Homebrew Guns. Should or Should not?

[gc25774]

So I've been wondering how should I take down fighters without using a larger monsters or spamming wizards.
When It hit me. I should add guns. How I got them to work are that they are basically crossbows that cannot work with crossbow feats, dealt twice as much damage then crossbows their size and were ranged touch attacks. As a tradeoff, bullets are much harder to find then the more common bolt. I also allowed crossbow bolts to hit touch rather then full AC.

Rifle (always masterwork)
ranged touch
2d8+1 damage
19-20/x2

Crossbow (Medium)
ranged touch
1d8
19-20/x2

Any other changes I should make?

As an off-question, what level npc's do armies have?

EDIT: End result currently on the Guns.

Musket (always masterwork)
ranged (ignores hardness less then 10)
2d8+1
19-20/x2

Crossbow (Medium)
ranged (ignores hardness less then 5)
1d8
19-20/x2

EDIT: These were added for plot reasons. Not to spite wizard's least favorite class.
EDIT2: Besides Samurai.

[heavyfuel]

Just use Pathfinder rules for guns as they work fine in 3.5

Also, there are many ways to deal with fighters that aren't huge monsters and casters. Somthing like a stronger fighter will also do the job.

[torrasque666]

If I recall correctly, aren't there also rules for guns in the DMG somewhere?

Found them. Approximately page 145 in the DMG.

[Snowbluff]

Yep, DMG. Gun rules. Pistols and everything.

Just use Pathfinder rules for guns as they work fine in 3.5


You're a funny kid.

[heavyfuel]

Yep, DMG. Gun rules. Pistols and everything.


You're a funny kid.

I am aren't I?

Anyway, I had totally forgotten about guns in the DMG. :smallbiggrin:

[Zombimode]

Rifle (always masterwork)
ranged touch
2d8+1 damage
19-20/x2

Crossbow (Medium)
ranged touch
1d8
19-20/x2

Why ranged touch?

[Milodiah]

Why ranged touch?

Hypothetically because of the belief that guns always > medieval armor.

Which isn't necessarily true in actuality, let alone the mithral/dragonscale/+5 super magicalness world of D&D.

[Zombimode]

Not to mention that a ranged touch attack also ignores natural armor and shields.

[Blackhawk748]

I agree with the concept of a touch attack, the problem is is that while it may be easy to hit a Dragon, im pretty sure a bullet wont go through those scales, so in some instances it may need to be tweaked.

[satcharna]

I would suggest that more appropriately the firearm shot should act as a touch attack against any enemy who gains less than X of his AC from shield, armour and natural armour. So for instance, heavy plate would allow you to mitigate some of the damage, while a chain shirt wouldn't. This would also let weaker armour types react realistically, whereas fantasy and superheavy armours would mitigate some damage.

[Slithery D]

So something like Shadowrun's armor piercing mechanic.

[StoneCipher]

You could have different bullets made of different materials and just give certain tough skinned creatures DR to normal bullets.. I'm sure adamantite tipped bullets would have no trouble going through dragon scale.

[satcharna]

You could have different bullets made of different materials and just give certain tough skinned creatures DR to normal bullets.. I'm sure adamantite tipped bullets would have no trouble going through dragon scale.That was why I included natural armour along with equipment armour and shield armour. You can dress up in fancy clothes to mitigate the damage, you can try taking the blast with a shield, or you can trust your thick hide and hard scales to deflect it entirely. I just assumed the firearms would have fancy ammunition options, just like how bows get normal arrows and fancy arrows.

[Milodiah]

You could have different bullets made of different materials and just give certain tough skinned creatures DR to normal bullets.. I'm sure adamantite tipped bullets would have no trouble going through dragon scale.

Or do the inverse and give bullets a small but meaningful bypass of hardness/AC, like the adamantite weapon mechanics, though obviously less extreme.

[satcharna]

Or do the inverse and give bullets a small but meaningful bypass of hardness/AC, like the adamantite weapon mechanics, though obviously less extreme.Indeed, I missed that part of your post. My apologies. It only makes sense that firearms receive speciality ammunition, much like how bows get speciality arrows. I suppose I saw that as an inherent property of projectile weapons in a D&D setting.

[StoneCipher]

Indeed, I missed that part of your post. My apologies. It only makes sense that firearms receive speciality ammunition, much like how bows get speciality arrows. I suppose I saw that as an inherent property of projectile weapons in a D&D setting.

That's true enough, but I don't think WOTC balanced guns to be honest. I think they were just an additional afterthought since they probably assumed that most would not use them. Then again there is d20 modern. :smallamused:

[Fax Celestis]

Honestly, vs Touch doesn't make sense, as your armor will apply but you won't have sufficient reaction time to dodge (without something like Improved Uncanny Dodge, anyway). I would rather say that you should target Flat-Footed AC, though your target isn't considered flat-footed (sorry, rogues) unless they otherwise already would be flat-footed.

[Milodiah]

I assume you're going to be using semi-historically accurate stuff like arquebusses, right?

And to the above, whenever there are dodge mechanics in a game with guns, I always rationalize it as not dodging the bullet, but dodging the shooter. Travel time may be nigh-instantaneous, but aiming can take a few seconds for someone who's not a freaking Navy SEAL.

[StoneCipher]

Honestly, vs Touch doesn't make sense, as your armor will apply but you won't have sufficient reaction time to dodge (without something like Improved Uncanny Dodge, anyway). I would rather say that you should target Flat-Footed AC, though your target isn't considered flat-footed (sorry, rogues) unless they otherwise already would be flat-footed.

I agree with this. Even on a superhuman level, dodging a bullet is tough.

[gc25774]

Alright so according to these changes, I've decided that they ignore armor with a hardness of 10 or below. (unless the ammo material says otherwise.)
Honestly, vs Touch doesn't make sense, as your armor will apply but you won't have sufficient reaction time to dodge (without something like Improved Uncanny Dodge, anyway). I would rather say that you should target Flat-Footed AC, though your target isn't considered flat-footed (sorry, rogues) unless they otherwise already would be flat-footed. About the flat footed statement, I agree but I feel It's about predicting the shooter's shot. I've also decided that crossbows get a similar effect that ignore armor/shields with 5 or less hardness. Sound good?

Rifle (always masterwork)
ranged (ignores hardness 10-)
2d8+1 damage
19-20/x2

Crossbow
ranged (ignores hardness 5-)
1d8
19-20/x2

Bullets
2x material cost of Bolts

EDIT: Forgot alot of things.

[1pwny]

Honestly, vs Touch doesn't make sense, as your armor will apply but you won't have sufficient reaction time to dodge (without something like Improved Uncanny Dodge, anyway).

I totally feel like I have to make a comment about Sword Art Online II, but I'm not going to.

[Milo v3]

I generally use the d20 Modern firearm rules when I put guns into 3.5e. Converting the costs isn't too hard either since there is a table that shows how much each Purchase DC is worth and then you just divide by 20 to get the GP cost.

[Blackhawk748]

I agree with this. Even on a superhuman level, dodging a bullet is tough.

Which is why we dodge the shooter. I think we will all agree dodging a bullet, hell an arrow, is pretty much impossible to dodge. Moving around enough to screw with somebodies shot is a lot easier.

[Snowbluff]

Which is why we dodge the shooter. I think we will all agree dodging a bullet, hell an arrow, is pretty much impossible to dodge. Moving around enough to screw with somebodies shot is a lot easier.

A technique developed by Char Aznable.

[StoneCipher]

Which is why we dodge the shooter. I think we will all agree dodging a bullet, hell an arrow, is pretty much impossible to dodge. Moving around enough to screw with somebodies shot is a lot easier.

Snatch arrow, anyone?

[Milo v3]

Snatch arrow, anyone?

Which does work with bullets :smallbiggrin:

[With a box]

Can I bring a field gun here?
10d6 30feet sphire with reflex half and few mile range maybe

[Seppo87]

Please consider a rock hardness and hit points when determining firearms damage.
You can't dig galleries with an assault rifle.

[Milodiah]

Please consider a rock hardness and hit points when determining firearms damage.
You can't dig galleries with an assault rifle.

Nonsense, with enough bullets anything is possible!

[HaikenEdge]

I like the Modern D20 rules for firearms, so when my players want firearms, I point them in that direction. Touch attack for all ballistic weapons, but all armor (including natural armor and shields) is treated cumulatively as DR; to compensate for the reduced damage (compared to melee combat), massive damage threshold is treated as the target creature's Constitution score.

[VoxRationis]

Firstly, what kind of guns are you going for? Arquebus? Matchlocks? Land Pattern Rifles (a.k.a. the "Brown Bess")? Mauser rifles? Javelins?
Secondly, I'd like to point out that plate armor could deflect bullets for the first few centuries of the history of firearms. For that time, firearms had vastly inferior rates of fire and armor penetration compared with contemporary bows or crossbows. They made the troops difficult to command due to smoke, they (being matchlocks) were nigh-impossible to use in wet conditions, were extremely inaccurate (I personally recommend either putting a cap on attack bonus with early guns or having massive range increment penalties—you can aim dead-on, but there's no way you can account for the bullet's near-random deviation), and were useless without liberal amounts of gunpowder, which was a logistical concern. The only advantages were that they were a) frightening to horses and men not familiar with the weapons; b) easy to train for using, since a few hours of practice could get peasants to be reasonably capable with it in a mass-combat context; c) requiring a minimum of strength to use, compared with bows and Zweihanders and the like.

[Snails]

Should not.

There is an embarrassment of riches in terms of means of hammering the fighters. What exactly is the point of including yet another means that bypasses armor?

Furthermore, the sneaky trick of making the ammo rare reeks of the worst kind of DM cheese. If you are not ashamed of including guns in the your campaign, you should be happy to see a PC stack up Greater Weapon Specialization + Rapid Reload (equivalent) for a gun and blast your dragons to smithereens.

If you are really desperate for a new avenue of attack, you could create magical Greater Alchemist Fire or Acidic Tanglefoot Bags.

I would say it might be interesting to have a special kind of weapon for, say, a secretive evil gnome lair down in the underdark, as a one-off kind of event.

There are some simple psionic builds that provide one big hit with Psionic Weapon (or Greater Psionic Weapon) for lowish level NPCs. It is even possible to make them touch attacks.

[Coidzor]

I'd say no, but if anyone can come up with a way to integrate firearms (and crossbows) that would satisfy me, I might just kiss them.

I want crossbows and guns to work, but they just really don't without a lot of jumping through hoops or kludgery or playing a class dedicated to making them function at all. :/ And I've still not found any decent homebrew, though, admittedly, I haven't mounted an exhaustive search...

So if you decide to, good luck, I hope you succeed.

[Milodiah]

I'd say no, but if anyone can come up with a way to integrate firearms (and crossbows) that would satisfy me, I might just kiss them.

I want crossbows and guns to work, but they just really don't without a lot of jumping through hoops or kludgery or playing a class dedicated to making them function at all. :/ And I've still not found any decent homebrew, though, admittedly, I haven't mounted an exhaustive search...

So if you decide to, good luck, I hope you succeed.

The first step is, naturally they're all exotic weapons unless you happen to have an entire race of magic-shunners who choose technology instead. Which is why my setting's gnomes have Mysorean rockets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysorean_rockets).

[gc25774]

I added guns as a mundane way to harm more heavily armored fighters as armies started getting included in the mix. I'll only making bullets rare at first, not out of fear of incoming homebrew cheese but because these guns won't become the staple weapon for a LONG time. The reasons VoxRationis listed are exactly why it would take this long. I may made a mistake in my original post saying hardness 10 and lower would be affected. I've decided on hardness less then 10 instead. (unless one uses differing materials on the bullets.) These guns were added for plot reasons that will be revealed to the PC's later on.

P.S. Do I really sound that desperate for a solution to fighters?

[StoneCipher]

I don't think you sound desperate, but adding guns to compensate for certain game mechanics is not the way to go. I noted that you added them for plot reasons, and that's fine enough. However, as stated before, there are a myriad of ways to bypass heavily armored foes and you shouldn't need guns for that.

IMO, Guns in the DMG are broken as hell and not worth using. Guns in general are not worth using unless you homebrew a sub-system for firearms mechanics that basically ignores everything WOTC put in the book.

[Jormengand]

Nonsense, with enough bullets anything is possible!

I feel my signature contains an appropriate witticism for the occasion.

[gc25774]

I don't think you sound desperate, but adding guns to compensate for certain game mechanics is not the way to go. I noted that you added them for plot reasons, and that's fine enough. However, as stated before, there are a myriad of ways to bypass heavily armored foes and you shouldn't need guns for that.

IMO, Guns in the DMG are broken as hell and not worth using. Guns in general are not worth using unless you homebrew a sub-system for firearms mechanics that basically ignores everything WOTC put in the book.

Noted. Thanks for all the help guys!

[Kamai]

There is one issue I have about the ability to ignore hardness. It doesn't do anything about natural armor, while a gun that can pierce leather armor should honestly care just about as much (read: not) about the hide of a bear or a wolf.

[VoxRationis]

I'd say no, but if anyone can come up with a way to integrate firearms (and crossbows) that would satisfy me, I might just kiss them.

I want crossbows and guns to work, but they just really don't without a lot of jumping through hoops or kludgery or playing a class dedicated to making them function at all. :/ And I've still not found any decent homebrew, though, admittedly, I haven't mounted an exhaustive search...

So if you decide to, good luck, I hope you succeed.

The thing is that making options for guns and crossbows that make them useful for PCs (who tend to be few in number and rely on personal skill) kind of negates the point of (early) guns and crossbows. Such weapons are meant to eliminate skill in order that masses of cheap, otherwise worthless troops can be effective with them.

[Milodiah]

The thing is that making options for guns and crossbows that make them useful for PCs (who tend to be few in number and rely on personal skill) kind of negates the point of (early) guns and crossbows. Such weapons are meant to eliminate skill in order that masses of cheap, otherwise worthless troops can be effective with them.

Precisely. When the maximum volley you could hypothetically produce is six dudes, you might as well just keep things the same. If you've got 200 newly-levied soldiers shooting down on a fighter trying to scale the walls, that's when you're needing guns.

[Coidzor]

The thing is that making options for guns and crossbows that make them useful for PCs (who tend to be few in number and rely on personal skill) kind of negates the point of (early) guns and crossbows. Such weapons are meant to eliminate skill in order that masses of cheap, otherwise worthless troops can be effective with them.

Sorta missing the point of including them in the main part of game in saying that, though. :smalltongue:

Also, from what I recall, none of the officially presented forms of firearms really provide what you're getting at in system either, so... Yeah... Hell, of the gun homebrew I have run into, that also hasn't been a concern or feature...

edit: Them actually having a purpose in mass combat by RAW would alleviate some of the sting of having them be very wonky when interacting with the main portion of the game, though.

[Invader]

Would it be suitable to say bullets bypass all types of DR but you roll it as a regular attack instead of a touch attack?

[DeAnno]

Honestly, the simple versions in the DMG strike me as better than a bunch of this weird houseruling. Just notch up the damage values, figure out sizes and actions for magazines, and call it a day. There's no reason they need to target special AC or beat DR or anything like that.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Does anyone ever NOT try to introduce gun rules that aren't horrifically unbalanced and overpowered, only to "balance" them by making them "expensive" or "rare" or such? :smallfurious:


The thing is that making options for guns and crossbows that make them useful for PCs (who tend to be few in number and rely on personal skill) kind of negates the point of (early) guns and crossbows. Such weapons are meant to eliminate skill in order that masses of cheap, otherwise worthless troops can be effective with them.

And wow....I actually agree with you for once. Guns didn't become outright better than bows for hundreds of years, they got adopted because they didn't take NEARLY as long to train troops to use or require as much physical strength as a composite bow with a heavy draw weight. They were much slower rate of fire (reloading, specifically), inaccurate, often ineffective at as long a range as bows could volley, and even for a while had issues with stuff like rain (wet gunpowder = SOL). But being able to conscript thousands of people, give them some training in how to load, aim, and fire, and then not care about if their shots were off by 10 ft because they're shooting at an entire army....yeah, way better than needing your soldiers to train with the bow from childhood.

[Seppo87]

Nonsense, with enough bullets anything is possible!
You can dig galleries with enough spoons as well, this doesn't mean a spoon base damage should be higher than a greatsword's

[Yahzi]

The thing people miss about guns is that they are scalable. If they aren't big enough to kill something, you just make them bigger.

About the only siege engine that can be scaled up is the trebuchet, and they're easy to dodge. And even then there is a limit to how big you can make one out of wood.

So in a D&D world there would be a lot of handgonnes, that is, small cannons on tripods that you could blast away at heroes and monsters with. And this is going to be the opposite of fun for your players. If you wanted to play a system where being seen= being dead, you'd be playing GURPS modern.

[Slipperychicken]

Honestly, vs Touch doesn't make sense, as your armor will apply but you won't have sufficient reaction time to dodge (without something like Improved Uncanny Dodge, anyway). I would rather say that you should target Flat-Footed AC, though your target isn't considered flat-footed (sorry, rogues) unless they otherwise already would be flat-footed.

I figure that if a rogue can dodge a 40ft radius explosion centered on his face, he can dodge a bullet too.

[aleucard]

Meh... Just for the sake of boredom, I'll throw in my own idea for how to stat a semi-modern firearm in 3.5, looking at absolutely nothing else. My mental image for the rifle would be something akin to an M1 Carbine, if it matters.

{Rifle}
Cost: ~500 GP (Masterwork by default; cheaper versions exist, but they have chances of jamming on a 1 (roll 1d20, if a 1 shows again weapon is rendered inoperable until fixed) as well as losing MW)
Range: 100'
Damage: 2d6
Crit Range: 18-20/x2
Size: 2-handed (may be fired 1-handed for a -4 Attack Penalty)
Special Qualities: Penetration (ignores a certain amount of Armor and Natural Armor bonus based on the hardness of the ammunition (AC Ignored=Ammo Hardness/3 rounded down), all other AC bonus types are unaffected even if there's extra Penetration left over), Magazine Reload (uses a compact ammunition container as standard ammo source; swapping magazines takes 1 move action (can be performed as part of another if the user is proficient), and 1 full-round action to put a round into a magazine or manually load the Rifle; Rapid Reload [Firearm] lowers these speeds 1 step (free action for magazine, Standard for individual))
Base Ammo Cost: 1 GP/Round (Lead, presumably Hardness of 6-9, don't know where this is exactly)

{Revolver}
Cost: ~400 GP (Masterwork by default; cheaper versions exist, but they have chances of jamming on a 1 (roll 1d20, if a 1 shows again weapon is rendered inoperable until fixed) as well as losing MW)
Range: 60'
Damage: 2d4
Crit Range: 18-20/x2
Size: 1-Handed
Special Qualities: Penetration (ignores a certain amount of Armor and Natural Armor bonus based on the hardness of the ammunition (AC Ignored=Ammo Hardness/5 rounded down), all other AC bonus types are unaffected even if there's extra Penetration left over), Revolving Cylinder (Revolver can be loaded with up to 6 shots before firing, taking 1 Standard action/round; Rapid Reload [Firearm] lowers this speed 1 step (move action/round, allowing the user to fire a Revolver that was empty at the start of their turn))
Base Ammo Cost: 5 SP/Round (Lead, presumably Hardness of 6-9, don't know where this is exactly)

How's about this? Rapid Reload [Firearm] would apply to both, obviously. If there's things that are needed to even the odds, a scope for instance to shave off a certain amount of Distance Penalty (and maybe allow Ranged SA in the first increment) would help.

[Snails]

The thing is that making options for guns and crossbows that make them useful for PCs (who tend to be few in number and rely on personal skill) kind of negates the point of (early) guns and crossbows. Such weapons are meant to eliminate skill in order that masses of cheap, otherwise worthless troops can be effective with them.

One of the things that have my hackles up is the OP seems to be trying to have it both ways. Making the weapons super attractive for mooks but making it rare & expensive at the same time, just to be sure that PCs cannot benefit.

It is not necessarily a terrible idea to have a extra slow to reload weapon that packs a punch. That is a different kind of crossbow that might be make sense But even then, a middling level dual wielding rogue with Quick Draw can vaporize opponents before anyone else gets a chance to flinch.

In the game as is, it is already true that PCs lose rather little by ignoring all options other than mithral chainshirt. So it weirds me out a bit that a DM feels some necessity for nullifying regular AC. A DM who finds his PCs packing +3 full plate should be grateful.

[aleucard]

One of the things that have my hackles up is the OP seems to be trying to have it both ways. Making the weapons super attractive for mooks but making it rare & expensive at the same time, just to be sure that PCs cannot benefit.

It is not necessarily a terrible idea to have a extra slow to reload weapon that packs a punch. That is a different kind of crossbow that might be make sense But even then, a middling level dual wielding rogue with Quick Draw can vaporize opponents before anyone else gets a chance to flinch.

In the game as is, it is already true that PCs lose rather little by ignoring all options other than mithral chainshirt. So it weirds me out a bit that a DM feels some necessity for nullify regular AC. A DM who finds his PCs packing +3 full plate should be grateful.

I think part of the problem is how hard it really is to reconcile DnD 3.5 logic with basically any other kind, including other game logic. The fact that game balance was basically completely bork't intentionally since DnD first existed (and if anything up to and including 3.5 tried to change this, sweet shivering f#@$ did they do a piss-poor job of it) multiplies the issue.

Me, I sometimes just like to pretend that the situation isn't in evidence and act as if only the directly relevant bits of whatever is being discussed exist. It does a decent enough job of not letting every topic even tangentially related morph into the pile of ground meat that used to be a horse known as the 'Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard' discussion. Well, after a couple dozen shots, at least.

Seriously, though, who in the bloody Hell thought that Incantatrix or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil was a good idea? Amusing and interesting concepts and designs they may be, but a Wizard 20 already is several times more powerful than it has any right to be, why not at least make them side-grades?

[gc25774]

Meh... Just for the sake of boredom, I'll throw in my own idea for how to stat a semi-modern firearm in 3.5, looking at absolutely nothing else. My mental image for the rifle would be something akin to an M1 Carbine, if it matters.

{Rifle}
Cost: ~500 GP (Masterwork by default; cheaper versions exist, but they have chances of jamming on a 1 (roll 1d20, if a 1 shows again weapon is rendered inoperable until fixed) as well as losing MW)
Range: 100'
Damage: 2d6
Crit Range: 18-20/x2
Size: 2-handed (may be fired 1-handed for a -4 Attack Penalty)
Special Qualities: Penetration (ignores a certain amount of Armor and Natural Armor bonus based on the hardness of the ammunition (AC Ignored=Ammo Hardness/3 rounded down), all other AC bonus types are unaffected even if there's extra Penetration left over), Magazine Reload (uses a compact ammunition container as standard ammo source; swapping magazines takes 1 move action (can be performed as part of another if the user is proficient), and 1 full-round action to put a round into a magazine or manually load the Rifle; Rapid Reload [Firearm] lowers these speeds 1 step (free action for magazine, Standard for individual))
Base Ammo Cost: 1 GP/Round (Lead, presumably Hardness of 6-9, don't know where this is exactly)

{Revolver}
Cost: ~400 GP (Masterwork by default; cheaper versions exist, but they have chances of jamming on a 1 (roll 1d20, if a 1 shows again weapon is rendered inoperable until fixed) as well as losing MW)
Range: 60'
Damage: 2d4
Crit Range: 18-20/x2
Size: 1-Handed
Special Qualities: Penetration (ignores a certain amount of Armor and Natural Armor bonus based on the hardness of the ammunition (AC Ignored=Ammo Hardness/5 rounded down), all other AC bonus types are unaffected even if there's extra Penetration left over), Revolving Cylinder (Revolver can be loaded with up to 6 shots before firing, taking 1 Standard action/round; Rapid Reload [Firearm] lowers this speed 1 step (move action/round, allowing the user to fire a Revolver that was empty at the start of their turn))
Base Ammo Cost: 5 SP/Round (Lead, presumably Hardness of 6-9, don't know where this is exactly)

How's about this? Rapid Reload [Firearm] would apply to both, obviously. If there's things that are needed to even the odds, a scope for instance to shave off a certain amount of Distance Penalty (and maybe allow Ranged SA in the first increment) would help.

Have all of the cookies. All of them. I won't stop until you die of diabetes.


One of the things that have my hackles up is the OP seems to be trying to have it both ways. Making the weapons super attractive for mooks but making it rare & expensive at the same time, just to be sure that PCs cannot benefit.

It is not necessarily a terrible idea to have a extra slow to reload weapon that packs a punch. That is a different kind of crossbow that might be make sense But even then, a middling level dual wielding rogue with Quick Draw can vaporize opponents before anyone else gets a chance to flinch.

In the game as is, it is already true that PCs lose rather little by ignoring all options other than mithral chainshirt. So it weirds me out a bit that a DM feels some necessity for nullify regular AC. A DM who finds his PCs packing +3 full plate should be grateful.

It's not that I actually needed a way to get past a PC's armor, it's that guns have been added to the story/plot whatever have it due to well.. PLOT reasons. I have nothing against fighters, it's that the average person needs something to get past this armor besides grabbing larger/stronger fighters or casters. Because the PC's will tire of big bad monsters and wizards eventually. I need to give the fighters a reason to take cautions and learn the cover system. These party is fairly new. Sorry for being so... confusing like usual.

[ILM]

You guys are complicated. If I wanted to introduce guns I'd just copypaste hand xbows for revolvers/pistols and crossbows for rifles, make them repeating with appropriate magazine sizes (assuming they have magazines, which may or may not be the case) and call it a day. If I felt particularly house-ruley I'd tweak the range increments and let them ignore like 3 points of DR but that's about it. Any and all archery/xbow-related feats would apply naturally. Basically just a refluff.

[aleucard]

You guys are complicated. If I wanted to introduce guns I'd just copypaste hand xbows for revolvers/pistols and crossbows for rifles, make them repeating with appropriate magazine sizes (assuming they have magazines, which may or may not be the case) and call it a day. If I felt particularly house-ruley I'd tweak the range increments and let them ignore like 3 points of DR but that's about it. Any and all archery/xbow-related feats would apply naturally. Basically just a refluff.

I could definitely agree with this were I a player in your game, but in general it just feels a bit lazy on the part of the DM.

I have a thought related to your statement, though. Couldn't we just say that any Weapon-specific feats that work on similarly-sized Crossbows (light for handguns, heavy for longguns) work for firearms as well? That would require a lot less augmentation than having to reprint slightly altered feats by the dozen.

[Prime32]

It's not that I actually needed a way to get past a PC's armor, it's that guns have been added to the story/plot whatever have it due to well.. PLOT reasons. I have nothing against fighters, it's that the average person needs something to get past this armor besides grabbing larger/stronger fighters or casters. Because the PC's will tire of big bad monsters and wizards eventually. I need to give the fighters a reason to take cautions and learn the cover system. These party is fairly new. Sorry for being so... confusing like usual.Except that, as said, guns don't penetrate armor while bows and crossbows do (in fact armormakers were expected to prove that their armor was immune to bullets by firing on it point-blank - this is where "bullet proof" comes from). Just because D&D models bows poorly, that doesn't mean you should model guns poorly too.

Wands already ignore armor and DR completely - why wouldn't people just use them?

[Milodiah]

Because not everyone is a wizard. The way I see guns is that they would hypothetically be the equalizer. Everyone can use them after an afternoon's training. Wizards can go suck it, we have an army of folks wielding sticks that shoot death.

Obviously the problem with historical firearms is, as has been pointed out, the fact that it rather requires numbers to work. There's a reason we came up with the whole "stick 10,000 dudes in matching jackets, hand them matching muskets, and teach them to stand in matching order" pattern for a good 300 years or so.

[Abithrios]

example rules

Those sound pretty good for an exotic weapon. I would probably make them a bit weaker and less expensive, possibly also martial. For maybe 50 gp, I would offer a suppressor that makes it no louder or more obvious than a normal weapon, but not silent. A scope would increase the range increment and allow more distant sneak attacks. It would also function as a spyglass, with a price no more than in the Player's Handbook (1000 is a lot of money).

For the revolver, I would offer a quick loader which lets you load all the chambers in one action for a few gp. Extra magazines would also be fairly cheap.

Note that by the rules you wrote, an adamantine bullet would give a +6 and cost 61 gp for the rifle. That almost negates full plate. Bug or feature is something I will let others decide.

A socket bayonet would probably cost a bit more than a normal weapon of its length, would probably be a martial weapon, and not significantly impair the use of the gun itself.

[aleucard]

Those sound pretty good for an exotic weapon. I would probably make them a bit weaker and less expensive, possibly also martial. For maybe 50 gp, I would offer a suppressor that makes it no louder or more obvious than a normal weapon, but not silent. A scope would increase the range increment and allow more distant sneak attacks. It would also function as a spyglass, with a price no more than in the Player's Handbook (1000 is a lot of money).

For the revolver, I would offer a quick loader which lets you load all the chambers in one action for a few gp. Extra magazines would also be fairly cheap.

Note that by the rules you wrote, an adamantine bullet would give a +6 and cost 61 gp for the rifle. That almost negates full plate. Bug or feature is something I will let others decide.

A socket bayonet would probably cost a bit more than a normal weapon of its length, would probably be a martial weapon, and not significantly impair the use of the gun itself.

I made them about a step or maybe two above the equivalent crossbows in damage to help justify their existence as separate from a crossbow. A suppressor sounds like a good idea, though how exactly it would work is something I'd rather not have to deal with (since it would necessitate determining how the base firearms work with sound, and I can't be arsed at the moment). And an adamantine bullet being able to ignore over half of even the best mundane armor's AC bonus is not that bad considering that that single shot is worth more than 2 Lv. 1 potions. How enhancement bonuses work in regards to hardness would also give more reason to buy ammo with those types of flat bonus; not too much, obviously, but still.

[Milodiah]

Metal tube + silence + permanency = literal 100% silencer.