DMG Reward: Table of Contents, Guns, Things that go boom , and alien stuff [Archive]

Abithrios

2014-10-24, 05:21 PM

Gnomes2169

2014-10-24, 05:28 PM

Now for things that go boom and pew.

Pew pew... Pew pew pew. And everyone died.

brocadecity

2014-10-24, 05:29 PM

Did anybody else notice the lack of additional races and classes, or am i missing something?

Rfkannen

2014-10-24, 05:30 PM

I don't know why but I feel that shotguns arent... enough. Like maby a burst or something? They are just flat out worse in every way to a revolver

You think a campaign with modern guns could work?

Santra

2014-10-24, 05:35 PM

Anyone else as excited for the alternative rest rules as I am

Gnomes2169

2014-10-24, 05:35 PM

Did anybody else notice the lack of additional races and classes, or am i missing something?

This would be under "Creating new character options",

Draken

2014-10-24, 05:36 PM

I find it a bit odd that they would give prices for the Renaissance guns, but not for modern or futuristic weapons. I feel like it makes having a setting where guns are common harder to design.

Naturally, most tables will probably not use the any of these guns. There will also, be some tables that have a finite number of guns in the entire setting and the few guns there are get treated like artifacts. Such tables can easily disregard any published numbers. On the other hand, I would like support for a high-guns setting.

Maybe they could be priced like heavy armor?

I assume those prices are for the stuff dropped on a more "standard" D&D setting. So the renaissance stuff is new and rare and the modern stuff is pretty much treated as magic items.

Slipperychicken

2014-10-24, 05:38 PM

Hmm...

The firearms page is listed as 267 and 268 but the table of content says that those are the pages devoted to monster creation rules.

Custom monsters, modern weapons, and laser beams in the same section of the rules? There can only be one explanation...

http://radbot.net/pix/1917.jpeg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--fTvYsZdw--/cx6xczqvxezvpfoopvdv.jpg
http://www.robotvsbadger.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/dino20riders.jpg
Yes that is a T-rex with machine guns and rocket launchers.

rlc

2014-10-24, 05:39 PM

Did anybody else notice the lack of additional races and classes, or am i missing something?

while i'd like to say that that stuff doesn't belong in this book, it was confirmed that we would get one of each of those, so i have to say that you're right.

Daishain

2014-10-24, 05:40 PM

Did anybody else notice the lack of additional races and classes, or am i missing something?
Pages 279 to 283 are apparently dedicated to "creating new character options". I would be more than a little surprised if that did not include a blurb about creating new races and/or adapting monster manual entries into races.

As for classes, I for one didn't expect there to be any new ones here.

Knaight

2014-10-24, 05:41 PM

I don't know why but I feel that shotguns arent... enough. Like maby a burst or something? They are just flat out worse in every way to a revolver?

Higher damage would make sense, burst is overkill. Shot spreads, but not nearly enough to justify that.

Rfkannen

2014-10-24, 05:51 PM

wait a second... Put a bullet in a quiver, cast swiftquiver, profit.

Galen

2014-10-24, 06:01 PM

Did anybody else notice the lack of additional races and classes, or am i missing something?
That would be page 96, "Villainous Class Options"

Demonic Spoon

2014-10-24, 06:10 PM

I find it a bit odd that they would give prices for the Renaissance guns, but not for modern or futuristic weapons. I feel like it makes having a setting where guns are common harder to design.

Naturally, most tables will probably not use the any of these guns. There will also, be some tables that have a finite number of guns in the entire setting and the few guns there are get treated like artifacts. Such tables can easily disregard any published numbers. On the other hand, I would like support for a high-guns setting.

Maybe they could be priced like heavy armor?

D&D tries to be a fairly versatile system, but it certainly doesn't try to be a sci-fi system. I think the goal of including modern/future weapons is if you want to have some kind of Numenara-esque "ruins of an ancient civilization" adventure without having it be the main setting.

Renaissance weapons, on the other hand, while a little out of time period for typical D&D games, are fairly easy to adapt.

MaxWilson

2014-10-24, 06:20 PM

I don't know why but I feel that shotguns arent... enough. Like maby a burst or something? They are just flat out worse in every way to a revolver

Yeah, the range on the revolver is too long, and the range on the rifles is way too short. (Pro tip: bullets from a rifle are faster and have a flatter trajectory than arrows from a longbow.) At least it's a place to start from though; easy enough to houserule 450'/1500' as the range.

IMHO the important thing is to see what the official, general approach to firearms is: they are normal weapons, but with more damage dice and special ammunition requirements.

Anyone else as excited for the alternative rest rules as I am

Me!

Also, I'm excited for the return of Random Dungeons. I don't think those have existed since AD&D 1st edition's DMG, but they are fun for solitaire games.

LawfulNifty

2014-10-24, 06:55 PM

I find it a bit odd that they would give prices for the Renaissance guns, but not for modern or futuristic weapons. I feel like it makes having a setting where guns are common harder to design.

I feel like modern-day items priced in gold coins might seem kind of weird. If you're using modern-day firearms, is it a safe assumption that you're also using an at least somewhat-modern banking system? Maybe you could adapt the wealth checks (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/modern/smack/wealth.html) system from d20 Modern.

T.G. Oskar

2014-10-24, 08:00 PM

That Table of Contents is enlightening.

Apparently, the Oathbreaker Paladin and the Death Domain Cleric will be part of the Villainous Character Options. That's three pages, meaning perhaps a third option might be left in, or the Oathbreaker takes two pages (after all, it's a Paladin without an Oath; it also probably requires shifting all radiant damage to necrotic damage and other such things).

NPC Party Members. One page long. So it's either "build as PCs" or just a big NO.

3 pages of Ability Options, 4 pages of Adventuring Options and Combat Options. That should cover stuff like Gestalt and maybe alternative Backgrounds? 11 pages seems too little. 5 pages worth of "New Character Options": maybe the alternative Backgrounds go here, and a short explanation on making new subraces and subclasses? Too little for the Kender and Warforged to go in; chances are people will be ecstatic for the first and ambivalent towards the second.

Alternative Rewards? Will they include Magical Locations or fiefdoms? Also: what would be the ideal reward for characters beyond 20th level: +4 items?

And, finally...surprise, surprise, between 10 to 15 pages less than the Dungeon Master's Guide from 3.5!

Morukai

2014-10-24, 08:03 PM

I was hoping there might be a few new feats. Maybe there are guidelines for creating them instead?

Abithrios

2014-10-24, 08:19 PM

I assume those prices are for the stuff dropped on a more "standard" D&D setting. So the renaissance stuff is new and rare and the modern stuff is pretty much treated as magic items.

D&D tries to be a fairly versatile system, but it certainly doesn't try to be a sci-fi system. I think the goal of including modern/future weapons is if you want to have some kind of Numenara-esque "ruins of an ancient civilization" adventure without having it be the main setting.

Renaissance weapons, on the other hand, while a little out of time period for typical D&D games, are fairly easy to adapt.

Including firearms at all changes the feel of a setting. I expect that they will be banned in many tables. On the other hand, including a single column of numbers on each of two tables would make the system far more versatile for people who want a more brazenly anachronistic playing experience.

Kyutaru

2014-10-24, 10:31 PM

Demonic Spoon

2014-10-24, 10:34 PM

Including firearms at all changes the feel of a setting. I expect that they will be banned in many tables. On the other hand, including a single column of numbers on each of two tables would make the system far more versatile for people who want a more brazenly anachronistic playing experience.

You won't need to explicitly ban them - they are in the DMG, they're presented specifically as nonstandard, and they aren't options for anyone at character creation. That would be like someone showing up to the table and saying "Hi, my character is a werewolf".

I agree that it changes the feel of the setting, but it doesn't change the feel so much as to be unrecognizable. You can add a few guns and maybe a little bit of steampunkyness without changing D&D from what it is: Medieval-ish heroic fantasy. You can have Renaissance-era weapons without having, for example, the printing press or other Renaissance tech. Even the prices listed for Renaissance guns are extremely high, in the hundreds of gold pieces, implying that they're not widespread.

If your setting is at a tech level where modern guns or future tech exist, it's not about the guns, it's about the tech level that the guns being widely available implies...and D&D was not built to handle that and I would argue it's not very good at it, at least not without substantial modification.

Eslin

2014-10-24, 10:45 PM

I find it a bit odd that they would give prices for the Renaissance guns, but not for modern or futuristic weapons. I feel like it makes having a setting where guns are common harder to design.

Naturally, most tables will probably not use the any of these guns. There will also, be some tables that have a finite number of guns in the entire setting and the few guns there are get treated like artifacts. Such tables can easily disregard any published numbers. On the other hand, I would like support for a high-guns setting.

Maybe they could be priced like heavy armor?

That wouldn't really make any sense. The reason early guns proliferated is that they weren't that hard to make and they were far easier to use and train with than bows were.

Kyutaru

2014-10-24, 10:52 PM

Also, guns are just metal sticks with flint clickers. Gunpowder is the real gem. Guns might be mass produced, but bullets can be tightly controlled. Have you ever played a strategy game where Sulfur was a resource? Control the sulfur mines, control the gunpowder industry.

Aron Times

2014-10-24, 11:04 PM

That wouldn't really make any sense. The reason early guns proliferated is that they weren't that hard to make and they were far easier to use and train with than bows were.
Well, the cost of firearms in the DMG might include the difficulty in acquiring them, not the actual cost to build them. For example, Pathfinder has five levels of firearms development, and at the higher levels, firearms become much cheaper:

Source: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/combat/firearms.html

No Guns: If you do not want guns in your campaign, simply don't allow the rules that follow. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game plays perfectly well without them.

Very Rare Guns: Early firearms are rare; advanced firearms, the gunslinger class, the Amateur Gunslinger (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/ultimateCombatFeats.html#amateur-gunslinger-%28combat%29) feat, and archetypes that use the firearm rules do not exist in this type of campaign. Firearms are treated more like magic items—things of wonder and mystery—rather than like things that are mass-produced. Few know the strange secrets of firearm creation. Only NPCs can take the Gunsmithing (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/ultimateCombatFeats.html#gunsmithing) feat.

Emerging Guns: Firearms become more common. They are mass-produced by small guilds, lone gunsmiths, dwarven clans, or maybe even a nation or two—the secret is slipping out, and the occasional rare adventurer uses guns. The baseline gunslinger rules and the prices for ammunition given in this chapter are for this type of campaign. Early firearms are available, but are relatively rare. Adventurers who want to use guns must take the Gunsmithing feat just to make them feasible weapons. Advanced firearms may exist, but only as rare and wondrous items—the stuff of high-level treasure troves.

Commonplace Guns: While still expensive and tricky to wield, early firearms are readily available. Instead of requiring the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html#exotic-weapon-proficiency) feat, all firearms are martial weapons. Early firearms and their ammunition cost 25% of the amounts listed in this book, but advanced firearms and their ammunition are still rare and cost the full price to purchase or craft.

Guns Everywhere: Guns are commonplace. Early firearms are seen as antiques, and advanced firearms are widespread. Firearms are simple weapons, and early firearms, advanced guns, and their ammunition are bought or crafted for 10% of the cost listed in this chapter. The gunslinger loses the gunsmith class feature and instead gains the gun training class feature at 1st level.

D&D 5e firearms seem to assume availability somewhere between the two highlighted tiers.

AgentPaper

2014-10-24, 11:07 PM

That wouldn't really make any sense. The reason early guns proliferated is that they weren't that hard to make and they were far easier to use and train with than bows were.

Actually, that's not really true. Guns were around for a long time before they really became cheap and widespread. Early on they were very hard to make and very much an expensive item to own.

MaxWilson

2014-10-24, 11:37 PM

I would definitely leave the ranges on those weapons as is. This is still D&D after all. Odds are high that anyone using one of these hasn't had any marksmanship training at the local police academy. They're going to just aim it in the general direction of the target and pull the trigger. If you have any experience with firearms, you'll know that's not exactly a recipe for success. Good luck hitting the bottle from 60 feet away.

If we're talking about pistols, sure.

Rifles are a completely different ball game. I'm a terrible shot with a rifle--I only passed my army weapons qualification through what I personally believe was literal divine intervention--and yet even I can hit a man-sized target at 200 yards with an M4. As long as I'm prone. Incidentally, maybe crossbows and rifles should get a bonus for firing while prone instead of a penalty?

Eslin

2014-10-25, 12:04 AM

Well, the cost of firearms in the DMG might include the difficulty in acquiring them, not the actual cost to build them. For example, Pathfinder has five levels of firearms development, and at the higher levels, firearms become much cheaper:

Source: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/combat/firearms.html

D&D 5e firearms seem to assume availability somewhere between the two highlighted tiers.

Stage four makes no sense with 'tricky to wield' - the entire point of a gun was you could teach someone to use one in a matter of hours.

JoeJ

2014-10-25, 12:40 AM

I don't see where it specifies how many shots you get from a horn/keg of gunpowder.

Lokiare

2014-10-25, 12:51 AM

http://media.wizards.com/2014/images/dnd/articles/dmg_toc.jpg

http://media.wizards.com/2014/images/dnd/articles/firearms_p1.jpg

http://media.wizards.com/2014/images/dnd/articles/firearms_p2.jpg

I checked this time..no one else posted lol

am way...way underwhelemed...

257 to 266 for the options that should make the game playable for us tactical mythical folks? yeah that's 9 pages to fix all the broken parts of 5E and include tactical battle map rules and the ability to balance all the classes and sub-classes while making monsters interesting.

Yeah... well I was correct again. 5E = fail.

CyberThread

2014-10-25, 01:25 AM

Yeah... well I was correct again. 5E = fail.

oh jeesh, save your melodramatics for acting class.

squashmaster

2014-10-25, 01:47 AM

The DMG ToC is not remotely what I expected. It's quite a bit better.

odigity

2014-10-25, 02:22 AM

Odds are high that anyone using one of these hasn't had any marksmanship training at the local police academy.

I should hope not, for everyone's sake. Those guys tend to have both poor marksmanship and poor gun safety rules adherance.

Lokiare

2014-10-25, 04:12 AM

I should hope not, for everyone's sake. Those guys tend to have both poor marksmanship and poor gun safety rules adherance.

Not only that but they are taught to fire first and ask questions later.

toapat

2014-10-25, 06:41 AM

Looks like someone needs to homebrew up a specialist XCOM adventure team once this book comes out.

Slipperychicken

2014-10-25, 08:01 AM

Looks like someone needs to homebrew up a specialist XCOM adventure team once this book comes out.

2 levels in Wizard(Conjuration) gets you the minor conjuration feature. It's at-will, an lasts for an hour, and lets you maintain one item at a time. It requires the item to be nonmagical, no more than 3ft (=36 inches) on a side, and weighs 10lb or less. All the weapons on the table (including the antimatter rifle) are 10lb or less, and most of them are less than 10lb even when loaded. A loaded M4 carbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine) is 33 inches long. Most AK-variants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74) are under 36 inches long. The antimatter rifle listed in the table is exactly 10lbs, so we'd probably need two wizards for that: one to create the rifle, and one to create the energy cells for it.

So yeah, assuming that at least one of a group of conjuration wizards has ever seen these guns in his life, they all have more-or-less unfettered access to these weapons and their ammunition. If the DM rules that the weapon and ammunition are to be considered separate items even when loaded, they can maintain N/2 rounded down (where N is the number of conjuration wizards 2nd level or higher) loaded modern weapons at a time, meaning simply that half the party would have to keep using fantasy weapons and provide reloads for the other half. If the DM permits a wizard to summon a loaded weapon as one item, then each one can have his own weapon unless it's an antimatter rifle or a musket (Because of weight and action concerns, it might be optimal for each party member to use a laser rifle in this case).

As for builds, each party member would likely want to have 2 levels in Wizard(Conjurer). The ones actually using the guns might take Fighter levels (or some other class to get the Archery fighting style for +2 to hit) as well as the Sharpshooter feat. Ranger(Hunter) levels might also be good, since it gets you the archery style, horde-breaker, and volley.

toapat

2014-10-25, 08:49 AM

As for builds, each party member would likely want to have 2 levels in Wizard(Conjurer). The ones actually using the guns might take Fighter levels (or some other class to get the Archery fighting style for +2 to hit) as well as the Sharpshooter feat. Ranger(Hunter) levels might also be good, since it gets you the archery style, horde-breaker, and volley.

I think there would be about 4-5 different builds for the Fiendslayers (Name pending? im drawing blanks for something as catchy as XCOM) As you said everyone probably has Wizard 2 for the infinite ammo.

From there, we probably want someone who does extreme damage with the AM-rifle (probably an AT rogue) to be the sniper or heavy, Fighter or ranger for the other, Clerics for support, and then the generalists.

Then, the skyranger is just a complete crapshoot to represent in the rules unless we get spelljammer (which we might seeing as we have these futuretech weapons)

Knaight

2014-10-25, 09:35 AM

Including firearms at all changes the feel of a setting. I expect that they will be banned in many tables. On the other hand, including a single column of numbers on each of two tables would make the system far more versatile for people who want a more brazenly anachronistic playing experience.

The early firearms don't add any anachronism - they were largely developed alongside plate armor in Europe, and existed before it elsewhere (the Mongols had proper firearms prior to anything that would qualify as plate armor). Given the span of time already encompassed by D&D tech, they add no anachronism. Meanwhile modern firearms take chemistry that was undeveloped, some pretty sophisticated metallurgy, machining standards well beyond that in the setting, so on and so forth. This gets particularly pronounced for anything with polymer parts. Modern gunpowder is significantly more sophisticated than medieval gunpowder, but the chemistry and chemical engineering behind polymers (other than natural rubber and things like polysaccharides) are way beyond the tech period.

Abithrios

2014-10-25, 11:15 AM

The early firearms don't add any anachronism - they were largely developed alongside plate armor in Europe, and existed before it elsewhere (the Mongols had proper firearms prior to anything that would qualify as plate armor). Given the span of time already encompassed by D&D tech, they add no anachronism. Meanwhile modern firearms take chemistry that was undeveloped, some pretty sophisticated metallurgy, machining standards well beyond that in the setting, so on and so forth. This gets particularly pronounced for anything with polymer parts. Modern gunpowder is significantly more sophisticated than medieval gunpowder, but the chemistry and chemical engineering behind polymers (other than natural rubber and things like polysaccharides) are way beyond the tech period.

While all of that is true (as far as I know), there are a lot of DMs who do not realize how early guns appeared and how new plate armor is. As a result, I bet more settings have plate armor but not any guns.

On the other hand, some DMs may rule that modern firearms are way easier to build in their setting than in real life, ignoring the various problems you pointed out.

wizards conjuring guns

I am not familiar with XCOM, but this sounds awesome.

Slipperychicken

2014-10-25, 11:44 AM

I am not familiar with XCOM, but this sounds awesome.

Me either. All I know is that wizards conjuring guns means that they don't need to rely as much on the DM to provide the right tech level or ammo drops.

EDIT:
The only requirement is that one wizard sees the guns they want to conjure at least once. Then that wizard uses his ability to replicate it, showing it to the other wizards so they can replicate it too. Also, they'll likely want time to train with their weapons to acquire proficiency, or else do something like spend a feat on Weapon Master.

Knaight

2014-10-25, 12:45 PM

While all of that is true (as far as I know), there are a lot of DMs who do not realize how early guns appeared and how new plate armor is. As a result, I bet more settings have plate armor but not any guns.

On the other hand, some DMs may rule that modern firearms are way easier to build in their setting than in real life, ignoring the various problems you pointed out.

Sure, but that's less a matter of anachronism and more a matter of adherence to an existence fantasy milieu. Plenty of settings have plate armor but not any guns even if everyone playing in them knows the chronology of both fairly well - it's not a matter of ignorance but of deliberately choosing to emulate an ahistorical aesthetic.

mr_odd

2014-10-25, 01:24 PM

257 to 266 for the options that should make the game playable for us tactical mythical folks? yeah that's 9 pages to fix all the broken parts of 5E and include tactical battle map rules and the ability to balance all the classes and sub-classes while making monsters interesting.

Yeah... well I was correct again. 5E = fail.

If you don't like 5e, then you don't like 5e. There's nothing wrong with that.

However the general consensus is that 5e is some of the most well balanced d&d we've had, the monster manual is well made, and the game itself (including combat) is streamlined and works very well.

I just ran a one shot last night with a very inexperienced group. The game went amazingly well, way above my expectations. Combat was simple and satisfying. Last year, I tried a one shot with the same group in 3.5, and it didn't work half as well.

My opinion is that 5e does what it was designed to do extremely well. We don't really need any additional rules for combat grids, if you want to use them, use them. If you're seeking a highly tactical game; 5e was not designed for that. You shouldn't try to make an apple an orange, nor should you judge one on the basis of an orange. D&D 5e is at its heart a collaborative story telling experience.

Kyutaru

2014-10-25, 01:27 PM

Unless the wizard also has mastery level blacksmithing abilities and has reverse engineered a rifle, I'm not keen on allowing gun conjuration. Bullets are simple, but devising anything beyond Renaissance is going to need some serious analyzing.

My Microsoft Surface Pro 3 is less than 3 ft and less than 10 lbs, yet I wouldn't want wizards able to connect to the internet at level 2.

AgentPaper

2014-10-25, 01:29 PM

If a wizard spent long enough studying energy cells, I don't see any reason they couldn't conjure one...without any charge in it. :smallwink:

mr_odd

2014-10-25, 01:33 PM

My Microsoft Surface Pro 3 is less than 3 ft and less than 10 lbs, yet I wouldn't want wizards able to connect to the internet at level 2.

I gotta go prepare my spells for the day. Let's see, just gotta bring up my spell book on the Google doc... This connection is terrible... Stupid fighter's on Netflix....

toapat

2014-10-25, 06:50 PM

I am not familiar with XCOM, but this sounds awesome.

eXtraterrestrial COMbat unit. In the 3 games, they are essentially a United Nations funded elite millitary unit and science division who by the end of the Etherial War could conquer the world in 7 days. They start with kevlar and balistic Alloy armor with normal guns. They end with powered armor with flight systems, stealth systems, grappling hooks, and plasma weaponry, all of which has environmental sealing

the Skyranger on the other hand has a cruising velocity of somewhere around 4000 MPH and enough fuel to not need to go and rendezvous with a C-130 to refuel before doing half an orbit. If we give them the Avenger, that thing is fully capable of interplanetary travel.

on the DM side of things, this group would only be even heard of if the players happen to be in an area where they are actively being deployed because of some event that needs to be stopped absolutely, like rifts that are supporting an entire invasion of demons that the local nations are missing. Oh, and the players meet someone who witnessed them but hasnt gotten their big sack of golden silence yet from the team

If a wizard spent long enough studying energy cells, I don't see any reason they couldn't conjure one...without any charge in it. :smallwink:

assuming you have enough knowledge to conjure one of the fusion/elerium cells, you would be able to conjure functional ones. besides this the XCOM troops would live in a base under a mountain in the middle of nowhere where they train and bring the scientists goodies to reverse engineer or study

Kyutaru

2014-10-25, 07:18 PM

toapat

2014-10-25, 07:46 PM

All I'm reading is skyship drop paladins armed with the best magic, weapons, and technology available to the campaign setting for the strict purpose of fending off world-ending extra-dimensional terrors.

Seems simple enough to include in any campaign.

and having them as an organization would be neat. Maybe not cool because these are not PCs but definitely neat.

granted we need the ranged paladin options back to actually use paladins for the NPC builds

Abithrios

2014-10-26, 10:37 AM

and having them as an organization would be neat. Maybe not cool because these are not PCs but definitely neat.

granted we need the ranged paladin options back to actually use paladins for the NPC builds

Is that as simple as letting smites work with ranged weapons and letting them have the proper fighting style?

Kaeso

2014-10-26, 06:13 PM

silveralen

2014-10-26, 06:34 PM

AgentPaper

2014-10-26, 06:39 PM

Unless I'm understanding something wrong (and I very well could, given that I'm not too much at home in the 5th edition rules), the renaissance weapons have the same problem here as in 3.5e: anyone who's proficient with them is proficient with longbows, and longbows have a better damage output if you have the right stats while also being easier to reload. I do appreciate that firearms just require practice and not a special exotic weapon proficiency feat, making them much more viable.

Nothing about the entry seems to imply that you wouldn't be adding your dexterity bonus to the attack and damage rolls just like any other ranged weapon, and the reload property only means you can't attack twice with the same action, so for anyone level 1-4, you'll deal more damage with a musket than a bow (1d12 vs 1d8). Level 5 and up will want to either switch to a longbow or pick up a feat to get rid of this limitation, for example something based off of Crossbow Expert, but for guns instead of crossbows.

For non-adventurers, though, you're not likely to find many high-level soldiers or nobles, for example, so assuming they can afford it a Musket is indeed better than a Longbow, other than the range of course.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-10-26, 07:21 PM

A Brace of pistols was a pretty common thing back in the day so you could get around loading that way.

I'm glad they didn't try to klutz on a super-loading rule, even if it would have made more sense.

rlc

2014-10-26, 07:27 PM

Which isn't entirely inaccurate. If one is talking about very early firearms, that is about what you'd expect, a longbow quite probably would outperform an early firearm in the hands of someone properly trained. Similar to crossbows in that regard.

i'd go a step further and say that early firearms were pretty terrible. if people didn't like explosions so much, it'd be a wonder why everybody didn't just stick with more accurate and more easily reloadable weapons.

silveralen

2014-10-26, 08:12 PM

i'd go a step further and say that early firearms were pretty terrible. if people didn't like explosions so much, it'd be a wonder why everybody didn't just stick with more accurate and more easily reloadable weapons.

I've always been curious about why early firearms caught on, as crossbows seemed to be cheaper and as simple to use. More effective against armor is the best reasoning I've heard, but I've seen people dispute that as well.

toapat

2014-10-26, 08:18 PM

I've always been curious about why early firearms caught on, as crossbows seemed to be cheaper and as simple to use. More effective against armor is the best reasoning I've heard, but I've seen people dispute that as well.

because a good crossbow with metal arms is much harder to make then a decent gun with poor quality metals

ZeshinX

2014-10-26, 08:36 PM

I find it a bit odd the firearms and alien tech falls under the "Creating a Monster" section (checking the ToC vs the page number/Chapter in the previews). I'm guessing that ToC is a pre-delay DMG.

Either way, I share the OP's underwhelmed feeling....which is unfair, given how little is previewed thus far. I suspect a good deal of that underwhelmed feeling comes from my utter disgust with firearms/modern warfare weaponry/future laser weapons in D&D. To each their own of course, rules/options I don't like are easily ignored. :smallsmile:

Slipperychicken

2014-10-26, 09:13 PM

I've always been curious about why early firearms caught on, as crossbows seemed to be cheaper and as simple to use. More effective against armor is the best reasoning I've heard, but I've seen people dispute that as well.

They're really scary because of the noise they make, which could damage morale and help persuade enemies to run away instead of fighting. Also, cannons, grenades, and other explosives were really effective at killing people, so the potential benefits of firearms (being another way to use gunpowder to propel things into people) were probably obvious.

TheDeadlyShoe

2014-10-27, 12:02 AM

I've always been curious about why early firearms caught on, as crossbows seemed to be cheaper and as simple to use. More effective against armor is the best reasoning I've heard, but I've seen people dispute that as well.
I think in the end it comes down to bayonets. Muskets made effective spears and crossbows do not. In fact, many musket era battles ended simply because a bayonet charge was conducted and the other side runs away.

If you want to beef up your Renaissance Musket I would suggest letting it double as a spear if a bayonet is used.

AgentPaper

2014-10-27, 12:53 AM

HorridElemental

2014-10-27, 04:51 AM

Not only that but they are taught to fire first and ask questions later.

So no change to the D&D structure then? We just happen to be giving all those darn murder hobos guns.

Anyways... On to one of my favorite topics...

Rant/
If guns blows your mind in a setting and yet magic somehow is ok... Wow you really need to get it together.

This is just another example of how if it is magic then you can do whatever you want (fly, shapechange, heal, blast) but if it isn't magic then it has to conform to stringent rules even when all you do is one specific thing (in this case damage).

Because having a guy cast fireball by flinging bat poo is more in setting with the middle ages than a guy with a tube that uses gun powder and metal bits... Wasn't the first gun powder bomb used in 1200's which hits is in the late middle ages... But yeah the guy that slings bat poo fireballs because he can say specific words correctly is totally more middle age setting than black powder./rant

ZeshinX

2014-10-27, 07:44 AM

So no change to the D&D structure then? We just happen to be giving all those darn murder hobos guns.

Anyways... On to one of my favorite topics...

Rant/
If guns blows your mind in a setting and yet magic somehow is ok... Wow you really need to get it together.

This is just another example of how if it is magic then you can do whatever you want (fly, shapechange, heal, blast) but if it isn't magic then it has to conform to stringent rules even when all you do is one specific thing (in this case damage).

Because having a guy cast fireball by flinging bat poo is more in setting with the middle ages than a guy with a tube that uses gun powder and metal bits... Wasn't the first gun powder bomb used in 1200's which hits is in the late middle ages... But yeah the guy that slings bat poo fireballs because he can say specific words correctly is totally more middle age setting than black powder./rant

Guns are fine if you like them. I have no qualms with guns in games where they fit naturally (Old West, Star Wars, Renaissance like 7th Sea, Shadowrun, etc).

Statistically, there's little difference between a gun and a bow/xbow. I just find guns out of place in settings more focused on swords and sorcery. It can of course work nicely in settings designed from the ground up to include swords, sorcery and guns (Shadowrun being a prime example).

For me, it comes mostly down to the mental imagery of firearms in a medieval fantasy setting. I find they look entirely out of place. Other people, of course, feel differently. That's cool. If you like it at your table, awesome.

silveralen

2014-10-27, 07:54 AM

Honestly it doesn't bother me if it fits in the setting, usually having them show up as an interesting and exotic weapon not in common use (which has been canon for forgotten realms since 2nd edition).

More common usage works, but even if it is historically accurate most of people don't associate widespread firearms usage with the timeframes DnD typically emulates. Personally I feel more comfortable with widespread firearms if the game is set in a renaissance era world.

Knaight

2014-10-27, 09:16 AM

If guns blows your mind in a setting and yet magic somehow is ok... Wow you really need to get it together.

This is just another example of how if it is magic then you can do whatever you want (fly, shapechange, heal, blast) but if it isn't magic then it has to conform to stringent rules even when all you do is one specific thing (in this case damage).

Because having a guy cast fireball by flinging bat poo is more in setting with the middle ages than a guy with a tube that uses gun powder and metal bits... Wasn't the first gun powder bomb used in 1200's which hits is in the late middle ages... But yeah the guy that slings bat poo fireballs because he can say specific words correctly is totally more middle age setting than black powder.

It's not a matter of adherence to historical reality, but fantasy tropes, which are often very much not middle ages despite having (some of) the technology. Social structures are frequently more reminiscent of the iron age or Roman period. Industrialization is often at a similar level, where the use of watermills for what was essentially an industrial revolution is generally omitted, in favor of tropes like the lone master of the craft doing everything by hand. So on and so forth.

Basically, having a guy cast fireball by flinging bat poo is more in setting with Lord of the Rings, The Hyborean Age, etc. than a guy with an early firearm. Though I will say that the versatility of D&D magic does come from them trying to cover the magic of lots of different sources, individually basically nothing is that versatile.

EccentricCircle

2014-10-27, 09:38 AM

As I understand it early firearms triggered and arms race where people started making the really heavy plate armour, and then that led to people making war hammers and the like to be effective against that plate armour in close combat.
The fantasy genera often claims to be "medieval" but the middle ages were a really long period of time and technology was constantly changing and evolving during that time. I tend to think of the standard fantasy setting as being a kind of early middle ages, where magic has led to elements that would have evolved much later being common place. You make heavy armour to fend of enchanted swords, so that element to the technology develops faster than it did in the real world.
When creating a setting I always try to be clear on what the technology level is and what exceptions exist. I have no problem using firearms in a late medieval ish setting, but said setting is never going to be "true" to any one historical period. Thats the great thing about fantasy.

toapat

2014-10-27, 09:49 AM

I think in the end it comes down to bayonets. Muskets made effective spears and crossbows do not. In fact, many musket era battles ended simply because a bayonet charge was conducted and the other side runs away.

If you want to beef up your Renaissance Musket I would suggest letting it double as a spear if a bayonet is used.

its manufacturing difficulties. Guns are, for the most part, forgiving in how you can engineer for inferior materials. You cant BS the alloy for the arms of a crossbow, and wooden crossbow arms negate half the point of using one. that is, the high powered, easy to aim shots. Archery takes time to train, Sniping? not nearly as much.

Now, this is DnD, anyone with Craft (Metallurgy) has enough skill with working iron to make a proper crossbow (after all, the only thing actually stopping someone from making fullplate is proficiency and cost), there is minimal point to making a gun until we get compound engineering (greater draw efficiencies) or sufficient metalurgy and chemistry advancement to engineer self-powered automatic and self regulating systems. Besides that, the DnD world economy doesnt have the kind of organization needed to mass-produce gunpowder to the point where guns would become cheaper to field then crossbows. any druid can grow a tree, only legends can spawn gunpowder.

archaeo

2014-10-27, 11:24 AM

My opinion is that 5e does what it was designed to do extremely well. We don't really need any additional rules for combat grids, if you want to use them, use them. If you're seeking a highly tactical game; 5e was not designed for that. You shouldn't try to make an apple an orange, nor should you judge one on the basis of an orange. D&D 5e is at its heart a collaborative story telling experience.

I think the DMG will, nevertheless, contain plenty of stuff to customize the experience, however much digital ink is being spilled over the low pagecount for the "module" section, as it is. Certainly, the PHB and MM have contained all kinds of optional variants in sidebars throughout the text, so I won't be surprised to see the same thing here, and it really doesn't take too many pages to detail things that can be plugged into 5e to make it more "tactical."

Personally, I was really pleased to see the direction the DMG has taken, and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on it.

Lokiare

2014-10-27, 04:22 PM

If you don't like 5e, then you don't like 5e. There's nothing wrong with that.

However the general consensus is that 5e is some of the most well balanced d&d we've had, the monster manual is well made, and the game itself (including combat) is streamlined and works very well.

I just ran a one shot last night with a very inexperienced group. The game went amazingly well, way above my expectations. Combat was simple and satisfying. Last year, I tried a one shot with the same group in 3.5, and it didn't work half as well.

My opinion is that 5e does what it was designed to do extremely well. We don't really need any additional rules for combat grids, if you want to use them, use them. If you're seeking a highly tactical game; 5e was not designed for that. You shouldn't try to make an apple an orange, nor should you judge one on the basis of an orange. D&D 5e is at its heart a collaborative story telling experience.

I like how I can get in trouble for being slightly blunt, but others can use flowery speeches to tell me to go away.

I would love to just wash my hands of 5e, unfortunately they keep claiming it's for everyone and can do all plays styles. I mean if mearls just said 5e is not for tactical mythical types I'd walk.

I think the DMG will, nevertheless, contain plenty of stuff to customize the experience, however much digital ink is being spilled over the low pagecount for the "module" section, as it is. Certainly, the PHB and MM have contained all kinds of optional variants in sidebars throughout the text, so I won't be surprised to see the same thing here, and it really doesn't take too many pages to detail things that can be plugged into 5e to make it more "tactical."

Personally, I was really pleased to see the direction the DMG has taken, and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on it.

Sorry but it's going to take more than 9 pages to turn the mess that is 5e into a tactical game. The main problem is that tactics only come into play when all things are equal or nearly equal. If you don't have that, then tactics rarely matter. The only exception is if the party is outmatched and they are trying to even the playing field. But this can only happen if the tactics can result in enough positive effects to actually do that. In 5e neither of these things is true and it would nearly take a full redesign to do that, not a measly 9 pages that may or may not contain the fixes needed.

silveralen

2014-10-27, 05:17 PM

I like how I can get in trouble for being slightly blunt, but others can use flowery speeches to tell me to go away.

I would love to just wash my hands of 5e, unfortunately they keep claiming it's for everyone and can do all plays styles. I mean if mearls just said 5e is not for tactical mythical types I'd walk.

Sorry but it's going to take more than 9 pages to turn the mess that is 5e into a tactical game. The main problem is that tactics only come into play when all things are equal or nearly equal. If you don't have that, then tactics rarely matter. The only exception is if the party is outmatched and they are trying to even the playing field. But this can only happen if the tactics can result in enough positive effects to actually do that. In 5e neither of these things is true and it would nearly take a full redesign to do that, not a measly 9 pages that may or may not contain the fixes needed.

Yes, obviously you should take marketing claims at face value, because all marketing is 100% true and never subject to exaggeration in the slightest. He was exaggerating, the thing literally every company spokesperson has done about their products since the dawn of capitalism. Or maybe he really intended to try and do so, in which case it is completely unsurprising that some people wouldn't enjoy it given that 100% approval was never realistically possible.

I have no idea how 5e isn't considered near equal, if any edition as, including fifth. Fifth had plenty of awful and useless options, with entire classes (and at least one book) being practically useless in comparison to others.

JoeJ

2014-10-27, 07:27 PM

pwykersotz

2014-10-28, 03:39 AM

Lokiare

2014-10-28, 04:16 AM

Yes, obviously you should take marketing claims at face value, because all marketing is 100% true and never subject to exaggeration in the slightest. He was exaggerating, the thing literally every company spokesperson has done about their products since the dawn of capitalism. Or maybe he really intended to try and do so, in which case it is completely unsurprising that some people wouldn't enjoy it given that 100% approval was never realistically possible.

I have no idea how 5e isn't considered near equal, if any edition as, including fifth. Fifth had plenty of awful and useless options, with entire classes (and at least one book) being practically useless in comparison to others.

Your second paragraph makes no sense so I'll address the first.

I'm taking their claims at face value because I enjoy D&D and I enjoyed 2E through 4E. I'm also assuming they don't want to alienate their fans by lying to them. Unfortunately that may not be true and they may just not care.

You need Mike Mearls' permission for that? You can't just decide for yourself what games to play?

I do decide which games to play on my own. I'm just holding Mearls to his word, which he keeps restating over and over. As long as he keeps making ridiculous claims, I'll keep showing up and proving them wrong.

That's a lot to put on a guy you don't know. Why is your attention so focused on what someone you don't care about says about a system you don't care about?

Because the guy is claiming that the system can do something that I care about, which is to provide a balanced, tactical, mythical play experience. Something it obviously does not do.

silveralen

2014-10-28, 07:13 AM

Your second paragraph makes no sense so I'll address the first.

I'm taking their claims at face value because I enjoy D&D and I enjoyed 2E through 4E. I'm also assuming they don't want to alienate their fans by lying to them. Unfortunately that may not be true and they may just not care.

Ah sorry, I meant 5e was as balanced as any other edition, including fourth, and that even fourth had tons of bad or subpar options. Lets not even get started comparing it to 2nd edition.

So, you are taking their claims at face value because you assume wotc is somehow different from every other company in existence? A statement like his risks doesn't really risk alienating any but the most hypersensitive of person, while most normal people would recognize it as exaggerated hyperbole that isn't truly achievable. I mean... are you going to go yell at red bull because when you drink one you don't sprout wings? Mearls claim may be theoretically possible, but obviously not everyone was going to like the system, it's absurd to think that was ever possible. If you are one of those, congratulations, now play something you enjoy instead.

archaeo

2014-10-28, 09:58 AM

I would love to just wash my hands of 5e, unfortunately they keep claiming it's for everyone and can do all plays styles. I mean if mearls just said 5e is not for tactical mythical types I'd walk.

I'm taking their claims at face value because I enjoy D&D and I enjoyed 2E through 4E. I'm also assuming they don't want to alienate their fans by lying to them. Unfortunately that may not be true and they may just not care.

I do decide which games to play on my own. I'm just holding Mearls to his word, which he keeps restating over and over. As long as he keeps making ridiculous claims, I'll keep showing up and proving them wrong.

Because the guy is claiming that the system can do something that I care about, which is to provide a balanced, tactical, mythical play experience. Something it obviously does not do.

Can you find a recent quote of Mearls saying anything like this? I mean, I'm already very sure that he never made sweeping promises about "tactical mythical types," given that it's a category you pulled from an obscure blog post to put a label to why you're so up in arms about 5e, but when's the last time Mearls even brought up the idea that 5e was designed to appeal to every player who has ever played D&D?

It all just seems like much ado about nothing, Lokiare. You're angry over some comments in off-the-cuff blog posts Mearls wrote in 2013. Letting it go and focusing on games you do like seems like a pretty good idea.

Sorry but it's going to take more than 9 pages to turn the mess that is 5e into a tactical game. The main problem is that tactics only come into play when all things are equal or nearly equal. If you don't have that, then tactics rarely matter. The only exception is if the party is outmatched and they are trying to even the playing field. But this can only happen if the tactics can result in enough positive effects to actually do that. In 5e neither of these things is true and it would nearly take a full redesign to do that, not a measly 9 pages that may or may not contain the fixes needed.

I said "more 'tactical.'" Naturally, I'm coming from a place where I think 5e is broadly balanced and will allow for those tactics to have a marked effect, which you disagree with. I also doubt very much that the optional content is limited to 9 pages out of the book.

jkat718

2014-10-28, 11:00 AM

I also doubt very much that the optional content is limited to 9 pages out of the book.

I'm sure the entire book will be chock full of sidebars. It's probable, if not definite, that most (or at the very least, many) of them will cover alternate rules/rule systems/theories/whatever. I'm sure, if you looked hard enough, you'll find a good alternative for TotM (which I absolutely detest, BTW.

I find that 5e can be used perfectly well as a combat-only simulator, as long as you are willing to be a little creative with your combat rules. If you really want to, you can bring back rules from older versions--albeit slightly modified--for use with 5e quite easily. For example, Touch and Flat-Footed ACs are easily implemented, but you may have to only lose half of your DEX when flat-footed, due to bounced accuracy weighting it more heavily in your AC. Grappling rules can be implemented, but you may have to make sure they're balanced with the new Monk abilities (looking at you, Curb-Stomping Monk thread). If you're willing to put some work into it, 5e can support your style of play. And if you're not, then that's fine, too. You can play any number of systems with more realistic combat.

TL;DR: The DMG should be plenty useful for you, despite the short section dedicated to alternate rules, and if it isn't, you can probably adapt 5e for combat sim, but it takes some work.

silveralen

2014-10-28, 11:30 AM

I'm not even entirely sure what people think is lacking. Flatfooted has been rolled into advantage, as you gain advantage on attacks where the enemy doesn't see you. Touch AC is now a dexterity saving throw. Grappling rules exist, you can grab people, knock them down after/before grabbing them and have both conditions at once. Then you punch the prone person to death, you with advantage them with disadvantage, them unable to move unless they succeed at breaking out of the grapple and then stand.

Do you dislike these because they are simple and easy to use/understand? Sometimes tactical literally seems to mean overly complicated.

jkat718

2014-10-28, 12:18 PM

Do you dislike these because they are simple and easy to use/understand? Sometimes tactical literally seems to mean overly complicated.

I personally have no problems with the 5e combat rules. I think the most common complaint is not about simplicity, but about over-simplicity. It isn't easy to specialize in the mechanincs that have been replaced by advantage/proficiency, and it isn't always as realistic. Eg. just because I fought a bunch of things doesn't mean that I'm simultaneously better at medicine and more knowledgeable about history.

D-naras

2014-10-28, 12:36 PM

I personally have no problems with the 5e combat rules. I think the most common complaint is not about simplicity, but about over-simplicity. It isn't easy to specialize in the mechanincs that have been replaced by advantage/proficiency, and it isn't always as realistic. Eg. just because I fought a bunch of things doesn't mean that I'm simultaneously better at medicine and more knowledgeable about history.

The realistic alternative would be to quit adventuring for a few years to get your Masters in Medicine and Sciences. That doesn't seem like a fantasy adventure to me.

Slipperychicken

2014-10-28, 12:47 PM

just because I fought a bunch of things doesn't mean that I'm simultaneously better at medicine and more knowledgeable about history.

I still support month-long timeskips between adventures to do things like level up (i.e. train and find a mentor to teach spells and fighting technique), buy equipment in a believable way (i.e. commission and track down items instead taking of a 5-minute trip to to Magic-Mart), improve whatever skills the PCs have, watch the world evolve (especially in relation to the PCs' actions), establish NPC contacts, and look for the next adventure.

Demonic Spoon

2014-10-28, 12:59 PM

I personally have no problems with the 5e combat rules. I think the most common complaint is not about simplicity, but about over-simplicity. It isn't easy to specialize in the mechanincs that have been replaced by advantage/proficiency, and it isn't always as realistic. Eg. just because I fought a bunch of things doesn't mean that I'm simultaneously better at medicine and more knowledgeable about history.

I think the assumption/abstraction being made is that during the course of your adventures, you are practicing medicine and reading/learning about the things that you're proficient at, which culminates in you becoming better at them. I don't think there's a way to have that make sense without the abstraction except by having separate progression tracks for each skill.

jkat718

2014-10-28, 01:50 PM

I want to preface this by saying that I fully support the simplification of the skill system, and absolutely adore Downtime Activities, but I do see the point that Lokiare is making, as well as the arguments made by those who enjoy 5e far less than I do.

The realistic alternative would be to quit adventuring for a few years to get your Masters in Medicine and Sciences. That doesn't seem like a fantasy adventure to me.
This effect is recreated (partially) through the Training option for Downtime Activities, but only for tools, not skills.

I still support month-long timeskips between adventures to do things like level up (i.e. train and find a mentor to teach spells and fighting technique), buy equipment in a believable way (i.e. commission and track down items instead taking of a 5-minute trip to to Magic-Mart), improve whatever skills the PCs have, watch the world evolve (especially in relation to the PCs' actions), establish NPC contacts, and look for the next adventure.
I think that the implementation of Downtime Activities is intended to support this, and I, for one, intend to take full advantage of them for the campaign I am planning.

I think the assumption/abstraction being made is that during the course of your adventures, you are practicing medicine and reading/learning about the things that you're proficient at, which culminates in you becoming better at them. I don't think there's a way to have that make sense without the abstraction except by having separate progression tracks for each skill.
While this is intended to be the case, it is not necessarily enforced; while the players are presumably using the parts of their characters that level up over the course of the game, this is not always the case. Theoretically, a party can complete an entire dungeon in one sitting, bypassing a few levels along the way, all without ever using a proficient skill. Despite this, those skill scores increase on level-up.

MaxWilson

2014-10-28, 01:55 PM

I still support month-long timeskips between adventures to do things like level up (i.e. train and find a mentor to teach spells and fighting technique), buy equipment in a believable way (i.e. commission and track down items instead taking of a 5-minute trip to to Magic-Mart), improve whatever skills the PCs have, watch the world evolve (especially in relation to the PCs' actions), establish NPC contacts, and look for the next adventure.

It's also more realistic to have a bunch of troubleshooters who come together to solve problems when they occur, as opposed to staying within 50' of each other as an "adventuring party" for years on end. Or at least, I find it more aesthetically appealing.

JoeJ

2014-10-28, 02:16 PM

Eg. just because I fought a bunch of things doesn't mean that I'm simultaneously better at medicine and more knowledgeable about history.

That's a problem inherent in having a class & level based game. In 3.x gaining a level gave you skill points that you could spend however you like (I killed so many orcs that I got became a better singer!). Even in 1e there were abilities that suddenly appeared for some classes as they leveled up. (I killed the necromancer and made off with his loot. That taught me how to identify plants and animals on sight.)

Slipperychicken

2014-10-28, 02:33 PM

Demonic Spoon

2014-10-28, 02:40 PM

Again, without providing a separate progression track for each individual skill, how would you change that?

It could go the opposite way - say you solve a challenge avoiding combat altogether through some clever use of skill checks (such as stealth), and get awarded XP for it. You somehow become better at hitting things because you sneaked around.

JoeJ

2014-10-28, 03:16 PM

Demonic Spoon

2014-10-28, 03:23 PM

Getting back to the topic of guns, it looks like I'd have to lower the cost and increase the range if I want to have Renaissance firearms replace bows & crossbows as the common missile weapon. Maybe only a slight increase for normal range and a big increase in maximum with the assumption that a typical squad of soldiers will include a sharpshooter.

I don't think "sharpshooting" was a thing with the weapons that those are trying to model. It's not that the guns are hard to aim, it's that the physics involved make any kind of aim unreliable.

It would probably be fine to increase the damage die a step and keep the low range. Or, keep the damage die as is and increase the range (I'd do this if you wanted to model more advanced weapons with better accuracy).

silveralen

2014-10-28, 03:24 PM

Increased range would be the most obvious route to go, especially if mimicking actual gun development as you'd basically be talking about rifling.

AgentPaper

2014-10-28, 03:28 PM

Getting back to the topic of guns, it looks like I'd have to lower the cost and increase the range if I want to have Renaissance firearms replace bows & crossbows as the common missile weapon. Maybe only a slight increase for normal range and a big increase in maximum with the assumption that a typical squad of soldiers will include a sharpshooter.

If you just want to have them be normal weapons, I'd suggest using the stats for crossbows. Hand Crossbow is a pistol, Light Crossbow is a small, easy to use gun, and heavy crossbow is a larger, harder to use but more accurate gun. Re-fluff the Crossbow Expert feat to be a Gunslinger feat or something.

Beleriphon

2014-10-28, 03:49 PM

I don't think "sharpshooting" was a thing with the weapons that those are trying to model. It's not that the guns are hard to aim, it's that the physics involved make any kind of aim unreliable..

Especially since the term didn't exist before the Sharp's rifle, since the thing was so accurate.

jkat718

2014-10-28, 06:35 PM

That's a problem inherent in having a class & level based game. In 3.x gaining a level gave you skill points that you could spend however you like (I killed so many orcs that I got became a better singer!). Even in 1e there were abilities that suddenly appeared for some classes as they leveled up. (I killed the necromancer and made off with his loot. That taught me how to identify plants and animals on sight.)
The problem is not so much a problem of the class-and-level system, so much as a problem with that being the only system. I would love a system that, rather than giving class-and-level-based skills, gave you a skill bonus of (total of past rolls - total of past DCs/number of past checks) for each skill, but I can see that a system like that would have wholly unnecessary and overly-complicated math, and I love the idea of a static Proficiency bonus, from a gamist perspective, just not a simulationist perspective. I have to keep in mind that 5e values gamism over simulationism, and I'm fine with that. I'd rather have fun playing D&D than quit because there was too much math. I don't actually agree with Lokiare, I'm just saying that his point is valid, despite my opinion. As a whole, I agree that 5e forgoes simulationism in favor of gamism. I just personally believe that's okay, because D&D is, in fact, a game.

JoeJ

2014-10-28, 06:36 PM

Especially since the term didn't exist before the Sharp's rifle, since the thing was so accurate.

So if we're basing the Sharpshooter feat on the etymology of the word, then it shouldn't work with anything except guns.

Demonic Spoon

2014-10-28, 07:05 PM

So if we're basing the Sharpshooter feat on the etymology of the word, then it shouldn't work with anything except guns.

You're missing his point entirely.

It was a point in favor of Sharpshooting was not a thing until superior guns, guns which could actually hit things reliably at range, were developed.

JoeJ

2014-10-28, 07:30 PM

You're missing his point entirely.

It was a point in favor of Sharpshooting was not a thing until superior guns, guns which could actually hit things reliably at range, were developed.

I'm not an expert in antique firearms, but my understanding is that long range rifle fire was a thing at least as early as the mid-1700s. Not the Renaissance obviously, but it's the right era for a swashbuckling pirate-themed campaign. That would also make a good technology baseline for a Spelljammer campaign; guns (including cannons) are superior to other missile weapons, although perhaps not hugely so. They aren't universal, however, because they can't be used in the phlogiston.

rlc

2014-10-28, 07:32 PM

Again, without providing a separate progression track for each individual skill, how would you change that?

some games require you to train in something in order for it to improve, so that might be an idea. it could be as simple as nethack's system, where you do gain new things from levels level, but can also exercise (or abuse) your stats, gain ex/intrinsics in other ways (usually by wearing or eating things), or hit things a certain amount of times to improve your skill with that weapon; or it can be as complicated as final fantasy 2 where the main way to gain hp is to beat up your own party members.