New Era weapons in Medieval Fantasy

[kuhaica]

So. I rarely like asking advice about what to do as a DM, mostly because my players are nosey as sin. However sometimes you just need to ask others for there opinions to do a better job as a DM to make sure everyone is having fun and you don't mess up large

With that out of the way, a very brief explanation of the current setting my players find themselves in. The setting is a low caster, moderate magic, fantasy setting with many waring nations all struggling for power. Every action the PCs make can affect the entier world. Kill some seemingly random Mayor. Turns out that guy was leading a rebellion against the provinces lord to make way for an oncoming invasion. Things like that.

Now, this game has been a lot of firsts for me. First group over 8 people (it's a trap), first massive homebrew and first 'Tech Progression' game. Meaning there be guns. And that is where I run into my problem.


So I've already sorted out how guns will work, they are new technology so not largely available and pretty crappie in all honesty. However I run into my problems of. "How do I make Muskets seem scary" I've got two players in the bag thanks to there amazing roleplay Skills. However the others not so much. And I need to convey the danger of these weapons. As when guns where first massively deployed. They shaked up the entier world. No one knew how to deal with these things. And that's the biggest problem i face with these technological wonders.

My other problem comes down to more of a DM issue of balance. I know how muskets where used to be effective in combat. And I know that in what I have plan for next session. A large scale battle between more or less a 'modern' army verses a traditional army. The modern army is going to destroy the traditional army. I would like some suggestions on how to more or less make the fight clearly in favor of the enemy without a TPK or fudging rolls.


Any help and suggestions would be appreciated.


I'll be using the AP system from Modern D20 as I really like it and I feel it makes total sense for guns. For those not familiar a weapons AP ignores Armor AC only.

EXE.
Musket has AP3
Target has 17 Ac (10 Base, 2 Dex, 5 Armor)
Armor of 5 has 3 subtracted leaving 2 making AC 14

EXE.
Musket has AP3
Target has 17 Ac (10 Base, 5 Dex, 2 Armor)
Armor of 2 has 3 Subtracted leaving 0 making AC 15


Musket deals 1d8+2 Damage, AP3
Takes full round to reload (Unless otherwise specified)

Pistol deals 1d6 Damage AP2
Takes Movement or Action to reload


There are many more, but those are the only ones relevant to the battle.

[InvisibleBison]

The simplest way I can think of is to show some soldiers armed with guns slaughtering some traditionally armed elite troops. You'd have to contrive some reason why the PCs aren't involved - perhaps they're allied with the gun-armed faction, or are across a river or otherwise out of the fight.

[Roog]

Honestly, those numbers are not particularly scary.

The musket does similar damage to a longbow, but with a +3 to hit in exchange for firing 1/2 as often (for BAB under 5).
Alternatively, it's a heavy crossbow with a +1 damage bonus and a hit bonus of up to +3, but in D&D heavy crossbows suck.

Assuming the targets get are wearing heavy enough armor for the full AP to apply:
With 14 STR, average damage is less than a longbow unless you need a 19 or more to hit with the bow (equal at 18 to hit).
With 12 STR, average damage is less than a longbow unless you needs a 18 or more to hit with the bow.
With 10 STR, average damage is less than a longbow unless you need a 17 or more to hit with the bow.
At any STR, average damage is less than a light crossbow unless you need a 17 or more to hit with the bow.

And if we compare your pistols and muskets, your pistols do have a higher average damage whatever the armor of the target is.


Apart from GM fiat, having a numerical advantage, or making the weapons literally cause fear, how is the 'modern' army going to destroy the traditional army? What reason is there for a traditional army to even need to deal with them differently than any other missile troops?

How will these weapons shake up the world?

#Edit to clarify which weapon's hit number I was talking about

[Mendicant]

When you say scary, what do you mean, exactly? If you want the players to play their characters as extra cautious around muskets, you need to make muskets better. Like, a weapon that does 1d8+2 is never going to be particularly scary on a metagame level to mid-level characters.

If the weapons targeted touch AC rather than just ignoring some armor, and also ignored some spell effects like Protection from Arrows and Wind Wall, that might make them more worrisome. Even if the damage isn't anything to write home about, a massed volley might let low-level mooks threaten PC's in a way they usually don't.


If you're more interested in gun's effect on the macro level than on the individual heroic level, you can have the PC's upcoming battle become a rout before they get a chance to really participate. (Assuming they're low enough level.) The suggestion to have a "demonstration" slaughter just to stage left would also work. The most historically appropriate approach would be to reduce a formerly impregnable fortress with relative ease.

The mere existence of gunpowder is a huge material advantage for an "evil empire" against any plucky rebels. (Or, more historically, equally evil barons, boyars and emirs.) It gives you an advantage on the battlefield, makes earlier fortifications obsolete, and you need a lot of technical knowhow, extensive trade routes and manufacturing capability to make guns. That is really good news for anybody who has achieved critical mass, and bad news for those who have not.

[Telok]

As people have said, those are not scary weapons.

Make them ignore non-metal armor, halve the bonus of metal armor, and do and do 4d3 damage with exploding dice. That's a bit better.

Alternately play up the side effects. Each shot has the same effect of a thunderstone, there's a 1 round duration smoke cloud that blocks vision so the shooter has concealment while reloading and massed fire produces full concealment. Give them a reload of a 1-round action (like a summoning spell), they always use touch AC, and do 3d4 exploding dice with a threat range of 20 x4.

Now while it's still a pretty lousy adventurer weapon a massed volley is pretty scary. Sure everyone's deaf, but they have full concealment while reloading (can't be charged, negates some spells), and the damage can get scary.

[Afgncaap5]

It might also be worth making the musket a particular kind of weapon. You could have the base stats be the non-scary version of the weapon but a lot of these recommended higher stats (attack touch AC, 3d4 with exploding dice, crit effect of a bigger than normal multiplier, etc.) require certain exclusive feats or training. If the superior effects of muskets require feats that can only be taken with the prerequisite of being trained in the personal militia of Lord Blackpowder or by being a 3rd level Fighter, then it might start to cause fear. ("We stole the guns, but they don't seem to be working as well." "Idiot, gimme that, they can't be too complicated... just aim it and pull the trigger!" "I'm TRYING, but it's not WORKING.")

There's also a real numbers problem here if the players are aware of what the muskets can do mechanically. IRL I don't have "hit points" and guns don't have "damage dice" so when the question of "how much damage will that pistol do to me" comes up, the best answer I can say is "A lot if it hits, aim it elsewhere please." If your players know that they do 1d8+1 (or whatever) damage, then they can mentally say "Ah, good thing it's not a 2d10 weapon!" With that in mind, even though you're not playing a horror game, it might behoove you to take some of the narrative advice from Heroes of Horror and other resources for how to bring fear into a game session. Without using words like "Lovecraftian" or "Taint" or "Decay", start describing things like you would in a horror game: villagers who've been butchered far more violently and with less precision than any sword, animal bite, or Magic Missile spell, the haze of gray and stench of burning powder in the air, distant reports of thunderous cracks from the nearby battles, and the screams of innocents caught in the crossfire.

It might also help to have examples, both heroic and villainous, of NPCs who are suddenly much more capable in combat. If Azario the Baker is suddenly able to beat the players to the treasure in the Impenetrable Tower of the Blind Archer by outsniping the legendary bling archer at the top of the tower, and if you can convey it so that sniping with a musket is reasonable in the setting, then suddenly the PCs might find themselves in a world where people of their talents are less and less necessary. If any commoner with enough gunpowder can kill the dragons, why post bounties for mercenaries to do the work?

[Zombimode]

As when guns where first massively deployed. They shaked up the entier world. No one knew how to deal with these things.

Are you talking about your world? Because nothing like this has happened in the real world.
Firearms were around in europe since the late 14th century and their use increased gradually within the next two centuries. By 1500 personal firearms, mostly in the form of arquebuses, had become a normal part of the Arsenal of many armies. They were part of the shift in battlefield tactics that favored massed blocks of infantry (pike) formations. This shift has occured over the span of at least one century, was anything but unsiversal, and mostly attributed to the reinvention oft Phalanx-like formations.
By the start of the 30 years war in the early 17th century nominal ratios of Musketiers to Pikes were about 1/3 in Germany and likely similar in other countries. Over the Course of the war, this Ration shifted in favor of more Musketiers to something like 3/1 at the end of the war.

As you can see, the introduction of firearms in european armies was a gradual afair that spanned over 4 centuries. There was no massive sudden upheaval of warefare upon their introduction.
At least not on european and middle eastern battlefields. Firearms were probably part of the reasons of the success of the spanish conquerers in the New World, but my Information on those parts of history is sadly lacking.

Of Course, if you go (in your Setting) from "no firearms at all" to "muskets PLUS the tactics and methods to delploy those weapons of the napoleonic age" you would get the effects you describe, besides an outside Invasion, this is a pretty unlikely Scenario since you can't just skip several centuries of development of tatics.

[awa]

Guns biggest advantage for a long time was psychological the smell, the sound, fired in mass those would be like nothing most people had ever seen before, a danger far beyond their actual ability to kill anyone.
That won’t impress pcs, they have magic they have seen worse. A lot of the biggest advantages of guns in the real world, their cheap, their easy to learn, the ammo is light just are not impressive in game.

The new world is complicated but guns are one of many many advantages the Europeans had and probably not even in the top ten in terms of biggest impact.

[Zaq]

If you want guns to be better than the existing tech, then you need to make them better than the existing tech. That's pretty much all there is to it. Players are savvy, and they just won't be scared by something that doesn't actually function as advertised. If the guns are legitimately way more powerful than what everyone else has available, then you can kind of get the effect you want, depending on how well your players stay tuned in to the game-world ramifications of the stuff they see at the table. But then you have to deal with the game balance issue (both before and after the PCs get their hands on them, because if you make guns insanely powerful, the PCs will find a way to access them, even if they don't have the support structure you're giving the gun-equipped NPCs), which is never easy to overcome smoothly.

And of course, when we're comparing guns to existing tech, remember that magic is a thing. I know you said that you're "low caster" and "moderate magic," but magic is still a thing. Magic can provide all kinds of ways of killin' dudes (from classic boom spells to magic weapons to buffs that enable superhuman performance, to say nothing of dragons and magical beasts and other supernatural threats that aren't necessarily Wizards or Clerics), and the higher up the level tree you climb, the more it becomes apparent that magic is basically the only reliable way of defending yourself from strong opponents. So the guns have to look scary both next to swords and arrows and next to magic. That might not be a small order.


Guns biggest advantage for a long time was psychological the smell, the sound, fired in mass those would be like nothing most people had ever seen before, a danger far beyond their actual ability to kill anyone.
That won’t impress pcs, they have magic they have seen worse. A lot of the biggest advantages of guns in the real world, their cheap, their easy to learn, the ammo is light just are not impressive in game.

The new world is complicated but guns are one of many many advantages the Europeans had and probably not even in the top ten in terms of biggest impact.

There's some truth to this. It's hard to convey to PCs, but if you feel like tracking morale levels for NPCs, untrained/inexperienced soldiers who have never encountered guns might be demoralized and/or likely to flee if surprised by them? Though then you have to explain why guns are scarier than actual magic, which is another can of worms.

[Berenger]

Edit, TL;DR: Give free proficiency with firearms to commoners and don't give free proficiency with traditional ranged weapons to large swathes of the population (e.g. don't make them "simple weapons", don't give "racial proficiencies" for bows or crossbows).




---------------------------------------------------

I don't think there is a way to make early firearms a suitable or even "scary" weapon for D&D without major modifications to the way weapons, damage & hit points and proficiencies work.


d20 Modern actually has rules for early firearms (in the d20 Past supplement) and they are horrible.


Let's take their 1517 Wheel Lock Musket:

Damage: 2d8 (~9)
Crit: 20
Range Increment: 40 feet
Rate of Fire: Single
Weight: 8 lb.
Purchase DC: 23
Reload Time: 2 full-round actions
Required Feat: Personal Firearms Proficiency (free for no-one)
Special Rule: On a 1 (1-3 in rain) the weapon misfires and can't be used again until cleaned (takes 10 minutes).
Special Rule: Positive Dexterity modifier does confer no bonus to attack rolls. Negative Dexterity modifier does give penalty.


Now compare this with the Heavy Crossbow:

Damage: 1d12 (~6.5)
Crit: 19-20
Range Increment: 60 feet
Rate of Fire: Single
Weight: 8 lb.
Purchase DC: 11 (roughly 1/30th of the musket's price, which is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS, firearms were never that expensive)
Reload Time: 1 full-round action
Required Feat: Simple Weapons (free for every single character)
No misfire, positive Dexterity modifier does apply.


In short, any character that chooses a musket over a crossbow is a drooling moron. The crossbow is better in every measurable way except for raw average damage, but only if you neglect the additional damage potential via higher rate of fire and crit chance. So, actually, don't use these as a basis for your firearms.


What I would consider scary: some random citizen trains for a few days, gains Proficiency: Firearms and shoots a knight in the street. A knight that trained for ten years to earn his Proficiency: Martial Weapons and Proficiency: Heavy Armor + Shields. The problem is, D&D does not work this way. Unless the knight is actually a rookie squire, he will likely tank the musket shot right into his face (just like he would tank a battleaxe into his face), draw his sword and butcher the guy. And, by RAW, gaining Proficiency: Fireams takes no more or less time, effort or character building resources than Proficiency: Longbow / Crossbow / Sword / Whatever.

Maybe just make firearms "Simple Weapons" or give the required feat / proficiency away for free after minimal training AND make earlier ranged weapons "Martial" or "Exotic" weapons. After all, it takes an awful lot of training to become proficient with a sling or bow in real life. In this case, firearms can have stats on par with earlier weapons, or even slightly worse, their terror comes with the possibility of mobs of ordinary commoners becoming a legitimate threat to warriors and monsters higher-up in the food chain. Unfortunately, this concept is totally not suited to D&D combat mechanics at all because high-level adventurers and monsters with their insane inflated hit point pools and armor classes are more like Superman than real elite warriors / dangerous animals. Being proficient and not having a -4 penalty is irrelevant if you STILL need a nat 20 to hit.

[johnbragg]

Point to ponder: Do you want to see primitive firearms introduced into your campaign, or do you want to see a revolutionary military technology change the face of your campaign world?

You want firearms to be scary? OK. It's a simple weapon, using a ranged touch attack roll--that does 3d6 Constitution damage. (It has no effect on creatures more than one size larger or smaller than the weapon used.)

That takes advantage of the fact that D&D hit points abstracts a lot of things about combat and damage, and makes the firearms a lethal threat to everyone and everything in three size categories.

[zyggythorn]

As when guns where first massively deployed. They shaked up the entier world.

The entire world? No. Japan? Absolutely.

The movement of massed cavalry and infantry battles towards volleyed muskets actually is one of the defining events of the Sengoku period.

As far as making them scary?

I'd suggest the classic scene from Pulp Fiction, "I just shot Marvin in the face!"

Have a friendly NPC accidentally hit another friendly NPC. Really dive into the aftermath and gore here. (I won't explain the effects of a bullet on a body out of courtesy here)
Bonus points if it happens in front of the party.
And then? Have our still living buddy destroy the weapon. Take an oath, what ever it may be.

Statistics?
Touch attack, 2d6 direct damage, 2d4-1 Con damage, and 1d4 HD damage/negative levels.

That's a pretty quick kill on most things, what with an avg of 7 HP damage, 4 HP/lv loss, and 2.5 negative levels- non magical as it is!

Then some jackwagon will enchant it. And everything goes to pot.

[Telok]

Oh, you can say that since they're so new and complicated nobody knows how to make them masterwork. If you use the default enchanting rules then they can never be enchanted.

[TorsteinTheRed]

Here's another potential way to make them scary:

Pistol(Flintlock? Probably would be usable for all of the *lock pistols)
Reload time - 4 standard actions(reducible to 2 with a feat)
Damage - 1d8+DEX
Range Increment - 5ft (15 ft if rifled)
Special - Attacks made with this weapon are against Touch AC. Enemies within your first Range Increment are considered Helpless for the purpose of making a Coup de Grace (They still retain their DEX bonus to AC)

Musket
As above, except:
Damage 1d10+DEX
Range Increment - 30 (60 if rifled)

[kuhaica]

Sorry to all who've replied for the extremely late reply, but I didn't want to comment until after I tried some of the suggestions. And to all of you who said that the guns where under whelming as is. Thank you, I couldn't agree more. As for the stats I believed the suggestion for having 3d4 with exploding dice would work well and so i tried it out and found that the players where shocked by the damage dealt. And even more so that there AC of 20 didn't do all that much to stop these attacks. It made the encounter more enjoyable as statistic quickly changed and from a bull rush to kill the musketmen became a rush to find cover and let players who don't get to be in the spot like, to shine.

So, again thank you for all replying, the advice was quite useful and gave me some things to think about in the future.