Renaissance-era Guns in 4E

[Talyn]

As a thought project, I was thinking up a D&D campaign based heavily on a Spanish Conquistadores-vs.-Incans and Aztecs theme.

As part of the theme, I wanted to integrate 16th-century weapons and technology into the game, but the matter of guns has always been a problem in D&D: either they are unrealistically quick and easy to use, or they are basically useless. The problem comes from the fact that most 16th century guns required up to a minute to reload, and the fact that the stopping power and ease-of-use of a hand cannon is hard to model with hit points.

So, I thought, we could simulate their utility by treating them as, effectively, hand-held Encounter Powers. A person carrying a gun gains, when he wields that gun, the Encounter Power associated with that gun. Any classes proficient with simple ranged weapons are proficient with firearms.

Example powers:
Ornamental Musket
Level 1 Firearm, 2 handed.
This ornate matchlock musket is designed for ceremonial use, but can still fire a bullet.
Use (standard): Range 8/16. DEX vs. Reflex. 2d8+DEX damage.

Pocket Pistol
Level 3 Firearm, 1 handed.
This tiny pistol is easy to conceal and to handle, and packs a surprising kick.
Use (minor): Range 4/8. DEX vs. AC. 2d4+DEX damage.

Sturdy Blunderbuss
Level 5 firearm, 2 handed.
Packed with nails, small iron balls and pieces of scrap metal, this short ranged weapon can put a lot of shot in the air at once.
Use (standard): Close blast 3. DEX vs. Reflex. 1d12+DEX damage, and target is slowed until the end of your next turn.

Mana-imbued Pistol
Level 12 firearm, 1 handed.
Glowing runes run up and down the barrel of this ivory-handed wheel-lock pistol, giving the bullet it fires a great deal of extra kick.
Use (standard): Range 5/10. DEX vs. Fortitude. 4d8+DEX force damage, and target is pushed 2 squares.

There could also be rules for bayonets (treat as spears or polearms?), using the gun as a club, and reloading, as well as associated feats.

[Mando Knight]

Bayonets would be too short to be used as a polearm. Two-handed simple spear, possibly. (1d8 damage, +2 proficiency...)

I like the idea of making the guns Encounter Powers. Balances out their damage (why should a pistol only do about as much as a Hand Crossbow, after all?) and their reload time (don't believe even the best-trained musketeer in the world could have reloaded fast enough to use Twin Strike like an elf archer can).

On attack/damage bonuses: They should follow the same pattern as a standard magic weapon, that is a vs NAD attack would be +1 per five levels to both attack and damage, and a vs AC attack would get a flat +2 or +3 attack bonus on top of that, depending on whether it's an accurate weapon or not.

Renaissance-era firearms aren't fully armor-piercing, so I'd make the musket and pistols as vs AC attacks. They should also have slightly longer range, since as they are they're comparable to a Javelin. I'd make it crossbow-equivalent ranges.

[Talyn]

I was thinking that, rather than treat them as magic weapons, I would literally consider them to be equippable Encounter Powers. They would have effects and deal damage on par with a ranged Striker's encounter powers of roughly the same level (I think I used Warlock for the sample guns).

I do have another concern, which just occurred to me this morning: by making the guns available to basically everybody, I just made Dexterity a secondary stat for EVERY class. Maybe I should differentiate, and have different types of guns tied to different stats? (STR or CON for broad-shot guns like blunderbusses, INT or WIS for wheel-lock and match-lock muskets, and DEX or CHA for pistols, perhaps.)

[Revlid]

I like the idea of making the guns Encounter Powers. Balances out their damage (why should a pistol only do about as much as a Hand Crossbow, after all?)
...Why shouldn't it? What is so much more damaging about a small lead ball over a small metal bolt?


and their reload time (don't believe even the best-trained musketeer in the world could have reloaded fast enough to use Twin Strike like an elf archer can).
Why not? Nor could a best-trained crossbow user in the world, yet he can use Twin Strike just fine. If you must, you can abstract it as a special feature of the gun, or even ricocheting a bullet.

[YPU]

Why not? Nor could a best-trained crossbow user in the world, yet he can use Twin Strike just fine. If you must, you can abstract it as a special feature of the gun, or even ricocheting a bullet.

Or multiple weapons. Think of how in modern action films empty shells and bullet casings are flying everywhere. Now replace all of them with empty pistols. :smallbiggrin:

[lesser_minion]

I like the idea of making the guns Encounter Powers. Balances out their damage (why should a pistol only do about as much as a Hand Crossbow, after all?) and their reload time (don't believe even the best-trained musketeer in the world could have reloaded fast enough to use Twin Strike like an elf archer can).

Firstly, it doesn't take five minutes to reload a musket. A particularly skilled firearms user could certainly get at least one shot per round, if not more.

Equippable at-will powers with a move (possible minor) action reload seems fine to me.

Secondly, a bow or a crossbow is already bad enough - a firearm might produce larger injuries, but it is still, at best, an attack with a decent shot at taking someone completely out of the fight, and not much better than a bow or a crossbow (bows were phased out because they ran out of trees).

Firearms could get away with damage comparable to a superior bow or crossbow, I think - the only reason to give them special status from there is that making them into superior weapons would be utterly wrong.

[Ashtagon]

Firstly, it doesn't take five minutes to reload a musket. A particularly skilled firearms user could certainly get at least one shot per round, if not more.

Equippable at-will powers with a move (possible minor) action reload seems fine to me.

Realistic firearm rates of fire for the early generations of muskets were a shot per minute. Sometimes two (minutes that is, not shots). Even the shot per three rounds given in d20 Past is highly-cinematic. Historically, cavalry officers and pirates both routinely carried several ("a brace of") loaded pistols to save having to reload in combat.


Secondly, a bow or a crossbow is already bad enough - a firearm might produce larger injuries, but it is still, at best, an attack with a decent shot at taking someone completely out of the fight, and not much better than a bow or a crossbow (bows were phased out because they ran out of trees).

No. Bows were phased out because an injured man was in no state to use a longbow. An injured man, could, however, squeeze a trigger quite easily.

fwiw, assuming they penetrate armour, the injuries from an arrow and a bullet are roughly equal in lethality.


Firearms could get away with damage comparable to a superior bow or crossbow, I think - the only reason to give them special status from there is that making them into superior weapons would be utterly wrong.

I kind of agree here. There isn't any particular reason to give an early firearm damage much higher than that done by a crossbow. I'd be wary of making big lists of feats for these though. Their big advantage is not requiring much training to use competently, and feats go against that principle.

[Spiryt]

Damage done by early firearm and crossbow bolt would be drastically different body damage.

Still, for the purposes of the game I would give edge to firearms - ball about 20mm or more in diameter made of pure lead, passing trough body with often more than 1kJ of kinetic energy (at "entrance") would be plainly nasty. Would be usually quite hot too.

[Ashtagon]

Good point. I forgot early firearms had large calibres. They should do more damage. Makes sense from a game balance pov too, to make them relevant in a world where bows fire every round and crossbows every other round (or more, in both cases).

[lesser_minion]

No. Bows were phased out because an injured man was in no state to use a longbow. An injured man, could, however, squeeze a trigger quite easily.

fwiw, assuming they penetrate armour, the injuries from an arrow and a bullet are roughly equal in lethality.

There are a lot of reasons why bows were phased out. The biggest and most obvious game breaker seems to have been a shortage of materials, however.


Realistic firearm rates of fire for the early generations of muskets were a shot per minute. Sometimes two (minutes that is, not shots). Even the shot per three rounds given in d20 Past is highly-cinematic. Historically, cavalry officers and pirates both routinely carried several ("a brace of") loaded pistols to save having to reload in combat.

And in a highly unrealistic game where it takes about a second to reload a crossbow, assuming that you aren't employing some zen technique to reload it almost instantaneously?

[YPU]

I am not going to say anything about realism, don't know enough about early firearms for that.

What I am going to say is that I like this idea of using them as powers. You could consider basing them of the alchemy feats and items perhaps?

[Ashtagon]

There are a lot of reasons why bows were phased out. The biggest and most obvious game breaker seems to have been a shortage of materials, however.

Well, yah. Not having any wood would have been a game breaker for building bows. Except that was never actually the case. If they ran out of wood for making bows, I am kind of puzzled how they still had enough wood to burn for cooking and heat and shipbuilding and house construction for several centuries after bows ceased to be the primary ranged weapon.



And in a highly unrealistic game where it takes about a second to reload a crossbow, assuming that you aren't employing some zen technique to reload it almost instantaneously?

five seconds actually (assuming it takes one second to fire it). But who's counting.

[Spiryt]

There are a lot of reasons why bows were phased out. The biggest and most obvious game breaker seems to have been a shortage of materials, however.


Guns take at least the same amount of wood to build as crossbows...

And there were plenty of bows constructed from XVI to XVIII century for sport, hunting and recreation, just it warfare use diminished.

They were later quite often used on ships, for example.

Good, big yew and other plants for bows were certainly getting scarce, but there another thing:

England was of course only realm that used bows on very big scale in medieval and later.

In most other countries, it was crossbow.

So I don't see how availability of materials should be very important factor here.

[Mando Knight]

I was thinking that, rather than treat them as magic weapons, I would literally consider them to be equippable Encounter Powers. They would have effects and deal damage on par with a ranged Striker's encounter powers of roughly the same level (I think I used Warlock for the sample guns).

Well, yes. That's pretty much a magic item. The problem is that if they're not balanced against normal magic weapons, they quickly fall behind in the to-hit curve.
Well, yah. Not having any wood would have been a game breaker for building bows. Except that was never actually the case. If they ran out of wood for making bows, I am kind of puzzled how they still had enough wood to burn for cooking and heat and shipbuilding and house construction for several centuries after bows ceased to be the primary ranged weapon.
Huge difference here: you can't make a good bow out of any old wood. Yew was best, but most of the good yew trees in Britain were chopped down to make bows for the Hundred Years' War. Also, the strength to wield a longbow properly is tremendous. While a recruit could learn to fire a musket fairly quickly, if he hadn't trained from his youth to use a longbow he'd never be able to use it in war.

[Ashtagon]

Also, the strength to wield a longbow properly is tremendous. While a recruit could learn to fire a musket fairly quickly, if he hadn't trained from his youth to use a longbow he'd never be able to use it in war.

That's pretty much what I said earlier - bows were phased out because of the training requirements, not because of lack of materials.

While the English longbow did traditionally use yew, other woods were certainly of suitable quality for use in a bow. Worldwide use of bows isn't and wasn't restricted to those areas where yew grows after all.

[lesser_minion]

No, it wasn't entirely due to a lack of materials. There were several different factors, most famously the ease of use attached to firearms. I merely pointed it out because it's something I've heard and it would be very significant if true.

In any event, the practical rate of fire of a bow was generally around six shots per minute.

Treating firearms as encounter powers basically entails sticking a 'practical' tag on them that is applied to no other weapon in the game - particularly not crossbows, which are assigned twice the maximum fire rate they would have had in real life.

Also bear in mind that the main factor that blocked the introduction of cartridges for loading firearms quickly was tradition - a tradition that probably wouldn't be respected in the world of 4th edition D&D.

[Force]

There's also the thought of using magic to add capabilities to the gun far beyond a D&D techbase. A firing mechanism using a magic-created spark of electricity isn't too far fetched and would make the gun almost immune to the weather-related misfirings that matchlocks and flintlocks were prone to.

[LurkerInPlayground]

My perspective on something like this is to let firearms be common enough and easy enough to be used by the mooks. But make them incompatible with powers or higher level abilities. PC's won't derive much benefit from them, while a fusillade of shots by mooks can still be threatening to the PC's. Just the sheer number of bullets being thrown your way is what matters.

Part of what made the gun the force that it was, was the growth in population caused by the revolution in medicine, food transportation and agriculture. The idea of a national draft of citizens is a relatively recent one that allowed you to deploy large numbers. Guns just gave you a way to make those numbers threatening.

The whole theme you want to capture is that guns are an equalizer. Skill and experience by the "old ways" used to hold monopoly, but guns are now coming to overturn them. Guns do not require a feat to use, because it only takes about a few days to even familiarize yourself with the weapon.

Basically, I'd put guns in all the hands of all the minions. And these minions are often deployed in such a way as to make maximum use of their range and numbers.

Higher damage or attacks vs. reflex is justifiable simply to emphasize the guns ease-of-use in their ability to damage enemies.

[Ashtagon]

Realism aside, a much more important question is how do you want firearms to fit in terms of story-drama and playability.

Making them fire every round, or even every other round, is a rate of fire way higher than what early firearms would have had. Maybe by 18th century tech you can justify that level, but not really for earlier firearms.

Having a rate of fire that requires 2-3 rounds of reloading, otoh, effectively puts the player out of the action for a huge amount of time if he bothers reloading them at all. In a practical sense, a player is just going to fire it once per fight.

Having it reload automatically after a couple of rounds while the character swings his sword makes no sense and breaks verisimilitude.

Going the whole hog and making it an encounter power allows you to justify giving it some serious damage potential that couldn't be present if you make it a 1 per round or 1/2 per round rate of fire. That allows it to have a different dynamic from bows and crossbows, making it fill a new slot in combat tactics.

A firearm that has a rate of fire comparable to a crossbow can't also have a damage too far above a crossbow without thereby rendering the crossbow obsolete as a viable weapon choice.

ymmv

[lesser_minion]

Realism aside, a much more important question is how do you want firearms to fit in terms of story-drama and playability.

Well, I suggested keeping it as an equippable power, just usable at-will, with a minor (possibly move) action reload.

It's not too realistic, but nor is a crossbow with the exact same fire rate as a bow.

And IDT also not too far from where an early firearm using paper cartridges would be if we apply the "rate of fire is double" rule.

Finally, because it's still an equippable power, it also becomes less useful for PCs and skilled characters - at best, it's like handing out a slightly buffed magic missile.

The big issue with making it into an encounter power is that you've just informed the player that it takes five minutes to reload one.

[Witty Username]

You could use 3.5 firearms as a guideline, I believe that is takes a full round action to reload. That would mean about 5 shots a minute. A little fast compared to reality but pretty close.

P.S I heard that a well trained soldier could fire 3 aimed shots a minute.

[demidracolich]

I say they should be weapons and deal high damage. however, they should not get a proficiency bonus. Renaissance guns were not much better than bows and crossbows in terms of fire power. However, their advantage was that people could use them with virtually no training.

[Spiryt]

Renaissance guns were not much better than bows and crossbows in terms of fire power.

Depends what you mean by "fire power" - the ball out of decent handgonne, so also from arquebus or musket had much greater kinetic energy, momentum, velocity et cetera than any arrow or bolt, so it generally packed much bigger "whooomp", and certainly could be more destructive to flesh, wood and other common "materials".

[demidracolich]

Well they may be more destructive but a skilled archer at the time can fire about three arrows in the time it takes to reload one of those things. The reason they were used is as i said, needs no training to use.

[Spiryt]

Well they may be more destructive but a skilled archer at the time can fire about three arrows in the time it takes to reload one of those things. The reason they were used is as i said, needs no training to use.

Reason to use or not were varied as it was really different weapon than bow, offering some different capabilities.

In many armies of XVIth century there were about 1 - 2 archers for every arquebusers - gunners were trying to shoot in solid volleys, while archers were peppering the enemy with greater number of projectiles.

And "training to use" is subjective, it obviously required quite a lot of training, but indeed after it, huge potential of the weapon could be used.

With bow, not very experienced man could shoot some weakish bow, without great accuracy, speed or power, but still could find use in some tactics.

Link? (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1433&highlight=battle+plan/6)

Image is actual 16th century stuff, as I understand.

EDIT: link to someone who posted it, cause I can't attach this picture for life.

[Talyn]

Well, to respond to the idea that making them encounter powers would be the equivalent to saying the guns take five minutes to reload: from what I've read, 16th and 17th century weapons could be fired, by a trained soldier, roughly twice a minute. That translates, in D&D terms, to requiring roughly 4 standard actions to reload - even using an action point, that means three rounds without making an attack.

From a player's perspective, that's pretty boring. It also means that the damage has to be high enough to compensate - and since the damage isn't SO high to be worth only firing every five rounds, nobody would ever use the guns, except to fire them once and switch to another weapon.

In other words, the gun is a weapon which gives an encounter power.


Well, yes. That's pretty much a magic item. The problem is that if they're not balanced against normal magic weapons, they quickly fall behind in the to-hit curve.

Ah, I misunderstood you there. I actually use the alternate "inherent bonuses" progession from the DMG2 (mostly so the players can keep their father's armor or whatever), so there is no worry about falling behind the to-hit curve.

If you didn't want to use inherent bonuses, you could just assign the appropriate level of enchantment, depending on the level of the gun. A level 3 gun would be a +1, a level 13 gun a +3, and a level 23 gun a +5 (for example).

[lesser_minion]

Well, to respond to the idea that making them encounter powers would be the equivalent to saying the guns take five minutes to reload: from what I've read, 16th and 17th century weapons could be fired, by a trained soldier, roughly twice a minute. That translates, in D&D terms, to requiring roughly 4 standard actions to reload - even using an action point, that means three rounds without making an attack.

Yes, but again, you're applying a 'practical' tag to the weapon that no other weapon has - crossbows can be reloaded in about a second, and no time at all if used in a power.

Bows can be fired at least once a round, when in real life people were only ever expected to fire them that quickly in training, since they are kind of tiring to use.

The practical rate of fire for a bow was about six arrows per minute. A crossbow generally fired half as quickly.

Or, in essence, you're translating "two rounds per minute" into "encounter power", when "three rounds per minute" translates into "minor action to reload".

Are you absolutely certain that's reasonable? Because from where I'm sitting, it's anything but.

[Mando Knight]

And "training to use" is subjective, it obviously required quite a lot of training, but indeed after it, huge potential of the weapon could be used.

With bow, not very experienced man could shoot some weakish bow, without great accuracy, speed or power, but still could find use in some tactics.

Whatever a normal man could do with a weak bow, he could do better with crossbows or firearms. If he has the same skill at aiming all three, then the latter two will be more useful as they don't require strength training to pierce armor or fire at full range. And that's assuming the aiming ability is the same for all three. Bows require a lot more guesswork and mental adjustment than the stock-held weapons since you can't aim straight down the weapon and adjust for gravity, and there's also the problem with arrow spine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer%27s_paradox).
Ah, I misunderstood you there. I actually use the alternate "inherent bonuses" progession from the DMG2 (mostly so the players can keep their father's armor or whatever), so there is no worry about falling behind the to-hit curve.

If you didn't want to use inherent bonuses, you could just assign the appropriate level of enchantment, depending on the level of the gun. A level 3 gun would be a +1, a level 13 gun a +3, and a level 23 gun a +5 (for example).
Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, the inherent bonus progression would fix the problem of leveling up your firearms.

[Talyn]

Yes, but again, you're applying a 'practical' tag to the weapon that no other weapon has - crossbows can be reloaded in about a second, and no time at all if used in a power.

Bows can be fired at least once a round, when in real life people were only ever expected to fire them that quickly in training, since they are kind of tiring to use.

The practical rate of fire for a bow was about six arrows per minute. A crossbow generally fired half as quickly.

Or, in essence, you're translating "two rounds per minute" into "encounter power", when "three rounds per minute" translates into "minor action to reload".

Are you absolutely certain that's reasonable? Because from where I'm sitting, it's anything but.

You make a good point there. Obviously, "true realism" has to take a back seat to game balance and overall fun - and, incidentally, I've never had a crossbow ranger in any of my D&D groups, so the inherent silliness of the rapid crossbow reload in 4E had never occurred to me prior to this thread - what I am trying to simulate here is the power and "game changing" nature of guns in a late Renaissance world.

If it helps to justify the extra damage for the guns, remember that hit points are an abstraction - the damage you take represents fatigue, bad luck, and general morale as well as actual injuries you sustain. Hell, I rule that you aren't actually really injured until you've reached your Bloodied value. Arrows and crossbow bolts, though extremely deadly, are relatively large and slow-moving projectiles. A heroic warrior can see them coming, compensate psychologically for their presence, maybe turn to get thicker armor or a shield in their path - smaller, faster moving, almost invisible bullets, fired from the fire-belching thunderous mouths of red-hot iron tubes, have a vastly greater psychological impact and are much harder to dodge. This, then, accounts for their greater damage: being shot with a gun weakens your will to continue fighting more than being shot with a bow.

[ForzaFiori]

Whatever a normal man could do with a weak bow, he could do better with crossbows or firearms. If he has the same skill at aiming all three, then the latter two will be more useful as they don't require strength training to pierce armor or fire at full range. And that's assuming the aiming ability is the same for all three. Bows require a lot more guesswork and mental adjustment than the stock-held weapons since you can't aim straight down the weapon and adjust for gravity, and there's also the problem with arrow spine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer%27s_paradox).


The difference, and what kept bows and crossbows in the game for so long after the advent of gunpowder, is that guns had two very large problems. Guns of that era had a horrible tendency to misfire, causing you to have to reload all over again (all of the sudden your shooting a round every 2 minutes, or minute and a half), and even the best trained musketeer could barely hit the broad side of a barn until they invented rifling, which wasn't until the late 1700s IIRC. Bows were the fastest, and most accurate ranged weapon until the advent of rifling, and the fastest until the invention of the repeater rifle. Crossbows sat pretty in the middle until they went out of style, and guns have always been deadly, slow, inaccurate, and unreliable, up until very recently.

Perhaps give guns a standard reload time of 3 or 4 rounds, but the option to "quick reload" in 2 or so, but with a 25% chance the gun misfires (which could either just keep it from working, or blow up in your face). A misfire means you have to clean everything out, so now its 5 rounds to reload, with no quick reload option.

I'm not entirely familiar with 4E, but if it has a non-proficiency penalty, perhaps halve it, but don't take it away when you gain proficiency, to represent the ease at which you can learn to fire a gun, but their inherent poor accuracy (you just can't get a round bullet to go straight. Its like firing a paintball, where you can watch it curve)

[lesser_minion]

That's true, and there's another way you could balance firearms - no proficiency bonus.

Sure, they aren't hard to use, but Renaissance-era firearms didn't reward skill either.

[Talyn]

I like the "no proficiency bonus" - especially since I think I'm going to have all but the smallest caliber bullets target Reflex instead of AC, that keeps them balanced.

I'll probably still come up with feats that let you do cool things with them, especially related to bayonet fighting - since, at Mando Knight's suggestion, I'll be treating bayonets as spears (which are a little underpowered compared to halberds and other polearms), the bayonet feats will let spear fighters and spear warlords get a little extra kick out of using muskets.

Example feats:
Volley Fire
Heroic Tier
Effect: When using a firearm's encounter power, you gain a +1 to the attack roll for every other successful ranged attack made against that target by an ally since the end of your last round.

Melee Musketeer
Paragon Tier
Effect: While wielding a firearm equipped with a bayonet, you may use the firearm's encounter power as a free action against a target you have successfully hit with a bayonet that round.

[lesser_minion]

Also, bear in mind that verifiably bullet-resistant armour was available very quickly after firearms were - armour would actually be tested against bullets and sold with the dents left in as proof of effectiveness.

[Rion]

Also, bear in mind that verifiably bullet-resistant armour was available very quickly after firearms were - armour would actually be tested against bullets and sold with the dents left in as proof of effectiveness.
It really depends on which period he is going for. bullet-resistant armour was developed quickly, but it became more and more cumbersome. If he is going for ca. 1570 (roughly) I would say that bullet-resistant armour should have additional penalties. And by ca. 1642 they were becoming so cumbersome that few were willing to wear them. However, if he is going for the period before 1570, handcannons and arquebuses aren't more dangerous to armoured foes than good crossbows.

[Lycan 01]

Recently saw an episode of Deadliest Warrior where they showed off the 18th Century Musketeer. I reeeeeally want to play one of those suckers now. :smallbiggrin:


They showed off a .75 calibur musket used by the Musketeers. The guy testing it was able to get 3 shots off in about a minute, but only his first shot was directly on target. But when it hit, it tore a pretty nasty path through the ballistic gel dummy's chest - a definite kill. The other struck the shoulder and (IIRC) would have ruptured an artery, and the third hit the cheek and would have caused a concussion. Keep in mind, this wasn't at a very long range. For its time, the weapon was accurate and devastating, but even in the hands of an expert you were basically hoping for luck past medium range.


What I'd suggest is that you make the weapons, or at least muskets, strong but not easy to hit with. Maybe not penalties, but not too many bonuses. Movement and Proficiency, for example. If the shooter used a move action before firing, they take a -2 penalty to their shot since they don't have time to properly brace and fire, or their aim has otherwise been slightly thrown off. And for being Proficient, perhaps instead of making it +2 or +3 to hit, it should reduce the speed of Reload times or allow you to fire after moving without the -2 penalty. To offset the reduced chance of hitting, buff up the damage. Make it a heavy hitter. If may not hit often, but when it does, it can reeeeeeally bring the pain.

Maybe give the Musket and/or other firearms a special quality or two, like High Crit or a critical range of 19-20, since these things don't just impale their foe - they blow whole frickin' sections of flesh and meat out of their body. :smalleek:

[Sasha Tate]

First historical point: Bows simply did not possess the kinetic power of firearms, especially as chemistry and industrial processes perfected means of producing abundant and more accurately mixed gunpowder. The advent of the matchlock made rifles reliable enough that they became the standard armorment for european armies in the 18th century. This coincided with increased dependence on cannons for naval and land warfare, thus triggering a shift from wood based weaponry like trebuchet and arrows to metallurgical weaponry. While archers could fire more rapidly, they frequently took years to train to achieve effective skill on the battlefield. The raw kinetic force of firearms, coupled with military tactics of the time, made such drill intensive training superfluous. In four months a draftee could reliably fire six prepared shell casings a minute. With the invention on the percussion cap in the early 19th century doubled this.

Second gameplay point: pick a mechanic and roll with it. I would think it fair to equivalent guns with crossbows. If crossbows are reloaded in a move action, fire arms should be as well. If crossbows can do attacks like twin strike, fire arms should be as well. Personally, I gave my players revolver firearms. I picked an arbitrary distance equivalent to long bows and damages equivalent to cross bows with associated reload rules for repeating crossbows. I gave enemies a +20 perception bonus to hear firearms. It worked out just fine. The ranger got his dwarven "grizzly adams" and was happy. Game balance remained just fine. Don't worry about perfecting it. Remember that 4e is more cinematic than other editions. Fall back on the rule of cool and roll with it.

What I literally came up with:
Dwarven Maverick Longarm
Prof: +2 Damage: 1d8 Range: 25/50 Price: 500gp Weight 10lbs Group: Firearms Clip: 6 Properties: Reload standard, High crit, Noisy.

Dwarven Lacaster Pistol
Prof: +2 Damage: 1d6 Range: 10/20 Price: 600gp Weight 3 lbs Group Firearms Clip 6 Properties: reload move, high crit, noisy.

Noisy: +20 bonus to perception checks to hear the weapon being fired.
(I picked clips of 6 because it divides nicely as most powers target one, two, or three targets.