Guns in my Campaign

[Houndour]

Ok so one of my players and a friend of mine loves guns, He plays with us in D&D and PF but his favorite is Modern or Future RPs and he loves to be the guy wielding the gun even if the guns are not exactly a big benefit.

Is there any way to incorporate semi modern firearms into a campaign without throwing all balance and reasoning out the window?

I know the DMG in 3.5 has guns stated out and PF of course has the Gunslinger and what not.

But what should I do to help him get enjoyment out of this campaign to come. I know he likes the more future fantasy feel of things like Shadowrun except none of us have Shadowrun to play.

Can anyone help?

[Sir Chuckles]

Look to Pathfinder, young padawan (Sorry, doing laundry, wearing an old robe).

Look at the various early firearms that they have, muskets, single shot pistols, etc.
It introduces better and more diverse rules than what the DMG has. You can pick and choose what weapons are available. You don't even have to allow the Gunslinger class, just Exotic Weapon Prof (Whatever Gun) and the Gunsmith feat.

[Crake]

There's plenty of material out there for gun users, but it really depends on your campaign setting and whether or not you want guns thematically in your campaign.

[Houndour]

He has tried the gunslinger before and liked it pretty well.
But I am curious though what would a gun such as a WWII issue gun or something similar appearing in the campaign?

I don't mind giving access to the Revolver or the Rifle since we are gonna start at a slightly higher level roughly 8-10 I have not nailed it down.

[Lanaya]

Really, a gun isn't that big a balance issue, at least in an adventuring party. At level 8-10 most enemies can take a greatsword to the face from the strongest human to have ever lived in our world without so much as flinching, a few bullet holes is not going to be a tremendous problem. I'd just make them bows with different stats. Maybe bump the damage die up a step or two and use different/better reloading rules at the cost of removing the ability to add strength to damage via composite bows, it's all you really need.

[Houndour]

I was thinking of this.
The 'Machine Gun' deals 3d4s maybe 4d4s since a Rifle is a 1d10.
x3 for Crit but maybe if it is used for a second shot (Using the two weapon fighting style rules) he increases his change for a weapon jam from 1 to 1-4 or each shot is rolled at a 20% chance of weapon jam.

[The Insanity]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/firearms/modern-firearms

[unseenmage]

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/firearms/modern-firearms

Additionally Dragon Magazine #321 page 30 has an excellent article which expands on the firearms in the SRD D&D 3.5 DMG page 145. I don't know how it compares to Pathfinder's take on firearms but for 3.x it's a nice expansion of options.

[The Insanity]

There are firearms rules in the SRD?

[unseenmage]

There are firearms rules in the SRD?

Evidently not. Guess I meant '...the DMG...'. My bad.

[Juntao112]

There are firearms rules in the SRD?

Why yes. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/burningHands.htm)

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

I've recently faced a similar issue in my own campaign (see the first link in my signature), and settled on this:

All non-proficiency penalties for gunpowder-using weapons are doubled.
Individuals proficient in firearm weapons but who do not have Grit, whether by class feature or feat, suffer standard non-proficiency penalties for gunpowder weapons.
Misfire chances for non-Grit-possessing individuals are doubled.
Mages have created and widely distributed spells specifically designed to a) locate at Extreme (800 + 80 ft/level) range and b) detonate at Long range any amount of gunpowder. These spells are so widely distributed that they are automatic in spellbooks for any spell-memorizing class that can cast them.


This keeps firearms around in the world, but keeps them uncommon and unlikely to overwhelm the rest of the world as they develop further. I do intend on them developing further, from flintlock and percussion-cap rifles into revolvers, pump- and lever-action longarms, and perhaps even up to gatling-style guns. However, because they are hideously dangerous unless you happen to have a PC class (as it were), they'll develop slowly, and never have the same massive effect on the world that firearms have IRL.

[The Insanity]

IRL bows are much harder to use and there's no magic.

[ShurikVch]

IIRR, Dragon #277 had a lot of pseudo-modern (Dwarven Firearms) and futuristic weapons

[prufock]

Step 1: Take stats for different-sized crossbows.
Step 2: Call them guns.

Fluff, fluff, fluff!

[Houndour]

I've recently faced a similar issue in my own campaign (see the first link in my signature), and settled on this:

All non-proficiency penalties for gunpowder-using weapons are doubled.
Individuals proficient in firearm weapons but who do not have Grit, whether by class feature or feat, suffer standard non-proficiency penalties for gunpowder weapons.
Misfire chances for non-Grit-possessing individuals are doubled.
Mages have created and widely distributed spells specifically designed to a) locate at Extreme (800 + 80 ft/level) range and b) detonate at Long range any amount of gunpowder. These spells are so widely distributed that they are automatic in spellbooks for any spell-memorizing class that can cast them.


This keeps firearms around in the world, but keeps them uncommon and unlikely to overwhelm the rest of the world as they develop further. I do intend on them developing further, from flintlock and percussion-cap rifles into revolvers, pump- and lever-action longarms, and perhaps even up to gatling-style guns. However, because they are hideously dangerous unless you happen to have a PC class (as it were), they'll develop slowly, and never have the same massive effect on the world that firearms have IRL.

How are you still alive? I know players who would have stomped their DM in the head if he tried any of that.
So even if a player pays a Feat tax of Proficiency in Firearms you ignore that if they don't pay a second Feat for Grit features? So you waste their feats.. good way to tick someone off.

You make it so that a level 1 mage can rape a 20th level character at will from a range that they could not possibly ever know it was coming thus auto killing characters? 880 ft for a first level mage to know where you are and to explode you at will makes Mages GOD in a RP no one would ever play a gun toting character since they are auto killed at DM say so.
"You walk into town and bob the gunslinger erupts into a massive explosion as a pimply faced mage on the other side of town several blocks away detonates his black powder horn. Roll me a Reflex to see how many of you die with bob"

Their guns even if they have payed the feat cost are twice as likely to misfire? When Grit is used to more often then not clear a misfire? This seems again like a penalty for the sake of penalty and is unfair unless you are also penalizing a mage with a Zeus cannon overhead that can fire down a beam of pure energy to nova them at will.

I get your ideas and they are not exactly bad but they seem like you imposed a lot of penalties that require twice if not more times the feat or class tax then a spellcaster who can play god.

[killem2]

If they want to play guns, I would DM fiat a time traveler who has been slung far far back, and his fleet cargo planes of ammo and modern guns :).

Plan exploded in mid air throwing hundreds of thousands of different guns and such across the land scape, and those just happen to be available at intervals.

That way he can keep up a lot better with spell casters and normal archery


Maybe 3-4 of these:

http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/26077/0x0/antonov225.jpg

[TrollCapAmerica]

I still seriously advocate using the old 2nd edition Combat and Tactics book for the best set of firearms rules written in D&D history and which can easily be transferred into 3.5 without losing a step.Hell all the weapon rules in that book are great

Ok now that being said heres somethings to keep in mind

1 IRL firearms didnt singlehandedly end a beautiful awesome era of knights and chivalry.They were basically better crossbows that punched through armor with about the same slow rate of fire.It was just easier to outfit a bunch of conscripts with guns than ti was to spend a lifetime training an archer or the same lifetime AND a fortune equipping a knight

2 Firearms are cheap.Gunpowder is cheap to make and bullets take a good bit less effort than making perfectly aerodynamic arrows.Making them pricy as a balancing mechanism is pointless

3 Because of how D&D mechanics work they will become sub-par weapons as you level up.This is why they dont require massive feat taxes or specialized balancing mechanics

4 The gunslinger class is gimmicky

[Houndour]

This is gonna be a Gestalt game, he will likely have a normal class combined with it something like Warblade I bet so I am just needing help with which rules to use for guns. I will look into 2nd Edition rules for that as well. Thanks for the advice.

Guns are idiot proof, look at all the deaths of children who play with them its why we see so many Gun toys for kids, it takes skill and training to use a sword properly so his post about extensive feat costs and basically being killed at will by any npc made no sense to me.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

How are you still alive? I know players who would have stomped their DM in the head if he tried any of that.
Oh, please. Despite gunpowder weapons existing from the first (Murylund, a Boot Hill character that Gygax & Co. converted to a mage in Greyhawk), gunpowder rules are a clear add-on to the swords-and-sorcery that's the root of fantasy RP. Because (at least with AD&D and its offshoots) they are primarily rule-add-ons, what gunpowder development means in a fantasy world is rarely examined with any sort of competence. TrollCapAmerica fumbles a little in discussing it, but the essense of his statements are true.

Firearms are incredibly easy to use. Combat discipline takes more training, but the use of the weapon itself is something that can be shown to a peasant in a matter of minutes, hours at the most. Conversely, it used to be said (with a great deal of truth) that if you want to train a good longbowman, you need to start with his grandfather.
And yes, crossbows are virtually guns-without-gunpowder - there was a reason they got banned by the Catholic church. But the Church's power was being broken by the Reformation during the development of gunpowder weapons in Europe, and so they didn't have the same sort of power to ban firearms - which meant they got developed, ironically with the encouragement of the Church this time, in order to to fight against the Lutherans ...

While the weapons themselves start out difficult to build, the ammuntion (both powder and shot) is incredibly, incredibly easy to assemble once you know how.


As a consequence of the above, as a weapon that takes little skill, is cheap to produce and even mass-produce, there needs to be a reason for it to have not yet taken over the world - especially if the weapons have been around for two, four, ten times as long as they have IRL. Magic requires discipline and training; so do edged weapons and standard bows. Arm the peasantry with firearms and you get the potential for revolutions, not to mention the extinction of most of what makes a fantasy campaign fantasy.



So even if a player pays a Feat tax of Proficiency in Firearms you ignore that if they don't pay a second Feat for Grit features? So you waste their feats.. good way to tick someone off.

(Rearranged for clarity of response.)

Their guns even if they have payed the feat cost are twice as likely to misfire? When Grit is used to more often then not clear a misfire? This seems again like a penalty for the sake of penalty and is unfair ...

No, I don't ignore it - not taking the proficiency means even worse penalties to start with. In this campaign, in this world, in order to have fantasy as well, the reason that your standard Simple And Easy To Use firearms haven't taken over the battlefield and the world is because in this world, Firearms Are Friggin' Difficult and Dangerous To Use.

In this world and campaign, if you want to play a Gunslinger, that's great - you have Standard Pathfinder Difficulties with firearms. Even if you want to play a firearm-centric archetype, you're still firing on all cylinders - at least for the most part, 'cause you'll want to take that Grit-giving feat, but then that's easy to do because there are bonus feats being given in the campaign.

What I require for the campaign world is for there to be a reason for firearms to not have taken the battlefield over - or for it to not do so within 500 years, the way they have IRL. Firearms being doubly damn dangerous things is one way I have done this. The other way ...



You make it so that a level 1 mage can rape a 20th level character at will from a range that they could not possibly ever know it was coming thus auto killing characters? 880 ft for a first level mage to know where you are and to explode you at will makes Mages GOD in a RP no one would ever play a gun toting character since they are auto killed at DM say so.

"You walk into town and bob the gunslinger erupts into a massive explosion as a pimply faced mage on the other side of town several blocks away detonates his black powder horn. Roll me a Reflex to see how many of you die with bob"

... unfair unless you are also penalizing a mage with a Zeus cannon overhead that can fire down a beam of pure energy to nova them at will.

First, I said that the spells were widely distributed - but gave no further information. Your presumption that a 1st level mage can casually blow up a 20th level gunslinger is exaggerated and erroneous, not to mention hyperbolic and presumptuous. So do put down your snootiness.

The spotter spell is a modification of the 2nd level Locate Object spell - uncastable by your 1st level mage. The other spell is 4th level version of Flaming Sphere, Reflex save negates (and so does his gunpowder, huh?) damage, a spell that's definitely uncastable by a 1st level mage. Rolling comet is designed against human psychology - people dodge away from a fire coming at them - and is usually used to target large amounts of non-moving gunpowder, i.e. stores in barrels and the like. Even then, the spell(s) need to be directed intelligently, and are not auto-kills; you honestly have barely the slightest amount of information on the spells besides 'they exist'. They're not castable by a large proportion of NPC spellcasters (as the majority of NPC spellcasters never get past 5th or 6th level) - at least in my campaign, which is where these rules are being used.

However, what these spells mean is that a general or warlord is unlikely to risk putting large amounts of firearms into the field, because if the opposition has even only one mage with a fair amount of competence (i.e. 7th level), one of the first things they're going to do is look for gunpowder - because it can be such a huge game-changer - and do their level best to torch the stuff. It isn't snap-the-fingers-and-the-gunslinger-blows-up, even at its worst.

As for the 'Zeus cannon' ...

... I don't even know what to say. Buy a clue, maybe?



I get your ideas and they are not exactly bad but they seem like you imposed a lot of penalties that require twice if not more times the feat or class tax then a spellcaster who can play god.

Again, you presume that a spellcaster is any more 'godlike' than normal over a person who has the feats or the class abilities. How often do your players pick up weapons they don't have proficiency with and use them regularly? How often do they pick up a firearm proficiency and not spend a feat to acquire Grit, which is actually kind of useful? If they're going to go the amateur gunpowder enthusiast route and pick up the two feats that allow them to do it with some competence, they have no problems at all. If they do it half-assed, then they're face with some difficulties and increased danger - but that's what they get for doing it half-assed. It'd be like having a low-strength halfling that specializes in knife-fighting who doesn't get Weapon Finesse.

These penalties are primarily applied to those who don't have the skills (meaning feats) necessary to use the weapons with a high degree of competence - the common man. Even as low-fail cartridge firearms are being developed in the form of revolvers, breech-loaded, and even lever/pump-action longarms, the common man is still going to take terrible penalties for their use, and the weapons themselves are still going to be incredibly dangerous in the hands of someone untrained in the 'mysteries of gunpowder'.

There's no 'double the feats' tax; mistakenly or otherwise, you clearly misread, misunderstood, and misrepresented the information I've given. Take two feats, you have as much competence with firearms as any other character in any other campaign who has those same two feats. Take only one feat, and you're hurting. And if you have no feat, it's best if you just stay away from the damn things.

These penalties are, in my opinion, necessary for all the rest of the trappings of a fantasy world to exist. If you don't like this, well ... don't adopt those rules or play in my campaign.

[AstralFire]

Feats are a purely gameplay abstraction, and there's no particular reason that a single feat should necessarily represent the same amount of in-world effort as another feat. Consider that in-world, it takes much less time to achieve basic competency as a rogue than as a wizard, yet they're both level 1.

[Perturbulent]

If they want to play guns, I would DM fiat a time traveler who has been slung far far back, and his fleet cargo planes of ammo and modern guns :).

Plan exploded in mid air throwing hundreds of thousands of different guns and such across the land scape, and those just happen to be available at intervals.

That way he can keep up a lot better with spell casters and normal archery


Maybe 3-4 of these:

http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/26077/0x0/antonov225.jpg

This.

Consider the advanced firearms to be "magic items" for the purpose of placing them appropriately in wealth by level. Maybe the gun-toting character finds any of these "artifacts" that have been strewn about as a result of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.

Submachine Gun.
deals 8d6 in a 120' line (firing straight on), or 4d6 in a 60' cone (firing in a sickle). Tack on 1d6 damage to anyone between that range and twice that range to represent errant fire if desired. Either of the abilities can be used twice, or each once, daily. (If he is bothered by the daily limit, insist that the magic of this world has a tendency of decomposing the powder in these shells; as a result, he can craft some amount each day for use throughout the day (represented by the 2/day limit)
12000gp (pricing based on 3rd level eternal wands, and taxed for added utility. The effect is similar to a lightning bolt or similar effects)

I'd avoid sniper rifles because they could get hilarious. (assuming they wouldn't be nerfed by never experience relatively open ranges.) Base various rifles on Hank's energy bow for stats. Some of the ideas simply make sense. (maybe adjust the ability to strike incorporeals to overcoming some amount of dr or something)

[JohnDaBarr]

One thing to add here.

Gun's and Crossbows have a lot of a punch therefor me and my group homerule that they ignore armor to some extent depending on the weapon and the armor involved.

Technically that was one of the main reason's they try to ban them, suddenly an army of peasants could kill an army of well trained veteran blue blooded and from God anointed knights.

[The Insanity]

Personally I'd rather houserule crossbows to also hit touch AC than ban or nerf firearms.

As a matter of fact, I think I'm actually going to do it. Thanks JohnDaBarr for bringing that fact to my attention and thus inspiring this houserule.