Adding guns to 3.5

[danielxcutter]

Soooo... You know how d20 Modern has firearms, right? I wonder what would happen if you took them and dumped them into the typical fantasy campaign setting.

Mostly I'm curious about how the combat strategies would change(meta-game wise), but in-universe reactions are also something to consider.

[Jack_Simth]

Soooo... You know how d20 Modern has firearms, right? I wonder what would happen if you took them and dumped them into the typical fantasy campaign setting.

Mostly I'm curious about how the combat strategies would change(meta-game wise), but in-universe reactions are also something to consider.

At low levels, they're likely a good advantage (double the damage of the standard ranged weapons). At mid +, though? They don't change much. They're superior bows, mostly. Biggest downside is "no strength modifier" (unlike slings, thrown weapons, or composite bows). So that Raging Half-orc Barbarian-10 with a +4 Belt and a base 16 in Str, level up boosts to strength (a fairly standard barbarian melee build, right?), with a few javelins, is dealing 1d6+9, average 12.5 per hit, and can throw two a round (average 25 if both shots land). The 10th level full BAB character with a Remington rifle is making two shots at 2d10 (average 11, so a total of 22 if both shots land). The wizard throws a fireball and deals 10d6 (average 35) to everyone in a big spread. A Druid or Cleric casts Flame Strike and deals 10d6 (average 35) to everyone in a big spread. Et cetera. That's ignoring crits, enchantments, and feats; assuming everything hits; and mostly ignoring optimization.

So it may change how armies go to war a little.... but not by all that much.

[Morcleon]

Ranged weapon users get a slight buff, but nothing really changes too much from a meta-game perspective.

In-universe, it ranges from a novel curiosity (due to cost and lack of ability to use them) to replacing bows and crossbows and making ranged warfare that much deadlier. It's not as big as a change as it was in the modern world since guns require Exotic Weapon Proficiency, whereas they'd be more like simple weapons IRL.

[Jack_Simth]

Ranged weapon users get a slight buff, but nothing really changes too much from a meta-game perspective.

In-universe, it ranges from a novel curiosity (due to cost and lack of ability to use them) to replacing bows and crossbows and making ranged warfare that much deadlier. It's not as big as a change as it was in the modern world since guns require Exotic Weapon Proficiency, whereas they'd be more like simple weapons IRL.
Yeah. There's a couple of reasons firearms took over IRL:

1) They're cheaper than bows in the long run (it's less expensive to get 10,000 bullets to the battle line than it is to get 10,000 arrows to the battle line - some of that is manufacture, some of that is transport).
2) They had a habit of going through leather, chain, and plate (in D&D terms, they're pretty much touch attacks).
3) It was easier to train people in basic use and maintenance (in D&D terms, a simple weapon).

However, in a game, realism usually takes a back seat. Thus, d20 Modern firearms are only really better than 3.5 bows and thrown weapons at lower levels (and thus, The Green Arrow is just as much of a threat as the guy dual-wielding pistols).

[danielxcutter]

So... world changing in low-level low-magic worlds, not as much in others?

[flappeercraft]

So... world changing in low-level low-magic worlds, not as much in others?

Yes. Because why exactly would a puny shotgun that does 3d6 damage at most really matter in a world where a 5th level wizard can throw a fireball that deald 5d6 area damage. Or where a fighter with power attack can deal easily 20+ damage on average by 5th level

[Jack_Simth]

So... world changing in low-level low-magic worlds, not as much in others?
It's more the class level and CR of the world than the magic level.

Consider your basic Human commoner-1. 2 hp, and ten points on Deaths Door. A basic Longbow deals 1d8 - knocks the commoner into the negatives more often than not (6 of 8 options on the damage die), it takes a crit to kill the commoner in just the one hit, so quick first aid and the commoner is likely to survive (and there's a 1 in 4 chance that the commoner will be able to walk/stumble away under his own power with 1 or 0 hp). That ten gage shotgun's 2d10, on the other hand, deals 11 points of damage on average, and two at a minimum. It has a 45% chance of killing the commoner outright (12 or more damage), and even if the commoner survives the initial blow, the absolute minimum damage (1% odds) still puts the commoner at 0. So the commoner has a 1% chance to be staggared, a 54% chance of being on death's door, and a 45% chance of being killed outright.

That shotgun is scary... for that commoner-1.

How does a warrior 1 fare? That d8 hit die means he has 4 hp (or 5, with a 12 from the nonelite array in con, which is quite common). He's liable (5 in 8 chance of being above -1) of walking away from a longbow hit, but the 2d10 from that shotgun has an 85% chance of putting him below 0. That shotgun is scary for the warrior-1, too. The longbow, just a threat.

[Mendicant]

1) They're cheaper than bows in the long run (it's less expensive to get 10,000 bullets to the battle line than it is to get 10,000 arrows to the battle line - some of that is manufacture, some of that is transport).
2) They had a habit of going through leather, chain, and plate (in D&D terms, they're pretty much touch attacks).
3) It was easier to train people in basic use and maintenance (in D&D terms, a simple weapon).

They also have a massive energy storage and transfer advantage. A bow eats up the same energy source you use to march, climb fortifications or defend yourself in melee. Even the most primitive gun has the good manners to use little packets of energy you don't need to digest first. This is also basically ignored in D&D. You get all the benefits of using your strength to fire the weapon, without the most serious drawback.

[Vizzerdrix]

Yes. Because why exactly would a puny shotgun that does 3d6 damage at most really matter in a world where a 5th level wizard can throw a fireball that deald 5d6 area damage. Or where a fighter with power attack can deal easily 20+ damage on average by 5th level
Because it takes years to train a wizard, and weeks to show a farmer how to not blow his own head off.

[flappeercraft]

Because it takes years to train a wizard, and weeks to show a farmer how to not blow his own head off.

That is why I did the examples with character classes of lowish level. Of course at like 1st-3rd level a shotgun or something will be good damage but by 5th+ levels its ok at most since most things surpass it at that point.

[khadgar567]

it helps rouges more then any one sure you are blowing good stealth but with quick draw or ia jutsu a derringer and its gonna hurt even if you have magic on your side

[Yahzi]

Soooo... You know how d20 Modern has firearms, right? I wonder what would happen if you took them and dumped them into the typical fantasy campaign setting.

Mostly I'm curious about how the combat strategies would change(meta-game wise), but in-universe reactions are also something to consider.
It's taken me three books and 1,000 pages to answer that question... and I still have 2 more to go. :smallbiggrin:

[Calthropstu]

Pathfinder has guns and few people use them.

[Morcleon]

it helps rouges more then any one sure you are blowing good stealth but with quick draw or ia jutsu a derringer and its gonna hurt even if you have magic on your side

Iaijutsu only works with melee weapons, and a ranged rogue is better off using a bow anyway, due to the various magical enchantments and the lack of loud noises.

[Dunsparce]

Their are legitimately some firearms stated up for 3.5 in the Dungeon Master's Guide from the past, present, and future.

There also are a few issues of Dungeon Magazine and Dragon Magazine with additional guns, and one issue also comes with a feat that Paladins can take at level 1 that makes them proficient in early firearms.

[Zancloufer]

I made some firearm rules up a while ago for my games (partly because of a villain with a thing for [magi-]tech).

-They get the basic 1d6 damage per 0.1 calibre (so 2d6-5d6 for most firearms) and have a base range of about 40-60 feet per 0.1 calibre.

-Come in basic types being either breach load (one shot) or Bolt action (Clip of 5-10) before you need to reload (same rules as crossbows from reloading). Could probably even make a burst fire one that fire 2-5 rounds and has a bigger clip, but I would make a accuracy penalty cumulative -1 for every shot after the first in a round though that would be a price hike.

-Have specialty ammo types: Normal, AP (-one die of damage, but ignore armour equal to 1 per 0.1 calibre), HE (-2 dice, but touch attack and can strike multiple targets if adjacent or in the same square) Scattershot (extra dice damage step, but halves range). Could probably make a few more, but that's a decent spread.

Now you just need to slap cost (adjustments) on everything and you have a decent functioning system.

[Coidzor]

They also have a massive energy storage and transfer advantage. A bow eats up the same energy source you use to march, climb fortifications or defend yourself in melee. Even the most primitive gun has the good manners to use little packets of energy you don't need to digest first. This is also basically ignored in D&D. You get all the benefits of using your strength to fire the weapon, without the most serious drawback.

Guns don't have their own ability score rating to get it added to their damage, so that's one benefit of strength that isn't present.

[Mendicant]

Guns don't have their own ability score rating to get it added to their damage, so that's one benefit of strength that isn't present.

That's what I meant, though looking back it's not clear. Using a bow or javelin in DnD lets you use your strength score as an advantage, but there's no fatigue system present, so the tradeoff in favor of a gun isn't present.

[TorsteinTheRed]

I'll echo the sentiment that guns as written don't add anything game breaking, and eventually peter out in effectiveness.

If you want to make them scary, here's a few things I've considered for 16-18th century style firearms:
-Range increment for a *-lock pistol is 5ft, rifled pistol is 10, musket is 30, and a long rifle is 60. Max range is 20 increments, rather than 10. (This lines up well with effective ranges of each) Also, attacks made with firearms are touch attacks (Firearms made armor nearly useless back in the day)
- Pistol damage is 1d8+DEX, x3; Rifle is 1d10+DEX, x3
- Enemies within the first Range Increment may be Coup-de-graced without needing to be helpless, but retain the DEX bonus to AC unless they've lost it for other reasons (Headshots are deadly!)
-Reload time for all firearms is 4 full round actions. The actions do not need to be on immediately successive turns. This can be reduced to 2 with a feat.(15 seconds was considered fast for an expert, and a brace of pistols was needed for a reason)
-Damage done by Lead bullets cannot be healed magically (Lead blocks magic in other ways already. This also gives it a Princess Mononoke feel)

[Tiktakkat]

Most firearms in fantasy settings are fantasy items. The damage they do and the requirements to use them bear almost no relationship to actual firearms, and so you really shouldn't try drawing any parallels between the impact of guns in the real world and the impact of firearms on a fantasy setting.
That includes the ones in D20 Modern, which are based on all the flaws of firearms used in fantasy settings.

Instead, you should rely on Clarke's Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
combined with Foglio's Corollary to Clarke's Law:
Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology
and leave them having the same relevance as psionics or shadow magic or binders or initiators when introduced:
Just another way of bringing the hurt

And that's about it.
Particularly if you do use the firearms straight up from a rule book - they might as well be magical given how they work, so just run with it.

[Coretron03]

Pathfinder has guns and few people use them.

That's because you have to be a certain archtype/a gunslinger for them not to suck. Targeting touch is nice but if you roll a 1-3 (depending on gun) they misfire and you take a big penalty on attack and take forever to clear. They also take forever to reload (Standard action for a 1 handed, Fullround for a 2 handed gun) so they require a feat and alchemical cartriges to be able to full attack so using rapid shot is more difficult, plus it increases the misfire chance and to top it off they are exotic weapons, have terrible range and they are really expensive.

If you can use modern firearms and the setting has common firearms they become better as it solves pretty much all of the aforementioned problems with native movemaction reloads, no misfire, better range, cheaper and become simple weapons.

[Mato]

"Guns" don't stop at hunting rifles or 9mm glocks. They include things like an auto-fired m60 (2d10 to a 10ft area), fragmentation grenades (4d6 to a 20ft area), burst fired m60s (4d10 single target), burst fired miniguns (5d12, single target), and rocket launchers (10d6 to a 10ft area).

Modern also includes futuristic weapons which can deal over fifteen dice in damage, like a fusion mine costs less than five thousand gold and deals 5d100 damage to a 500ft area. Modern's supplements also allow you to take a -1 penalty to attack rolls for a +1 bonus to damage or a -5 penalty to attack rolls for +1 die used in damage. You can talk about power attacking with two hands all you want, but that rocket launcher doesn't care what your target's armor class is. Unless the DM even rules that you need to at least roll a positive value to avoid blowing your self up I'd gladly accept a -5x10^30 penalty to attack rolls to kill everything without evasion in one turn.

Be careful on what you allow. Guns are not better than bows for all the tiny reasons people have been posting. Guns are better than bows because they can fire five hundred times faster, using a project hundreds of times faster and thousands of times more lethal, than a bow can and Modern didn't turn a blind eye to this.

[Coidzor]

"Guns" don't stop at hunting rifles or 9mm glocks. They include things like an auto-fired m60 (2d10 to a 10ft area), fragmentation grenades (4d6 to a 20ft area), burst fired m60s (4d10 single target), burst fired miniguns (5d12, single target), and rocket launchers (10d6 to a 10ft area).

Modern also includes futuristic weapons which can deal over fifteen dice in damage, like a fusion mine costs less than five thousand gold and deals 5d100 damage to a 500ft area. Modern's supplements also allow you to take a -1 penalty to attack rolls for a +1 bonus to damage or a -5 penalty to attack rolls for +1 die used in damage. You can talk about power attacking with two hands all you want, but that rocket launcher doesn't care what your target's armor class is. Unless the DM even rules that you need to at least roll a positive value to avoid blowing your self up I'd gladly accept a -5x10^30 penalty to attack rolls to kill everything without evasion in one turn.

Be careful on what you allow. Guns are not better than bows for all the tiny reasons people have been posting. Guns are better than bows because they can fire five hundred times faster, using a project hundreds of times faster and thousands of times more lethal, than a bow can and Modern didn't turn a blind eye to this.

Yeah, and at the higher end, even the things a human can't actually personally wield become accessible due to superhuman strength and size-changing magic and even the ability to alter oneself into non-humanoid forms or to be made out of sturdier materials than flesh and bone.

[Mato]

Yeah, and at the higher end, even the things a human can't actually personally wield become accessible due to superhuman strength and size-changing magic and even the ability to alter oneself into non-humanoid forms or to be made out of sturdier materials than flesh and bone.
And now I'm picturing a guy wielding an A-10 Warthog.

Look at his weapon. That is the kind of weapon they used to put pilots in. It's not a case of "oh we got this arm, it kind of needs something besides swords and shields and stuff, let's strap this thing on." No. It was a case of a guy casting a spell so awesome that he just stepped back and said "this thing needs more bullets." And everyone else is like, "you can't make a fighter jet a weapon!" And the first guy is like "Oh yes I can. I will strap this flying gun to my arm." And everyone is like, "you mean you're going to pilot that plane." And the first guy is like, "no man, I'm strapping a plane to my arm. The plane is the accessory." And then everyone's minds were blown. Like there was some serious mind blowing going on there. Ears were bleeding.

[Stealth Marmot]

So you are wondering how MODERN firearms would change the world of a D&D fantasy world?

That depends on a lot of factors.

1. How many people get them? Do they become available as swords and armor? Is ammo readily available? If so, it would change the very face of a soldier. Armor would likely become far less valuable for use unless MAGIC armor can deflect bullets. You could expect that not only would there be a change in how armies work, but how thoroughly weapons are regulated.

2. What sorts of modern guns are we talking? Pistols? Rifles? Shotguns? Machine guns? A Barret M82 that could fire a 50 caliber bullet and have an effective range of OVER A MILE? Suddenly, Owlbears aren't exactly going to be a problem. Hell, with even WW2 era machine guns you likely would be able to use regular soldiers to take out a Red Dragon. Basically, it would change the thousand points of light aspect of D&D, where the world is a big scary place and towns and villages are tiny points of safety. Instead, you can expect the humanoids who have access to the guns to go ahead and conquer the hell out of the area. Gods help the creatures that decide to attack when the humans, elves, and dwarves have modern miniguns available for use.

[danielxcutter]

So you are wondering how MODERN firearms would change the world of a D&D fantasy world?

That depends on a lot of factors.

1. How many people get them? Do they become available as swords and armor? Is ammo readily available? If so, it would change the very face of a soldier. Armor would likely become far less valuable for use unless MAGIC armor can deflect bullets. You could expect that not only would there be a change in how armies work, but how thoroughly weapons are regulated.

2. What sorts of modern guns are we talking? Pistols? Rifles? Shotguns? Machine guns? A Barret M82 that could fire a 50 caliber bullet and have an effective range of OVER A MILE? Suddenly, Owlbears aren't exactly going to be a problem. Hell, with even WW2 era machine guns you likely would be able to use regular soldiers to take out a Red Dragon. Basically, it would change the thousand points of light aspect of D&D, where the world is a big scary place and towns and villages are tiny points of safety. Instead, you can expect the humanoids who have access to the guns to go ahead and conquer the hell out of the area. Gods help the creatures that decide to attack when the humans, elves, and dwarves have modern miniguns available for use.

I specifically meant the firearms listed in the d20 Modern SRD. Still, good point.

[Mato]

Armor would likely become far less valuable for use unless MAGIC armor can deflect bullets.Under Modern's rule set armor takes no penalties against firearms. Something something something lead splatters, maces liquefied internal organs, stab the gaps, and the rules simplified everything into a chance to miss based on dice.

So a 1st level commoner with a average dexterity score still only hits a knight in fullplate 10% of the time and that's assuming they spend their 1st level feat on basic firearms proficiency instead of something they would find useful like skill focus(profession).

Judging by your earlier capitalization of modern, the only thing that has changed is instead of a hunter using a 1d8 longbow, they use a 2d6 handgun that increases their damage from 4.5 to 7. But the dangers of the world don't get any easier either, many monsters are sentient and capable of crafting or stealing their own firearms as well. Overall, the game just becomes more lethal to low level characters. But the game was already lethal to them anyway, with great cleave a 6th level barbarian can slay his way across town killing hundreds in about six seconds.

[danielxcutter]

Under Modern's rule set armor takes no penalties against firearms. Something something something lead splatters, maces liquefied internal organs, stab the gaps, and the rules simplified everything into a chance to miss based on dice.

So a 1st level commoner with a average dexterity score still only hits a knight in fullplate 10% of the time and that's assuming they spend their 1st level feat on basic firearms proficiency instead of something they would find useful like skill focus(profession).

Judging by your earlier capitalization of modern, the only thing that has changed is instead of a hunter using a 1d8 longbow, they use a 2d6 handgun that increases their damage from 4.5 to 7. But the dangers of the world don't get any easier either, many monsters are sentient and capable of crafting or stealing their own firearms as well. Overall, the game just becomes more lethal to low level characters. But the game was already lethal to them anyway, with great cleave a 6th level barbarian can slay his way across town killing hundreds in about six seconds.

Depends on how easy firearms are to make, but in general, yes, it sucks to be low-leveled.

[tsj]

I think modern and later future Guns can help non magic ranged Guys keep up with magic users and modern (chainsaw etc) plus future (lightsabers etc) melee weapons can help non magic melee guys

[Coidzor]

I think modern and later future Guns can help non magic ranged Guys keep up with magic users and modern (chainsaw etc) plus future (lightsabers etc) melee weapons can help non magic melee guys

It can certainly help characters that haven't invested as much in melee or ranged combat to up the damage, like a Bard that's focused resources elsewhere, but for the most part, mundanes aren't lacking for damage, it's other effects that they lack.

I'm kind of imagining someone arming their skeletons with a mixture of chainsaws, AK-47s, and blaster rifles, though. Not sure how I feel about that.

Might need more flamethrower guitars.

[tsj]

It can certainly help characters that haven't invested as much in melee or ranged combat to up the damage, like a Bard that's focused resources elsewhere, but for the most part, mundanes aren't lacking for damage, it's other effects that they lack.

I'm kind of imagining someone arming their skeletons with a mixture of chainsaws, AK-47s, and blaster rifles, though. Not sure how I feel about that.

Might need more flamethrower guitars.

A fighter with high str and melee feats like cleave etc can still benefit greatly of said str and feats by using a chainsaw or a maybe a lightsaber

Just like a ranged fella can use high dex to aim and ranged feats benefit greatly from said dex and feats when using guns

And warrior types that like both ranged and melee can invest in both str, dex, ranged and melee feats

Ranged might be often used in a World with lazer rifles etc but There would still be times where melee is needed

And feats could help melee dudes to Block ranged stuff like a jedi can Block lazer fire by using a lightsaber

[Stealth Marmot]

It can certainly help characters that haven't invested as much in melee or ranged combat to up the damage, like a Bard that's focused resources elsewhere, but for the most part, mundanes aren't lacking for damage, it's other effects that they lack.

I'm kind of imagining someone arming their skeletons with a mixture of chainsaws, AK-47s, and blaster rifles, though. Not sure how I feel about that.

Might need more flamethrower guitars.

This is how heavy metal album covers are born.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Calthropstu
Pathfinder has guns and few people use them.

I was in a Pathfinder game where the DM fervently avoided firearms…not because of any aversion himself, but because one of the other players had to be scraped off the ceiling if firearms were even mentioned in a fantasy setting.

Thus the gunslinger was effectively banned, which was a real shame.


Originally Posted by Coidzor
Might need more flamethrower guitars.

This cries out for supporting artwork. :smalltongue:

[tsj]

I might just have to run a game at one point where the skeletons are armed with ak47 and flamethrowing guitars that deals both bludgening, fire and sonic damage

:-)

[Coidzor]

I was in a Pathfinder game where the DM fervently avoided firearms…not because of any aversion himself, but because one of the other players had to be scraped off the ceiling if firearms were even mentioned in a fantasy setting.

Thus the gunslinger was effectively banned, which was a real shame.

Yeah, between the number of people who throw hissy fits and the drawbacks, there are significant barriers that may not seem readily apparent just because rules exist for them.

I wonder how it compares with the heyday of ToB hate...


This cries out for supporting artwork. :smalltongue:

Yes, yes it does. :smallcool:

[Hecuba]

Since you're looking for the logical effect of the introduction of firearms to a setting, I'm assuming you're looking for some degree of realism.

That requires that we take some look at the history of firearms.

The initial transition from bows and crossbows to firearms took centuries to really take off. The earliest of hand-canons were generally a psychological tool - they were hard to aim and had slow enough velocity that it was hard for them to puncture armor. If you knew how to use a bow, it was always better.

The history of he ascendance of firearms really begins with the matchlocks, which arrived into European usage in the 1400's. This is the first firearm with any significant grounds on which to compete with a bow: specifically, it was easier to use and could better penetrate armor. In the right hands the bow (especially a longbow) was still more dangerous - it had a longer effective range, better accuracy, greater fire rate, and cheaper construction.

Rifling, which came into it's own in the 1700s, solved the range and accuracy problems. The flintlock (a bit later) and increased demand drove down the cost. At the same point, the skillset that was keeping the longbow afloat was evaporating.