PDA

View Full Version : Give them a flint lock and...



scurv
2013-03-31, 08:46 PM
And the players are then trying to design a M1 Carbine with ammunition. To bad the glare does not work over the phone.

<edit>
although this site is useful for the pirates campaign i am working
http://www.thepiratesrealm.com/pirate%20weapons.html

Gavinfoxx
2013-03-31, 10:30 PM
What system is this?

scurv
2013-03-31, 10:38 PM
Blending 2nd edition to work in a pirates setting. I am permitting gun powder, cannons and flintlock type guns. But as they say, give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Although considering this is a kill it with fire group. I am kinda wondering how long till they brain fart and fireball in the munitions hold.

Gavinfoxx
2013-03-31, 10:56 PM
So 2nd edition what?

scurv
2013-03-31, 11:24 PM
2nd edition d&d.....But the post is more a sigh at the mentality of people in regards to being given an inch and taking a mile.

tyckspoon
2013-04-01, 12:01 AM
And the players are then trying to design a M1 Carbine with ammunition. To bad the glare does not work over the phone.

<edit>
although this site is useful for the pirates campaign i am working
http://www.thepiratesrealm.com/pirate%20weapons.html

Eh. I'd let them try. Figure attempting a modern-style weapon with flintlock-era gunsmithing and powder blending understanding gives you about a 50/50 of hopelessly fouling the weapon after a shot or two or of having it explode in their hands. Good times either way >.>

Gavinfoxx
2013-04-01, 12:06 AM
Yea, the best you can do at a certain level of technology is generally... that level of technology...

if they want repeating fire, build a ribaldequin (like 50 barrels, lol).

NikitaDarkstar
2013-04-01, 12:13 AM
Blending 2nd edition to work in a pirates setting. I am permitting gun powder, cannons and flintlock type guns. But as they say, give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Although considering this is a kill it with fire group. I am kinda wondering how long till they brain fart and fireball in the munitions hold.

Well they could make some interesting weapons if they mixed equal amounts of barrels, bullets, gunpowder, and fire... at a safe distance. It won't exactly be what they're going for, but it would have a similar effect... and hopefully launch an equal, or greater, amount of bullets at the enemy.

Okay, yhea, I might be that type of player at times. And what do you mean fire isn't the answer to everything?!

scurv
2013-04-01, 12:29 AM
Well, I think I am going to tell them that they need to actually fire a gun in combat before they can think about remaking them. Besides I tend to limit PC's doing major inventions until after they are level 10ish, and have something comparable to the experience, time and resources to research, development and all that.. That and quite frankly I want to see what these simulations of muzzle loaded combat rounds look like and the tactics the players evolve with them.

That and they had best be devoting their pc's attention to things like learning to sail a ship, Maybe a little fishing, Navigation. And the fine arts of piracy of ship to ship combat and boarding party tactics.

nobodez
2013-04-01, 12:39 AM
If they want a repeating firearm, point them to the Puckle Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun), as it's a nice flintlock, a bit complicated, but still technically a "machine gun".

TheThan
2013-04-01, 01:12 AM
Is that the best they've got?
My players are trying to build a steam powered super robot that’s amphibious. it uses Cannons and a giant crane for combat. One of them wants to power it with a cortex has been imprinted with the memories of one of the player’s dead wife.

It’s called the Fat Neal.

If anything they’re ambitious. But what’s scary, is that they built their characters to be able to actually DO it.


here's basically what they're building, only more ridiculous.
http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/mercenaries/colossals/galleon

Premier
2013-04-01, 07:17 AM
Advice to the OP: take responsibility for the campaign you run. Decide whether or not you you want rapid-fire firearms to appear in the game. If yes, your players have just given you the munition for an entire campaign arc: first they hear of legends of a notorious pirate who died a hundred years ago, and who allegedly had an enchanted musket that could shoot dozens of bullets without reloading. Next, they go in search of the pirate's tomb and/or treasure, and after many adventures find the rusted-to-uselesness weapon. So next they need to find a master gunsmith who can actually figure out how it worked and can make a new one based on the blueprints. The one man (or gnome or whatever) who could do it is, of course, captured/imprisoned/some adventure hook. They get him, but he says he'll need some highly specific, hard to acquire components. See? A whole bunch of adventuring.

If you don't want automatic weapons in your game, that's even simpler: you just don't have them. One, the PCs are not smart enough to even realise the possibility of creating a weapon so much more advanced than the rest of the setting. Even if they have an INT of 18, it's just too many centuries of difference. Two, it's a fantasy world with gods and magic. For all they know, chemistry and engineering works not because "molecules" bind the same way as in our universe, but because the Gods of Alchemy and Craftsmanship have personally decreed that certain reaction and certain physical processes should happen in a certain way. And guess what? They don't want a submachinegun.

Khedrac
2013-04-01, 08:47 AM
Advice to the OP: take responsibility for the campaign you run.
This

Also, remember that in a magic-based setting physics simply does not work as it does in the real world. If alchemy works then chemistry does not, pretty much by definition!

If it's not a magic-based world then I suppose you can let the players try to make weaponry advances not thought of at the time, but try to look up what the drawbacks were int he day, or post in places like the Real World Weapons and Armour Q&A thread.
They want multiple-barrelled cannon? - OK - but have they proof-tested every barrel? If not expect some to explode, warping the others.
They have? - OK then how long are the waiting between shots? - fire too fast for too long and the residual heat int he cannon's barrel will detonate the powder for the next charge whilst it is being loaded...

Alejandro
2013-04-01, 09:12 AM
Have you ever asked your players if they want to play a game that has more modern firearms? Maybe they want to play Shadowrun. :)

Otherwise, don't forget the spell Protection from Normal Missiles. Works great no matter how many bullets!

Edit: now that I think about it, it's kind of funny. Adventurer 1 has an eight shot carbine loaded with 30.06. Adventurer 2 shoots magic missiles from his hand that can kill you and never miss. Who's scarier? Neither, really.

Doug Lampert
2013-04-01, 09:19 AM
If you don't want automatic weapons in your game, that's even simpler: you just don't have them. One, the PCs are not smart enough to even realise the possibility of creating a weapon so much more advanced than the rest of the setting. Even if they have an INT of 18, it's just too many centuries of difference. Two, it's a fantasy world with gods and magic. For all they know, chemistry and engineering works not because "molecules" bind the same way as in our universe, but because the Gods of Alchemy and Craftsmanship have personally decreed that certain reaction and certain physical processes should happen in a certain way. And guess what? They don't want a submachinegun.

You don't even need the fantasy excuse. As a previous poster pointed out, IT"S BLACK POWDER! And probably not very good black powder. If you had MODERN machining precision and metals to make the gun out of it would STILL be likely to foul or blow up in your hands if you tried rapid fire for any length of time.

But of course you DON'T have modern metals and machining. Which means it woun't even work that well. A flintlock WAS precision high engineering for its day, they simply couldn't MAKE the metal parts for anything much better.

You don't have metal cartriges, and you have no way to draw them.

You don't have primers, and you have no way to make them, so if you DID have metal cartriges you couldn't get them to work.

I could keep going. If they were trying to invent the Minee ball then I'd have trouble coming up with reasons why it wouldn't work, the minee ball COULD have been invented well before flintlocks were, and it's a major step up. But something like a modern smokeless powder firearm, "It costs 50,000 GP to even try to have those parts crafted."

Later: "It blows up in your hands on the third shot, take double firearms damage".

Seriously. This is the sort of thing suggested by people who have absolutely no idea how technology works.

Jay R
2013-04-01, 10:14 AM
The problem with manufacturing is the ability to machine identical items. When Samuel Colt made the first revolvers in the 1830s, a crucial tool was precise machining.

He went to a meeting in England, and what impressed all the other inventors wasn't the ability to fire six bullets from one gun, but the fact that he took apart six pistols, used parts selected randomly from each, put together a pistol, and it worked.

The fact that the parts were interchangeable was astounding to 19th century engineers.

So one of the tools they will need, if they are planning to make more than one or two, is a level of precision that nobody in their current world has even considered before. Let's say a minimum of twenty years of full-time design and engineering work to discover what's needed. Then many years work to perfect it.

Secondly, are they trying to make cartridges? Or are they retaining the aspect of loading powder and a ball for each shot? If they want cartridges, then the flintlock gives absolutely no clue about the mechanical or chemical issues involved. (Since it's entirely enclosed, they need a small cap of contact explosive that burns without air to light the powder. Then they need a way to attach the contact explosive to the inside of the cartridge without any sharp contact (or it goes off immediately). Once the chemical problems of the contact explosive are worked out (10-50 years after they discover the idea of a contact explosive), and the design of the cartridge is developed (five to ten years full-time experimentation after the idea is fully formed), then they will need to design a loading machine.

Engineering and scientific advances are not created in a month or two by adventurers in their spare time. (Sometimes they can come up with a new idea that can be created with the current level of engineering, but that's not what's going on here.)

Eldan
2013-04-01, 10:37 AM
If they really want to, maybe let them invent something like a pepperbox gun? That's a gun with multiple barrels which are loaded, then fired one after the other. It would allow them to fire multiple shots, and there were flintlock pepperboxes.

Alejandro
2013-04-01, 10:42 AM
The problem with manufacturing is the ability to machine identical items. When Samuel Colt made the first revolvers in the 1830s, a crucial tool was precise machining.

He went to a meeting in England, and what impressed all the other inventors wasn't the ability to fire six bullets from one gun, but the fact that he took apart six pistols, used parts selected randomly from each, put together a pistol, and it worked.

The fact that the parts were interchangeable was astounding to 19th century engineers.

So one of the tools they will need, if they are planning to make more than one or two, is a level of precision that nobody in their current world has even considered before. Let's say a minimum of twenty years of full-time design and engineering work to discover what's needed. Then many years work to perfect it.

Secondly, are they trying to make cartridges? Or are they retaining the aspect of loading powder and a ball for each shot? If they want cartridges, then the flintlock gives absolutely no clue about the mechanical or chemical issues involved. (Since it's entirely enclosed, they need a small cap of contact explosive that burns without air to light the powder. Then they need a way to attach the contact explosive to the inside of the cartridge without any sharp contact (or it goes off immediately). Once the chemical problems of the contact explosive are worked out (10-50 years after they discover the idea of a contact explosive), and the design of the cartridge is developed (five to ten years full-time experimentation after the idea is fully formed), then they will need to design a loading machine.

Engineering and scientific advances are not created in a month or two by adventurers in their spare time. (Sometimes they can come up with a new idea that can be created with the current level of engineering, but that's not what's going on here.)

Eli Whitney did something similar with ten rifles, in front of the US Congress. They were impressed. To be fair, though, Eli kind of cheated, the ten guns were extremely carefully made and prepped ahead of time to have exactly matching parts. :)

Doug Lampert
2013-04-01, 11:40 AM
The problem with manufacturing is the ability to machine identical items. When Samuel Colt made the first revolvers in the 1830s, a crucial tool was precise machining.

...

Engineering and scientific advances are not created in a month or two by adventurers in their spare time. (Sometimes they can come up with a new idea that can be created with the current level of engineering, but that's not what's going on here.)

Truth: Today we take it as ROUTINE to have metal parts machined down to 0.001 inch tollerances. Any really good machine shop can churn them out in job lots. This is not normal historically. Not even close. Cheap routine hardware is at 0.01" or so tolerances.

The Minee ball is the only "month or two in their spare time" level of improvement available on a flintlock if you have flintlock era tech.

(Ring bayonettes are also possible if you can manage a sturdy enough mounting ring, which requires pretty good steel and engineering tolerance, so late flintlock era you can manage that too.)

You can also make a multibarrel gun (as others have mentioned), which mostly means flatly giving up on actually reloading in combat (abut then you aren't reloading anyway on the time scale of D&D combat).

Or you can carry multiple guns, with wheellocks and flintlocks both the pistols often came in sets so you could fire and draw another.

The Breachloading Rifle was invented prior to the American Revolution, tested, field tested by one British infantry company, and then rejected because of various problems. It simply couldn't be made to work well at that time well over 100 years after the flintlock became common.

The Brown Bess remained the British standard issue firearm till 1832. By which time machining had advanced to where better weapons were possible.

nobodez
2013-04-01, 12:10 PM
To those talking of machining and tolerances.

The OP said this was an AD&D 2E game. While I only play d20, I'm pretty sure that Fabricate didn't change that much from 2E to 3E, and thus should be able to replicate the machine shop needed to produce the parts.

I still support the idea of giving them actual, historical, multi-shot firearms that match the tech level rather than saying they can't have any. Both the Puckle and the Pepperbox are dead end technologies, but work well within the flint-lock tech level.

Trekkin
2013-04-01, 12:36 PM
I've had players try to pull this kind of stuff on me many times; it's endemic to running a game in a school full of engineers. Here's how I've learned to resolve players wanting to invent modern technology, assuming you're okay with it existing as an artifact:

1. Recognize that they aren't being totally illogical here. If flintlocks are possible, well, the same physical laws mean a carbine is theoretically possible. Whether they have the technology to put it together is another matter, but I find letting them have the theory is a good starting point. Now, if they're wanting fusion rockets, that's another matter entirely, but this isn't an unreasonable extrapolation.

2. Outline the gaps in technology that prevent them building one of these. The posters above me have done so handily. It might help to narrow it down to two or three key enabling technologies; I usually do one per player pushing for whatever they want. Here, it sounds like gunpowder, machining, and metallurgy are a good start.

3. Decide what's in your setting to cheat solutions to these problems. Maybe mithril can substitute for blue steel, or maybe there's some magical carbon-injecting spell. Maybe there's a force bolt spell that can be enchanted into bullet casings, or some hermit alchemist cracked how to make a good enough powder. What's the DC to machine parts to these tolerances?

4. It gets a little fuzzy here, but let them know the challenges and where to research for the solutions. Treat it like an adventure hook, make it challenging enough that it's not unbalancing when they finish, and I at least have found it's relatively easy to weave into the adventure that already exists. If they take a mile when you give them an inch, let them have it -- and make them walk it.

5. This is critical. Let them employ each individual new thing on its own. Mitril? Let 'em make mithril swords. Let them throw alchemists' fire with the new formula. Let them fabricate really smooth cannonballs and get a range advantage.

Eventually, it becomes less 'trying to make new technology' and more 'questing for a magical artifact, piece by piece'. Because by the time they're cramming alchemy into magic materials made with magically-assisted smithing, well...

And when they get done making it? Have people try to steal it from them, or at least their notes on it. They end up legends, so let them deal with legendary status.

Scow2
2013-04-01, 12:56 PM
To those talking of machining and tolerances.

The OP said this was an AD&D 2E game. While I only play d20, I'm pretty sure that Fabricate didn't change that much from 2E to 3E, and thus should be able to replicate the machine shop needed to produce the parts.

I still support the idea of giving them actual, historical, multi-shot firearms that match the tech level rather than saying they can't have any. Both the Puckle and the Pepperbox are dead end technologies, but work well within the flint-lock tech level.

Being able to pull off those kinds of tolerances requires a Craft check.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-01, 01:25 PM
Just say the magic and technology isn't good enough to do it yet.


There is one thing I could see plausibly coming out of it. There was this one contraption (Asian in origin, I think), mounted on a cart, which consisted of several dozen barrels loaded and lined up next to one another, and I think they fired explosive/flammable rockets. It had an impressive rate of fire, but was wildly inaccurate and took a considerable time to reload.

Lord Torath
2013-04-01, 01:25 PM
To those talking of machining and tolerances.

The OP said this was an AD&D 2E game. While I only play d20, I'm pretty sure that Fabricate didn't change that much from 2E to 3E, and thus should be able to replicate the machine shop needed to produce the parts.
There is no "Fabricate" in 2nd Edition. There are Blacksmith, Armorer, and Weaponsmith. Also Bowyer/Fletcher, and Carpentry, Tailor, Cobbler, and a few other 'fabrication' NWPs. But nothing with any kind of repeatability or precision for the kind of work required for their proposed weapons. The technology is simply too far out of their reach.

I agree with the dual-barrelled musket/Flintlock idea, but keep the other stuff out of their reach.

Scow2
2013-04-01, 01:38 PM
There is no "Fabricate" in 2nd Edition. There are Blacksmith, Armorer, and Weaponsmith. Also Bowyer/Fletcher, and Carpentry, Tailor, Cobbler, and a few other 'fabrication' NWPs. But nothing with any kind of repeatability or precision for the kind of work required for their proposed weapons. The technology is simply too far out of their reach.

I agree with the dual-barrelled musket/Flintlock idea, but keep the other stuff out of their reach.
We're talking magic spells here, not Skill/profession checks.

Gavinfoxx
2013-04-01, 01:55 PM
I already said, 'Use a Ribaldequin', which is 50 musket barrels lined up next to one another on a cart...

Eldan
2013-04-01, 02:00 PM
There is no "Fabricate" in 2nd Edition. There are Blacksmith, Armorer, and Weaponsmith. Also Bowyer/Fletcher, and Carpentry, Tailor, Cobbler, and a few other 'fabrication' NWPs. But nothing with any kind of repeatability or precision for the kind of work required for their proposed weapons. The technology is simply too far out of their reach.

I agree with the dual-barrelled musket/Flintlock idea, but keep the other stuff out of their reach.

Fabricate is a mid-level spell in 3.5 that produces manufactured goods of pretty much any kind. It might exist in AD&D as well.

SowZ
2013-04-01, 02:15 PM
Is that the best they've got?
My players are trying to build a steam powered super robot that’s amphibious. it uses Cannons and a giant crane for combat. One of them wants to power it with a cortex has been imprinted with the memories of one of the player’s dead wife.


Does said character look like this?
http://es.evangelion.wikia.com/wiki/Gendo_Ikari?file=Gendo.jpg http://es.evangelion.wikia.com/wiki/Gendo_Ikari?file=Gendo.jpg

scurv
2013-04-01, 02:34 PM
As I said, If they want a chance at that, It will require at least level 10, And the needed materials and supplies. And quite frankly It is most likely not going to happen. And quite frankly I told them that if it was more then just a hint of metaness in how they come up with the inspiration, I will give their pc's a 50% EXP tax for two levels.

The setting is a light magic campaign, Mostly human with other races that are withdrawing into their own lands. with
aprox 15th-ish century tech. That is muzzle loader type weapons, And cannons. And quite frankly firearms are very powerful. But it is two rounds to load till level 5. Not very accurate (neg 4 to hit with more of a penalty if their target is actively moving) No guarantee that it will actually fire and in a world with spells, One MIGHT be somewhat concerned with carrying black powder on their person. Although in this case The firearms will deal 10d8 damage. but unless it is a head shot magic healing with in two rounds can save the person. (hp's will stop going down at neg 10)

I want it to be a lethal weapon. But I want to have magical healing viable to offset a weapon that can be fatal to a high level. I have some issues with it, But it seems at first and second glance to be a viable solution.


As for magical fabrication, Not going to happen.
As for precision fabrication. If they want to start on that road at level 10, They are welcome to try.

As a note fabricate is a 5th level wizards spell in second edition. But As I said it is not going to work unless said tech is already common place in the world.

Deffers
2013-04-01, 02:51 PM
I dunno. I always like the stories of the dude who manages to kill a lich at level one using a grand piano and an amorous camel.

I'd say if they come up with a sufficiently outlandish way to come up with it before level ten (general guideline is: if you cannot stop laughing after hearing it) I'd let 'em have it.

Also, consider something (although completely fantasy-esque) like the guns in Dishonored. The normal ones that guards have are basically a weird sort of break-open musket pistol (they have a very clean propellant made of magical whale). The semi-automatic one is made by an utterly mad inventor using clockworks and possibly magic from a dark god (the idea itself certainly came from this dark god). That's kinda the level they better be reaching for to advance technology by a few centuries for the sake of power.

fusilier
2013-04-01, 02:53 PM
There are some technical aspects that are missing during the "flintlock era":

1. As people have already noted above, the ability to make proper metal cartridges didn't exist. Perhaps more importantly, in order to be practical, metal cartridges rely upon another invention:

2. Percussion primers! They don't exist. Once percussion primers were invented, the self-contained metal cartridge wasn't too far away. Prior to that each shot had to be individually primed.

Maybe you can let them develop something like a Ferguson rifle? Breechloading was something that had been tinkered with from a very early date.

Still it is kind of silly: they haven't even tried these weapons out in combat, yet they are trying to design something much more advanced!

SowZ
2013-04-01, 03:00 PM
As I said, If they want a chance at that, It will require at least level 10, And the needed materials and supplies. And quite frankly It is most likely not going to happen. And quite frankly I told them that if it was more then just a hint of metaness in how they come up with the inspiration, I will give their pc's a 50% EXP tax for two levels.

The setting is a light magic campaign, Mostly human with other races that are withdrawing into their own lands. with
aprox 15th-ish century tech. That is muzzle loader type weapons, And cannons. And quite frankly firearms are very powerful. But it is two rounds to load till level 5. Not very accurate (neg 4 to hit with more of a penalty if their target is actively moving) No guarantee that it will actually fire and in a world with spells, One MIGHT be somewhat concerned with carrying black powder on their person. Although in this case The firearms will deal 10d8 damage. but unless it is a head shot magic healing with in two rounds can save the person. (hp's will stop going down at neg 10)

I want it to be a lethal weapon. But I want to have magical healing viable to offset a weapon that can be fatal to a high level. I have some issues with it, But it seems at first and second glance to be a viable solution.


As for magical fabrication, Not going to happen.
As for precision fabrication. If they want to start on that road at level 10, They are welcome to try.

As a note fabricate is a 5th level wizards spell in second edition. But As I said it is not going to work unless said tech is already common place in the world.

I wonder why the massive accuracy penalty? Firearms, even non-rifled blackpowder ones, shoot farther and straighter than an arrow. So unless all ranged weapons get a penalty in this world, it seems very strange to me.

Alejandro
2013-04-01, 03:23 PM
And quite frankly I told them that if it was more then just a hint of metaness in how they come up with the inspiration, I will give their pc's a 50% EXP tax for two levels.

Holy crap, that's a huge penalty. Does a spellcaster coming up with a new spell have to pay that much?

Emmerask
2013-04-01, 03:33 PM
my 2nd edition knowledge isn´t all that great but there are "skills" (none combat specializations I think?)

so do your players have any in engineering, metalworking, woodworking, alchemy?

Even with those of course they will never be able to create a submachine gun or similar, it just doesn´t work with the material and tools in the stting, but I would allow "smaller" costumizations after lengthy research, and production of course.

Something like a double barrel variant or a flintlock pistol etc.

Lord Torath
2013-04-01, 03:42 PM
Do your black powder weapons ignore a certain amount of armor? That would help make up for the accuracy penalty.

And 10d8 seems HUGE! Is that for the cannon? Or the Flintlock? 2nd Edition just had exploding die rolls for arquebus and flintlock.

scurv
2013-04-01, 03:51 PM
Holy crap, that's a huge penalty. Does a spellcaster coming up with a new spell have to pay that much?

That is the tax for meta gaming. I frown on it. IF their char does not know it and has invested no rp to support figuring it out then I do not want to be bothered with them wanting to advance tech a few hundred years

<edit>

The player who is wishing to push it forward does have weapon and armor smithing. and a 16 int. So he is not quite off to a horrible start.

There is also a smattering of jewler, sculpting and other such skills spread about the party. But at this point this is a bunch of level 3's with no precision equipment of note. Save the rogue who lucked into finding some honing stones and some jewelers tools.

It is high damage yes, Kinda the point of a gun. I just house ruled in some changes to magic healing so it can be a weapon that can ignore significant level differences (A two way street that i dearly look forward in using later) but tweeked the rules enough that magic healing can if applied quickly even at a low level keep the person alive ( The guns will not take you farther then neg 10 hp's)
Just keep in mind though, This is going to be at best a high miss weapon at anything other then close range.

Gavinfoxx
2013-04-01, 04:24 PM
In order to make new qualities of weapons, they are going to need to invent new types of high heat furnaces for more uniform, high quality blocks of high carbon steel, and then figure out precision lathes and such to make the weapon out of said block of steel.

There actually ARE some ways to bypass this in older versions of D&D... Specifically, in the Original D&D Rules Cyclopedia, right next to the Wall of Iron spell, is the spell “Steelform”... which changes (I believe), Iron to Steel. If done to a Wall of Iron, you get a single, homogenous, block of high quality steel...

SowZ
2013-04-01, 04:30 PM
That is the tax for meta gaming. I frown on it. IF their char does not know it and has invested no rp to support figuring it out then I do not want to be bothered with them wanting to advance tech a few hundred years

<edit>

The player who is wishing to push it forward does have weapon and armor smithing. and a 16 int. So he is not quite off to a horrible start.

There is also a smattering of jewler, sculpting and other such skills spread about the party. But at this point this is a bunch of level 3's with no precision equipment of note. Save the rogue who lucked into finding some honing stones and some jewelers tools.

It is high damage yes, Kinda the point of a gun. I just house ruled in some changes to magic healing so it can be a weapon that can ignore significant level differences (A two way street that i dearly look forward in using later) but tweeked the rules enough that magic healing can if applied quickly even at a low level keep the person alive ( The guns will not take you farther then neg 10 hp's)
Just keep in mind though, This is going to be at best a high miss weapon at anything other then close range.

10d8 isn't accurate for a gun, though. Even modern guns aren't near that strong. Most people can survive a gunshot if they get treatment soon after. Guns aren't nearly as lethal as most people think and people trained in their use are trained not to expect someone to drop once they've been shot because it is often people don't.

And that is with guns three, four times more damaging then the guns your campaign is using. The biggest advantage of guns is actually range and accuracy, not damage. A bullet from a musket at long range wouldn't have a significantly higher chance of dropping the enemy than an arrow from a longbow.

It would have a higher chance, maybe, and penetrate armor, but you are paying for range and ease of use more than anything else.

Scow2
2013-04-01, 05:37 PM
And quite frankly I told them that if it was more then just a hint of metaness in how they come up with the inspiration, I will give their pc's a 50% EXP tax for two levels.

That's okay. With our new gun, we can kill twice as many enemies in half as much time!:smalltongue:

Slipperychicken
2013-04-01, 06:04 PM
That's okay. With our new gun, we can kill twice as many enemies in half as much time!:smalltongue:

If the whole party uses guns, we'll be the same ECL and still fight appropriate encounters! And after those two levels, we're home free!


Also, Spell Storing bullets. And size increases for the gun-wielder (would each d8 get bumped up to d10 or 2d6?).

Asmodai
2013-04-01, 06:47 PM
Is that the best they've got?
My players are trying to build a steam powered super robot that’s amphibious. it uses Cannons and a giant crane for combat. One of them wants to power it with a cortex has been imprinted with the memories of one of the player’s dead wife.

It’s called the Fat Neal.

If anything they’re ambitious. But what’s scary, is that they built their characters to be able to actually DO it.


here's basically what they're building, only more ridiculous.
http://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/mercenaries/colossals/galleon

Cortex? So you're playng warmachine. How are you even surprised? It sounds pretty normal for Warmachine.

Alejandro
2013-04-01, 09:20 PM
Do you allow plate armor and rapiers at the same time in your D&D game? :)

Scow2
2013-04-01, 10:07 PM
Do you allow plate armor and rapiers at the same time in your D&D game? :)
You should, since the Renaissance was the era when Full Plate armor came into its most iconic and sophisticated (And expensive!) designs, with heavy-armored knights dominating the battlefields in warfare (With two-handed swords becoming the battlefield weapon of choice for those that aren't using polearms or warhammers), yet swords were becoming longer and slimmer (Becoming Rapiers as we know them) as self-defense weapons among civilians in cities.

Gavinfoxx
2013-04-01, 10:08 PM
You should, since the Renaissance was the era when Full Plate armor came into its most iconic and sophisticated (And expensive!) designs, with heavy-armored knights dominating the battlefields in warfare (With two-handed swords becoming the battlefield weapon of choice for those that aren't using polearms or warhammers), yet swords were becoming longer and slimmer (Becoming Rapiers as we know them) as self-defense weapons among civilians in cities.

Yup! Just remember, Rapiers should SUCK at fighting plate armor -- they are meant to fight UNARMORED people (hence civilian city self defense)... You want an Estoc for fighting armored, and that looks like a Rapier. From a distance, at least.

Scow2
2013-04-02, 08:18 AM
Yup! Just remember, Rapiers should SUCK at fighting plate armor -- they are meant to fight UNARMORED people (hence civilian city self defense)... You want an Estoc for fighting armored, and that looks like a Rapier. From a distance, at least.

Except an Estoc is a two-handed weapon. The only thing it has in common with a Rapier is being pointy. They're much sturdier and heavier, being more like a spike than a sword.

Alejandro
2013-04-02, 10:15 AM
Oh, I wasn't bringing it up because of a time period question, just that D&D (except for some rules I recall in 2nd Ed) doesn't simulate weapons being more or less effective against types of armor.

Doug Lampert
2013-04-02, 12:44 PM
Fabricate is a mid-level spell in 3.5 that produces manufactured goods of pretty much any kind. It might exist in AD&D as well.

Which requires you to make the SAME DC check you'd need to make it by hand, and the spell in 3.x DOESN'T let you get the massive bonuses for tools and assistance available if you are doing it by hand.

This does not help AT ALL with things you simply flat out can't make by hand, like, say, items made to these tolerances.

DougL

Lord Torath
2013-04-02, 01:07 PM
In 2nd Edition, Fabricate is a 5th level Wizard Spell.

Articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship (jewelry, swords, glass, crystal, etc.) cannot be fabricated unless the wizard otherwise has great skill in the appropriate craft.
So unless your wizard has a skill in Precision Manufacturing, he's going to have to be content with period weaponry.

Edit. Apparently Ninja'd by Scurv(see below). I really should re-read the whole thread before hitting "Submit." :smallredface:

Magesmiley
2013-04-02, 02:23 PM
As I said, If they want a chance at that, It will require at least level 10, And the needed materials and supplies. And quite frankly It is most likely not going to happen. And quite frankly I told them that if it was more then just a hint of metaness in how they come up with the inspiration, I will give their pc's a 50% EXP tax for two levels.

The setting is a light magic campaign, Mostly human with other races that are withdrawing into their own lands. with
aprox 15th-ish century tech. That is muzzle loader type weapons, And cannons. And quite frankly firearms are very powerful. But it is two rounds to load till level 5. Not very accurate (neg 4 to hit with more of a penalty if their target is actively moving) No guarantee that it will actually fire and in a world with spells, One MIGHT be somewhat concerned with carrying black powder on their person. Although in this case The firearms will deal 10d8 damage. but unless it is a head shot magic healing with in two rounds can save the person. (hp's will stop going down at neg 10)

I want it to be a lethal weapon. But I want to have magical healing viable to offset a weapon that can be fatal to a high level. I have some issues with it, But it seems at first and second glance to be a viable solution.


As for magical fabrication, Not going to happen.
As for precision fabrication. If they want to start on that road at level 10, They are welcome to try.

As a note fabricate is a 5th level wizards spell in second edition. But As I said it is not going to work unless said tech is already common place in the world.

Just an aside, you might draw some rules inspiration from the Red Steel 2nd edition book (and its supplement Savage Baronies). It included 2nd edition rules for the sort of firearms that you're using.

Scow2
2013-04-02, 04:00 PM
In 2nd Edition, Fabricate is a 5th level Wizard Spell.

So unless your wizard has a skill in Precision Manufacturing, he's going to have to be content with period weaponry.

Edit. Apparently Ninja'd by Scurv(see below). I really should re-read the whole thread before hitting "Submit." :smallredface:
That's like saying someone can't make a sword without skill in "Craft(Forging)", or any other type of method of manufacture. D&D uses simplified, end-product based crafting skills, with sufficient knowledge of the assorted methods of manufacturing to achieve results of a particular quality. So the only skill he'd really need (With a lot of skill ranks in), is Craft(Gunsmithing), and knowledge of what he's making.

Doug Lampert
2013-04-02, 04:31 PM
That's like saying someone can't make a sword without skill in "Craft(Forging)", or any other type of method of manufacture. D&D uses simplified, end-product based crafting skills, with sufficient knowledge of the assorted methods of manufacturing to achieve results of a particular quality. So the only skill he'd really need (With a lot of skill ranks in), is Craft(Gunsmithing), and knowledge of what he's making.

He says he's giving the second edition rule, what are these "skill ranks" of which you speak and how do they relate to non-weapon proficiencies?

Now, if for some reason you're discussing third edition, then I'll REPEAT, the spell is quite explicit that you must make a check at the SAME DC as required to make the item without the spell. And since these items are IMPOSSIBLE to make to the required tolerances without precision manufacturing gear not available to people at a flintlock era tech level it simply can't be done in third edition either.

There's nothing in ANY version of fabricate which says or implies that it can make things you couldn't make without the spell, in fact every version is the clear that you need the skills to make the items without the spell prior to being able to make them with the spell. Fabricate is intended purely as a time-savings method (and useful only as trap fodder in building the Tippyverse or as an infinite money machine if used with wall of iron).

You can't make this type of gun without Fabricate. One person with the available tools and parts (and you need the components) can't make it at all in D&D land.

Fabricate is thus no help at all at making this kind of gun. Doesn't matter if you're using craft weapon, craft precision manufacturing, or craft gunsmith. With any of them you have to hit DC "impossible" to even try with the spell. And it stays DC "impossible" till someone (with or without the spell) hits on things like "craft lathe" and "craft crucible for steel manufacture".

scurv
2013-04-02, 04:36 PM
I'll have to check into that Magesmiley!

Fire arms I want them to be lethal and and Equalizer in this campaign. A high level char and even a gifted mid-level char to soak a bullet wound and keep on limping potently, But it could just as easily kill them. But As i told the players it is a double edged blade that rule is. Although for the table I think we are going to work it so damage is reduced with range, And add to that so that their are both a being winged hit and a full hit.

House ruled in at the moment is that fabricate can make any semi simple device that is in common usage in the land, With in the limits of the spells. Although considering the precision that is needed for firearms I think that would have to be excluded at that spell level.

I tend to as a rule forbid the enchanting of tech. Due mostly to the concept making my brain bleed.

As for skills If a blade smith wished to try their hand at say armor smithing I normally would impose a penalty of -2 to -6 Depending on their exposure. For instance someone from a culture that does not use armor would have the more severe penalty and would be far more limited in what I would attempt them to attempt.

As for working skills in synergy I will do it to a fair extent. Although I think precision machining is going to be a skill that I am going to have to put in a write up for once the players have gotten to the level to attempt it.


But for me and meta gaming. IF players "arrange" things tactfully and discreetly I will turn a blind eye just because it is a sign of good group cohesion (Although some ac's might get tweeked a bit higher to just tick them off then later). But I forbid using real world information to profit your char by having them "accidentally on purpose" discover gunpowder That one is a hard limit for me.

But on the flip side of that, I do encourage them to find out the tactics that WAS used in that day and age. They are provided with a "mentor" right now so if the players put in the effort of bringing that information to the table (with the realistic mechanics of use)It is theirs to use. As a note because we take turns DMing no one has exploited this as of yet.

As for encounter construction, I tend to make mine more tactics based and this campaign looks like it is going to be a model of that. You would be amazed at the damage a few well placed archers can do with a few walls to protect them. Or the numbers a group can take with strategic creation of bottle necks and exploitation of terrain. So exp is given more based on encounter then on the HD of the monster.

Although this party's solution to full plate is a Molotov cocktail <edit> Or some other creative form of fire, Failing that step two is drown them if they can. Although the use of honey that one time in the insect infested jungle was kinda sadistic.

Scow2
2013-04-02, 05:41 PM
He says he's giving the second edition rule, what are these "skill ranks" of which you speak and how do they relate to non-weapon proficiencies?

Now, if for some reason you're discussing third edition, then I'll REPEAT, the spell is quite explicit that you must make a check at the SAME DC as required to make the item without the spell. And since these items are IMPOSSIBLE to make to the required tolerances without precision manufacturing gear not available to people at a flintlock era tech level it simply can't be done in third edition either.

There's nothing in ANY version of fabricate which says or implies that it can make things you couldn't make without the spell, in fact every version is the clear that you need the skills to make the items without the spell prior to being able to make them with the spell. Fabricate is intended purely as a time-savings method (and useful only as trap fodder in building the Tippyverse or as an infinite money machine if used with wall of iron).

You can't make this type of gun without Fabricate. One person with the available tools and parts (and you need the components) can't make it at all in D&D land.

Fabricate is thus no help at all at making this kind of gun. Doesn't matter if you're using craft weapon, craft precision manufacturing, or craft gunsmith. With any of them you have to hit DC "impossible" to even try with the spell. And it stays DC "impossible" till someone (with or without the spell) hits on things like "craft lathe" and "craft crucible for steel manufacture".You grossly underestimate what kind of machining tech was available in the middle ages. Lathes, files, steel crucibles, and drills were available during these ages, as were measuring standards (Although they were only 'standard' to the craftsman). The only reason it doesn't have a craft DC is because it's not a listed item. It doesn't mean it wouldn't have one if someone were to discover how to theoretically craft such an item.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-04-02, 06:50 PM
I was really hoping that this was some sort of "if you give a mouse a cookie..." chain of RPG jokes. :smallfrown:

In any case, as a rough estimate of how hard it should be to make such an item, and how expensive it should be, work out how much it would be as a magic item.

(Also, I have to agree that you've made guns ridiculously overpowerful. No wonder your players want a machine gun, if the basic musket does 10d8)

Deophaun
2013-04-02, 06:53 PM
Also, remember that in a magic-based setting physics simply does not work as it does in the real world. If alchemy works then chemistry does not, pretty much by definition!
But if chemistry doesn't work, neither does biology...

Beleriphon
2013-04-02, 07:14 PM
But if chemistry doesn't work, neither does biology...

Not the current processes of biology as we understand them at any rate. Aristotle and Plato had very clear ideas about how biology worked, but they aren't exactly compatible with the modern concepts related to biology.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-02, 07:39 PM
But if chemistry doesn't work, neither does biology...

D&D biology is clearly very different, as are the laws of physics.

Waspinator
2013-04-02, 07:46 PM
If fire-breathing dragons can exist and not die instantly in an anti-magic field, then D&D physics obviously does not follow real life. Heck, the whole "positive energy" thing is a pretty big piece of evidence for D&D biology being fundamentally different.

And that's fine. Part of fantasy is suspension of disbelief. For the game to work though, the players and DMs have to have the same expectations about this kind of stuff. If the players don't want to be at a low tech level and are trying to advance it, they are obviously not wanting to play the same game as the DM. Which is kind of a problem.

This is probably a problem best solved by talking it out with them. If you have to force it though, my suggestion would be to full-blown silly fake physics. I like blaming phlogiston. "Obviously, the combustion of gunpowder puts phlogiston into the surrounding air. Too much phlogiston inhibits combustion, so you have to wait for it to clear."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

scurv
2013-04-02, 09:21 PM
Naw, it is the typical give them an inch and they will try for a mile.



If the players don't want to be at a low tech level and are trying to advance it, they are obviously not wanting to play the same game as the DM. Which is kind of a problem
Although explain that leap of logic please? I got two very self entitled players in our group that, One of them is self entitled to the point where I have to wonder if their is a DSM classification for it yet.

Although I did some comparisons and the damage dice represent the power increase of bows to guns. But meh It is how this campaign is being ran, Otherwise from what i have read there is no realistic reason to use flintlocks when compared to more reliable weapons like the bow and arrow. And both players and DM in this campaign setting agree'ed on that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy


http://historum.com/war-military-history/37754-kinetic-energy-ancient-modern-weapons.html

http://pages.sssnet.com/go2erie/muzzle.htm

Alejandro
2013-04-02, 11:27 PM
Otherwise from what i have read there is no realistic reason to use flintlocks when compared to more reliable weapons like the bow and arrow

An incredibly large number of Native Americans would disagree with you, in their time. :)

Blightedmarsh
2013-04-02, 11:56 PM
One of the big problems with early firearms was the lack of butt and fore sights. You did not aim the thing so much as point it in the general direction.
The Japanese where early adopters of sights and so had an increase in accuracy. Rifling techniques where also used to increase accuracy but where not widely implemented because they slowed down the rate of fire.

Rate of fire could be increased using muliballs and/or paper cartridges. Some early cannons where breach loading (before they started using cast cannons) so their is precedent.

Then there is magic to conciser. A little spark or flame catnip or enchantment could be used to ignite the powder, getting rid of the rigermoral of the pan and lock; this would increase reliability as well as the reloading rate.

scurv
2013-04-03, 05:31 AM
An incredibly large number of Native Americans would disagree with you, in their time. :)

That statement is based on the damage die used for said fire arms. That is why I changed the die for this campaign.

And if you are going to quote me, Quote to maintain context please.


Although I did some comparisons and the damage dice represent the power increase of bows to guns. But meh It is how this campaign is being ran, Otherwise from what i have read there is no realistic reason to use flintlocks when compared to more reliable weapons like the bow and arrow. And both players and DM in this campaign setting agree'ed on that

Emmerask
2013-04-03, 07:55 AM
Flintlock Muskets are not really better in any regard for heroes, scurv is correct there I think.

The advantage of muskets over crossbows comes from faster reload times (compared to similar age similar range crossbows),
the ease of creating ammunition that has similar flight characteristics compared to crossbow bolts which are harder to mass produce.

And of course that you can take pretty much anyone, give them a day of training and they will do okay on the battlefield with a musket (same with crossbows) unlike a bow which takes years to masters.

scurv
2013-04-03, 08:32 AM
Let us look at the bottom line.

A full round to load a weapon that does 2d10 anything damage? Is it worth it? meh not so much when I know I got my trusty long bow that can give me at least 1d8 Every round.

Crossbows tend to be slow to reload and fairly strength intensive, or time intensive with a crank.

muskets, They can be problematic with aim, But they do massive damage. Even if they have a short range, fair odds of not even fireing and such.

Consider the damage this can cause when traveling at a speed that is comparable to the one fourth to near speed of sound. There was a reason why historically people upgraded to fire arms, And right now I got a group that I am looking foward to watching them learn the basic's of artillery tactics, Something that when it came out changed how war was fought.

These are made of lead
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/attachments/military-battlefield-relics/410526d1332426309-musket-balls-dscn70020019.jpg

Alejandro
2013-04-03, 08:40 AM
For a small group of adventurers, no, it's often not worth it for them to use an early firearm over a bow. But that's only because adventurers are usually hardened combat professionals, with extensive and varied experience under fire, engaging enemies that usually outnumber them, usually at close range, multiple times a day.

In that sort of setup, of course they'll choose a bow. It's quicker to reload and fire, and they get to gloss over the STR requirements and years of training to actually get good at archery.

Firearms took over in the real world because (as some have already said) they were easier to teach to random people, they could (eventually) be made much faster than bows and arrows of military quality, and they were just as lethal, if you hit something, especially when hundreds of people fire them together. However, a D&D party isn't militia or even line infantry, and they don't fight days long battles in formation with others, so the math benefits the bow for them :)

Doug Lampert
2013-04-03, 12:48 PM
You grossly underestimate what kind of machining tech was available in the middle ages. Lathes, files, steel crucibles, and drills were available during these ages, as were measuring standards (Although they were only 'standard' to the craftsman). The only reason it doesn't have a craft DC is because it's not a listed item. It doesn't mean it wouldn't have one if someone were to discover how to theoretically craft such an item.

And interchangable parts meant that you refiled the peice by hand till it fit.

We're talking tollerances of 0.01" or BETTER here, the middle ages could not come close. The 18th century couldn't manage it and there were people who knew EXACTLY what was needed.

JusticeZero
2013-04-03, 12:48 PM
I was amused by the World Tree dodge here.
Every fire is associated with the Fire God.
Explosions are intense, short-lived fires.
Anything that creates a lot of intense fires will draw the attention of the Fire God.
The city you are in might not survive a visit by the Fire God, regardless of how happy said God may be about the toy that caught it's attention.

Blightedmarsh
2013-04-03, 01:26 PM
You might as well call it summon divine flaming nuke...
Seriously they will do it on purpose if that is the expected result.

Deepbluediver
2013-04-03, 03:08 PM
Eh. I'd let them try. Figure attempting a modern-style weapon with flintlock-era gunsmithing and powder blending understanding gives you about a 50/50 of hopelessly fouling the weapon after a shot or two or of having it explode in their hands. Good times either way >.>

Still reading my way through the thread, so if some one already mentioned this, then I apologize.

My understanding of blackpowder gun-powder is that if you tried firing a modern machine gun using bullets loaded with that, you might MIGHT get all the way through a single clip before the gun was so jammed up it needed to be completely dissasembled and cleaned before it could be fired again. (so basically, what the above poster said, but worse)

Smokeless gunpowder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokeless_powder) seems like it would be much most chemically (alchemicaly?) complex, and more difficult to manufacture.

It seems like that given the level of technology, the best your players could hope to achieve for rapid-fire technology would be a primitive gatling gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun). Which would be powerful as compared to swords and shields, but not much more powerful, I think, than a few well-placed fireballs, and certainly less stealthy and manuverable.

scurv
2013-04-03, 06:19 PM
I did a few trial combat rounds with the campaign rules i am using. For the most part if you keep a cleric near you, you can manage quite well (Due to cap put on how far your hp's can go in neg, and the two round limit to get you healed)

This set up also gives fair leveling of the playing field between high level and low-level combatants. But as I told the players that is a two way street. Although a lower level will still have a far less odds of getting a hit. But when the players are getting to mid to upper levels, Level 3 mooks will still be a threat, And that is something I do like.

As for mr gimmy trying to make a M1-carbine I do not see that in the future. The materials required would require a land based lab and much precision expertise...and in this case I try not to drift to far away from historical models.

But as a whole, I do tend to forbid enchanting tech. Just my thing. But besides Would you want a bullet enchanted with say....Fireball having to make a save in your gun every time you pulled the trigger? And i try to keep magic lowish in my campaigns. There is nothing I hate more then the words "Just another wizard"

As a note, I do not permit profit from meta gaming. It is one of the few times I will interfere with the players control of their char. So anything more then the players arranging how their chars will meet or deal with something is over the line.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-03, 11:46 PM
An incredibly large number of Native Americans would disagree with you, in their time. :)

Actually, the American Revolution's leaders at one point seriously considered using bows and arrows, since firearms were expensive and the revolution was dirt-poor until they got the French to finance it.

SowZ
2013-04-04, 01:18 AM
Actually, the American Revolution's leaders at one point seriously considered using bows and arrows, since firearms were expensive and the revolution was dirt-poor until they got the French to finance it.

It would have been suicide, though, because one of the US greatest advantages against the British was superior firearms, even if they had fewer of them.

Deepbluediver
2013-04-04, 08:10 AM
Actually, the American Revolution's leaders at one point seriously considered using bows and arrows, since firearms were expensive and the revolution was dirt-poor until they got the French to finance it.


It would have been suicide, though, because one of the US greatest advantages against the British was superior firearms, even if they had fewer of them.

Well, the version of events that I heard was that was using bows and arrows was proposed by Ben Franklin (smart guy, but a little off his rocker). He also wanted the national bird to be a turkey, FYI.

It was considered, yes, but dismissed because skilled bow manufacturers where even rarer than gunsmiths amongst the colonists.

Also also, from what I've read, many of the revolutionaries where using old, out of date firearms, but because they used them pretty much every day for hunting and defense against wild animals, they where better marksmen, even if they where crappy soldiers.

Alejandro
2013-04-04, 08:46 AM
It was Franklin who proposed it, but he later withdrew the idea as there weren't sufficient bows and bowyers available.

The Americans actually lost most of the actual, lets-fight battles with the British. However, they won through very skilled guerrilla warfare and simply making the war too expensive and long for England. :) I've actually heard pointed out to students that there are a few eerie similarities between the Americans and the Afghanis, in how they fought their wars against foreign powers.

JusticeZero
2013-04-04, 08:55 AM
Ben Franklin (smart guy, but a little off his rocker) also wanted the national bird to be a turkey, FYI.Partly because America is a bit of a running joke with some tribes because any country to put a *gag* EAGLE as their mascot is obviously not getting far. At the very least they don't actually look at birds. I mean, why not chose a Vulture? Those are at least a bit cleaner than an Eagle. Eagles are the smelly and filthy things that fight with each other over rotting garbage heaps. Just about any bird would be less ridiculous than an eagle. Turkey, Robin, Blue Jay, Dove, there's no shortage of inspiring birds. But an eagle??? lol.

Scow2
2013-04-04, 09:44 AM
An incredibly large number of Native Americans would disagree with you, in their time. :)By the time Native Americans had access to guns, we were far beyond 'early' firearms.

Alejandro
2013-04-04, 09:49 AM
I was referring to what the OP had said about flintlocks. Native Americans began acquiring and learning them (matchlocks) as early as the mid 15th century, from the Spanish.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-04, 10:48 AM
why not chose a Vulture?

Eagles are majestic and beautiful, and were used as a symbol by a number of successful groups like the Romans.

Vultures eat corpses after battles and are associated with amoral opportunism.

Premier
2013-04-04, 12:54 PM
Eagles are majestic and beautiful, and were used as a symbol by a number of successful groups like the Romans.

This is the answer right here.


Vultures eat corpses after battles

So do eagles, actually. There's a reason why the Norse had "feeding the eagles" as a kenning for "battle".


and are associated with amoral opportunism.

And in a fair world so would be eagles.

Squark
2013-04-04, 01:10 PM
Eagles are majestic and beautiful, and were used as a symbol by a number of successful groups like the Romans.

Vultures eat corpses after battles and are associated with amoral opportunism.

Missing a lot of the symbolism here. Franklin wanted the Turkey Vulture (Actually, Wikipedia says he wanted the Wild Turkey, not a vulture at all). as the national bird, not just a random vulture. Why did he want it? It's an intelligent bird, reasonably clean, and doesn't have pretentious symbolism attached to it. The Eagle? This is the bird of kings. And Franklin was not exactly big on Kings. Most of the Founding Fathers weren't.


On Bows, Crossbows, and Muskets for adventures: Ultimately, depends on the character. A brief pro and cons discussion for each

Advantages of the Longbow: Excellent armor penetration (English Longbows were more than capable of plowing through a knight's plate armor and pinning him to the ground), Good rate of fire, and they quickly picked up a reputation, making English Longbowmen some of the most feared troops of their era. An archery barrage was essentially the first look the world got at what modern infantry experience during an artillery shelling.
Disadvantages of the Longbow: Archery is a very taxing skill, both mentally and intellectually (Ballistics for a bow are a lot more complex than firing a crossbow or musket). Archers needed to be at the peek of their physical ability to manage the draw (There's a reason Herakles was considered the greatest archer of Greek mythology; Noone else could actually manage the draw on his bow). Bows similarly require fletchers and bowyers of high skill, and specific qualities in wood; what ultimately ended the British use of the longbow was not the fact that firearms were better weapons, it's that they'd run out of yew they needed to make their bows. Furthermore, it's not the sort of thing you can teach a conscript; an Archer needs to be trained from an early age.

Crossbow Advantages: Requires less constant exertion than a Longbow, since once the string is pulled back it's held their until it releases (or it snaps, which is admittedly a concern. But no less so than for a bow, As far as I know). Also, easier to teach people to aim, since you don't have to deal with the arc nearly as much.
Crossbow Disadvantages: Doesn't do arced fire well at all, so you miss out on the artillery barrage of the longbow. It also takes forever to reload, and you have the issues of bowstrings snapping

Firearm advantages: Aiming is a relatively simple affair; Point and shoot, with some adjustments for distance needed. They're also loud and can terrify undisciplined enemies. The only real strength issues for the wielder are carrying the supplies (Bullets and powder kegs are heavy, after all), and the recoil. And keep in mind muzzle velocity back then was a fraction of what it is today, which means proportionately less recoil.
Disadvantages: Musket balls are not the most aerodynamic of projectiles. They also have less mass than arrows and crossbow bolts, which hurts penetrating power and lethality (The term bullet proof comes from the fact that when you went to purchase armor, you'd check for the bullet marks from where the armorer had shot it to make sure he'd done his job. Firearms were not the armor-piercing sticks of death some people think they were). Black powder is unreliable, tends to explode, and doesn't work well in the rain (to be fair, neither do bowstrings). Catastrophic failure is also more likely to claim the life of the wielder.

In short, for a party of adventurers who tend to have a considerable amount of training and resources, and are generally in good physical shape... The bow is probably their weapon of choice. Firearms only really started approaching modern levels of lethality during the 19th century, around the time rifles improved, mass production became feasible, the bullet was invented, and the deployment of automatic weapons in large numbers became practical. And many of the fatalities were still on the operating table and afterwords, not from the battle itself. Let's be clear here; Pre-Modern era, the majority of military fatalities happened off the battlefield, not on it.

Blightedmarsh
2013-04-04, 01:45 PM
Advantages of the Longbow: Excellent armor penetration (English Longbows were more than capable of plowing through a knight's plate armor and pinning him to the ground), Good rate of fire, and they quickly picked up a reputation, making English Longbowmen some of the most feared troops of their era. An archery barrage was essentially the first look the world got at what modern infantry experience during an artillery shelling.

Not quite true. Good steal plate is resistant to longbow fire, particularly at range. What happened at Agincourt was the french had to drop visors, close ranks and cross muddy ground slowly. By the time they reached English lines they where tired, encumbered, demoralized and too tightly packed for their numbers to tell. They faced unencumbered and comparatively fresh English archers armed with a variety of smashy implements and arms freakishly over muscled by years of archery (seriously you can tell a longbowmans skeleton my the massive muscle attachment scaring on his left arm).

Another often unmentioned drawback is that due to all this archery we started to run out of good yew trees in England during the Tudor period.


In short, for a party of adventurers who tend to have a considerable amount of training and resources, and are generally in good physical shape... The bow is probably their weapon of choice. Firearms only really started approaching modern levels of lethality during the 19th century, around the time rifles improved, mass production became feasible, the bullet was invented, and the deployment of automatic weapons in large numbers became practical. And many of the fatalities were still on the operating table and afterwords, not from the battle itself. Let's be clear here; Pre-Modern era, the majority of military fatalities happened off the battlefield, not on it

And the rout. Premodern routs where exceptionally bloody affairs. Planners gave little thought to defeat so often they left little to no room for retreat, further more the lack of planing and the unpredictable nature of moral meant that retreats tended to dissolve in to a disorganized mess with be every man for himself.

Alejandro
2013-04-04, 03:23 PM
Plate armor gets a rap it doesn't deserve. Even heavy cavalry in the 18th century still wore back and breast steel armor, usually with a 'proving mark' where a pistol had been fired at it. If it penetrated, the armor was melted and done over again.

Low velocities often meant failure to penetrate. The rider would still be hurt from it, like a modern person having a big bruise or bone fracture under the kevlar vest, but they lived to fight.

Cealocanth
2013-04-04, 06:43 PM
So they want to try to make a fully automatic machine gun using 16-17th century technology (assuming this is Golden Age of Piracy themed). That would mean contemporary weaponry of the time were muskets and pistols that resemble flintlocks. You had a choice of matchlock weaponry, which is extremely unwieldy, heavy, and not all that accurate. You also have wheellock weapons which are slightly faster to reload, lighter, but in the end, not any more powerful. Semi-automatic, let alone automatics, were just a dream at the time. Weapons were fairly accurate at short ranges due to rifling, but when you take pistols into account, you don't get much help from such a short barrel. They also took a lot longer to reload than 2 rounds to reload. A highly trained and practiced individual could reload a pistol in about 30 seconds, which is akin to 5 rounds. 1 minute for muskets and rifles. Also bear in mind they had mounted weaponry (http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/weapons/Doublehackbut.html) that could pack quite a punch as well.

In other words, they have a variety of tools they could use, but let them know that even taking magic into account, automatic weaponry is about a century away. Maybe that's the quest though. You could have your players go on a journey to unlock the secrets of automatic weapons, hidden away by an ancient and technologically advanced race. Or you could encourage them to try to improve bullets instead (perhaps by making them into explosives, incendiaries, or high velocity). With magic, that technology isn't far away.

Deffers
2013-04-04, 09:16 PM
Or, hell, just store thirty matchlocks in the astral plane and then have your wizard make contingency spells to have a fresh one teleport to your hand after the old one's been fired.

Scurv, try and tell me with a straight face that a pirate lord with a wizard to do that for him wouldn't be the best friggin' boss battle ever.

SowZ
2013-04-05, 12:27 AM
Well, the version of events that I heard was that was using bows and arrows was proposed by Ben Franklin (smart guy, but a little off his rocker). He also wanted the national bird to be a turkey, FYI.

It was considered, yes, but dismissed because skilled bow manufacturers where even rarer than gunsmiths amongst the colonists.

Also also, from what I've read, many of the revolutionaries where using old, out of date firearms, but because they used them pretty much every day for hunting and defense against wild animals, they where better marksmen, even if they where crappy soldiers.

It was around the Revolutionary war time that the USA really started taking advantage of rifling techniques. We outdid the British in this area. Even a crappy old hunting rifle with solid rifling outdid the guns of the British and it was what made our guerilla warfare possible in a number of instances. We could shoot them from farther away then they could shoot us and then run away before they closed ranged, because our bullets travelled accurately farther.

The US didn't win against every conceivable odd, as some portray it, (I am not saying you portrayed it that way or said anything inaccurate, btw,) but instead had a number of advantages. The odds were against the US, sure, and they fought a hungrier and colder battle. But they had good rifles which really leveled the playing field.

Jay R
2013-04-05, 12:01 PM
Or, hell, just store thirty matchlocks in the astral plane and then have your wizard make contingency spells to have a fresh one teleport to your hand after the old one's been fired.

Scurv, try and tell me with a straight face that a pirate lord with a wizard to do that for him wouldn't be the best friggin' boss battle ever.

The same wizard could do more damage with the same contingency spells lobbing fireballs and lightning bolts. My favorite stunt in a ship battle is a Gust of Wind followed instantly by a Lightning Bolt across the water.

The Gust of Wind rolls the ship away from me briefly, so the lightning hits the ship on a spot that's was underwater a moment ago, and again a moment later.

Voila - ten foot hole below the waterline.

Deffers
2013-04-05, 02:48 PM
Yeah, true... but maybe you want to keep the boat instead of blowing a hole in it. Or maybe your pirate lord boss is an ignorant jerk who just wants to fire, like, a billion bullets without stopping to reload, and if you don't use at least some of your contingency spells on that he gets ornery.

Slipperychicken
2013-04-05, 03:55 PM
The Gust of Wind rolls the ship away from me briefly, so the lightning hits the ship on a spot that's was underwater a moment ago, and again a moment later.


Sounds like there's a little problem with the spell's strength.


Large or larger creatures may move normally within a gust of wind effect.

As long as the ship is larger and possesses greater stability than a wild horse, it should be unaffected.

magwaaf
2013-04-30, 11:15 PM
patfhinder handles guns nicely.

flintlock 1d8 x4 20' range inc.

and any gunsmithing is handled by the feat "gunsmithing"

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/gunsmithing

Beleriphon
2013-05-01, 08:39 AM
If you want an idea as to how a war would play out using semi-modern weapons read 1631 (awesome book about an American town from 2001 that gets dumped into 1631). One of the things that keeps getting pointed out is that the best that the Americans can do with their modern machine shop is produce weapons from the mid to late 1800s. So single action revolvers and repeating rifles are doable on a regular basis for them, which is so much better than the arquebuses that the locals are using.

There's even a point when a German mercenary regiment gets outfitted with pump action shotguns firing solid slugs. They love the things since they can fire seven times in thirty seconds and reload seven rounds in the same time period as the other guys can fire at most three times. They don't even bother to aim the guns since the volume to fire is so much higher it doesn't matter. That doesn't even get into when one guy breaks out a M-60.

Lord Torath
2013-05-01, 08:40 AM
Sounds like there's a little problem with the spell's strength.

The Gust of Wind rolls the ship away from me briefly, so the lightning hits the ship on a spot that's was underwater a moment ago, and again a moment later.
As long as the ship is larger and possesses greater stability than a wild horse, it should be unaffected.True, but a horse is not specifically designed to be pushed by the wind. A boat, with those huge sails, is specifically designed to be pushed around by the wind. I'd allow it in my campaign. (I'd also allow it to affect any winged flying creatures, regardless of size.)

FlyingScanian
2013-05-01, 05:15 PM
If you want an idea as to how a war would play out using semi-modern weapons read 1631 (awesome book about an American town from 2001 that gets dumped into 1631). One of the things that keeps getting pointed out is that the best that the Americans can do with their modern machine shop is produce weapons from the mid to late 1800s. So single action revolvers and repeating rifles are doable on a regular basis for them, which is so much better than the arquebuses that the locals are using.


Small correction: not repeating rifles (incidentaly, it's the french who manage the closest, basically a copy of the Sharp's Carbine), but rather flintlock rifles firing minié balls (as compared to smoothbore matchlocks). The reason: percussion caps, and the availability of ammunition. If your army uses repeating rifles, and you run out of your own ammo, you're simply SOL. If you're using flintlocks, the enemy supplies are still useable to you (not as good, but useable), and your rifles are still a gun instead of an intricately machined but unbalanced club.

Jay R
2013-05-02, 01:04 PM
As long as the ship is larger and possesses greater stability than a wild horse, it should be unaffected.

A sailing ship.

Unaffected.

By wind.

OK, that concept is going to take me awhile to process.

OF COURSE it's less stable than a horse. It's not standing on the ground on four legs; it's floating on top of the sea, and has large sheets out for the specific purpose of catching the wind to move the ship.

Gavinfoxx
2013-05-02, 01:28 PM
A sailing ship.

Unaffected.

By wind.

OK, that concept is going to take me awhile to process.

OF COURSE it's less stable than a horse. It's not standing on the ground on four legs; it's floating on top of the sea, and has large sheets out for the specific purpose of catching the wind to move the ship.

This, totally this!