New Piercing weapon quality (homebrew for guns)

[Scirocco]

I've been considering how to add proper guns (I don't like the DMG ones), and I'm thinking about the following:

Piercing - Weapons with this quality treat creatures with nonmagical armor as having vulnerability to the weapon's damage type.

Treat guns as xbows with the piercing quality (xbow master applies) and I figure blunderbusses can work like acid splash.

Obviously this obsoletes xbows, but in a setting with guns that's to be expected. Thoughts?

Edit: On second thought, giving piercing weapons advantage against non-magical armored targets might be more elegant and balanced.

[Tenmujiin]

I've been considering how to add proper guns (I don't like the DMG ones), and I'm thinking about the following:

Piercing - Weapons with this quality treat creatures with nonmagical armor as having vulnerability to the weapon's damage type.

Treat guns as xbows with the piercing quality (xbow master applies) and I figure blunderbusses can work like acid splash.

Obviously this obsoletes xbows, but in a setting with guns that's to be expected. Thoughts?

Edit: On second thought, giving piercing weapons advantage against non-magical armored targets might be more elegant and balanced.

Early guns didn't actually obsolete crossbows and longbows since they could take upwards of a full minute for the average foot-solder to reload. In terms of modelling them I plan to have them deal 1 damage size higher than the equivalent crossbow but can only fire one shot before having to take an action to reload.

Basically crossbows (without feats) have a max of 1 shot per round while guns (flintlocks mostly) will have a max of 1 shot per 2 rounds. They will also be simple weapons since the main advantage of early guns was how easy it was to arm a horde of serfs with them.

Early guns were actually WEAKER than crossbows/longbows so the higher damage is mostly just to make them usable (something something magic gunpowder)

[Hytheter]

Early guns didn't actually obsolete crossbows and longbows since they could take upwards of a full minute for the average foot-solder to reload. In terms of modelling them I plan to have them deal 1 damage size higher than the equivalent crossbow but can only fire one shot before having to take an action to reload.

But why would anyone ever use a gun over a crossbow with those rules? 1 extra damage is obviously not worth being unable to attack every other round. The only viable way to use them would be to fire once at the start of combat, which not only sounds stupid but you have to wonder if the single point of extra damage per combat is even worth carrying the extra gear.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

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

kinetic energy, in ft-lbs. at-launch, presumably.

note that windlass-arbalests are big and expensive and take a while to reload properly

Light Spear (javelin, 2pounds) - 167
Heavy Spear (pilum, 5 pounds) - 106
Heavy Atlatl Dart (6 ounces) - 62
Light Atlatl Dart (3 ounces) - 45
Primitive bow and arrow - 29
Medieval english longbow - 53.91
Medieval crossbow - 127
Medieval windlass-pulled arbales - 578.25
Modern compound bow - 87.24
Modern crossbow - 86.78
Parker Cyclone modern crossbow - 115
Modern Arrow and bow - 58
Flintlock*Carbine - 647
Flintlock*Musket Brown Bess (1722) -1727
Flintlock*Baker Rifle (1800) - 627
Flintlock American long rifles - 1097
Flintlock Breech Ferguson rifle - 559
Flintlock*Blunderbuss - 400
matchlock pistol - 157
Matchlock Arquebus - 663
Matchlock Petronel - 361
Matchlock Full Musket - 1,943
Matchlock Half-Musket - 1,542
Matchlock Caliver - 774
Snaplock Pistol - 129
Snaplock Carbine - 647
Snaplock Full Musket - 1,943
Snaplock Half Musket - 1,542
Wheellock Puffer - 129
Wheellock Carbine - 647
Wheellock Full Musket - 1,943
Wheellock Half-Musket - 1,542
air gun - 15
Pistol .22LR - 117
Pistol 9mm - 383
pistol .45 ACP - 416
.357 magnum Pistol - 583
rifle 5.56 × 45 mm (M16) -1325
rifle 7.62 × 39 mm (AK47) - 1527
30-06 Rifle -2701
rifle 7.62 × 51 mm (M14) - 2802
.50 BMG (Browning Machine Gun) -11,091
14.5 × 114*mm - 23,744

[Gurka]

Here's an I'd idea... But let me walk you through my thinking first:

The big appeal of guns was that they fired a projectile at much higher velocity than a bow or crossbow could, so they did in fact have much greater penetrating power (as the OP brought up). They also cause effects like hydraulic shock, and a large temporary wound cavity, making injuries they inflicted much more traumatic than those caused by arrows and quarrels (until you try and pull OUT a broadhead, anyway). And yes, they were also relatively easy to operate (though not to hit a specific target with, hence the gun line), but the real appeal of using them en mass was that they were cheap, easy and quick to manufacture, while bows and crossbows took much more time and skill to make.

The disadvantages however, were that early guns were unreliable, inaccurate, and took a long time to reload.

The above causes a bit of a problem, as armor (in D&D) makes you harder to hit, instead of obsorbing impacts... So how to reconcile a weapon with great armor penetration but poor accuracy.

My though is to always treat the target's AC as 16, whether it's lower or higher. Maximum of 1 shot per round. Die type depends on what grain of bullet. On a critical hit, the target bleeds, on a natural 1 the weapon misfires, and must be cleared and reloaded. So 2 turns instead of 1.

[Gurka]

But why would anyone ever use a gun over a crossbow with those rules? 1 extra damage is obviously not worth being unable to attack every other round. The only viable way to use them would be to fire once at the start of combat, which not only sounds stupid but you have to wonder if the single point of extra damage per combat is even worth carrying the extra gear.

Unless you carry two guns, and hire a goon, or teach your familiar/animal companion, out use something like mage hand or unseen servant to reload for you!

But yeah, pretty terrible.

[Longcat]

The rules for the DMG guns seem to be fine, assuming guns are simple/martial in settings where they exist and do not require additional training or a feat tax. Ruleswise, they are essentially crossbows with a higher damage die, at the expense of more expensive ammunition and weapon prices and the inability to be stealthy with them.

[Scirocco]

The rules for the DMG guns seem to be fine, assuming guns are simple/martial in settings where they exist and do not require additional training or a feat tax. Ruleswise, they are essentially crossbows with a higher damage die, at the expense of more expensive ammunition and weapon prices and the inability to be stealthy with them.

This is essentially the same thing they did in the DMG last time and it's still pretty unsatisfying. Perhaps it's fine for pure Dark Age/Early Renaissance style guns, but I'm thinking more like late Renaissance (the guns that plate armor was developed to protect against) to early 18th century flintlocks instead of arquebusses.

[HorridElemental]

Heck it wasn't until fairly recently that guns became decent enough to use. Even in the American wild west guns sucked to use since pistols would burn your hand and rifles jammed easily.

Hollywood makes it seem a lot more glamorous than what it really was.

[Doug Lampert]

Heck it wasn't until fairly recently that guns became decent enough to use. Even in the American wild west guns sucked to use since pistols would burn your hand and rifles jammed easily.

Don't forget the misfires! Black and smokeless powder are both Hygroscopic and go bad if exposed to air for too long, which means if you leave your gun loaded for any length of time it becomes increasingly unreliable until sealed brass cartridges became available. I've heard talks from "wild west shooter" reenactors that actual gunfights with six guns would sometimes be won or lost based on whose six-gun would successfully fire even ONE bullet without error and that the "professional gunslinger" had as one of his biggest advantages the simple fact that he changed the loads fairly frequently.

And that was with percussion caps, now try it with the even less reliable priming pan.... You simply didn't even try to leave that loaded for any length of time.

Or go back a bit farther so you don't have a minie ball and are either using a smoothbore or are literally taking out a hammer to force the ram-rod down the barrel.

And with round-shot your bullet is subsonic within 20' of the end of the barrel (they've done tests, it really does slow down that quickly) and most of that allegedly armor penetrating energy is gone with the wind unless you are close enough to also hit them with a sharp stick (which can carry even more energy if using a big stick).

Then try it with a matchlock rather than a flint-lock...

When asking "why would anyone use this?" if the answer is not "ease of use and you can put a bayonet on it and also use it as a spear" for an early firearm, then you've gotten it wrong. Because those were their only real advantages. Pikes largely predominated over firearms right up until ring and later socket bayonets let the gun fire while still being usable as a spear. At that point the gun became dominant as a sharp stick that can shoot a bullet largely beats a sharp stick that can't.

[Galen]

Piercing - Weapons with this quality treat creatures with nonmagical armor as having vulnerability to the weapon's damage type.

http://i.imgur.com/rRUWh1T.jpg

[WickerNipple]

But why would anyone ever use a gun over a crossbow with those rules?

That's ultimately the thorny problem of including firearms in a fantasy setting.

No one in their right mind would ever have chosen an early (say early modern era) firearm as a self-defense weapon. They had their uses on the battlefield where they could be used en masse to produce effects that were unique at the time, but they were horrible weapons until pretty recently.

And what happens once you actually produce reliable, accurate, rapidly reloadable firearms..? They obsolete everything else within a generation and you're suddenly stuck with "why would anyone ever use a sword?"

I've never really understood the motivation for firearms in fantasy settings, though I could appreciate the rare gnomish boomstick that fired eldritch blasts, or something similar.

[Galen]

I think firearms can safely be placed in the "mechanically slightly better than Crossbow, but expensive and difficult to obtain" niche.

[CyberThread]

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

kinetic energy, in ft-lbs. At-launch, presumably.

Note that windlass-arbalests are big and expensive and take a while to reload properly

light spear (javelin, 2pounds) - 167
heavy spear (pilum, 5 pounds) - 106
heavy atlatl dart (6 ounces) - 62
light atlatl dart (3 ounces) - 45
primitive bow and arrow - 29
medieval english longbow - 53.91
medieval crossbow - 127
medieval windlass-pulled arbales - 578.25
modern compound bow - 87.24
modern crossbow - 86.78
parker cyclone modern crossbow - 115
modern arrow and bow - 58
flintlock*carbine - 647
flintlock*musket brown bess (1722) -1727
flintlock*baker rifle (1800) - 627
flintlock american long rifles - 1097
flintlock breech ferguson rifle - 559
flintlock*blunderbuss - 400
matchlock pistol - 157
matchlock arquebus - 663
matchlock petronel - 361
matchlock full musket - 1,943
matchlock half-musket - 1,542
matchlock caliver - 774
snaplock pistol - 129
snaplock carbine - 647
snaplock full musket - 1,943
snaplock half musket - 1,542
wheellock puffer - 129
wheellock carbine - 647
wheellock full musket - 1,943
wheellock half-musket - 1,542
air gun - 15
pistol .22lr - 117
pistol 9mm - 383
pistol .45 acp - 416
.357 magnum pistol - 583
rifle 5.56 × 45 mm (m16) -1325
rifle 7.62 × 39 mm (ak47) - 1527
30-06 rifle -2701
rifle 7.62 × 51 mm (m14) - 2802
.50 bmg (browning machine gun) -11,091
14.5 × 114*mm - 23,744

no bad poster bad. No scientific post

[Easy_Lee]

The rules for the DMG guns seem to be fine, assuming guns are simple/martial in settings where they exist and do not require additional training or a feat tax. Ruleswise, they are essentially crossbows with a higher damage die, at the expense of more expensive ammunition and weapon prices and the inability to be stealthy with them.

It's funny that, minus the stealth part, history has them opposite. The ammunition was cheaper to transport, you could carry a lot more of it, and the weapon was easier to produce (particularly post-industrial revolution).

[Scirocco]

You do have to design your setting around the inclusion of guns rather than just plopping them right in. The DMG gun rules are inappropriate for a setting where guns are common and have entirely replaced bows of any sort in the wealthier/more technologically advanced nations (who use Pike and Shot or alternatively the later fire and charge tactics of the Napoleonic era). Hence my need for better guns. Advantage vs. non-magical armor seems to be the way to go; it's simple, it doesn't negate Unarmored Defense or Mage Armor, and it still has a harder time hitting high AC than lower AC.

[unwise]

In my campaign, which is set in an era where guns are starting to overtake xbows and bows, we use the following rules:

- Pistols do 1d10 damage,
- Rifles do 2d6.
- They cannot be enchanted, but they can gain Brutal 1,2 or 3 from being well made.
- Firearms always treat the AC of a person not behind hard cover as 15 at most.
- They are simple weapons.

This has a great effect of modelling the era.

- For the average person or militia, guns are clearly superior, but are expensive. They are simple and with AC 15 max they are easy to hit with.
- For trained warriors, they offer only a slight advantage over a bow or crossbow, but are one-shot only. So in practice, the PCs fire off their pistols, then close, which is perfect. The true ranged characters stick with longbows they can use every turn.
- Heavy armor is largely redundant when confronting firearms. This fits very well with the genre, which is set when rapiers and finesse combat started overtaking knights etc.