Do guns hurt a D&D game?

[tedcahill2]

One of my players wants to have a D&D game with blackpowder weapons, but there is 0 support for firearms in Dungeons and Dragons. If I wanted to accommodate him is there a good third party source for it?

Seems like a like of gear, magic items, classes/prestige classes, etc. would all really hurt the overall experience of adding guns to a campaign. Mechanically it would be easy to add, but they would ultimately lack options and utility.

[EisenKreutzer]

You could look to Pathfinder. It has rules for firearms both early and modern, and the Gunslinger class which is a dedicated firearms user.

Now, the Pathfinder firearms rules are far from perfect, but they get the job done,

[Psyren]

I have yet to see firearm rules that aren't deeply flawed in some way. But I enjoy the concept enough (at least for muskets, pepperbox and other very early firearms) that I don't mind trying to make them work anyway. I mean come on, imagining a pirate campaign without a matchlock pistol just feels incomplete.

[Zanos]

Do they hurt a D&D game? Hard to answer. I think most traditional D&D settings don't really have firearms and gunpowder seamlessly slide in. It's up to you to decide if you think firearms are appropriate for your setting.

Mechanically, you could use the PF firearm rules but I would remove the "guns hit touch AC" nonsense because it's unbalanced and inaccurate anyway. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_(armour)) Armor fell out of favor due to the rise of a government centralized low-cost per soldier military and the slow death of elite knights from noble houses, not because early firearms teleported bullets through solid steel.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's not that hard to slap together some rules, or import them from Pathfinder or what have you. It's more of a setting question than anything else-- do you think your setting would be improved by having guns be common? By having them be a rare and unique invention? By not having them at all?

[NOhara24]

One of my players wants to have a D&D game with blackpowder weapons, but there is 0 support for firearms in Dungeons and Dragons. If I wanted to accommodate him is there a good third party source for it?

Seems like a like of gear, magic items, classes/prestige classes, etc. would all really hurt the overall experience of adding guns to a campaign. Mechanically it would be easy to add, but they would ultimately lack options and utility.

As it's been said, Pathfinder has rules for this. They're not perfect, but anyone who uses firearms isn't going to become nearly as much of a headache as anyone who put even a little effort into optimizing a T1 or T2 class.

I use the pathfinder rules in my D&D 3.5 game, and the notes I have for them are as follows concerning how prolific they are:

"Most men these days would choose a gun over a sword for simple home defense and day-to-day protection on the road were they not so unreliable. While the industry is growing, most traditional blacksmiths don’t have any trouble keeping their doors open after Johnny from down the street suffered a misfire last night and blew his whole darned hand off."

Hope this helps :smallsmile:

[Pleh]

No, PEOPLE hurt a D&D game.



:smallwink:





But more seriously, I just treat them as Magic Ranged Weapons or Special Materials, sort of like having an Adamantine Sword. Balance gets wonky if they are TOO ubiquitous, but if you just make them special armaments that only high level or elite units possess, they really aren't overpowered. Especially muskets that take so much time to reload.

[tedcahill2]

From what I've ready early firearms replaced crossbows as the simple ranged weapon of choice. They required a similar learning curve, so it was easy to train a militia to use them, and they are about the same cost.

The big differentiator was the bang that comes with guns. Useful as both a warning signal and to distract and demoralize the enemy, they were preferred over crossbows.

Bows continued to be more efficient killing weapons in highly trained hands, but very few people had such training.

I basically wanted to run a game where guns were the preferred simple weapon of militia. Similar to the way crossbows are generally not used in any build above level 5, cause as soon as you have 2 attacks crossbows are simply not as good as bows, I don't think a highly trained warrior should be building around firearms.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Then I suggest treating them pretty much like crossbows. Maybe bump up the damage die and fiddle with something else to compensate?

[Fouredged Sword]

From what I've ready early firearms replaced crossbows as the simple ranged weapon of choice. They required a similar learning curve, so it was easy to train a militia to use them, and they are about the same cost.

The big differentiator was the bang that comes with guns. Useful as both a warning signal and to distract and demoralize the enemy, they were preferred over crossbows.

Bows continued to be more efficient killing weapons in highly trained hands, but very few people had such training.

I basically wanted to run a game where guns were the preferred simple weapon of militia. Similar to the way crossbows are generally not used in any build above level 5, cause as soon as you have 2 attacks crossbows are simply not as good as bows, I don't think a highly trained warrior should be building around firearms.

Early firearms gained favor because they where even cheaper than crossbows. A crossbow was a difficult to craft and fired a hand crafted wooden or metal bolt that frequently broke on impact. They took skill to make and make ammunition for.

On the other hand, if you have access to salt peter, gunpowder is just some sulfur and charcoal, and salt peter isn't rare by any means. Any town can blend it's own powder on a household scale, and bullets can be melted lead dropped into a bucket of water using a simple camp fire. Once we got boring barrels down it was cheap to cut a large number of muskets, with a smith making several a week. You can slap a musket into the hand of every man over 16 in a village and make it a fairly bloody problem to walk over it.

[Psyren]

From what I've ready early firearms replaced crossbows as the simple ranged weapon of choice. They required a similar learning curve, so it was easy to train a militia to use them, and they are about the same cost.

They're the same cost in our world because gunpowder isn't rare or esoteric to make. You can easily tweak the dials in a fantasy world if you want crossbows to stay more popular.



The big differentiator was the bang that comes with guns. Useful as both a warning signal and to distract and demoralize the enemy, they were preferred over crossbows.

That's another huge difference - in our world, few predators go after humans, and a loud bang would also discourage those that do. Whereas in D&D, a loud bang is not going to scare a dragon or fiend, and indeed having loud weapons can be actively detrimental to your welfare in many scenarios. Humans in D&D are nowhere near the top of the "food chain."

[ColorBlindNinja]

Dragon Magazine 321 has specific rules for black powder fire arms, while the DMG has more general rules.

[Dunsparce]

The Dungeon Master's Guide stats up numerous firearms and explosives from the past, present, and theoretical future. Additionally Dragon Magazine has dealt with Firearms a decent number of times over the course of 3.0 and 3.5, including once making a Feat for Paladins that makes them proficient in early firearms. They aren't that much different than other ranged weapons, in fact a lot of the ones you're looking for are, in my opinion, worse than using archery overall and not the least bit overpowering. The Modern and Futuristic ones, however have pretty high base damage.

[BearonVonMu]

If you are looking for modern firearms, perhaps import them and their associated feats from d20 Modern.
They do tend to do large amounts of damage at low levels, however.

[BWR]

Only if you don't want guns in the setting. For instance I would not accept guns in Dark Sun or Dragonlance. Mystara canonically has guns in the Savage Coast area, so they are perfectly appropriate there.

[Kordak]

Personally, I always use firearms (It's just not a werewolf hunt without silver bullets), and never found it unbalanced. I even throw in modern and future tech sometimes, as rare and powerful artifact-level items.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Whether guns will harm the campaign depends upon what rules you use and what aesthetic the campaign has.

For example, the Pathfinder firearms rules are reasonably balanced (some people complain about gunslingers but optimized gunslingers are not going to create more problems than some other kinds of optimized characters). I don't use them in my Greyhawk campaign because widespread firearms are not a part of the setting aesthetic and I don't want to change the setting just because Pathfinder has a rules set that previous d&d editions did not have.

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of how Pathfinder implemented firearms. Essentially there is a class that can use them effectively but they're a waste of time for anyone else.

I would rather see firearms as simple weapons or at most martial weapons that potentially have a place in most characters arsenals. The rules in the Arcanist campaign setting are a lot closer to that.

[Mordaedil]

My DM has revealed to me that he decided to import the Pathfinder firearms rules, but with the following changes:

1) No Touch AC attack. That isn't why guns rose to popularity and armor fell to the wayside as a poster earlier posted.

2) No proficiency required. While we will take a small penalty when we first encounter firearms, it is something that doesn't last very long if we decide to keep a gun, as one of the advantages of firearms over every other type of weapon was how easy it was to teach any peasant to hold and use one, and lead to numbers being a bigger part of warfare than skill and raw strength.

[SirNibbles]

Dragon Magazine 321 has specific rules for black powder fire arms, while the DMG has more general rules.

The Dragon #321/DMG rules are a bit unrealistic when it comes to range. Pistols with a range increment of 50 feet? That's a massive distance for an early pistol to have perfect accuracy. A 15 foot range increment is more realistic, with 30 feet for a musket. If you have rifled guns, that increases.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The Dragon #321/DMG rules are a bit unrealistic when it comes to range. Pistols with a range increment of 50 feet? That's a massive distance for an early pistol to have perfect accuracy. A 15 foot range increment is more realistic, with 30 feet for a musket. If you have rifled guns, that increases.

I'm guessing that was done to make early firearms more fun to use.

[NomGarret]

Importing the PF rules without the gunslinger class is a pretty reasonable move. Reload times and misfire chance make firearms a pretty intensive primary weapon for those who don't have class features for it. This way they are better used in a single volley and then switching to a different weapon, which fits a roughly pike and powder aesthetic fairly well.

[icefractal]

My DM has revealed to me that he decided to import the Pathfinder firearms rules, but with the following changes:

1) No Touch AC attack. That isn't why guns rose to popularity and armor fell to the wayside as a poster earlier posted.

2) No proficiency required. While we will take a small penalty when we first encounter firearms, it is something that doesn't last very long if we decide to keep a gun, as one of the advantages of firearms over every other type of weapon was how easy it was to teach any peasant to hold and use one, and lead to numbers being a bigger part of warfare than skill and raw strength.You probably want to reduce the price also, since without the touch-attack thing they're just a worse version of crossbows. Like crossbows, they also have the issue that they're usually a chump weapon for PCs, although the Gunslinger class would still be decent because of Dex to damage and various deeds.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You probably want to reduce the price also, since without the touch-attack thing they're just a worse version of crossbows. Like crossbows, they also have the issue that they're usually a chump weapon for PCs, although the Gunslinger class would still be decent because of Dex to damage and various deeds.

Low level NPCs will probably find guns the most useful.

[Gildedragon]

My suggestion: repeating xbows
Just refluff crossbows, drop the exotic tag, and voila.
Yeah it's more akin to a 6 chambered (ie 5 shot) revolver... But they probably want something more akin to that: I can't imagine them wanting to have to load the powder, tamp it down...

[Mordaedil]

You probably want to reduce the price also, since without the touch-attack thing they're just a worse version of crossbows. Like crossbows, they also have the issue that they're usually a chump weapon for PCs, although the Gunslinger class would still be decent because of Dex to damage and various deeds.

Our setting is sort of set in the dawn of gunpowder, so the price isn't an issue as much as finding someone who can make them. Our first encounter with someone using guns is also going to be the first place we can get them, and it allows the DM to kinda keep control by limited our access to ammo in a fair bit (albeit we've already met an alchemist who has promised he'd help us produce that on the cheap)

[Crazy Author]

I think this has been well-covered at this point, so I'm just adding my own voice and personalizations for whatever thoughts they may prompt.

Guns don't ruin anything unless implemented horribly and focused on unnecessarily, or unless they completely break the setting immersion for the players. (just like most anything at the table)

I personally do port pathfinder over with tweaks:

1)Guns target flat-footed AC (it's a tad harder to dodge a bullet than a more traditional projectile, after all).
2)Guns deal double the dice listed by pathfinder base (1d8 becomes 2d8, etc)
3)I explicitly place the limitation that there is no combination of features/abilities that allows more than one attack per round, per loaded chamber. Reloading is always a minimum of a move action. (Reloading takes a moment, even for the inhumanly-fast practiced members of modern military forces.)
4)Guns have exploding damage dice.
5)Guns don't have base misfire chances if the person loading/using them has proficiency in them.

If players groan or hem and haw at #1 still targeting flat-footed dropping it back to full AC is a no-brainer, as is dropping #4 if players seem at all nervous about something having an odd damage approach for one weapon type. Otherwise, dropping the maximum attacks available back to being dependent on having bullets in the chamber seems to balance out well with the increased damage dice. The misfire chances, while implementing an element of realism, were at least partially implemented in trade-off for the ability to target Touch AC (imho). No more touch attacks, no more need to penalize a player above and beyond any critical failure moments a DM might already feel obliged to act on.

Overall, the goal of the tweaks is to represent the explosive striking power of the gun, while making it clear you still had to figure out how to use the thing in the first place, and hit something reliably with it in the second. The action-economy tweaks bring it more in line with the flavor of the iconic early-firearms adventurers (also imho), as very few iconic gun-wielders actually fall prey to the cliche of: "He just killed eight guys." "I know, he's amazing." "...no, I meant, he just shot eight guys without stopping to reload his sole six-shooter."

[weckar]

Obviously now every goblin will carry a pepperbox and wear a fedora.

[Anonymouswizard]

Then I suggest treating them pretty much like crossbows. Maybe bump up the damage die and fiddle with something else to compensate?

This is exactly what I do when running D&D with firearms, I actually tend to go one step further. Firearms are treated exactly like crossbows for simplicity purposes, even if that leads to oddly long range increments (if a player asks I'll claim that alchemists have worked out a way to make bullets that are easy to load but accurate*). I also allow muskets to be drawn from a barrel with quick draw for when a player wants to focus on them, but it's never come up (and yes, I've tried to use that trick with various GMs, one let it past with 'people actually did that, or close enough').

* My research indicated that with muskets a larger bullet would be more accurate but more difficult to load, up to a certain point. Probably not to the point of being as good as rifling, but good enough.

[Fouredged Sword]

* My research indicated that with muskets a larger bullet would be more accurate but more difficult to load, up to a certain point. Probably not to the point of being as good as rifling, but good enough.

This is true to a point. A bullet that is very close in size to your barrel drops down the barrel very slowly as it drags as falls. By and far the BIGGER problem is barrel shape. Early firearms didn't HAVE standard or even consistent barrel sizes. Early manufacturing methods tended to do weird things like add a slight tapper to the inside of the barrel, or have the center point of your bore drift slightly due to low quality machining tools and methods. Both of these problems played havoc on your accuracy, and worse they made it impossible to make a bullet that was well sized to your gun. A bullet HAD to be undersized in the barrel or risk getting stuck.

Now, this got sorted out over time. In the early era there was a big difference between a poor and well made gun in accuracy. Once the boreing issue was sorted you started to see cannon gunners match cannon balls to the cannons they best fit. Until you had straight, clean, and consistent bores you couldn't do rifling consistently (though an good gunsmith could craft it with a lot of work). Even then, rifles took so long to drive the bullet down through the rifled barrel that they where impractical for anything other than hunting or the odd sniper until the expanding mini ball came around and allowed you to load a rifle like a musket.

And that is why you suddenly saw things like trench warfare suddenly appear in the middle of the American Civil War. Both sides suddenly realized "Damn! We can actually HIT the target we are shooting at now! So can they! Take Cover!"

[Mordaedil]

Gun-smith is censored?

[Fouredged Sword]

Gun-smith is censored?

I think i had an unfortunate typo with sm replaced with sh

[SirNibbles]

This is true to a point. A bullet that is very close in size to your barrel drops down the barrel very slowly as it drags as falls. By and far the BIGGER problem is barrel shape. Early firearms didn't HAVE standard or even consistent barrel sizes. Early manufacturing methods tended to do weird things like add a slight tapper to the inside of the barrel, or have the center point of your bore drift slightly due to low quality machining tools and methods. Both of these problems played havoc on your accuracy, and worse they made it impossible to make a bullet that was well sized to your gun. A bullet HAD to be undersized in the barrel or risk getting stuck.

Now, this got sorted out over time. In the early era there was a big difference between a poor and well made gun in accuracy. Once the boreing issue was sorted you started to see cannon gunners match cannon balls to the cannons they best fit. Until you had straight, clean, and consistent bores you couldn't do rifling consistently (though an good gun****h could craft it with a lot of work). Even then, rifles took so long to drive the bullet down through the rifled barrel that they where impractical for anything other than hunting or the odd sniper until the expanding mini ball came around and allowed you to load a rifle like a musket.

And that is why you suddenly saw things like trench warfare suddenly appear in the middle of the American Civil War. Both sides suddenly realized "Damn! We can actually HIT the target we are shooting at now! So can they! Take Cover!"

Trench warfare had existed to some extent well before then. I can say for certain that the use of trenches dates back to at least the French and Indian War (Seven Years' War), around 100 years earlier. This is still in a period before rifling, where the Brits were using smoothbore muskets, though it is very late in that period.

The effective range, as you have said, is due to the imprecise manufacturing which forced the use of smaller musket balls. The effective range for these late-era smoothbore muskets when trying to hit a human target is around 50 yards. (That's equivalent to a 30 foot range increment for a max range of 150 feet, or 50 yards).

[tedcahill2]

1)Guns target flat-footed AC (it's a tad harder to dodge a bullet than a more traditional projectile, after all).

Does this mean every rogue using a gun is getting free sneak attacks?

[Starbuck_II]

I think this has been well-covered at this point, so I'm just adding my own voice and personalizations for whatever thoughts they may prompt.

Guns don't ruin anything unless implemented horribly and focused on unnecessarily, or unless they completely break the setting immersion for the players. (just like most anything at the table)

I personally do port pathfinder over with tweaks:

1)Guns target flat-footed AC (it's a tad harder to dodge a bullet than a more traditional projectile, after all).
2)Guns deal double the dice listed by pathfinder base (1d8 becomes 2d8, etc)
3)I explicitly place the limitation that there is no combination of features/abilities that allows more than one attack per round, per loaded chamber. Reloading is always a minimum of a move action. (Reloading takes a moment, even for the inhumanly-fast practiced members of modern military forces.)
4)Guns have exploding damage dice.
5)Guns don't have base misfire chances if the person loading/using them has proficiency in them.

If players groan or hem and haw at #1 still targeting flat-footed dropping it back to full AC is a no-brainer, as is dropping #4 if players seem at all nervous about something having an odd damage approach for one weapon type. Otherwise, dropping the maximum attacks available back to being dependent on having bullets in the chamber seems to balance out well with the increased damage dice. The misfire chances, while implementing an element of realism, were at least partially implemented in trade-off for the ability to target Touch AC (imho). No more touch attacks, no more need to penalize a player above and beyond any critical failure moments a DM might already feel obliged to act on.

Overall, the goal of the tweaks is to represent the explosive striking power of the gun, while making it clear you still had to figure out how to use the thing in the first place, and hit something reliably with it in the second. The action-economy tweaks bring it more in line with the flavor of the iconic early-firearms adventurers (also imho), as very few iconic gun-wielders actually fall prey to the cliche of: "He just killed eight guys." "I know, he's amazing." "...no, I meant, he just shot eight guys without stopping to reload his sole six-shooter."

I instead use my Pentrating rules:
Guns: Penetration
Replace misfire and Touch AC mechanic;
Penetration bypasses the combination of armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 2nd increment (however, keep reading). One-handed firearms have a PR of 3, two handed firearms have a PR of 6, but this is ½ outside of 1st increment. Also PR automatically increases based on enhancementx2, so a character with a +5 musket bypasses 16 points of AC from armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 1st increment, but only 8 in 2nd increment.
Broken Condition: Penetration lowered by 4 (minimum 0).
Gunslinger:
Deadeye Deed: Same method by extends penetration
Quick Clear: If Firearm gains broken condition, can ignore for 1 minute.
Gun Training: Raises Penetration by 1 every 5 levels.

Alchemy cartridge: Lowers Penetration by 1 or more when used (use misfire value)
Dragon's breath: The nonmagical flame deals 2d6 + BAB points of fire damage to all targets within the cone of the scatter firearm (DC 15 Reflex save half). If you roll a 1 with either of the damage dice, the firearm gains broken condition or explodes if broken.

See, instead of that whole Touch AC rules, we lower Armor/NA by a certain amount.
Full plate can usually take a hit by a gun in real life. This is modeled well by my rules.

[zergling.exe]

I instead use my Pentrating rules:
Guns: Penetration
Replace misfire and Touch AC mechanic;
Penetration bypasses the combination of armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 2nd increment (however, keep reading). One-handed firearms have a PR of 3, two handed firearms have a PR of 6, but this is ½ outside of 1st increment. Also PR automatically increases based on enhancementx2, so a character with a +5 musket bypasses 16 points of AC from armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 1st increment, but only 8 in 2nd increment.

There's one problem with these rules: a one-handed firearm has greater penetration than a two-handed one in the 2nd increment when you start enhancing them.

[Starbuck_II]

There's one problem with these rules: a one-handed firearm has greater penetration than a two-handed one in the 2nd increment when you start enhancing them.

The 2nd increment of most 2 handed is usually farther. Plus, I see a magic gun penetrating better as a thematic thing.

[Pleh]

Does this mean every rogue using a gun is getting free sneak attacks?

I am strangely ok with this. Part of the danger of a gun is how easy it is to deal damage to critical systems the way that sneak attack attempts to do. You just about can't dodge a bullet is half the point in using a gun. The fact that it almost doesn't matter where you hit them is the other half of the reason. An arrow or crossbow bolt are far less likely to break bones or pierce the skull than a bullet is (hence their ineffectiveness against animated skeleton).

Now a counter argument is that early guns might not be accurate enough to be used for precision damage. Fair enough. Maybe give concealment miss chance for the auto sneak attack, so guns always target FF AC, but only have 50% chance to deal SA damage unless they invest resources in negating concealment.

Remember that SA with ranged weapons fails outside 30ft (without spending more resources), so what kind of damage do you expect from a flintlock within 30ft?

[Fouredged Sword]

I am strangely ok with this. Part of the danger of a gun is how easy it is to deal damage to critical systems the way that sneak attack attempts to do. You just about can't dodge a bullet is half the point in using a gun. The fact that it almost doesn't matter where you hit them is the other half of the reason. An arrow or crossbow bolt are far less likely to break bones or pierce the skull than a bullet is (hence their ineffectiveness against animated skeleton).

Now a counter argument is that early guns might not be accurate enough to be used for precision damage. Fair enough. Maybe give concealment miss chance for the auto sneak attack, so guns always target FF AC, but only have 50% chance to deal SA damage unless they invest resources in negating concealment.

Remember that SA with ranged weapons fails outside 30ft (without spending more resources), so what kind of damage do you expect from a flintlock within 30ft?

Eh, I don't know the realism of losing your dex bonus to AC VS guns. You can't dodge a crossbow bolt ether. Both move far, far, faster than you can. Anything designed to go through steel plate is going to be going pretty fast. The problem isn't dodging, it's drawing a bead on a moving target. If you are moving around it is more likely the shooter will aim badly and miss. Guns are just as weak to this as any other projectile.

And early guns had very low bullet speeds. They accounted for this with large bullets. A lack of self sealing bullets caused 90% of the powder explosion to bypass the bullet. You compensate for this with a heavy 70 cal bullet that will do damage even at low (for a bullet) speeds.

[JKTrickster]

I don't have much to say about mechanics but I feel that a DnD game that incorporates guns should think about story and setting details first.

In a traditional fantasy, guns are often depicted as this revolutionary force that can change entire armies and the way wars are fought. That is good - change can be chaotic and provide opportunities for stories to go in an unexpected direction.

They don't hurt the game if you are able to take advantage of that chaos and make more interesting stories.

Even if you don't want guns to be such a revolutionary force in your game, I would resist the urge to simply equate guns with crossbows. If you are going to add an element that is usually not typical in fantasy, it should have a widespread effect.

Even if the entire setting has adopted guns and embraced it, it should have some change in the setting and the story. It shouldn't just replace another ranged weapon.


The weapons and the tools that a society uses should be a reflection of the values of that society. That isn't always the case in real life, but this isn't "real life". This is DnD and that means that there should be a narrative purpose for every element.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I'm not a fan of penetration, touch AC, or flat-footed AC systems. That's the primary reason I liked the Arcanis firearm rules better than the Pathfinder ones. But it does bring up an interesting question: if guns don't get any special attack benefits, how big do the damage dice need to be in order to make them viable options as nonprimary weapons for characters? (So they're not trying to replace the Archer's bow; they're trying to replace the cleric's sling and the great sword paladin's bow. For replacing the Archer's bow I assume they would need feat support similar to Pathfinder's overwatch style for crossbows or class support along the lines of the gunslinger class).

My guess is that they would start looking attractive around 1d12 for pistols and 2d10 for arbeques. 2d8 for pistols and 4d6 arbeques would almost certainly be good enough.

[Fouredged Sword]

Honestly the HP totals of most threats make any form of single shot weapon untenable without massive amounts of bonus damage. A level 3 character has 3dx+y*3 hp.

If guns are to be revolutionary in the same way there where in real life they should be the following - Cheap, easy, and deadly. A musket or shot gun should be maybe 10 gold. A pistol maybe 3. Gunpowder should be copper to the pound. Shot should be copper per 10 shot. They should do good damage (2d6 for pistols, 2d10 for rifles, 3d6 for shotguns) and take a full round to reload.

Though, I do love the archetype of a fighter who fights with a musket and bayonet.

[Zanos]

Early firearms weren't really revolutionary in that sense, though. Arrows killed people just as well. Guns were cheap to manufacture and easy to stick in the hands of a lot of people with minimal training. The nature of warfare changed because it became cheaper and more effective for a central army to round up an army of peasants with minimal training and stick guns in their hands than it was for a bannerman to summoner his landed knights and their men. And they took a very long time from their inception to actually take off anyway.

If you want to really model guns being "revolutionary" make them very cheap simple weapons.

A crossbow bolt will ruin your day as much as an early firearm, and is probably more accurate anyway.

[Nifft]

There's a level 1 psionic power bolt which creates "normal" ammo: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/bolt.htm (... though the ammo has a +1 enhancement bonus so I think it's actually magic for the purposes of penetrating DR).

What would be the appropriate level for a spell or psionic power which created non-enhanced modern ammo?

Would it be a reasonable restriction to require both the PP expenditure and impose a longer total reload time (e.g. a standard action to manifest the power, plus a move action to load the ammo)?

This is specifically for a custom power to create ammo for an anachronistic weapon -- a modern gun in a standard D&D setting, which lacks blackpowder.

[Pleh]

We almost need to preface which kind of versimilitude each interpretation is seeking to satisfy: historical realism, or power fantasy satisfaction.

Either is acceptable, but each needs to be built differently.

The fantasy power of a gun is that it is more powerful, by whatever justification and regardless of any disagreement with reality. In this case, a gun only needs to satisfy suspension of disbelief, which roleplayers casting magic spells at imaginary monsters will have no problem doing.

The historically accurate version isn't much different from a crossbow unless you want Modern firearms (which defies historical accuracy for different reasons). Maybe easier access for slightly less accuracy unless you buy a masterwork version.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Honestly the HP totals of most threats make any form of single shot weapon untenable without massive amounts of bonus damage. A level 3 character has 3dx+y*3 hp.

I'm not convinced of this for a couple reasons.

1. While early guns are "single shot" weapons, that does not mean that a character is limited to firing once per round. Historically, a pirate or a hussar with a brace of pistols tucked into belts or bandoleers was a well-known figure. And that's exactly the know of thing a d&d powergamer would do to bypass the single shot limitation. The only trick would be finding a way around the problem of needing to enhance multiple weapons at mid to high levels. (Automatic bonus progression, magic ammo, and spells like greater magic weapon seem like ways this might be accomplished).

2. While single shot weapons do have limitations, you don't need to overcome all of them for firearms to have a role especially as a backup/secondary weapon. Most clerics will carry some kind of ranged weapon but proficiencies generally limit them to crossbows and slings. "Better than a crossbows or sling" is enough to make firearms a weapon of choice for those characters. Rogues and bards are proficient with shortbows but are often not very good at taking advantage of the higher rate of fire. Better than a shortbows for a low strength rogue or bard is also a very achievable bar.

Full BAB characters are often well served by bows, but there are a number of scenarios where they might well want a pistol if it's good enough. (In this case, "better than a javalins" is probably the relevant bar for the pistol to clear). Characters will often find it advantageous to be able to make a ranged attack without dropping their primary melee weapon--especially if it looks like they'll be in melee next round. For a character with a two-handed weapon, that means a javalins, hand crossbow, or pistol. For characters with shields, the action economy of loosing a shield and drawing a bow makes javalins or pistols very attractive options since they can be used the round that they are wanted. They also enable the character to keep using the shield which is important if the character may want to be back in melee next round. Round 1 drop weapon, loose shield, draw bow. Round 2. Drop bow, pick up melee weapon (or draw another), ready shield is really bad action economy but it's a risk that shield -users face by relying on a bow as their only ranged option.

Granted, all backup ranged options suffer as characters shade into high levels and need some effort to remain viable, but I think firearms do have a shot at that. And for primary options, there is the gunslinger class, trench fighter archetype, etc.

[Anonymouswizard]

Even if you don't want guns to be such a revolutionary force in your game, I would resist the urge to simply equate guns with crossbows. If you are going to add an element that is usually not typical in fantasy, it should have a widespread effect.

Societal effect =/= mechanical rules. The one thing I tend to do to make guns change the world is assume guns are easy enough to use that anyone can pick up musket proficiency with about a week's training without spending a feat, and that those who get crossbow proficiency also get musket proficiency (pistols are assumed to be slightly harder to use, but still simple weapons). This means that a region with access to firearms quickly gains the ability to raise an army within a limited timeframe, because guns are easier to make and distribute.

But statistics wise? An early musket is a crossbow (light or heavy depends on how much I want them to change the world). It's simple, and it keeps the weapons in one place.

[Nifft]

In terms of Fantasy Action Hero vs. Gritty Cinematic Realism, I think that's more the domain of the injury / damage subsystem than guns in specific.

I mean, with HP mechanics, you can have long knife-fights with blood spraying everywhere -- but nobody gets hurt in a lasting way.

If you want a Gritty Cinematic Realist feel, you probably want to shift over to VP / WP, or even a Consequence-Box system (like some FATE games use).

== == ==

On a different topic, I remember that 1e D&D had different damage ranges for each weapon vs. targets of size Large or bigger. This meant Daggers could do respectable damage to humans, but wouldn't do much to a dragon; on the other hand, a Greatsword could hurt a human just fine, but it was significantly more dangerous to a dragon.

It might be neat if guns also had different damage vs. different target types.

Could be simple, like: "monsters of size L or larger take half damage from ballistic and piercing weapons".

Or it could be more complex: "reduce ballistic damage by Natural Armor".

The advantage would be that humanoid-vs-humanoid combat is dominated by one set of weapons, but humanoid-vs-big-monster combat is dominated by a totally different set of weapons.

[Barstro]

From what I've ready early firearms replaced crossbows as the simple ranged weapon of choice. They required a similar learning curve, so it was easy to train a militia to use them, and they are about the same cost.

The big differentiator was the bang that comes with guns. Useful as both a warning signal and to distract and demoralize the enemy, they were preferred over crossbows.

Bows continued to be more efficient killing weapons in highly trained hands, but very few people had such training.

I basically wanted to run a game where guns were the preferred simple weapon of militia. Similar to the way crossbows are generally not used in any build above level 5, cause as soon as you have 2 attacks crossbows are simply not as good as bows, I don't think a highly trained warrior should be building around firearms.

I've never cared for them in games for basically the reasons you mentioned. A game with guns is fine. A game trying to integrate guns and swords and armor is very difficult. If I recall history correctly, the common usage of firearms caused the demise of armor. Since nobody wore armor, there was no reason to use "armor penetrating" weapons like large axes and swords; thus the rapier version of Musketeers instead of full-plate version of knights.

Were I to integrate it, I would do what you have said;
1) Part of the military (not omnipresent)
2) Keep them at one shot per round
3) Have powder hard to find.

I'd also consider creating a "magic OR science" rule. Guns are science, they cannot be magically enhanced. The bullets can be enhanced, since they are just the object being propelled.

[Hackulator]

Low tech guns are fine. Modern guns are a problem because they are just massively better than other handheld weapons in real life, so any attempt to bring them into D&D is either unbalanced or unrealistic.

[tedcahill2]

Honestly the HP totals of most threats make any form of single shot weapon untenable without massive amounts of bonus damage. A level 3 character has 3dx+y*3 hp.

If guns are to be revolutionary in the same way there where in real life they should be the following - Cheap, easy, and deadly. A musket or shot gun should be maybe 10 gold. A pistol maybe 3. Gunpowder should be copper to the pound. Shot should be copper per 10 shot. They should do good damage (2d6 for pistols, 2d10 for rifles, 3d6 for shotguns) and take a full round to reload.

Though, I do love the archetype of a fighter who fights with a musket and bayonet.

Guns simply don't translate well to a game where combat is as abstract as D&D's use of hit points. This is precisely why I plan to use the injury system variant in my game with guns.

The injury system has no hit points. Every time you are hit you make a fortitude save DC 15 + 1/5 damage dealt. Success represents a blow that dealt no real damage, a glancing blow if you will. Failure indicates that you've taken a hit, not a lethal one, but you're definitely injured. Each hit you take imposes a -1 penalty to fortitude saves to prevent injury. When you fail an injury save by 10 or more, you are now dying (effectively 0 hit points).

So average Joe with no con bonus and no base fort save that is shot, would take let's say 1-8 damage. So the save DC would be 15 or 16 depending on the damage dealt. Focusing on the 15 that would give him a 30% chance of it being a glancing blow, a 45% chance of it being a solid hit, and a 25% chance of it being a lethal blow.

Now adventurers are obviously not average, but I like that odds as far as how dangerous guns are, and I think it will scale better with level since there's always that chance of rolling a 1 on your fortitude save.

[tedcahill2]

If I recall history correctly, the common usage of firearms caused the demise of armor. Since nobody wore armor, there was no reason to use "armor penetrating" weapons like large axes and swords; thus the rapier version of Musketeers instead of full-plate version of knights.
This is largely incorrect. Advancements in armor were required with the common use of guns, and it didn't take long for armor to be made of metals that could stop a bullet with ease. Guns did cause the eventual demise of armor use, but not until the late 1700s. The time of the musketeers was around the 1600s and armor and firearms were both very common, however unless going to war wearing more than a brigandine was uncommon. Full plate armor was generally only worn by generals and princes, because they could safely survey the battle.

[Zanos]

If I recall history correctly, the common usage of firearms caused the demise of armor. Since nobody wore armor, there was no reason to use "armor penetrating" weapons like large axes and swords; thus the rapier version of Musketeers instead of full-plate version of knights.
A couple of major factors made full armor uncommon.

1. Cost. Armor is expensive. Guns and bullets, less so.
2. Death of the feudal system and rise of nation-states called for mobile, centrally commanded and paid armies. Heavily armored soldiers functioned very poorly in these environments.
3. Training. Guns are rather easy to use compared to what it would cost to train or replace a skilled knight.

Good plate armor would be dented but not pierced by a period firearm, but you could probably field a lot of peasants for the cost of training and equipping a single knight. But armor not being effective had more to do with the economic and societal changes occurring that caused the nature of warfare to shift, rather the guns shooting through armor.

[Barstro]

This is largely incorrect. Advancements in armor were required with the common use of guns, and it didn't take long for armor to be made of metals that could stop a bullet with ease. Guns did cause the eventual demise of armor use, but not until the late 1700s. The time of the musketeers was around the 1600s and armor and firearms were both very common, however unless going to war wearing more than a brigandine was uncommon. Full plate armor was generally only worn by generals and princes, because they could safely survey the battle.

Thank you for correcting my misconception.

[SirNibbles]

I'm not a fan of penetration, touch AC, or flat-footed AC systems. That's the primary reason I liked the Arcanis firearm rules better than the Pathfinder ones. But it does bring up an interesting question: if guns don't get any special attack benefits, how big do the damage dice need to be in order to make them viable options as nonprimary weapons for characters? (So they're not trying to replace the Archer's bow; they're trying to replace the cleric's sling and the great sword paladin's bow. For replacing the Archer's bow I assume they would need feat support similar to Pathfinder's overwatch style for crossbows or class support along the lines of the gunslinger class).

My guess is that they would start looking attractive around 1d12 for pistols and 2d10 for arbeques. 2d8 for pistols and 4d6 arbeques would almost certainly be good enough.


Honestly the HP totals of most threats make any form of single shot weapon untenable without massive amounts of bonus damage. A level 3 character has 3dx+y*3 hp.

If guns are to be revolutionary in the same way there where in real life they should be the following - Cheap, easy, and deadly. A musket or shot gun should be maybe 10 gold. A pistol maybe 3. Gunpowder should be copper to the pound. Shot should be copper per 10 shot. They should do good damage (2d6 for pistols, 2d10 for rifles, 3d6 for shotguns) and take a full round to reload.

Though, I do love the archetype of a fighter who fights with a musket and bayonet.

Touch AC makes absolutely no sense. Armour stops bullets. Simply touching the armour won't deal damage- you need to penetrate.

I think a high critical multiplier would be better than a high base damage. Shots to most part of the body aren't going to be terribly wounding but if it happens to hit a critical area, it could be an instant kill.

I would recommend 18-20/x5 for most firearms. As with a crossbow, a full-round reload which provokes AoOs makes sense.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Heavy armor for line troops didn't go out of fashion with feudalism-it persisted a good deal longer than people are giving it credit for.

As late as the English civil war (mid 1600s, well into the age of gunpowder and at the point that traditional castles had just become impractical due to the increased effectiveness of gunpowder artillery), armies including Cromwell's new model army fielded heavily armored formations. Both pikemen and cavalry wore heavy steel helmets, cuirasses, and the cavalry also wore gauntlets while pike often wore tassets attached to the breastplate. (And being on the parliamentary side, Cromwell's forces were more representative of the new modern order of battle than of the remnants of feudalism). On the continent, heavily armored polish hussars figured prominently in the siege of Vienna and contributed to the ottoman defeat in 1683.

[tedcahill2]

Also, fun fact, padded and leather armors are basically a creation of D&D, and didn't exist outside of arena combat where actually protecting the fighters from slashing weapons wasn't a big concern. Metal that didn't incorporate metal just didn't stop blades.

Does this mean that anything less than a chain shirt should have it's armor changed to DR 1 or 2/slashing or piercing?

Another fun fact, I did not fact check the first fun fact.

[Hackulator]

Also, fun fact, padded and leather armors are basically a creation of D&D, and didn't exist outside of arena combat where actually protecting the fighters from slashing weapons wasn't a big concern. Metal that didn't incorporate metal just didn't stop blades.

Does this mean that anything less than a chain shirt should have it's armor changed to DR 1 or 2/slashing or piercing?

Another fun fact, I did not fact check the first fun fact.

Actually, leather lamellar armor was used in a lot of parts of asia at least.

[King539]

Depends on how well your aim is. :smalltongue:

[Elder_Basilisk]

The description of padded armor is a fair match for the medieval gambeson or Aztec cotton armor but probably understates the effectiveness of those armors by a lot. Bernal Diaz describes the Aztec armor as offering good protection against at least Aztec arrows which sounds a lot better than a +1 armor bonus which is no one's idea of good protection.

as far a I can tell, the description of d&d leather armor is ahistorical though historians in the 70s actually did think it existed and, like ring mail it is more modern historical research that has exposed it as bogus. That said, a lot of 16th and 17th century armors included a buff coat (or sometimes that was the extent of it) and that is still often thought to have offered limited protection against swords and sabers. The buff coat is certainly a type of leather armor even if it doesn't match the description of d&d leather though the protectiveness (not very good but better than nothing) is in the same ballpark.

[Nifft]

IIRC it was artillery that broke the tight-formation unit tactics which were associated with heavy infantry, but it's not like soldiers stopped wearing armor.

Modern soldiers still wear body armor, which is relatively heavy.

Helmets remain important.

[Zanos]

Also, fun fact, padded and leather armors are basically a creation of D&D, and didn't exist outside of arena combat where actually protecting the fighters from slashing weapons wasn't a big concern. Metal that didn't incorporate metal just didn't stop blades.

Does this mean that anything less than a chain shirt should have it's armor changed to DR 1 or 2/slashing or piercing?

Another fun fact, I did not fact check the first fun fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambeson

[tedcahill2]

Lets take this thought process one step further. If you have advanced weaponry to include flintlock weapons, what would be appropriate types of armor. Surely cloth and leather are out of use.

[JKTrickster]

Societal effect =/= mechanical rules. The one thing I tend to do to make guns change the world is assume guns are easy enough to use that anyone can pick up musket proficiency with about a week's training without spending a feat, and that those who get crossbow proficiency also get musket proficiency (pistols are assumed to be slightly harder to use, but still simple weapons). This means that a region with access to firearms quickly gains the ability to raise an army within a limited timeframe, because guns are easier to make and distribute.

But statistics wise? An early musket is a crossbow (light or heavy depends on how much I want them to change the world). It's simple, and it keeps the weapons in one place.

But what you just wrote is a mechanical rule. The ability to gain proficiency without a feat IS a mechanical rule. And that mechanical rule DID have a societal effect.

I'm not aware what you are trying to say. :smallconfused:

[Elder_Basilisk]

Lets take this thought process one step further. If you have advanced weaponry to include flintlock weapons, what would be appropriate types of armor. Surely cloth and leather are out of use.

I would probably make cloth and leather the primary armor types in that scenario.

Historically, the main western armor types in use in the 1600-1700 time frame were buff coat (possibly modeled by leather), the cuirass which probably corresponds to the D&D breastplate, and half-plate for the elite generals (though more on the continent than in England where even King Charles stuck with similar equipment to the Parliamentary cavalry and pikemen--essentially buff coat+cuirass. That may indicate that the half plate shown on Eugene of Savoy et al was ceremonial or it could indicate differences in style between the English and Habsburg forces).

[Bohandas]

Then I suggest treating them pretty much like crossbows. Maybe bump up the damage die and fiddle with something else to compensate?

Or bump down the non-proficiency penalty. As has been mentioned before the biggest draw of early guns was that they were relatively easy to use

[Bohandas]

Dragon Magazine 321 has specific rules for black powder fire arms, while the DMG has more general rules.

D20 Modern has firearms rules too

[ColorBlindNinja]

D20 Modern has firearms rules too

Yes, for more contemporary weapons.

D20 Call of Cthulhu has a bunch of guns from around the 19th-20th century too.

[icefractal]

I'm not a fan of penetration, touch AC, or flat-footed AC systems. That's the primary reason I liked the Arcanis firearm rules better than the Pathfinder ones. But it does bring up an interesting question: if guns don't get any special attack benefits, how big do the damage dice need to be in order to make them viable options as nonprimary weapons for characters? (So they're not trying to replace the Archer's bow; they're trying to replace the cleric's sling and the great sword paladin's bow. For replacing the Archer's bow I assume they would need feat support similar to Pathfinder's overwatch style for crossbows or class support along the lines of the gunslinger class).Pretty big, although it depends somewhat on their other qualities (range, reload time, reliability). Let's look at the examples. We'll assume a 10th level party:

Paladin's Bow: This one is going to be dealing in the neighborhood of 1d8+7, with no reload time. 3d6+1 is the same damage, but that reload time hurts. If that's pistol damage though, it does have a niche: the Paladin can use it without dropping or sheathing his sword, and sometime you only need one shot.

So for this one, I'd say a 3d6 Pistol with decent range (80+), very low misfire chances, and can be carried around while loaded. That's versus a Composite (+6 Str) Longbow though, so it doesn't have to be cheap; the crappy pistol that conscript militia get could be substantially worse.

For the "crappy pistol", I'd say something like:
1d8 damage, range 50+, might misfire, cheaper than a crossbow. It's not as good as a crossbow, but it's cheaper and you can use a shield with it. Range shouldn't be less than 50' though, or it starts to compare unfavorably to a sling.

Cleric's Sling: Between 1d4+1 and 1d8+9, depending on the Cleric. It's a harder sell than the Paladin though, because in the situation where the Paladin would be using it (only have a standard action, just taking one shot) the Cleric would probably cast a spell instead. But the Paladin model would be quite appealing to non-Strength-buffing Clerics.

[Bohandas]

Does anyone else find it kind of disappointing in retrospect that Oriental Adventures didn't have rules for guns and rocket launchers? Because when you think about it that would've been the place to put them

[Mordaedil]

You meant to put that into blue text, didn't you?

[Crazy Author]

Guns simply don't translate well to a game where combat is as abstract as D&D's use of hit points. This is precisely why I plan to use the injury system variant in my game with guns.

The injury system has no hit points. Every time you are hit you make a fortitude save DC 15 + 1/5 damage dealt. Success represents a blow that dealt no real damage, a glancing blow if you will. Failure indicates that you've taken a hit, not a lethal one, but you're definitely injured. Each hit you take imposes a -1 penalty to fortitude saves to prevent injury. When you fail an injury save by 10 or more, you are now dying (effectively 0 hit points).

So average Joe with no con bonus and no base fort save that is shot, would take let's say 1-8 damage. So the save DC would be 15 or 16 depending on the damage dealt. Focusing on the 15 that would give him a 30% chance of it being a glancing blow, a 45% chance of it being a solid hit, and a 25% chance of it being a lethal blow.

Now adventurers are obviously not average, but I like that odds as far as how dangerous guns are, and I think it will scale better with level since there's always that chance of rolling a 1 on your fortitude save.

This is the simplest, cleanest summation of an injury system I have ever seen, and represents one I would be willing to implement (there would be tweaks, I'm sure. Darn humans, all being different at different tables.)

Thank you for further stimulating my continuing evolution. :smallwink:

[Zombimode]

IIRC it was artillery that broke the tight-formation unit tactics which were associated with heavy infantry, but it's not like soldiers stopped wearing armor.

You mean artillery that was a vital part of warfare since at least the 30 years war through the napolionic age and the 19th century?

Yeah, I don't think so.

[Fouredged Sword]

Armor has come and gone and come again as a piece of vital equipment for soldiers as material science and weapon science cross over and over each other.

[Sagetim]

One of my players wants to have a D&D game with blackpowder weapons, but there is 0 support for firearms in Dungeons and Dragons. If I wanted to accommodate him is there a good third party source for it?

Seems like a like of gear, magic items, classes/prestige classes, etc. would all really hurt the overall experience of adding guns to a campaign. Mechanically it would be easy to add, but they would ultimately lack options and utility.

Hmmm, dnd game, third party sources allowed? 3.5 edition....oh yeah, the Dragonmech Campaign Setting has (in addition to giant mecha powered by things ranging from slaves to steam to clockwork to magic) steam powered guns. It might not be the black powder guns you were thinking of, but it wouldn't be hard to rip the weaponry out of there and adapt some of it to be black powder weaponry (the steam rifles and steam cannons in particular, the giant steam powered mechanical claws might be rather hard to justify as black powder powered, while the steam breathers can be reflavored as flame throwers pretty easily).

As I recall, the setting doesn't have anything like 'resolve as touch attacks' or flat footed attacks or what have you. The steam guns are just kind of slow reload high damage projectile weapons. Mind, this is also a campaign setting where there's a base class that gradually turns you into a steamborg (think cyborg, but your components are steam powered). This is also the setting that has such ludicrously awesome siege weapons as the Javelin Rack, which fires a volley of shots based on it's size (it comes in something like x3, x5, and x7 varieties or something like that). This is because the giant mecha (sizing up beyond the normal dnd size categories into the realm of city sized mechs) need weapons like the javelin racks so that they can solo dragons. In their giant mecha. I mean, I suppose you have a crew for most mechs, so it's not so much soloing, but still.

Anyway, don't forget that you can do other stupid pryotechnics with gunpowder other than just shooting bullets at things. It can also be used to set off explosions, make grenades (which can be as simple as packing a wooden ball with some nails and black powder), and power flame throwers and fireworks. Sure, Burning Hands might be the magic way of doing it, but peasants can aim a fire stick at an enemy and light it with a tindertwig for far cheaper than sending a smart kid to magic school.

One of the main problems I noticed in d20 modern was that people have quite a lot of hp vs how much damage guns actually do in that system as you get to even mid level. So, if you want these guns to be objectively dangerous at low level, they need to do significant damage. This might be as simple as house ruling that guns get to add dexterity modifier to damage, or it might be accomplished by inflating their damage dice. Either way, you may want to give them a x3 critical multiplier, though I don't know if you would want to go so far as to give them a crit range beyond 20 on top of that.

Baseline damage I would expect out of early firearms (if you want players to use them in spite of long reload times and no multiple attacks per round), would be something like 2d4 for pistols, 2d8 for rifles, and are we even talking about blunderbuss's or shotguns? I suppose a 3d6 cone for those, but probably with something like a 10ft range increment and only 5 range increments because earth shotguns are...more for deck clearing than marksmanship. That would also resolve a cone attack as a single attack roll compared against the ac of anyone in it (with reducing the result per range increment) instead of a reflex save.

So if we wrap all that together, you could get something like 2d4+dex and a x3 crit on a pistol, which at least lets the damned thing scale a bit with the characters instead of penalizing them for daring to try and kill things at a range with anything other than magic.

Also, for bolt? It makes ammo. If guns are in play, it seems sensible to house rule that since you're blowing the equivalent of a first level spell slot (at least), it can make bullet and powder ammo without any penalty.


Oh, and I just read the thing about the alternate damage system that you're going to use. I think having guns use a baseline of multiple smaller dice instead of fewer larger ones, giving them dex to damage when other ranged weapons don't benefit from that baseline, and a fat x3 crit multiplier with a 19-20 range would probably make them deadly enough. I do feel the need to point out that your most survivable heroes are going to be multi classing between good fort save classes. Or using multiple prestige classes, etc. Pumping that fortitude save up is going to be your best bet for surviving, and any means by which you can ensure that it can't fail on a natural 1 is going to be your best friend. If you are allowing maneuver users from the book of nine swords, there are maneuvers in there that let you replace a saving throw for a skill check. Part of what that means is that it's not an automatic failure on a 1, nor an automatic success on a 20.

[ericgrau]

Do they hurt a D&D game? Hard to answer. I think most traditional D&D settings don't really have firearms and gunpowder seamlessly slide in. It's up to you to decide if you think firearms are appropriate for your setting.

Mechanically, you could use the PF firearm rules but I would remove the "guns hit touch AC" nonsense because it's unbalanced and inaccurate anyway. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_(armour)) Armor fell out of favor due to the rise of a government centralized low-cost per soldier military and the slow death of elite knights from noble houses, not because early firearms teleported bullets through solid steel.

Yes and no. You needed thicker, heavier and more expensive armor to stop a bullet. Note that the armor was also made "sword, axe, and arrow proof" which isn't quite true either. The right blow could still get through. Before firearms early plate was quite thin for weight reasons. Your standard 30 lb. "solid steel" breastplate is less than 1/16" thick.

IMO touch AC is close enough. If you are using early firearms then you might have a house rule where +X AC and greater armor or natural armor still applies, or where double cost double weight versions of standard armor still apply or etc. The trade-off being a little extra gp and a lot of extra weight just to defend against 1 kind of attack.

I think using Pathfinder is a good idea because they put some thought in the rules and lots of people have played with them. So the chances of you royally screwing up your campaign with accidental bad rules become way smaller compared to BSing something on the fly.

Also note that really early firearms were actually worse than a longbow but didn't require a lifetime of training. So bringing in weak guns that anyone with simple weapon proficiency can use certainly won't hurt anything. It's like a better crossbow.

I read a story where a captain faced a group of unarmored soldiers. They were unarmored because armor that could stop the firearms of the day was impractical. He said "Aha, get me a group of longbow men and we'll easily take them down." Then he was told that number of trained longbow men don't exist anymore.

[Zanos]

Yes and no. You needed thicker, heavier and more expensive armor to stop a bullet. Note that the armor was also made "sword, axe, and arrow proof" which isn't quite true either. The right blow could still get through. Before firearms early plate was quite thin for weight reasons. Your standard 30 lb. "solid steel" breastplate is less than 1/16" thick.
Even if that is the case it's not going to cut through it like it's not there. "The right blow" would just be a roll that beats your AC, and even padded armor is still giving a bonus to AC against stuff that is obviously going to go through it. It's not like titans hit touch AC.

[Blackhawk748]

Lets take this thought process one step further. If you have advanced weaponry to include flintlock weapons, what would be appropriate types of armor. Surely cloth and leather are out of use.

No, cuz they are cheap and still get the job done in melee. Plus even if guns are common adventurers would still be fighting nasty beasts like Displacer Beasts and what not, so metal armor still wouldnt b out of the question.

Also if you are still looking for 3rd party sources, Sorcery and Steam is a fairly solid book.

[Uckleverry]

The d20 Past splat for d20 Modern has rules for all kinds of early firearms, from the 15th to the 19th centuries, including cannons. If you want 'official' rules, those would be the most applicable to 3.5.

[ColorBlindNinja]

The d20 Past splat for d20 Modern has rules for all kinds of early firearms, from the 15th to the 19th centuries, including cannons. If you want 'official' rules, those would be the most applicable to 3.5.

I will say that the damage dice for older firearms are actually pretty similar to modern weapons, which just seems odd to me.

[Uckleverry]

I will say that the damage dice for older firearms are actually pretty similar to modern weapons, which just seems odd to me.

I think they have other features that make them worse than modern firearms. At least the very earliest firearms won't let you apply your Dex bonus to the attack roll, for example, and they jam on a nat 1 or something like that.

[LordOfCain]

In my opinion, there is no way that guns can hurt a D&D game, but they can hurt a D&D setting. That is to say, if it does not mesh well with the setting, don't use it. If it does, go for it and feel free to do it regardless of what ever some anonymous people on the interwebs told you!

[ericgrau]

Even if that is the case it's not going to cut through it like it's not there. "The right blow" would just be a roll that beats your AC, and even padded armor is still giving a bonus to AC against stuff that is obviously going to go through it. It's not like titans hit touch AC.

Actually they also had high draw strength bows for this purpose too. And to high stopping power bullets the armor isn't much of an obstacle. So it's something fuzzy in between stops perfectly and pops right through like foil. And not necessarily in the middle, it can be near either end of the range.

For the typical <1/16th inch armor and halfway decent fire-arms I think touch AC is a good approximation, as it's more like pops through like foil. At least at close range. Primitive fire arms not so much, but armor thickness was certainly an issue for most of fire-arm history. For most bows and armor I think full AC is a good approximation. Better bows, suckier guns and really thick (but also really heavy) armor go into fuzzy range.


I think they have other features that make them worse than modern firearms. At least the very earliest firearms won't let you apply your Dex bonus to the attack roll, for example, and they jam on a nat 1 or something like that.
And worse reloading time.

It makes sense that damage wouldn't change much as it's mostly gunpowder and bullet size which hasn't really changed. Most advancements are in firing speed and accuracy. If anything damage goes up from firing way more bullets.

How people tend to think technology works: More daka.
How it tends to actually work (usually): more finesse.

Doing things smarter tends to have that effect. Probably why we have smartphones and other fancy electronics but no hover cars.

[Bohandas]

Fun Fact: Revolvers canonically exist in Greyhawk, though the method of their construction is a closely guarded secret of the White Paladins of Heironeus (who are basically a high fantasy equivalent to the washington dc chapter of Fallout's brotherhood of steel)

[TheYell]

Used sparingly they add some flavor.

Dariush the gunslinger was standing watch in the street when the murderer escaped from the basement and tried to run past him down the street. He figured a shot would slow him down and alert the rest of the party. So he fired.

Rolled a natural 20, and the GM ruled he blew the guy's head off.

I'm gonna start calling him "Dirty Darry"

[Zanos]

Actually they also had high draw strength bows for this purpose too. And to high stopping power bullets the armor isn't much of an obstacle. So it's something fuzzy in between stops perfectly and pops right through like foil. And not necessarily in the middle, it can be near either end of the range.

For the typical <1/16th inch armor and halfway decent fire-arms I think touch AC is a good approximation, as it's more like pops through like foil. At least at close range. Primitive fire arms not so much, but armor thickness was certainly an issue for most of fire-arm history. For most bows and armor I think full AC is a good approximation. Better bows, suckier guns and really thick (but also really heavy) armor go into fuzzy range.
Again, armor still applies in 3.5 against attacks that would logically "ignore" it, like a 100ft titan smashing you with a club.

[Blackhawk748]

Again, armor still applies in 3.5 against attacks that would logically "ignore" it, like a 100ft titan smashing you with a club.

I've always found that cutting the AC bonus from armor in half gets it about right. Full Plate aint useless, but its not as good as it should be against a gun.

As for the Titan.... well i got nothin.

[TorsteinTheRed]

The way I run guns in my pirate campaign is thus:
Pistol:
1d10 Lead damage (lead screws with Magic, and therefore spells can't heal the damage.
Range increment: 5 ft, however, the attacks are against Touch AC. Max range is 20 increments.
Rifled Pistol: as above, except 10ft Range Inc.
Pistols take 2 full round actions to reload.

Musket: 1d12, 30 ft Range Inc.
Long Rifle: 100 ft RI
Long guns take 4 full round actions to reload, reduced to 2 with a feat.

I'm considering making them target Flat Footed instead, or make them at least easier to use with precision damage, though I'm unsure if it's needed. Perhaps have them threaten in either the first range increment, or 30ft, whichever is smaller?

While armor that was proofed against bullets was certainly a thing, anything in DnD thats lighter than Heavy armor wouldn't be able to be proofed that way. I'd say that Masterwork Heavy armor gains the additional benefit of being Bullet-proof, as in, guns no longer attack the touch AC.

[Nifft]

Fun Fact: Revolvers canonically exist in Greyhawk, though the method of their construction is a closely guarded secret of the White Paladins of Heironeus (who are basically a high fantasy equivalent to the washington dc chapter of Fallout's brotherhood of steel)

That's awesome.

Heh, and Hextor has six arms.

Now I'm picturing Heironeus wearing a white cowboy hat, shooting six melee weapons out of his evil brother's six hands.

[Zombimode]

I've always found that cutting the AC bonus from armor in half gets it about right. Full Plate aint useless, but its not as good as it should be against a gun.

As for the Titan.... well i got nothin.

Well, you see, thats the problem. As soon as you start fiddling with how gun interact with armor bonuses you are applying different measures to the same thing: the ONLY things that ignore armor in D&D are actual touch attacks and the incredibly rare attacks that truly ignore armor: brilliant energy weapons. NOTHING else gets to ignore or reduce armor, not giant weapons, not bites from megalodons (that produce more force then any mordern firearms), not bites from 100m+ leviathans (MM2).

Saying that guns do is a MASSIVE inconsistency.

[Tetsubo 57]

I don't think they do. I like to keep them on the rare side though. I use 'smokepowder' rather than gunpowder. Making it an alchemical substance with some hard to acquire ingredient limits how many people use them. So they end up in the hands of adventurers, nobles and elite troops only.

[Pugwampy]

I always wanted to try that say dropping an uzi with limited ammo onto the party .

I doubt it would affect my grossly unbalanced game style. Nor would i really fight too hard if they found a creative way to make more bullets :smallbiggrin:

[Elder_Basilisk]

One interesting approach would be to say that firearms ignor armor bonuses from armor or shields...except breastplate, half-plate, and adamantine armors. That would to into the historical development of armor (half-plate and breastplate armors we're the dominant armor types developed to counter firearms) and throws a bone to adamantine armor (which historical firearms didn't have to deal with) but probably ventures too far into weapon vs armor table territory to be a really good solution.

IMO the best solution is to crank up the damage dice until it's competitive and leave it at that. 3d6 pistols and 4d6 muskets would be very interesting to a lot of characters.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Ranged weapon enhancements could make guns pretty sweet; how about a splitting, collusion, force, phasing assault rifle?

[rel]

DMG has rules.

Alternatively, a gun is a crossbow. Easy to use, slow to reload, unaffected by strength.

[Mordaedil]

Fun Fact: Revolvers canonically exist in Greyhawk, though the method of their construction is a closely guarded secret of the White Paladins of Heironeus (who are basically a high fantasy equivalent to the washington dc chapter of Fallout's brotherhood of steel)

That is the most backwards explaination I've ever read, considering Fallout 3's Brotherhood of Steel was always described as "White Paladins of Heironeus with lasers".

[Tipsy_Pooka]

What about allowing firearm users (and crossbow users for that matter) to exchange iterative attacks for a bonus to damage (perhaps at the cost of a feat) equal to (half?) the "lost" BAB ? First, it allows the firearm wielder to continue to scale damage with level. Second, it doesn't strike me that it will ultimately outshine dedicated archer builds.

As for various rules for "armor-penetration", I would only say it applies within the first range-increment. If this is done for "historical accuracy", I would argue it would also have to apply to various other "armor-piercing weapons" (looking at you Pick).

[Yahzi]

Do they hurt a D&D game? Hard to answer.
Some of us have spent 300,000 words and counting answering that. :smallbiggrin:


Armor fell out of favor due to...
Armor was always going to lose to guns. The one thing people miss is that guns work *better* in a D&D world than they did in RL. Because guns have one advantage: scaleability.

There is a limit to how powerful you can make a crossbow or ballista, thanks to the physics of wood and rope. But if you need a bigger bang... just make a bigger gun. Cannon quickly became the favored way to kill huge targets like ships. In D&D, there are huge targets such as dragons and heroes with 100 hps. Guns will take over even more quickly than they did in RL, because the need for them is so much greater.

Essentially, guns are force multiplier: they will reduce the difference between common men and heroes. Will that hurt a D&D game? Probably not all that much, since most gaming tables never fully acknowledge the difference between them in the first place. I can't tell you how many games I've seen where the DM thinks some dude with 3 levels of Aristocrat can actually hold a throne. :smalltongue:

[rel]

Actually owing to a quirk in the rules of 3.5 guns will never do as much damage as swords. The best way to kill the dragon or high level enemy with HP damage is with a sword.

Which is actually pretty cool when you think about it.

[Pleh]

There is a limit to how powerful you can make a crossbow or ballista, thanks to the physics of wood and rope. But if you need a bigger bang... just make a bigger gun.

Yes and no, you can always build a bigger or smaller anything. The real question is what does it cost to do that? Wood and rope have limits, but you can alter the materials and the structure to improve tolerances and strength.

It's just that the math for making more gunpowder is easier.

Note that the biggest guns today are shifting from powder to magnets.

[Fouredged Sword]

The main limit to how large of a gun you can make is the balance between weight, recoil, and power. On one end you bave cannons, on the other you have pistols.

The other big limit is your barrel. You must have good enough steel and enough steel to hold in your barrel pressure. Otherwise you are just holding a bomb. As steel got better guns shrunk and higher gas pressures became plausible.

At the highest end you just start running into footing being your limit. A navel ship can carry much larger guns than they do. They just cannot fire them without falling over. We are exploring electric guns because it spreads out the impulse, so we need less footing, and trades barrel pressure for heat concerns and you can just use liquid nitrogen as single pass coolent.

[Nifft]

Actually owing to a quirk in the rules of 3.5 guns will never do as much damage as swords. The best way to kill the dragon or high level enemy with HP damage is with a sword.

Which is actually pretty cool when you think about it. SW Saga had a neat emergent property whereby the optimal way to engage a level 20 Sith was to have a lightsaber battle.

I like when the rules are in harmony with my vision for cinematic fights and lots of opportunities for awesome character moments.


The main limit to how large of a gun you can make is the balance between weight, recoil, and power. On one end you bave cannons, on the other you have pistols.

The other big limit is your barrel. You must have good enough steel and enough steel to hold in your barrel pressure. Otherwise you are just holding a bomb. As steel got better guns shrunk and higher gas pressures became plausible.

At the highest end you just start running into footing being your limit. A navel ship can carry much larger guns than they do. They just cannot fire them without falling over. This is, of course, why the main gun of the Space Battleship Yamato could only fire forward.

Firing such a large weapon in another orientation would risk tipping the spaceship over, and then sinking into the ocean of space.


We are exploring electric guns because it spreads out the impulse, so we need less footing, and trades barrel pressure for heat concerns and you can just use liquid nitrogen as single pass coolent.

Can they also make liquid nitrogen onboard?

[Pleh]

SW Saga had a neat emergent property whereby the optimal way to engage a level 20 Sith was to have a lightsaber battle.

I've played that system a lot over the years. I admit I didn't often play far past level 13 or so, but it seems pretty obvious that the optimal solution to everything in that system is to Use the Force.


Can they also make liquid nitrogen onboard?

Of course they could. Just stick the same machines you use on land onto the boat. The question is if it would in any way be effective, given that you now have to allocate resources to that machine. It takes energy to make something, so you also need a fuel supply for your liquid nitrogen cooler.

Supply of nitrogen is easy enough. We're constantly surrounded by the stuff
Edit: purifying the air might be trickier, but that's kind of included in "machines that male liquid nitrogen" package.

[Fouredged Sword]

Can they also make liquid nitrogen onboard?

It would depend on the ship. Space and power would be the issues. Large enough ships have multiple nuke plants and space. Smaller ships need more logistical support anyway. Minimum crew goes up slower than volume as size increases.

[Zanos]

SW Saga had a neat emergent property whereby the optimal way to engage a level 20 Sith was to have a lightsaber battle.
I prefer an orbital bombardment of the planet he's occupying at the time. Infantry weapons never work well against starfighters. The reverse is not true.


I've played that system a lot over the years. I admit I didn't often play far past level 13 or so, but it seems pretty obvious that the optimal solution to everything in that system is to Use the Force.
Due to the way defenses, attack bonuses, and skill checks scale, at higher levels UtF falls off extremely hard to the point where getting past anything's defenses with it becomes extremely difficult. Around levels 14-15, actually.

[Fouredged Sword]

Edit: purifying the air might be trickier, but that's kind of included in "machines that male liquid nitrogen" package.

Nah, you just work the compressors in overtime until you get the gas down cold enough. Different liquification temperatures splits the resulting product automatically. It is all about stacking up ridiculous pressures on a gas and letting it expand, like a standard AC unit on steroids. You get liquid CO2, Liquid O2, and Liquid Nitrogen all at different temperature points. A combat ship has the spare power (redundancies in power generation to prevent a mission kill from any single hit means extra power capacity in downtime). You just need a bawler set of compressors and a thermally isolated space to cool. It's all about compression ratios and how many stages you have space for as you use one expanding gas pocket to cool the next gas pocket before expanding it to generate the temperatures needed.

Now the thing you got to realize is that the roll of a main gun on a combat ship is changing. Engagement ranges are now so far out that you need ether guided projectiles (missiles) or extremely fast projectiles. This means that rail guns are not replacing conventional guns, rather rail guns are becoming a more compact and cheaper replacement for ship to ship and ship to surface missiles. The terminal velocity is such that they actually preform better at penetrating active defenses.

You want liquid nitrogen anyway. You will want it to cool your laser stacks for laser based anti-missile defenses. Gunpowder is just becoming too bulky and slow for modern engagements.

[Nifft]

I've played that system a lot over the years. I admit I didn't often play far past level 13 or so, but it seems pretty obvious that the optimal solution to everything in that system is to Use the Force. I'm talking about the way defenses scale exactly linearly (so you have +20 to each defense at level 20), while skills scale at half that linear rate.

So at level 20 (vs. a level 20 target), your Use the Force check will be at an effective -10 relative to a Use the Force check at level 1 (vs. level 1).

BAB scales linearly (if you're a Jedi), so your lightsaber attacks will be a relatively stronger option.

You can reliably Use the Force to throw stuff at your level 20 opponent, which also emulates the fights that we see in the movies.


Supply of nitrogen is easy enough. We're constantly surrounded by the stuff Not in liquid format.


It would depend on the ship. Space and power would be the issues. Large enough ships have multiple nuke plants and space. Smaller ships need more logistical support anyway. Minimum crew goes up slower than volume as size increases. Neat.

I like the idea of a "supply ship" which allows a successful tactical raid to force a battle-group into retreat.

I'm totally going to use that in a Shadowrun game.

[Fouredged Sword]

I like the idea of a "supply ship" which allows a successful tactical raid to force a battle-group into retreat.

I'm totally going to use that in a Shadowrun game.

This is actually a MAJOR thing in ship deployment. The more stuff a ship can make itself the less you are dependent on supply chains. The thinner your supply chain the more you can defend the parts of it you cannot do without. Ships desalinate their own water. Nuke ships are not used for extra power, rather they are used because they do not need to refuel. Bigger ships actually tend to have smaller supply issues due to them having the space to do more for themselves, bigger storage, ect. An aircraft carrier, if you take off the aircraft (who are supply hogs) and you are looking at food, expendables (soap, other consumable material), replacement hard supplies (clothes, tools, parts) and that is about it. A cutter requires water, food, clothes, entertainment... the list just goes on and on.
Navy ships are forced to carefully guard their supply lines and a major role of the submarine is not to kill navy ships themselves, who have powerful anti-sub weapons and top of the line detection systems, but rather go for the supply ships who's absence will starve the bigger vessels until they have to return to port.

[Nifft]

This is actually a MAJOR thing in ship deployment. The more stuff a ship can make itself the less you are dependent on supply chains. The thinner your supply chain the more you can defend the parts of it you cannot do without. Ships desalinate their own water. Nuke ships are not used for extra power, rather they are used because they do not need to refuel. Bigger ships actually tend to have smaller supply issues due to them having the space to do more for themselves, bigger storage, ect. An aircraft carrier, if you take off the aircraft (who are supply hogs) and you are looking at food, expendables (soap, other consumable material), replacement hard supplies (clothes, tools, parts) and that is about it. A cutter requires water, food, clothes, entertainment... the list just goes on and on.
Navy ships are forced to carefully guard their supply lines and a major role of the submarine is not to kill navy ships themselves, who have powerful anti-sub weapons and top of the line detection systems, but rather go for the supply ships who's absence will starve the bigger vessels until they have to return to port.
Yeah, absolutely.

I know that the idea of going for the supply lines is as old as war. :)

The new ideas I'm going to steal are the ideas that (a) a ship can also be a factory, and (b) the supply line that breaks in this case is railgun coolant, which is just awesome.

== == ==

Anyway, back to D&D with guns.

On the subject of supply lines, it seems to me that gunpowder is disproportionately vulnerable to widely-available D&D staples like fireball, or Sneak Attack alchemist's fire, or dragons.

I think this means that shelled ammo is going to be viable, but there's a significant barrier to development in that early firearms & firearm tactics are going to be highly vulnerable to D&D counter-tactics, especially in terms of blowing up your own unshelled powder supply.

Ironically (or awesomely), this might mean that the most effective early gunpowder weapons are rockets: hwacha / flash-bang fireworks / thunderstone-delivery-system, that type of stuff. Maybe shelled ammo only develops after explosive rockets have already proven themselves on the battlefield. That would tend to favor explosive shells, of course -- which in turn favors larger weapons over personal firearms.

[Fouredged Sword]

Yeah, absolutely.

I know that the idea of going for the supply lines is as old as war. :)

The new ideas I'm going to steal are the ideas that (a) a ship can also be a factory, and (b) the supply line that breaks in this case is railgun coolant, which is just awesome.

== == ==

Anyway, back to D&D with guns.

On the subject of supply lines, it seems to me that gunpowder is disproportionately vulnerable to widely-available D&D staples like fireball, or Sneak Attack alchemist's fire, or dragons.

I think this means that shelled ammo is going to be viable, but there's a significant barrier to development in that early firearms & firearm tactics are going to be highly vulnerable to D&D counter-tactics, especially in terms of blowing up your own unshelled powder supply.

Ironically (or awesomely), this might mean that the most effective early gunpowder weapons are rockets: hwacha / flash-bang fireworks / thunderstone-delivery-system, that type of stuff. Maybe shelled ammo only develops after explosive rockets have already proven themselves on the battlefield. That would tend to favor explosive shells, of course -- which in turn favors larger weapons over personal firearms.

Hell, you don't even need gunpowder to make incendiary rockets. You can make a rocket using tallow and an accelerant (Myth busters did this with nitrous oxide. It is the easiest to make). You don't even need a boom at the end if you are using it a as a siege weapon, just a nice long water resistant burn like a water balloon of lantern oil with a burning exterior. Even castles rely on wooden structures and burn quite nicely.

[Nifft]

Hell, you don't even need gunpowder to make incendiary rockets. You can make a rocket using tallow and an accelerant (Myth busters did this with nitrous oxide. It is the easiest to make). You don't even need a boom at the end if you are using it a as a siege weapon, just a nice long water resistant burn like a water balloon of lantern oil with a burning exterior. Even castles rely on wooden structures and burn quite nicely.

That's awesome.

The evolutionary counter would be what, point-defense archers who ready an action to shoot down or deflect a rocket?

[Fouredged Sword]

That's awesome.

The evolutionary counter would be what, point-defense archers who ready an action to shoot down or deflect a rocket?

There isn't a whole lot you CAN do. You get bows that can shoot out as far as you can see and attack any rockets that get deployed within bow shot. You fire counter rockets back and light the surrounding woods into a bonfire to smoke out the attacking army. You sally forth and kill the attackers directly. You put buckets of sand everywhere and make your vital structures out of stone. There is a reason castles stopped being a thing. Dirt and stone forts lasted all the way up to the civil war, but those mostly defended ports where you can reasonably defend VS ships.

Really the limit was accuracy. A rocket isn't very accurate, so a small fort is hard to hit reliably. Mortars just work better as they fire faster and cheaper. You need an instant burning fuel for those though, like gunpowder.

[Pleh]

I'm talking about the way defenses scale exactly linearly (so you have +20 to each defense at level 20), while skills scale at half that linear rate.

So at level 20 (vs. a level 20 target), your Use the Force check will be at an effective -10 relative to a Use the Force check at level 1 (vs. level 1).

Yeah, but Skill Training + Skill Focus gives +10 to the skill check (and what jedi in their right mind doesn't take Skill Focus for the Use the Force skill as soon as possible?)

So you get +20 to hit against an enemy with +20 to defenses. Using the Force (if you've taken the single feat that you can pick up early with a bonus feat) is also +20 against an enemy with +20 to defenses.

Exactly what am I missing here? I buy that lightsabers "catch up" to force powers at later levels, but being extremely difficult to use? I'm not seeing the numbers come together.

I mean, you could select Weapon Focus for +21 with the lightsaber, build your own lightsaber to be attuned to it for +22, but are we making any meaningful headway to making the Force actually obsolete? It's still only a +2 lead so far. We could argue Attribute Bonuses, but the duelist Jedi will just make STR maxed out and the Force User can max out CHA to match it.


Not in liquid format.

I like to think if you were reading my post, it would be obvious that wasn't what I was saying. I mentioned that you'd need machines to make the liquid nitrogen and that it was the supply of nitrogen required in the fabrication that was in no short supply.

I mean, what? We aren't surrounded by an atmosphere composed of liquid nitrogen and I'm not frozen solid right now?

[Nifft]

Yeah, but Skill Training + Skill Focus gives +10 to the skill check (and what jedi in their right mind doesn't take Skill Focus for the Use the Force skill as soon as possible?) Yeah but at level one that gives you +10 over the target defenses, which gives you a significant margin for success.

At level 20, it does not.


Instead, at level 20 you've got Force Powers like Battle Strike (+1 to attack, up to +3d6 when you hit) and Dark Rage (for up to +6 attack & damage).

You could try to Force Choke your opponent, but if your target knows Rebuke, there's a good chance that you're stuffed.


There are also talents like:

Dark Side Scourge: Against creatures with a Dark Side Score of 1 or higher, you deal extra damage on melee attacks equal to your Charisma bonus (minimum +1).

Resist the Dark Side: You gain a +5 Force bonus to all Defense scores against Force powers with the [dark side} descriptor and Force powers originating from any dark Force-user (that is, any Force-user whose Dark Side Score equals his Wisdom score).


So the choice is:
- One action with 50% chance to do nothing (Use the Force), or worse odds if you're a Dark Sider; and if you roll well, you're going to get Rebuke'd and suffer whatever effect you were trying to apply; or
- 4 attacks with better-than-50% chance to hit, and extra damage.


As an aside: IMHO it'd be better to not allow Skill Focus: Use the Force, but maybe that's just me.


I mean, you could select Weapon Focus for +21 with the lightsaber, build your own lightsaber to be attuned to it for +22, but are we making any meaningful headway to making the Force actually obsolete? It's still only a +2 lead so far. We could argue Attribute Bonuses, but the duelist Jedi will just make STR maxed out and the Force User can max out CHA to match it. Does any Jedi PC actually NOT build his or her own lightsaber?

The 1.5k credits isn't exactly prohibitive.



I like to think if you were reading my post, it would be obvious that wasn't what I was saying. I mentioned that you'd need machines to make the liquid nitrogen and that it was the supply of nitrogen required in the fabrication that was in no short supply.

I think we'd already been discussing those machines, so I thought you were trying to add something new to the conversation, and what you seemed to be adding was either true-but-useless (i.e. "nitrogen is ~technically~ everywhere" => sure but not in a useful format, we need to add a lot of energy), or you were saying something inaccurate ("~useful~ nitrogen is everywhere" => no it's not, we need to add a lot of energy to make it useful).

My response ought to fit either of those cases.



There isn't a whole lot you CAN do. You get bows that can shoot out as far as you can see and attack any rockets that get deployed within bow shot. You fire counter rockets back and light the surrounding woods into a bonfire to smoke out the attacking army. You sally forth and kill the attackers directly. You put buckets of sand everywhere and make your vital structures out of stone. There is a reason castles stopped being a thing. Dirt and stone forts lasted all the way up to the civil war, but those mostly defended ports where you can reasonably defend VS ships.

Really the limit was accuracy. A rocket isn't very accurate, so a small fort is hard to hit reliably. Mortars just work better as they fire faster and cheaper. You need an instant burning fuel for those though, like gunpowder.

Archers as point-defenses feels like a neat way to make higher-level individuals more strategically important. (Maybe that's why Elves are so good at archery: so they can protect a whole forest from Orc fireworks.)

Air magic might be another defense: wall of wind won't negate heavy mortar fire, but it could change the course of a rocket enough to matter.

Rockets seem like they'd be disproportionately visible, especially at night. For the attacking side, a barrage of "covering fire" would probably help swamp point defenses. That barrage might include cheap, harmless fireworks. (That means the Disney fireworks-on-castle logo is actually a historical reenactment of a particularly bloody siege.)

In a world with magical spells, I guess there could be some kind of Air Divination spell to guide rockets to their targets, so long as stronger Air magic didn't interdict.

Alternately, an Earth Transmutation effect might harden mortar-meal such that larger explosions could be contained, thus increasing range & power without needing historically accurate materials science.

[Pleh]

I made a separate thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?530815-Saga-Edition-Force-Power-vs-Lightsabers-at-high-levels-(branch-off)&p=22210177#post22210177) for the Star Wars discussion.