Guns and gunpowder in 5ed

[JohnDaBarr]

I believe this subject will receive some attention in the upcoming DMG book but until then how should a DM deal with guns in his campaign?
Is it fine just to ''borrow'' the weapons as they are from 3.5ed and treat them as bit stronger crossbows or is there some rework in order?

[DrLemniscate]

I believe this subject will receive some attention in the upcoming DMG book but until then how should a DM deal with guns in his campaign?
Is it fine just to ''borrow'' the weapons as they are from 3.5ed and treat them as bit stronger crossbows or is there some rework in order?

Well, even if a DM doesn't allow guns, you could always Wheel of Time it.

Go to a large city, commission a Bellfounder to make some Bells that especially sturdy, have no clapper, and have a much more slender, elongated neck.

Then you just need an Alchemist to make some explosive powder for you, and some ammo.


Or, you could just make a Peasant Railgun.

[DontEatRawHagis]

There were some rules that Chris Perkins had made up for his 5e campaign. They were in an article, here is what I copied:
Flintlock Pistol
1d8 piercing damage
50 feet/100 feet
Cost 65 Gold

Flintlock Rifle
1d12 piercing damage
100 feet / 400 feet

Heavy, Two-Handed
Cost 80 gold
Grenade
4d6 splash damage
Thrown 50 feet/100 feet
20 foot radius
DC18 Dex save, success halves damage, none if advantage.
Cost 100 gold

[Scirocco]

I'd probably just refluff heavy xbow/light xbow to guns. I've messed with 3.5 guns quite a bit; it wasn't worth it in the least. The difference here is that the loading property is less limiting than in 3.5 (Rogues don't need iteratives). Repeaters are really had to work into the 5th framework. What it boils down to is this: do you want guns to be flat-out better than xbows thus rendering them irrelevant or do you want them as an alternative?

[hawklost]

I would go with the making the Crossbow 1 die stronger.

It also would not benefit from the Feat to make reloading Faster and would produce a loud noise when fired (makes it hard to stay stealthy) as well as smoke (not enough to obscure just showing where it was fired from)

[MukkTB]

TBH I don't think guns are game breaking. The Pathfinder guns were a little odd when compared with real examples, but w/e. Just expect games to emphasize range weapons a little bit more.

[JohnDaBarr]

There were some rules that Chris Perkins had made up for his 5e campaign. They were in an article, here is what I copied:
Flintlock Pistol
1d8 piercing damage
50 feet/100 feet
Cost 65 Gold

Flintlock Rifle
1d12 piercing damage
100 feet / 400 feet

Heavy, Two-Handed
Cost 80 gold
Grenade
4d6 splash damage
Thrown 50 feet/100 feet
20 foot radius
DC18 Dex save, success halves damage, none if advantage.
Cost 100 gold

Thx, this is a good start. I would even increase the damage dice by one but make the loading time at least 3/4 rounds.


I'd probably just refluff heavy xbow/light xbow to guns. I've messed with 3.5 guns quite a bit; it wasn't worth it in the least. The difference here is that the loading property is less limiting than in 3.5 (Rogues don't need iteratives). Repeaters are really had to work into the 5th framework. What it boils down to is this: do you want guns to be flat-out better than xbows thus rendering them irrelevant or do you want them as an alternative?

Well, I would like that the guns stay as a alternative to other range weapons, with a better range and damage but slower reloading. Sticking to muzzeloaded muskets and the best of the best would be the rifled musket.

Also not sure to put guns in simple or martial weapon type?

[Sir_Thaddeus]

Also not sure to put guns in simple or martial weapon type?

As I recall (I could be wrong), one of the primary advantages of guns in the real world, and one of the reasons they became so popular, was that it took much less time to train a peasant to use one than to use, say, a longbow. So I think putting them in Simple weapons would be best, to reflect the ease of use.

[DrLemniscate]

As I recall (I could be wrong), one of the primary advantages of guns in the real world, and one of the reasons they became so popular, was that it took much less time to train a peasant to use one than to use, say, a longbow. So I think putting them in Simple weapons would be best, to reflect the ease of use.

It might be better to put them in their own category; Exotic Weapons. Make the person take the Weapon Master feat to use them. They get 1 DEX from the feat, so it's not too bad.

[EvilAnagram]

Simple weapon, doesn't benefit from Crossbow Expert, requires loading action, produces sound audible within 1,000 feet, and uses a d10 for a blunderbuss, d8 for a musket, and d4 for a pistol.

[12owlbears]

I would argue that guns should be better objectively than bows and crossbows because well GUNS theirs a reason theirs a reason we don't use bows any more and it's because guns are just better in almost every way. Of course I understand why people would disagree.

[Tenmujiin]

I would argue that guns should be better objectively than bows and crossbows because well GUNS theirs a reason theirs a reason we don't use bows any more and it's because guns are just better in almost every way. Of course I understand why people would disagree.

And that reason isn't that early guns were effective weapons. Guns only became widely used because it was more effective to train 100 peasants to fire a musket than it was to train a single long-bowman.

[EvilAnagram]

And that reason isn't that early guns were effective weapons. Guns only became widely used because it was more effective to train 100 peasants to fire a musket than it was to train a single long-bowman.

Exactly. Early firearms were wildly inaccurate, had terrible effective range, and were completely unreliable. They supplanted bows because it's relatively easy to train people in the usage of firearms, especially compared to longbows. You don't need accuracy when a line of three hundred men is firing at the same spot.

[UHF]

Historically, they were inaccurate (short ranged), but required little training.

With early guns like Handgonnes and muskets, the real draw back was loading time. I think you were doing well if you if you could fire twice a minute. That's why we have a stereo type of a villain/hero wearing a brace of pistols.

If you were a swashbuckling hero, it works really well to use a sword in one hand, and draw and shoot a pistol in the other. In the movies this was last thing you did. You weren't going down your chest pulling out more guns and dropping them. In D&D drawing, putting back, and drawing again, action wise is problematic.

However, if you read the rules as they are now... Fire spells actually light things on fire. This would play havoc with any preloaded pistols. (I'd surprise the player with that once, then let him develop 'safety holsters'.)

So... you need a brace, they need to be preloaded, they need to be in safety holsters. You need some sort of action sequence that works for the player. (It can't suck, it has to be fun. But dropping pistols can't be kind to them. Maybe let him do it, but he needs a lot of time to repair them afterwards.) If it comes to using the necessary skills, let the player have a gun smithing proficiency.

My father developed his own gun smithing skills. His own blueing and browning processes for the steel etc. He also made his own bullets from scratch including mixing the power. I don't think you need anything too special. (Maybe Dwarves burn coal, and have very primitive steel contraptions. Not Wild Wild West style steam powered walking giant spiders of doom.)

[JohnDaBarr]

It might be better to put them in their own category; Exotic Weapons. Make the person take the Weapon Master feat to use them. They get 1 DEX from the feat, so it's not too bad.

Well so far there are no Exotic Weapons in 5ed (at least for now), also the whole Exotic Weapons classification never made any sense for me because for some people ''Exotic Weapons'' were common tools and for it is something you never saw. I think there are some places where weapons like longsword or rapier can be considered exotic. It all depends on the background.

I would say pistols are simple and all the rest are martial.


Simple weapon, doesn't benefit from Crossbow Expert, requires loading action, produces sound audible within 1,000 feet, and uses a d10 for a blunderbuss, d8 for a musket, and d4 for a pistol.

Agreed on the feat and sound but the dmg die should be a bit higher. I would even homerule an appropriate feat similar to Crossbow Expert that allows better loading time. Standard loading time should be even 1 minute and with the feat 3 or 4 rounds.



However, if you read the rules as they are now... Fire spells actually light things on fire. This would play havoc with any preloaded pistols. (I'd surprise the player with that once, then let him develop 'safety holsters'.)

So... you need a brace, they need to be preloaded, they need to be in safety holsters. You need some sort of action sequence that works for the player. (It can't suck, it has to be fun. But dropping pistols can't be kind to them. Maybe let him do it, but he needs a lot of time to repair them afterwards.) If it comes to using the necessary skills, let the player have a gun smithing proficiency.

My father developed his own gun smithing skills. His own blueing and browning processes for the steel etc. He also made his own bullets from scratch including mixing the power. I don't think you need anything too special. (Maybe Dwarves burn coal, and have very primitive steel contraptions. Not Wild Wild West style steam powered walking giant spiders of doom.)

Yes, it also occurred to me that magic can easy counter gunpowder so I even came up with a background story for the setting: A group of ancient adventurers in the distant past spark a slave uprising of various humans, half-elfs, gnomes and halflings in the kingdom X. One adventurer, one that became a legendary wizard, offers them his knowledge of gunsmithing and they embrace the new weapon, it even became their symbol. Soon the kingdom X is under the rule of the rebels but the neighboring kingdoms are afraid of the new republic and its new ideology. So in order to preserve the status quo they form a coalition and start attacking the new nation. Even outnumbered the new nation is successful in the opening battles but the glory is shortlived because enemy wizards came up with a simple spell that ignites all gunpowder within a large area. Now faced with a massacre the new nations decides to leave the old lands and find a better place to live. And so they do. They still continue to use guns with some way to counter the anti guns magic but nothing overly successful. Now in the present some genius stumbles upon a powder that is inert to all types of magic with gunpowder-like properties.

And yeah some gun related skill for maintenance is necessary.

[EvilAnagram]

Agreed on the feat and sound but the dmg die should be a bit higher. I would even homerule an appropriate feat similar to Crossbow Expert that allows better loading time. Standard loading time should be even 1 minute and with the feat 3 or 4 rounds.


The damage dice are fine. Honestly, a sword or an axe can cause much more trauma than a bullet. Sure, once we get into the hollow point era we've got a good bit of damage potential, but a hole is a hole whether it's caused by a ball moving quickly or an arrow.

[JohnDaBarr]

The damage dice are fine. Honestly, a sword or an axe can cause much more trauma than a bullet. Sure, once we get into the hollow point era we've got a good bit of damage potential, but a hole is a hole whether it's caused by a ball moving quickly or an arrow.

No the damage dice are not fine. Bolts and arrows are less deadly than bullets, because when they hit (assuming no vital organs are damaged) they get stuck and by doing so they stop the bleeding. Bullets create holes from which blood lose is faster and they can move around in the body and create more damage. Besides have you ever seen a exit wound a 20mm musket ball creates on a test dummy! In my opinion guns should be in the crossbow damage area if not a bit stronger.

The only way arrows can be more deadly is to smear their tips with dirt, poison or fecal matter, which was a common practice among archers.

Also in terms of balance a 1d4 weapon that can be used only once in an encounter is not much of a choice, I'll rather have a bag full of shuriken to throw around. So in a effort to make it a viable choice increasing the damage dice seems like the sensible thing to do.

[EvilAnagram]

No the damage dice are not fine. Bolts and arrows are less deadly than bullets, because when they hit (assuming no vital organs are damaged) they get stuck and by doing so they stop the bleeding. Bullets create holes from which blood lose is faster and they can move around in the body and create more damage. Besides have you ever seen a exit wound a 20mm musket ball creates on a test dummy! In my opinion guns should be in the crossbow damage area if not a bit stronger.

The only way arrows can be more deadly is to smear their tips with dirt, poison or fecal matter, which was a common practice among archers.

Also in terms of balance a 1d4 weapon that can be used only once in an encounter is not much of a choice, I'll rather have a bag full of shuriken to throw around. So in a effort to make it a viable choice increasing the damage dice seems like the sensible thing to do.
While the balance part is a good point, arrows with wider heads were designed to make wider cuts as they entered the body, helping wounds to bleed. That was the significant advantage that flint arrowheads had over sharpened wood.

[The_Ditto]

what about something like this:

points to note:

flintlocks are/should:
- inflict more base damage than arrows.
- no ability modifiers to damage.
- easier to user (ie Simple weapon)
- less accurate (suffer -1 to hit : traditionally muskets/rifles were used in "volley" tactics, and pistols were point blank).
- misfire chance.
- shorter range than bows
- slower reloading

So, just tossing some numbers out to reflect some of that - and to be picked at (ie I have no confidence these numbers are good) :)
Just picked some to reflect some initial thoughts.

Flintlock pistol
Proficiency: simple (-1 hit)
damage: 3d4 (no ability modifiers)
range 30 ft / 100 ft
reload: 1 action (ie fire 1 every other round)
Natural 1: misfire - user takes 2d4 dmg instead.

Flintlock rifle
Proficiency: Simple (-1 hit)
damage: 3d6 (no ability modifiers)
range 80 ft / 200 ft
reload: 2 actions (ie fire 1 every 3 rounds)
Natural 1: misfire - user takes 2d6 dmg instead.

so the thought was: Yes, these things dish out some good base damage, however, there's some good drawbacks to them:
- misfire chance
- hit penalty
- range limitations.
- long reload.

It's either a 1/encounter type of weapon ... or somebody who fires, then hides/reloads, then fires again.

I'm going to lookup my Living Arcanis books, I recall the flintlocks in there working well, I'll have to re-read how they did that again :)

[Hytheter]

Why shouldn't a gun get dex to damage when a bow does?

And personally, dealing with stuff like misfires, drawn out reloads and random penalities seems against the grain of everything in the game, which is generally streamlined, especially compared to previous games.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Misfires do seem unnecessary.

Damage should be high on a rifle, but be careful with pistols. Players will likely carry around a brace of pistols so they can fire continuously without reloading. If pistol damage is high enough basically every encounter will just be unloading pistols at things.


And personally, dealing with stuff like misfires, drawn out reloads and random penalities seems against the grain of everything in the game, which is generally streamlined, especially compared to previous games.
It wouldn't make a lot of sense for flintlocks to reload in a round, it's overly generic. To bear any semblance to reality, even a supernaturally dexterous person would require at least two rounds of just loading.

I was looking at wiki while checking how long it took to reload a flintlock, and it made a good point: the rifles were basically used like spears after being fired, being long heavy and fitting a bayonet.

[toapat]

The only way arrows can be more deadly is to smear their tips with dirt, poison or fecal matter, which was a common practice among archers.
No, arrowheads can be modified much more readily in ways to increase lethality that bullets can't replicate without potentially ruining the barrel of a gun. Arrows also have better ability to hold and inflict hazardous materials on those hit. It wasn't until the miniball that the relative lethality of a gun truly surpassed a bow and arrow. About the only thing smooth bores could do that a bow and arrow couldn't do as effectively was shatter bone.

The reason why guns replaced bows/crossbows is because of how much easier it is to train someone in gun use.

[SliceandDiceKid]

So I'm undecided on base damage, but I feel like the threat of significant bleeding from a flintlock bullet should manifest itself as bleed damage. im inclined to say something like 1d4 with 1d4 damage the next round. The second round's damage never being affected by crits or any boosts, of course.

[HugeC]

Thinking about a "realistic" action sequence for muzzle loaders, I might use:

Round 1: Fire (action), clean barrel (free item interaction)
Round 2: Fetch powder horn (free item interaction), load powder (action)
Round 3: Fetch & load wadding (free item interaction), ramrod wadding (action)
Round 4: Fetch & load bullet (free item interaction), ramrod bullet (action)
Round 5: repeat at Round 1

If you were going for that kind of realism on the loading sequence, I'd definitely ramp up the damage quite a bit to compensate.

Of course, in a game where loading a bow doesn't take any additional time, being that realistic is probably too harsh. If I were to house rule it, I'd invent a new weapon property called muzzle loader, which says, "After making a ranged attack with this weapon, you must use an action to reload it (using up a piece of ammunition and a dose of black powder) before it can be fired again. You need one hand free to reload the weapon, and you can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand while you reload it."

Then I'd make these simple ranged weapons:

Pistol damage 1d10 piercing, range 20/100, muzzle loader, light
Musket damage 2d6 piercing, range 40/400, muzzle loader, two-handed
Blunderbuss damage 4d4 piercing, range 10/50, muzzle loader, two-handed

A bayonet may be attached to a musket or blunderbuss, allowing it to be used as a spear.

Of course, these rules would call for a magic weapon that conjures ammo and powder into the chamber right after it is fired. Infiniboom!

[Beleriphon]

Of course, these rules would call for a magic weapon that conjures ammo and powder into the chamber right after it is fired. Infiniboom!

Or superior dwarven make with a breach loaded solid slug shot gun. Then all you have to do is crack open the back, drop in a brass shell and fire away.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Or superior dwarven make with a breach loaded solid slug shot gun. Then all you have to do is crack open the back, drop in a brass shell and fire away.

What about a shotgun shell slug rig. Like in the size of a flintlock pistol?

I recon with a magic quality barrel, the gun would hold up to that abuse.

[JohnDaBarr]

What about a shotgun shell slug rig. Like in the size of a flintlock pistol?

I recon with a magic quality barrel, the gun would hold up to that abuse.

I believe it could, but lets not create something to powerful, because if a Rogue Assassin gets his hands on that it could all get really messy! A few extra d6 here and there are not much but that auto-crit is something else.

[SliceandDiceKid]

I believe it could, but lets not create something to powerful, because if a Rogue Assassin gets his hands on that it could all get really messy! A few extra d6 here and there are not much but that auto-crit is something else.

I'm just looking to justify a possible 2d6 damage from a rogue who keeps drawing, firing, and dropping pistols.

This is an NPC BTW
Also, he is intended to be the NPC criminal contact for my players.

Also, I'm still waiting on my 5e PHB so I don't have access to new rules yet.