PDA

View Full Version : Gunpowder in DnD [3.5]



locutus
2012-12-01, 04:12 PM
Muskets that do 2d12 and take two full rounds to reload, with a range increment of 40 feet. It also ignores half your armor bonus to AC. Basically guaranteed to take down but not kill your average lvl2 warrior, which is what passes for trained soldiers for the most part. The max bonus is +2, representing the lack of machine tools for boring and rifling a precise barrel.

Disregarding magic, this gives battles similar results to most preindustrial battles I have heard of. You basically need a squad to do anything reliably, but that squad does alot of damage quickly. A cavalry charge is still viable because they only have to take a volley or two before they eat your riflemen.

It gets screwed up for a few reasons: People start casting True Strike, which is a single rifle wielding sorcerer able to kill the leader of a charge effective at 200ft. The other problem is powder storage. lvl3 sorc PCs start casting invisibility on suicide soldiers, who can ruin your powder magazine even if it's heavily guarded. The overall effect is a return to sword an board on the battlefield.

Of course, dwarves still use powder for mining, and cannons are quite effective on a ship or fortress. In the field, they suffer horribly from a vulnerable powder supply. A ship must be boarded, and a fortress is likely to have wards on it's magazine.

Spiryt
2012-12-01, 04:25 PM
Muskets that do 2d12 and take two full rounds to reload, with a range increment of 40 feet. It also ignores half your armor bonus to AC. Basically guaranteed to take down but not kill your average lvl2 warrior, which is what passes for trained soldiers for the most part. The max bonus is +2, representing the lack of machine tools for boring and rifling a precise barrel.



Can you clarify this "max bonus is +2"?

Anyway, two FRA is pretty damn harsh for those stats still. Particularly rather low range. Don't think any character above like 3rd level would consider it worthwhile.

Wyntonian
2012-12-01, 05:09 PM
Seems like a throwaway weapon. Load two, shoot them both off in the first two rounds, then switch to melee or other weapons.

bobthe6th
2012-12-01, 05:39 PM
Quick thing... level 2 warriors are just above getting eaten by a cat. I like assuming any given adult in a society is level 6 at the minimum.

Or carry 3, and drop+quick draw... hell, with more you can full attack with guns.

And yeah... that is fairly accurate. A bow was on the whole better for a while after the gun got adopted, they were just easier to learn and made cool booming sounds.

I really think guns need a rebalence... as they are just better then any other weapon of that grade.

Omnicrat
2012-12-03, 10:56 PM
I would suggest adding something to the effect of a free intimidate check or fear effect.

Jeraa
2012-12-03, 11:26 PM
Quick thing... level 2 warriors are just above getting eaten by a cat. I like assuming any given adult in a society is level 6 at the minimum.

So is your average orc warrior. The DMG implies the vast majority of people are 1st level commoners (at least 91% of every settlement). The majority of other classes are also shown to be 1st level. The DMG even states the majority of city guards are warrior 1 (page 99). Page 133 shows typical soldiers as warrior 1 as well.

You can assume that the average adult in your world is 6th level, but the rules assume they are 1st level.

(And the problem isn't that 2nd level is just above getting eaten by a cat. Its the stupid idea that a cat scratch does 1 hit point of damage. It causes pain, not actual physical damage. Adults being 1st/2nd level characters is correct, the cat is just overpowered.)

Hanuman
2012-12-03, 11:27 PM
Check pathfinder, it accounts for your issues.

Ashtagon
2012-12-04, 01:04 AM
I would suggest adding something to the effect of a free intimidate check or fear effect.

Why? It's not like we are trained animals (eg. non-warhorses) and get scared by fire or loud noise. And it's not like guns are a mature technology and we've been trained to react in a certain way to firearms by mass media. Being scared of gunshots is a learned behaviour.

Hanuman
2012-12-04, 03:53 AM
Why? It's not like we are trained animals (eg. non-warhorses) and get scared by fire or loud noise. And it's not like guns are a mature technology and we've been trained to react in a certain way to firearms by mass media. Being scared of gunshots is a learned behaviour.

We've been scared of loud sudden noises since before we developed the neocortex.

havocfett
2012-12-04, 04:27 AM
Range Increment is very low. Maximum BAB/AB is silly low.

Simple weapon, long range, high damage, long reload time. It was good enough to effectively obsolete bows and crossbows very quickly despite occasionally blowing up the wielder.

This...isn't. A cavalry charge can hit a musket line between volleys, an infantry charge can't.

Going by Bert S. Hall's "Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe" we're talking approx 100-120 meter effective range, which is probably a 50-60 meter range increment (-4 is a heavy penalty to work with at the levels most soldiers will be), which comes out to approximately 100-120 feet range increments.


I really think guns need a rebalence... as they are just better then any other weapon of that grade.


This is because guns are better than any other weapon of that grade. They're extremely easy to use, long ranged, lethal, and can reliably punch through armor at reasonable ranges. 120 meters is roughly the range of a crossbow, and an early arquebus had comparable loading times to one.

Hand Cannons were changing warfare as early as Ain Jalut (The one battle the Mongols lost, which, admittedly, was not just changed by the hand cannons).

Ashtagon
2012-12-04, 04:36 AM
We've been scared of loud sudden noises since before we developed the neocortex.

We've been scared of loud noises we've learned to recognise as dangerous. Gunpowder weapons haven't existed long enough in the general population's everyday lives or mass media consumption for them to learn to fear them, nor is there any primordial basis to fear that specific loud noise.

Seriously. I've been shot at (the guy aimed to miss; it was a warning shot) and didn't even realise someone was shooting at me, because I didn't recognise the sound as something to be afraid of.

havocfett
2012-12-04, 04:43 AM
We've been scared of loud noises we've learned to recognise as dangerous. Gunpowder weapons haven't existed long enough in the general population's everyday lives or mass media consumption for them to learn to fear them, nor is there any primordial basis to fear that specific loud noise.

Seriously. I've been shot at (the guy aimed to miss; it was a warning shot) and didn't even realise someone was shooting at me, because I didn't recognise the sound as something to be afraid of.

Battle of Ain Jalut, Hand Cannons were specifically used because they would frighten mongol horses when fired in volley. Hand Cannons are pretty much worse in every way, shape and form to an Arquebus, and weren't immensely common at the time.

A note: The Battle of Ain Jalut was won by the muslims, who were using the hand cannons, not the mongols, who were not. Some of this is because Mamluks are immensely awesome though. So it's not entirely the hand cannons fault.

Ashtagon
2012-12-04, 04:45 AM
Battle of Ain Jalut, Hand Cannons were specifically used because they would frighten mongol horses when fired in volley. Hand Cannons are pretty much worse in every way, shape and form to an Arquebus, and weren't immensely common at the time.

A note: The Battle of Ain Jalut was won by the muslims, who were using the hand cannons, not the mongols, who were not. Some of this is because Mamluks are immensely awesome though. So it's not entirely the hand cannons fault.

Last time I checked, humans are not horses, at least not mentally, and are not subject to the same psychology rules.

havocfett
2012-12-04, 04:51 AM
Last time I checked, humans are not horses, at least not mentally, and are not subject to the same psychology rules.

Oh, my bad, misread your post.

There's some merit to a 'fear effect' from massed musket fire, but it probably wouldn't be against infantry. Something to horses might fit, a ride check to continue a charge if your group gets hit with a volley, for example.

Grimsage Matt
2012-12-04, 10:49 AM
Last time I checked, humans are not horses, at least not mentally, and are not subject to the same psychology rules.

Ya, Horses handle Stress and Fear better.

Anycase, I'll link it in a bit, but someone over on Dndwiki already partialy beat you to remakeing/balancing the guns. Needs a bit more work, but should be workable for a model.

danzibr
2012-12-04, 11:04 AM
Seems like a throwaway weapon. Load two, shoot them both off in the first two rounds, then switch to melee or other weapons.
It seems like that's exactly what you'd do in a small fight. Reminds me of The Patriot.

Deepbluediver
2012-12-04, 12:57 PM
Seems like a throwaway weapon. Load two, shoot them both off in the first two rounds, then switch to melee or other weapons.
Which is frequently how early firearms where used.
Many of the first musketeer regiments where actually half-composed of soldiers wielding spears or pikes in order to keep cavalry and other melee forces out of reach of the gunners.


Quick thing... level 2 warriors are just above getting eaten by a cat. I like assuming any given adult in a society is level 6 at the minimum.
This is why I had a posting a little while back that proposed starting all adult humanoids at level 3, which is a fairly common starting point for games anyway.
The full progression was that 1 racial HD was a child, 1 class level was a juvenile, 2 was an adolescent, and 3 was when you finally hit adulthood.


I really think guns need a rebalence... as they are just better then any other weapon of that grade.
How you balance guns depends entirely on what you want from them.
I prefer the view that in fantasy handguns are nonexistent, cannons are rare, and rifles are sort of like really powerful but unreliable crossbows. If you could afford it, arming a large group of minimally trained soldiers can be effective, but overall most adventurers would avoid them.
Unless you want to include a fighting style based on Gun Fu (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GunFu), finding a good way to scale damage with guns seems difficult.

Omnicrat
2012-12-05, 01:49 AM
A handful of Spanish defeated an Inca army in no small part due to as of yet unheard of weapons of war (fire arms) being used against them and causing them to panic and flee. Granted, there was a bit more to the battle than that (the Inca were expecting it to be a surrender ceremony for one thing), but unless soldiers are trained to expect it, being on the receiving end of a gun is terrifying. Perhaps only after at least one person is hit would this effect kick in, because until that point, you wouldn't know what to expect. Also, there would probably be a feat which grants immunity to this fear effect/intimidation check to reflect such training, but the average layman would still be terrified after hearing a loud bang and seeing his neighbor's midsection shredded.

Ashtagon
2012-12-05, 04:13 AM
A handful of Spanish defeated an Inca army in no small part due to as of yet unheard of weapons of war (fire arms) being used against them and causing them to panic and flee. Granted, there was a bit more to the battle than that (the Inca were expecting it to be a surrender ceremony for one thing), but unless soldiers are trained to expect it, being on the receiving end of a gun is terrifying. Prehaps only after at least one person is hit would this effect kick in, because untill that point, you wouldn't know what to expect. So there would probably be a feat which grants immunity to this fear effect/intimidation check to reflect such training, but the average layman would still be terrified.

Common history mistake. This Spanish victory has more to do with other factors:

* Religious belief that the Spaniards were incarnations of their gods.
* Expert political manipulation of divisions within the Inca empire.
* Incas were fighting a ritualistic "flower war", whilst the Spaniards were fighting to kill.
* Spanish had metal armour, which is actually a lot more useful against muscle-powered weapons than D&D represents.
* Incas had no familiarity with metal armour, so didn't even know to look for the common weak spots in metal armour of the day.

Omnicrat
2012-12-05, 04:57 AM
Common history mistake. This Spanish victory has more to do with other factors:

* Religious belief that the Spaniards were incarnations of their gods.
* Expert political manipulation of divisions within the Inca empire.
* Incas were fighting a ritualistic "flower war", whilst the Spaniards were fighting to kill.
* Spanish had metal armour, which is actually a lot more useful against muscle-powered weapons than D&D represents.
* Incas had no familiarity with metal armour, so didn't even know to look for the common weak spots in metal armour of the day.

I believe it is you who is somewhat confused. Unless I am mistaken, both your second and third points refer to the Spanish conquest of the Aztec, which was facilitated by rival natives and had many battles, in which the Aztec were not trying to kill people.

The conquest of the Inca had one battle, in which the Incan emperor was captured and subsequently surrender his empire on the grounds that he could maintain his lifestyle. In the battle, the Inca had thousands (maybe only hundreds readily available, but at least thousand quite close by) of soldiers and the Spanish had a handful and no allies.

Again, the Inca were expecting surrender and were ambushed by the Spanish, but without a high level of panic or fear (presumably from the means of attack, guns) the Spanish would have still lost that day simply do to how outnumbered they were.

Ashtagon
2012-12-05, 05:07 AM
My bad. I was thinking of the Spanish conquest of the Mayincatecs (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mayincatec)

Hanuman
2012-12-05, 12:53 PM
We've been scared of loud noises we've learned to recognise as dangerous. Gunpowder weapons haven't existed long enough in the general population's everyday lives or mass media consumption for them to learn to fear them, nor is there any primordial basis to fear that specific loud noise.

Seriously. I've been shot at (the guy aimed to miss; it was a warning shot) and didn't even realise someone was shooting at me, because I didn't recognise the sound as something to be afraid of.

We were scared of unidentified loud noises, and still are. If you're sitting at home and there's a loud noise near you, you are startled which is represented by a low-round shaken debuff. You resist it through a combination of willpower and enlightenment, represented as a save.

I agree, we learn to recognize if something is dangerous or not, but we have instinctual fears that are not learned. People can be deathly afraid of spiders or snakes on their first learning of them. Adversely in your situation, you were uninformed on if you should be afraid or not, so your ignorance caused you to be disadvantaged because in your situation you did not have a cautionary behavior natural to humans and dissolved by ego into rationalism.

--

At the very least, using an unfamiliar dangerous power around the uninformed and unenlightened would allow for an easy intimidate check that could range from shaken to panicked in effect and huge in scope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAVSMg380qA

Deepbluediver
2012-12-05, 01:25 PM
I think the argument over being scared of guns is very dependent on what else characters in the D&D world are used to. Yes, if you have only ever seen medieval technology and some one comes at with hundreds of magic death sticks that shoot thunder and tiny arrows, then it's pretty terrifying. But guess what? I think that description fits WANDS pretty well, so unless we're in a really low magic setting, I find it odd that people (particularly trained soldiers) wouldn't have encountered or been warned about something like this before.

Hanuman
2012-12-05, 02:07 PM
Part of how scared people are is their level, level 1 may give you a bonus on will saves depending on how much stuff you've already seen go down and how enlightened you are about how to approach things mentally.

Magic is terrifying, even if it's just suspected.

Deepbluediver
2012-12-05, 02:52 PM
Part of how scared people are is their level, level 1 may give you a bonus on will saves depending on how much stuff you've already seen go down and how enlightened you are about how to approach things mentally.
That would probably be part of some calculation of your character's or troop's moral, but it doesn't require guns to come into play. Part of the power of a cavalry charge is that it takes guts to stand right in front of dozens of armored men riding horses weighing 1000+ lbs at 40 mph, even if you're lined up with spears and your commander has assured you that not EVERYONE will die. :smallamused:
Yes it's worse if everyone breaks ranks and you just get trampled as you try to flee, but that's not how a panicked person thinks.

I know WotC published one book about dealing with large-scale battles, but I don't know what exactly the rules are.


Magic is terrifying, even if it's just suspected.
And yet I'm never actually required to make a Will save unless the spell has a specific fear effect, no matter how shell-shocked all the exploding fireballs should make me.

Omnicrat
2012-12-05, 04:15 PM
This has gone kinda off topic, but that gives me an idea for a new variant rule... spell shock.

Hanuman
2012-12-05, 09:42 PM
I was bidding that humans are afraid of what they don't understand, especially if it's loud, in close proximity and perceived as threatening. Getting shot at, sure, that's going to get you scared as hell.

There's no check because DnD 3.5 is a simplistic dungeoncrawler that doesn't even have SAN in core. This is because it's primarily started by kids and only carried by adults who variably pass the system's complexity.

I remember this one scene in Dungeon Masters (the DnD movie about players, centered mainly about 4.0) and in one of the interviews there was a long time player who said "I tried to get into 3.5, but I just couldn't figure it out.", and it's exemplar players like that who play rangers and get confused by grapple rules who really make me feel ok about how vanilla CORE is.

Anyway, there's a lot of things not covered in DnD and by all means are a little bit complicated to run, especially because every game I sit down to play there's going to be several instances where someones not got their character figured out, or the party isn't prepared, or the DM doesn't catch something or something needs to be overlooked by the players or the DM for them to have enough brainspace to not slow down the game. Honestly, having a functional game is a real plate spinner.

Yes, magic should be terrifying, you get a fireball shot at you at even mid level it's going to be VERY hot VERY loud VERY fast and VERY bright.

Fire is loud, really really loud, water is cold, very very cold, wearing a 30lb backpack while doing a parkour course and fighting with melee weapons is both difficult and tiring, a lot of stuff is simplified because DnD is a simple game.

So yes, roll fear often, and in fact if you're a good DM just redo the wounding and fear systems, they are pretty PG13.

Ashtagon
2012-12-06, 01:24 AM
I was bidding that humans are afraid of what they don't understand, especially if it's loud, in close proximity and perceived as threatening. Getting shot at, sure, that's going to get you scared as hell.


Again, what's with the guns = loud noises? If you're holding the gun in question or standing by someone who is shooting, sure. The explosion is right next to you. if you're the one being shot at? In my case, the sound was drowned out by me and my friends talking to each other. And it was open countryside, so we weren't even talking particularly loudly (no significant background noise).

Actual loudness numbers...


194 db theoretical maximum noise volume at 1 atmosphere air pressure (any more energetic, and sound waves would cause vacuum rifts in air pressure, which would prevent any further increase in volume).
120-150db for Magnum pistols and rifles at one metre.
70-75db for a .22lr rifle or pistol at one metre.
40-60 db human speech at one metre.
20 db for threshold of human hearing ("a mosquito at three metres")


Actual sound pressure with distance varies with an inverse ratio (not an inverse square ratio). Each time you multiply the distance by x10, sound pressure drops by 20 decibels (or approximately a 6 db drop for doubling the distance).

So if we assume that security guard was 50 metres behind me and his gun had an 85 db sound pressure where he was, it was about 51 db sound pressure from where I perceived it -- easily quiet enough to be drowned out by an ordinary conversation. Even at 20 metres it would only have been 59 db.

Edit: If you are the one speaking at the exact moment, your own voice is about 10 cm from your ears, so it will sound about 20 db louder than the numbers given above.

Also, for social context, prior to that point, I had never even seen a gun personally, and even my contact with guns on television and film was extremely limited. So yeah, fearing guns is learned behaviour. I had no fear, and was only aware of the gunshot because the shooter ran up and told me afterwards.

Hanuman
2012-12-06, 03:21 AM
I should add your ability to hear is highly compromised when you are speaking or yelling loudly.
Gunshot isn't as scary now adays as there are familiar noises that sound similar if you don't know the distance, especially in cities.

Grimsage Matt
2012-12-06, 09:32 AM
Needs to be finished, but it's a start (http://dndwiki.com/wiki/Gunslinger_Handbook_(3.5e_Sourcebook)).

There ya go, the Gun Sligers handbook I mentioned a while back. Needs fishing up, but hey, your good homebrewers:smallbiggrin: