PDA

View Full Version : Guns in D&D 3.5



B1okHead
2011-01-12, 06:22 PM
I'm thinking of running a late medieval/renaissance campaign. Do you guys have any ideas for the kind of guns they used back then?

Irving
2011-01-12, 06:27 PM
Oh, good Lord yes. I think that scads of people have played with this one at this point.

We need to narrow down a bit. What time and place in the Rennisance? Italy in Galileo's time? Later? Earlier?

There's a lot of myth attached to guns - they weren't better than crossbows or longbows, per se, but they were easier to use. They definitely weren't armor piercing weapons of death.

Kilbourne
2011-01-12, 07:02 PM
I recommend looking at some of the rules that Privateer Press produced for their Iron Kingdoms setting. They have some very nice gun rules that I find translate very well into any 3.5 game. The only change I made was making firearms a simple weapon rather than an exotic one, but requiring a skill check to reload without buggering up the powder.

Rainbownaga
2011-01-12, 07:19 PM
Most systems (including the DMG version) are going to have painflully slow reload speeds, so be prepared for your heroes to carry at least a pair of pistols, if not more.

It's pretty much what they did back then anyway.

Jarrick
2011-01-12, 07:30 PM
We made the rifle a House Cannith invention in one of my Eberron games. They were magic-powered. For like, 2500gp I think, it dealt 2d8 damage at an effective range of 150ft with a move action reload. They were treated as simple weapons and were considered masterwork, so they could be futher enchanted.

It was fun, especially with myself as an artificer in the party. The thing ended up being able to fire over a mile with no penalty when I got through with it.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-12, 10:11 PM
Most systems (including the DMG version) are going to have painflully slow reload speeds, so be prepared for your heroes to carry at least a pair of pistols, if not more.

It's pretty much what they did back then anyway. Though my research into how fast a "trained" individual could fire roughly matches up with what the reload times in the DM's Guide end up with. It makes sense.

My players typically did what pirates and others who engaged in close combat would do; carry several pistols, fire them off, and when they ran out, drop them and run into melee. They're a fantastic encounter-opener but standing there and reloading within charge range is helmet-wearingly stupid.

Just go with the DM's Guide. Most weapon systems I've seen end up around that power level, anyway.


There's a lot of myth attached to guns - they weren't better than crossbows or longbows, per se, but they were easier to use. They definitely weren't armor piercing weapons of death. But a katana gun can cut shoot through a tank! I saw it on the internet once! :smallwink:

But yeah, they deal a bit more damage than crossbows, but their reload time is ridiculous. The only real reason they ever became popular at that time was because they were relatively simple to learn and didn't require a lot of strength, endurance, or training to be capable with them. Make them simple weapons, like the crossbows.

AugustNights
2011-01-13, 04:33 AM
I recently settled guns in my games with the help from this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168432&page=31)thread. Question is post 925, and conversation carries for a few pages. It's got some good suggestions.

I used the guns within Pathfinder's Tomb of Secrets (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/adamantEntertainment/v5748btpy89n5). And made my own modifications as I saw fit.

Irving
2011-01-13, 08:37 AM
But yeah, they deal a bit more damage than crossbows, but their reload time is ridiculous. The only real reason they ever became popular at that time was because they were relatively simple to learn and didn't require a lot of strength, endurance, or training to be capable with them. Make them simple weapons, like the crossbows.

Agreed. Be aware that this means *everyone* has a semi-decent ranged option at the beginning of combat. Brawny warrior nimble rogue, whoever - everyone can take at least one potshot at someone. That might throw off some encounters if you don't plan for it. Your PCs will be happy, though; it's nice to do something productive every round.

AugustNights
2011-01-13, 10:29 AM
Agreed. Be aware that this means *everyone* has a semi-decent ranged option at the beginning of combat. Brawny warrior nimble rogue, whoever - everyone can take at least one potshot at someone. That might throw off some encounters if you don't plan for it. Your PCs will be happy, though; it's nice to do something productive every round.

Are the guns in the DMG touch attacks? Because if not, it doesn't really change combat much, especially considering crossbows are simple weapons, and even wizards are proficient with them.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-13, 10:52 AM
Are the guns in the DMG touch attacks? Because if not, it doesn't really change combat much, especially considering crossbows are simple weapons, and even wizards are proficient with them. They are normal attacks that do more damage than crossbows. Like Irving said earlier, guns are not "armor piercing weapons of death," the pellets are actually rather soft (being made of lead). Though if you want to emphasize guns, I would suggest just going with the class Defense bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm) and doing away with armor altogether. Otherwise, armor-wearing classes like the fighter are even more screwed than they already are.

Though I'd also throw on Armor as Damage Reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm), to make armor still an option. After all, a bullet that normally does not pierce straight through a person is gonna have some of its damage mitigated by passing through a plate of metal and some thick leather.

Spiryt
2011-01-13, 11:12 AM
Lol, somebody seriously needs to sticky the thread with few "early guns" variants, from "just to play" to " pseudo realistic" for customers choice.

Threads about it appear literally every week. :smallamused:


They are normal attacks that do more damage than crossbows. Like Irving said earlier, guns are not "armor piercing weapons of death," the pellets are actually rather soft (being made of lead).

That made them actually improved their chances in some situations, as lead bullet that was getting a bit deformed in first moments of impact, had less chance of slipping from angled steel surface.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-13, 11:39 AM
That made them actually improved their chances in some situations, as lead bullet that was getting a bit deformed in first moments of impact, had less chance of slipping from angled steel surface. You're correct, indeed, but part of my worry is that D&D is not really set up to make realistic representation of how armor and weapons interact at that level of detail. Look at chainmail. Just as useful against bludgeoning as it is piercing or slashing weapons. To try to make guns realistic within the system would cause more harm than good. The system is not designed for that level of complexity, and to favor it with one kind of weapon while ignoring the subtleties of all the others seems... selective?

Spiryt
2011-01-13, 11:50 AM
You're correct, indeed, but part of my worry is that D&D is not really set up to make realistic representation of how armor and weapons interact at that level of detail. Look at chainmail. Just as useful against bludgeoning as it is piercing or slashing weapons. To try to make guns realistic within the system would cause more harm than good. The system is not designed for that level of complexity, and to favor it with one kind of weapon while ignoring the subtleties of all the others seems... selective?

That's true, but I'm speaking about "real life" parts, that inevitably pop out in those kind of threads, not about any proposed mechanics.

In 3.5, only thing that differs warhammer from axe is "bludgeoning" description, so it's not really sensible for other weapons to have tons of rules.

Kuma Kode
2011-01-13, 12:09 PM
That's true, but I'm speaking about "real life" parts, that inevitably pop out in those kind of threads, not about any proposed mechanics. Yeah, I was trying to head out the gun-nut talk as much as I could with talk of straight mechanics. :smallbiggrin: It's the mechanics that ultimately matter in a game.


In 3.5, only thing that differs warhammer from axe is "bludgeoning" description, so it's not really sensible for other weapons to have tons of rules. That's my point. In real life there's a big difference between how armor affects a warhammer and how armor affects an axe, but D&D is simple and avoids those complexities. That's why I was saying to just make guns work the same as other weapons. I've seen too many suggestions for phasing touch-attack bullets in these kinds of threads and my point is that's a very inelegant way of modeling the armor's effectiveness (or lack thereof).

Irving
2011-01-13, 01:22 PM
That's my point. In real life there's a big difference between how armor affects a warhammer and how armor affects an axe, but D&D is simple and avoids those complexities. That's why I was saying to just make guns work the same as other weapons. I've seen too many suggestions for phasing touch-attack bullets in these kinds of threads and my point is that's a very inelegant way of modeling the armor's effectiveness (or lack thereof).

And even if it D&D did have enough complexity to model it, the arguments over armor piercing value of crossbows vs. guns flat-out aren't worth having in my opinion.

Really, I guess the question is this: What do you *want* guns to be? Awesome armor piercing death rays? Probably not necessary, but if you do, make them "magic items" and leave it at that. Comic value? Early guns were pretty good at that in their own way, too, believe it or not. (True story: During a parade demonstration in Spain, a sergeant in Napoleon's army got over excited and shot his ramrod out the barrel. It hit and killed an innocent bystander. Further investigation found that the innocent man was in fact a notorious bandit with a bounty on his head. The Spanish consensus was that God loved the French.)

If there's any consensus out there, it's that guns are a flavorful addition to a D&D game that's a little, but not too much, better than a crossbow.

3SecondCultist
2011-01-13, 01:56 PM
I just explained it rationally, in the settings where I use guns. It is based off of technological advances, not really magic (that comes out for the big guns - no pun intended) by nature. I had pistols being martial weapons that did more damage (1d8 or 1d10), but at a shorter range than crossbows (60 ft increments). They are always masterwork, in order to reflect their complexity (320 gp total, out of range of a 1st level character) Rifles are exotic, and are similar in nature to pistols, but more damage and longer range (2d8, 80 ft increments), but cost 1300 gp.