would there even be such a thing as a firearm (at least, our RL concept of one)?
YMMV, depending on how prevalent magic is in your campaign.
Just because there is magic, doesn't make it so every half-wit farmer is out using druid spells to grow is crops. And if there is.. Well we start getting more into ebberon where we have flying ships, trains and stuff that combine both technology and magic. If i remember correctly Ebberon had the abilty to make a stick with a trigger and enchant it kinda like a wand but any half-wit farmer could use it to cast magic missle. Basically, we approch lasers the more magic we have.
evidently, you're not gonna be satisfied with any answer that gets submitted.
I never said that the perspective that I gave was the end-all be-all -- it is merely the way that some people see it.
I think you're either:
a) taking what I'm saying out of context -or-
b) adding your own context where it is inappropriate.
there are exception to EVERYTHING. but just because you can find an exception to something, doesn't invalidate the basic concept.
Not to mention that a big crossbow or a decent longbow can shoot straight through armor as well.
From what I've heard (this might therefor not be true) a really heavy winch-loaded crossbow could shoot a bolt through the engine of a modern day car. Take that, armored knight.
but it still doesn't have the hydrostatic shock of a bullet or ball ammo (HUGE velocity difference -- even with your example)
But yeah, pretty much firearms rules are like crossbow rules. Easy enough for use.
but it still doesn't have the hydrostatic shock of a bullet or ball ammo (HUGE velocity difference -- even with your example)
Personally, I just don't like to see firearms in a traditional RPG setting... but seriously, hydrostatic shock? Why would there be any need to model hydrostatic shock? You get shot, you take damage - simple enough. D&D is an RPG, not a medical simulator.
but it still doesn't have the hydrostatic shock of a bullet or ball ammo (HUGE velocity difference -- even with your example)
Personally, I just don't like to see firearms in a traditional RPG setting... but seriously, hydrostatic shock? Why would there be any need to model hydrostatic shock? You get shot, you take damage - simple enough. D&D is an RPG, not a medical simulator.
my point was just that it should be way more than a simple 1d10
) and realise the D&D rules are not ideal, however decided to keep the rules for my ease of use. I use regular bow and arrow rules for them and am about to introduce 'magical' ammo which will also work as a 'regular' magical arrows. This is because the traditional way is: a. balanced and b. I don't want to introduce an entire new set of rules.It's all about having a set of rules that everyone agrees to, the rest is all flavor. So it really doesn't require a whole new rules set. My players are happy (if looking for heavier ammo) and so am I!
Actually, plate armor was proof against bullets (hence the term "bulletproof") for the first couple hundred years of firearms development.
I think I remember seeing a breastplate in a museum that had a big hemispherical ding in it which was the "proof" mark. It basically meant that the armorer had fired a bullet into the breastplate so that the buyer would be able to see the proof that it could stop a bullet.
cheers,
Meshon
Not to mention that a big crossbow or a decent longbow can shoot straight through armor as well.
From what I've heard (this might therefor not be true) a really heavy winch-loaded crossbow could shoot a bolt through the engine of a modern day car. Take that, armored knight.
but it still doesn't have the hydrostatic shock of a bullet or ball ammo (HUGE velocity difference -- even with your example)
Doesn't matter. Take either of those to the gut and you're a dead man.
Anyway
I'm gonna try and complete some basic rules on firearms; so if anyone's interested I'll give a yell when I'm done.There are several reasons to not want firearms.
First is the feel and setting of the world. Firearms changes the feel of a fantasy game on many levels, it changes the setting considerably.
Think of the difference between the middle ages (knights in shining armor), and the age where there was muskets (three musketeers?) and then the age where there was flint lock rifles (american revolution), and then the age of repeaters and 6 shooters (wild wild west) Totally different game worlds.
Guns changed things in many ways. Training an army with swords, weapons, and archery took considerable time and resources. Training men to point and fire a gun is easier and quicker. And to greater effect. Consider the ratio of archers to melee in previous armies before a gun. Each archer, to be effective, needed a number of melee to protect them, as a result most armies were primarily melee fighters with a significantly smaller number of archers, 10 to 20 melee fighters per single archer. With the advent of guns this started changing drastically, and the ratio melee fighters decreased. As guns got better the fewer melee fighters were needed. By the time of the french revolution the number of melee fighters were reduced to the point where only 1 or 2 melee (or fewer) was needed per ranged and even then those melee were ranged fighters with bayonettes attached to their guns. By the civil war melee was reduced much further with repeating guns. In modern warfare melee is a minute fraction. (which is why you don't see M-16s with bayonettes typically)
So instead of facing 12 orcs, with a couple in the rear with ranged weapons, a party could meet a group of orcs armed with rifles with bayonettes, 12 ranged/melee fighters. This is what can change things so drastically for both the feel of the world and also the balance of many conflicts. 12 orcs with Bows would be nowhere near effective as 12 with guns/bayonettes, even if the damage was identical.
Second, In terms of game balance. Let me assure you that if there is any consistancy with guns, that they do indeed effect game balance. If a gun is possible, then so to are explosives and cannons. A logical extension of having a barrel of gun powder at your disposal, and of simply making a bigger gun (cannon) Going from bow/crossbow to ballista is not nearly as large an impact on the game as explosives and cannons.
As far as explosives are concerned, the only real limit is how much gunpowder one can get a hold of. Unlike a caster who's limit, though considerable, is one spell a round, a level 1 character could concievably blow up an entire mountain with enough explosives at his disposal.
Tha powder needed for 4 characters to take 50 shots each is not that hard to obtain, and that is enough to do considerable damage if exploded all at once.
Expertise needed to light a fuse? Not all that much.
but it still doesn't have the hydrostatic shock of a bullet or ball ammo (HUGE velocity difference -- even with your example)
Personally, I just don't like to see firearms in a traditional RPG setting... but seriously, hydrostatic shock? Why would there be any need to model hydrostatic shock? You get shot, you take damage - simple enough. D&D is an RPG, not a medical simulator.
Heck, even in Fps games that are hyperrealistic, you don't ever deal with mechanics for hydrostatic shock.
jgumbyrx to me doesn't appear to be the typical comic book guy purist when it comes to fantasy worlds. (See Simpsons) Instead he seems to be more of a hyperrealist who's beef with firearms is that fairly balanced and uncomplicated game mechanics isn't enough to really make firearms. For him, its almost as if we would have to create a mechanic to adjust for windspeed, gravity, and about a billion other things.
But the odd this is that things that would cause the hyrdostatic shock (Being slammed into a wall or fall from a huge higth, or the billions of other things a wizard could do with just his pinky) are okay it seems with him. Who cares if the wizard just slammed you into a wall for 10d10 points of damage? Just run it like falling damage.
So, this is really the second catagory of people then. People who dislike firearms because they belive that using predifned mechanics isn't good enough for stuff that is a little different. But the existic mechanics for things are absolutly fine in thier simplicity.
There are several reasons to not want firearms.
First is the feel and setting of the world. Firearms changes the feel of a fantasy game on many levels, it changes the setting considerably.
Think of the difference between the middle ages (knights in shining armor), and the age where there was muskets (three musketeers?) and then the age where there was flint lock rifles (american revolution), and then the age of repeaters and 6 shooters (wild wild west) Totally different game worlds.
Well this would be the purists reason for dislikeing firearms.
Guns changed things in many ways. Training an army with swords, weapons, and archery took considerable time and resources. Training men to point and fire a gun is easier and quicker. And to greater effect. Consider the ratio of archers to melee in previous armies before a gun. Each archer, to be effective, needed a number of melee to protect them, as a result most armies were primarily melee fighters with a significantly smaller number of archers, 10 to 20 melee fighters per single archer. With the advent of guns this started changing drastically, and the ratio melee fighters decreased. As guns got better the fewer melee fighters were needed. By the time of the french revolution the number of melee fighters were reduced to the point where only 1 or 2 melee (or fewer) was needed per ranged and even then those melee were ranged fighters with bayonettes attached to their guns. By the civil war melee was reduced much further with repeating guns. In modern warfare melee is a minute fraction. (which is why you don't see M-16s with bayonettes typically)
So instead of facing 12 orcs, with a couple in the rear with ranged weapons, a party could meet a group of orcs armed with rifles with bayonettes, 12 ranged/melee fighters. This is what can change things so drastically for both the feel of the world and also the balance of many conflicts. 12 orcs with Bows would be nowhere near effective as 12 with guns/bayonettes, even if the damage was identical.
May I refer you to the compleat scoundrel on this part? Bows, and crossbows gained the ability to have bayonettes.
Second, In terms of game balance. Let me assure you that if there is any consistancy with guns, that they do indeed effect game balance. If a gun is possible, then so to are explosives and cannons. A logical extension of having a barrel of gun powder at your disposal, and of simply making a bigger gun (cannon) Going from bow/crossbow to ballista is not nearly as large an impact on the game as explosives and cannons.
As far as explosives are concerned, the only real limit is how much gunpowder one can get a hold of. Unlike a caster who's limit, though considerable, is one spell a round, a level 1 character could concievably blow up an entire mountain with enough explosives at his disposal.
Tha powder needed for 4 characters to take 50 shots each is not that hard to obtain, and that is enough to do considerable damage if exploded all at once.
Expertise needed to light a fuse? Not all that much.
Actually there is more than "Lighting a fuse".
I mean, if the explosive charges were already set by a trained demolotion guy, then yes. a level 1 character could light the fuse and blow the mountain up... about the same way he could theortically also gain a hold of a powerful magical artifact that would explode the mountain.
Powder for 4 characters to take 50 shots, would consist of spell components for several hundred fireballs.
Using purely the PHB for 3.5, I could have a character who could easily fashion explosives by using map case, Alchemist fire, caltrops, and canvus soaked in high proof alcohol. There would be a little jerry rigging on the mapcase, but the end result is still the same. The alchemist fire would ignite the fumes of the canvus causing the whole thing the blow. The explosion would fling the caltrops in about every direction.
Therotically, if a character could get enough high proof alcohol, he could blow up a mountain. Its even easier to get that.. Especaially if you have 4 drunken masters.
But really, I do get where you are coming from on that. Its just that a devious player such as myself, can easily go super mcguyver in the game and do exactly what you say firearms would do.
I should probally say what brings this up. Basically, I'm going to be playing an artificer soon in 3.5, because we need one person to deal with traps and i don't want to play yet another rogue. But if I'm playing an artificer i don't want to be running around with the same weapon as everyone else in the world. After all, the artificer is sort of a master craftsmen.
So I picked firearms as my choice of weapon. Because they are loud and flashy. To really use, they need alchemy and the ability to craft them (Esspecially since I'm the only one who has a firearm.) My chararacters goal in game though, is to bring magic to the common folk. (Nobles tend to have all the magic.) So part of his goal is to develop a mundane weapon that could possibly pose a threat.
But the problem is that the DM's wife seems to be a bit of the purist kind. I'm not really sure, I don't really talk with them too much outside the game night. (Cause I'm always at school to be a game developer.)
I should probally say what brings this up. Basically, I'm going to be playing an artificer soon in 3.5, because we need one person to deal with traps and i don't want to play yet another rogue. But if I'm playing an artificer i don't want to be running around with the same weapon as everyone else in the world. After all, the artificer is sort of a master craftsmen.
So I picked firearms as my choice of weapon. Because they are loud and flashy. To really use, they need alchemy and the ability to craft them (Esspecially since I'm the only one who has a firearm.) My chararacters goal in game though, is to bring magic to the common folk. (Nobles tend to have all the magic.) So part of his goal is to develop a mundane weapon that could possibly pose a threat.
Okay, this makes sense to me. Your character is beginning the process of introducing firearms to the world. Fortunately this probably means you don't have to worry about the effect they're going to have long-term (other than in a sort of "I have a dream" way, like you said).
You can probably convince the DM by using comparable alchemical items with different fluff. However, keep in mind the wise words of Frandin Cutleaf:
"These guys are taking wonder out of the world and replacing it with gears and pulleys."
If there really are players in your group who don't want any oil and soot on their magical world of wonder, you should see if you can work something out with them. Your character's populist goals are far more important than the tool he/she is using. Just because firearms revolutionized our world doesn't mean it couldn't be something else for yours. Get creative and enjoy!
Or maybe you just wanna shoot guns.
cheers
Meshon
I should probally say what brings this up. Basically, I'm going to be playing an artificer soon in 3.5, because we need one person to deal with traps and i don't want to play yet another rogue. But if I'm playing an artificer i don't want to be running around with the same weapon as everyone else in the world. After all, the artificer is sort of a master craftsmen.
So I picked firearms as my choice of weapon. Because they are loud and flashy. To really use, they need alchemy and the ability to craft them (Esspecially since I'm the only one who has a firearm.) My chararacters goal in game though, is to bring magic to the common folk. (Nobles tend to have all the magic.) So part of his goal is to develop a mundane weapon that could possibly pose a threat.
Okay, this makes sense to me. Your character is beginning the process of introducing firearms to the world. Fortunately this probably means you don't have to worry about the effect they're going to have long-term (other than in a sort of "I have a dream" way, like you said).
You can probably convince the DM by using comparable alchemical items with different fluff. However, keep in mind the wise words of Frandin Cutleaf:
"These guys are taking wonder out of the world and replacing it with gears and pulleys."
If there really are players in your group who don't want any oil and soot on their magical world of wonder, you should see if you can work something out with them. Your character's populist goals are far more important than the tool he/she is using. Just because firearms revolutionized our world doesn't mean it couldn't be something else for yours. Get creative and enjoy!
Or maybe you just wanna shoot guns.
cheers
Meshon
Mostly, I just am looking for something "super special" that would say this guy is an artificer and not a wizard or sorcerer. Which is why I choose firearms. Because it kinda screams the whole master craftsman thing.
So if i could find some complex mechanical weapon to replace with it, I would. Though, I am starting to take a light to possibly seeing if i could use the Injitsu focus stuff from Oriental adventures and picking up a katana. Since artificers infuse things.. I could slash at the guy, say "Did you hear it? The voice of the wind." and then the guy exploseds all anime style.
Though it doesnt' explain the cat ears, tail and eyes (Abberition feats.) that he has. Character was actually designed before mechanics in a compleatly different world were magic and technology co-exist. And he made a gun that could shoot flaming mongooses. (No idea why he did though.)
And he made a gun that could shoot flaming mongooses. (No idea why he did though.)
To deal with the Frost Cobras.
also, think on this:
in D&D, magic reigns supreme. with all that readily-accessible magic, there is no need or motivation for advancement of technology. In other words, magic has replaced technology.
So, given that, why would there even be such a thing as a firearm (at least, our RL concept of one)?
YMMV, depending on how prevalent magic is in your campaign.
I'd also like to add that part of the reason Wahanly is the best character in Isekai no Seikishi Monogatari is because, in a world where they have magic, and mechs and such, her immediate thought is always "How can we work gunpowder into this equation?"
There are several reasons to not want firearms.
First is the feel and setting of the world. Firearms changes the feel of a fantasy game on many levels, it changes the setting considerably.
Think of the difference between the middle ages (knights in shining armor), and the age where there was muskets (three musketeers?) and then the age where there was flint lock rifles (american revolution), and then the age of repeaters and 6 shooters (wild wild west) Totally different game worlds.
Indeed. It would totally break the immersion, and the Druid, Samurai and Sorcerer agree with me! .
Second, In terms of game balance. Let me assure you that if there is any consistancy with guns, that they do indeed effect game balance. If a gun is possible, then so to are explosives and cannons. A logical extension of having a barrel of gun powder at your disposal, and of simply making a bigger gun (cannon) Going from bow/crossbow to ballista is not nearly as large an impact on the game as explosives and cannons.
You could handwave that pretty easily. Guns are powered by alchemy. Problem solved.
Actually, plate armor was proof against bullets (hence the term "bulletproof") for the first couple hundred years of firearms development. As firearms developed, the only solution armorers had was to make the armor thicker. Eventually, armor became unwieldy.
Yup, in japan they got to the habit of selling breastplates with a dent in it as proof of being able to resist bullets (no dent usually meant no sale).
show me a crossbow that does 10d6 (as does the fireball).
Barbarian using a crossbow as an improvised melee weapon while using rage strike upped to 10[W]? :P
Personally, I just don't like to see firearms in a traditional RPG setting... but seriously, hydrostatic shock? Why would there be any need to model hydrostatic shock? You get shot, you take damage - simple enough. D&D is an RPG, not a medical simulator.
Besides, HP = plot armour.
Heck, even in Fps games that are hyperrealistic, you don't ever deal with mechanics for hydrostatic shock.
Heck, not even GURPS has rules for hydrostatic shock iirc.
Also, who wouldn't like a steampunk campaign with both magic and technology?
@ chanter_hound:
if you would have explained what you were really looking for in your OP, perhaps I could have catered a more appropriate response.
BTW -- WTF is your deal? are you always in the habit of trying to belittle and denigrate those who see a possible perspective that doesn't match yours? and when they're trying to beneficent about it, no less? I addressed this earlier, but you seem to want to ignore it -- yeah, you're too cool, guy.
Don't worry, I'll not bother with you ever again.
(I wonder -- is it possible to troll on your own thread?)
You could handwave that pretty easily. Guns are powered by alchemy. Problem solved.
I thought they already were?
OK, Chemistry, but still, same thing, different worlds.
There are a couple reasons why people tend to shy away from them. For one, some people just don't like guns in their fantasy worlds. It's just personal preference and there's nothing wrong with it. The other is balance. People tend to try too hard to make guns "realistic" and often do the exact opposite.
"Hydrostatic shock, velocity, etc" become excuses to make guns do an insane amount of damage for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Guns don't "need" to do more damage than a battle axe just because they're guns. Scale damage based on the type of gun just like damage is scaled from daggers to fullblades. People get so hung up on physics and such that they forget that this is a game with an abstract combat system. HP isn't how many times you can get stabbed with a spear, it's plot armor. Not every "hit" actually represents you being hit by that weapon. HP is plot armor, nothing more. Yeah a bullet to the face will likely kill you, so will a battle axe cleaving your skull in two.
And as for using black powder as medieval explosives, well it takes a lot of time and preparation and knowledge to do more than you could with a few spells in a lot less time. And if the PCs abuse it, well it really doesn't take much to set off those barrels of powder they've been stashing...
Actually there is more than "Lighting a fuse".
I mean, if the explosive charges were already set by a trained demolotion guy, then yes. a level 1 character could light the fuse and blow the mountain up... about the same way he could theortically also gain a hold of a powerful magical artifact that would explode the mountain.
Powder for 4 characters to take 50 shots, would consist of spell components for several hundred fireballs.
The spell components for Fireballs is not in of itself volitile, and neither could a wizard of say 6th level cast more then a single fireball per round, so there is a very real cap on how much a wizard could explode.
The map case, pure alcohol bomb you mention would be something that would require skill to do.
However black powder is very explosive, and it would literally take no skill to make a barrel of black powder into a bomb.
Step one, open barrel
Step to, insert fuse
Step three, light fuse
Step four, Run like hell
You see when buying their ammo, aka a barrel of black powder, they are in effect buying a bomb. That is how it comes. and it is very dangerous material to handle.
Alcohol doesn't explode, it simply burns, if the fumes spread out in an area they might explode if ignited all at once. But there is a limit on how large an explosion you could make with alcohol. You could make a large fire that burns until the alcohol fuel is exhausted. It would be extremely diffiicult to make a large scale explosion with alcohol as a fuel, on the scale that you could with black powder, although it would be easy to make a large fire.
However to make a large explosion with black powder, this would only require that you put the barrels in a pile. And you should really take into consideration here just how little black powder you need to make a large explosion, and just how much damage a cannon can do.
As for adding blades to bows and crossbows. yes the rules allow this, however you are missing the point. Historically these things were done as well, they just aren't effective, they would be akward weapons and would require even more training as opposed to guns.
A bayonete on a gun is the equivelent to a spear, it is a simple weapon. In reality you can train a person with a gun in a single month, making raising an army easy and fast. Training them to use bows, and funky swordbows at that, is another story altogether.
As for the 3.5 rules which gives us the bowblade and the bayonette on the crossbow, these would require exotic weapon proficiencies, which makes them a lousy choice for most. Also I was refering real history, guns changed the way combat was done and the ratio of ranged vs melee in the field. The point I am making is that guns really should make a large impact in the world that they are in, and most DMs realize the shift this will make to their game.
"Hydrostatic shock, velocity, etc" become excuses to make guns do an insane amount of damage for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Guns don't "need" to do more damage than a battle axe just because they're guns. Scale damage based on the type of gun just like damage is scaled from daggers to fullblades. People get so hung up on physics and such that they forget that this is a game with an abstract combat system. HP isn't how many times you can get stabbed with a spear, it's plot armor. Not every "hit" actually represents you being hit by that weapon. HP is plot armor, nothing more. Yeah a bullet to the face will likely kill you, so will a battle axe cleaving your skull in two.
Exactly.
And if we wanted to, we could go inter further detail about how much damage a given gun does based on velocity, calibre, etc.
One thing that I might see is slightly increased damage (equivalent to bows?), the proficiency as crossbows, with loading the gun being a standard action (speed loader feat reducing it to minor).
As for buying an entire barrel of gunpowder: ever heard of paper cartridges? Their use has been dated back to the late 14th century. So there is no reason that players should ever need to buy a barrel of gunpowder except to make a bomb from it, or to make their own ammunition (which has gone the way of the dodo thanks to 4th edition).
Actually there is more than "Lighting a fuse".
I mean, if the explosive charges were already set by a trained demolotion guy, then yes. a level 1 character could light the fuse and blow the mountain up... about the same way he could theortically also gain a hold of a powerful magical artifact that would explode the mountain.
Powder for 4 characters to take 50 shots, would consist of spell components for several hundred fireballs.
The spell components for Fireballs is not in of itself volitile, and neither could a wizard of say 6th level cast more then a single fireball per round, so there is a very real cap on how much a wizard could explode.
The map case, pure alcohol bomb you mention would be something that would require skill to do.
However black powder is very explosive, and it would literally take no skill to make a barrel of black powder into a bomb.
Step one, open barrel
Step to, insert fuse
Step three, light fuse
Step four, Run like hell
You see when buying their ammo, aka a barrel of black powder, they are in effect buying a bomb. That is how it comes. and it is very dangerous material to handle.
Alcohol doesn't explode, it simply burns, if the fumes spread out in an area they might explode if ignited all at once. But there is a limit on how large an explosion you could make with alcohol. You could make a large fire that burns until the alcohol fuel is exhausted. It would be extremely diffiicult to make a large scale explosion with alcohol as a fuel, on the scale that you could with black powder, although it would be easy to make a large fire.
However to make a large explosion with black powder, this would only require that you put the barrels in a pile. And you should really take into consideration here just how little black powder you need to make a large explosion, and just how much damage a cannon can do.
As for adding blades to bows and crossbows. yes the rules allow this, however you are missing the point. Historically these things were done as well, they just aren't effective, they would be akward weapons and would require even more training as opposed to guns.
A bayonete on a gun is the equivelent to a spear, it is a simple weapon. In reality you can train a person with a gun in a single month, making raising an army easy and fast. Training them to use bows, and funky swordbows at that, is another story altogether.
As for the 3.5 rules which gives us the bowblade and the bayonette on the crossbow, these would require exotic weapon proficiencies, which makes them a lousy choice for most. Also I was refering real history, guns changed the way combat was done and the ratio of ranged vs melee in the field. The point I am making is that guns really should make a large impact in the world that they are in, and most DMs realize the shift this will make to their game.
The spell components for fireball are 2 of the 3 parts of gunpowder. And so while in and of themselves they are not going to make a boom, imagine in a single ounce of gunpowder were all parts are equal how many fireballs you could have used. If fireball needed only a smidgen of both sulfer and bat guano (Aka Saltpeter) this means you only need 1/32 of a teaspoon. Since a teaspoon is 1/6 of a ounce, each component is 2 teaspoons. Which means you have 64 fireballs you could have cast with that.
Further more, Blackpowder, while and explosive is a lowgrade explosive. Which means unlike TnT you are going to be pretty hardpressed to blow up a mountain. To blow up the mountain you would need to do more than stick a barrel with a fuse in the mountain. I know hollywood likes to protray this as possible.
The way it works in a gun, is you are not creating an explosion with blackpowder pistols, but instead creating something more of a 'rocket', were you propell the bullet by forcing it out via the gas that is rapidly produced by the black powder. In otherwords, its more of a pfffft than a Kaboom.
Ulrich Bretscher's pocket watches, sewage treatment, black powder
With the alcohol thing, its not the alcohol that is the important thing. Its the fumes of it. Basically what you are creating is not a KABOOM!!! but more of a POP! as there is a sudden rapid expansion with in the map case due to the igniting of the high proof alcohol. Really instead, what should be used methenoyl.
Basically, both would be a low catagory explosive, and it takes much more work than hollywood protrays to turn blackpowder into a really explosive.
Then onto bayonettes. You should read the complete scoundrel, as the boyonette for bows and crossbows doesn't not an exotic weapon make. Instead they are treated as daggers or shortswords with a slight penalty. However this is also replaced by dragon 349 that has a bladed crossbow as a simple weapon with no penalty.
Dragon 321 has a comprehensive list of firearms through its progression right up to to the breach loaded rifles. By its rules, yes a bayonette on a two handed rifle would be a short spear.
Anycase, for my pretty much final point here...
What I've found here now is that the reason people have such a hatred against firearms is because of there own preconcived notions of what a firearm should and shouldn't be able to do. For me, being a heavy designer type of person, I take firearms and work them into the mechanics that are preexistent, but for others they believe that the firearms should be so much more. Like the ability to fire wizards casting empowered maximized enlarged quicken fireballs. And that the firearms should be fairly earth shattering. In otherwords.. I blame hollywood. (Like the repeating rifles in Pirates of the Caribbean. or all the awsome sounds gun make in movies..)
Anycase, for my pretty much final point here...
What I've found here now is that the reason people have such a hatred against firearms is because of there own preconcived notions of what a firearm should and shouldn't be able to do. For me, being a heavy designer type of person, I take firearms and work them into the mechanics that are preexistent, but for others they believe that the firearms should be so much more. Like the ability to fire wizards casting empowered maximized enlarged quicken fireballs. And that the firearms should be fairly earth shattering. In otherwords.. I blame hollywood. (Like the repeating rifles in Pirates of the Caribbean. or all the awsome sounds gun make in movies..)
Well to be fair, most D&D games model Hollywood physics pretty well, but yeah, one of mah charries is a ranger with a sword and a pistol (i.e. a hand crossbow that I call a pistol). If anybody wants to bitch about that being overpowered I'll respond "Fine, I'll use a magic great bow instead, let's see, 25 damage from twin strike? From 200 feet away?)
Anycase, for my pretty much final point here...
What I've found here now is that the reason people have such a hatred against firearms is because of there own preconcived notions of what a firearm should and shouldn't be able to do. For me, being a heavy designer type of person, I take firearms and work them into the mechanics that are preexistent, but for others they believe that the firearms should be so much more. Like the ability to fire wizards casting empowered maximized enlarged quicken fireballs. And that the firearms should be fairly earth shattering. In otherwords.. I blame hollywood. (Like the repeating rifles in Pirates of the Caribbean. or all the awsome sounds gun make in movies..)
Well to be fair, most D&D games model Hollywood physics pretty well, but yeah, one of mah charries is a ranger with a sword and a pistol (i.e. a hand crossbow that I call a pistol). If anybody wants to bitch about that being overpowered I'll respond "Fine, I'll use a magic great bow instead, let's see, 25 damage from twin strike? From 200 feet away?)
I know what you mean mate. Just recently my rogue has started using impaling knives and skill tricks that allow him to make the enemy flatfooted. Which made it really super easy for me to hit enemies who had a pretty crazy AC bonus. (Touch + Flatfooted=10+deflection is all you have left.)
The spell components for fireball are 2 of the 3 parts of gunpowder. And so while in and of themselves they are not going to make a boom, imagine in a single ounce of gunpowder were all parts are equal how many fireballs you could have used. If fireball needed only a smidgen of both sulfer and bat guano (Aka Saltpeter) this means you only need 1/32 of a teaspoon. Since a teaspoon is 1/6 of a ounce, each component is 2 teaspoons. Which means you have 64 fireballs you could have cast with that.
Having the components to make gunpowder and actually making gunpowder is two different things entirely, ignore the Star Trek episode where Kirk makes a gun out of gunpowder ingrediences just laying about the landscape, it is a more complex process. Aside from mixing the componments properly, and milling it to different grades.
Aside from that, ounce for ounce fireball gets more from the compontents then mixing it to make gunpowder. However a Wizard has a very real limit imposed in the number of times per round that he can cast a Fireball and in the number of times per day that he can cast fireball. Even sitting on a mountain of components he is still only able to cast Fireball three times daily, so it really doesn't compare since a wizard cannot stack a weeks worth of fireballs into a single spell.
Further more, Blackpowder, while and explosive is a lowgrade explosive. Which means unlike TnT you are going to be pretty hardpressed to blow up a mountain. To blow up the mountain you would need to do more than stick a barrel with a fuse in the mountain. I know hollywood likes to protray this as possible.
Interesting that hollywood is mentioned, since it underplays the explosive effect of black powder all the time. showing stockpiles of black powder going up in multiple explosions more resembling fireworks. Black powder is dangerous and given to be detonated by even static electricity, a barrel being lit would explode, and would take out the building it is stored in a flash. The main advantage of TnT that revolutionized explosives is that it is SAFE and will not detonate accidentally, go throw a stick of dynamite on the fire and it will burn, toss in a charge of black powder and you blow up the campsite.
The way it works in a gun, is you are not creating an explosion with blackpowder pistols, but instead creating something more of a 'rocket', were you propell the bullet by forcing it out via the gas that is rapidly produced by the black powder. In otherwords, its more of a pfffft than a Kaboom.
that is how guns work in the modern age as well, an explosion is made which releases and compresses a gas which propels the bullet out of the gun. It is the gas that propells the bullet, but it is the explosion that creates this compressed gas. And black powder guns can and do explode, (as in the gun blows to pieces)
A case in point in how a simple barrel of gunpowder is explosive. During the Battle of the Nile, an enemy shot hit the magazine in one of the ships.
it was no pfffft or flame, or multiple small explosions.
The ship simply disapeared in an instant flash, replased with some smoke and disturbed water, followed by a large BOOM!!! that was so loud that the entire battle between the two fleets actually stopped for a minute in shock, and then pieces of the ships started falling from the sky.
What was required for such an explosion? Nothing more then barrels of Black Powder being stacked on each other.
With the alcohol thing, its not the alcohol that is the important thing. Its the fumes of it. Basically what you are creating is not a KABOOM!!! but more of a POP! as there is a sudden rapid expansion with in the map case due to the igniting of the high proof alcohol. Really instead, what should be used methenoyl
Basically, both would be a low catagory explosive, and it takes much more work than hollywood protrays to turn blackpowder into a really explosive. .
if the case is full of alcohol then it won't explode, there are no fumes since there is no airspace. All it would do is burn. If you broke the bottle open and poured it over an area, so that the fumes would spread out into the room and then lit it, you would get something more akin to an explosion as the fumes were all lit at once, although that is more of a flash fire then an explosion. An explosion would only occur with the fumes if you compressed the fumes before igniting them, perhaps if you released the fumes in an injector spray that mixed air in with the fumes and compressed them with a piston before igniting them you could make such an explosion, but otherwise a map case full of flamable material would only produce is, well flame.
A small barrel of black powder would be enough to blow a house up with as little effort as opening it up and walking around a carpeted room while wearing wool socks.
Then onto bayonettes. You should read the complete scoundrel, as the boyonette for bows and crossbows doesn't not an exotic weapon make. Instead they are treated as daggers or shortswords with a slight penalty. However this is also replaced by dragon 349 that has a bladed crossbow as a simple weapon with no penalty.
Dragon 321 has a comprehensive list of firearms through its progression right up to to the breach loaded rifles. By its rules, yes a bayonette on a two handed rifle would be a short spear.
My main point was the historical impact of firearms, mechanically a Longsword/bow really didn't exist in any meaningful way in history, this was a note on the impact guns would have on flavour if done properly, they would have a huge impact in the military and society, much on the same scale as the introduction of other things, such as the industrial revolution etc.
What I've found here now is that the reason people have such a hatred against firearms is because of there own preconcived notions of what a firearm should and shouldn't be able to do. For me, being a heavy designer type of person, I take firearms and work them into the mechanics that are preexistent, but for others they believe that the firearms should be so much more. Like the ability to fire wizards casting empowered maximized enlarged quicken fireballs. And that the firearms should be fairly earth shattering. In otherwords.. I blame hollywood. (Like the repeating rifles in Pirates of the Caribbean. or all the awsome sounds gun make in movies..)
Mechanically they can be balanced. Otherwise SciFi roleplaying games wouldn't work. balance is not so much the issue as is the impact that guns had on the world, and ignoring this impact while having them available is tough to swallow.
Realistically it is the difference between encountering groups of orcs armed with axes and swords with an occasional archer, and meeting groups of orcs armed with rifles with fixed bayonettes, and goblins who protect their lair with a small swivle cannon and throw grenades.
What I've found here now is that the reason people have such a hatred against firearms is because of there own preconcived notions of what a firearm should and shouldn't be able to do.
*shrug* I don't know why anyone hates the idea of firearms in D&D, but if it were up to me I likely wouldn't even include xbows in the basic game. D&D, and heroic fantasy in general, is about individuals kicking butt and changing the world through their own sheer mojo -- the more trigger-simple tech you have in such a world, the more the heroes are borrowing mojo from some nameless inventor, the less fantastic and heroic the world feels.
Firearms especially evolved so quickly, historically, that I find it difficult to include them in a long-term campaign (multiple in-game years) just because I feel obligated to create new and better firearms at least once or twice. And since I'm a kind of simulationist, I can't just say 'the new and better firearms aren't actually any better rules-wise than the last ones.' And since I'm also concerned with game balance, actually improving basic weapons rules-wise like that isn't my cuppa' tea either.
I've rambled long enough so, long story short: different strokes and all that. Final Fantasy gets away with all kinds of guns and magi-tech, and it only bothers me a little.
Also let's not forget that guns did not immediately phase out armor and bows. It took a bit of time before they were refined enough to make a real impact, so how much they will affect your campaign depends entirely on how advanced firearm technology is and how widely proliferated that technology has become. If it's mostly contained to a small region, it won't have a large effect outside of that region. Heck I work with someone that actually went to a remote area of the world where people were still fighting with swords.
Firearms especially evolved so quickly, historically, that I find it difficult to include them in a long-term campaign (multiple in-game years) just because I feel obligated to create new and better firearms at least once or twice. And since I'm a kind of simulationist, I can't just say 'the new and better firearms aren't actually any better rules-wise than the last ones.' And since I'm also concerned with game balance, actually improving basic weapons rules-wise like that isn't my cuppa' tea either.
FYI, firearms did not evolve quickly. Rather, they slowly and incrementally evolved over hundreds and hundred of years. In any given campaign, there would likely be no noticeable firearm evolution from the start of the campaign to the end of the campaign without time traveling or something.
We also do not allow the weapon to be enhanced w/anything besides +X bonuses, due to the relative complexity of what a firearm does compaired to a bow or crossbow, and acts as a magical enhancement, though wasn't. Amunition could be non-magically enhanced to produce energy-damage. But everything cost 50% more because they functioned in anti-magic fields, though did not allow stacking w/magical enhancements.
Stayed pretty balanced w/reload times and scaricity of avalibility in our game. The fact all you need was the Craft skill, no feat investment, also balanced the lack of high-end magical enhancements and additional cost.
I don't hate em...just when I think D&D I think swords and magic and stuff...I'd allow it in my games, just reflavor the xbow and then probably forget about it except when the PC specifically said reloading/firing my gun or whatever. It's just the fact that it isn't really "core" that makes it seem kinda off IMO.
Not trying to offend, just using your post as an example.
This seems to be the most prevalent opinion people have. Things outside the core three are hailed as awesome or terrible (exaggeration, ofc). Usually classes, PrC's, monsters were fine for any DM or player to throw into a game. But alternate rules, from firearms to Unearthed Arcana, get shot down extremely quickly. All sorts of ideas I've tried to introduce as a player or DM, spell-points, armor as DR, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, get immediately shot down. Before 4th was announced, I got into a heated argument with one of my best players because I wanted to convert saves into defences EXACTLY as 4th has it. And he now plays 4th.
Which is all very weird, since my group has played well over a dozen different systems in full-fledged campaigns, not just one-shots. And in games they love, with rules they love, most players I've gamed with (about 50 over the years) don't like changing the rules further than the essential math.
Mostly it is a balance issue, though the only way to figure that out is to try it out. Sometimes it is purely distasteful, like the poster above, who don't find a place in the game where it fits well. Both of these are valid. But once in a while you get someone who treats the DMG as holy script, immortal and unchangeable. Ridiculous, since a game like D&D, in all it's many forms, is about the fluidity of an individual's imagination, not his ability to memorize.
EDIT: Just read that, kinda off topic, but I'm steaming at my GM because he shot down animal companions for rangers in a 3.5 game. I then said bad words about his intelligence and heritage.
the more trigger-simple tech you have in such a world, the more the heroes are borrowing mojo from some nameless inventor, the less fantastic and heroic the world feels.
I'd say Gurren Lagann (And really mech shows in general) counter this point. Take Kamina. He freaking stole his mech from the enemies (and then Leeron retooled it to work for him) and he still managed to be one of the most badass characters of all time.
This seems to be the most prevalent opinion people have. Things outside the core three are hailed as awesome or terrible (exaggeration, ofc). Usually classes, PrC's, monsters were fine for any DM or player to throw into a game. But alternate rules, from firearms to Unearthed Arcana, get shot down extremely quickly. All sorts of ideas I've tried to introduce as a player or DM, spell-points, armor as DR, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, get immediately shot down.
Can you introduce me to your players so I can injure them? On the subject, I remember when I was rolling a psion, at least two people expressed concern that I was going to "psionically dominate" the rest of the party. To be fair they were cool with it once I explained that this had more to do with being a **** than being a psion, and showed them the entry for psionic dominate and pointed out that it was, y'know, a psionic version of THE DOMINATE SPELL IN THE PHB
[/rant]In a D&D world, unless you make guns incredibly deadly, they just won't have the same impact....
An argument can be made that the entire Hit Point system is broken, as being stabbed with a sword should be as deadly as getting shot by a gun but most PCs could shake off the damage the way a real person could shake off a mild bump on the head.
There was an optional rule in 3.5 that allowed guns to be deadly by often inflicting near fatal damage, depending on the roll. I don't recall the specifics, but that the rule existed and was only partyl broken as compared to being totally broken.
Edit: Have firearms been covered by a third party for 4E?
Edit: Have firearms been covered by a third party for 4E?
When it comes to black powder muskets or flintlocks or some such, I have no idea. Dias Ex Machina is doing modern firearms and explosives and such for Amethyst and Neurospasta, but that won't fit most people's D&D settings. I will give them credit though for not just going crazy with damage. They did a pretty good job (IMO) of making firearms and explosives balanced while also trying to be somewhat faithful to both realism and hollywood (which you can't do both, but again, they struck a balance that I think is acceptable from both sides).
It's a fairly drastic flavor change.
The truth is that firearms are better than any other form of weaponry. That's why they supplanted them all. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, so making them available but unappealing is pretty common.
It's a fairly drastic flavor change.
And that is all that it is, really. It is just a rigid tradition of aesthetics, a usually unexamined and arguably needless tradition. But if Elric, the Greymouser and Conan never used guns then it is “wrong” for guns to appear in a fantasy game, to the point it is offensive and divisive to even bring the subject up. But that is just the way people want it so that is the way things are.
Of course, but by denying all firearms, you effectively would prohibit the change from beginning. Most DMs I've played under allowed an arquebus or hand cannon, especially if the weapons had backfires on critical failures. Very few allowed match, flint, or wheel lock muskets.
The truth is that firearms are better than any other form of weaponry. That's why they supplanted them all. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, so making them available but unappealing is pretty common.
No. Later firearms were better for general use than most other weapons. Early firearms sucked donkey balls. And I have nothing against rules for hangfires, misfires, and backfires, but only if there are critical fumbles for other weapons as well. Otherwise, why do firearms get penalized? Why don't bow strings snap, or swords get stuck in corpses?
And to prohibit the change in warfare and weapons and armor, you can include early firearms and just not have newer ones developed during the campaign. Easy. These advanced in firearms and their use took a long time.
Anyway, in a fantasy setting, magic will be more poweful than firearms. Hell, I'd rather be a wizard with a tome in one hand and a wand in the other right now in modern warfare than a marine with an m-16. (assuming of course that magic would work.) Screw grenades, I gots fireballs, as it were.
Further, magic and technology can simply be integrated. The thing that feuls guns can be a magical compound that simulates the instant evaporation of a liquid in a very cramped space with only one exit. The ball and this compound can be put into a cartidge even, and then you can have a gun that can be shot once a round, or even more if the rules allow it. Since there's a logical limit to the pressure you could create safely with this, you can reasonably limit the damage to be comparable with crossbows and bows. Perhaps the biggest, meanest superior ranged version doing 2d6 instead of the greatbow's 1d12.
Then, if you want it to be flintlock looking guns rather than six-shooters, make the cartridges too big for loading multiple shots at a time to be practical, and you can have flintlocks with a breach. it would actually be a flintlock, strictly speaking, but it would look like one. it would just reload faster.
Even in this world were they are flying around in spaceship and shoot rocket launchers though, there are still people fighting with swords and people fighting with magic.
Vampire Hunter D, they had laser rifles and electic fences. Robot horses and all that.. but the main character uses a big two handed sword. There is a guy who uses a bow and arrow even and can fire more arrows then a laser rifle could blast.
World Destruction, again, they had machine guns. But the main character had a big blade thing she used to block bullets.. or they just missed.
Samurai 7, 7 Samurai run around choping down big mecha robots into pieces using only swords. Even deflecting massive cannon fire with a single swing of their sword.
Beserk, the main character has a robot hand ( I think) and is capable of firing an energy blast out of it. But he still uses a sword (Or rather a large chunk of metal roughly in the shape of a sword.)
Granted, all of these are anime, and most people tend to turn up their noses at anime. So.. lets go with star wars..
Sure the weapons are all laser thingys.. but overall there is magic, swords and guns pretty much co-existing.
Of course, but by denying all firearms, you effectively would prohibit the change from beginning. Most DMs I've played under allowed an arquebus or hand cannon, especially if the weapons had backfires on critical failures. Very few allowed match, flint, or wheel lock muskets.
The truth is that firearms are better than any other form of weaponry. That's why they supplanted them all. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, so making them available but unappealing is pretty common.
No. Later firearms were better for general use than most other weapons. Early firearms sucked donkey balls. And I have nothing against rules for hangfires, misfires, and backfires, but only if there are critical fumbles for other weapons as well. Otherwise, why do firearms get penalized? Why don't bow strings snap, or swords get stuck in corpses?
Early gunpowder was prohibitively expensive, inconsistent, and early gun barrels were either too heavy for handheld use (brass, also ridiculously expensive) or risked brittle fracturing due to use (iron). But make no mistake, they were devastatingly powerful and terrifying to behold. It was not unheard of for armies or towns to surrender simply on the rumor that guns were on the way.
They first appeared in the 14th century, became common through the 15th century, and had completely replaced the weaponry in all armies of import by the 16th century. In that day and age, that's a ridiculously fast change of pace. It also managed to obsolete all but the heaviest armors. The only remaining weapon, the pike, was there just to protect the musketeers from cavalry, and that was eventually replaced by the bayonet. From that point, armed conflict remained relatively unchanged until rifling in the 19th century and mechanized war in the 20th. The only other changes near this magnatude in the past would include the stirrup which enabled the heavy cavalry shock charge, the military saddle which obsoleted the chariot, and the development of iron weapons.
Castle architecture changed from the stone castle and wood hillfort to the earthen star fort, again, thanks to gunpowder.
It's difficult for us to fully grasp how gunpowder affected the battlefield. Not wishing this kind of change to happen is, I think, understandable. Once guns are reliable as bows, they completely replace them because they're much easier to use. They're simple weapons, in D&D terms, which [ought to] deal the damage normally ascribed to superior weapons.
It's difficult for us to fully grasp how gunpowder affected the battlefield. Not wishing this kind of change to happen is, I think, understandable. Once guns are reliable as bows, they completely replace them because they're much easier to use. They're simple weapons, in D&D terms, which [ought to] deal the damage normally ascribed to superior weapons.
Once again, guns are powered by SCIENCE *jazzhands*. Problem solved. Player gets his sexy character, and Stop Having Fun Guys don't get to rant about how guns are clearly out of place in an eclectic mix of fantasy tropes.
Once again, guns are powered by SCIENCE *jazzhands*. Problem solved. Player gets his sexy character, and Stop Having Fun Guys don't get to rant about how guns are clearly out of place in an eclectic mix of fantasy tropes.
I thought it was clear that some people find the presence of guns to be the spoiler. That if guns were present, like bows and swords and horses, they should have the same predictable effects on the game world. In this case, namely, that they'd eclipse everything else. So having them present and not doing that spoils the flavor of the setting.
One would be hard pressed to pick more iconic medieval battles than Agincourt or Crecy. Yet, the Hundred Years War had gunpowder.
Ah Agincourt. so epic.
I once ran a large segment of a campaign based on the idea that some orcs (supported by goblin alchemists) were starting to use firearms. The characters were finding little bags of strange black powder, and pouches of steel balls that were really nice and round but seemed too small for slings. They heard rumours of fearsome orc raiders who killed from a distance without bows. Once they even found a pistol. It got called "the sparking tube" and they tried to use it to start their campfires for awhile, but it wasn't as good as their old flint and tinder.
Yes, well. We're all very worried about Pink Squad...
Well in Outlaw star, there is a gun called a Caster. Basically each bullet was charged with some sort of spell, and each bullet only held one charge. The caster is breach loaded, single shot.. in basic sense a wand with an interchangable spell ability.
One of the iconic concepts in Privateer Press' WarMachine and the d20 adaptation Iron Kingdoms is the Gunmage, a sorceror who uses specially-made firearms as a focus for arcane spells, "shooting" them. And they refer to their setting as full-metal fantasy (as opposed to steampunk) for several reasons relating to the amalgamation of arcane science into standard fantasy, rather than the advancement of standard fantasy through an industrial revolution.
Our last session, we had a guy invent a "rocket" powered sled using a turtle shell and this magical waterskin thing i forgot the name of. Basically he set it to its third setting which fired a gyser allowing him to quickly get infront of a dragon running away from us. Corse it was after a little metagaming talk previously were I had said something about my artificer turning it into a "jetpack".
Once again, guns are powered by SCIENCE *jazzhands*. Problem solved. Player gets his sexy character, and Stop Having Fun Guys don't get to rant about how guns are clearly out of place in an eclectic mix of fantasy tropes.
I thought it was clear that some people find the presence of guns to be the spoiler. That if guns were present, like bows and swords and horses, they should have the same predictable effects on the game world. In this case, namely, that they'd eclipse everything else. So having them present and not doing that spoils the flavor of the setting.
True, but those people are wrong (And really anybody who complains about realism in D&D is doing it wrong). And the point of guns being powered by SCIENCE *jazzhands* is that they are thus able to be "realistically" (
) kept from eclipsing bows (save for being far sexier, but that's a matter of personal preference).True, but those people are wrong (And really anybody who complains about realism in D&D is doing it wrong). And the point of guns being powered by SCIENCE *jazzhands* is that they are thus able to be "realistically" (
No they aren't wrong at all.
-In a low magical game having a party of all powerful wizards would spoil the effect and feel of a low fantasy setting.
-In an evil game which takes pplace in a dark underground Drow city, playing a High Elf paladin would ruin the effect and feel of the intended gameplay.
-In a heroic setting, playing a CE beholder who is only pretending to be good in a group of Paladins and clerics would spoil the mood and setting of the game.
Any number of things changes the feel of the intended setting. Firearms included. They are a different type of weapon, and a different type of feel to them and the surrounding settings. And that effect can't simply be ignored away.
There are many different settings that a DM can create. An oriental setting for instance where the PCs are all oriental classes, etc, or a DM could choose a game during the french revolution era with guns and cannons mixing it up with magic. There is no wrong setting except when an elliment that doesn't belong to the intended feel of that setting is there. The example being where the players meet for an oriental game, the DM may put limits on what classes and races are allowed since the game is intended to have a particular feel in line with an oriental adventure.
Deciding that Guns are out of place in a particular game world is perfectly right. There is no more hatred towards firearms then there is a hatred towards all things that would be out of place for a particular setting.
Realism is Also needed, even in a fantasy game with magic. Gravity still works like gravity works, that which goes up must go down. Reverse Gravity, Wind Walk and Fly spells don't effect this basic rule, just as air planes don't changed the fact that gravity works. While there is a suspension of disbelief (like a dragon flying) there is also a need for realism to make that disbelief work. It is not reasonable in the wrong settings to ignore the effect that guns have.
In a magical world guns might become popular because they would be perceived as a way for the common man to become magical. The bang the invisibly flying projectile that falls their target just by pointing at it, seems very much akin to the power a wizard has. Point and squeeze is all it takes to change a rag tag group of ignorant peasants into a huge army.
Early gunpowder was prohibitively expensive, inconsistent, and early gun barrels were either too heavy for handheld use (brass, also ridiculously expensive) or risked brittle fracturing due to use (iron). But make no mistake, they were devastatingly powerful and terrifying to behold. It was not unheard of for armies or towns to surrender simply on the rumor that guns were on the way.
They first appeared in the 14th century, became common through the 15th century, and had completely replaced the weaponry in all armies of import by the 16th century. In that day and age, that's a ridiculously fast change of pace. It also managed to obsolete all but the heaviest armors. The only remaining weapon, the pike, was there just to protect the musketeers from cavalry, and that was eventually replaced by the bayonet. From that point, armed conflict remained relatively unchanged until rifling in the 19th century and mechanized war in the 20th. The only other changes near this magnatude in the past would include the stirrup which enabled the heavy cavalry shock charge, the military saddle which obsoleted the chariot, and the development of iron weapons.
Castle architecture changed from the stone castle and wood hillfort to the earthen star fort, again, thanks to gunpowder.
It's difficult for us to fully grasp how gunpowder affected the battlefield. Not wishing this kind of change to happen is, I think, understandable. Once guns are reliable as bows, they completely replace them because they're much easier to use. They're simple weapons, in D&D terms, which [ought to] deal the damage normally ascribed to superior weapons.
I wouldn't call early firearms devastatingly powerful. Their effect was more psychological than anything. You could get similar armor penetration (or better depending on how early in the development we're talking) and better accuracy from a crossbow.
And unless your campaign is going to take several centuries, the timeline for firearms development is pretty meaningless. Over the course of a few years, its not likely that there will be any drastic changes (unless its part of the plot). And once you throw magic into the mix, everything changes anyways. Armies might not like having guys carrying around black powder when there are people that can snap their fingers and make a ball of fire appear in your midst. Basically, historical information is great just to get some background info, but the only thing that has to happen in your campaign is what you want to happen in your campaign, and so long as there's some internal consistency (this world didn't have the genius that made X advancement, magic is seen as more viable than technology, whatever) it's all good.
This is my boom... rod.
In this case, namely, that they'd eclipse everything else.
Why assume that? No other technical whatzit in a science fiction setting should do that and no magical thingamabob would do that is a fantasy setting, so why assume guns would do that. It is not an issue of game mechanics – that can be resolved. It is an aggressive interpretation of what is and is not aesthetically appropriate game. It’s thought police/taste police saying not to have the guns. That is all.
True, but those people are wrong (And really anybody who complains about realism in D&D is doing it wrong). And the point of guns being powered by SCIENCE *jazzhands* is that they are thus able to be "realistically" (
No they aren't wrong at all.
-In a low magical game having a party of all powerful wizards would spoil the effect and feel of a low fantasy setting.
-In an evil game which takes pplace in a dark underground Drow city, playing a High Elf paladin would ruin the effect and feel of the intended gameplay.
-In a heroic setting, playing a CE beholder who is only pretending to be good in a group of Paladins and clerics would spoil the mood and setting of the game.
Any number of things changes the feel of the intended setting. Firearms included. They are a different type of weapon, and a different type of feel to them and the surrounding settings. And that effect can't simply be ignored away.
There are many different settings that a DM can create. An oriental setting for instance where the PCs are all oriental classes, etc, or a DM could choose a game during the french revolution era with guns and cannons mixing it up with magic. There is no wrong setting except when an elliment that doesn't belong to the intended feel of that setting is there. The example being where the players meet for an oriental game, the DM may put limits on what classes and races are allowed since the game is intended to have a particular feel in line with an oriental adventure.
Deciding that Guns are out of place in a particular game world is perfectly right. There is no more hatred towards firearms then there is a hatred towards all things that would be out of place for a particular setting.
Realism is Also needed, even in a fantasy game with magic. Gravity still works like gravity works, that which goes up must go down. Reverse Gravity, Wind Walk and Fly spells don't effect this basic rule, just as air planes don't changed the fact that gravity works. While there is a suspension of disbelief (like a dragon flying) there is also a need for realism to make that disbelief work. It is not reasonable in the wrong settings to ignore the effect that guns have.
In a magical world guns might become popular because they would be perceived as a way for the common man to become magical. The bang the invisibly flying projectile that falls their target just by pointing at it, seems very much akin to the power a wizard has. Point and squeeze is all it takes to change a rag tag group of ignorant peasants into a huge army.
I love how this works. As long as it was in a book it has "realism" to it and that guns couldn't ever never ever work in a fantasy setting with suspension of disbelief because if a guy blindly fires a gun it must be a BANG! and someone dies.
But lets just work with your view on what "gravity" is. To you, gravity is as you said "What goes up, must come down." a very simplistic saying. Too simplistic in fact.
Willow o' Wisp, Ghosts, Beholders, elementals, and a ton of other monsters I haven't even seen yet or can't remember. All of these things go up, but they don't have to come down. When you start trying to compare physical relationships of the aerodynamics of an airplane with the three magic spells you listed.. Well then its like saying "What turns on, must turn off." Or "What becomes closed, must become open."
Things come down in DnD often because they choose to or they run out of power. However once the wizard can make the spell of reverse gravity permanent.. nothing there comes back down. If you could fly through a means of self generated propulsion, as with the fly spell, and were immune to cold and didn't have to breath, you can actually fly right out of the planets atmosphere. But yes.. you would eventually come down. Not because of some cosmic laws of gravity, No, you would come down because there was a reason for you to be on the ground, were you could fight enemies and continue on with the game.
But lets say you didn't have any of that stuff and you fell.. I dunno.. 400 feet. Do you know how much damage you would take? 1d6 per 10 feet. No more than 20d6... Which means you can fall this 400 feet and if you have 121 hp, you live. And 121 HP isn't too hard to get either if you play your cards right and stuff. Heck, not only do you live but you get to stand right back up and keep walking. Yep. Totally realistic.
But yes, you are right about if something was out of place it could ruin the feel of the campain. However the hatred of firearms is far beyond just the feel of the campain. Really its the whole idea that guns have to do a 50d20 damage in order to exist. Because a gun doing 1d10 just isn't enough and it disturbs people. Mostly because they think if a gun is shot in the woods, someone has to die. That armor cannot deflect a musket ball. Sure chances of that happening in real life are slim.
But there is hudreds of movies and anime out there where just that very thing happens. Were people are capible of dodging bullets.. bullets just shoot the ground instead of the person, ect. One of the original batmans I belived he stopped bullets from killing him by putting a dinner platter thing under his shirt.
True, but those people are wrong (And really anybody who complains about realism in D&D is doing it wrong). And the point of guns being powered by SCIENCE *jazzhands* is that they are thus able to be "realistically" (
No they aren't wrong at all.
Any number of things changes the feel of the intended setting. Firearms included. They are a different type of weapon, and a different type of feel to them and the surrounding settings. And that effect can't simply be ignored away.
Okay yes, if the DM is speficially running a setting where firearms don't fit (and not just because everyone else is content with their elf rangers and dwarven fighters, but specifically because of some plot point) then yeah, they... well, they wouldn't fit. However if your DM doesn't give any specific restrictions, then they should be fair game (D&D being largely assumed to be a fantasy kitchen sink unless the DM specifies otherwise)
Realism is Also needed, even in a fantasy game with magic. Gravity still works like gravity works, that which goes up must go down. Reverse Gravity, Wind Walk and Fly spells don't effect this basic rule, just as air planes don't changed the fact that gravity works. While there is a suspension of disbelief (like a dragon flying) there is also a need for realism to make that disbelief work.
What you want is verisimilitude.
It is not reasonable in the wrong settings to ignore the effect that guns have.
And there's the problem. I own a good deal of RPG sourcebooks, and the ones that typically look the least interesting to play are one's that go out of their way to simulate "realism"
Bascially, if a game requires you to break out the equation for motion in the Y direction, it's bad design. Similarly, getting too technical with guns "Okay, you shot him in the thigh, he's now losing 1 ounce of blood per turn and has a 15% chance of movement failing with mass increased by 1 gram from the weight of the bullet...).
Incidentally I also find it amusing that IIRC guns were actually in the 3.5 DMG, so they're technically "core"
Incidentally I also find it amusing that IIRC guns were actually in the 3.5 DMG, so they're technically "core"
Core, yes, but also explicitly optional. Otherwise, everybody would be running around with antimatter rifles (6d8 damage, range increment 120') and flamers (3d6 in a 5'x200' line).
Never mind the fact that even explicitly optional, those weapons never appear in either the DMG or the PHB. Or in any splatbook or even the dragon magazine.
I mean after all we have longswords, so if Firearms=Antimatter rilfes then Long Sword must = Lightsabers that do 6d8 damage are automatically vorpal with the ability to be thrown at a 80 foot reaching arc.
1d6 damage
Ranged 10/20
Proficient +2
Yep, this clearly ruins D&D forever, amirite?
Yep, this clearly ruins D&D forever, amirite?
Well, you are violating other peoples sense of what is proper. Got to maintain appearances, after all.
Hand Crossbow Pistol
1d6 damage
Ranged 10/20
Proficient +2
Yep, this clearly ruins D&D forever, amirite?
Ninja hitsquads are descending.
I know. I am one.
Hand Crossbow Pistol
1d6 damage
Ranged 10/20
Proficient +2
Yep, this clearly ruins D&D forever, amirite?
Ninja hitsquads are descending.
I know. I am one.
Bring it on, just let me drop my mediocre but sexy pistol for the candle that I can throw at the same distance for 1d4 +1d6 + 7 damage with my assassin/barbarian multiclass .
He will have arms like cannons. And possibly on fire too.
And there we go again with the, It can't be a firearm unless it does a billiond100 damage.
Never mind the fact that even explicitly optional, those weapons never appear in either the DMG or the PHB. Or in any splatbook or even the dragon magazine.
I don't know what you're talking about. Those weapons exactly are in the 3.5 DMG, p146, and the damage values and ranges I listed are correct. The guy said "they're in the DMG so they're core." And presumably that was to argue they should be legal weapons or something. Well, so are these clearly optional and ridiculously powerful weapons.
I don't know what you're talking about. Those weapons exactly are in the 3.5 DMG, p146, and the damage values and ranges I listed are correct. The guy said "they're in the DMG so they're core." And presumably that was to argue they should be legal weapons or something. Well, so are these clearly optional and ridiculously powerful weapons.
Not really, that was really more of a tangent, when I was reminded of the whole "nothing but core is balanced" attitude held by a lot of stop having fun guys. I think an issue of Dragon had some firearms that were actually pretty well balanced. Actually come to think of it, the DMG thing is probably contributing to the misconception.
It probally is those weapons that are causing people to think that we've gotta do a billiond10 damage to actually get firearms in.
Though the amusing joke.. What the heck is an energy cell? Notice futuristic are missing their ammo.. So like, even lets say you were forced to use everything in that book.. (Or ANY book for that matter, who the hell says that the PHB isn't optional?).. the players can never ever actually fire those weapons. So they will have antimatter rifles.. but they become nothing more than improvised weapons. (Cause the DMG never had energy cells.)
I'm also going to include the pistol and musket, roughly like this:
Pistol - One Handed Superior Ranged Weapon
50gp
Prof: +2
Range: 6 / 12
Damage: 1d12
Property: Can be reloaded during a short rest only, you can only make one attack roll with a Pistol attack.
Property: Offhand
Musket - Two Handed Superior Ranged Weapon
60gp
Prof: +3
Range: 10 / 20
Damage: 2d6
Property: Can be reloaded during a short rest only, you can only make one attack roll with a Musket attack.
Property: High crit
That will make them distinctly different from bows and crossbows, awesome for the occasional high tech army with a lot of gold, pretty useless to the characters that could break them (ie: archer ranger) and pretty thematically useful to the characters that would enjoy them (ie: the main character, Morgause the pirate)
We'll see how it goes
Though the amusing joke.. What the heck is an energy cell? Notice futuristic are missing their ammo.. So like, even lets say you were forced to use everything in that book.. (Or ANY book for that matter, who the hell says that the PHB isn't optional?).. the players can never ever actually fire those weapons. So they will have antimatter rifles.. but they become nothing more than improvised weapons. (Cause the DMG never had energy cells.)
They don't list the ammunition for any weapons there other than the blowgun. Not the futuristic weapons, nor the modern, nor the renaissance. An energy cell is either a fuel cell or a high capacitance battery. It's not like they can describe how any of the futuristic weapons works. The flamer, perhaps, but none of the others. It doesn't matter any more than writing "Arrows x50" on your sheet. Each one is a pound of ammunition. *shrug* I find it more amusing that you could presumably make an energy cell +5 for your brilliant energy antimatter rifle +5.
Renaissance
Bullets- these large, round lead projectiles cost 3 gold for 10. weighs 2 pounds.
Modern chages it to 1 pound for 10 and says that its basically the same.
Future however doesn't have anything.
And why can they not discribe how futuristic weapon work, when they can describe how magic works? And it does matter. sure, you can write 50 arrows, just like i could write a +5 vorpal long sword, but the cost is compleatly different.
As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of firearms in D&D, but if someone wanted them I'd toss them in because it isn't a huge deal for me. If the other players didn't want it though, I'd go with the majority. If you're going to be dming and your players don't want firearms...*shrugs* you either need to find some sort of middle ground or do something else.
It just comes down to flavor though, which is something that can't exactly be argued...you can point out historical examples, point out it won't be overpowered, point out other systems that mesh magic/tech etc. but it isn't going to magically change someone's preference...this isn't a matter of facts, just opinions. If I were in this situation, I'd just straight up ask the dm why he doesn't want firearms. It might just be something like he feels if one person has it everyone else will get jealous, and chances are there's some kinda middle ground that could be found.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a strictly "fantasy" setting, just like there's nothing wrong with wanting a steampunk setting, or future setting, or some weird combination thingy, but if it's not what everyone wants then it's probably better to go with the majority...after all, it's not like you won't be able to use the character design another time with a different group, or maybe even the same group in a later campaign when they get the urge for something different, but trying to argue preferences just ends up going round and round and can potentially ruin fun if it keeps going.
Actually come to think of it, the DMG thing is probably contributing to the misconception.
How so? People believe what they want to believe. A vocal number of people want guns kept out of the games for their own puritanical aesthetic reasons and these people they will always seek any reason or justification to that end, real or imagined. The text in the old DMG is more or less incidental.
Well, so are these clearly optional and ridiculously powerful weapons.
No, that is not correct or at the least it is a distortion, a fallacy. 3E and 3.5E did not assign items, weapons and tools levels (to define available power) in the manner that 4E does. The damage values for the optional firearms guns listed in the DMG is only “ridiculously powerful” if you are assuming they fall into the hands of first level characters. If these weapons are assigned to a character level which can otherwise inflict that level of damage, then they are mechanically appropriate. The issue is again actually one of offended aesthetics masquerading as an intractable issue of balance and design.
As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of firearms in D&D, but if someone wanted them I'd toss them...
That doesn’t make any sense. If you are against something, then why allow it just because someone wants it? By that logic, why not let PCs skip levels? Inconsistency is a vice and a terrible failure of people these days. If you dislike guns, stick to that principle.
Actually come to think of it, the DMG thing is probably contributing to the misconception.How so? People believe what they want to believe. A vocal number of people want guns kept out of the games for their own puritanical aesthetic reasons and these people they will always seek any reason or justification to that end, real or imagined. The text in the old DMG is more or less incidental.
Okay, say the entries for swords in the PHB included a one handed sword that gave you a +5 to hit and dealt 6d12 damage, that could understandably lead one to think that swords were overpowered.
As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of firearms in D&D, but if someone wanted them I'd toss them...That doesn’t make any sense. If you are against something, then why allow it just because someone wants it?
There's something to be said for not being a ****. For example, I strongly loathe elves, but if I'm running a game and one of my players wants to roll one up I'm not gonna be like "PICK SOMETHING ELSE!
" (Unless the lack of elves is a plot point, though I'd still prolly allow them to be the last of their race, or just not use a cliched plot device just to coerce my players back onto the tracks).He said that he isn't a fan of them that doesn't mean that he absolutly has to say no. Otherwise in my campain, I wouldn't have any elves or dwarves or a number of other races being allowed, just because i'm not a fan of them.
Well that was awesomely timed. High five.
He said that he isn't a fan of them that doesn't mean that he absolutly has to say no. Otherwise in my campain, I wouldn't have any elves or dwarves or a number of other races being allowed, just because i'm not a fan of them.
This
I don't like firearms, but it's not like it'll completely ruin my D&D experience if they're in the campaign...to me, it's such a small thing since all it's really doing is replacing the word crossbow with pistol, and bolt with bullet...and they're louder. My games don't have to be 100% exactly what I want, otherwise I'd just game by myself and play all the roles.
As for skipping levels...given how many campaigns we end up running we tend to start at different levels each time to keep things more fresh, something which isn't exactly uncommon given how many threads tend to include we're starting at X level being something that isn't one.
It seems like there have been alot of threads lately where it becomes it can either be 100% the dm's way, or 100% the players way. D&D is supposed to be a group game played with friends...even my more stubborn friends are willing to compromise on letting people use certain classes/races that we would otherwise ignore. Personally, as a DM I feel more inclined to appeal to my players. I guess I kinda feel responsible for their enjoyment in the game, and I consider myself to be a pretty flexible person. Even when I've had game worlds prepared with certain classes cut out (Druid, 3.5 for obvious reasons) I managed to work it in with one of my Pc's who's favorite class happened to be druid. We just tweaked it so it was less on the broken side and both ended up having a good time but *shrugs* I dunno, I guess I can generally just enjoy the game seeing the Pc's have a good time. Sides, it increases my chances of having something I might want as a Pc when someone else Dms.
Of course you really can't fault guns as a whole because the examples from the year 2200 seem overpowered compared to medieval weaponry (Don't have access to a DMG so I dunno what the stats on the normal weapons are).
The guns in the 3e DMG are a terrible example of introducing guns into D&D. While I no longer have that book, I do remember never using those stats even when I did use firearms because I don't think there was any thought at all given to balance. Then again, that describes much of 3e as a whole. Let's not use those as an example why guns should or should not be in D&D. Its quite possible to create firearm stats that are actually balanced.
No, that is not correct or at the least it is a distortion, a fallacy. 3E and 3.5E did not assign items, weapons and tools levels (to define available power) in the manner that 4E does.
Incorrect, "Item Levels" can be found in the back of the 3.5 MIC.
He said that he isn't a fan of them that doesn't mean that he absolutly has to say no. Otherwise in my campain, I wouldn't have any elves or dwarves or a number of other races being allowed, just because i'm not a fan of them.
This
I don't like firearms, but it's not like it'll completely ruin my D&D experience if they're in the campaign...to me, it's such a small thing since all it's really doing is replacing the word crossbow with pistol, and bolt with bullet...and they're louder. My games don't have to be 100% exactly what I want, otherwise I'd just game by myself and play all the roles.
As for skipping levels...given how many campaigns we end up running we tend to start at different levels each time to keep things more fresh, something which isn't exactly uncommon given how many threads tend to include we're starting at X level being something that isn't one.
It seems like there have been alot of threads lately where it becomes it can either be 100% the dm's way, or 100% the players way. D&D is supposed to be a group game played with friends...even my more stubborn friends are willing to compromise on letting people use certain classes/races that we would otherwise ignore. Personally, as a DM I feel more inclined to appeal to my players. I guess I kinda feel responsible for their enjoyment in the game, and I consider myself to be a pretty flexible person. Even when I've had game worlds prepared with certain classes cut out (Druid, 3.5 for obvious reasons) I managed to work it in with one of my Pc's who's favorite class happened to be druid. We just tweaked it so it was less on the broken side and both ended up having a good time but *shrugs* I dunno, I guess I can generally just enjoy the game seeing the Pc's have a good time. Sides, it increases my chances of having something I might want as a Pc when someone else Dms.
Indeed, due to my DMs initial reaction to the word "firearm" where he became a bit hesitent on it, the 'gun' my character is to be using is blosseming into something bigger. Basically, its becoming a one shot wand (One shot per shell, approx the same cost as a wand per shell.) Which gives me the fun toy to play with, and i don't have to make UMD checks to use the weapon.
Course some people might think my artificer is getting away with never having to make UMD checks.. when in reality.. I'm actually kinda sucking a lot because of this. Artificers after all, have to make a UMD check at the start of making an item. (or spellcraft i don't remember off the top of my head.) So, I'm actually shooting myself in the foot for this "Cool thing".
I love how this works. As long as it was in a book it has "realism" to it and that guns couldn't ever never ever work in a fantasy setting with suspension of disbelief because if a guy blindly fires a gun it must be a BANG! and someone dies.
But lets just work with your view on what "gravity" is. To you, gravity is as you said "What goes up, must come down." a very simplistic saying. Too simplistic in fact.
Willow o' Wisp, Ghosts, Beholders, elementals, and a ton of other monsters I haven't even seen yet or can't remember. All of these things go up, but they don't have to come down. When you start trying to compare physical relationships of the aerodynamics of an airplane with the three magic spells you listed.. Well then its like saying "What turns on, must turn off." Or "What becomes closed, must become open."
These things all follow the rules of gravity, just like airplanes, bees, birds, rockets work. Even those things that we don't see a ready means of propulsion, such a helium balloons. Beholders still obey the rules of gravity, but something allows them to float, the means might be magical (which is just a different set of physics) but it still adheres to the basic laws. If a Beholder drops his sandwich (never mind how he is holding it or why he would be eating it) it still falls onto the ground.
The point being that unless there is something affecting an object, it follows the basic rules of gravity.
This isn't to say that Absolute realism must be applied, because frankly I don't see how a dragon could fly, wings or no, they simply are too large, bulky and heavy. The point here is the suspension of disbelief, which is done in part by holding the integrety of the setting together. That includes vetoing items and classes that don't belong in the setting or distract from the feel of the game.
I have allowed guns in some of my games, I have a game that took place mostly at sea and I allowed blunderbusses and brass cannons because I felt it fit the feel that I wanted in my game, I would have allowed them in a couple of others except that the issue never came up, on the otherhand I have refused them in other settings because I didn't think they fit the theme. I had a game where there was a single encounter with gnomes who had guns and cannons, but regretted it after because it came off trite in the end.
The thing of it is, my game where I had guns and brass cannons changed the feel of my game, ships were more modern then the purely fantasy ships, it was an entirely different setting then that of a non-gun game. Of course this was intended.
I have also had games where I never permited non-core races, a couple where only core classes were permited, no evil allignments is in most, but not all, of my games, I've not allowed paladins in some games becuase they didn't fit the party theme, or the particular player (or group of players) I've disallowed psionics becuase I didn't have the rulebooks for them, but they are generally allowed on a case by case basis.
Which is what it comes down to, does it fit the theme, for most I suspect guns do not fit their theme, neither would Electric Cars and Light Bulbs, really like anything else it is introducing a technology into a world where that technology is out of place, if this gives a perception that it disrupts the theme and feel of the world, it is because, well it does. Click-BANG!!!
Now if you want a themed wold where guns and magic mess it up, I see no issue with that. It's when they are entered into a world where they go against the grain of the theme that it becomes an issue. And really when you approach a DM about bringing guns into the game what you are approaching him about is really a change in the game's theme.
And even if it won't change the world's theme as YOU see it, or else you don't mind the impact it does have, it does change the theme and feel for OTHERS, which when you sit together as a group where the other Players and the DM who feel the game's theme and feel will be adversely effected by guns and don't like the idea of more modern technology them being in a fantasy game, then I think that change is important to consider.
So, while I admit I don't prefer firearms in my campaigns, there are certainly situations where they can fit in. I asked one of my players the other night what he thought about this thread and he said basically the same thing...he wouldn't exactly want them but it wouldn't be an issue if they were there. He did point out that some DM's might have had bad experiences in the past with players demanding overpowered custom stuff/constantly complaining if they didn't get it or using them to break things. I have no idea about your dms past experiences, but that might have given him something of a sour taste towards these things.
So, while I admit I don't prefer firearms in my campaigns, there are certainly situations where they can fit in.
But that is an inconsistant world view and set of philosophy-to-behavior actions.
So, while I admit I don't prefer firearms in my campaigns, there are certainly situations where they can fit in.
But that is an inconsistant world view and set of philosophy-to-behavior actions.
*Shrugs* My philosphy is just because I don't have a personal taste for something doesn't make it wrong.
As for world view...well, there's a giant list of things I don't approve of in the world...just because I don't approve of them doesn't mean they just go away or I can just ignore them, otherwise I would be living a very tax/mortage free life.
There are instances where I've backed out from D&D games before based on personal preference choice...namely a gestalt campaign and a monster race only campaign. That has a much bigger impact on the game then allowing a player to have a firearm since it's well...more or less everything as opposed to one change that's mostly flavor.
Does that mean that because I like Gnolls, Firearms, Monkeies, and Carry Elwes that i HAVE to include them in my campain?
I think the big problem that firearms run up against in a fantasy rpg is that sufficiently old firearms, like muskets, are slow-firing but high-damage. So, if a character wants to use them, he's firing (in D&D) once every two rounds, while everyone else is getting an attack a round. A quarter of the time, he'll miss twice in a row, which means that he has absolutely no effect for six rounds. Nobody's going to enjoy that much ineffectiveness.
The homebrewed setting I'm running in has firearms; they're essentially the same power level as the longbow: same damage and proficiency, free reload except every 10 shots you take a standard to switch clips, and a different feat selection that lets wielders ignore a certain amount of resistance, fire in close combat, etc.
I think the big problem that firearms run up against in a fantasy rpg is that sufficiently old firearms, like muskets, are slow-firing but high-damage. So, if a character wants to use them, he's firing (in D&D) once every two rounds, while everyone else is getting an attack a round. A quarter of the time, he'll miss twice in a row, which means that he has absolutely no effect for six rounds. Nobody's going to enjoy that much ineffectiveness.
I think the solution there is to basically make them item-based encounter powers. The PCs (or monsters) can open up with a volley, but after that they need a short rest to reload them since once combat is joined there isn't going to be an opportunity for it. An extra encounter power increases the party's power somewhat, but you can either adjust the encounters accordingly or have the firearms take the place of a magic item they would have otherwise received.
Thats if we are playing 4e.
Good point, but a similar mechanic could be devised for any edition. Instead of listing it as an encounter power you describe it as "takes X rounds to reload, during which time you provoke AoOs" which often means a player will use it once and then reload it after the fight is over.
My philosphy is just because I don't have a personal taste for something doesn't make it wrong.
That is just inconsistant, and inconsistancy is a terrible problem these days. You are not the kind of person I would wan to game with.
I think the solution there is to basically make them item-based encounter powers.
That was my thinking, as it address several issues; reload time, relative power as an encounter v. at will, and probably setting a level for it.
My philosphy is just because I don't have a personal taste for something doesn't make it wrong.
That is just inconsistant, and inconsistancy is a terrible problem these days. You are not the kind of person I would wan to game with.
Okay, so we've established that you don't agree with this person, right (On this subject at least)? And yet you have not refused to continue posting on this forum unless they conform to your opinion. By your previous assertions, this is just as inconsistent.
Wow. I never knew that not liking something was a philosophy.
Does that mean that because I like Gnolls, Firearms, Monkeies, and Carry Elwes that i HAVE to include them in my campain?
*high fives for Gnolls* They've always been one of my favorite races...I think because my very first encounter was against them. It was a premade 2e dungeon crawl that started out with 2 gnolls...final boss was an ogre with two wolves and there was a gnome that had to be rescued on the offchance anyone knows the name of it.
I had a lot of fun with that one. My brother was playing a paladin with a two-handed sword. We were using critical hit rules from Combat & Tactics. The very first encounter one of the gnolls chopped off his hand so he couldn't use his sword anymore, lol. I actually ended up expanding a lot on that adventure, creating an entire backstory to explain how an ogre was able to storm a castle and kill a wizard.
In the part where they come across a bunch of slaves being watched over by goblins I think, instead of freeing them, the party armed the peasants with tongs, shovels, picks, whatever, and forced them to fight the ogre.
As for inconsistency; whatever. Fun is more important then inconsistency so if none of your players or the DM give a damn, it works just fine. If someone does object to breaking inconsistency, then it's time for a compromise
Oh yes. I think that one was called the Tomb of Damara. Wasn't that part of a starter box or quick play set or whatever it was called? The same booklet had two more adventures, one in a haunted mansion, and the other in a dungeon? I had a lot of fun with that one. My brother was playing a paladin with a two-handed sword. We were using critical hit rules from Combat & Tactics. The very first encounter one of the gnolls chopped off his hand so he couldn't use his sword anymore, lol. I actually ended up expanding a lot on that adventure, creating an entire backstory to explain how an ogre was able to storm a castle and kill a wizard. In the part where they come across a bunch of slaves being watched over by goblins I think, instead of freeing them, the party armed the peasants with tongs, shovels, picks, whatever, and forced them to fight the ogre.
Excellent memory, that is in fact the same adventure. Our DM later expanded on it too...mostly so we'd have an excuse to use the map it came with again. All I remember from it though is my poor fighter/mage that I had forever got killed by an imp and a poor saving throw.
(ranged) Snapping Matchlock Pistol; (Encounter * Powder Weapon)
Standard Action Ranged Weapon
Range: 8/16
Weight: 5 lp.
Target: One creature or item
Attack: Dex. v. AC
Hit: 2d6, and if the target fails a Dex check (DC 15) they are knocked prone.
So what we are talking about here, is at the very core of the matter, a House Rule.
One of the primary arguements is over if introducing this as a House Rule will or will not have an impact in the game, of if the DM is being unreasonable to take into consideration if a House Rule will effect the feel and if it is appropriate to his game. I think any DM would be wise to be critical of House Rules presented to them by a player, particular if it is an "Extra" that isn't normally in his Game. "Hey Look I Have a New Race" or "Hey Look, I made this Class"
I don't think it is wrong to be critical of a House Rule being proposed.
One of the most important point that this debate has missed is that Guns aren't in the core rules. They are listed in the DMG as a altenative rule that could be included as a House rule, and are likely also listed in the odd supliment and magazine as alternative rules, some have here suggested various house rules of firearms.
So what we are talking about here, is at the very core of the matter, a House Rule.
One of the primary arguements is over if introducing this as a House Rule will or will not have an impact in the game, of if the DM is being unreasonable to take into consideration if a House Rule will effect the feel and if it is appropriate to his game. I think any DM would be wise to be critical of House Rules presented to them by a player, particular if it is an "Extra" that isn't normally in his Game. "Hey Look I Have a New Race" or "Hey Look, I made this Class"
I don't think it is wrong to be critical of a House Rule being proposed.
I brought up the core thing, but if you're just going to reflavor something it's not a big deal. A new race or new class is a much bigger deal then renaming a crossbow a firearm.
One of the most important point that this debate has missed is that Guns aren't in the core rules. They are listed in the DMG as a altenative rule that could be included as a House rule, and are likely also listed in the odd supliment and magazine as alternative rules, some have here suggested various house rules of firearms.
So what we are talking about here, is at the very core of the matter, a House Rule.
One of the primary arguements is over if introducing this as a House Rule will or will not have an impact in the game, of if the DM is being unreasonable to take into consideration if a House Rule will effect the feel and if it is appropriate to his game. I think any DM would be wise to be critical of House Rules presented to them by a player, particular if it is an "Extra" that isn't normally in his Game. "Hey Look I Have a New Race" or "Hey Look, I made this Class"
I don't think it is wrong to be critical of a House Rule being proposed.
I brought up the core thing, but if you're just going to reflavor something it's not a big deal. A new race or new class is a much bigger deal then renaming a crossbow a firearm.
Not to mention, Nothing is truely "core."
The whole idea of "Oh it was in the PHB that makes it core (or pure) means that it is infalluably allowed" is a compeate fallacy. Everything is really homebrew when you have the ability to change anything at any time anywhere when you are a DM. And you still have it to a lesser extent as a player as well.
Examples -
My DM is running a campain where barbarian, ranger, and druid were not allowed. We are not allowed to take handle animal, knowledge nature, geography, or ride, or anything else that would be considered to be "outdoors". Due to our characters being only city dwellers and out of the city means death. And not death like in the normal way.. I mean once you go outside the city, thats it.. you are considered to be dead by the city, even if you are a seasoned "adventurer". To travel from city to city is done via means of gateways.
As for me, as a player i was able to essentially cast "Open lock" by using a cold based ray and a fire based ray to destroy the lock mechanisms. Things that were never written in the spells descriptions.
In a nutshell, the moment you pop open that MTN DEW and start rolling those dice, you've already started homebrewing. The whole race/class thing you bring up is nothing more than a decoy plot, to essentially exaggerate what firearms are (from the Dragon Magazine mostly.) Though I will admit that the people who want to throw in the homebrew mechanics for caculating hydrostatic shock, cover pericing and the dozen or so other random mechanics because they think it has to be that much more (Never once considering the chance of cutting an artery with that dagger.) Kinda hyperbole the entire situation into one big stinking homebrew mess.
Anywho, there's nothing wrong with using books other then the Core ones...whether it be my definition of Core, or the actual Core books. You can also capitilize Core if you want. As a DM I personally allow any book as long as I can be presented with a physical copy first so I can actually read it over and have an idea of what the class/item/race in question will be.
If there was for example a book that did allow firearms and they did insane damage with no drawbacks...I'd probably say no and either just reflavor an item, or create a new one. I know there are quite a few DM's who aren't fans of anything not in the books...which is fine, if that's your style then go with it, but I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to DMing...if someone wants something that isn't in the book I'll gladly create it whether it be an item, a race, a class, a feat etc. Since I'm creating it I know it won't be game breakingly awesome...and on the offchance it does end up a little overpowered or what not, we can just adjust accordingly. One of the things I love about DMing is the creation process...we never really played 3e or 3.5...we always did 3.3 or the most recent 3.7. Basically, it's various tweeks and the like to the existing systems...with elements from other editions worked in with a sprinkling of homebrew stuff.
Not to mention, Nothing is truely "core."
The whole idea of "Oh it was in the PHB that makes it core (or pure) means that it is infalluably allowed" is a compeate fallacy. Everything is really homebrew when you have the ability to change anything at any time anywhere when you are a DM. And you still have it to a lesser extent as a player as well.
Examples -
My DM is running a campain where barbarian, ranger, and druid were not allowed. We are not allowed to take handle animal, knowledge nature, geography, or ride, or anything else that would be considered to be "outdoors". Due to our characters being only city dwellers and out of the city means death. And not death like in the normal way.. I mean once you go outside the city, thats it.. you are considered to be dead by the city, even if you are a seasoned "adventurer". To travel from city to city is done via means of gateways.
As for me, as a player i was able to essentially cast "Open lock" by using a cold based ray and a fire based ray to destroy the lock mechanisms. Things that were never written in the spells descriptions.
In a nutshell, the moment you pop open that MTN DEW and start rolling those dice, you've already started homebrewing. The whole race/class thing you bring up is nothing more than a decoy plot, to essentially exaggerate what firearms are (from the Dragon Magazine mostly.) Though I will admit that the people who want to throw in the homebrew mechanics for caculating hydrostatic shock, cover pericing and the dozen or so other random mechanics because they think it has to be that much more (Never once considering the chance of cutting an artery with that dagger.) Kinda hyperbole the entire situation into one big stinking homebrew mess.
You bring up good points, but your example easily suports what I am getting at.
Your DM created a world with a specific feel to it, entirely City Dweller based, a very specific theme. One that the introduction of particular classes and skills would upset. Seriously noone ever gets curious about the surrounding world and studdies nature, noit even out of old books of natural lore? No arguements about a person who leaves the city and gets lost, lives as a barbarian and returns one day? It wouldn't effect game balance at all.
But your DM banned that specific list of things because he was going after a specific feel for this world, one in which these races, skills, etc would upset.
This is no different then guns, the DM needs to decide what impact they will have in the game World and if it will have a negative impact on the intended feel for his Game.
There are invariably many house rulings that a DM makes in the course of a game, such as you mention, but each time a DM or Player decides to try something that isn't covered in the rules, the DM needs to decide if it can or cannot be done, and how it works. Somethings are accepted and some things are rejected, on a case by case basis.
In your example of using fire and cold rays to destroy the locks mechanism, the DM could have decided on many different effects. He could have had you roll damage vs the Locks Hardness to break it open, or he could have asked that you make an Open Lock roll with a reasonable DC to determine if what you did would open the lock, or sieze the mechanisms so they will never open at all. You proposed a House Rule on the use of these spells and the DM arbitrates accordingly (and is hopefully as fair as possible.
Now, if a Player asked me:
Player: "I would like to get a gun for my character"
DM: "Well, how does your Player know about 'guns' and what they are? And why do you think there would be such things in this town?"
The player can reflvour a crossbow all he wants, but lets be frank. How does his Character know about Guns? How will he Train to get the Exotic Weapon Proficincy, Guns? Where will he buy his Gun? His Ammunition? His Gunpowder?
For there to be 1 gun in the world, there must by extension be many guns in the world, you need to have the gun smiths, the Black-Powder manufactors, the Bunker, the Gun range and the gun shop that goes with the PC or PCs who use guns, which means there will be other people in the world who also use guns.
Really these are the things that need to be considered when introducing guns or not, is by what means will they come into the game and how extensively will they effect the world.
Or should we ignore realism? Some have argued that realism and plausability are bad things. In which case the PC should suddenly be inspired to buy a gun by Meta-Gaming magic, go to the closest shop and buy the only gun in existance and 50 charges of blackpowder and bullets, ammo which will be sold in other shops throughout the world (at reasonable prices), despite that PC being the only Customer who ever buys this stock. Because all you need to do is reflavour a crossbow.....
The player can reflvour a crossbow all he wants, but lets be frank. How does his Character know about Guns? How will he Train to get the Exotic Weapon Proficincy, Guns? Where will he buy his Gun? His Ammunition? His Gunpowder?
SCIENCE! *jazzhands*
Or should we ignore realism? Some have argued that realism and plausability are bad things. In which case the PC should suddenly be inspired to buy a gun by Meta-Gaming magic, go to the closest shop and buy the only gun in existance and 50 charges of blackpowder and bullets, ammo which will be sold in other shops throughout the world (at reasonable prices), despite that PC being the only Customer who ever buys this stock. Because all you need to do is reflavour a crossbow.....
True, but how many people actually track ammo? Granted it makes a little more sense when your ammunition is sharpened pieces of wood, but I'm heavily in favor of Rule of Cool when it comes to D&D (Particularly when a by-the-books character can deal comparable damage to a longbow or longsword by throwing a candle at somebody).
You're also treating it like something a character just decided in the middle of a game, obviously if that situaton happened they couldn't just magically find a firearm merchant...but if a player asked before the game started if he could have a character that used firearms you could incoperate it into the world. It might not always fit, but *shrugs* it doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to fit it into the world. It doesn't have to be a widespread thing, heck it can even be like the OP suggested in the first place where his character creates it.
It's not like it's a complicated process...it's just using alchemical elements to make something go bang with the bang projecting a small piece of metal.
With some ranks in alchemy it wouldn't be so hard.
You're also treating it like something a character just decided in the middle of a game, obviously if that situaton happened they couldn't just magically find a firearm merchant...but if a player asked before the game started if he could have a character that used firearms you could incoperate it into the world. It might not always fit, but *shrugs* it doesn't seem like it'd be that hard to fit it into the world. It doesn't have to be a widespread thing, heck it can even be like the OP suggested in the first place where his character creates it.
It's not like it's a complicated process...it's just using alchemical elements to make something go bang with the bang projecting a small piece of metal.
Exactly my point here. Sure, even I, as hell bent on getting my artificer the ability to use firearms, will not go after firearms if say, we are in a low magic campain were were bang things with bone clubs. But in this case, we are obviously pretty high magic with the gate things.
As a result, I've myself have done some research, things that would represent a fraction of what my character would know. How does he know about firearms? Fireballs. As i've brought up a few times before, the spell components of fireball are 2/3 of the materials needed for gunpowder, and the last part is any sort of fuel, from suger to charcoal. (Hence why gunpowder is a low order explosive, because it flash burns instead of actually detonating.)
So my character could easily figure out through experiments with one of the most iconic wizard spells (So much so Thrine made a joke about it.) how to actually make a "mundane fireball". And through more exprements, develop such a thing into an actual projectile. Esspecially since he would easily be able to figure out the whole tube thing with a rapid gas easy. (Blowgun)
Now if he was a rogue and not an artificer, I wouldn't even dream of him ever being able to use a firearm unless the DM said specifically they were availible. So, the shots would be typical sling pellets or rivits, powered by his own ingenious invention "Fire Powder", all within a tube he would call the mundane wand.
And if you don't belive he is a crazy experimenter.. well, all last session he tried to get someone to drink a potion he made that he has no idea what it does. Certian feats i took already show that he has dranken similar potions with more permanent results. (As he has cat ears, eyes, and a tail.) And now he is about to go to war, attempting to use seeds as a weapon. (like bird seed). By the time i'm done with the prodd (A crossbow that fires sling bullets) it will be seriously over technolized, with a wand slot, bayonette, compass in the stock and a hidden compartment. But he always wheres his goggles so he won't shoot his eye out.
Over all, that makes an atificer to me, an artificer. Otherwise they are a rogue of a different color.
I don't think it is wrong to be critical of a House Rule being proposed.
As a general philosophical idea or individual rules, one at a time?
I don't think it is wrong to be critical of a House Rule being proposed.
As a general philosophical idea or individual rules, one at a time?
Both really. The DM ultimately has to make a ruling on any House Rule as regards to how it is to be implimented into the game and it's effects and if such a rule should be rejected. Being Critical is asking Why do we need this rule? How will it be implimented? What is the Result of these Changes? What are the drawbacks of the Rule? What are the Benifit? How will we handle the results of such a rule?
Critical thinking is not being negative, but rather it's taking careful consideration to all aspects of the issue. I wouldn't introduce any House Rule, my own or another's, without giving it proper consideration.
Can be reloaded during a short rest only, you can only make one attack roll with a Pistol attack.
I really like this. I think I might try out some guns! Guns as an encounter power is a really neat way to deal with them, without getting overly complicated and fiddly. Nice work Pluisjen!
cheers,
Meshon
I run the firearms as items with a "short rest reload only",
I take it this is an accident of phrasing, as it makes no sense to allow reloads during short rests but not to permit them during long rests.
Edit: Have firearms been covered by a third party for 4E?
When it comes to black powder muskets or flintlocks or some such, I have no idea. Dias Ex Machina is doing modern firearms and explosives and such for Amethyst and Neurospasta, but that won't fit most people's D&D settings. I will give them credit though for not just going crazy with damage. They did a pretty good job (IMO) of making firearms and explosives balanced while also trying to be somewhat faithful to both realism and hollywood (which you can't do both, but again, they struck a balance that I think is acceptable from both sides).
And Bone should know that. He was one extremily valuable member of our playtest group which helped perfect those rules. It was why I pushed Amethyst back last year--in order to work in more variety with weapons and explosives. That being said, we also have a new chapter being squeezed in before the printing which should help with adapting the rules to different levels of technology.