Help for new campaign...Firearms.

[Starchild7309]

I am working on a homebrew campaign that takes place in Europe during the Napoleonic wars, (IE. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell) and I am much of what I need down and figured out, but I am trying to figure out a good system for firearms. Does anyone know of any resources on DM Guild or have any experience playing with a range of firearms in 5e? How did you handle it? Did it work well or was it broken? This is what I have come up with so far:

Firearms:

Martial weapons
Reload time: 1 action
Range dependent on what firearm 30ft-300ft
Damage dependent on what firearm 1d6-1d12

I would allow sharpshooter feat to apply for them.
On critical misses there would be a skill check to keep the firearm from breaking or exploding.

What am I missing? What should I add or change? Opinions please.

[lunaticfringe]

DMG, Modern 5e articles, free gunslinger Archetype for fighters(it's pay what you want, but I usually try to tip a buck). Search da interwebs take what you want, your game goes.the DMG is the Hackers guide to D&D. 267-268 Reload & Pistol/Musket rules.

Pistols are stupid easy to use I always make them Simple. Just cause my Rogue stabs people with a dagger doesn't mean he knows how to make, fix or maintain one.

[Sir cryosin]

I played Matt Mercer's gunslinger fighter. And we used the firearms in the DMG. The early firearms I'm afb but pistol was d10 with range of 30/60 I think musket was d12 range 60/120. I was a pistol shield with the close quarters shooter fighting style UA. I carryed a lot of pistols so I would shoot and drop when I counldnt reload aka action surge. We didn't go pass lv 5 in the campaign. The damage seams high but it counter by it low range.

[Vogonjeltz]

I am working on a homebrew campaign that takes place in Europe during the Napoleonic wars, (IE. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell) and I am much of what I need down and figured out, but I am trying to figure out a good system for firearms. Does anyone know of any resources on DM Guild or have any experience playing with a range of firearms in 5e? How did you handle it? Did it work well or was it broken? This is what I have come up with so far:

Firearms:

Martial weapons
Reload time: 1 action
Range dependent on what firearm 30ft-300ft
Damage dependent on what firearm 1d6-1d12

I would allow sharpshooter feat to apply for them.
On critical misses there would be a skill check to keep the firearm from breaking or exploding.

What am I missing? What should I add or change? Opinions please.

DMG pages 267-268 provide rules on the use of firearms (Renaissance, Modern, Futuristic) which you could easily expand upon.

Differences from what you've outlined:

Firearms of all types listed deal more damage, reloading requires either an action or a bonus action, normal range is longer, maximum range is shorter. A 1 is going to happen every 20 rolls. So a Fighter, for example, would see a break or explosion every 5 rounds.

I'd seriously reconsider tacking on harmful effects beyond it simply missing (as it already does) because of how absurdly punishing that would be. For a little bit of perspective, that means the average rifle would have exploded at least once before the first clip had finished firing.

[Starchild7309]

DMG pages 267-268 provide rules on the use of firearms (Renaissance, Modern, Futuristic) which you could easily expand upon.

Differences from what you've outlined:

Firearms of all types listed deal more damage, reloading requires either an action or a bonus action, normal range is longer, maximum range is shorter. A 1 is going to happen every 20 rolls. So a Fighter, for example, would see a break or explosion every 5 rounds.

I'd seriously reconsider tacking on harmful effects beyond it simply missing (as it already does) because of how absurdly punishing that would be. For a little bit of perspective, that means the average rifle would have exploded at least once before the first clip had finished firing.

While I agree that a fighter has a better chance of having this problem, I am talking about 1800's muskets. Unless the fighter has multiple firearms or an action surge he will only be attacking once with a firearm a round anyway since they are all muzzle loaded. I am including the firearms as a homage to the period in which the campaign takes place. Also, the skill check required to avoid the breaking or explosion of the firearm would be one of very low DC. I fully expect my players to be heroes where every other average person in the combat will be firing one round a round, my players are going to be ale to possibly fire two shots in 6 seconds. Realistically, a top notch gunner during that period could fire 4 shots a minute.

[DragonSorcererX]

DMG pages 267-268 provide rules on the use of firearms (Renaissance, Modern, Futuristic) which you could easily expand upon.

Differences from what you've outlined:

Firearms of all types listed deal more damage, reloading requires either an action or a bonus action, normal range is longer, maximum range is shorter. A 1 is going to happen every 20 rolls. So a Fighter, for example, would see a break or explosion every 5 rounds.

I'd seriously reconsider tacking on harmful effects beyond it simply missing (as it already does) because of how absurdly punishing that would be. For a little bit of perspective, that means the average rifle would have exploded at least once before the first clip had finished firing.

Renaissance firearms are so bad that you could add them to your campaign just to make the Elves shine with their bows that don't require a bonus action to reload, although they are good for commoners who are forced to be soldiers and who don't have multiattack...

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, if you want to have guns be the main ranged weapon in your game, just replace... let's say Hand Crossbows with Pistols, Light Crossbows with Muskets, and Heavy Crossbows with Rifles-- with stats otherwise entirely unchanged. Thus game is maintained intact with no fiddly business required, and all parties can go about their days unbothered.

[Vogonjeltz]

While I agree that a fighter has a better chance of having this problem, I am talking about 1800's muskets. Unless the fighter has multiple firearms or an action surge he will only be attacking once with a firearm a round anyway since they are all muzzle loaded. I am including the firearms as a homage to the period in which the campaign takes place. Also, the skill check required to avoid the breaking or explosion of the firearm would be one of very low DC. I fully expect my players to be heroes where every other average person in the combat will be firing one round a round, my players are going to be ale to possibly fire two shots in 6 seconds. Realistically, a top notch gunner during that period could fire 4 shots a minute.

It sounds like you'd be interested in the weapons listed under the Renaissance time period (although that is far earlier than the 1800s):

Pistol is 1d10, 30/90, loading
Musket is 1d12, 40/120, loading, two-handed

The damage makes them somewhat more powerful of a weapon than a Heavy Crossbow while being lighter weight, and of course there's no "Gun Expert" feat, but if you plan on having the players use these weapons frequently and well, I'd advise that you basically reskin the Crossbow Expert into that.

The big benefit to Firearms is the damage, otherwise there'd be no reason to use them when medieval ranged weapons (crossbow, bow) are so much easier to acquire. Firearms are either priceless (modern/futuristic) or very expensive (250gp for a pistol, 500gp for a musket).

late 1800s era firearms likely would be the musket, but with the reloading feature instead of the loading feature (simulating breechloaders over muzzle loaders).

[Sabeta]

Isn't it not Loading for guns, but reload/x instead, just so that you can't take Crossbow Expert and bypass the extremely painful act of reloading a civil war musket.

[CaptainSarathai]

The thing is, bows or crossbows were better than early black powder weapons. English Longbows were tested at a minimum range of 220 yards, could fire out to 350 yards with sufficiently heavy draw, and pierce early plate mail at those ranges. Crossbows as used by the French were also lethal out to 200 yards. The smoothbore muskets used by Napoleon's troops could fire out to 300 yards under optimal conditions, with clean muzzles and well-disciplined troops. Under battlefield conditions however, and accounting for the poor accuracy of the weapon, commanders expected an effective volley to be around 200-250 yards.
English Longbowmen were expected to deliver 12 arrows/minute. A trained crossbowman delivered roughly 4-6 in the same span. A Napoleonic French soldier was expected to produce 3-4 shots per minute.

So why did everyone use muskets? They switched when bow-weapons stopped piercing armor. By the time guns finally phased armor off the battlefield, cultures lacked the background skill with bows and crossbows and there was no going back.

So my suggestion is to let that play out naturally in game. Giving a musket a D12 for damage is just silly - you mean to tell me that a musket ball to the chest does more impact/damage than getting smashed with a great-axe? No. A musket ball leaves a hole in you like a crossbow bolt or an arrow (no minie balls yet) does, it just makes that hole faster.

Flintlock Weapons:
Pistol - D8 damage - 30/120 - Loading, Black Powder
Musket - D10 damage - 80/320 - Loading, Black Powder

*Black Powder: black powder weapons ignore armor (usually 10+Dex bonus).

This promotes players naturally taking a more historical approach to their armor choices. Medium Armor that provides a good mixture of AC and Dex is probably the heaviest set anyone will want to wear, just like the breastplate and helmet worn by Curiassiers of the era.

Honestly though, D&D just isn't really set up to promote sensible integration of black powder. An axe to the chest should kill players outright, and so should a musket ball. Otherwise, you get the whole "Warhammer 40k" situation, where players want to run through a hail of gunfire just so they can smack people with an axe "because it's better"

[lunaticfringe]

Isn't it not Loading for guns, but reload/x instead, just so that you can't take Crossbow Expert and bypass the extremely painful act of reloading a civil war musket.

Renaissance Guns (Pistols,Muskets) use Loading.

Loading. Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

Loading really just affects PCs with Extra Attacks. A Level 3 Dragon Sorcerer with a Musket doesn't care about Loading. Crossbow Expert states:

You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient. Doesn't mention anything about Firearms.

[lperkins2]

If you're talking late 18th century or early 19th century flintlocks, (Napoleonic wars), you're talking 3 full round actions (5e terms, uses an action, cannot move or use bonus action, each round) for an expert to reload while standing, longer if kneeling or laying prone. The typical soldier could manage maybe 2 shots a minute. Note that this is without taking the time to use a ramrod, which is needed if shooting longer distances or downhill.

The Napoleonic wars involved a great deal of bayonet work, where both sides would fire a volley, then the attackers would advance and the defenders would usually reload and fire a second volley. After that no one would bother to reload, instead engaging with bayonets. If you decrease the reload time even to 1 shot every other round, there will be little reason to ever engage in hand-to-hand combat.

As for the damage, I would argue for more than 1d12. Generally if you got shot, you were pretty well out of the fight. At 1d12, a guard (11 HP) will only get dropped 1 time in 6. Unless you're going to use commoner for the NPC soldiers, 1d12 is just not reliable enough. When I ran a similar campaign, I used 3d8 for firearms (75% to drop an npc guard). The difference in velocity between pistols and muskets is pretty minimal (700ish fps for both of them, and if it exits you don't transfer all the energy), so I just used the same damage. The major advantage the musket had was accuracy. Even so, without rifled barrels, both pistols and muskets should have a fairly short accurate range. Probably something like 60/600 for muskets and 20/600 for pistols. If you include the British 95th Rifles, you're talking something like 150/600.

[lunaticfringe]

Musket Model 1777 has an effective range of 50-100 yards. I wouldn't go past 300 on the high end but that's just me. Good job on the reload math, 3 rounds is about as Historically accurate as you can get. Assuming you're a well trained French Soldier and 10 Rounds=1 minute.

[CaptainSarathai]

If you're talking late 18th century or early 19th century flintlocks, (Napoleonic wars), you're talking 3 full round actions (5e terms, uses an action, cannot move or use bonus action, each round) for an expert to reload while standing, longer if kneeling or laying prone.
Trained soldiers were expected 6, estimated down to 4. During the English Civil War, soldiers firing matchlocks were capable of 2/minute, with Cromwell notably getting the New Model Army to fire 3 shots as standard drill.
Even still, a Crossbow didn't fire any faster than a musket, and they only give those 'Loading'. PLUS the option to go "Expert" and fire something like 48 shots per minute at top levels.


If you decrease the reload time even to 1 shot every other round, there will be little reason to ever engage in hand-to-hand combat.
Loading. You only get 1-shot/round, whereas anyone with MultiAttack will swing 2-3 times in that span in melee.


At 1d12, a guard (11 HP) will only get dropped 1 time in 6. Unless you're going to use commoner for the NPC soldiers, 1d12 is just not reliable enough. When I ran a similar campaign, I used 3d8 for firearms (75% to drop an npc guard).
Again - same problem I was talking about with the battle-axe. You smack someone with a giant axe and connect, get through armor (beat AC), they should go right down. I hit your arm with an axe, I take your whole arm off, probably go through and still mash your ribs to dust. A musket ball to the arm will require amputation, but won't take it clean off. An "action hero" like your PCs are playing would probably walk through a ball or two.
D&D doesn't care much about "walking wounded". You're either up, or your KO and dying. There's no graphic in-between, where the shot doesn't kill you, but you're laying there coughing blood from a punctured lung or unable to stand because you have a shattered femur.

[lperkins2]

Trained soldiers were expected 6, estimated down to 4. During the English Civil War, soldiers firing matchlocks were capable of 2/minute, with Cromwell notably getting the New Model Army to fire 3 shots as standard drill.
Even still, a Crossbow didn't fire any faster than a musket, and they only give those 'Loading'. PLUS the option to go "Expert" and fire something like 48 shots per minute at top levels.


Loading. You only get 1-shot/round, whereas anyone with MultiAttack will swing 2-3 times in that span in melee.


Again - same problem I was talking about with the battle-axe. You smack someone with a giant axe and connect, get through armor (beat AC), they should go right down. I hit your arm with an axe, I take your whole arm off, probably go through and still mash your ribs to dust. A musket ball to the arm will require amputation, but won't take it clean off. An "action hero" like your PCs are playing would probably walk through a ball or two.
D&D doesn't care much about "walking wounded". You're either up, or your KO and dying. There's no graphic in-between, where the shot doesn't kill you, but you're laying there coughing blood from a punctured lung or unable to stand because you have a shattered femur.


6 seconds per shot for a crossbow isn't too far off if you've practiced with it and it's a simple hook-drawn one. 6 seconds for a heavy crossbow is possibly a bit quick, but it is still called a crossbow and not a windlass, so presumably it is still just a simple pull the string back device. Certainly it's fine for a hand crossbow.

It's a fair point about the axe or sword blow, but as you pointed out, in melee you're unlikely to only get attacked once. Also, after 1st level how often do you actually only deal 1d10 damage per hit? Heck, even at first level, optimized melee characters can easily surpass 14 dmg/round (the expected damage from 3d8). Besides, usually the notion of taking limbs off in combat is related to critical hits. It's one thing to get past his defense well enough to 'deal damage', it's quite another to land a blow that will put an opponent instantly out of the fight despite their armor. With firearms, the armor doesn't do much of anything, so the odds of a minor injury are pretty slim. It is something that 5e really doesn't handle particularly well, focusing instead on simplicity.

[CaptainSarathai]

The figures I laid out in the post above were comparisons between English longbows and French crossbows, which were windlasses. The shorter the arms of a bow, the more force is required to draw it back to impart the same amount of force. Draw strength on a longbow is 75lbs, or more. Crossbows have to pull a LOT more than that, just to keep up, let alone out-damage the bow as D&D versions do.
Historically, the advantage of crossbows was that they required less training, and could "hold draw" unlike a bowman.

I think all we've been succeeding in here, is pointing out how historical accuracy is practically forgotten in terms of D&D.

You're calling for 3D8+Stat damage, every other round. Anyone with Extra Attack and a Bow can outdo that, hands down. Why would they even USE a gun (in D&D)? If you crank the damage any higher, you risk turning a PC inside-out with one lucky shot, and the rest of the time the gun is just worthless.

I think that the best comparison in D&D terms would be a crossbow. Historically, they have the same kind of uses (easily trained, slower rate of fire). The advantage, which you even hinted at somewhat yourself, is that a gun will punch through armor.

As I see it, in D&D, exceeding target AC means landing a blow and punching through their armor. Weapon dice represent the damage dealt when the shot gets through. So for a gun, punching a hole in you doesn't need to do much more damage than (in system) a crossbow or bow might do. But what it DOES do, the defining feature - is that it practically ignores armor. Your suggestion (simply increasing damage) encourages players to wear heavier armor to increase their AC to prevent that damage, and punishes the more nimble, lightly armored characters. If that were in any way historically accurate, the French Imperial Guard would have marched to battle in full-plate.
That's why, in past editions of D&D, firearms targeted Touch AC. That's what I replicated in my suggestion. It keeps the guns quick, simple, and unobtrusive, while maintaining character of the weapon and making them noticeably better than the more primitive weapons.

[lperkins2]

...

I do like the idea of having firearms ignore target AC, might be worth considering using a reflex save instead of an attack roll (I believe a number of cantrips do that).

I suppose it also depends on the type of campaign you want to run. When I did my no-magic late renaissance campaign, the goal was very much to make PCs squishy, so the risk of a lucky shot turning a PC 'inside out' was a feature rather than a bug.

It's also a long-time pet peeve of mine with D&D, you get the 'critical hit' for 2 damage, followed by a normal hit for 10 from the same attacker, and the related problem of 'beat his AC by 1, do max damage; beat his AC by 30, do 1 damage'. My thinking is that, since D&D doesn't impose any statistical penalties for lowering HP, there can't be any serious injuries before the last hit. It's common for DMs to describe the hits that lower a creature from 100 HP to 90 as drawing blood, or slicing pieces off or similar, but it just doesn't work well for a gritty campaign.

Anyway, I don't particularly disagree with anything you're saying. I think it's good advice and would likely work well for a renaissance 'action hero' campaign.

[CaptainSarathai]

I suppose it also depends on the type of campaign you want to run. When I did my no-magic late renaissance campaign, the goal was very much to make PCs squishy, so the risk of a lucky shot turning a PC 'inside out' was a feature rather than a bug.
That would absolutely make a difference! I agree, too, that D&D is written as an "action hero" setting by default. Consider that you start at L1 and 20 levels later you are standing upon the threshold of godhood. At Lv1 you are equal to multiple goblins. At Lv14 the Sorcerer sprouts wings!

If you want a grittier role-playing style, look into L5R or especially Pendragon. The issue with such campaigns is that players are going to loop through several characters, so it can be hard for them to be motivated to really love a character. Pendragon is intentionally generational - you play a family rather than a single character (although you play 1 character at a time, with 1 session = 1-5 years of their life)

I think that with the options in the DMs guide to not improve Hit Points, and the Bounded Accuracy in 5e it's easier to play a gritty campaign like that, but it would still take work. I'd like to see an 'Injury System' like that of L5R added to the game for sure.

[lperkins2]

Yeah, the campaign I ran I capped HP at level 3 maximum, if you multiclassed to get a bigger hit die, you could raise it a bit. I also made it clear that the PCs were expected to hire help. In the entire campaign, we only lost 2 PCs, the first to just bad luck (max damage critical from the BBEG's lieutenant) and the second due to a serious mistake on the part of the players. Meanwhile, they went through quite a few hired henchmen. A large part of the campaign style was due to the party composition. If you are going to try to surprise and slaughter the enemy, it only works if the enemy dies upon being shot. The PCs then got scaled down to match.

[Vogonjeltz]

So my suggestion is to let that play out naturally in game. Giving a musket a D12 for damage is just silly - you mean to tell me that a musket ball to the chest does more impact/damage than getting smashed with a great-axe? No. A musket ball leaves a hole in you like a crossbow bolt or an arrow (no minie balls yet) does, it just makes that hole faster.

Hit points aren't meat. They reflect luck, fortitude, tenacity, vigor, the will to live, etcetera.

So when damage it dealt it doesn't mean the character has actually been harmed per se, it means they avoided dying in some way. Only the final point of damage actually reflects a character being hit (absent the critical hit lingering wound rules) directly.

Anything else is the character exerting themselves to dodge out of the way, or deflect a blow.


I do like the idea of having firearms ignore target AC, might be worth considering using a reflex save instead of an attack roll (I believe a number of cantrips do that).

Burst fire targets an area and uses a reflex saving throw, however none of the non-modern weapons are burst fire given that they're all single-shot.

[beargryllz]

You can increase the damage dice one increment on most ranged weapons and add a proficiency: firearms requirement

Rifled musket 1d10 and longbow range table, carbine 1d8 and shortbow table, derringer 1d8 and hand xbow table

That would be how I do them.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

Do not forget, Rifles were used it the Napoleonic wars. Empire Total War gives a great example of the many, many weapons & fighting styles used at the time.

do not forget about Pickle Guns.

Muskets were not as bad as many believe.. A French soldier could hit a man sized target at 100 yards with the Standard Issue Musket Model 1777 Charleville.

The Austrian Army fielded & used the Girandoni air rifle. Ranged at 150 yards, silent, & a multi-shot breach loader.

Rifles could do the same at 600 yards. The elite 95th Regiment of Foot (Rifles) - Prince Consort's Own was fielded by His Royal Majesty George III, and Rifles were Common in the States that later became Germany Jäger companies.

Interestingly, It is why the Americas fielded so many rifles during the our insurrection. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania fielded more rifles companies authorized by congress, which were organized into the 1st Pennsylvania Regiment. The horrific nature of combat with the French & their Indian allies was such that the Scots / Irish population widely adopted the rifle well prior to 1775. A Pennsylvania unit (Company C of the 337th Engineer Battalion) still carries the honors of Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Germantown, & Monmouth.

Rifles were not popular in British circles, but they were well known & Common 28 years before the Start of the Napoleonic Wars.

[Anderlith]

The thing is, bows or crossbows were better than early black powder weapons. English Longbows were tested at a minimum range of 220 yards, could fire out to 350 yards with sufficiently heavy draw, and pierce early plate mail at those ranges. Crossbows as used by the French were also lethal out to 200 yards. The smoothbore muskets used by Napoleon's troops could fire out to 300 yards under optimal conditions, with clean muzzles and well-disciplined troops. Under battlefield conditions however, and accounting for the poor accuracy of the weapon, commanders expected an effective volley to be around 200-250 yards.
English Longbowmen were expected to deliver 12 arrows/minute. A trained crossbowman delivered roughly 4-6 in the same span. A Napoleonic French soldier was expected to produce 3-4 shots per minute.

So why did everyone use muskets? They switched when bow-weapons stopped piercing armor. By the time guns finally phased armor off the battlefield, cultures lacked the background skill with bows and crossbows and there was no going back.

So my suggestion is to let that play out naturally in game. Giving a musket a D12 for damage is just silly - you mean to tell me that a musket ball to the chest does more impact/damage than getting smashed with a great-axe? No. A musket ball leaves a hole in you like a crossbow bolt or an arrow (no minie balls yet) does, it just makes that hole faster.

Flintlock Weapons:
Pistol - D8 damage - 30/120 - Loading, Black Powder
Musket - D10 damage - 80/320 - Loading, Black Powder

*Black Powder: black powder weapons ignore armor (usually 10+Dex bonus).

This promotes players naturally taking a more historical approach to their armor choices. Medium Armor that provides a good mixture of AC and Dex is probably the heaviest set anyone will want to wear, just like the breastplate and helmet worn by Curiassiers of the era.

Honestly though, D&D just isn't really set up to promote sensible integration of black powder. An axe to the chest should kill players outright, and so should a musket ball. Otherwise, you get the whole "Warhammer 40k" situation, where players want to run through a hail of gunfire just so they can smack people with an axe "because it's better"

Plate armor could withstand musket balls
Bow require training, lots of it, to develop the tendons to wield one
Not every farmer could wield a bow or had a bow
Bows were expensive, prone to all kinds of problems such as rot & the string breaking
Bows in battle were not shooting straight at the enemy like Legolas, but more like artillery, line up a bunch of archers & arc high to kit something.

At the time, metal was cheap, it required no training (point & click)
Could be aimed for a longer period of time. & although it was rubbish when wet, so was a bow.
This replaced the knight because knights take time & money to make. Way more than a musket. Proper archers take time and money to make & were about as effective as a gunner.

Also Musket balls are also deadly as crap. More deadly than modern rounds like .22 and even 50cal. Musket balls were soft and tumbled through you. Liable to splinter tiny bits of bone and worse. I feel like they should have a wide crit range, but that is semantics

[CaptainSarathai]

Hit points aren't meat. They reflect luck, fortitude, tenacity, vigor, the will to live, etcetera.

So when damage it dealt it doesn't mean the character has actually been harmed per se, it means they avoided dying in some way. Only the final point of damage actually reflects a character being hit (absent the critical hit lingering wound rules) directly.
Yeah, that's just a long way of saying that HP is a measure of how much bodily harm you can sustain before you drop. Whether that's an arrow getting through your armor and just "winging" you arm, or the fact that your Barbarian is the literal Hulk and just doesn't care that he's been stabbed 5 times. I think we all understand that.
My point was that the "lethality" of a musket-ball shouldnt be any greater than the lethality of a great-axe. If D&D wants to say that you can survive getting Critted with a G.Axe and taking a maxed-out damage roll for 29 damage, that's on them. You're character is a zombie or a super-hero (more like, he has a subcutaneous layer of Plot Armor thicker than a Space Marine's Black Carapace) but the fact remains - a musket ball isn't going to out damage an axe blow in any real capacity.


You can increase the damage dice one increment on most ranged weapons and add a proficiency: firearms requirement
I'd only add this if your campaign is assuming that firearms are a relatively new weapon. Otherwise I'd just call them Martial Weapons once they've been adequately integrated into the culture. The martial subgroup is really referencing military weapons that require more training than just "sharp end toward enemy". By Napoleon's day, more people would probably have understood how to effectively fire a musket than a bow and arrow.


Plate armor could withstand musket balls
Classic case of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" - plate steel can stop a rocket-propelled-grenade if it's thick enough. At the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, tempered steel was common enough that the armor of most French nobles was able to bounce a bodkin arrow. Plate could be thickened and reinforced in key areas so that it would deflect fatal shots from matchlocks, but as firearm technology progressed, (bores tightened, wadding used, ramrods, stronger barrels allowing hotter loads etc) any armor thick enough to stop a bullet was too heavy to be practical. Even "proofed" armor, that so many hold up as examples of stopping bullets, is dubious; at what range was the shot fired, how much powder was loaded, and so on. Don't think that an armorer would be above half-loading a gun and shooting into his plate just to make a sale. What are you gonna do if he swindles you, dig the bullet out of your chest and go sue him?


Also Musket balls are deadly as crap. More deadly than modern rounds like .22 and even 50cal. Musket balls were soft and tumbled through you. Liable to splinter tiny bits of bone and worse. I feel like they should have a wide crit range, but that is semantics
This I agree with - maybe give them Brutal Critical (extra damage die on Crit)
The only other thing to point out is that most nations didn't even use bows during the middle-ages, in any effective sense. Only the English managed it, and that was through royal decree that every farmer DID have a bow, and every Sunday had a few hours dedicated to training with it. The English really brought back the notion of maintaining a semi-professional army of peasants to Europe. But yes - training a bowman took time, and they were highly valued (for peasants).


Do not forget, Rifles were used it the Napoleonic wars. Empire Total War gives a great example of the many, many weapons & fighting styles used at the time.
They were, but they were expensive, slower to fire, and at the time the field tactics did not require their longer range. Lower production costs leading to widespread adoption of rifled musketry is believed to be a leading cause of the higher battlefield casualties seen in the American Civil War - for the first time, regiments could fire effective volleys beyond bayonet range. Where Napoleon and his contemporaries would exchange a volley and then follow with a bayonet charge while receiving one additional volley (from the enemy's best), ACW commanders were firing effectively at ranges where they would eat 2-3 more volleys while making the charge. Ironically, a bayonet charge is LESS lethal than exchanging volleys, because most enemies will route when faced with a well-drilled bayonet advance.


do not forget about Pickle Guns.

The Austrian Army fielded & used the Girandoni air rifle. Ranged at 150 yards, silent, & a multi-shot breach loader.

I think you mean puckle guns, the only machine gun kitted specifically for racism (look it up) - although getting hit with a volley of condiments would be pretty funny.
Both the Puckle and Girandoni would make cool rare weapons in the campaign though.
It should be pointed out that the effective range of the air rifle started at 125 yards on a full cannister, and then the range and lethality deteriorated over the next 30 shots as the cannister ran out.
This - coupled with production costs, high-maintenance in the field, poor logistics for filling the cannisters, and the increased training required to use such a weapon - is what lead the Austrians to phase the gun out very quickly.


Muskets were not as bad as many believe.. A French soldier could hit a man sized target at 100 yards with the Standard Issue Musket Model 1777 Charleville.

Rifles could do the same at 600 yards. The elite 95th Regiment of Foot (Rifles) - Prince Consort's Own was fielded by His Royal Majesty George III, and Rifles were Common in the States that later became Germany Jäger companies.
First, the Charleville was taller than the man using it, and was one of the most accurate smoothbore muskets of its era. Accurate fire at 100 yards is assuming that the soldier was braced, shooting a stationary target, and nobody was shooting back. A musket could deliver a lethal volley out to 200 yards, they just couldn't hit anything much smaller than a barn, at that distance.

600 yards with a rifle is a feat for a marksman even by today's standards. At 600 yards you can only make out the rough shape of a man. You're not aiming for a body part, you're just aiming to hit him. I hunt with a modern, smokeless-powder rifled musket, and shooting anything at 600 yards is just laughable.


Interestingly, It is why the Americas fielded so many rifles during the our insurrection. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania fielded more rifles companies authorized by congress, which were organized into the 1st Pennsylvania Regiment. The horrific nature of combat with the French & their Indian allies was such that the Scots / Irish population widely adopted the rifle well prior to 1775. A Pennsylvania unit (Company C of the 337th Engineer Battalion) still carries the honors of Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, Germantown, & Monmouth.

Rifles were not popular in British circles, but they were well known & Common 28 years before the Start of the Napoleonic Wars.
America had a ton of rifles because Americans showed up to fight with their own guns. At the outset of the war, American rifles were not mass produced for the military - they were a tool, required for hunting in the wild. They had to be accurate. Most families outside the cities and towns would have regarded their rifle the way that most modern Americans regard their cars. Much like the English longbowman, they were trained in the use of the weapons from a young age, because it formed a cornerstone of their livelihood.
By the end of the war however, and with the mobilization of troops drafted from within city limits where guns were less prevalent, America was producing or importing traditional mass-produced smoothbore muskets in the military style.

[lunaticfringe]

The French drilled to hit at 80yrds

Gun Vs Plate is dubious because of the reasons listed. There was a period where is was back & forth but:

Muskets could generally penetrate Plate Breastplates (the rest doesn't count, too thin) at ranges under 100ft

Pistols did the same at about 10-15ft.

Even if it didn't it hurt like a bitch & ruined your armor (the projectile would pierce the steel, but not the heavy padding underneath). Guns won.

[JackPhoenix]

Again - same problem I was talking about with the battle-axe. You smack someone with a giant axe and connect, get through armor (beat AC), they should go right down. I hit your arm with an axe, I take your whole arm off, probably go through and still mash your ribs to dust. A musket ball to the arm will require amputation, but won't take it clean off. An "action hero" like your PCs are playing would probably walk through a ball or two.
D&D doesn't care much about "walking wounded". You're either up, or your KO and dying. There's no graphic in-between, where the shot doesn't kill you, but you're laying there coughing blood from a punctured lung or unable to stand because you have a shattered femur.

Well, there's your problem. AC and HP are abstract, just because you hit enemy AC and cause HP damage, it doesn't mean that the attack actually connects. "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile". PHB even notes that combatants generally don't show any signs of injury until they lose half their HP.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeah, that's just a long way of saying that HP is a measure of how much bodily harm you can sustain before you drop. Whether that's an arrow getting through your armor and just "winging" you arm, or the fact that your Barbarian is the literal Hulk and just doesn't care that he's been stabbed 5 times. I think we all understand that.

No, that's the exact opposite of what I just said.

HP do not reflect literal harm, they are merely a measure of durability/fragility. Losing hit points in no way reflects being harmed by an object or thing.

[quote=CaptainSarathai]My point was that the "lethality" of a musket-ball shouldnt be any greater than the lethality of a great-axe. If D&D wants to say that you can survive getting Critted with a G.Axe and taking a maxed-out damage roll for 29 damage, that's on them. You're character is a zombie or a super-hero (more like, he has a subcutaneous layer of Plot Armor thicker than a Space Marine's Black Carapace) but the fact remains - a musket ball isn't going to out damage an axe blow in any real capacity.

Part of the discrepency you're coming to is because the damage doesn't reflect actual physical harm.

[CaptainSarathai]

Part of the discrepency you're coming to is because the damage doesn't reflect actual physical harm.
Sigh. This is Devs explaining away a game-design choice, because they didn't want to add injury or wound modifiers into D&D, and didn't want 0hp to mean you're stone-dead.
And that's fine. Whatever. I will carry on with the silliness that is a Barbarian having more tenacity, grit, and will-to-live than a professional soldier (Fighter) or Knight (Paladin) or my lucky, raised-on-the-street, psion-of-an-elder-god Warlock. Because that should be quantifiable. But whatever.

So, I inflict HP damage to a Barbarian with a Great Axe. Why should a gunshot do more damage to that Barbarian's "will to live."
And don't say 'morale', because what if that great-axe is swung by the Warforged whose perfection as a construct will render him and his kind obsolete on the battlefield (just like a gun)

[JackPhoenix]

Sigh. This is Devs explaining away a game-design choice, because they didn't want to add injury or wound modifiers into D&D, and didn't want 0hp to mean you're stone-dead.
And that's fine. Whatever. I will carry on with the silliness that is a Barbarian having more tenacity, grit, and will-to-live than a professional soldier (Fighter) or Knight (Paladin) or my lucky, raised-on-the-street, psion-of-an-elder-god Warlock. Because that should be quantifiable. But whatever.

So, I inflict HP damage to a Barbarian with a Great Axe. Why should a gunshot do more damage to that Barbarian's "will to live."
And don't say 'morale', because what if that great-axe is swung by the Warforged whose perfection as a construct will render him and his kind obsolete on the battlefield (just like a gun)

It's a combination of factors. And it could mean different things: drow assassin dodges and avoids enemy attacks (while taking HP damage), but sooner or later his luck runs out, he makes a mistake, gets tired or whatever and gets hit and killed (HP=0). Meanwhile, Tarrasque is just that though... his HP don't represent his ability to dodge, but to take a catapult boulder to the face and just shrugging and continuing his rampage.

Both AC and HP systems are abstract and should be used together: you can have attack that misses (fails to overcome the AC), but physically connects with the opponent, either being blocked by the shield, deflected by armor or sliding off the dragon's scales. And you have attacks that hit, but don't connect in the narrative: the warrior dodges the blow at the last moment, but sprains his leg in the process, somewhat lessening the chance he'll be able to dodge the next attack. He parries with his sword, but he gets tired and his reactions slow down slightly. Perhaps he got lucky and the bullet was stopped by a medallion on his neck... but he may not be so lucky next time.

It's called plot armor in movies and books. If the battle for Endor shield generator in Return of the Jedi happened in D&D combat system, the heroes and the stormtroopers shooting at each other would sometime miss, sometime hit and decrease enemy hp... without the attack actually hitting. But stormtroopers are mooks with low hp (or plot armor) and gets killed much more easily, while the heroes are lucky to avoid enemy fire... until Leia's got brought to less than half her HP and gets shot, but not killed, and she's still able to fight.

Or in any fantasy movie... the main character fights through hordes of random enemies without pausing, but when he finally reaches the villain, they engage in a long duel full of special effects... that's because the mooks have low hit points and go down in one hit, while the boss and the hero have enough HP that their battle will take multiple rounds, and they don't stab each other until one drops down, they dodge, parry, distract the opponent or look for tactical advantage until one of them loses the last HP, in narrative meaning he makes a mistake and gets skewered by his opponent.

Boromir in Lord of the Rings gets hit by multiple arrows... but while such wounds would kill any lesser man (or orc, as seen later in the battle of Helm's Deep), he grits his teeth and fights on, purely on adrenaline, despite being already dead (ok, that one doesn't work that good in 5e, with its 0 HP mechanic and a lack of bleeding out, but it would work in 3.5e, where you were merely unconscious when you got to -1 HP and only died at -10. Boromir had Diehard feat that allows him to stay conscious and fight even at negative HP, but losing -1 HP every round. It was enough to kill the orc, then lying down and having a conversation with Aragorn. He didn't rolled to stabilise, and so eventually died of his wounds when he hit -10)

Perhaps gunshot does more damage because its harder to dodge than axe blow, or you need more "luck" to avoid being hit, or whatever, it's all abstract... but when you actually do get hit full on, you're dead (or rather, rolling death saves), no matter what kind of attack took your last HP.

[Vogonjeltz]

Sigh. This is Devs explaining away a game-design choice, because they didn't want to add injury or wound modifiers into D&D, and didn't want 0hp to mean you're stone-dead.
And that's fine. Whatever. I will carry on with the silliness that is a Barbarian having more tenacity, grit, and will-to-live than a professional soldier (Fighter) or Knight (Paladin) or my lucky, raised-on-the-street, psion-of-an-elder-god Warlock. Because that should be quantifiable. But whatever.

So, I inflict HP damage to a Barbarian with a Great Axe. Why should a gunshot do more damage to that Barbarian's "will to live."
And don't say 'morale', because what if that great-axe is swung by the Warforged whose perfection as a construct will render him and his kind obsolete on the battlefield (just like a gun)

There are injuries in the game. They're optional, given how catastrophic those are, but they exist. Furthermore, death saving throws and massive damage handle the 0 hit point issue quite well in terms of one-shotting a thing. As for the second part of this:

Bullets are faster than axe swings, and therefore more difficult to avoid being harmed by.

The Will to live terminology you've employed also assumes the target really was physically hit, and this is usually not the case when it comes to the meaning of hit point loss.


America had a ton of rifles because Americans showed up to fight with their own guns. At the outset of the war, American rifles were not mass produced for the military - they were a tool, required for hunting in the wild. They had to be accurate. Most families outside the cities and towns would have regarded their rifle the way that most modern Americans regard their cars. Much like the English longbowman, they were trained in the use of the weapons from a young age, because it formed a cornerstone of their livelihood.
By the end of the war however, and with the mobilization of troops drafted from within city limits where guns were less prevalent, America was producing or importing traditional mass-produced smoothbore muskets in the military style.

The rifle supplanted the longbow precisely because the longbow took enormous strength and training to use well, and the rifle simply doesn't.

[CaptainSarathai]

Both AC and HP systems are abstract and should be used together: you can have attack that misses (fails to overcome the AC), but physically connects with the opponent, either being blocked by the shield, deflected by armor or sliding off the dragon's scales. And you have attacks that hit, but don't connect in the narrative: the warrior dodges the blow at the last moment, but sprains his leg in the process, somewhat lessening the chance he'll be able to dodge the next attack. He parries with his sword, but he gets tired and his reactions slow down slightly. Perhaps he got lucky and the bullet was stopped by a medallion on his neck... but he may not be so lucky next time.

I've always seen AC as your ability to avoid getting a scratch. That Rogue is wearing light armor or no armor, and getting his Dex to his AC. Higher AC means less chance of getting hit.
The Fighter and Paladin are wearing Plate armor. They get hit plenty, but it just bounces off the armor.
Hitting your AC means that something got through your armor. Maybe they roll a 1 for damage and it just barely scratches the Rogue's cheek as he dodges, or maybe it barely carries enough force to break skin after punching through a Paladin's thick armor.
I agree that a hit doesn't always have to draw blood - like body-blows to a boxer, it could just wear you down so that the next hit is just that much more painful. But the shot definitely connected if it beat your AC.

Plot armor means not getting hit. It usually kicks in with - like you said - gunplay movies like StarWars, where you expect that a "hit" would cause a lot of damage, so suddenly Storm Troopers can't hit the broadside of a bantha whenever Luke is standing in the middle of that hangar bay like an idiot. They never met his AC, because he was wearing +20 Full-Plot.


There are injuries in the game. They're optional, given how catastrophic those are, but they exist. Furthermore, death saving throws and massive damage handle the 0 hit point issue quite well in terms of one-shotting a thing.
They aren't taken mid-combat though, and most players don't use them. I said earlier that I've played L5R, which uses a system where your HP are divided into tiers called Wound Ranks. As you take damage in a rank, negative effects add up. It makes combat quick and bloody, or it ends with two bloodied fighters just slogging at each other with huge negative modifiers.
It doesn't represent a lasting disability like losing a hand or eye. It just represents that after taking half damage, your pretty badly battered; you're not going to keep fighting like you did when you first woke up whole and healthy that morning.


The rifle supplanted the longbow precisely because the longbow took enormous strength and training to use well, and the rifle simply doesn't.
You understand that I was talking about the American Revolution, right? Neither side was using longbows for that. Rifles at the time were expensive and took time to produce, and unless you were trained in marksmanship, they didn't really offer any tangible benefits in the field battles of the time. Americans just had more rifles because they were bringing civilian arms to the fight. Once they started outfitting a standing army however, they didn't bother giving everyone a rifle. Muskets were cheaper, faster, and even easier to train.
I already said that gunpowder phased out bow-weapons as a result of ease of use and training, among several other things.

[JackPhoenix]

The rifle supplanted the longbow precisely because the longbow took enormous strength and training to use well, and the rifle simply doesn't.

There was also that thing that the yew used to make longbows was driven to extinction in England and importing it was very expensive... and also driving it to extinction elsewhere in Europe: Emperor of the HRE even forbade cutting of yew trees!

[X3r4ph]

I have made an attempt at adding firearms. It is more inspired by dark fantasy like Blood Borne, The Brotherhood etc.

It is probably very far from reality, and balance might need adjustment, but I have found them to work decently in mid level games.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GpvnWrexIuY1JTZFVOdGRaLVE/view?usp=sharing

[lperkins2]

600 yards with a rifle is a feat for a marksman even by today's standards. At 600 yards you can only make out the rough shape of a man. You're not aiming for a body part, you're just aiming to hit him. I hunt with a modern, smokeless-powder rifled musket, and shooting anything at 600 yards is just laughable.


600 yards is probably at the edge of what the best marksmen could reliably manage on a calm day with a long rifle. During the American war for independence, a number of British soldiers, including officers, were shot at ranges up to half a mile. Of course, it was a rare enough occasion that it made the local (and London) papers, so there is some question how many times they missed. You're right that 600 yards is impressive by today's standards, but there are a couple factors to remember.

First, we spend far more time indoors, looking at a surface less than 3 feet away. People who spend most of their time looking long distances can generally see at long distances better than most of us today. It's not just a physical thing (the muscles in your eyes can only decrease the focal length, not increase it), it's learning to pick out shapes and assign meanings to them when the virtual image is tiny.

Second, modern iron sights are not anywhere near as high quality as they were even 120 years ago. Some of my extended family collects antique firearms, and one of them inherited a plains rifle (circa 1840). It's a little smaller than the original long rifle, but is similar overall. The front sight is sharp enough to cut yourself, and the sight picture is different than modern sights. The notch in the rear sight is narrower than the width of the front sight, so that when in use, their virtual images are almost exactly the same size. When properly aligned, there is no visible gap. This completely removes the guesswork involved in lining the rifle up with your eye.

Most of the impressive reports from the American war for independence are largely unsubstantiated, however American Tories told Major George Hanger that 200 yards was typical headshot range, and that he had best not stand still at less than 300 yards. At the siege of Boonesboro, when a British officer stuck his head out from behind a tree, Daniel Boone shot him, in the head (with just his head visible), at 250 yards.

Of course, even a mildly windy day decreases the effective range dramatically.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

600 yards is probably at the edge of what the best marksmen could reliably manage on a calm day with a long rifle. During the American war for independence, a number of British soldiers, including officers, were shot at ranges up to half a mile. Of course, it was a rare enough occasion that it made the local (and London) papers, so there is some question how many times they missed. You're right that 600 yards is impressive by today's standards, but there are a couple factors to remember.

First, we spend far more time indoors, looking at a surface less than 3 feet away. People who spend most of their time looking long distances can generally see at long distances better than most of us today. It's not just a physical thing (the muscles in your eyes can only decrease the focal length, not increase it), it's learning to pick out shapes and assign meanings to them when the virtual image is tiny.

Second, modern iron sights are not anywhere near as high quality as they were even 120 years ago. Some of my extended family collects antique firearms, and one of them inherited a plains rifle (circa 1840). It's a little smaller than the original long rifle, but is similar overall. The front sight is sharp enough to cut yourself, and the sight picture is different than modern sights. The notch in the rear sight is narrower than the width of the front sight, so that when in use, their virtual images are almost exactly the same size. When properly aligned, there is no visible gap. This completely removes the guesswork involved in lining the rifle up with your eye.

Most of the impressive reports from the American war for independence are largely unsubstantiated, however American Tories told Major George Hanger that 200 yards was typical headshot range, and that he had best not stand still at less than 300 yards. At the siege of Boonesboro, when a British officer stuck his head out from behind a tree, Daniel Boone shot him, in the head (with just his head visible), at 250 yards.

Of course, even a mildly windy day decreases the effective range dramatically.

This.

US Marine Standard weapons qual is 600 yards, and we use a weapon that fires a round of the most dubious ability to be effective of any military in the history of the world, with 600 rounds being the maximum effective range of the round, out of a long barreled rifle. A 62 gr bullet just is not effective, & anyone who thinks it is needs to stop drinking the cool-aid. It is cheap, and you can carry a lot of it, but it is nothing more than a high pressure .22.

One thing you failed to mention was bullet weights. Those lead balls where much heavier, and wind drift, much less of a factor.

Since the invention of modern gun powders, .30 bullets have been the standard world wide. Be they 30/30, 30-06, 7.62, .303 British, 300 win mag, or 308. The 303 Brit (as an example) has a maximum effective range of 3,000 yd
.
Practice number 22, Rapid Fire aka the mad minute. Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford set the first record in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48 inch target at 300 yard. Bolt action Rifle, 5 round magazines. Keep in mind British Riflemen had unlimited ammo for practice, and significant cash prizes were awarded to the best shooters. To Qualify on that drill 15 hits were required. Experienced shooters regularly hit 30. Soldiers who qualified has marksmen got a substantial pay boost. Before the trenches were dug in WWI, British soldiers regularly completely halted the advances of the German Army (the largest and best in the world, perhaps the best in all of human history) at ranges 500 yards or more.

CaptainSarathai should not confuse modern toleration of awful shooting with the far higher standards of the past. Nor should people assume soft lead bullets replaced armor, they did not on Many mounted forces. The French Hussars (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/58/b7/1d/58b71d9d992b4d6af2a7ee9e73c6e108.jpg) went to war in 1914 in the same uniforms they are under Napoleon. Today Every soldier wears a Kevlar helmet, before that steel. They don't stop bullets, but might still save your life.

Nor should CaptainSarathai confuse the tactics of Napoleon, with those of professional standing armies. Like the Union army in The Civil War, he figured out that it does not matter how many people die, as long as you keep sending in more people. Prussia, England &l had professional armies. Napoleon had a mob, that spent lives.
Nor should the tactics employed at the time be considered "correct" - inability to keep abreast of modern tactics, or see how new weapons could be used, is often a fatal flaw of military leaders. Anyone with a working brain, who read reports from the wars in America - French & Indian War, the Revolution, the numerous raids by Indian Tribes would have seen the usefulness of light, fast moving rifle troops, mounted or unmounted, who did not fight in Squares. Some British Commanders did. Some Prussian (and other German) units did. Most did not.

Yes, Americans did train in the European style. Yes, they did adopt muskets for many continental troops No, soldiers were not drafted, and issued weapons never became commonplace in the colonial army. Most Americans, even in major cities were familiar with arms. Dueling was not uncommon of Gentlemen. Literally every State or Commonwealth with the exception of Massachusetts & mayhap Maryland, lived in constant fear of Indian Raids, the likes of which makes ISIL look like paragons of enlighten thought & civilization. 50 years after the revolution, Andrew Jackson swept the election in every single State that still lived in fear of Indian Raids - which was every State not in New England, plus Delaware & NJ, which had no such fears. But Again, it must be considered, they were taught by European soldiers, they had, until independence was declared, been subjects of the Crown, & had fought in the Crown's wars, in the Crown's Style, and in all the world, the experts on military force were European, in thought & experience.

The BEST military commanders were not the ones who used conventional tactics. General Francis Marion, General Lighthorse Harry Lee. General Knox.

Napoleon knew artillery, and he commanded the only nation in the history of the world that fully mobilized for war.
You cannot stop me," he warned the Austrian statesman Metternich, "I can spend 30,000 men a month". - Napoleon

[CaptainSarathai]

Sigh... this thread has gotten so far off topic, but sure, what the hell:

I said that 600yards with a musket- especially without rifling, and with any expectation of reliability- is laughable (that means almost impossible). Some 200 years on, and it's only become standard range for professional standing armies with some of the best equipment available.

There's less windage on a heavy ball, but there's also less velocity gained without a shell-casing and snug barrel, as a result there's more bullet drop, and soft lead deforms in the barrel. Not to mention that without rifling you're basically punting a football rather than throwing a spiral pass.
--
I am not mistaking modern "poor quality shooting" with the skill of past marksmen. Their skill was incredible, but their equipment was not. It is a similar situation with the longbow and musketry - the new equipment gains the same effect with less effort. Could a colonial sharpshooter with a rifle bring down a target at 300 yards? Absolutely! But as Iperkins pointed out - this was considered noteworthy, not the norm (this coming from the highly skilled British army). Now, just about anyone with a rifle and some modicum of skill is a threat at 300 yards, and even ranged twice as great are not considered particularly amazing. Boone's shot at the time was what we could consider a sniper, now; our snipers are recorded landing shots at over a mile. It's not a lack of skill at all, it's the quality of the equipment.

Earlier in the thread, I pointed out that bullets did not entirely supersede armor. They only lightened it. The cuirass worn by cavalry in 1914 wasn't meant to stop a bullet. Neither was the cuirass worn by colonial lancers. But nobody was walking up to the fight in full-plate any more, because it just didn't do enough good - you'd get shot before you got there. Only lancers and those who went into close combat wore body armor, and mainly to protect against bayonets and sabers. Those WW1-era lancers in their armor confirmed the first British kill of the war; on horseback, with a saber against a lance. That's why they wore armor. We phased armor and cavalry out almost entirely during WW1. Even bayonet charges by infantry were obsolete by WW2, as the Japanese discovered.
Modern armor and helmets, only recently reintroduced by comparison, are really only meant to stop shrapnel. A kevlar vest with ceramic inserts can stop a bullet from killing you but you're likely still a casualty, and they are only rated to stop bullets up to a certain size and from beyond a certain distance.

As far as field tactics in the age of Napoleon and other colonial powers: every army used rifles and sharpshooters. They were employed as skirmishers on the flanks and the opening screen of the battle, and were the equivalent of modern special forces units.
No militia in their right mind would walk into "Indian Country" in closed ranks and expect to fight effectively. They adopted open-order skirmishing when the terrain and scale of the fighting allowed it.

You're making the common mistake of comparing modern tactics with smokeless powder and radios to the tactics of an earlier age OR, you are using hindsight to say for instance that Civil War generals were wrong for not predicting or instantly recognizing the effects of new, long-range weapons introduced in the time between the ACW and the last recorded pitched field battle.

What you're forgetting is that firearms were not the principle tactic in field battles of the Colonial era. Consider:
1) Because of slow reloads, cavalry charges are still effective. How do you stop cavalry? Form a Square and present a wall of bodies and bayonets that a horse will not charge into. Wellington employed this at Waterloo.
How are troops in open-order going to effectively form a Square before being overrun?

2) Bayonet charges were still the order of the day for sweeping troops from the field and claiming ground. How are skirmishers going to stand up to dense ranks of 80-100 men storming them from close enough that you'll get 2 volleys at best?

Now, you might say,
"March 80-100 men at me in rank, and I'll answer with 80-100 skirmishers, surround them, and tear them apart"
Okay, but how do you control those skirmishers wrapped around the unit? This is an age before radios. If you split them into small rifle-teams like the modern military, clusters of men within shouting distance (remembering that you're shouting over the din of a battle), each of those fireteam leaders needs to know the plan and be able to coordinate with the other leaders. How?
And what are you going to do when there are literally dozens of those blocks, in closely packed lines, marching a battlefield 3 miles wide?

The easiest way to control a large mass of troops was to keep them in formation. You gave an order to one part of that formation to start walking forward, and anyone who didn't hear it saw everyone else start moving and said "oh, we must be marching forward, okay." This is also why it was so hard to rally men once they had broken - you couldn't just tell them "regroup at the old farmhouse" - most wouldn't even hear you, and nobody is going to stop at that house if everyone else is still running past it.

As for Napoleon sending men into a "grinder" - Napoleon knew what the most valuable skill of the time was: not routing before your enemy did. That's what made the French so dangerous. It wasn't that they were better shots, or better fighters with their bayonets - they were less afraid. When they came across the British, and the "thin red line" - it totally rattled them, because unlike every other army, the British would stare down those massive artillery barrages, and cavalry charges, and huge columns of advancing men and not run.
You're forgetting that this was an age before smokeless powder. After one shot, a regiment couldn't see anything in front of it. Accurate fire was less about hitting a single man-sized target and more about making sure you didn't over shoot or shoot low when blindly hurling lead through the smoke from your last shot. So unless you were a skirmisher fighting in open order, nobody cared how accurate you were on a battlefield. They cared how fast you could shoot and reload to shoot again.

Going back to Waterloo, the British knew this. Napoleon committed the Guard, and they marched up the hill toward this thin line of British. The British were in that thin line so that they could have more men firing, rather than waiting in the back ranks.
So the Guard start marching, and they take that first volley, and it's awful. But they say, "come on. They have to reload or fix bayonets now!"
And they keep going. And now they're thinking, either they shoot again, and we get them with our bayonets or they fix bayonets, and we get them with our numbers
And the next volley tears into them. "Ha! Those idiot British haven't fixed bayonets - quick, just run these last few feet and we'll catch them totally unprepared!"
Because that's how a bayonet charge works. Most armies, if charged with bayonets, wouldn't stand and fight without their own bayonets fixed. The French thought that the British were relying on that second volley, and if it didn't work, the Brits would run away.
But they couldn't see the British line through the smoke. So when Wellington ordered the men on the reverse slope to stand - with their bayonets already fixed - and charge past the firing line through the smoke, the French must have thought it was witchcraft. How did they fix their bayonets so fast? Where did these men come from? How many more are behind them?
And for the first time ever on a battlefield, the French Guard broke and routed.

[CaptainSarathai]

Now, to get the thread back on topic, I doubt the OP wants to represent guns on a mass battlefield. So yes, they're going to be skirmishing a'la Indian Country.
And this is where it gets wierd. Because in skirmishes like that, you didn't break cover or go into hand-to-hand that often. It was more like modern combat.
But in D&D that is
A. BORING
and
B. Silly, because unless the guns kill you in 1 hit (which D&D is not particularly scaled to handle) you are going to be able to survive standing up and charging through a few shots, unless they're at longer ranges and it turns into a silly sniper fest (see A)

So my suggestion is that guns don't have a max range (or a max range of 900' aka 300 yards).
I also suggest that they ignore armor bonuses to AC, since at most ranges, a colonial musket will bust through plate anyway.
This forces players into thinking like those cavalrymen in 1914: you wear armor only to protect from melee attack, because ranged attacks don't care. Being fast or stealthy becomes better than heavy armor, most of the time.
It also puts the average DPR of a gun way up and makes standing up and getting hit at range riskier than ever - WITHOUT makin guns so lethal that fights devolve into parking in place and trading 1-2 shots each round.

I also suggest that reloading take 1 attack. Not 1 attack action, but 1 attack from that action. If you have the Extra Attack feature, you can shoot and reload in the same turn. A fighter with 4 attacks can shoot twice per turn.

[Beleriphon]

Now, to get the thread back on topic, I doubt the OP wants to represent guns on a mass battlefield. So yes, they're going to be skirmishing a'la Indian Country.
And this is where it gets wierd. Because in skirmishes like that, you didn't break cover or go into hand-to-hand that often. It was more like modern combat.
But in D&D that is
A. BORING
and
B. Silly, because unless the guns kill you in 1 hit (which D&D is not particularly scaled to handle) you are going to be able to survive standing up and charging through a few shots, unless they're at longer ranges and it turns into a silly sniper fest (see A)

If one were to include firearms in D&D I'd suggest going the d20 Modern route, and have a "damage limit" involved, maybe based on Con. So if a character takes enough damage from a single attack that is over said limit they get knocked down to 0 HP. If guns do enough damage say, 3d6 for small bore weapons like a pistol then you'd be looking at regularly dropping the average human in one shot on average. It doesn't have to represent actually getting hit, just that it takes so much effort to not get shot that the average person will basically die from the next attack that would have hit them.

Heroes obviously take a more dangerous weapon on average to harm in this way. Critical hits are still super dangerous however.

[CaptainSarathai]

That's a good idea, but I think it depends on how prevalent guns are going to be in the campaign. There's lots of stuff in D&D that could convincingly "one-hit" a person, and even a Goblin can shrug them off. D&D simply isn't designed to be that lethal for the PCs.
Having them fear 1-hit kills could turn gunfights into boring "find cover and trade shots" style fighting. Sure, you could use spells like Darkness to "manufacture" cover, but the other question becomes "why bother closing to melee, when a pistol can 1-shot from a distance?"

That's why I like the idea of the wound levels from L5R. You don't have to die or get KO'd to be taken out of a fight. Anything that takes you below half Heath is terrifying, because at that point you've basically got Disadvantage on everything you do. We introduced teppo into L5R and taking a bullet was like,
"Ow, I've been shot! F--- this, I wanna go home, I'm done here!"
And often, a fight could turn into the few able-bodied fighters left, trying to cover the retreat or drag wounded buddies to safety. Getting knocked down to low enough health had you only capable of crawling around on the ground, totally useless in a fight.

That's the problem with D&D, and attack either puts you down, or it doesn't. There's no in between. Personally, they're 2 separate games, and I like keeping it that way. Going into a D&D session, I feel like a character in 'The Avengers' - a veritable god among men, impervious to harm and wielding power far beyond the lowly minions of my enemies. Going into L5R felt like being a character in - well - a Kurosawa movie; you spend a lot of time talking, and avoiding fights, and when you do fight, it's a nerve wracking and pivotal moment in the campaign.

[Vogonjeltz]

They aren't taken mid-combat though, and most players don't use them. I said earlier that I've played L5R, which uses a system where your HP are divided into tiers called Wound Ranks. As you take damage in a rank, negative effects add up. It makes combat quick and bloody, or it ends with two bloodied fighters just slogging at each other with huge negative modifiers.
It doesn't represent a lasting disability like losing a hand or eye. It just represents that after taking half damage, your pretty badly battered; you're not going to keep fighting like you did when you first woke up whole and healthy that morning.

Injuries are taken mid combat, if the DM is employing them.


You understand that I was talking about the American Revolution, right? Neither side was using longbows for that. Rifles at the time were expensive and took time to produce, and unless you were trained in marksmanship, they didn't really offer any tangible benefits in the field battles of the time. Americans just had more rifles because they were bringing civilian arms to the fight. Once they started outfitting a standing army however, they didn't bother giving everyone a rifle. Muskets were cheaper, faster, and even easier to train.
I already said that gunpowder phased out bow-weapons as a result of ease of use and training, among several other things.

I was noting the comparison you made with the longbowmen and pointing out that it's flawed in that rifles didn't require anywhere near as much training as a longbow to be combat effective.

I'd also ask you to provide some sourcing on your dubious claims of Americans having "more rifles" and routinely using them for hunting.

To the contrary, research into probate records suggests only 14% had weapons, and most of those were non-functional.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/10/reviews/000910.10willot.html

A few choice quotes:

Imagine, then, the shock if this star of the show should turn out to be missing through much of our history. It seems impossible; and that was the reaction of Michael A. Bellesiles, a Colonial historian at Emory University, when -- while searching through over a thousand probate records from the frontier sections of New England and Pennsylvania for 1763 to 1790 -- he found that only 14 percent of the men owned guns, and over half of those guns were unusable.


The same factors that made the musket ineffective for self-defense made it practically useless for hunting. Scare the rabbit with one inaccurate shot (which threw out dense smoke), and all game would be gone by the time you got out ball and powder and deployed them properly. Besides, most Americans were farmers, with no time to maintain expensive guns for hunting when domestic animals (chickens and pigs) were the easily available sources of protein. That is why no American factories were created to make guns.

If most individuals did not own guns, where were the weapons for the militia? The state was supposed to supply them, but rarely did. In 1754, there were only enough guns to arm a sixth of the eligible militiamen. ''In 1758 Connnecticut owned 200 firearms and received 1,600 from the Crown, which made 1,800 guns for 5,000 militia,'' Bellesiles writes. ''The government set about buying and impressing every gun it could find, offering additional bounties to any volunteer who would bring his own gun. Surprisingly few people were in a position to take advantage of this offer of quick cash. In one company of 85 men, only seven showed up with their own guns. The record indicates that this figure of 8 percent was fairly typical throughout the colonies.''

This chronic shortage led to widespread confiscation and regulation of the rare firearms. Colonies had to take a gun census to know what was available. Owners were commanded to take care of their weapons. Weapons were confiscated for militia use if the owners could not use them. Bellesiles sums up: ''No gun ever belonged unqualifiedly to an individual. It could not be seized in a debt case, could not be sold if that sale left a militia member without a firearm, had to be listed in every probate inventory and returned to the state if state-owned, and could be seized whenever needed by the state for alternative purposes. Guns might be privately owned, but they were state-controlled.''[/quote]


The Revolutionary War dispels the idea that Americans were great marksmen. How could they be, when most did not own guns and those who did had little practice? Ammunition was so hard to come by that ''wasting'' it in drill was discouraged. Even in the rare situation where a hidden American force could aim at British troops forced to flee past in narrow file, the results were not what one might expect. On the long day of irregular battle following the engagement at Concord in 1775, 3,763 American participants could hit only 273 human targets, killing 65 men. The British on that day, without the advantage of aiming at leisure from hiding, killed 50 Americans.


Guns desperately sought for military use held no charms of private ownership for the men returning from war to their farms: ''Most veterans turned their back on their guns, walking away from their encampments without their heavy muskets, even when the government offered them for sale at low rates. In the years after the war's end, these veterans, like most males, showed not the least noticeable enthusiasm for continuing military exercises in the militia, which died a slow, embarrassing death as a national institution.'' Thus, when the War of 1812 began, the dormant militias were unarmed. An 1803 census of guns carried out by the War Department found that only 23.7 percent of adult white males had access to guns, which meant that less than half of the militiamen could be armed -- in the South, only 29 percent could be.

It would seem that there was no comparison to the english longbow in either training activity or availability.