PDA

View Full Version : Piotr and the Bear: A story of the stupid gun rules of Iron Kingdoms



Attilargh
2009-06-06, 06:32 PM
This is a tale born of frustration and dashed hopes. I am not interested in a rational, civilized debate on whether the rules are in fact stupid or not; They are, and that's final. I am interested only in venting my disappointment at the rules that govern this fantastic, characterful setting.

Also, this is not a post about Iron Heroes, the d20 game of swords and sorcery. Instead, the subject victim of this bileful mess will be Iron Kingdoms, the awesomest third edition Dungeons and Dragons setting in the history of ever. For those not in the know, Privateer Press (http://www.privateerpress.com/) describes the setting thus:

Embark upon a journey into the realm of Full Metal Fantasy. This is a land where mechanized ’jacks belch clouds of ash and steam while carrying out tasks of both commerce and war and battle-hardened warriors gird themselves in scarred mail and take up blades and forgelock pistols.

So, with that all out of the way, let's get down to business: The gun rules. From the blurb above, you might think that pistols - and guns in general - are a fairly common sight in the setting. They are certainly prevalent in the illustrations, and the Character Guide spends many pages devoted to their workings within the D&D 3.5 ruleset.

And since you've probably read the topic of the thread, you should be able to deduce that I find fault in those workings.

Well, I do. And there's so much wrong about them I don't even know where to start. So let's make a hypotethical character and see if we can catch 'em all!

Meet Piotr, a young man from the deep, bountiful (and bloody cold!) forests of Khador. As he dreams of being a famous hunter of big game, Piotr shall be a hardy Ranger (of the spell-less variant in the Character Guide), and he of course chooses to hone his skills with the manliest of all weapons, the rifle. Therefore, as his starting feat he chooses Exotic Weapon Proficiency in small arms.

Now hold up a moment. In a setting where guns are plentiful enough for some two-bit hunter from the backwoods to own and use, why are they Exotic? As far as shooting them goes, they are hardly any more complex than a crossbow. The problem does not spring from any quirks of maintenance or reloading either, as shall soon be demonstrated. And, as mentioned, they are not nearly as rare as, say, a nunchaku in Dragonlance, so that can't be the reason either. So, what is? I don't know, so let's just drop that and move on.

Now that Piotr can be trusted with a gun, his next move will probably be investing in one. As Piotr is a man possessed of solid Khadoran sense, he refuses to invest in potentially dangerously outdated firearms, and decides to buy a proper long rifle.

Except he can't afford one at level one, thanks to them costing five hundred gold pieces while the maximum the rules allow poor Piotr is 240. In fact, even if he settled for the potentially-explosive outdated models, he still couldn't afford a longarm. The best he can hope for is a "cheap" pistol of around 150-200 gold. Doesn't this sound a tad ridiculous?

Oh well. Piotr invests in some essentials instead and spends a while hunting small furry things that go "Squeek!" when you hit them with an arrow. After plenty of that and a few close encounters with some local bandits, he has finally gathered enough experience to gain his second level, and soon he can also afford the long rifle he's coveted for so long! Hooray! He also buys a dozen rounds for his precious new gun (which whom he immediately names Anya).

The bullets, in case you are wondering, cost between eight and ten gold pieces. A fairly hefty price for a bit of lead and two magical powders in a silk pouch. You read that right, magical. Good thing Beholders don't exist in the Iron Kingdoms.

Walking out from the store, Piotr hears some locals discussing how a bear has been killing their livestock and should be dealt with. Inspired by Anya, Piotr immediately packs some essentials for a hunt and sets off after the killer bear. After a day of tromping through the Khardic backwoods, he finally finds the tracks of a black bear and effortlessly follows them to the beast itself. Careful not to be seen, Piotr finds a good spot just within his rifle's optimal range, takes aim, and fires at the monstrous killing machine.

Assuming he hits, he now rolls 2d6 for damage. Piotr has basically just shot a bear with a greatsword. If you think about the numbers for a moment, this is less awesome than it sounds. The shot probably deals about seven points of damage, leaving the bear with twelve. The bear is 160 feet away. Its speed is 40 feet per move action.

A cold sweat creeps on Piotr's forehead as he realizes how close to the bear he actually is, and he begins creeping backwards. With trembling hands, he opens the rifle's breech, extracts the remains of the previous shot and fumbles another cartridge in.

I believe that Piotr is now technically "engaged in combat, melee or ranged", which means he needs to roll a DC 15 Concentration check to reload his gun without ruining the ammunition. Assuming he had the foresight to max his Concentration, he should have about a 60% chance of making the roll. And like that isn't fiddly enough, he now needs to succeed on a DC 10 Craft (small arms) check to, you guessed it, reload his gun without ruining the ammunition. This all takes a standard action, leaving him with only a move action to get away from the very angry mess of black fur, teeth and (even though Piotr might be unaware of them) razor-sharp claws.

The bear turns its hate-filled gaze at the young man and takes a step toward him. Then another. Then it is moving faster than any animal of such bulk should be moving, charging directly at Piotr. He presses Anya's stock against his shoulder, whispers a quick prayer to Morrow as he aims at the enormous jaws, and pulls the trigger. A spray of blood erupts from the bear's face, but it does nothing to stop it.

When you think about it, an average of seven points of damage over two rounds isn't anything to write home about. Five more to go.

The bear slams into the young huntsman, tearing his chest with its claws. Bleeding badly, Piotr drops the empty rifle and draws his axe, the weapon of all true Khadoran warriors. Yelling madly, he brings the blade of the weapon down on the bear's head, and the beast finally falls to the ground in a veritable shower of gore. As Piotr makes his way back home, he gives serious thought to whether investing in the rifle instead of, say, a strong recurve bow was such a smart decision after all.

And so ends the tale of Piotr and the bear. Piotr eventually became a dairy farmer, married a beautiful girl from the neighbouring village and fathered three strong sons and a daughter he named Sasha, after the axe that saved his life.

(I know that a battleaxe's average damage is techincally four point five. Let's just assume Piotr has a positive Strength modifier, okay?)

nightwyrm
2009-06-06, 06:41 PM
I think there's a general opinion that while IK fluff is very cool, their mechanics leaves much to be desired.

Doc Roc
2009-06-06, 06:56 PM
There's a whole slew of feats for making it easier to use guns.
The crunch really is by and at large very good. If you find the guns underpowered, just push their numbers up.

The rules for IK are intended to help GM's minimize the impact of fire-arms, which is naturally very silly. My recommendation, and theirs, is that the exotic weapon proficiency be waived at the least for pistols, that you pick up some additional range, and that you fire from a farking safe location with rough terrain between you and them.

In short, that you play like an archer. Shocking.

Spiryt
2009-06-06, 06:59 PM
Well, that's really problem of D&D and others d20 games not only IK.

And the problem of crossbow, dagger and other weapons, not only firearms - it's hard to really deal deadly blows since you don't have Power Attack or anything like that.

So I can't see how it's more stupid than say D&D.

Although bear appears to have much less hit points here, so this makes all weapons more deadly.

What you are expecting from this rules anyway? To be more realistic?

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-06, 06:59 PM
Yeah, really, ignoring the expense and the brutally high chance of fluffing your attempt at reloading given said expense, (or simply exploding, I guess?)
I always thought that Exotic weapons should be, you know, either DAMN exotic, or preferably just straight up BETTER in some way than the other options. For a feat, huge wads of cash, and the risk, Guns sound like they pretty much are not worth it, really.

High level rich-kid's toy, perhaps?

Starsinger
2009-06-06, 07:03 PM
Larghy.. your story sucks. Who would roll a gunslinger who can't sling guns very well? While you're at it, make a sorcerer who uses a crossbow instead of spells. :smalltongue:

SilverClawShift
2009-06-06, 07:05 PM
Now hold up a moment. In a setting where guns are plentiful enough for some two-bit hunter from the backwoods to own and use, why are they Exotic?

This is why when my group made the Spellshot pistol for our Dustlands campaign setting, we made sure to mention that it's an exotic weapon in MOST settings, but is definately a MARTIAL weapon in the setting it was born for.

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-06, 07:07 PM
Oh, and unless the setting is significantly richer than the standard, or gold is worth bloop-all, the guns do not seem like they are even REMOTELY within reach of the ordinary, "I saw a gold piece once" low level normal-person types, let alone a beardy backwoods poacher type.

nightwyrm
2009-06-06, 07:12 PM
lol. Try playing a gunmage in IK. It's like throwing money at the monsters.

Doc Roc
2009-06-06, 07:13 PM
It's also a terrible class in all respects. Gun mage was an afterthought. The other options are better, in my opinion. Gun mage also got a refurb.

Kuma Da
2009-06-06, 07:14 PM
Larghy.. your story sucks. Who would roll a gunslinger who can't sling guns very well? While you're at it, make a sorcerer who uses a crossbow instead of spells. :smalltongue:

You may be missing the point, Star. Let me revise that for you.


Larghy.. your story sucks is actually a pretty clever way of demonstrating that there's a problem with the rules. Who would roll a gunslinger who can't sling guns very well in a setting where guns are pretty much useless? While you're at it, make a sorcerer who uses a crossbow instead of spells. :smalltongue:

KillianHawkeye
2009-06-06, 07:17 PM
Why would a bear fight to the death? :smallconfused:

RS14
2009-06-06, 07:21 PM
One option, at least once you get past the low levels, would be to buy two guns. Hire two reasonably skilled individuals to reload one while you shoot (Low-level experts are cheap). It's still obnoxious and puts them firmly in the domain of the wealthy, but is otherwise not much worse than two-weapon fighting.

Starsinger
2009-06-06, 07:22 PM
You may be missing the point, Star. Let me revise that for you.

You may be missing the point...maybe my sarcasm button wasn't on high enough...

nightwyrm
2009-06-06, 07:28 PM
One option, at least once you get past the low levels, would be to buy two guns. Hire two reasonably skilled individuals to reload one while you shoot (Low-level experts are cheap). It's still obnoxious and puts them firmly in the domain of the wealthy, but is otherwise not much worse than two-weapon fighting.

Or buy and carry a bunch of loaded guns, just like how they used to do it back in the old days in real life. It's not like 3.5 combat lasts a lot of rounds anyways.

RS14
2009-06-06, 07:43 PM
How common and necessary are enchanted weapons in IK?

Panda-s1
2009-06-06, 08:01 PM
How common and necessary are enchanted weapons in IK?

Not very. Or well they aren't enchanted in the same sense. Basically you enchant a bunch of small pieces and construct them into one weapon, 'cause in IK you don't make magic items by spending XP, you do it by spending HP. Yeah.

sonofzeal
2009-06-06, 08:06 PM
Well, a 19-20/x3 critical is not to be undervalued. But yes, firearms in IK are generally not worth it. Bows are superior in most respects. But hey, they aren't completely useless, so whatever.

Starbuck_II
2009-06-06, 09:07 PM
You didn't mention the fire arm ranges. After all, Ranged weapons primary benefit is range.

nightwyrm
2009-06-06, 09:37 PM
You didn't mention the fire arm ranges. After all, Ranged weapons primary benefit is range.

Depends on the weapon. Some pistols have range increments of 30 ft, other better ones have 40 or 80 ft. Rifles have range increments of 160 or 200 ft. As a comparison, 3.5 longbows have range increment of about 100 ft.

Irate Ranger
2009-06-06, 09:49 PM
Well, I've only played one single game of IK in my entire gaming career, so I'm hardly an expert on the rules.

But anyways, the one game I did play I used a quadruple-barrelled pistol that wasn't as useful as say, the sword I carried with me, most fights boiled down to getting a single shot off followed by a terribly bloody brawl that left most of the party heavily battered.

Of course that was before I got a robotic arm, after that I could pretty much just tear people limb-from-limb as a free action. As cool as that was, though, I can see the problem when an insane mercenary with light armour that specializes in melee combat can easily take out a mounted machine gun.

Doc Roc
2009-06-06, 10:08 PM
Not very. Or well they aren't enchanted in the same sense. Basically you enchant a bunch of small pieces and construct them into one weapon, 'cause in IK you don't make magic items by spending XP, you do it by spending HP. Yeah.

This is both true and fairly awesome. :) I know it's not terribly well liked.

Attilargh
2009-06-07, 03:12 AM
Although bear appears to have much less hit points here, so this makes all weapons more deadly.
It's actually just a regular black bear from the Monster Manual. Sans Run, because I didn't notice it at the time of writing. :smallredface:


What you are expecting from this rules anyway? To be more realistic?
Oh no, I wouldn't know realistic gun rules if they shot me in the kneecaps. I just was introduced to the Iron Kingdoms through the miniature wargame Warmachine, and that has left me thinking that in the setting, guns and swordplay should be about equal.


Larghy.. your story sucks. Who would roll a gunslinger who can't sling guns very well? While you're at it, make a sorcerer who uses a crossbow instead of spells. :smalltongue:
Moaaaan, everybody's a critic. :smalltongue: Seriously speaking though, I can't really think of many ways to improve Piotr's gunslinging beyond using some actual tactics, or playing a Fighter instead to get Far Shot (and Sharpshooter in about a level or two - delicious Dex modifier to damage). Rogue or Scout might also work.


Oh, and unless the setting is significantly richer than the standard, or gold is worth bloop-all, the guns do not seem like they are even REMOTELY within reach of the ordinary, "I saw a gold piece once" low level normal-person types, let alone a beardy backwoods poacher type.
And therein lies the problem, because in Warmachine, guns do indeed make an appearance in the hands of beardy backwood poacher types.


Why would a bear fight to the death? :smallconfused:
...Maybe it was injured by a hunter and his dogs last winter and the injuries has driven it mad? I don't know! It just felt more dramatic that way. :smallwink:


You didn't mention the fire arm ranges. After all, Ranged weapons primary benefit is range.
Well, I did try, but I don't think I ever actually came out and said it. A long rifle (such as the one Piotr is using) has a range increment of 160 feet. Like nightwyrm said, pistols have two-digit ranges, while rifles can go as high as 240 feet. Delicious with Far Shot, assuming your DM lets you fight from outside the battle map. :smallbiggrin: However, the guns' slow reloading times give the enemies plenty of room to take cover or rush the distance. I suspect it would be more efficient to just pelt the enemies with a longbow and make up for the range penalty with the increased amount of attacks.

Leon
2009-06-07, 05:34 AM
And therein lies the problem, because in Warmachine, guns do indeed make an appearance in the hands of beardy backwood poacher types.


Muskets.
About as low as you can get on the ranking of long arm in IK

Attilargh
2009-06-07, 05:50 AM
Oh right, I completely forgot about those. And at four hundred gold pieces, they're certainly more affordable than proper rifles.

That's intended as sarcasm.

Speaking of the low end of guns, I find it mind-boggling that antique muskets are actually deadlier, more expensive and faster to reload than nominally more modern pinlock firearms, despite having no rifling or (in most cases) breech. I don't think it's the pinlock either, because a pinlock musket doesn't actually suffer any reduction in damage, only reliability. :smallconfused:


I think I could try my hand at fixing this nonsense some day. Have to finish this mecha game project firts, though.

Narmoth
2009-06-07, 06:55 AM
Homebrew it. Take the checks to reload only if you're reloading and firing in the same round if you have the Exotic weapons feat

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-06-07, 07:40 AM
Larghy.. your story sucks. Who would roll a gunslinger who can't sling guns very well? While you're at it, make a sorcerer who uses a crossbow instead of spells. :smalltongue:

You mean a Drow?

Leon
2009-06-07, 08:38 AM
If the cost is a problem for both weapon and ammo - lower it
I cut the cost of ammo significantly for my game and gave the 2 gun mages a pistol to start with



This is a tale born of frustration and dashed hopes. I am not interested in a rational, civilized debate on whether the rules are in fact stupid or not; They are, and that's final.

Don't like them, the change them to something that you find better

Yahzi
2009-06-07, 08:06 PM
Well, in general, hunting is impossible in D&D. No ordinary person with any ordinary weapon can kill a largish animal before it either runs away or eats them.

Guns should deliver Save or Die attacks; and if you save, then you take damage anyway. They should be Simple weapons (their chief advantage in the early days was that while bows required skill, guns just required following orders) and they should be only twice the price of bows. (Which, by the way, are also stupidly overpriced - since when is a bow worth a year's worth of income for a peasant? What, is it made out of gold? A longbow costs 75 gp. which is equal to 1.5 lbs of gold, and only weighs 3 lbs.) Muskets should be hard to hit with - say, x4 range increment penalties. Rifles should kill people at 1,000 feet.

But then everybody would start using guns instead of swords and armor. You know, like they did in the real world...

Dixieboy
2009-06-07, 08:25 PM
Well, in general, hunting is impossible in D&D. No ordinary person with any ordinary weapon can kill a largish animal before it either runs away or eats them.

Guns should deliver Save or Die attacks; and if you save, then you take damage anyway. They should be Simple weapons (their chief advantage in the early days was that while bows required skill, guns just required following orders) and they should be only twice the price of bows. (Which, by the way, are also stupidly overpriced - since when is a bow worth a year's worth of income for a peasant? What, is it made out of gold? A longbow costs 75 gp. which is equal to 1.5 lbs of gold, and only weighs 3 lbs.) Muskets should be hard to hit with - say, x4 range increment penalties. Rifles should kill people at 1,000 feet.

But then everybody would start using guns instead of swords and armor. You know, like they did in the real world...:smallfrown:

I would like to point out just how much work goes into a good bow.

But it wouldn't change the fact that 75 GP is a lot to the common man, more than a bow would be worth.

However I WOULD like to say that the oldest guns primary advantage was noise making.

Waspinator
2009-06-07, 08:43 PM
Is there anywhere online where someone's made a good set of homebrew revisions to the Iron Kingdom rules, gun and otherwise?

Panda-s1
2009-06-07, 09:00 PM
:smallfrown:

I would like to point out just how much work goes into a good bow.

But it wouldn't change the fact that 75 GP is a lot to the common man, more than a bow would be worth.

However I WOULD like to say that the oldest guns primary advantage was noise making.

But IK doesn't take place in the earliest times of guns, they're more on par with 1800's gun technology. The entire region has been more or less industrialized for the past few thousand years or so. Not only that, the setting material makes it look like guns are pretty common (and rifles were common amongst frontiersmen of our world, it wouldn't be out of the question for a common hunter in IK to own a rifle).


Is there anywhere online where someone's made a good set of homebrew revisions to the Iron Kingdom rules, gun and otherwise?

I think the Privateer Press forums, I know they redid the gunmage prestige class (apparently it was missing one of it's class features or something like that).

Drider
2009-06-07, 09:50 PM
Why would a bear fight to the death? :smallconfused:

The real question is why the bear did'nt know kung-fu and have a ninja monkey sidekick chuck shurikens from the shadows.

Waspinator
2009-06-07, 10:25 PM
I think the Privateer Press forums, I know they redid the gunmage prestige class (apparently it was missing one of it's class features or something like that).

Any chance of links to that stuff?

Kurald Galain
2009-06-08, 07:21 AM
Stuff
Well, that's a classic example of game designers nerfing something into oblivion because they're too scared of an option being overpowered. It's more common than you think...

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-08, 07:51 AM
However I WOULD like to say that the oldest guns primary advantage was noise making.

Ease of use, actually. It's that point-and-click interface that made the crossbow so great, plus a loading mechanism that didn't require exertion even with the use of a winch. Range was worse, penetration was nothing to write home about generally (crossbows and bows with bodkin bolts/arrows were plenty deadly).

Training a longbowman required a decade or more, and they had to practice regularly. Learning something like shooting at the clout (that's arcing shots, which is how you fire a volley of arrows in battle) took ages. Training a rifleman required a day.


But IK doesn't take place in the earliest times of guns, they're more on par with 1800's gun technology. The entire region has been more or less industrialized for the past few thousand years or so. Not only that, the setting material makes it look like guns are pretty common (and rifles were common amongst frontiersmen of our world, it wouldn't be out of the question for a common hunter in IK to own a rifle).

1800s - I assume early? So that'd be rifled flintlocks. Those should blow bows out of the water any day.

Even if firearms are rare, they're not Exotic Weapons because they're so damnably easy to learn how to use.

Lost Demiurge
2009-06-08, 08:17 AM
I've found a fix that seems to work, but be prepared to have PC's die due to it.

You know the massive damage rule? The one that says "If you take more than 50 points of damage from a single hit, roll and succeed at a fortitude save or die, right then."

Lower it from 50 to 10 when firearms are involved, and figure out a DC scale that's fair. Like 10 + the gun user's level, or 10 + 1/2 damage dealt.

Hell, if you want to make the setting a good chunk grittier, then make it so that ALL sources of damage greater than 10 require a fortitude save to prevent instant death...

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-08, 08:23 AM
Lower it from 50 to 10 when firearms are involved, and figure out a DC scale that's fair. Like 10 + the gun user's level, or 10 + 1/2 damage dealt.

Call of Cthulhu d20 does this, more or less. The massive damage threshold is 10 for humans (for any damage, not just firearms; it's 50 for all monsters, and human PCs have no way to ever deal 50 damage without explosives...). The most basic rifles average 11 damage (2d10), and most handguns can hit 10 a good quarter of the time.

I think the DC is always 15, but even if Fort is your primary save, you need to be 16th level before you can hit that with a 2... there's no ways to increase your saves and no way to pump your Con beyond the 1/4 levels ability increase.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-08, 08:33 AM
Well. . .I would put them under martial weapons. Especially precisions ones like rifles. With a shotgun or a blunderbuss, the idea was to aim in the general direction. Muskets and other early guns were often fired at volley, so individual skill wasn't as important as a grapeshot effect tearing through the other army's line. But using a rifle, well, still takes serious practise. Not as much as a bow probably, but it isn't quite as point and click as you make it out to be. As well, the simple classification isn't just about how simple the weapon was to use . A sling was a difficult weapon to use well. Yet it is classified as a simple. Simple weapons are in general simply less powerful and or have disadvantages, like the Crossbows reload time. A rifled breach loader is a ranged weapon that does far more damage then a crossbow, yet would take less time to load. That is not a simple weapon. That is top rank martial. I agree if they are common, they shouldn't be exotic. But they certainly don't come under the heading of simple.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-08, 08:45 AM
In comparison to actual martial weapons - longbows, longswords, rapiers - rifles absolutely are simple. Jiggling the game mechanics right can be hard, but proficiencies and type-by-weapon-traits are a stupid game mechanic anyway.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-08, 09:03 AM
In comparison to actual martial weapons - longbows, longswords, rapiers - rifles absolutely are simple. Jiggling the game mechanics right can be hard, but proficiencies and type-by-weapon-traits are a stupid game mechanic anyway.
But compared to the amount of damage simple weapons do, they are just too powerful. Classifying them all as simple means that your full casting cleric and sorcerer can also have a mega death dealing boom stick. Great, now two full casters are even more unbalanced.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-08, 09:10 AM
A non-artifact weapon is not going to affect a caster's power at all, and I already said that the proficiency-by-traits thing is a stupid mechanic. (How are nunchaku and sai worth a an EWP feat, again?)

Ravens_cry
2009-06-08, 09:29 AM
A non-artifact weapon is not going to affect a caster's power at all, and I already said that the proficiency-by-traits thing is a stupid mechanic. (How are nunchaku and sai worth a an EWP feat, again?)
Yeah, you can say it's a stupid mechanic, but that doesn't mean it is. Rifles only need ammo. Which only depends on wealth and carrying capacity. A cleric or sorcerer has spells that are more rigidly limited in amount. And 2d10 over an 80 ft range increment is devastating compared to normal weapons, like bows or swords. That is why I say they should be martial. They will still eventually be superseded by magic, but magic makes the universe its butt monkey. Giving them at lower levels a weapon that takes away their stamina disadvantages, just makes all the problems worse.

Spiryt
2009-06-08, 09:52 AM
And 2d10 over an 80 ft range increment is devastating compared to normal weapons, like bows or swords.

Considering that there's no way to improve that much like, say with Power Attack, Brutal Throw or adding strenght to bow damage, and other feats, it's not really "devastating" in any way.

Ravens_cry
2009-06-08, 04:32 PM
Considering that there's no way to improve that much like, say with Power Attack, Brutal Throw or adding strenght to bow damage, and other feats, it's not really "devastating" in any way.
It's a ranged weapon. So use ranged weapon feats. If it's a musket, crossbow feats, and if it's a breech loading rifle, the bow feats. Manyshot would certainly up a rifles damage.

Spiryt
2009-06-08, 04:45 PM
It's a ranged weapon. So use ranged weapon feats. If it's a musket, crossbow feats, and if it's a breech loading rifle, the bow feats. Manyshot would certainly up a rifles damage.

Uh, no.

Rapid reload clearly states:

Choose a type of crossbow (hand, light, or heavy)

And manyshot :


you may fire two arrows at a single opponent within 30 feet

So I don't know where are you taking it from.

Besides, even from logical point of view, Manyshot with rifle is even dumbest idea than with bow.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-08, 06:20 PM
Well, that's really problem of D&D and others d20 games not only IK.

And the problem of crossbow, dagger and other weapons, not only firearms - it's hard to really deal deadly blows since you don't have Power Attack or anything like that.

So I can't see how it's more stupid than say D&D.

Although bear appears to have much less hit points here, so this makes all weapons more deadly.

What you are expecting from this rules anyway? To be more realistic?

Agreed. It the old scaling factor, or rather the scaling factor of high fantasy RPG. At level 1, we need the "orc" can take out the fighter with 1 or 2 blows that land. And conversely fighter has to be able to take out the orc warrior with 1 or 2 blows. But at higher level, the orc is no match for our hero. Instead his opponent is, say, a dragon, and the hit points and damage potential of both have to increase.

But if you include "realistic" gun rules, then you have take away some of this scaling. With realistic gun rules, the orc if armed with a gun, can take out our hero, even at higher levels, with one well placed shot. There are many ways to make the gun rules "realistic" and these have been published before. For ex, there was the V for Victory minigame in Dungeon magazine 156. (This was a set of rules for running d20 adventures in WWII setting. I think some of these were incorporated into d20 Modern.)

Anyway IIRC, the V for Victory rules give everyone "vitality" and "wound" points with vitality being fixed and wound points accruing like hit points (sort of like in other d20 variants). Regular hits affect wound points while criticals affect vitality points. This way, the orc warrior can still kill the hero with one well placed gun shot regardless of the hero's level. The consequence is every opponent becomes deadlier. This is generally a bad thing if you want long lived PCs.

If you want deadlier rules, reduce wound points or let firearms always affect vitality points or increase the damage done by more modern weapons, etc. The more "gritty" and realistic the rules, the less high fantasy can be accomodated, at least high fantasy as is known in traditional D&D.

So adding guns to D&D always involves balance. Not balance in terms of balancing the power of guns vs traditional melee or magic but the balance of scale. That is, is it OK for the 1st level orc to take down the 10th level master swordsman with one lucky shot from his musket? Or does a dragon retreat in fear from a platoon of riflemen?

Starbuck_II
2009-06-08, 06:24 PM
\

So adding guns to D&D always involves balance. Not balance in terms of balancing the power of guns vs traditional melee or magic but the balance of scale. That is, is it OK for the 1st level orc to take down the 10th level master swordsman with one lucky shot from his musket? Or does a dragon retreat in fear from a platoon of riflemen?

We don't even have realistic Sling rules, why should we get realistic gun rules. I'm pretty sure people just want good gun rules (some day even good sling rules).

Spiryt
2009-06-08, 06:35 PM
We don't even have realistic sling rules in general, why should we get realistic gun rules. I'm pretty sure people just want good gun rules (some day even good sling rules).

Start with that :smalltongue:

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-08, 07:46 PM
We don't even have realistic Sling rules, why should we get realistic gun rules. I'm pretty sure people just want good gun rules (some day even good sling rules).
By realistic I didn't mean realistic as in more like the real world but deadlier than implemented in IK as described by the OP. Or in general, realistic means just "good gun rules", however you define "good gun rules".

Consider the the longbow in the d20 SRD RAW, before going even to the gun or the sling. It does 1d8 damage. As per the RAW, one arrow from a 1st level character is unlikely to kill a donkey (2d8+2 HD) or a St. Bernard (2d8+4 HD) at any range, forget about killing a bear (3d8+6 HD).

That's because the bow is scaled to be deadly to a 1st level character (1d8 HD).

And this scaling works well for most monsters, even animals if they are treated as "monsters". If you want the lowest level characters, that is 1st level character, to hunt bears with a bow then the RAW will not provide a good model. The RAW does provide a framework for RPG adventures with level appropriate encounters. It's just that in the default framework, "bear" is a "monster" that is not an "appropriate encounter" for a single character until level 4 or 5.

You can change the game situation to better model the problem, having the lowest level characters hunt bear in several ways. For ex, you can start all characters at higher level, say level 3. Or you can reduce the hit dice and hit points of animals and/or increase the lethality of certain weapons. And so on. But each change effect the game differently as the game scales up in level.

So it's better to define what you want "good gun rules" to do and then build to that rather than take a given set of gun rules and say that it does not fit your model. The gun rules for playing a game based on the Matrix can't be the same as the ones for playing a game based on High Noon.

As another example take the d20 Modern SRD (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/msrd)which adds a Massive Damage mechanic and makes firearms deadlier. With the d20 Modern you have a chance of downing a (6d8+24) "bear" with one shot if you get a good enough modern rifle (2d10 damage) and you do more than its Massive Damage (19 -- which forces a DC 15 For save). But your still unlikely to one shot a wolf (2d8+4, Massive Damage 15) with a bow (1d8).

Tackyhillbillu
2009-06-08, 09:02 PM
Just to enter the Historical Gun Debate, the reasoning behind the mass adoption of Guns was their ability to penetrate Armor, in combination with a slightly longer range (which was actual subpar compared to a well trained Longbowman) in combination with the fact that the Yew, the primary source of such wood was quickly becoming functionally extinct in parts of Europe. And as far as rate of Fire, a Longbowman was expected to be be able to fire 20 Aimed Shots a minute (one every 3 seconds.) Not until the invention of Repeating Fire Arms did they match that.

A lot of people think current day Bows are a method of judging the performance of their Medieval counterparts, which isn't true in the least. A Medieval Longbow had a draw force of 160-180 pdf, while bows today have far less.

Waspinator
2009-06-08, 10:45 PM
About feats: well, if you allowed porting stuff from Star Wars Saga Edition (which is basically d20), there is a Power Blast feat that is basically a ranged version of Power Attack. Makes guns a lot more attractive. Of course, that game probably came up with that simply because guns are a huge part of the setting and needed to be able to do pretty much anything a melee weapon could.

Fortinbras
2009-06-08, 10:47 PM
once rifles get involved the game changes completely. How can you justify a rifle not punching a melon sized hole in whoever it hits. I mean, we've all seen it on the news. Seriously a breach loading rifle is just too deadly for the standard D&D game.

Worira
2009-06-08, 11:07 PM
The same way you justify a greatsword not hacking limbs and heads and organs off whatever it hits? Also, I'm curious what kind of rifle you've got that's punching "melon sized holes" in things.

Zeful
2009-06-08, 11:53 PM
once rifles get involved the game changes completely. How can you justify a rifle not punching a melon sized hole in whoever it hits. I mean, we've all seen it on the news. Seriously a breach loading rifle is just too deadly for the standard D&D game.

Because only 1" plus cannons can actually put a melon sized hole in people. And they're not very portable.

As for justification, HP is not idicitive of toughness. At all. HP is several dozen factors in which toughness is only a part. So in the sense that most humans are supposed to be 1 hd classless humanoids, with roughly 8-15 hit points, 2d6 damage 18-20x2 is a very deadly weapon.

Fortinbras
2009-06-09, 12:49 AM
The same way you justify a greatsword not hacking limbs and heads and organs off whatever it hits? Also, I'm curious what kind of rifle you've got that's punching "melon sized holes" in things.

Okay melon sized is kind of hyperbole (although the Barrett M107 can put some really big holes in people.) Anyway armor can stop a greatsword, I've seen it done. What is supposed to stop the person who got shot with a rifle from crumpling to the ground?

Worira
2009-06-09, 12:53 AM
Uh, armour?

Zeful
2009-06-09, 01:11 AM
Okay melon sized is kind of hyperbole (although the Barrett M107 can put some really big holes in people.) Anyway armor can stop a greatsword, I've seen it done. What is supposed to stop the person who got shot with a rifle from crumpling to the ground?

Armor, desensitivity to pain (guns aren't always, or immeadiatly, lethal), grit, adrenaline? People have been know to keep fighting after recieving otherwise fatal wounds from a gun.

Panda-s1
2009-06-09, 01:25 AM
Any chance of links to that stuff?
Okay, I couldn't find anything specific, but if you go to the Privateer Press forum and look around, I'm sure you'll find something.

1800s - I assume early? So that'd be rifled flintlocks. Those should blow bows out of the water any day.

Even if firearms are rare, they're not Exotic Weapons because they're so damnably easy to learn how to use.

No, not early 1800's, late 1800's, hence the industrialized setting. Granted their guns work a little differently, but they're still using things like revolver technology and gatling guns.

Kzickas
2009-06-09, 01:37 AM
No, not early 1800's, late 1800's, hence the industrialized setting. Granted their guns work a little differently, but they're still using things like revolver technology and gatling guns.

If that's the case then fire arms should be the only weapons used in the setting. Those kinds of weapon are just so much better you'd never want to go up against them with a sword or a bow

icefractal
2009-06-09, 02:20 AM
The reload time is the big problem, I think. As long as guns have even a move-action reload time, much less a full-round, they will remain, like heavy crossbows, a sucker bet for anyone beyond low level.

The only way I could see them being worthwhile with a reload time like that is if they did scaling damage based on the level of the wielder. Because they have to keep up with a longbow, and that scales pretty significantly, even without feats or class features to boost it:
Over two rounds:
L1: 2x 1d8 (avg 9)
L6: 4x 1d8+5 (avg 34)
L11: 6x 1d8+7+1d6 (avg 90)
L16: 8x 1d8+9+3d6 (avg 192)

To keep up with that, you'd seriously need a progression like 1d10/level, and even that wouldn't work past level 12 or so.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-09, 04:31 AM
No, not early 1800's, late 1800's, hence the industrialized setting. Granted their guns work a little differently, but they're still using things like revolver technology and gatling guns.

So that'd be breechloading percussion cap rifles. Yeah, forget about any non-firearm ranged weapon.

Kzickas
2009-06-09, 12:05 PM
So that'd be breechloading percussion cap rifles. Yeah, forget about any non-firearm ranged weapon.

And melee weapons wouldn't be much good outside of specific situations either

mostlyharmful
2009-06-09, 12:35 PM
Keep the reload time, change it to being fired on gunpowder which is cheap and government controlled or blackpowder which is less cheap and less effective (lowers crits) -both are Ex thank you very much, get rid of the skill checks and the EWP as both are contrived rubbish, lower the death by massive damage thing to 10+1/2 damage.... ok, so we've got a pricey, easily controlled but very effective weapon that's easy to use.... sounds like an early 1800s firearm to me.

And yes, for ranged they are much much better than other choices and are so good even casters will want to use them, this is not a problem. In close they become one-shot wonders you drop in the first turn as a free action, you've reduced casters to melee level power or lower (less BAB) but they still have options to buff and BC and most importantly there are times when the gun is a good choice and there's times (close in and personal) when it gets unwieldy. good.

If you want a late 1800s one, reduce the price to 10% listed and let them fire iterative attacks until you've used the magazine which can be 6-10 dependant on make.... yeah, that's the only weapon that'll be used in game.... oh well.

Lapak
2009-06-09, 12:52 PM
The way that the gun was used in the example was pretty much how the earlier guns (those used alongside melee weapons on a regular basis) WERE used, especially for small group combats as opposed to large battles where you could get a full volley of shots off from a formation. They were a first-strike weapon that you'd drop/holster and switch out for a sword, axe, or what-have-you. And this was largely because of reload times. The image of a pirate with a brace of pistols and a cutlass comes from the fact that you couldn't stop and reload your pistol during a boarding action; you shot an opponent, or two if you had two pistols, but then you went in swinging.

So if you want to model this behavior, and still give people a reason for using guns, keep the reload time. Maybe even extend it, though probably dropping the skill-rolls to reload. Give guns a bigger damage die (maybe along with an exploding die, so the upper end of the damage range is theoretically anything; maybe a large rifle is 1d10 + exploding 1d10) and expect that they won't be used past that first round. Any other alternative either makes guns useless compared to traditional weapons or makes them so good that they're the only weapons anyone would want to use (which is where the pursuit of realism in rules will inevitably lead.) Unfortunately, any option that makes them a reasonable tradeoff instead of a crossbow by another name will mean that an exclusively-gunslinger character isn't that viable.

Attilargh
2009-06-09, 02:12 PM
Speaking of crossbows by any other name...

A gun fix appears! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114242)

Fortinbras
2009-06-09, 04:15 PM
Armor, desensitivity to pain (guns aren't always, or immeadiatly, lethal), grit, adrenaline? People have been know to keep fighting after recieving otherwise fatal wounds from a gun.

I know it happens I'm just saying that it is a little harder to picture than a medieval weapon being stopped by armor. Especialy if the person who is shot mutiple times is fine a couple of minutes latter.

Lapak
2009-06-09, 04:46 PM
I know it happens I'm just saying that it is a little hard to picture. Especialy if the person who is shot mutiple times is fine a couple of minutes latter.It's also hard to imagine for an arrow, and impossible to imagine that someone hit five times with a greatsword would still have all their limbs intact, while people HAVE endured multiple gunshot wounds without fatal injury. Which is why hit point damage doesn't model meat-toughness in the first place, and why the first bullet that strikes a high-hit-point fighter was probably only a graze because he moved right before the shooter pulled the trigger, or it passed cleanly through the meat of his bicep without causing major damage, or the force of it was blunted by Ares' favor, or whatever. :smallsmile:

Waspinator
2009-06-09, 05:46 PM
A lot depends on bullet size and where you are shot. You can get wounds that, without treatment, would cause you to eventually bleed to death but are not so bad that you couldn't continue to walk around and fight. The big thing is whether or not a major organ gets hit by the shot and, if so, which one.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-09, 08:36 PM
It's also hard to imagine for an arrow, and impossible to imagine that someone hit five times with a greatsword would still have all their limbs intact, while people HAVE endured multiple gunshot wounds without fatal injury. Which is why hit point damage doesn't model meat-toughness in the first place, and why the first bullet that strikes a high-hit-point fighter was probably only a graze because he moved right before the shooter pulled the trigger, or it passed cleanly through the meat of his bicep without causing major damage, or the force of it was blunted by Ares' favor, or whatever. :smallsmile:

You don't imagine that the high level fighter that is hit five times with the greatsword is hit directly and cleanly with the greatsword each time a hit is scored.

However, if you just use the HP mechanic AND gun rules that make the gun only slightly superior to a heavy crossbow AND the high level fighter is at full hit points, you cannot EVER hit the high level fighter with one bullet and kill him EVEN if you are a high level rogue (UNLESS one of two conditions is met, either the fighter is helpless and you are performing a coup de grace or you are an assassin performing a death attack).

However this scenario, the one shot kill for the gunslinger on the high level fighter with full hitpoints, is NOT the one that caused the OP to complain about the "realism" of gun rules in IK (or some other settings).

The probem is, if you just use the HP mechanic AND gun rules that make the gun only slightly superior to a heavy crossbow, then you cannot EVER hit the 3 HD bear with one bullet and kill it as a low level character. This was the OP's scenario.

IMHO, this is because rules which make the gun only slightly superior to a heavy crossbow in combination with a simple HP mechanic, are scaling the gun to be deadly to 1st level characters.

The problem is not the abstractness of the hit point mechanic, but that there is a difference for some (for ex the OP) between what they expect the gun to do against higher level creatures (for ex a 3 HD bear) and the way gun damage scales up in the game.

If this is a problem, then there are ways of fixing this by introducing mechanics which make guns (and other weapons) more deadly. An example is the Massive Damage mechanic in d20 Modern.

However, any such change to the mechanic necessarily changes the nature and flavor of the game.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-09, 08:38 PM
And melee weapons wouldn't be much good outside of specific situations either

I don't know about that. Firearms are only useful when you've got open terrain between yourself and the enemy. Bayonets remained an important part of an infantryman's weaponry for a long while, even after that whole "Fire, fire, bayonets, charge!" thing went out of fashion.

icefractal
2009-06-09, 10:52 PM
I guess it also depends what you want the intended role of guns to be.

1) Weapons for the Untrained. This was a big advantage of real-life guns - they required less training than a bow. However, it doesn't really apply to PCs - they'll use guns at maybe 1st-3rd level, and not beyond that. To implement this, just make guns Simple weapons, and drop the price.

2) First-Shot Weapons. Someone who's mainly a melee fighter can get a shot in while closing range. To implement this, focus on one-handed guns. Make them Simple or Martial and better than a light crossbow, and melee types will get some good use out of them in the first round. People who are actually focused on ranged combat will still prefer bows though.

3) Legitimate Ranged Weapons. Just let them fire iterative attacks as normal, only needing a reload occasionally. You can fiddle a bit with the damage vs reload time - maybe they do more than bows, but need reloading every third round. Make sure to take composite bows into account when comparing damage.


A final note on guns as Simple weapons. Yes, this means Wizards can use them. But you know what? A Wizard who is using a gun is either holding back or out of spells. They probably won't hit with their poor BAB anyway, and even 1st level spells are a heck of a lot more deadly. It's not even on the radar as far as balance is concerned.

Starbuck_II
2009-06-09, 11:39 PM
A final note on guns as Simple weapons. Yes, this means Wizards can use them. But you know what? A Wizard who is using a gun is either holding back or out of spells. They probably won't hit with their poor BAB anyway, and even 1st level spells are a heck of a lot more deadly. It's not even on the radar as far as balance is concerned.

No, stop stealing the Sorcerors thunder. Only Sorcerors in Core get all simple weapons. Wizard get clubs, dagger, quartersataffs, and crossbows. No exceptions.

So guns as simple empowers Sorcerors not Wizards.

Myrmex
2009-06-10, 01:27 AM
Okay melon sized is kind of hyperbole (although the Barrett M107 can put some really big holes in people.) Anyway armor can stop a greatsword, I've seen it done. What is supposed to stop the person who got shot with a rifle from crumpling to the ground?

Rifle rounds fired at close range tend to go right through a target rather than make gory holes, and the damage is often times easy to ignore, since the bullet moves so fast. If you make the shells tumble or mushroom inside the target for more damage, then you lose armor penetrating power.

Currently, the US military is using a Cold War era stock of armor penetrating M16 ammo against unarmored targets in the Middle East. Soldiers complain that these bullets go right through without dealing immediately lethal damage which leaves the enemy still capable of attacking. The brass's response has been, more or less, "shoot better."

Attilargh
2009-06-10, 03:56 AM
The probem is, if you just use the HP mechanic AND gun rules that make the gun only slightly superior to a heavy crossbow, then you cannot EVER hit the 3 HD bear with one bullet and kill it as a low level character. This was the OP's scenario.
I'd just like to pop in and point out that, well, that isn't what I want out of guns. After all, there's probably a reason people go out to hunt bears in groups. What I was trying to say (but obviously failed) is that guns as written are completely inferior to almost all other ranged weapons, and pointlessly expensive and fiddly.

Had Piotr invested the same amount of money in a bow, he could've bought a masterwork compsite longbow with a +1 Str bonus. Although that wouldn't have effected how my scenario rolled out (Piotr still gets mauled by the bear before being able to finish it off), the bow is clearly the superior weapon with its higher damage per round, accuracy and the fact it's not shooting gold pieces. (Fine, so the rifle has longer range and wider crit. I'm convinced one could make up for the range penalty with more arrows. Which also increases the chances of critting, come to think of it)

So, yeah. I just want my crossbows by any other name to be strictly better than bows, without outshining melee. (So, uh, pop over to Homebrew and tell me how well I've done? Pretty please? :smallbiggrin: )

Lapak
2009-06-10, 09:00 AM
The probem is, if you just use the HP mechanic AND gun rules that make the gun only slightly superior to a heavy crossbow, then you cannot EVER hit the 3 HD bear with one bullet and kill it as a low level character. This was the OP's scenario.This isn't a problem that's unique to guns. You can't one-shot the bear as a low-level character with a greatsword, a battle axe, a crossbow, a longbow, or a heavy sledgehammer - all of these things might (and some of them very definitely have, historically) one-shot a bear. Bears aren't immune to axes in the skull, either. Guns are extremely dangerous for a lot of reasons, but they aren't magic and aside from three factors (ease of use, armor penetration, range) they shouldn't be treated any differently than other weapons.

Starbuck_II
2009-06-10, 09:54 AM
This isn't a problem that's unique to guns. You can't one-shot the bear as a low-level character with a greatsword, a battle axe, a crossbow, a longbow, or a heavy sledgehammer - all of these things might (and some of them very definitely have, historically) one-shot a bear. Bears aren't immune to axes in the skull, either. Guns are extremely dangerous for a lot of reasons, but they aren't magic and aside from three factors (ease of use, armor penetration, range) they shouldn't be treated any differently than other weapons.

Granted in Iron Kingdoms, they don't have armor penetration or ease of use. Rifles have range, but not pistols.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-06-10, 10:31 AM
Granted in Iron Kingdoms, they don't have armor penetration or ease of use. Rifles have range, but not pistols.

Flintlocks muskets (and earlier ones, especially) wouldn't have that great a range, anyway - especially with no rifling.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-10, 02:58 PM
This isn't a problem that's unique to guns. You can't one-shot the bear as a low-level character with a greatsword, a battle axe, a crossbow, a longbow, or a heavy sledgehammer - all of these things might (and some of them very definitely have, historically) one-shot a bear.

And I said that before, in this same thread, here 6248078. There I said that the 1d8 damage of the bow is scaled in (pre 4e) versions of D&D to be deadly to 1 HD creatures.



Bears aren't immune to axes in the skull, either.

And this is in the OPs scenario. What I misunderstood from the OP was not that he wanted guns to be deadlier in untrained hands, which is not the case. However, my argument still applies. The simple HP mechanic in (pre 4e) D&D is a better model for high fantasy combat as in traditional D&D. To make for a "grittier" or more "realistic" game featuring modern weapons, then often another mechanic is added to make the modern weapons deadlier. For example, vitality points vs wound points (as in the V for Victory minigame) or a relatively low massive damage mechanic (as in d20 Modern).



Guns are extremely dangerous for a lot of reasons, but they aren't magic and aside from three factors (ease of use, armor penetration, range) they shouldn't be treated any differently than other weapons.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. One rule set cannot cover all games. The same rules that cover high fantasy will not give the same feel that you need in a Western which is not the same feel you need in a WWII game. And this is applies to the gun rules from such varied but related games such as AD&D, Boot Hill, d20, or d20 Modern.


I'd just like to pop in and point out that, well, that isn't what I want out of guns. After all, there's probably a reason people go out to hunt bears in groups. What I was trying to say (but obviously failed) is that guns as written are completely inferior to almost all other ranged weapons, and pointlessly expensive and fiddly.

Had Piotr invested the same amount of money in a bow, he could've bought a masterwork compsite longbow with a +1 Str bonus. Although that wouldn't have effected how my scenario rolled out (Piotr still gets mauled by the bear before being able to finish it off), the bow is clearly the superior weapon with its higher damage per round, accuracy and the fact it's not shooting gold pieces. (Fine, so the rifle has longer range and wider crit. I'm convinced one could make up for the range penalty with more arrows. Which also increases the chances of critting, come to think of it)

So, yeah. I just want my crossbows by any other name to be strictly better than bows, without outshining melee. (So, uh, pop over to Homebrew and tell me how well I've done? Pretty please? :smallbiggrin: )

Sorry about my misunderstanding. I quickly scanned your rules. Nice work. But want to think about things before posting any opinion.

Lapak
2009-06-10, 03:54 PM
Granted in Iron Kingdoms, they don't have armor penetration or ease of use. Rifles have range, but not pistols.I didn't say that 'ease of use' meant that they were EASIER to use. The 'ease of use' quotient on IK firearms sounds pretty bad compared to a bow, but you can measure both. :smallwink:

I'm more or less in agreement with Hamster, on many points, though I'd be more specific: not since 1e has there been a system where the damage from a single weapon hit was a serious threat to pretty much all human-scale opposition. Not just weapons, either; I read a blog post a little while back that ran the numbers and pointed out that a Fireball spell, when acquired:
- was very likely to kill an ogre in 1e
- might kill and would definitely hurt badly an ogre in 2e
- probably would NOT kill and might not even seriously injure an ogre in 3e
- will not under any circumstances one-shot an ogre in 4e

Where I think HamsterOfTheGod misunderstood me is where I said they shouldn't be treated differently from other weapons; I meant within the context of any one game system, and I was speaking only in terms of modeling what they do more or less faithfully.

Really, in a heroic fantasy game you can't have both firearms that ordinary people can reliably kill bears with AND combat that isn't too lethal for the feel of the game.

Myrmex
2009-06-11, 03:34 AM
Wouldn't a handful of weapons "one-shot" a bear on a critical? So an axe, sword, or even bow, could take down the bear from 5% to 15% of the time (assuming you confirmed the crit) with a single blow.