PDA

View Full Version : [D20 Past] Are Early Firearms Worth It?



Vorpalbob
2010-07-28, 05:24 PM
By early firearms, I mean everything up until weapons that held more than one shot became widely used.

Reading through the weapon descriptions, I am struck be just how inaccurate these weapons are. I've always sort of known, but having it confirmed is a bit of a shock.

Couple this with the ridiculous reload time, and these weapons, even if you are carrying a brace of pistols, become useless after the first three or four turns.

My question is, is it possible to effectively focus on firearms, or is at least some melee prowess a must for combat survival?

Bonus question: In, say, 1700's era France, how easy was it to obtain ammo, weapons, and powder as a civilian?

Starbuck_II
2010-07-28, 05:32 PM
I'm pretty sure you quick drew a gun+ shot it then dropped it. Repeating till ran out of guns then you drew a melee weapon.

Most pirates did back then.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-07-28, 05:33 PM
Stealth, a musket, and a brace of pistols would do you well if you get to add Sneak attack to the damage - but yes, breach loading single shot firearms are a poor substitute for a good longsword at your side.

endoperez
2010-07-28, 05:53 PM
If you had enough one-shot weapons with you, or a henchman reloading them, I guess you could get by decently. 12 one-shot pistols would get you pretty far in many cases, and in a fantasy game you could probably double or triple with Rule Of Cool.

Reloading during a fight would be almost impossible, though, so a back-up weapon would still be useful.

Wardog
2010-07-28, 06:00 PM
...is at least some melee prowess a must for combat survival?

It was in real life at least. Musketeers and the like (as in general-purpose infantry armed with muskets, not The Three Musketeers) would normally either be accompanied by pikemen to protect them, or (one the y were invented) had bayonettes to turn their musket into a mini pike of their own.

Cavalry would often be armed with a pistol or two, to fire at the enemy while charging, and then switch to a sword.

I'm not sure anyone would want to drop their gun once they fired it though, on account of them being expensive and prone to damage.

Teln
2010-07-28, 06:26 PM
You might not want to, but in combat you might just have to.

Redrat2k6
2010-07-28, 06:48 PM
I'm not a history major, but I think firearms were pretty easy to come by in the 1700's assuming you had the money. At this point in time wars had gone from a group of heavily armed calvary to a larger group of men made up of muskets and bayonets.

1700's had banking systems that empowered the modern citizen and took away from the power of the nobility, which made the militia, and not knights, the true force to be reckoned with. Castles were being replaced by forts that better protected against artillary, and the milita consisted of voluntary recruits.

So yeah... You can get firearms.

Edit: Oh and from what I know of the history, firearms were effective when combined with large masses of people to wield them, not really effective for a lone mercenary because of the reload time (about 3 rounds), Innacuracy, (probably 40ft), and if using a matchlock, weather.

Could be viable though, just keep a rapier on you like those dualist guys from back in the day.

Vorpalbob
2010-07-28, 08:09 PM
Edit: Oh and from what I know of the history, firearms were effective when combined with large masses of people to wield them, not really effective for a lone mercenary because of the reload time (about 3 rounds), Innacuracy, (probably 40ft), and if using a matchlock, weather.

Could be viable though, just keep a rapier on you like those dualist guys from back in the day.

Standard reload time was 2 rounds, and the Quick Reload feat reduced this to one round. a 40 ft range increment was for the largest, most expensive muskets. The range increment on a wheel-lock belt pistol is 10 ft. You can throw knives further than that, and with sneak attack deal more damage without (necessarily) losing stealth.

My concern is for the next campaign I will be running, which I am considering having in this era. I have a certain player who will be joining us. When we first played D&D, he played a Half-Orc Fighter/Barbarian who collected greatswords. Only greatswords. When asked why he was carrying 150 lbs worth of unused swords past the general store, his response was, "In case mine breaks."

When he plays D20 Modern, he plays a Russian demoguy with a handheld minigun.

I have a feeling that if I let him loose in the 1700s, he'll grab ten muskets and blow everything away, and die as he frantically reloads.

Hurlbut
2010-07-28, 08:21 PM
Eh just give him a brace of pistols and a greatsword, he'll be happy as a clam.

Grommen
2010-07-28, 10:41 PM
Problem ain't the weapon. Problem is the system. In real life people get shot, and then they die. One Shot delivered by a Pistol was enough to normally put a person out of commission for the duration of the battle, so the fact that a pistol only held one shot, and was quite hard to aim was not an issue. It works if you use firearms against 1st level characters with six to ten hit points. You shoot them, good chance that they are near dead or quite dead. But now what happens when they make 2nd level and have twelve to twenty hit points? They don't die with one shot. Now you need another gun, just like you were going to have to hack him again with your sword.

I believe in the D20 modern book they have a rule that modifies guns so that if you do over their CON in damage they have to make a Fort check or die regardless of your current Hit points. Makes guns way more nasty that way.

Historically speaking, the British used a three line musket force. One kneeling and firing, the others standing and reloading. After one line fired, the next stepped in front and keeled and so on and so on. They got off two or three shots in a battle, fowled out their barrels and called it a day. They used a Bayonet to turn their riffles into spears in case they got charged or needed to charge. You could use a Pavase shield or a Pike line to protect them as well depending on what era and when you fought.

And yes many a seaman carried several of them on a Brace or just tied to their neck on a rope.

And a good Pistol could be flipped over and held on to by the barrel and use the grip as the business in for a pretty good club in your off hand.

Callos_DeTerran
2010-07-28, 11:14 PM
Problem ain't the weapon. Problem is the system. In real life people get shot, and then they die. One Shot delivered by a Pistol was enough to normally put a person out of commission for the duration of the battle, so the fact that a pistol only held one shot, and was quite hard to aim was not an issue. It works if you use firearms against 1st level characters with six to ten hit points. You shoot them, good chance that they are near dead or quite dead. But now what happens when they make 2nd level and have twelve to twenty hit points? They don't die with one shot. Now you need another gun, just like you were going to have to hack him again with your sword.

I believe in the D20 modern book they have a rule that modifies guns so that if you do over their CON in damage they have to make a Fort check or die regardless of your current Hit points. Makes guns way more nasty that way.

It's called the Massive Damage Threshold and something most people forget about while playing. Any pistol (so long as it does 2d6) can potentially drop a person in a single hit, though in most cases it'll take a lucky critical. Most longarms don't even need the critical hit, just a good damage roll.

But the important thing to note isn't that hit points=actually getting hit. It equals your capability to keep fighting. In D&D and d20 modern I'll often describe an actual hit as a near miss or the player dodging, and whn asked why they still took damage tell them that until their last hit point HP is also counted as 'ability to avoid lethal wounds'.

PersonMan
2010-07-28, 11:47 PM
Stuff

HP system is the thing you have a problem with. Same with swords, really:

Problem ain't the weapon. Problem is the system. In real life people get stabbed, and then they die. One Stab delivered by a Shortsword was enough to normally put a person out of commission for the duration of the battle. It works if you use swords against 1st level characters with six to ten hit points. You stab them, good chance that they are near dead or quite dead. But now what happens when they make 2nd level and have twelve to twenty hit points? They don't die with one stab. Now you need another sword, just like you were going to have to shoot him again with your gun.

So, I'd make guns like any other weapon. If you wand a high-danger combat? Then make Massive Damage=Con, so that you fairly quickly get the problem of outright dying even at high levels(especially at high levels, actually!).

Also, @HP=/=being super-tough, it depends on your view. I, for example, find having a character than can take ten shots to the face and laugh awesome. Someone else might say, 'Oh, you just barely dodged all those, and your luck is starting to run out.' Or the like. There was a pages-long debate over this in another thread, I think it was actually fairly recent, too.

awa
2010-07-28, 11:53 PM
Their are several important things that led to the rise of fire arms. First they were cheap to make at least compared to swords and armor + they were very easy to use. this meant you could put larger armies on the field for less money and they were pretty effective.

second and this one is a huge factor guns are scary. When people were being shot at the sheer noise of the weapons was often more useful then the bullets. people not familiar with firearms would have nothing to compare them to mentally this combined with the smoke and smells was often much more damaging to moral then a more deadly volley of arrows. and getting the enemy army to break formation meant you could run them down with your cavalry.

Another aspect you might not have considered guns are highly inaccurate but when armies fought the shooters did not aim for people in the army they aimed at the army if they missed badly odds are they would still hit some one standing next to him. (not very useful for pcs but hey)

Shooting and dropping guns might be fine for pcs but that would be a very unusual tactic for an army to use. guns weigh more then you might think and just carrying all those guns would be a huge hassle.

as was mentioned earlier before the invention of the bayonets you had a rock paper scissors relation between cavalry pike and muskets. as the guns got better and better and the pike less and less important they would eventual be replaced by the bayonet.