Firearms?

[HidesHisEyes]

Do you have firearms in your 5E game and if so, how do you handle them? Specifically I'm talking about flintlock pistols and muskets - the kind of firearms that might just about exist in a traditional D&D fantasy setting.

I can see two possible approaches to it: the gamist approach and the simulationist approach.

The gamist approach is you use the rules in the DMG: they do a good amount of damage and have the loading property, which can be circumvented the same way it can for crossbows, i.e. by having the Crossbow Expert feat. Here, firearms are a normal weapon, just probably very rare and expensive (with rare and expensive ammo) and perhaps prone to misfires.

The simulationist approach: ok, I'm guessing there are a lot of people in the playground more knowledgeable about these things than I am, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I read that a real life musket takes at least 30 seconds to reload in the hands of an expert who's had years of practice. But it punches through armour and kills people very effectively. So with this approach, a musket does like 10d10 damage but takes 10 rounds to reload, using your action every round. 5 rounds if you have Crossbow Expert. In other words, it becomes a super-powered ranged attack that you can use exactly once per encounter - since even with the feat it will never be worth it to spend that many rounds reloading. In my experience most fights in 5E don't last more than six rounds.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad way to handle firearms. They essentially become a magic item. They need to be even rarer and more expensive than he DMG version, and they're not really a "character choice" in the way that "greatsword vs dual short swords" is. That is, they are something anyone with Martial weapon proficiency is going to use if they manage to get their hands on one - just like a ring of protection. Fight starts, you fire your gun, then you switch to whatever weapon you would normally use.

Am I wrong about this? How do you handle firearms, if at all? And why?

[Flashy]

I run a late renaissance setting that just uses the options presented in the DMG.

My reasoning is basically that it doesn't take much longer to reload a musket than a heavy crossbow, so if I'm abstracting that out to a 6 second reload time I might as well just do the same thing for the guns.

It's fun, it adds options for players, and it's about the same level of gamist as everything else I'm doing.

[suplee215]

I might be hopping on a band wagon or whatever but honesty the way Matt Mercer's homebrew fighter handled it pretty well. Even if you don't want to use the subclass (I'll argue it makes sense for the first users of the weapon to have to devote as much training to guns as one will other subclasses) a lot of the rules like "reload" requiring an action or single attack to reload makes sense. It shows it takes more to reload a gun than it does a crossbow but not in an unplayable 30 second way. It also helps keep the more powerful guns in balance. The misfire of breaking the gun on a crit fail (or almost critfail) also shows that trying to invent new tech has set backs and risks. http://www.dmsguild.com/product/170778/Gunslinger-Martial-Archetype-for-Fighters?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45469

[Lolzyking]

Actually crossbow expert doesn't work on firearms due to them not being crossbows

[polymphus]

For simplicity, I just say "pistols are hand crossbows, rifles are crossbows, really big rifles are heavy crossbows. All feats that say 'crossbow' also include firearms."

Making the rules fluid and fun > making the rules accurate to real life, for me. Nobody is going to use a gun if it takes 10 turns to reload, because who wants to sit there doing nothing for 10 turns? Even if the payoff is huge damage, it's a super boring playstyle.

[HidesHisEyes]

For simplicity, I just say "pistols are hand crossbows, rifles are crossbows, really big rifles are heavy crossbows. All feats that say 'crossbow' also include firearms."

Making the rules fluid and fun > making the rules accurate to real life, for me. Nobody is going to use a gun if it takes 10 turns to reload, because who wants to sit there doing nothing for 10 turns? Even if the payoff is huge damage, it's a super boring playstyle.

Generally speaking I am absolutely in agreement. I have little to no time for simulationism; D&D is a game, let's treat it as one. And if you want to have firearms in your game as a fixture then absolutely rule that it simply had the loading property and you can circumvent this either with Crossbow Expert or a homebrew "Firearm Expert" feat that does the same thing for firearms. And it just does like 1d8 for a pistol and 1d12 for a musket.

However, it just occurred to me tonight that it would be perfectly possible to include firearms in a more simulationist way if players were willing to view them as akin to magic item rather than ordinary weapons. As I said, it becomes a once-per-encounter super-powered ranged attack. No one builds their character around using guns, but if you're lucky enough to find one you hang onto it, regardless of your build. Just an idea.

[Desteplo]

Firearms have the "reload" feature. Requiring an action or a bonus action to "reload"

Crossbows have the "loading" feature. Preventing a second shot to be fired in a single turn.

Those I put in higher level markets

Anything stronger than a musket I have as potential hoard loot

[lperkins2]

Actually crossbow expert doesn't work on firearms due to them not being crossbows

Good catch. Negating disadvantage for shooting in melee doesn't reference crossbows, but the other two parts of the feat do.



I read that a real life musket takes at least 30 seconds to reload in the hands of an expert who's had years of practice.

Depends in part on the firearm, but the British regulars of the 18th century were expected 3 reloads a minute (with flintlock muskets). Note that they would get 4 shots off in the first minute, due to having the firearm preloaded. That puts it at 20 seconds to reload and acquire a new target. 1 round shooting, 2 rounds reloading would seem reasonable for someone slightly better than a British regular (18 seconds per shot). As for firearm damage, damage in D&D tends to be on the low side, especially at higher levels, so if you want to keep firearms in line with other weapons, you probably don't want to pump their damage up too high. That said, there is a reason the firearm won out, and high stopping power is a large part of it. If you want to make things complicated, let it ignore natural and physical armour, so the soldier in plate has AC 10 against firearms. Maybe let it ignore armour spells, but figuring out exactly how to balance it might be a bit of a challenge. A slightly simpler mechanic that gets at the same idea is give it +5 attack against heavy armour and +3 against medium.

[Armored Walrus]

Depends in part on the firearm, but the British regulars of the 18th century were expected 3 reloads a minute (with flintlock muskets).

Flintlock muskets were hardly "early firearms" though, were they? There were firearms in Europe as early as the late 14th century (matchlocks). So if you want to go simulationist, then it *really* matters what era you are trying to simulate in your setting.

That said, this is one reason why D&D is not a wargame any more (if it ever really was). If I were going to have guns in my campaigns I would use rules as written and would consider homebrew classes if the player brought one to me, but certainly wouldn't go looking for one to suggest to them. Personally I don't include them for two reasons. One, treating a handcannon like a crossbow would strain suspension of disbelief for me, so I don't have any inclination to use RAW, and two, I don't equate fantasy with guns, lasers, spaceships or tanks, so I don't have any incentive to homebrew something I like better.

But OP, if it piques your interest, more power to you ;)

[lperkins2]

Flintlock muskets were hardly "early firearms" though, were they? There were firearms in Europe as early as the late 14th century (matchlocks). So if you want to go simulationist, then it *really* matters what era you are trying to simulate in your setting.


The ignition system doesn't make much difference in how long it takes to load, if anything, the matchlock loads faster than later muzzleloaders, since there is no pan to prime, nor a cap to place. The primary advancement that allowed the British flintlock users to fire faster was the paper cartridge, which avoided the need to measure the powder for each shot (or more accurately, allowed it to be pre-measured).

As a side note, the British would often forego the use of the ramrod when trying to fire fast. The British musketballs were undersized; so, when loaded without a patch (the top of the paper cartridge), the ball would drop down the barrel with little effort. But you couldn't shoot down hill this way, since the ball would unseat itself.

[Cap'm Bubbles]

As mentioned before, the best approach depends on what era of firearms you are going for. I like including them, as it's about the only reason anyone will ever take Weapon Master in a game that they know won't reach level 20.

Constants that I've found fit are both to give them an armor-piercing property, and to relate proficiency to reload rate or recoil control instead of a to-hit bonus. I.e. for an old firearm that takes 30-seconds to a minute to reload, a a character can subtract a number of reload round equal to its proficiency bonus. Furthermore, don't add an ability score to damage. It's damage is primarily from a super-sonic projectile, note from how quickly/far one draws a bow or how well one aims an inaccurate weapon. The numbers are high enough already if you don't use the DMG.

Early stuff like arquebusses (sp?) were not practical to reload on an open battlefield, but were used in an opening volley to be followed-up on with swords and other melee weapons. Ignoring that the health of a high-level character allows absurd endurance over a real human, the damage from firearms of that era shouldn't be much more than a crossbow, with its greatest advantage being simplicity of use, armor-piercing, and intimidation against opponents without firepower.
I've thrown NPC's with this equipment and tactic, and what I'd say is that exceptional damage is more frustrating to deal with than armor-piercing. If this is the era you're going for, I'd recommend the following:
-Between 2d12 and 4d12 damage for a firearm depending on size.
-Ignore AC from natural armor and equipment. (Mage Armor, Dex, Other spells, and Unarmored Defense still work). Heavy Armor Master still has damage reduction.
-Reload duration being in the 3-5 rounds range. Meaning, it's meant as on opening volley and not as a constant go-to weapon. This is still sufficient time to use when starting an encounter at max range (as rarely as that happens).
-Include a Wisdom saving throw for an enemy facing you that hears a firearm for the first time, becoming frightened for a duration.

If you feel so inclined to include later era firearms (specifically, repeating rifles and revolvers), these then depend on whether the above weapons were even included. If they were, you again have to mind the damage already introduced, but now with a greater fire rate and reduced reload time. If, however, there is no firearm precedence set in-game already, then the DMG or Matt Mercer's Gunslinger are adequate and balanced with the existing gear.
If you did include previous firearms and want to preserve consistency, then this is what things start looking like:
-A 6-shot revolver can be reasonably aimed for ~3 shots in your 6-second turn, or emptied in the round at disadvantage. Damage per attack is ~2d8.
-Repeating rifles vary in capacity and caliber, doing damag between 3d8-3d12. Reasonable aim is 2 shots per round, 3-4 with disadvantage. Some are reloaded with a cartridge after every shot at the rate of crossbows, others have an internal revolver with upwards of 6-8 shots that take much longer to fully reload.
-Armor piercing property remains.

Beyond this, if you want weapons of the 20th or 21st century, you should really try d20 Modern instead. You either end up with weapons so much weaker than they should be for the sake of game balance, or you deal with absurdly powerful weapons that your party either uses or is attacked by. Unless your party wanted to fight time-traveling space commie/Nazis on the secret moon base, don't bother.
Need an example?
Take a PPsh. Heavy sub machine gun, 9mm ammunition (relatively small), 70-round drum magazine, and a fire rate that can empty it in under 6 seconds. Do you really want to consider (let alone roll without an electronic device) a weapon that can deal 70d(anything) damage in a round and reload in less than a round? Simulation approaches eventually lead here, and game-friendly approaches will stop you long before you consider this era. I got bored and made up a list of these one day, and unless I'm running a level 20 1-shot, they won't see the light of day. To much to use, to much to fight against.

[Renvir]

I added normal and magical firearms to a campaign I ran a couple years ago. In the world itself firearms were relatively new (10 years) so they were rare in most places, but could regularly be found on tougher guards and soldiers in certain technologically advanced areas. I went with a game over simulation approach.

There were three different types of firearms.
-Pistols: 1-handed, 30/60 range, 2d8 piercing damage, simple weapon proficiency
-Rifles: 2-handed, 50/100 range, 3d10 piercing damage, martial weapon proficiency
-Scatter Gun: 2-handed, 20/40 range, 3d6 piercing damage, critical damage against opponents within 5 feet, martial weapon proficiency


There were also special rules for firearms.
-Normal firearms had a 2 action reload time and there were unaffected by feats like crossbow expert and sharpshooter.
-Ammunition and powder cost 2gp/shot and could not be recovered like other ammunition.
-No attribute had an effect on attack rolls or damage. Instead you added your proficiency to damage and double your proficiency to attack rolls. (This rule came about after many long discussions. Everyone started liking or at least stopped complaining about firearms after this rule was put in place.)
-They are ranged weapons so disadvantage against targets within 5 feet or targets that are prone.
-They did not work with some class features, mainly sneak attacks. (The Assassin 4/Fighter 1 was sad but admitted 6d10+4d6+3 with an attack bonus of +5 at level 5 was ridiculous)
-Each shot can be heard up to 300 feet away. Not very sneaky.


The magical varieties largely focused on different damage types, using the recharge mechanic (roll a d6 at the start of your turn, gun is reloaded on 5-6, no ammunition required), silent shots, and extended range. We never introduced any multi-shot weapons so I can't speak on that.

My goal was to make firearms viable but prevent them from dominating the game and I think it worked. Most characters carried one but the lack of sneakiness, multiattack, and the 2 action reload made them impractical for regular use. I may have been more restrictive than necessary with feats and class features but I decided to err on the side of caution.

[Thrudd]

As mentioned before, the best approach depends on what era of firearms you are going for. I like including them, as it's about the only reason anyone will ever take Weapon Master in a game that they know won't reach level 20.

Constants that I've found fit are both to give them an armor-piercing property, and to relate proficiency to reload rate or recoil control instead of a to-hit bonus. I.e. for an old firearm that takes 30-seconds to a minute to reload, a a character can subtract a number of reload round equal to its proficiency bonus. Furthermore, don't add an ability score to damage. It's damage is primarily from a super-sonic projectile, note from how quickly/far one draws a bow or how well one aims an inaccurate weapon. The numbers are high enough already if you don't use the DMG.

Early stuff like arquebusses (sp?) were not practical to reload on an open battlefield, but were used in an opening volley to be followed-up on with swords and other melee weapons. Ignoring that the health of a high-level character allows absurd endurance over a real human, the damage from firearms of that era shouldn't be much more than a crossbow, with its greatest advantage being simplicity of use, armor-piercing, and intimidation against opponents without firepower.
I've thrown NPC's with this equipment and tactic, and what I'd say is that exceptional damage is more frustrating to deal with than armor-piercing. If this is the era you're going for, I'd recommend the following:
-Between 2d12 and 4d12 damage for a firearm depending on size.
-Ignore AC from natural armor and equipment. (Mage Armor, Dex, Other spells, and Unarmored Defense still work). Heavy Armor Master still has damage reduction.
-Reload duration being in the 3-5 rounds range. Meaning, it's meant as on opening volley and not as a constant go-to weapon. This is still sufficient time to use when starting an encounter at max range (as rarely as that happens).
-Include a Wisdom saving throw for an enemy facing you that hears a firearm for the first time, becoming frightened for a duration.

If you feel so inclined to include later era firearms (specifically, repeating rifles and revolvers), these then depend on whether the above weapons were even included. If they were, you again have to mind the damage already introduced, but now with a greater fire rate and reduced reload time. If, however, there is no firearm precedence set in-game already, then the DMG or Matt Mercer's Gunslinger are adequate and balanced with the existing gear.
If you did include previous firearms and want to preserve consistency, then this is what things start looking like:
-A 6-shot revolver can be reasonably aimed for ~3 shots in your 6-second turn, or emptied in the round at disadvantage. Damage per attack is ~2d8.
-Repeating rifles vary in capacity and caliber, doing damag between 3d8-3d12. Reasonable aim is 2 shots per round, 3-4 with disadvantage. Some are reloaded with a cartridge after every shot at the rate of crossbows, others have an internal revolver with upwards of 6-8 shots that take much longer to fully reload.
-Armor piercing property remains.

Beyond this, if you want weapons of the 20th or 21st century, you should really try d20 Modern instead. You either end up with weapons so much weaker than they should be for the sake of game balance, or you deal with absurdly powerful weapons that your party either uses or is attacked by. Unless your party wanted to fight time-traveling space commie/Nazis on the secret moon base, don't bother.
Need an example?
Take a PPsh. Heavy sub machine gun, 9mm ammunition (relatively small), 70-round drum magazine, and a fire rate that can empty it in under 6 seconds. Do you really want to consider (let alone roll without an electronic device) a weapon that can deal 70d(anything) damage in a round and reload in less than a round? Simulation approaches eventually lead here, and game-friendly approaches will stop you long before you consider this era. I got bored and made up a list of these one day, and unless I'm running a level 20 1-shot, they won't see the light of day. To much to use, to much to fight against.

Probably faster to give some firearms a special rule re:damage as opposed to rolling more than a fireball's worth of dice- make a saving throw (not connected to any ability score, so no proficiency, it's pure luck) with a DC of the attack roll -

successful saving throw = lucky break, you didn't actually get hit - went through your shirt, skimmed your ear, hit your scabbard or your flask, you ducked just in time or whatever.

Failed saving throw = roll on the gun wound table. Results on the table include loss of 50% HP, 75% HP, immediate drop to 0 HP and begin normal death saves, or immediate death. Maybe a small chance on the table of a piece of equipment made unusable (damaged/destroyed) but no injury (roll randomly to see of it is armor, a weapon, item in a backpack, etc).

[Tetrasodium]

I run my games in eberron so...

Can I have a firearm?... -> No because nobody would ever think of such a monumentallty brain damaged idea as creating some alchemical explosive powder that with proper wadding & such could project a tiny metal pelletat speeds on par with your average arrow/bold/wand blast
but what about cannons? -> bleep no, why the heck would you do come up with that kind of stupid when you can have a team operate a fcking telephone pole sized siege staff that does something like a 20d6 fireball across 100x100x100 blast? you might as well be asking why the us military does not equip their carriers & such with black powder cannons any longer
so what happens if I alchemically mix sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate (saltpeter). The sulfur and charcoal act as fuels while the saltpeter is an oxidizer? -> Oh that's easy, it interacts with the flow of magical energy & immediately explodes, you can't have a gun & if you call a wand a gun one more time you can expect to get hit by lightning.

[Desteplo]

Firearms have the "reload" feature. Requiring an action or a bonus action to "reload"

Crossbows have the "loading" feature. Preventing a second shot to be fired in a single turn.

Those I put in higher level markets

Anything stronger than a musket I have as potential hoard loot

Guns are already in the rules. They are raw within limits of the game mechanics.

You don't need to make a "realism" home brew, they're balanced already. Rules are in DMG

[SaurOps]

The 1e DMG has a conversion from Boot Hill. I'd probably use those as a guideline. I definitely wouldn't make them anything close to a massive rock hurled by a giant or even being wailed on by a mobile statue of stone; firearms might have a lot of energy, but there's more to the complex function of factors known as "damage" than energy.

[lunaticfringe]

The only thing that irks me about Guns in D&D are rules that turn them into complex, mystifying pieces technology. Guns are ridiculously easy to use and train people how to use, that's why they Won. No one drives around with Sword racks in their pick up (if you do, rock on). Sure not everyone can make one but how many Fighters forge their own sword.

Make sure everyone can use a Pistol at the very least.

[JackPhoenix]

-Pistols: 1-handed, 30/60 range, 2d8 piercing damage, simple weapon proficiency
-Rifles: 2-handed, 50/100 range, 3d10 piercing damage, martial weapon proficiency

This is one thing that bothers me with pretty much any portrayal of firearms in D&D: Why are pistols considered simple and longarms martial weapons? It's much easier to learn to use longarm correctly than to accurately hit something with a pistol.

[Anonymouswizard]

The simulationist approach: ok, I'm guessing there are a lot of people in the playground more knowledgeable about these things than I am, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I read that a real life musket takes at least 30 seconds to reload in the hands of an expert who's had years of practice. But it punches through armour and kills people very effectively. So with this approach, a musket does like 10d10 damage but takes 10 rounds to reload, using your action every round. 5 rounds if you have Crossbow Expert. In other words, it becomes a super-powered ranged attack that you can use exactly once per encounter - since even with the feat it will never be worth it to spend that many rounds reloading. In my experience most fights in 5E don't last more than six rounds.

All my research suggests a firearm isn't significantly more damaging than a longbow suited to war, let along a crossbow, but much easier to learn to use. It won out not because it was a better weapon, but because it was easy to teach 'load, point, and shoot'.

Realistically an early musket does 1d8-1d10 damage, and takes two to three rounds to load for someone properly drilled. But that's not fun, so we should drop it down to being about as quick as a crossbow, and doing about the same damage.

Really, for everyone who isn't a fighter both of these lead to the same end point: the barrel of loaded muskets. Why do I care that it takes 10 rounds to reload, I'll just use my object interaction to draw a new musket.


For simplicity, I just say "pistols are hand crossbows, rifles are crossbows, really big rifles are heavy crossbows. All feats that say 'crossbow' also include firearms."

This is what I suggest all the way. It's not exactly the most realistic way to do it, but it's simple.

[Ninja_Prawn]

As mentioned before, the best approach depends on what era of firearms you are going for.

On this: we have a selection of wild-west era firearms (http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2016/12/firearm-rules.html) for anyone who's interested. We're currently working on golden-age-of-piracy era firearms, too (I expect they'll turn out closer to the Renaissance era ones in the DMG, just with more variety).

[Unoriginal]

Would you put a Fiend with a firearm in your games?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/7d/a8/27/7da827df04b1ac325448f5690ca643ad--classical-art-memes-renaissance-art.jpg

[Tetrasodium]

The only thing that irks me about Guns in D&D are rules that turn them into complex, mystifying pieces technology. Guns are ridiculously easy to use and train people how to use, that's why they Won. No one drives around with Sword racks in their pick up (if you do, rock on). Sure not everyone can make one but how many Fighters forge their own sword.

Make sure everyone can use a Pistol at the very least.

It's nit that fire arms are "complex mystifying things" it's that they are wildly inappropriate to some settings. Take my post earlier about when players ask (happened once since 3.5 ecs days). I run my games in eberron & that is the setting that introduced the eternal wands to 3.5that are practically a simplified version of 5e wands. The idea of introducing a musket and such is akin to asking if you can have a musket instead of a clip/mag fed modern day firearm that takes zero training beyond"when it goes click instead of bang, push this betton to drop the empty clip/mag & slide a fresh one in.this switch is the safety & thus is the single shot/burst switch. Point it at the thing you want dead & pill the trigger" aiming a firearm is the same skill as aiming a wand with vary minor differences to account for the fact that it's a (comparatively) absurdly complex & heavy waste of effort. Nobody would consider inventing it because it's orders of magnitude worse in every way to a simple & widely available wand

[Renvir]

This is one thing that bothers me with pretty much any portrayal of firearms in D&D: Why are pistols considered simple and longarms martial weapons? It's much easier to learn to use longarm correctly than to accurately hit something with a pistol.

I have no doubt that you are correct about which weapon is easier to learn how to use. I've used rifles a handful of times and never a pistol of any sort so I don't have much in the way of real life knowledge on the subject. I was just going for more of a "fit it into the existing game rules" approach over simulation. I wanted there to be some firearms that were simple proficiency and others that were martial. Since martial weapons are meant to be more damaging than simple weapons I figured I'd just put the least damaging one as simple and the other two as martial.

[JackPhoenix]

I have no doubt that you are correct about which weapon is easier to learn how to use. I've used rifles a handful of times and never a pistol of any sort so I don't have much in the way of real life knowledge on the subject. I was just going for more of a "fit it into the existing game rules" approach over simulation. I wanted there to be some firearms that were simple proficiency and others that were martial. Since martial weapons are meant to be more damaging than simple weapons I figured I'd just put the least damaging one as simple and the other two as martial.

I think the fitting example is crossbow, where light crossbow is simple weapon, while smaller, weaker hand crossbow is martial weapon (along with much larger heavy crossbow). In 3.5, both light and heavy crossbow were simple weapons, while hand crossbow was exotic. Pistol offers other advantages than damage. I'd suggest to make rifle simple (because being easy to use was the main advantage of firearms), with high damage being offset by high price of both weapon and ammunition, and make pistol martial.

[Renvir]

I think the fitting example is crossbow, where light crossbow is simple weapon, while smaller, weaker hand crossbow is martial weapon (along with much larger heavy crossbow). In 3.5, both light and heavy crossbow were simple weapons, while hand crossbow was exotic. Pistol offers other advantages than damage. I'd suggest to make rifle simple (because being easy to use was the main advantage of firearms), with high damage being offset by high price of both weapon and ammunition, and make pistol martial.

I think you've convinced me. We're going to return to that campaign in the near future and this alteration shouldn't change much.