Why Are Firearms Appealing

[Garfunion]

I’ve been debating whether to add firearms into my D&D worlds. There are many versions of firearms out there, some are more balanced then others, with additional annoying mechanics involved.

Which got me thinking, what makes firearms so appealing?

[Kadesh]

They're not.

[Lunali]

In the real world, the relatively short training time required. With that in mind, I think fantasy firearms should generally be vastly inferior to bows for those that know how to use the bows, but should get automatic or easily obtained proficiency.

[Wub]

'Cause leveling a musket on a charging enemy really makes 'em rethink their life decisions. The high damage potential of a gun can quickly thin out enemy numbers, even if you get only one volley off. Depending on how you set its damage, firearms tend to be more equivalent to spells than regular attacks. Which kinda makes the musket a wand of shooty-bang. :smallbiggrin:

Also, I'd be careful about anything semi-auto or higher since 5e is built more for theater-of-the-mind than angles and flanking.

[Nifft]

Firearms are like bows, except you don't have to take a minute to re-string them before combat. Oh wait, the game ignores that aspect of bows? Then I guess firearms aren't that great.

Firearms are like crossbows, except you can store them loaded. Oh wait, the game ignores that crossbows can't be stored loaded? Then I guess firearms aren't that great.

[Ruffbassn]

I allowed some versions in my homebrew games. For some players they love them! I .. Not so much, but ya cant beat getting into some ship battles and having pirates blast your players away or visa versa.
I also enjoy the sneak factor and a cold barrel of a pistol musket against a players skull.. that paints a good picture I think!

[Kane0]

Relevant? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3lWIuGsXE&vl=en)

They are complex and costly (a sign of prestige) but easy to use on top of being impressively loud and lethal.

Edit: Oh, and a lot less strain/delay when readying a shot.

[JackPhoenix]

Because lot of people from certain real world country that has big representation amongst D&D players are unreasonably obsessed with guns.

For those with better knowledge of history, guns were a thing before full plate armor and rapiers, though D&D is full of anachronisms even without that. And there's no reason it has to work the same way in fictional world... unlike many other inventions, black powder was discovered only once in human history, and pretty much by chance.

[Cap'm Bubbles]

I’ve been debating whether to add firearms into my D&D worlds. There are many versions of firearms out there, some are more balanced then others, with additional annoying mechanics involved.

Which got me thinking, what makes firearms so appealing?

Frankly, "balanced" firearms aren't appealing mechanically, but do match the flavor that a number of players desire; usually they're going for a musketeer or cowboy/gunslinger style of character and want their weapon choices to reflect that.

The result of that, however, is a bunch of reflavored crossbows with either slightly higher damage dice and range, or a bunch of exotic weapons that ironically don't need proficiency.

Frankly, the only firearms in D&D that I find interesting are industrial-era or futuristic ones, both having somewhat complicated mechanics and an over-the-top damage potential. And that's because they make for (1) an extreme encounter for your players when they're introduced by an enemy, and (2) very strong limited-use loot.

Mechanics like saves against fear effects, ignoring AC from armor, or an excess of attacks and damage rolls within a single round, are more interesting than "2d8 with high range, loading property and ammunition" or "use automatic fire to attack a 10x10 square and deal 2d8 damage on a failed dex save."

Firing an automatic weapon at a "Large" creature at close range would trivialize such an encounter. Your standard modern assault rifle carries a 30-round magazine and a paper fire rate of >600RPM, meaning 10 bullet per second of trigger held down. 30 shots, each worth a crossbow bolt or arrow, in 3 seconds on your 6-second turn, against a large target in close range that you couldn't reasonable miss (and whose natural armor is most likely not gonna cut it if a hand-drawn bow or thrown dagger can get through), is spitting out 30d6 or 30d8 damage (typically 100-135 damage).

Imagine a humanoid enemy carrying such a weapon, with a health level anywhere from 4-40 and an AC around 14, that is spitting out over 100 damage per round on single targets or split to groups. Talk about a glass cannon.
....now a platoon of these guys? A squad of wizards dropping fireballs with high initiative might have a similar shock value, but players keep Counterspell on their list for that exact reason. But we're not talking magic bullets here.

Such an enemy is extremely dangerous, but vulnerable enough as a simple humanoid that improvised or creative magical tactics provide new challenges and workarounds. In character, an exotic NPC with such a weapon might not expect magic at all, and would respond differently to illusions, invisibility, or frankly just dealing with perceived medieval tactics of which they know little if anything about. The Heat Metal spell in particular could have some very nasty effects, too.

Personally, I'd say to avoid firearms in the campaign setting, but allow the occasional high-powered one to appear should any cross-plane activity come about at later levels. D&D 5e is not an ideal system for firearms, and as such they don't belong in the typical course of a session of combat or in most campaigns.

[Ganymede]

I think people are just big fans of my favorite James McAvoy film, Wanted.

[Finback]

In the real world, the relatively short training time required. With that in mind, I think fantasy firearms should generally be vastly inferior to bows for those that know how to use the bows, but should get automatic or easily obtained proficiency.

Fantasy firearms should have a chance to explode horribly, making them a risk to the user. Sort of like if a wand of fireballs had a 1/6 chance of not leaving the wand. This would at least make them feel more "at home" in a fantasy setting, which is usually a mishmash of various human medieval periods (Edo, Renaissance, Dark Ages, Byzantine and Gothic, for instance). You can at least use the old "they were pretty unreliable" validation for why there's less uptake in a fantasy world. You can carry a wand in your pocket without the risk of it taking out your hand.

[Unoriginal]

There are guns in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist. The advantage is that they deal a lot of damage. The disadvantages are that you're basically alerting everyone on the block there is a fight, and that Smoking Powder is far more unstable and dangerous than our world's black powder. You're basically fighting with a backpack full of nitroglycerin vials.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The Three Musketeers right there at the decline of swords and the rise of guns. Also firearms could be necessary for steampunk fantasy.

My campaign setting was actually set in that time period from 3.0 through PF. For 5th edition I decided to go back a few centuries to before guns arrived until I can find some set of rules for firearms 5e I like.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I think the appeal is mainly that people want to play gunslinger type characters, which have a long history in cinema and video games, and come with a strongly flavoured set of tropes built-in and ready to go.

These characters just have that perfect mix of edgy, morally grey loner, extreme weapon finesse and hyper masculinity that people love, you know.

[Laserlight]

Which got me thinking, what makes firearms so appealing?

Historically? Because you don't need much strength or training to operate one, it penetrates armor reasonably well, and you can tuck a loaded pistol into your sash / boot / holster and have it ready while still leaving your hands free.

To a player? Because archetypes drawn from AD1600 or later--musketeers, pirates, Thirty Years Warhammer, etc--are likely to use them. And hand crossbows are silly.

[EggKookoo]

My campaign setting was actually set in that time period from 3.0 through PF. For 5th edition I decided to go back a few centuries to before guns arrived until I can find some set of rules for firearms 5e I like.

Firearms should at the very least produce a noise akin to the boom generated by the Thunderwave spell. But also a flash of light and a burst of smoke. Repeated firing will quickly fill up an enclosed area with smoke and everyone's ears will be ringing, limiting perception checks.

It's also probably easy for cities to ban them. They're new, so they don't have that "but we've always had them" cultural weight. And it's hard to use them without drawing attention to yourself. And out of civilization, it's probably not easy to find ammunition. I think they'd have limited use for dungeon crawls based on that and the noise/smoke issue.

[Asmotherion]

Overall, mechanically they are refluffed crossbows with a cool visual. No need to invent complex mechanics to adapt them.

If you want specific firearms that are more potent than a crossbow, just treat them like you would a Magic Weapon, OR (in case of an enemy's weapon), like you would a monster attack (for example, the weapon is extreamly complex to lock, and only proficient characters can opperate it/ has a specific amount of rare amunition, and cannot opperate without it.)

[Unoriginal]

In any case, Giffs are awesome, so if anything it's one good reason to have firearms in you setting.

[Vogie]

It makes sense in an urban environment. It's easier to conceal and stays loaded. In addition, they are significantly louder - a shot in a crowded area also causes people to freak the hell out.

In W:DH, the pistols are 1d10 damage 30/90ft ranged weapons - so they do more damage, but with a shorter range, than hand crossbows.

[supergoji18]

I feel like this sums it up nicely (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_Ds2ytz4o)

[Oramac]

As a real-life firearms enthusiast myself......





In the real world, the relatively short training time required. With that in mind, I think fantasy firearms should generally be vastly inferior to bows for those that know how to use the bows, but should get automatic or easily obtained proficiency.


easy to use on top of being impressively loud and lethal.

Learning to use them is easy. Learning to use them WELL is not as easy.

Unless you're aiming for a torso sized target at 15 feet or less (~5 yards), it's not nearly as easy as you might think. Or hitting a deer in the heart at 150 yards (450 feet). Again, not nearly as easy as one would think.

As an aside, D&D firearms basically never take caliber into account. Hitting that deer with a 9mm round from your pistol at anything more than ultra short range is not only unethical, but ineffective. Hitting a person with a .308 Winchester FMJ at ultra short range is going to go right through the person and hit whatever is behind him with enough force to kill.


Historically? Because you don't need much strength or training to operate one, it penetrates armor reasonably well, and you can tuck a loaded pistol into your sash / boot / holster and have it ready while still leaving your hands free.

And hand crossbows are silly.

Generally true, though again, the difference between operating one and operating one well is more pronounced than most people think.

And yes, hand crossbows are silly.


Firearms should at the very least produce a noise akin to the boom generated by the Thunderwave spell. But also a flash of light and a burst of smoke. Repeated firing will quickly fill up an enclosed area with smoke and everyone's ears will be ringing, limiting perception checks.

It's also probably easy for cities to ban them. They're new, so they don't have that "but we've always had them" cultural weight. And it's hard to use them without drawing attention to yourself. And out of civilization, it's probably not easy to find ammunition. I think they'd have limited use for dungeon crawls based on that and the noise/smoke issue.

True on both counts, possibly minus the extra smoke. Smokeless powder was invented in 1886 by Paul Vieille. Depending on the DM and setting, one could reasonably argue that smokeless powder would be available.

Additionally, silencers were invented commercially in 1902. Not quite as reasonable an argument, but still within the realm of possibility, especially for a steampunk-style game.

===================

Generally speaking, I would say firearms in D&D are not nearly as big an issue as most people think. It honestly wouldn't be hard to run a campaign with nothing but gunslingers in the party (plus the healer/tank, as is normal).

[effenhoog]

Because kensei with dual pistols

[EggKookoo]

I feel like this sums it up nicely (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I_Ds2ytz4o)

This is funny for all the obvious reasons, but also because it pokes fun at tropes prevalent in movies and a lot of games -- namely how in a lot of games melee weapons are preferred over ranged. In reality, ranged weapons beat everything for the one simple reason is that it keeps the attacker away from the target, and can often surprise the target before the target can retaliate. This makes ranged weapons safer to use in general, and more forgiving if you miss. That's exactly why games push melee weapons: to make combat more challenging and interesting. Media also likes the idea that a guy with a gun can typically be defeated by a ninja with a blade. In reality that only reliably happens if the guy with the gun is ambushed.

So extending this to something like D&D, guns are often excluded simply because they would make the game too easy, or they would just have to give all monsters the equivalent of Kevlar (at least in places). In the end it's a genre/flavor thing.

[Unoriginal]

So extending this to something like D&D, guns are often excluded simply because they would make the game too easy, or they would just have to give all monsters the equivalent of Kevlar (at least in places). In the end it's a genre/flavor thing.

Eh, 5e went with the "guns aren't that much better than other weapons" road.

Doesn't mean that one should be happy at having a musket's barrel pointed to your face by an hippo-man who you know would love to fire it.

[EggKookoo]

Eh, 5e went with the "guns aren't that much better than other weapons" road.

Right, I guess that's what I mean. Maybe "excluded" isn't the word. More like downplayed.

[ZorroGames]

They're not.

What is not appealing about Boom! And Smoke! And Thunder!

Totally appealing. Based on 6 second rounds it should take 3 rounds to reload with proficiency and 5 rounds without. Self limiting usefulness.

[SuperFerret]

I think part of it has to do with the fact that they're not part of the default D&D paradigm, which gives them a bit of a "shiny" factor. Similar to psionics in a lot of ways.

[ZorroGames]

Because lot of people from certain real world country that has big representation amongst D&D players are unreasonably obsessed with guns.

For those with better knowledge of history, guns were a thing before full plate armor and rapiers, though D&D is full of anachronisms even without that. And there's no reason it has to work the same way in fictional world... unlike many other inventions, black powder was discovered only once in human history, and pretty much by chance.

Define “unreasonably obsesseed” without violating the no politics rule.

[EggKookoo]

Define “unreasonably obsesseed” without violating the no politics rule.

He's talking about Canada. Those guys are nuts!

[Oramac]

a guy with a gun can typically be defeated by a ninja with a blade. In reality that only reliably happens if the guy with the gun is ambushed.

Depending on the range of the encounter, this is patently false. If we're 20 feet or less apart, and you have a holstered gun and I have a drawn sword, you'll lose every time. Even if both our weapons are holstered/sheathed, unless your name is Jerry Miculek, you'll still lose pretty much every time. Even at 30 feet (standard D&D move speed), the odds are solidly in my favor.

[Laserlight]

Define “unreasonably obsesseed” without violating the no politics rule.

C'mon, you know what it means--spending hundreds of dollars on related materials, spending eight hours on it every week plus more time in preparation and generally thinking about it, having family/coworkers give you grief about your weird hobby, occasionally going to an event which runs hundreds of dollars for the weekend. Not like D&D at all.

[Willie the Duck]

Define “unreasonably obsesseed” without violating the no politics rule.

Easy. American popular media has a focus upon firearms, particularly in genre fiction, well in excess of their contribution to said genre within the category of implements of violence (whether viewed positively or negatively). For example, in any given year, there will be more movies made about people using firearms then all the movies about people using tanks, missiles, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, artillery, supply lines, satellite surveillance, and submarines combined. There's something about the individually wielded, individual-vs-individual sized ranged weapon that captures the imagination.

As to the original question -- despite being theoretically predominantly pre-/early- gunpowder era late medieval/early renaissance based (or at least it has full plate armor and the like), D&D has always been a technological hodgepodge. Beyond that, it has always been a thematic hodgepodge, having DNA of genres like swashbuckling stories, pirate tales, cliffhanger (despite not being listed in appendix N, there's as much H Rider Haggard in early D&D as there is Vance or Howard), and of course cowboy motifs every which way from sunrise (or I guess sunset would be more apropos).

There's also of course just plain 'something else' because even without race-class limitations and with all sorts of new backgrounds and archetypes and stuff this edition, you can always get bored with the options you have. I find both firearms and psionics are often brought up when people feel bored with the status quo.

[EggKookoo]

Depending on the range of the encounter, this is patently false. If we're 20 feet or less apart, and you have a holstered gun and I have a drawn sword, you'll lose every time. Even if both our weapons are holstered/sheathed, unless your name is Jerry Miculek, you'll still lose pretty much every time. Even at 30 feet (standard D&D move speed), the odds are solidly in my favor.

I would consider "less than 20 feet with a holstered gun and a drawn sword" an ambush. You can't cheat and let the swordsman sneak up or have a tactical advantage on the gunslinger. Of course the swordsman will likely win, but so would the gunslinger if their situations were reversed.

At 20 feet, a drawn gun will beat a drawn sword (assuming both fighters are skilled/competent with their weapons) 9 times out of 10. Hell, even at 5 feet with both weapons drawn and equally skilled, the gunslinger has the advantage. I'm curious how why you think a swordsman has an advantage over a gun at 30 feet? Does he "out cool" the bullet or something?

[Willie the Duck]

I'm curious how why you think a swordsman has an advantage over a gun at 30 feet? Does he "out cool" the bullet or something?

He's saying even 30 feet isn't necessarily sufficient to allow the gunslinger to draw and fire before the swordsmen is on him with his blade.

[Oramac]

He's saying even 30 feet isn't necessarily sufficient to allow the gunslinger to draw and fire before the swordsmen is on him with his blade.

Exactly this.

And yes, of course if the situations were reversed the outcome would also be reversed. That isn't the point. Point is, just because you have a gun does not mean you always win.

Also, there are only two very small places one can hit with a bullet for an instant kill (heart and a small portion of the head). Everywhere else, and the swordsman can still kill you before your bullet kills him.

[Tiadoppler]

He's saying even 30 feet isn't necessarily sufficient to allow the gunslinger to draw and fire before the swordsmen is on him with his blade.

Even in the situation of an ambush at 30' it sort of depends on whether the gunman has the presence of mind to retreat when charged. He's got a ranged weapon against a melee weapon. Depending on terrain, it could be more like a chase until the gunman is ready to fire, trips or takes a turn into a dead end, or the swordsman trips or lets the distance increase too much. The gun is so superior in range to the sword that the swordsman is at a significant disadvantage and should be desperate to get in close, as soon as possible.


Also, there are only two very small places one can hit with a bullet for an instant kill (heart and a small portion of the head).

This is a gross oversimplification, and depends immensely on the person being hit and the firearm in question.


Everywhere else, and the swordsman can still kill you before your bullet kills him.

This is patently false. Without going into too much detail, there are many parts of the human body that are absolutely necessary for controlled movement and motor function. A shattered hip will prevent someone from moving. A shattered collarbone will prevent someone from swinging a sword. A shattered spine will stop more than that. Similar injuries to arms or legs can cause less severe but similar results.

[LordEntrails]

Exactly this.

And yes, of course if the situations were reversed the outcome would also be reversed. That isn't the point. Point is, just because you have a gun does not mean you always win.

Also, there are only two very small places one can hit with a bullet for an instant kill (heart and a small portion of the head). Everywhere else, and the swordsman can still kill you before your bullet kills him.

Isn't there some saying about "Ifs", "Frogs" and "Butts" that applies just as much?

Come on, none of this talk about realism and a sword vs a pistol matters in D&D. Because that's not how D&D combat works. First one with initiative goes first, and at high enough levels a single attack from a non-magical sword or firearm does not kill. If, Frog, Butt.

[EggKookoo]

Even in the situation of an ambush at 30' it sort of depends on whether the gunman has the presence of mind to retreat when charged. He's got a ranged weapon against a melee weapon. Depending on terrain, it could be more like a chase until the gunman is ready to fire, trips or takes a turn into a dead end, or the swordsman trips or lets the distance increase too much. The gun is so superior in range to the sword that the swordsman is at a significant disadvantage and should be desperate to get in close, as soon as possible.

I think anime has muddled how a lot of people think swords work.

[PeteNutButter]

Exactly this.

And yes, of course if the situations were reversed the outcome would also be reversed. That isn't the point. Point is, just because you have a gun does not mean you always win.

Also, there are only two very small places one can hit with a bullet for an instant kill (heart and a small portion of the head). Everywhere else, and the swordsman can still kill you before your bullet kills him.

This is a thing commonly taught to police and I suspect it has something to do with the caliber of weapon. An instant kill with a 9mm is hard to achieve but if you consider much higher size rounds and/or weapons with higher muzzle velocities the gunman would have better odds. Though Dirty Harry's .44 magnum won't "blow your head clean off" it has enough impact to send shock waves through a body hard enough to kill.

By contrast, my military training had no such mention. In fact the bayonet though technically still can be attached to an M4 or M16 is pretty much nonexistent. The general consensus is to still shoot in close range.

EDIT: One more thing that occurred to me to reinforce my point. Throughout the modern era any time a country had a war with what they considered a "fanatical" enemy (an enemy that wouldn't go down after one shot) that country either switched or experimented with higher caliber weapons to counteract this issue.

[EggKookoo]

This is a thing commonly taught to police and I suspect it has something to do with the caliber of weapon. An instant kill with a 9mm is hard to achieve but if you consider much higher size rounds and/or weapons with higher muzzle velocities the gunman would have better odds. Though Dirty Harry's .44 magnum won't "blow your head clean off" it has enough impact to send shock waves through a body hard enough to kill.

The gunslinger doesn't have to kill. Nick a blood vessel and the target's blood pressure drops almost instantly and they black out. Low-caliber weapons are actually more effective at this as they function more like drills poking through the body. Harry's bullets mushroom on impact, causing a lot of surface injury but not necessarily being lethal. IIRC, that's actually what saved Reagan's life -- the bullets mushoomed quite a bit. It also complicated the following surgery but that's another issue...

[Crgaston]

As a real-life firearms enthusiast myself......

....And an American muscle car fan as well, presumably... unless it's pure coincidence that Oramac is Camaro backwards... :)

I also come at this viewpoint as an IRL competitive shooter, reloader and hobby gunsmith (I like to restore old revolvers).

I personally don't like guns in my D&D. If I can use a magic sword or bow or even spells in my fantasy game, why on Oerth would I want a loud, smelly, smoky, unreliable contraption that gives away my position for miles and takes forever to reload?

My Ranger rarely misses the opportunity to disparage the Gunslinger's choice of weaponry, predominantly for those reasons.... but all in good fun.

In my admittedly limited experience, it's people who have less real world experience with firearms who are more likely to be interested in using them in D&D. Which makes sense in that is a FRPG. It allows us to do things that we can't do IRL.



Define “unreasonably obsesseed” without violating the no politics rule.


Is there such thing as a reasonable obsession? :)

[Tiadoppler]

I think anime has muddled how a lot of people think swords work.

Well, in D&D you can make an anime-character swordsperson, and have a ton of fun, and it would be very effective. The question of "how do you add firearms to D&D?" is made tricky by the game's focus and how to nerf them to the point that they're on the same rough footing as swords and polearms.


Real-world firearm vs sword use was decided pretty decisively by the time WWII rolled around. Arguing that "a sword will always beat a gun at 30'" in modern times is crazy. There are specialists around the world (SWAT teams or soldiers whose mission is to clear buildings) who get into combat at those ranges, and they're not begging for standard-issue longswords or katanas. In the real world, the most accurate statement is probably "in a one vs one battle between an unarmored person with a holstered modern gun, and an unarmored person with a sheathed sword, starting at 30', the swordsman has a small chance of victory, the gunman has a medium chance of victory, and the most likely outcome is that they both end up severely injured or dead."

[dgnslyr]

If your goal is to make guns commonplace and ordinary in your setting, then you can honestly reskin crossbows as guns and call it a day; it won't make less sense than your average fantasy MMO like WoW or FFXIV, anyways. This is probably also the best choice if players express interest in playing as a gunslinger in a world full of guns, since it doesn't punish anybody for their gunslinger concept.

If your goal is to make guns rare and exceptional, then sure, you can use existing firearm rules and give them huge damage and long reload times like you'd "realistically" expect.

Ultimately, it should really depend on your goals for the setting. Personally, I don't think it's unrealistic to make guns "too" accurate, reliable, or fast-firing, since at the end of the day we're talking about heroes doing heroic things in a fantasy setting meant for heroes.

[Mith]

While I like get the reason of re-fluffing crossbows as guns, a different mechanic could be useful for such a different weapon style.


1) Auto alert like Thunderwave.

2) Ignores all AC below set level. (I recall testing plate armour with a bullet (which didn't pierce the armour) used as a "seal of quality".

3) 3 ranks of gunpowder weapons:

Light (Pistols), work as high damage targets, but cannot benefit from auto loading, expensive, and I would have a 1 be a jam of the weapon due to intricate workings that requires you to spend the rest of the turn to fix to fire the next round. Ignores Light Armour

Heavy (Musket, rifles): Range comparable to a Longbow, if it drops a target without spending all the damage, it travels through them and may damage a target behind them in a straight line with the remaining damage. Ignores Medium and Light Armour. Can only be fired once a round, loading property cannot be ignored by any feature.

Siege (Cannon): Reflex save to avoid. Travels through all opposition until damage is spent. If a crew of 4 operate the cannon, can be fired every 3 rounds, 4 rounds for 3, 6 rounds for 2 and 10 rounds for 1. Not the best formula, but probably works for a game at this level.

Bombs: Works like a Fireball Spell of x level.

So firearms could be useful, but has a risk for collateral damage that arrows and crossbows do not have. And instead of explosive malfunction, I would just make the gunpowder stores act like a bomb of equivalent level when targeted by fire dealing damage equivalent to the weapon attack. Light weapons only harm the wielder, Heavy Weapons full damage to wielder, half to 5' adjacent, Siege weapon as a 20' radius Fireball.

[Wub]

There is something to be said about the balance of melee vs. range. As soon as ranged weapons become powerful enough, it changes how you play the game. Party formations spread out more to better control the map, and there's a stronger emphasis on tactical maneuvering and utility over raw damage output, since firearms are already very dangerous.
This can be unappealing to many, since it's hard to walk around freely without people taking potshots at you. It's a very sharp turn from the 'do what you want' spirit of DnD, but I enjoy it for its novelty and because I already actively avoid people looking at me too hard.

[lperkins2]

I think it is because D&D mashes together a large amount of weapons and armour that weren't generally used together already, including weaponry that was carried largely alongside a pistol (rapier). Since the melee weapons extend to what was carried in the 17th century, it's actually kind of odd that the ranged weapons don't. Of course, the reason for that is that firearms either would have to be severely under powered, or would largely eliminate the use of heavy armour and heavy swords, much as they did in history. Also, either the firearms have to be under powered, and can be fired once a round (or more), or you get players who spend 1 turn attacking and 2 turns doing nothing (for 3 shots per minute, which was typical of soldiers with muzzle loaders).

I ran a campaign with prevalent firearms, and it totally changes the nature of the campaign, if the firearms are actually firearms, not loud crossbows. Since the campaign was designed with that in mind, it worked fine, but it isn't something I would want to add to a sword and sorcery game.

For firearms, I used the following rules (starting at 3rd level). 3d8 damage from a pistol, 4d8 damage from a musket, range of 20/200 and 50/300, 2 actions required to reload, cannot move while reloading a musket, light obscurement in front of you for 1 round after firing. Volley fire creates smoke clouds which drift, and provide heavy obscurement. Firing a pistol imposes disadvantage on perception checks for 5 rounds, a musket for 10 rounds, longer in enclosed spaces. Firing either can be heard from a mile in the open.

Mass combat would start at 200', using modified rules from the UA mass combat. The attackers march forward and the defenders volley fire. The defenders would usually get 2-3 volleys off. The attackers would fire one volley at less that 50' to avoid disadvantage, right before charging into melee. From that point on, it's basically a spear fight.

The players were involved in small unit stuff, recon, infiltration, and the like. Since they often wanted to be quiet, they'd sneak in close and try to kill their targets with swords. The high chance of facing multiple attacks at 3d8 or 4d8 damage meant they did everything they could to avoid anyone shooting at them. Again, that works for a campaign where that's the intent, but clashes with the typical D&D style.

[Oramac]

Even in the situation of an ambush at 30' it sort of depends on whether the gunman has the presence of mind to retreat when charged. He's got a ranged weapon against a melee weapon. Depending on terrain, it could be more like a chase until the gunman is ready to fire, trips or takes a turn into a dead end, or the swordsman trips or lets the distance increase too much. The gun is so superior in range to the sword that the swordsman is at a significant disadvantage and should be desperate to get in close, as soon as possible.

This is a gross oversimplification, and depends immensely on the person being hit and the firearm in question.

This is patently false. Without going into too much detail, there are many parts of the human body that are absolutely necessary for controlled movement and motor function. A shattered hip will prevent someone from moving. A shattered collarbone will prevent someone from swinging a sword. A shattered spine will stop more than that. Similar injuries to arms or legs can cause less severe but similar results.

Well, yes, of course it depends. It always depends. I had hoped it was obvious I was talking about an controlled environment. Clearly not.

To the second and third points, yes it is a simplification. But it is a reasonable one. If I told you to hit a torso sized target at 30 feet with a pistol in a calm state of mind, you could do it easily. If I told you to specifically hit the hip of a charging enemy from 30 feet in a high-adrenaline state of mind, well, that's significantly more difficult. Which, not coincidentally, is why law enforcement are trained to shoot center-mass.


This is a thing commonly taught to police and I suspect it has something to do with the caliber of weapon. An instant kill with a 9mm is hard to achieve but if you consider much higher size rounds and/or weapons with higher muzzle velocities the gunman would have better odds. Though Dirty Harry's .44 magnum won't "blow your head clean off" it has enough impact to send shock waves through a body hard enough to kill.

By contrast, my military training had no such mention. In fact the bayonet though technically still can be attached to an M4 or M16 is pretty much nonexistent. The general consensus is to still shoot in close range.

EDIT: One more thing that occurred to me to reinforce my point. Throughout the modern era any time a country had a war with what they considered a "fanatical" enemy (an enemy that wouldn't go down after one shot) that country either switched or experimented with higher caliber weapons to counteract this issue.

You're absolutely right in that it's taught to police, almost universally. And the 9mm is one of the most common calibers in the world, so it's used as an example more often than not.

And yes, that is very true. And one (among many) of the primary reasons that the US military requested development of the .300 Blackout cartridge.


....And an American muscle car fan as well, presumably... unless it's pure coincidence that Oramac is Camaro backwards... :)

You know, you're one of only about 10 people who has EVER gotten that right? Well done!


Is there such thing as a reasonable obsession? :)

Nope.

============================

In any case, this line of conversation has gone way off the original topic of guns in D&D.

[Garfunion]

The conversations hear have been quite enlightening.

I plan on going the crossbow re-skin route with some changes, in my Innastrad world.
Light crossbow = double barrel shotgun(2)
Hand crossbow = pistol(6)
Heavy crossbow = rifle(4)
Loading(x): it takes an action to reload this weapon
Loud: you can not use the stealth action until the start of your next turn
Brutal: re-roll ones on the weapon damage die

While in my Eberron world, a gnome was commission to create a more streamlined ranged weapon. With the use of internal spring system, he transformed crossbows into guns, using smaller ammunition. These weapons are used to help facilitate expeditions into the Mournland.

[Knaight]

I'd argue that a lot of it is that D&D tends to attract players who only play D&D, and the milieu can get old quickly. Eventually people are going to want to push the approximate timeline a bit at the very least, and while that can involve pushing it back (hence the rules for bronze and bone weapons) it can also involve pushing it forward*. A lot of interesting things happened in the 17th century through modernity, there are established fantasy series and historical novels and films set in those periods which garnered a lot of interest (e.g. Pirates of the Caribbean, Three Musketeers), and it's just generally something that people find interesting to play in.

Bringing in at least some of that is where guns often get involved.

*Or just adding the guns that were in the historical periods contemporary with a lot of the rest of the equipment.

[Tiadoppler]

Well, yes, of course it depends. It always depends. I had hoped it was obvious I was talking about an controlled environment. Clearly not.

To the second and third points, yes it is a simplification. But it is a reasonable one. If I told you to hit a torso sized target at 30 feet with a pistol in a calm state of mind, you could do it easily. If I told you to specifically hit the hip of a charging enemy from 30 feet in a high-adrenaline state of mind, well, that's significantly more difficult. Which, not coincidentally, is why law enforcement are trained to shoot center-mass.

All right, a controlled environment like a sealed room (or a gunman with his legs tied together vs. a swordsman who's free to move).

Fair enough, and I'd agree that 'shattering bone' is a lot to ask of a 9mm pistol. My point was more that firearm training frequently involves "shooting to stop" rather than "shooting to kill", and there are plenty of things near center-of-mass that will stop a threat, especially a melee-only threat. The idea of a swordsman who's mortally wounded by gunfire, but still able to kill his target is a real threat, and certainly very D&D-barbarian, but I don't think that makes it a good strategy for combat. "I will die, but perhaps I will still injure my foe" is only a good strategy for bees.

Because a sword causes damage through muscle-power, and guns do not, a severely injured gunman is more of a threat than a severely injured swordsman. Even lying on the ground with one arm, a gunman can (theoretically) deliver accurate, ranged fire.

On a side note, I'd be interested in your feedback on my current firearm homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?571296-PEACH-Modern-firearms-in-D-amp-D). You've got some good points.

[stoutstien]

I allow firearms in about half my campaign settings. Most have a higher damage die but no stat mod to damage so it more swingy.
So a match lock rifle would be 1d12 30/120 range loading loud
Pistol 1d10 15/30 loading loud
Blunderbuss 2d8 15/20 loading loud

[Gryndle]

Depending on the range of the encounter, this is patently false. If we're 20 feet or less apart, and you have a holstered gun and I have a drawn sword, you'll lose every time. Even if both our weapons are holstered/sheathed, unless your name is Jerry Miculek, you'll still lose pretty much every time. Even at 30 feet (standard D&D move speed), the odds are solidly in my favor.

Just nit-picking a detail here: I'm familiar with the statistics and the study you are drawing from. You are missing one key detail that is often overlooked: the statistics that those conclusions were drawn from included date exclusively from American Law Enforcement and specifically jurisdictions/agencies that for safety reasons requires Law Enforcement Officers to use triple-retention holsters.
Meaning that there are actually three areas of restraint on the firearm-typically a strap that is snapped close over the but of the weapon, and two "pinch points". Each of which is tight enough to hold the weapon in place while running, and positioned so that you can not draw the weapon straight up or from the front easily. LEOs actually have to learn to draw in a slight wiggle or twisting motion. With practice they can do it more or less fluidly, but not quickly. Not as quickly as you can pull a knife and bring it into play anyway.

But civilians don't have the same restrictions on holsters, in those places where they can carry. Which in theory can reduce the amount of time it takes to bring the handgun into play. I say in theory, because firearms skills are just as perishable as any martial skill, and just like most martial arts people tend to practice and train until they are comfortable or bored, and that is rarely anywhere approaching real skill. And in a fantasy setting, the quick-draw becomes a thing.

The actual point of the study wasn't that blades trump guns at any specific "magical" range or vice versa; it was to reinforce the importance of awareness of everyone in close contact range, and how quickly an encounter can change from routine to violent.



but back on point: why firearms? because my katana doesn't have a ranged option. Humor aside, like others have suggested, its a matter of ease of carry/convenience combined with the ability to bring pain at range.

[Dr. Cliché]

I think firearms can be fun if you want to play, for example, a more steampunk setting. Or something else set in a more advanced period.

For 'standard' D&D games, I probably wouldn't bother with them.

Mostly, though, I'm just indifferent.

[UrielAwakened]

Because it's badass to be the only guy using a type of weapon.

Swords, spears, axes, you see those all the time. The guy with two pistols though, he just oozes badass points.

I point to Final Fantasy VII as ultimate evidence of that. Vincent is just cool.

I actually incorporated them for a player and it was great. By end of the campaign he got to exchange a few feats to get some truly awesome weaponry instead of using bows and arrows.

[Oramac]

The conversations hear have been quite enlightening.

I plan on going the crossbow re-skin route with some changes, in my Innastrad world.
Light crossbow = double barrel shotgun(2)
Hand crossbow = pistol(6)
Heavy crossbow = rifle(4)
Loading(x): it takes an action to reload this weapon
Loud: you can not use the stealth action until the start of your next turn
Brutal: re-roll ones on the weapon damage die

While in my Eberron world, a gnome was commission to create a more streamlined ranged weapon. With the use of internal spring system, he transformed crossbows into guns, using smaller ammunition. These weapons are used to help facilitate expeditions into the Mournland.

Overall, this is pretty simple. I like it. And the extra properties make sense. Though with regard to the Loading property, I do like the way Matt Mercer handled it, allowing you to spend an attack to reload instead of a full action. (Oddly, I really don't like his gunslinger archtype other than that, though)


On a side note, I'd be interested in your feedback on my current firearm homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?571296-PEACH-Modern-firearms-in-D-amp-D). You've got some good points.

I'll take a look. Thanks!

[Luccan]

I think its completely legitimate, for a game like D&D that doesn't really simulate physical damage to humans/humanoids well, to make early firearms refluffed crossbows. Once you get to the point of loading multiple rounds to be fired separately into a weapon, however, you need to change them at least slightly. Namely, you need to let players fire without reloading every round.

I think the suggestions in the DMG are a good place to start for anything around the advent of the revolver, though you may want to make changes of your own.

[redwizard007]

Is there such thing as a reasonable obsession? :)

Have you ever seen Jessica Alba?

That's an entirely reasonable obsession.

[Darth Ultron]

I'd argue that a lot of it is that D&D tends to attract players who only play D&D, and the milieu can get old quickly.

I think this is true.

Also, the average gamer has this wacky idea, maybe from movies, video games or just rumors, that guns are some sort of magic ''one shot kill super weapons".

The idea that if anyone is within like 100 yards, you just need to shoot a single bullet in their general direction..and, bam, you will hit and kill them.

I've given hundreds of ''gun happy" players a firearm in D&D....and watched them be very disappointed. The character shoots....and does a little damage to a target; exactly like any other weapon or spell attack.

And then you get the real wacky player that will ''go for auto kill head shots". Except D&D does not have that type of mechanic. You can't throw a dagger, shoot an arrow or aim a spell right at a creatures head and ''auto kill it".

[EggKookoo]

Also, the average gamer has this wacky idea, maybe from movies, video games or just rumors, that guns are some sort of magic ''one shot kill super weapons".

The idea that if anyone is within like 100 yards, you just need to shoot a single bullet in their general direction..and, bam, you will hit and kill them.

It's probably that movies actually show guns being used lethally. You don't see an awful lot of movies showing someone shooting an arrow from a bow at a crowd of people, and everyone scatters and ducks. The LotR movies might have put some effort into showing bow lethality but Legolas is hardly a paragon of realism.

Of course this makes me think Brooks missed a great joke in Men in Tights, with Robin shooting his bow into the air to shut everyone up. Next scene, hours later, the arrow comes down and kills someone.

[Kadesh]

What is not appealing about Boom! And Smoke! And Thunder!

Totally appealing. Based on 6 second rounds it should take 3 rounds to reload with proficiency and 5 rounds without. Self limiting usefulness.

Crap firearms are not. Give me a 50Cal, or a C8, or the actual fun stuff, sure. Futuristic plasma rifles, pulse lasers, rail guns, and mecha, damn straight.

Sorry, I don't like Pike and Shotte. I much prefer Classical History as a theme, and find it much easier to have magic replace explosives, magitech over pistols.

[Garfunion]

Overall, this is pretty simple. I like it. And the extra properties make sense. Though with regard to the Loading property, I do like the way Matt Mercer handled it, allowing you to spend an attack to reload instead of a full action. (Oddly, I really don't like his gunslinger archtype other than that, though) Well the crossbow expert(firearms expert) feat still works.