Adding "Firearms" to a 3.5 Game. Any Suggestions?

[wayfare]

Hey All:

I'm currently running a 3.5 game that uses alchemical firearms -- weapons that use Phlogiston to fire inch long steel bolts at an opponent. Here are the basic stats:

Small Bolt Caster
Damage: 2d4
Capacity: 2 rounds
Range: 50/100/200 feet
Reload: Move Action

Large Bolt Caster
Damage: 2d6
Capacity: 2 rounds
Range: 150/300/600 feet
Reload: Standard Action

The game currently uses the Armor as Damage Reduction rules found in Unearthed Arcana (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm) and incorporated a class based defense bonus.

My question: Should these weapons make touch attacks, ignoring armor (unless it is specially crafted to resist bolts). Or are there better ways to simulate firearms?

[Strormer]

Due to the mechanics of dnd combat, firearms are extremely powerful. I made firearms difficult to come by and hard to use once obtained for that reason. Outside that, I treated them just like exotic crossbows in play. The limitations in my world were regional mostly. Not sure if that helps, but in order to make guns not broken I figured they worked like any other dnd projectile weapon.

[Spiryt]

Well, that obviously depends what do you really want from those firearms.

Anyway, they need critical range and modifier, I guess, and range increments are weird too. Are they some house rule compared to standard increments rules?

[Gavinfoxx]

That is... really really low. Like worse than light crossbow low.

Firearms need to be significantly better, when they hit, than things like crossbows. Remember these things are totally obsoleting crossbow of all sorts due to ease of training and just being plain BETTER -- they have to all be simple weapons, and all have stats which are BETTER than crossbows!

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

DMG page 145-146.

[Spiryt]

That is... really really low. Like worse than light crossbow low.

Firearms need to be significantly better, when they hit, than things like crossbows. Remember these things are totally obsoleting crossbow of all sorts due to ease of training and just being plain BETTER -- they have to all be simple weapons, and all have stats which are BETTER than crossbows!

Firearms were obsoleting crossbows trough about 200 years, at least as far as warfare was involved. In other fields it took even more time. So they weren't plainly better.

And, more importantly, he's obviously not really trying to model any firearms of any particular era, only some fictional "Flogiston" operating ones.

So they can have pretty much any imagined characteristics, that's why I guess it all depends on what exactly TS has on mind.

And anyway, I can't see how small bolter is worse than light crossbow. Slightly better damage, two shots before needs "move action" reload....

[Strangedays]

What type of firearms are you trying to similuate? If they are something similar to flintlock (or matchloack, etc.) the reload times are FAR too fast. Think more like a full round for a pistol and two full rounds for a rifle. (These long reload times were the reason soldiers/pirates/whatever would carry a brace of pistols, or only one pistol and move to "fire and draw blades" style of combat. Pistol whip for 1d6 bludgeoning?)

That said, the historical reason armies made the switch to firearms was that they were comparatively easy to train a soldier to use vs accuracy and damage. Firearms were also the reason armies stopped using armour (until the advent of new armour that could stop a shot that is).

So, from a mechanics stand point, firearms should require an exotic weapons proficiency and faster reloads could be handled with a feat to decrease reload times (to a standard action for pistols and one full round for rifles).

Crits, imho, should be 20 x3. representing the difficulty of an accurate shot and the massive damage that would result from such a wound.

Firearms made armour obsolete, as such a ranged touch attack would be ideal.

EDIT: Furthermore, people still got injured in armour often, just not as badly (sounds like DR to me!) So, I would argue they should ignore DR granted from armour.

[deuxhero]

+1 flaming gauntlet.


There! Easy firearm!

[Spiryt]

What type of firearms are you trying to similuate? If they are something similar to flintlock (or matchloack, etc.) the reload times are FAR too fast. Think more like a full round for a pistol and two full rounds for a rifle. (These long reload times were the reason soldiers/pirates/whatever would carry a brace of pistols, or only one pistol and move to "fire and draw blades" style of combat. Pistol whip for 1d6 bludgeoning?)

That said, the historical reason armies made the switch to firearms was that they were comparatively easy to train a soldier to use vs accuracy and damage. Firearms were also the reason armies stopped using armour (until the advent of new armour that could stop a shot that is).

So, from a mechanics stand point, firearms should require an exotic weapons proficiency and faster reloads could be handled with a feat to decrease reload times (to a standard action for pistols and one full round for rifles).

Crits, imho, should be 20 x3. representing the difficulty of an accurate shot and the massive damage that would result from such a wound.

Firearms made armour obsolete, as such a ranged touch attack would be ideal.

Checked. :smallcool:

Seriously though, those post appear every single time very early when there's thread about firearms in D&D. :smallwink:

So for short clarification - firearms where one of things that made armor obsolete, but not only one, and not even the most important one. Good deal of pretty complete armors where being used well into the 17th century in Europe, anyway.

As far as reload time goes, crossbow are too "fast" in D&D as well - as are dozens of other things in. It's not "realistic" game in the slightest.

Anyway, it doesn't seem that TS is interested in matchlocks anyway. :smallwink:

[Strangedays]

So for short clarification - firearms where one of things that made armor obsolete, but not only one, and not even the most important one. Good deal of pretty complete armors where being used well into the 17th century in Europe, anyway.

True, However armour in use at that time was because weapons that weren't firearms were still in use, and firearms were not yet common place.

An arquebus could fire a wax candle though full plate.

I tried to edit my original post. But wont let me for some reason, So: people still got injured in armour often, just not as badly (sounds like DR to me!) So, I would argue they should ignore DR granted from armour.

[Spiryt]

True, However armour in use at that time was because weapons that weren't firearms were still in use, and firearms were not yet common place.

An arquebus could fire a wax candle though full plate.


No it couldn't, and many pieces of armor were made and prepared in particular to face firearms, and some could even give reasonable chance against heavy musket from some distance.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71415062/pdf-poster---Bullet-dents-and-“proof-marks”-in-armour

This is, however, huge offtop.

[Krazzman]

How about taking the Pathfinder rules?

Expensive but ok variant.

[Starbuck_II]

Hey All:

I'm currently running a 3.5 game that uses alchemical firearms -- weapons that use Phlogiston to fire inch long steel bolts at an opponent. Here are the basic stats:

Small Bolt Caster
Damage: 2d4
Capacity: 2 rounds
Range: 50/100/200 feet
Reload: Move Action

Large Bolt Caster
Damage: 2d6
Capacity: 2 rounds
Range: 150/300/600 feet
Reload: Standard Action

The game currently uses the Armor as Damage Reduction rules found in Unearthed Arcana (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm) and incorporated a class based defense bonus.

My question: Should these weapons make touch attacks, ignoring armor (unless it is specially crafted to resist bolts). Or are there better ways to simulate firearms?
Does rapid reload work on them?
I'd say ignore NA not armor (so psuedo touch AC). So they are better vs monsters but not people.
Are these simple, martial, or exotic?

Pathfinder version works, although they treat them as exotic, expensive touch attacking guns.

[Strangedays]

No it couldn't

I guess I shouldn't believe my own eyes, when I saw a demonstration of a candle being fired through armour by an arquebus. I would have said it was impossible as well, had I not seen it myself.

But back on topic: You are right about crossbows. But in terms of mechanics and flavour, then should be different that any other projectile weapon, otherwise why not just use a bow/crossbow?

Starbuck_II, may I suggest looking at the rules for firearms from Iron Kingdoms?

[hex0]

I played a Gnome Wizard/Techsmith that started with a free masterwork pistol he was profiecient with. (custom 1st level only feat)

IIRC, it had a 60 ft range. dealt 3d6 damage with a x4 crit. Living creatures were stunned on crit unless they save vs. damage dealt. Took two full rounds to reload, though. On a roll of 1 there was a 50% chance of a major jam (took 1 minute to fix), 49% of a minor jam (3 rounds to clear/reload), 1% chance of violent explosion (auto crit on my self, reflex for half). :smallbiggrin:

Very complex but fair in our game. (I usually used it on the first round and reloaded between encounters). Worked nice until the inn we were staying at was lit on fire and my powderhorn blew up. (we lived though)

[Spiryt]

I guess I shouldn't believe my own eyes, when I saw a demonstration of a candle being fired through armour by an arquebus. I would have said it was impossible as well, had I not seen it myself.


I have seen few thing that can be seen at different reenact shows as well. Some of them are great, some of them quite terrible.

If they had shot a candle trough the "armor" it most probably didn't have much to do with armor at all.
Was it at least put on some padding? Suspended in the air?


But in terms of mechanics and flavour, then should be different that any other projectile weapon, otherwise why not just use a bow/crossbow?

Those are quite different than crossbow though. Especially range increments are quite unusual.

[wayfare]

Sorry, I really didn't mention any design logic.

The weapons are intended to be a sort of generic fantasy firearm equivalent. I wanted to create some weapons that were as accurate over range as modern firearms, but were breachloaded and took a bite out of action economy to load.

The world has alchemy based tech, that in some ways is superior to our hisorical technology. So the weapons are not intended to accurately imitate modern or even historical ballistic weapons.

I think folks are right with the x3 critical. Thaks for the assist. Any suggestion on damage or range (the stuff I have is based on d20 modern firearm damage).

[Ravens_cry]

I had an idea for fantasy guns that basically involved smacking two alchemical runes together with a catalyst in between, in this case fire and air runes.
The best catalyst is blood, dragon blood is best, human or other sentient blood being second best. The guns looked like old caplock guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caplock.gif) with the runes engraved on the hammer and cone and a gelatin capsule full of blood as the cap.
Other technology also used runic magic. A battering ram with air carved on it with earth carved on the target and painted in blood would disintegrate the target in the area of the rune ro a certain depth. This made tunneling much simpler and holding out against sieges impossible. There was also steam engines involving air and water runes, and even some experimental fire and air rune engines, but they had a tendency to blow up.
Two spring loaded hammers engraved with fire and air clashing together in a bath of pure dragons blood made a dandy bomb.
The number of runes connected together engraved on a face also had an effect, so the discovery of the Sierpinski triangle was a huge advance. It, in fact, was what made hand guns possible, previous efforts being bulkier than hand cannons.

[wayfare]

One other question:

Does anybody have any ideas as to how much damage a cannon should inflict?

[Ravens_cry]

One other question:

Does anybody have any ideas as to how much damage a cannon should inflict?
Hmm, I would make it enough to force a massive damage save on average, yet inaccurate enough that it is only really useful for hitting buildings and building sized creatures and ships.

[Seerow]

DMG page 145-146.

This. Alternatively, I'd just refluff crossbows.

There's really no need for firearms to be hugely superior to other weapons or use weird rules. D&D is full of abstraction, why handle a gun any more realistically than you handle a sword?

[Captain Six]

It was mentioned and I have to chime in. I've always hated the idea of using Ranged Touch Attacks for firearms. Yes they are good at punching through armor but until I see the Mythbusters episode where a guy shoots a gun through Adamantine Full Plate so pumped full of magic that it has begun to develop a rudimentary soul I'm going to call foul.


There's really no need for firearms to be hugely superior to other weapons or use weird rules. D&D is full of abstraction, why handle a gun any more realistically than you handle a sword?

Seconded.

[Ravens_cry]

This. Alternatively, I'd just refluff crossbows.

There's really no need for firearms to be hugely superior to other weapons or use weird rules. D&D is full of abstraction, why handle a gun any more realistically than you handle a sword?
Well, with rare exception, though probably more common among fantasy gaming hobbyists, people are more familiar with guns than swords. At the very least, the media presents them more often, however inaccurately.
The thing is they need to feel useful and thematic, even if not accurate. This means that a period gun equivalent will probably need to be reloaded unnaturally fast, because taking a full round action, or more, to load a flintlock musket feels boring.

[Talentless]

It was mentioned and I have to chime in. I've always hated the idea of using Ranged Touch Attacks for firearms. Yes they are good at punching through armor but until I see the Mythbusters episode where a guy shoots a gun through Adamantine Full Plate so pumped full of magic that it has begun to develop a rudimentary soul I'm going to call foul.



Seconded.

The problem with that logic is both that none of that armor exists, and that you are only looking at one part of the equation.

what's stopping a gun from firing adamantine bullets?

[Gavinfoxx]

I would say 'Screw it, we are using rules for Codex Martialis, and this INCLUDES the firearms rules in the weapons splatbook!'

And be done with it. LET ME SEE YOUR REALISM ARGUMENTS NOW! HUH, HUH?

[Captain Six]

The problem with that logic is both that none of that armor exists, and that you are only looking at one part of the equation.

what's stopping a gun from firing adamantine bullets?

First point: The lack of logic the point of my argument. Real life armor can't stand up to real life guns but magic and special materials should be taken into account before writing off armor entirely. An imposed AC penalty (or ignoring DR less than X in the case of armor as DR) when targeted with a firearm would make sense, but in a system that scales upward indefinitely just assuming any bullet will pierce any armor is a mistake.

Second point: This is actually something I hadn't thought of. But the ammunition in this case is special and the armor piercing properties should be applied to the bullets, not the gun itself. The OP is using armor as DR rules and in that case the adamantine bullets would ignore DR up to a certain level which is a pretty elegant solution. If the OP wants to keep the armor piercing perk of firearms perhaps he can say that standard ammunition ignores DR 4 or less. Or at least something along those lines.

[Zagaroth]

Just a quick general suggestion. Pathfinder took on firearms in their Ultimate Combat book, with a gunslinger class and variations of firearms depending on what level of ease & availability you want

[Tsuzurao]

One of the Dragon Magazine issues had a section on firearms as well. Off the top of my head, I think it was #321.

They do work a lot like crossbows, but you have to load gunpowder in with the bullet. Depending on how you are carrying the gunpowder, it can extend the actions needed to reload (getting the breach-loading modification for the gun in question and keeping your gunpowder in powder horns speeds things up a fair deal). Guns use the normal ranged attack rules for attacks (no touch attacks involved), and deal piercing damage.

Some guns have very short range increments (10 ft.), others reach well over 100 ft. per increment. I also think there was one type that did its damage as a cone (no attack roll, but had a Reflex save to halve the damage). Several guns could have bayonets added to provide you with melee options (or you could strike with the butt of some guns for bludgeoning damage). There were also things like special pistols meant to fire capsules (whether ones that would shatter to spread poison, explosives, or sturdier ones to deliver items over long range), and some rockets too (incendiary and rocket-propelled spears, I think).

As I recall, damage usually floated around the 1d8 to 1d10 per shot range.

Artillery had different rules - they required a crew to make successful Profession (Siege Engineer) checks to operate it, and did damage over areas, with Reflex saves applying for anything that is actually capable of moving.

Proficiency in firearms falls under a collective Exotic Proficiency: Firearms feat.

There was also an optional rule for misfires when you rolled a Natural 1 on an attack roll. I think it was roll a d20, adding the gun's enhancement bonus. The lower the result, the worse the misfire situation - the higher the result, the less severe it was. I think the misfires in descending severity were...

* Your firearm explodes, dealing a small amount of damage to you and destroying the gun.
* Your gun jammed. A Craft check is required to repair it.
* Your gun fires at a random target adjacent to your intended target (make a new attack roll for the new target). If there is no adjacent target available, the shot misses.
* The gunpowder you loaded got wet. You have to take an action to load new powder.
* The spark didn't catch the powder properly. Try again next action - you don't need to fix anything.
* Your shot misses as if you just failed to meet the AC.

[Deth Muncher]

I posted a guide on this WAAAAAY back, dunno whatever happened to it.

Point being, the DMG has rules for it, and Dragon Magazine ran an article on how guns should work and the mishap rules thereof, and you should really, really just use that. I've done it, it works just fine. It's DM 321. Please, for the love of God use that article - its worth it.

EDIT: Wow. It's been a while since I've been ninja'd. Stupid taking forever to find the article. :P

[Gnorman]

Need to chime in to say that, in general, firearms should NOT require exotic weapon proficiency, at least in terms of realism, as the point was that, like the crossbow, it was significantly easier to train the common soldier in their use. They might be "exotic" in that they are strange, out of the ordinary, and even perhaps anachronistic in some medieval settings, but certainly not "exotic" in the sense that they require an inordinate amount of specialized training. The rapier, for example, is likely more difficult to learn and use properly than a flintlock pistol. If you need to apply a feat tax to ease your conscience, by all means, but my own interpretation of the logic would lean towards the other side. Make 'em martial, I say - the reload times are penalty enough.

[Deth Muncher]

Need to chime in to say that, in general, firearms should NOT require exotic weapon proficiency, at least in terms of realism, as the point was that, like the crossbow, it was significantly easier to train the common soldier in their use. They might be "exotic" in that they are strange, out of the ordinary, and even perhaps anachronistic in some medieval settings, but certainly not "exotic" in the sense that they require an inordinate amount of specialized training. The rapier, for example, is likely more difficult to learn and use properly than a flintlock pistol. If you need to apply a feat tax to ease your conscience, by all means, but my own interpretation of the logic would lean towards the other side. Make 'em martial, I say - the reload times are penalty enough.

I entirely beg to differ. Oldschool guns are ridiculously hard to fire and aim - hell, modern guns aren't that easy to aim if you've never fired guns before. I feel the EWP is entirely appropriate given that without knowing how to use a gun properly, you're simply just not going to be as accurate, which is what EWP does for you - removes the negatives to hit.

[Gnorman]

I entirely beg to differ. Oldschool guns are ridiculously hard to fire and aim - hell, modern guns aren't that easy to aim if you've never fired guns before. I feel the EWP is entirely appropriate given that without knowing how to use a gun properly, you're simply just not going to be as accurate, which is what EWP does for you - removes the negatives to hit.

The longbow is a total bitch to aim and fire if you don't know how to use it properly, and yet they're considered martial.

[Deth Muncher]

The longbow is a total bitch to aim and fire if you don't know how to use it properly, and yet they're considered martial.

-shrug- I'll give you that one. But, I mean, I dunno. I guess you're right, depending on the setting - were it a modern setting, for example, I'd make bows require EWP, so it's six to one half dozen to another.

[Killer Angel]

Or are there better ways to simulate firearms?

I don't know well it, but have you tried to look at d20 modern?

[Gnorman]

-shrug- I'll give you that one. But, I mean, I dunno. I guess you're right, depending on the setting - were it a modern setting, for example, I'd make bows require EWP, so it's six to one half dozen to another.

If one considers the time and effort spent to become proficient with the longbow under the umbrella of "martial," I certainly don't see why guns should be require an investment above and beyond. So do we make bows exotic? Heavens no! That'd be antithetical to D&D - no more Legolas! No matter which way you take it, you're going to piss some antiquated weapons enthusiast (or elf lover) off - I just think that most D&D games stack the deck so far against guns as it is, with one-to-two round loading times and extremely expensive ammunition, that we should throw aspiring gunslingers a bone in the form of a tax credit.

[Spiryt]

The longbow is a total bitch to aim and fire if you don't know how to use it properly, and yet they're considered martial.

Sling is even more tricky stuff (even though doens't require that much physical strain), and it's considered simple.

Blade on a stick also known as kama is exotic.

That only means that this whole system is stillborn creation and weapon categories should be IMO given just and only to balance stuff accordingly.

Then though, concerning that many EW are straight out better and yet it's usually still not worth to take the feat at all..... See my comment about this system. :smalltongue:

[Gnorman]

Sling is even more tricky stuff (even though doens't require that much physical strain), and it's considered simple.

Blade on a stick also known as kama is exotic.

That only means that this whole system is stillborn creation and weapon categories should be IMO given just and only to balance stuff accordingly.

Then though, concerning that many EW are straight out better and yet it's usually still not worth to take the feat at all..... See my comment about this system. :smalltongue:

Agreed. Better we take the system as a whole as one of pure game balance and convenience, because doing the whole "real world application" thing is just going to cause a massive migraine for everyone involved.

And the sling is TOTALLY probably the hardest missile weapon on that list, now that I think about it. I don't remember the source or the validity of the statistic I read about it, but I remember the phrase "even trained experts with years of experience hit their target 10% of the time" being tossed around.

[Spiryt]

Agreed. Better we take the system as a whole as one of pure game balance and convenience, because doing the whole "real world application" thing is just going to cause a massive migraine for everyone involved.


I'm not really trying to do so - in fact I wasn't one proposing deexotising firearms. :smallwink:

Anyway, I think that if one is using standard 3.5 weapon system, then grade of the firearms depends entirely on place of the guns in the world.

Say that someone tries to fit ~ 1400 Central Europe status into the setting - guns are fire chambers on a stick, with the ideas about loading, cleaning, igniting, aiming in no way standardized, developed etc.

Character using handgonne will be in one way or another some kind of innovator or experimentation, trying with different ways of portioning the powder etc.

In such setting, it certainly deserves to be exotic weapon.

Sticking to the real world examples - 18th century muskets issued to some more or less random conscripts who are strictly drilled to use it certain way - often with the use of the large stick -can be very well simple weapon.

[paddyfool]

They kind of got around the longbow-as-martial issue by having a "greatbow" in one of the supplements which was an exotic weapon more in line with the historical longbow.

Anyway, another suggestion to make on topic is that I rather like how Fantasy Craft handles firearms (and ranged combat in general). Might be worth a look.

[Krazzman]

Again my Question:

Why not take the Pathfinder rules....

Have a nice Day,
Krazzman

[koscum]

Here's a basic flintlock pistol that we use in one campaign:


Damage: 3d6 (Xd6)
Crit. range: 20
Crit. multiplier: x3
Ammo capacity: 1
Range: 100 ft.
Reload: full-round action
Proficiency: simple weapon
Cost: very high
Extra features:

Can NOT be enhanced by magic (a la Arcanum).
On a roll of 1 the gun is jammed and user must take a full-round action to clean it up.
On a fumble (homebrewed to double 1), the gun explodes dealing Xd6 fire damage and (X - 1)d6 piercing damage in a 5 ft. burst. Wielder must make a DC 5*X Reflex save or lose an arm wielding the gun. On a successful save, wielding arm is severely hurt and can not be used until healed. The gun is destroyed.



Basic flintlock pistol is just a starting point. It can be upgraded in various ways to other types of guns with proper research (e.g. long barrel for increased damage, range and bonus to hit, cartridge ammunition for faster reload time, scope for better crit. range). Alchemy can be applied to ammunition to emulate magic effects (e.g. extra elemental damage, explosive ammunition).

[Strormer]

On the subject of guns and proficiency, we just went with the weapon-groups from UA and made firearms into one group, however, as I said in my first post, we also had all firearms be regional from an island nation so that you could get your hands on them, but training was far from common, making the regional requirement of either from the island nation or having Knowledge (local:island nation) 2 as a prerequisite.

[9mm]

Again my Question:

Why not take the Pathfinder rules....

Have a nice Day,
Krazzman
Because the pathfinder rules are Terribad.

as with most things, K.I.S.S.

With dnd weapons they follow a very set set of variables, for guns, take the Kuckri, Simitar, and Falcion; add a range increment and a reload time. Congratulations you now have Pistols, Carbines, and Rifles. Depending on how advanced you want to be, add cost modifiers for extra barrels/magazine size, similar to that of compound bows.

[Starbuck_II]

Because the pathfinder rules are Terribad.

as with most things, K.I.S.S.

With dnd weapons they follow a very set set of variables, for guns, take the Kuckri, Simitar, and Falcion; add a range increment and a reload time. Congratulations you now have Pistols, Carbines, and Rifles. Depending on how advanced you want to be, add cost modifiers for extra barrels/magazine size, similar to that of compound bows.

I don't get why Pathfinder ones are bad? I think only the ridiculous pricing would be. Lower pricing by 10% and it works.

Also make them Martial not Exotic. If you don't want touch AC, you can remove it by only if you unnerf the other issues like Pricing, etc.

[9mm]

I don't get why Pathfinder ones are bad? I think only the ridiculous pricing would be. Lower pricing by 10% and it works.

Also make them Martial not Exotic. If you don't want touch AC, you can remove it by only if you unnerf the other issues like Pricing, etc.

Notice how in order to use the pathfinder rules, you must either a) dip Gunslinger, or B) use one of the achetypes that shoehorn charater design in order for you just to have a firearm. Then the gun rules also breaks from the standard weapon mechanics, removes slings from the options of Rapid Reload, adds a whole new condition to damaged items (rules that were a frustration to begin with now are just even more of a headache), as well as add a whole host of other rules headaches because James Jacobs is an idiot who though his rules were perfect despite the ENTIRE PAIZO BOARD SAYING THEY WERE CRAP.

[Starbuck_II]

Notice how in order to use the pathfinder rules, you must either a) dip Gunslinger, or B) use one of the achetypes that shoehorn charater design in order for you just to have a firearm. Then the gun rules also breaks from the standard weapon mechanics, removes slings from the options of Rapid Reload, adds a whole new condition to damaged items (rules that were a frustration to begin with now are just even more of a headache), as well as add a whole host of other rules headaches because James Jacobs is an idiot who though his rules were perfect despite the ENTIRE PAIZO BOARD SAYING THEY WERE CRAP.

I'm gonna let you finish, but Slings never qualifed for rapid reload in PF or 3.5. Also, it was unneccessary in SAGA (slings reload free action).

Cleric cantrips undamage guns. As well, there
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/mending

Since that exists in 3.5, no issue there.