Firearms

[Person_Man]

I'm working on some 3.5 gun adaptation rules for my Magitech Templar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176276). I've reviewed the DMG and Monte Cooks rules (http://www.montecook.com/images/Technology.pdf), but find myself a bit unsatisfied. Many just seem like cruddy breath weapons, knock-off alchemical items, or crossbows that take an obnoxiously long time to reload.

Have you read better rules for guns and/or artillery? Everything is on the table, including homebrew. Thanks.

[Rhavin]

My first answer would be to look up Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms Setting. They've got a fair selection of firearms that mostly do more damage than crossbows and combine a x3 crit with the 19-20 threat range. I tend to really like the setting in general since I play the company's WARMACHINE and HORDES table top games. The specific book you'd be looking for is the Iron Kingdoms Character Guide, but its been out of print for a while and might be hard to find.

[WeLoveFireballs]

I just use a magic item that allows people to activate wands (Like UMD but no check). It was the level of the spell times caster level squared times ten gold. Then you buy yourself a wand of whatever your heart desires to shoot and make it look like a gun (no cost :smallbiggrin:).

Machine guns of Magic missile.
Shotguns could fire burning hands or kelgores firebolt (as a solid slug).
Plenty more options.

Edit: Example of the magic item: Spell level 3 caster level 9: This means the weilder can use a CL 6 fireball wand or a CL 9 magic missile wand not just level 3 CL 9 wands.

[Attilargh]

My first answer would be to look up Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms Setting. They've got a fair selection of firearms that mostly do more damage than crossbows and combine a x3 crit with the 19-20 threat range.
They also take obnoxiously long to reload. In fact, they're pretty much exactly like Monte Cook's, only worse.

I'd personally recommend cannibalizing the rules for revolvers and such from a modern-setting d20 game. That takes care of the reloading problem, at least. And hey, orcs with machine guns, on wyverns! D20 Modern should still have the SRD online somewhere, but Spycraft 2.0 might be more in the decent-to-good range.

[Callos_DeTerran]

They also take obnoxiously long to reload. In fact, they're pretty much exactly like Monte Cook's, only worse.

I'd personally recommend cannibalizing the rules for revolvers and such from a modern-setting d20 game. That takes care of the reloading problem, at least. And hey, orcs with machine guns, on wyverns! D20 Modern should still have the SRD online somewhere, but Spycraft 2.0 might be more in the decent-to-good range.

You mean like this (http://www.d20resources.com/)?

Also, what kind of feel are you trying to get with the fire arms Person Man?

[Jjeinn-tae]

My campaign setting in my signature has some homebrew rules I've been working on. They're not done yet, but it runs so far, has recoil, different fire rates dealing and how they interact with iteratives, and various varieties of bullets with more to come.

Of course a lot of it is a little too detailed, you could probably ignore the difference between a double-action and true semi-automatic and it would probably work better. Also, since it's a custom campaign setting, the only firearm I have built so far is a very low-caliber pistol and carries the name of a culture with it, but would probably be portable to other settings.

It might offer some inspiration though, so you can find it in the weapons section (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9969253&postcount=4), and non-standard bullets in the special materials section (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9977176&postcount=7).

[Yahzi]

Have you read better rules for guns and/or artillery?
Guns should take a long time to reload. Until the metal cartridge was invented, plenty of soldiers still carried swords.

The real value of a gun in D&D is that it is scalable. That is, you can just keep making it bigger and bigger until it's big enough to kill what you want to face. In D&D terms a gun ought to be what a rocket launcher is in modern combat: big enough to kill hard targets, but rare enough that you aren't playing rocket tag. Guns should be a one-shot threat to most mobs and thus a threat to PCs.

Typically people want to make them Exotic proficiency, but of course the whole point was that firearms were easier to use than any other weapon ever.

A few basic ideas: they should be ranged touch attacks, long arms like rifles should get a +2 or so to attack, they should be slow to load but do enough damage that people are scared of them, they should be expensive enough that only professional soldiers have them but not so expensive you can't create whole units with them.

I would just make up damage numbers big enough to scare your players, put a 10 round reload on them, and roll with that.

[FelixG]

Pathfinder has good guns, only issue being that they are expensive as all hell ~.~

One nice feature for firearms are Explosive dice, if you roll max on the damage ( such as a 6 on a d6) you reroll the dice and add it to the result, if its max again you keep rerolling until you stop rolling max.

This helps to simulate how truly deadly the weapons can be with a good hit

[Pink]

One nice feature for firearms are Explosive dice, if you roll max on the damage ( such as a 6 on a d6) you reroll the dice and add it to the result, if its max again you keep rerolling until you stop rolling max.

I like this idea.

[Jjeinn-tae]

Hmm, but then if you have a way to re-roll ones indefinitely, all you need to do is be small enough for your handgun to be in 1d2's. Then you can imitate the 1d2 swordsage. Or is it the re-roll ones indefinitely from swordsage, and re-roll max rolls from elsewhere, I forget...

[FelixG]

Hmm, but then if you have a way to re-roll ones indefinitely, all you need to do is be small enough for your handgun to be in 1d2's. Then you can imitate the 1d2 swordsage. Or is it the re-roll ones indefinitely from swordsage, and re-roll max rolls from elsewhere, I forget...

IIRC as I am away from my books guns only come in medium size, they dont get smaller in Pathfinder.

[kieza]

This seems to be a minority opinion, but I'm personally of the opinion that, whatever system you play in, firearms shouldn't be too different from a standard ranged weapon in that system. Most conversions I've seen fall into two categories: making them complex "for realism" and making them really powerful "for realism." Leaving aside the fact that D&D is not particuarly realistic in other areas, both of these approaches kind of backfire:

If you make the rules for firearms very different they become like the 3.5 grappling rules, where nobody wants to use them because they're a pain to adjudicate. Every special rule, whether it's ignoring a few points of certain armor types, requiring skill checks to reload and fire, potentially misfiring and exploding, or not working in wet weather, is just another reason for players not to use them, and to hate any encounter when the enemy uses them.

Then there's the problem with making them uber-powerful, uber-expensive 1/encounter weapons: you could easily take out some random mook with a firearm, but why would you waste your expensive powder and shot on someone you have a dozen other ways to kill? Better save it for a boss...who probably has enough HP, damage resistance, or other magical protection to survive a hit. So why waste it on a boss? Unless you hand out enough guns and ammo that the players don't worry about using some (in which case, they're not really one-shot wonder weapons), they never actually use them. Plus, they have all the flaws of the whole save-or-die system.

My objection to save-or-die effects is this: I'm not playing with the intention of killing players, and that's the only purpose of SoDs. They don't slowly create dramatic tension, that being my usual goal, they make everything revolve around one die roll: if you roll high, nothing happens. Roll low, and you're screwed. It's like if a football game depended entirely on the opening coin toss: nothing else has any meaning.

Now, I do use firearms in my standard campaign setting, but since I want my players to actually use the content I've created for them, they use statistics very similar to the crossbow: they do more damage, they're slightly less accurate (minor attack penalty and shorter range increments), and since the dwarves have been tinkering with them for a century, they have bolt-actions so you can fire without reloading for 10 rounds between shots.

[Greenish]

Guns should take a long time to reload. Until the metal cartridge was invented, plenty of soldiers still carried swords.I get the feeling here that Person_Man wants something actually useful in a game, instead of something realistic. If someone wants to play a gunslinger, telling her that "sorry, you can't realistically use guns as your main weapons" is unfortunate.

Hmm, but then if you have a way to re-roll ones indefinitely, all you need to do is be small enough for your handgun to be in 1d2's. Then you can imitate the 1d2 swordsage.Swordsages don't gain access to Devoted Spirit without burning feats (that everyone else could also pick).

You mean 1d2 Crusader.

[Psyx]

A few basic ideas: they should be ranged touch attacks, long arms like rifles should get a +2 or so to attack

Err... longarms should just have good range, surely?
Not sure why firearms would ignore all armour automatically, either.

The problem is that we've all got an expectancy of what a firearms should do: Kill people very quickly. We don't have that expectancy with swords and axes because we're not culturally exposed to them. And that's reinforced with the heroic D&D system of D&D where being stabbed a dozen times with a spear is NOT going to kill anything that's tough. So why would a firearm be doing vast amounts of damage in D&D? A bullet going straight through you is realistically less dangerous than the same thing happening with a sword. I'd personally look towards simply having a x3 crit 19-20 and damage slightly higher than a crossbow, for the sake of generosity. It's still 'better' than a 'real' gun comparatively, without being a super weapon.

[Adamantrue]

Guns should take a long time to reload. Until the metal cartridge was invented, plenty of soldiers still carried swords.

The real value of a gun in D&D is that it is scalable. That is, you can just keep making it bigger and bigger until it's big enough to kill what you want to face. In D&D terms a gun ought to be what a rocket launcher is in modern combat: big enough to kill hard targets, but rare enough that you aren't playing rocket tag. Guns should be a one-shot threat to most mobs and thus a threat to PCs.

Typically people want to make them Exotic proficiency, but of course the whole point was that firearms were easier to use than any other weapon ever.

A few basic ideas: they should be ranged touch attacks, long arms like rifles should get a +2 or so to attack, they should be slow to load but do enough damage that people are scared of them, they should be expensive enough that only professional soldiers have them but not so expensive you can't create whole units with them.

I would just make up damage numbers big enough to scare your players, put a 10 round reload on them, and roll with that. I think there were a lot of good ideas in this post, though I do disagree on a few points.

Long Reload: Its for this reason that people that carried Pistols usually carried several Pistols. Because of this, you've have to find the right balance between Damage and Price.

Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Until recent history, Guns were also horribly, horribly inaccurate, and prone to misfire. I think that in combination with them being Ranged Touch Attacks, the -4 penalty for Nonproficiency is proper and appropriate.

Ranged Touch Attacks: This is probably the most realistic use of Firearms, but Armor should offer some benefit. Off the top of my head (and not really critical of game balance), let Medium and Heavy Armor add an inherent AC bonus or DR value per category.

[umbrapolaris]

I'd personally recommend cannibalizing the rules for revolvers and such from a modern-setting d20 game.

i agree, my DM saw the movie "equilibrium" then "Wanted" and was a big fan of Final Fantasy and Devil May Cry so he decided to included modern firearms & technology via "temporal breach opened by demons " who want to change the way war will be ^^

so he simply used the d20 modern rules, and for the moment, it work well.

[lesser_minion]

You're running up against hitpoints here.

The game assumes that the first couple of times someone is wounded, the end result is superficial -- a graze, a cut, or a scrape. Why this happens is handwaved, but the basic idea is that it would be unfair to allow a single bad dice roll to spell the end of a character. However, it also artificially biases the system against any kind of weapon that takes a long time to reload, since as far as the rules are concerned, you always have to hit someone more than once to kill them.

The best solution, IMHO, would be to modify the rules to eliminate the problem, but that doesn't particularly help you here.

The other option would be to improve firearms technology above what would have made sense normally in the setting -- essentially, fit a magitech firearm into the character class somewhere.

Making firearms into ranged touch attacks is not realistic in the slightest -- once firearms became comparatively popular, bulletproof armour was pretty quick to arrive.

It also doesn't fit with the normal way weapons get translated into D&D -- crossbows have the same 'armour piercing' label in popular culture, but they don't get any special bonuses, for example.

The bottom line is that weapons in D&D do not and should not make more of a difference than the guy holding them.

[FelixG]

The idea of long reload times is ridiculous to me, you could use fabricate to make the parts you need or desire, magic can hand wave the development process a lot.

As I said, pathfinder does it best, other than the price which is horrendous.

[Adamantrue]

I think part of the problem is defining "Firearm" in this context as well. Are we talking Flintlock Pistols & Blunderbusses, or Bolt Action Rifles & Revolvers?
Making firearms into ranged touch attacks is not realistic in the slightest -- once firearms became comparatively popular, bulletproof armour was pretty quick to arrive. That is why I suggested letting Medium & Heavy Armor still provide some sort of bonus (either as AC or DR), and keeping Exotic Weapon Proficiency on the table.

With all that said, using the option in the DMG or d20 Modern is probably a safer place to start. With that said, perhaps using custom Feats to improve & support their use is appropriate?

[Person_Man]

Also, what kind of feel are you trying to get with the fire arms Person Man?

I'm basically trying to find a fun niche for firearms that's fun and doesn't trample on pre-existing niches. I don't want another auto-reloading crossbow, or a composite longbow that does slightly more damage, or something that replicates a flame thrower or common blasty spells. I've got that covered.

In terms of power level, each gun should be roughly as powerful as a Warlock or Dragonfire Adept Invocation. They are not going to be stand alone weapons that anyone can take - so no one needs to worry about Exotic Weapon proficiency - each will be a Magitech Upgrade that is built directly into the Templar's power armor. To get one, you would need to take at least 2 levels of the class.

In terms of verisimilitude/realism/simulation, in the context of this homebrew work, I don't care about it. At all. I'm not looking to simulate how gunpowder weapons would work in a magical world. I'm looking to for a fun game mechanic that steals the fluff/style of how gunpowder weapons would work in a magical world.



One nice feature for firearms are Explosive dice, if you roll max on the damage ( such as a 6 on a d6) you reroll the dice and add it to the result, if its max again you keep rerolling until you stop rolling max.

Explosive dice! Brilliant!


I'll probably have a first draft of Firearm Magitech Upgrads up soon. Thanks to everyone for suggestions. If you have any additional ones or suggested homebrew work, please keep it coming.

[Lord Vukodlak]

For my firearms I bounced back and forth between 19-20x3 critical or a -4 penalty to the targets physical armor. I went for the armor penetration.
The reason being it allowed a lower level character to hit a higher level character more easily.

So a long rile deals 3d6 damage, has a range increment of 150ft, x3 critical and the Lizardman in fullplate with a shield has 4 less armor class against it. While the rogue in leather only has two less armor.

[Fizban]

No time to comment other than: don't even bother with single shots. Any guns in DnD have to be revolver or better. That should solve reloading problems pretty well.

[Xuc Xac]

I prefer the single shot guns for D&D, actually. If you want to be a primarily ranged warrior, you can use a bow (for silent sniping or high rate of fire) or a rifle (for long range). If you just want to be a melee character with a back up ranged weapon, a flintlock pistol is great. It might not seem so great if all you look at is rate of fire and damage, but if you consider the convenience of carrying it and using it, it wins. You can carry it around fully loaded and you can draw it and fire it one-handed. And it's small enough to tuck in a belt or simple holster, unlike a crossbow or bow. It's like a crossbow that fits in the same space as a dagger.

[AmberVael]

So here is kind of a wacky idea for you.

Part of the problem people have with firearms is that they simply don't have enough impact. It's been mentioned in this thread, even. In a hitpoint based system, along side swords and bows and such, they're simply not impressive even with a bit of extra damage to them.

So... why not make them a save or die based weapon?

Make them slow to reload, expensive, and rare. Ranged attack, but instead of dealing damage- blam, you got shot, make a fortitude save or it just exploded your lung. Completely bypasses hp mechanics and makes them a lot more dangerous (also a lot more powerful, but that will mostly depend on how you handle the save mechanics, I guess).

Just a thought.

[Pink]

So here is kind of a wacky idea for you.

Part of the problem people have with firearms is that they simply don't have enough impact. It's been mentioned in this thread, even. In a hitpoint based system, along side swords and bows and such, they're simply not impressive even with a bit of extra damage to them.

So... why not make them a save or die based weapon?

Make them slow to reload, expensive, and rare. Ranged attack, but instead of dealing damage- blam, you got shot, make a fortitude save or it just exploded your lung. Completely bypasses hp mechanics and makes them a lot more dangerous (also a lot more powerful, but that will mostly depend on how you handle the save mechanics, I guess).

Just a thought.

I think the argument to this was that, why should a gun shot wound be any more dangerous than a sword wound? The only reason we consider them deadly is because of how more we see them and deathes they cause than swords and such. A gun shot to the head and a sword to the head are both just as deadly.

[Saveducks]

I think the argument to this was that, why should a gun shot wound be any more dangerous than a sword wound? The only reason we consider them deadly is because of how more we see them and deathes they cause than swords and such. A gun shot to the head and a sword to the head are both just as deadly.

I agree with this. I think guns have recieved a reputaion of being the deadliest weapon ever. In a hit point based system they should not be significantly better then a great-axe imo.

So when I used rifles I used dex for damage and to hit and gave them +1 to hit with x3 crit, a d12 damage die and ten shots per reload

[AmberVael]

Mainly, I suggested it not because it makes the most sense, but because that's the reputation they have. Furthermore, and more importantly:


I'm basically trying to find a fun niche for firearms that's fun and doesn't trample on pre-existing niches. I don't want another auto-reloading crossbow, or a composite longbow that does slightly more damage, or something that replicates a flame thrower or common blasty spells. I've got that covered.

In terms of power level, each gun should be roughly as powerful as a Warlock or Dragonfire Adept Invocation.

It distinguishes it quite well from a normal weapon, and ups their power level quite significantly, definitely on par with some of the higher invocations.

It also means that even with a long reload time, it is well worth the shot.

[Enguhl]

I was actually toying with adding guns to my next 3.5 campaign.
My best attempt came down to them being really expensive, for obvious reasons. Then I had them as... 2d6 19-20/x4 crit, 5 rounds to reload, deafens user (on a failed fort save), and requires exotic weapon proficiency.

At least I'm pretty sure that's what I came up with, then obviously the sound of them would alert enemies to your presence and whatnot. Reason for the high crit should be obvious, plus it makes it a good finisher weapon for bosses and whatnot if you can pull off the crit.

[Fizban]

To elaborate on my quick comment earlier: from what I've been told, the only reason guns didn't advance faster was the lack of metallurgical skill required to forge barrels that could withstand the forces involved. Considering that DnD smiths can apparently forge mithral and adamantine without magical aid, I figure they could work something out. DnD has clockwork contraptions, steam tech, and wacky alchemy even without moving to non-standard settings, so there's no excuse for revolvers being "too advanced." Requiring mithral and adamantine also gives you an easy answer for why they're so expensive, and an easy way to scale up the damage. You could even emulate the way composite bonuses work with measured charges that have so much kick that you take a penalty on attacks if you don't have enough strength.

But Person_Man is looking for stuff for his Templar class, which I should have expected from the beginning. In regards to that, I think the best way to distinguish a gun upgrade from the Repeating Crossbow would be to make it more of a cannon. Single shot, scaling damage, and restrict it enough that you won't have other abilities and items breaking it beyond what you're expecting. Then you can do an effective 1d6/2 levels touch per round and just compare it straight to Warlock, or maybe a full 1d6/level on a normal attack. I don't think a cooldown time is appropriate for a gunpowder weapon that's being reloaded by your magic armor, though you could make a steamtech cannon for that.

Alternatively, you could justify the scaling damage by making it a machine gun that fires faster as you level up, and then justify the cooldown by it taking time for your armor to reel out and reset the new ammo belts. This could also be a touch attack, reasoning that as long as you get the bullets lined up then something will get through their armor. If you want armor to be a small factor, you could try something like Wall of Thorns where you subtract their AC from the damage dealt, but then you'd really need to up the damage to compensate (or just subtract the armor+shield bonus for smaller numbers).

[Xuc Xac]

I was actually toying with adding guns to my next 3.5 campaign.
My best attempt came down to them being really expensive, for obvious reasons.

Could you explain what those "obvious reasons" were?

[Soulblazer87]

Personally, I've made some firearms that work much like crossbows, or repeating crossbows more like it. They have good damage (natural all things considered), long range and more than a single shot most of the time. Also, they can be engineered with some upgrades, like firing off more than a couple of shots at a round, not needing as much time to reload or with greater capacity, while also keeping some limits on it. Other than that, and a rather terrifying x4 critical multiplier, they function as normal weapons. Though they do require several other craft skills to make use of them. Alchemy being the main other craft skill for making alchemically-enhanced tubes to withstand the stress as well as gunpowder. Blacksmithing is also needed to make bullets for the weapons that actually use cased shots, like modern weapons, and not powder and iron pellets.

[Jjeinn-tae]

Could you explain what those "obvious reasons" were?

Boom, Headshot!

That's what it looks like to me.

[Crow]

What about using the vitality points system from Unearthed Arcana, but have firearms be the only weapons capable of inflicting vitality damage?

(Not realistic, but may fit the needs of the OP)

[Tyndmyr]

I'm working on some 3.5 gun adaptation rules for my Magitech Templar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176276). I've reviewed the DMG and Monte Cooks rules (http://www.montecook.com/images/Technology.pdf), but find myself a bit unsatisfied. Many just seem like cruddy breath weapons, knock-off alchemical items, or crossbows that take an obnoxiously long time to reload.

Have you read better rules for guns and/or artillery? Everything is on the table, including homebrew. Thanks.

The DMG rules for firearms are...brief. Unsatisfied is a normal response.

I suggest surveying D20 modern firearm rules, as they mesh well with 3.5. I would encourage adopting related feats in addition to adopting the firearms themselves, and also utilizing the modified D20 massive damage rules for firearms, explosives, and artillery. I normally advise ignoring massive damage in 3.5, but it fits a great deal better in D20M(it scales based on con, and models weapons well).

[Tyndmyr]

I think the argument to this was that, why should a gun shot wound be any more dangerous than a sword wound? The only reason we consider them deadly is because of how more we see them and deathes they cause than swords and such. A gun shot to the head and a sword to the head are both just as deadly.

This is not strictly true.

At close range, firearm rounds frequently come with powder, etc which gets into the wound(much bigger issue with blackpowder weapons and the like).

Also, you have effects such as the shock wave from the speed of the bullet. You could have a sword stab that leaves exactly the same hole as a bullet, but which does less damage.

As a side benefit, sword slashes are generally fairly clean, which makes them somewhat easier to patch up. Bullet fragments in gunshot wounds are not uncommon.


Yes, you can die from both...but all other factors being equal, I'd rather take a rapier hit than a bullet to the same spot.

[Enguhl]

Could you explain what those "obvious reasons" were?

Well balance first of all, but mostly because it's a relatively advanced technology, not everyone can make them. Rare things cost more money.
It would be like having a laser gun today, I hardly think you could get it for a few hundred dollars.

[VirOath]

Well, coming from a crazy campaign in the WoW D20 RPG, some rather creative concepts were tossed around for different ranged weapons, most of them dealing with the one hangup in the rules. D&D doesn't handle fully automatic weapons well, spray and pray. So all of this ran off of the standard ranged combat rules.

So for an Automatic weapon like an SMG or Assault Rifle it could be fired in bursts, which is a set amount of bullets. And it was treated like Multishot for every hit, but the penalties were actually checks. To account for how recoil would make it harder to land more of a burst, if you beat the AC you hit with one bullet. If you beat the AC by +X, you hit with two, by +2X, then you hit with three. And this was just an attack action, so your Fighter 20 could burst 4 times with a full attack, 5 with Rapid shot. This represented automatic weapons well, gave the user a heavy amount of potential damage output, but at the cost of running out of ammo, really fast.

Shotguns came up as being "inverted range increment" weapons. Being that they had a short range increment, but a high damage to start. But as the range increments hit, instead of taking a penalty to hit, you got a bonus to hit. The cost was, the damage dice would scale down. So if the shotgun at that range was doing 4d6 a hit, and the target moved back another range increment, then the damage would drop to 3d6. Then 2d6, then 1d8, then a 1d6 and so on. But as an extra bonus, the range increment changed the targets too. That is, after the first/second RI, you hit the square (no penalty to hit invisible targets), and beyond that every RI added one 5ft square to what you could hit. So at the longer ranges, you could do little damage, but hit lines of enemies. Pump actions took a move action to reload and bring back to target, some shotguns were fullauto weapons as above, and were good at turning rooms to goblin/orc/what-have-you hamburger.

The final one was for insane rate of fire weapons (see Chainguns, AKA Puff Puff The Magic Dragon). They had rather crazy damage dice (smallest one had like 3d20) but special rules. You could assign dice to targets, but you couldn't break up a die (couldn't turn a D20 into 2D10, so you could hit 3 targets with 1D20, or 1 with 3D20 etc). You made one attack roll and compared to their respective ACs, and those that you hit took the damage. In addition to being ammo hogs, many often had to be reloaded after one round, they took at best a Standard Action to fire (The big ones took Full Actions) and each value on the dice wasn't damage, it was bullets.

Okay, this will take some more explaining for the above. The example given had a damage value of 3D20 bullets. And each bullet had a fixed damage value (I'm going to give it 3 for the example). Any sort of cover worked by reducing the bullets from each die equal to the amount of a cover bonus that the cover gave (so a partial +2 or +4 AC cover bonus would take that number off of EACH die rolled, so if you were targeted with 3 dice worth of bullets, you'd get the cover bonus 3 times). And in addition, the damage wasn't cumulative, if you had a DR equal or greater than the damage value of the bullets, you couldn't take damage as each bullet would apply to your DR individually.


We had aimed at making guns more than just crossbows with different stats. Being that crossbows were designed as 1 shot a round, while bows were 1 shot an attack action (not augmented that is), little was left in the basic rules. So we gave guns their uniqueness and power by making special rules like those above. Yet for all of that, bows and crossbows were still common due to the cost of operating firearms, the amount of effort to keep them working, as well as the fact that they were really, really loud and drew a lot of attention.

[Xuc Xac]

Well balance first of all...

You still seem to be assuming that it's obvious. What exactly needs to be balanced about them? Did you make them a lot more powerful than other weapons or what?

It seems to me that everyone thinks of a standard gun attack being a bullet in the brain or straight through the heart, but a sword can only scratch you. Why do guns have to be so much better? When it comes time to stat weapons, why do people only think of the hero getting scratched by swords (and forget the crowds of mooks being mowed down) but forget about the hero being "grazed by a bullet" and only remember the hordes of cannon fodder being blown away?

And why do guns have to be a rare and advanced technology? They predate full plate armor and two-handed swords! If plate armor and two-handed swords are a fully mature technology, then getting some pistols should be pretty easy.

[Tvtyrant]

I actually think the ranged touch attack is the opposite of right; they should be treated as being flatfooted. Then they get armor AC but not Dex to AC, as they cannot dodge bullets. For damage/versatility provide different types of ammo for the musket/arquebus. Buck and Ball has an attack roll for the ball and a fort save for the buck, with the ball doing something like 3d6 and the buckshot doing another 3d6. A pure ball would do 4d6 and be attack roll based, while pure shot would do 5d6 but be fort based.

For scaling the weapons make it so more expensive guns fire more rounds a turn; by level 20 4-6 rounds of 3d6 damage in a round aren't exactly amazing, but they are likely to all hit since they use the highest attack roll. The character ends up equipment based but who doesn't?

[Jjeinn-tae]

And why do guns have to be a rare and advanced technology? They predate full plate armor and two-handed swords! If plate armor and two-handed swords are a fully mature technology, then getting some pistols should be pretty easy.

And it wasn't until relatively modern (post WWII) firearms that guns could frequently penetrate plate armor. You pretty much needed armor piercing rounds to "hit" someone wearing full plate... not that that was a remotely common occurrence...

[Rixx]

I actually think the ranged touch attack is the opposite of right; they should be treated as being flatfooted. Then they get armor AC but not Dex to AC, as they cannot dodge bullets.

You can't dodge arrows either. Making yourself a moving target makes you harder to hit - retaining your dex to AC against ranged attacks is what represents this.

[Tvtyrant]

You can't dodge arrows either. Making yourself a moving target makes you harder to hit - retaining your dex to AC against ranged attacks is what represents this.

Not sure I agree there; in D&D land you can pluck arrows out of the air with your hands. And my answer was about using touch attacks which by-pass armor, when it isn't going to do that very well.

The heck with it, make them all reflex save based!

[Valameer]

I don't think early guns were significantly better than their contemporary bows and crossbows.

The problem we're dealing with here is that bows and (especially) crossbows are woefully under represented by 3.5 standards. Crossbows are weak and boring. Guns, being of comparable real-world effectiveness, had to end up weak and boring as well.

Bows and crossbows have (luckily) a few build options in non-core books that make them more valid, but still usually subpar. Guns don't get this treatment - there's no special gun feats, there's no gunfighter PrCs, there's no gunslinger swordsage builds. But there should be.

I'd recommend starting with d20 Past as a starting point, as there's a few PrCs and gun related feats in there.

Some people seem to think a gun would do more damage than other common D&D weapons. They wouldn't. Not much (if any) more than a heavy crossbow. Heroes in D&D survive multiple arrows to the face, spear thrusts, axe chops, hammer blows, tyrannosaurus bites, lightning bolts and dragon's breath. A bullet wound is just another insignificant thing to throw on that list.

So I think that if you bump up gun damage and mechanics to something respectable, you should bring up crossbow damage and bow damage with it. Crossbows and polearms can also punch through plate armor. Why does no one demand that crossbow attacks should be touch attacks?

[VirOath]

Not sure I agree there; in D&D land you can pluck arrows out of the air with your hands. And my answer was about using touch attacks which by-pass armor, when it isn't going to do that very well.

The heck with it, make them all reflex save based!

Remember what armor really does, it lessens a blow. It makes a strike a little less fatal. This isn't represented in rules, D&D armor makes you harder to hit. In terms of being able to dodge or avoid a bullet, it falls into the same thing as an arrow. They both move faster than a person can react normally.

What I'm saying is that there should be no special armor calculation. It should be the same type of attack as a bow or a crossbow, hitting all that AC has to provide. True Realism doesn't belong in D&D.

[Tvtyrant]

Remember what armor really does, it lessens a blow. It makes a strike a little less fatal. This isn't represented in rules, D&D armor makes you harder to hit. In terms of being able to dodge or avoid a bullet, it falls into the same thing as an arrow. They both move faster than a person can react normally.

What I'm saying is that there should be no special armor calculation. It should be the same type of attack as a bow or a crossbow, hitting all that AC has to provide. True Realism doesn't belong in D&D.

Touche. Can the monk catch bullets as well though?

[Ravens_cry]

Remember what armor really does, it lessens a blow. It makes a strike a little less fatal. This isn't represented in rules, D&D armor makes you harder to hit. In terms of being able to dodge or avoid a bullet, it falls into the same thing as an arrow. They both move faster than a person can react normally.

Armour generally does not in D&D make you harder to hit. Armour doesn't by default affect touch attacks, which are just that, someone touching you and you not dodging out of the way. D&D is definitely a simplification of a complex issue, but it does model this more then you think.

[Tyndmyr]

And it wasn't until relatively modern (post WWII) firearms that guns could frequently penetrate plate armor. You pretty much needed armor piercing rounds to "hit" someone wearing full plate... not that that was a remotely common occurrence...

Historically, armor vanished because of bullets. Muskets and the like. Now, they used iron balls to do this, not the lead bullets of today, but they did indeed go through armor.

After armor faded, lead bullets became standard, and these would not have gone through armor(at least until modern times). They didn't need to, if armor didn't exist.

Frankly, using regular AC is most appropriate. Regular armor slows down bullets, and distributes some of the force. Dodging works exactly the same as vs arrows. You're dodging away from where they're aiming, not actually dodging the shots. Arrows can be fired ludicrously fast in D&D.

One of the most realistic ways to model very early firearms is to increase the damage(as they were quite powerful), and to increase the reload time. Muskets and the like are very slow to reload. Now, you can somewhat circumvent this by carrying a stash of loaded pistols(actually historical!), and just dropping them after firing. However, in balance terms, this makes magicking them up less effective, and you still have the issue of running out.

[Xuc Xac]

Historically, armor vanished because of bullets.

No, it didn't. As I mentioned earlier, full plate armor and two handed swords were invented 300-400 years after guns were in common use on the battlefield. Armor vanished for a lot of other reasons, mostly related to cost (you could arm about 20 guys with muskets for the same price as one guy with a musket and armor that could resist a musket).

[Spiryt]

No, it didn't. As I mentioned earlier, full plate armor and two handed swords were invented 300-400 years after guns were in common use on the battlefield. Armor vanished for a lot of other reasons, mostly related to cost (you could arm about 20 guys with muskets for the same price as one guy with a musket and armor that could resist a musket).

I wonder how did you come up with it? :smallconfused:

Guns weren't really in "common" use up to around 1400, maybe a bit earlier.

"Full plate armor" could be very well encountered around the same time too. Where's the 300 years?

As for cost, comparison is kinda flawed, as no one was "arming" guys with different stuff like in Age of Empires.

Armor indeed vanished from multiple reasons, but firearms were one of the main reasons.

[Xuc Xac]

I wonder how did you come up with it? :smallconfused:


In the mid-17th century, "armor of proof" (tested against muskets) cost 14 pounds 2 shillings 8 pence or 14.2 pounds. A musket at the same time cost around 17 shillings (.85 pounds).

One fully armored soldier with a musket= 15.05 pounds
15.05 pounds would pay for 17.7 muskets.

The numbers come from "English Weapons & Warfare, 449-1660", A. V. B. Norman and Don Pottinger, Barnes & Noble, 1992 and "The Armourer and his Craft from the XIth to the XVIth Century", Charles ffoulkes, Dover, 1988.

As guns got cheaper and armor got more expensive, the balance shifted from blocks of peasants with spears being mowed down by knights or knights being swarmed with clouds of arrows from hordes of peasant archers to blocks of peasants with muskets blazing away at each other (a remarkably stupid style of warfare that persisted well into the 20th century).