Adding firearms to a campaign

[Quoz]

I'm considering introducing modern firearms into my group, but I want to balance them so they don't become more dominant than other options. We rotate GMs so I don't want to make it too hard on the other players when it's their turn to run I'm hoping this comes out about right.

- No proficiency. May be acquired with sufficient downtime training, but will take several weeks and about 1000 rounds of ammunition.

- Ammo is extremely limited, making your own would have high cost both in time and resources. (Not enough to prohibit use in adventures, but see 1000 round requirement for proficiency)

- Damaged on a fumble. A roll of natural 1 on an attack causes a weapon jam. You may spend an action to make a DC 12 Int check to clear the jam. You may add your proficiency bonus if proficient with firearms.

I feel like this is about right. I'm also considering no stat mod to damage if the damage seems too high, but the lower accuracy/higher damage is lower than sharpshooter (-3 dam/+d10 dam). Better crits is offset by the weapon jams.

[The Jack]

I would say profeciency is -do you have crossbow proficiency? If so, have firearms- Otherwise rogues are kings and wizards are lugging around machineguns.


You should totally ignore the DM's firearm suggestion. The advantage of firearms is not their damage, but of how easy it is to hit an enemy and how easy it is to get multiple hits on an enemy. The DMG has rediculous damage rules for weapons, I think like revolvers do 2d6, when in reality the damage they do is very, very small compared to the comparitively equal greatsword.

They can use bonus actions to attack would be my go-to for modern firearms.

Something vaguely like this.
d4 Light pistol (9mm)
D4 submachinegun
d6 heavy pistol (.45)
d8 assault rifle. (5.56)
d8 Light machinegun (heavy)
d10-battle rifle (7.62x51)
-d10-lightmachinegun (heavy)
d12-Sniper. (30-06) (heavy)

and if you want:
2d8- Light Anti-material rifle. (.338 magnum)
2d10- Anti Material rifle. (.50)
4d8- Light cannon. (20mm)

For these you'd add Rules like you can't use other actions when you fire them, they have the loading property...

Of course, guns have huge overlap IRL: you can have a pistol shoot huge bullets and you can have a large rifle shoot tiny things (the latter is far more common).

[Fat Rooster]

To go with what the Jack said, why not give automatic proficiency? The advantage of firearms would be that anybody can use them, rather than them being more powerful. For rapid fire stuff, being able to shoot with a bonus action too might also work. Level 1 commoners with assault rifles would be throwing out 2 shots a round with proficiency, so legitimately dangerous, while Hawkeye would still be better off using his bow.

Pistols, sawn-offs, and SMGs being able to fire within 5' without penalty.

Scopes on rifles doubling close range, but causing disadvantage within 30'.

Machine guns only being able to fire prone or from cover without disadvantage. Heavy machine gun takes a bonus action to set up.

Being able to shoot prone is also a surprisingly big thing.

If you want to limit the impact, make sure to introduce lots of LoS effects. Maybe double the size of smoke sticks and fog spells. If you want bows and the like to still have a place, introduce special arrow types, or make magic guns impossible. If the only comparison is damage, one or the other is going to win, so try to differentiate them somehow.

[Throne12]

When I had firearms in my game they all had a str requirement to properly use. Why the str requirement it because of the kick back of the gun. If you used a firearm with out the str requirement. Everytime you use the firearm you make a str check if you fail you miss the attack drop the firearm and take 1d4 of bludgeoning damage. If you make the check you roll to hit to see if you damage the target. Also if your prof you can add your prof bonus to add to your str to try and match the str requirement.

[Vogie]

When I had firearms in my game they all had a str requirement to properly use. Why the str requirement it because of the kick back of the gun. If you used a firearm with out the str requirement. Everytime you use the firearm you make a str check if you fail you miss the attack drop the firearm and take 1d4 of bludgeoning damage. If you make the check you roll to hit to see if you damage the target. Also if your prof you can add your prof bonus to add to your str to try and match the str requirement.

I made a gunslinger class for a Homebrew Contest (it's called the Deadeye, and is in my sig if you'd like) with something like this as well, but I included Dex with Str. I didn't want someone to roll one up and dump their physical stats to deal damage using their Int.

It was "You are proficient with all firearms, and the ability modifier used for a firearm is Intelligence. Even though it is a ranged weapon, you don’t add your dexterity modifier to attack or damage rolls, unless that modifier is negative."

[The Jack]

Having a Str requirement for guns but not bows or crossbows or most dex weapons is a bit silly tho.

A thing with proficiency is that it's not essential for weapons. If you don't have proficiency you just don't get a prof bonus. It's not a big deal. So I'd go with what they use for crossbows; Hand crossbows are pistols, heavy crossbows are d10+ weapons, light crossbows are all beteween.

Semi auto/automatics get a bonus action shot.

Some guns fire at disadvantage if you use them one handed or alternatively don't rest them against something.


I think there's full auto rules around.

[Man_Over_Game]

I slapped together some firearm rules that might work for you:

Each Firearm has a damage die and a Burst value. When attacking with a Firearm, you spend that much ammunition, get that much of a penalty to your attack with the weapon, and roll that much of the weapon's damage dice.

If you have Martial Proficiency, you can ignore as much of the Burst value as you choose (down to 1).

A few examples:

Uzi: 1d4, Burst 3 (so it deals 3d4 damage and has -3 to hit).
Sniper: 1d12, Loading, Two Handed, 150/400 range
Shotgun: 1d12, Two handed, 15/30 feet, Special* (Does not suffer from Disadvantage while melee enemies are adjacent to you)
Assault Rifle: 1d6, Burst 3.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm considering introducing modern firearms into my group, but I want to balance them so they don't become more dominant than other options. We rotate GMs so I don't want to make it too hard on the other players when it's their turn to run I'm hoping this comes out about right.

- No proficiency. May be acquired with sufficient downtime training, but will take several weeks and about 1000 rounds of ammunition.

- Ammo is extremely limited, making your own would have high cost both in time and resources. (Not enough to prohibit use in adventures, but see 1000 round requirement for proficiency)

- Damaged on a fumble. A roll of natural 1 on an attack causes a weapon jam. You may spend an action to make a DC 12 Int check to clear the jam. You may add your proficiency bonus if proficient with firearms.

I feel like this is about right. I'm also considering no stat mod to damage if the damage seems too high, but the lower accuracy/higher damage is lower than sharpshooter (-3 dam/+d10 dam). Better crits is offset by the weapon jams.

How modern of firearms are you talking?

[Ganymede]

I'm considering introducing modern firearms into my group

Why?

Have you discussed this with the other rotating DMs in your group?

[stoutstien]

I've added firearms but never past matchlock. DND just notvtje system for a BAR weilding barbarian

[LibraryOgre]

I've added firearms but never past matchlock. DND just notvtje system for a BAR weilding barbarian

BARbarbarian.

[stoutstien]

BARbarbarian.
It's a good day to rage!

[Kane0]

I like the MFoV approach, I consider it to be quite elegant.
Firearms are functionally like crossbows; they use the proficiency and traits like loading and ammunition, except instead of adding your stat to damage they deal two damage die.

Edit: That burst idea above sounds fun too, but would have to look into how it would work at the table

[Beleriphon]

What kind of guns are you looking at? A 14th or 15th century firearm isn't substantially more powerful than a crossbow, its just easier to operate and with good training fire very quickly.

A modern firearm however has other advantages To start with a really, really good, crossbow fires bolts with a launch velocity of around 135 m/s, around 2/3 the speed of sound. A big powerful firearm like say a Barrett M82 anti-material rifle firing a .50BMG round has a muzzle velocity of 853 m/s and its round has a mass of 49 grams (on average). That's a little better than six times the velocity. A firearm like that will turn anything not specifically designed to withstand an assault from one into Swiss cheese.

In fairness though, the example is like comparing a short bow to trebuchet. All that being said, all that velocity stuff really just means that the gun can fire rounds to much, much great distances. In either case getting hit in the face with a crossbow bolt or a .50 cal BMG is going to kill the target, the M82 can just do if from over a mile away.

Looking at some more likely scenarios in terms of scale lets explore at a relatively common round used in a rifle: the 5.56 NATO. Its the round that an M16 fires, or an M4 carbine, or a British SA80. It has a velocity of 3,025 ft/s, while again our crossbow 450 FPS.

To explore the 5.556 NATO we want the numbers, the important thing to look at is joules of energy applied to the target. Our formula to calculate that is (M*V^2)/2. An M16 firing a 4 gram NATO 5.56x45 round with a velocity of 960 m/s will deliver around 1800 joules of kinetic energy to the target. A typical medieval crossbow bolt based on what I could find weighs around 35 grams, using the above number of 135 m/s we get around 320 joules of kinetic energy applied to the target. A crossbow nearly 1/6 energy of the M16, but the bullet has a mass of eight times as much so it in theory will do similar damage. Never mind throwing on a broadhead tip instead of a bodkin on and you have a whole other mess to deal with.

Lets look a some common handguns for comparison. A 9mm Parabellum bullet (the one in most 9mm handguns like the Glock 17, or the current US military issue sidearm the M19) has a mass of 7.5 grams and seems to average around 350 m/s for velocity. So we get around 450 joules of energy. Again more than the crossbow, but not that much more. In fact the lighter bullet may do less damage because a huge amount of energy will be lost just penetrating a target.

Anyways, I suppose my point is that guns aren't that much more dangerous than crossbows and bows. They're just easier to use, and a modern gun can fire hundreds of rounds per minute compared to trained users managed maybe 10 per minute for a bow, and at best half of that a crossbow.

The real game changer in late medieval/early modern warfare was effective field artillery. Babur conquered Northern India because he had it and his opponents didn't.

[sophontteks]

He said modern firearms.

Its common for an automatic weapon to fire at 600 rounds per minute. That would be 60 shots per round. Hordes shouldn't be a problem at least.

They should be fine without profeciency. 1000 rounds has better uses for a LMG. Are full machine guns on the table?

[stoutstien]

He said modern firearms.

Its common for an automatic weapon to fire at 600 rounds per minute. That would be 60 shots per round. Hordes shouldn't be a problem at least.
Modern is subjective. Ww2 mg 42 could fire between 900-1500 rounds per minute depending on how much water the gun crew drank before nesting up.(barrel would over heat)

[sophontteks]

Modern is subjective. Ww2 mg 42 could fire between 900-1500 rounds per minute depending on how much water the gun crew drank before nesting up.(barrel would over heat)
Well, its not that subjective. Should be something that likely still sees use today, or was used recently.

It'd be tough to balance a modern firearm outside of limiting ammo, but it would be pretty hilarious to mow goblins down.

[Man_Over_Game]

Well, its not that subjective. Should be something that likely still sees use today, or was used recently.

It'd be tough to balance a modern firearm outside of limiting ammo, but it would be pretty hilarious to mow goblins down.

I think something like that would be better done in reverse.

That is, start with a modern/sci-fi setting and introduce fantasy elements. The game just isn't designed around burst fire, spray mechanics, aiming, or anything like that to be a factor.

However, a small humanoid that tries to claw your eyes out is the standard in any system.

[stoutstien]

Well, its not that subjective. Should be something that likely still sees use today, or was used recently.

It'd be tough to balance a modern firearm outside of limiting ammo, but it would be pretty hilarious to mow goblins down.

I used that one because it's the the second most distributed platform on the planet today. Only following the rpd/rpk system.

[Beleriphon]

He said modern firearms.

Its common for an automatic weapon to fire at 600 rounds per minute. That would be 60 shots per round. Hordes shouldn't be a problem at least.

They should be fine without profeciency. 1000 rounds has better uses for a LMG. Are full machine guns on the table?

Keep in mind anything from the invention of rimfire/centre fire cartridges could be considered to be modern. A Winchester Model 1866 rifle isn't all that different in operation from any other modern sporting rifle. Other than a modern gun having the option of being made from synthetic materials they way a gun works is pretty straight forward, the biggest difference you'd find a very old versus brand new gun is that the old one is probably manufactured with lower tolerances than the new one.

[sophontteks]

I used that one because it's the the second most distributed platform on the planet today. Only following the rpd/rpk system.
Oh, sorry I actually thought it was a great example to share! :smallsmile:


Keep in mind anything from the invention of rimfire/centre fire cartridges could be considered to be modern. A Winchester Model 1866 rifle isn't all that different in operation from any other modern sporting rifle. Other than a modern gun having the option of being made from synthetic materials they way a gun works is pretty straight forward, the biggest difference you'd find a very old versus brand new gun is that the old one is probably manufactured with lower tolerances than the new one.
Absolutely.

[Anonymouswizard]

Firearms are a complicated topic.

Adding in matchlocks, wheelocks, and flintlocks doesn't change balance much. While such guns are relatively easy to use they're fairly low powered and take a long time to reload. I generally like to cite Lamentations of the Flame Princess as a good example of incorporating them, they take ten rounds to reload (five for flintlocks), misfire on one in five attacks (one in ten for flintlocks) with Fighters cutting that time by one fifth, deal 1d8 damage, and ignore five points of AC that are provided by armour. Great for the first round, but you're probably not using it again in combat and the encumbrance system means you aren't carrying more than a couple of firearms anyway.

Past that most of the problems disappear and firearms become better and better options. First fewer misfires and faster loading, to the point where attacking every round isn't unreasonable, then the ability to carry more than one round. I think the real killers of balanced firearms are the pepperbox and the harmonica gun, both of which allow a full attack sequence from any class before reloading.

For pepperboxes I'd personally specify that reloading takes a full round, have the damage at a d8 and make it a simple weapon (no AC piercing in this version). I'd probably do a similar thing with lever action firearms, although I'm unsure of how to deal with harmonica weapons. Past pepperboxes, revolvers, and lever action you're probably not going to balance firearms without making them disappointingly weak. You're almost certainly not getting anything fully automatic.

Note that with my rules firearms are still very good at the upper end. Possibly not the best weapon for professional warriors, but probably one of the better picks for classes like Bards, Rogues, and Warlocks. I'm fine with this, as I tend to ruin with relatively light monetary rewards after expenses are deducted, so having bullets cost four to ten times as much as bolts is a good balancing factor. But if you use standard monetary rewards you might need some other balancing factor.

My campaigns generally have quite a few firearms in them, although they tend to cap at either flintlocks or 19th century. They work alright if they're taken into account and balanced to your preferred place in the world.

[JoeJ]

Keep in mind anything from the invention of rimfire/centre fire cartridges could be considered to be modern. A Winchester Model 1866 rifle isn't all that different in operation from any other modern sporting rifle. Other than a modern gun having the option of being made from synthetic materials they way a gun works is pretty straight forward, the biggest difference you'd find a very old versus brand new gun is that the old one is probably manufactured with lower tolerances than the new one.

That, and the new gun is more likely to be "tactical" (i.e. colored black) and to have a "modern military" appearance, so that it looks just like the guns real operators use when they're operating on operations.

[SkipSandwich]

In my d20 Modern homebrew handguns and hunting rifles/shotguns are classed as simple weapons, while all military-grade weapons (full auto weapons, machine guns, sniper rifles/anti-material rifles, grenade launchers, ect) are gated behind an Advanced Firearms proficiency.

Autofire/Burstfire attacks are handled as pseudo-cantrips, a special action with scaling effects based on level (more damage for aimed bursts and more targets for sweeping bursts).

Normal bullets deal piercing damage, while buckshot deals bludgeoning.

Buckshot has a special property called "Volley" that causes shotguns and similar weapons to deal +1 die of damage against targets within melee reach, and instead of suffering disadvantage against targets at long range they deal only the minimum possible damage (1+ ability mod).

[Yunru]

For my games, guns that have Reload (1 or 2) do roughly +2.5 extra damage.
I based this off of the Kensei Monk's ability, since that is also a repeatable use of a bonus action for extra damage.

[Quoz]

When I say modern, I'm meaning M4/M16 (possibly with an under barrel 40mm), 9mm handgun, and maybe a SAW. My group is all military or military associated, so I'll go with what we know. Our first session was saving and repairing the Mars Rover Opportunity via interdimensional shenanigans and I want to play off that theme.

I'm not too worried about being super accurate to real life, this is a game where being lit on fire by dragons breath or petrified by a gorgon are serious inconveniences but probably not an end to your adventuring career. A machine gun is probably bad news for a bunch of Orcs, but not by itself fatal to a dragon or giant. I'm also going to make them work for it, hobgoblin security contractors won't give up their weapons without a fight. And will probably spend most of their ammo in the process ;)

[KorvinStarmast]

When I say modern, I'm meaning M4/M16 (possibly with an under barrel 40mm), 9mm handgun, and maybe a SAW. My group is all military or military associated, so I'll go with what we know. Our first session was saving and repairing the Mars Rover Opportunity via interdimensional shenanigans and I want to play off that theme.
Might want to use a different game system than D&D.
Your call.

[Vogie]

Middle Finger of Vecna has decent rules that have been playtested HERE (http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2018/04/firearm-rules-redux.html)

[LibraryOgre]

When I say modern, I'm meaning M4/M16 (possibly with an under barrel 40mm), 9mm handgun, and maybe a SAW. My group is all military or military associated, so I'll go with what we know. Our first session was saving and repairing the Mars Rover Opportunity via interdimensional shenanigans and I want to play off that theme.

I'm not too worried about being super accurate to real life, this is a game where being lit on fire by dragons breath or petrified by a gorgon are serious inconveniences but probably not an end to your adventuring career. A machine gun is probably bad news for a bunch of Orcs, but not by itself fatal to a dragon or giant. I'm also going to make them work for it, hobgoblin security contractors won't give up their weapons without a fight. And will probably spend most of their ammo in the process ;)

TBH, I would treat them similar to magic staves.

Single fire is not different from a cantrip... it does 1d10 damage, costs a single "charge". Maybe allow people to spend a bonus action to aim and add their Perception proficiency bonus to a single fire shot. Range is impressive, by D&D standards.

Double tap costs 2 charges, increases the damage a bit (not to straight 2d10; maybe 2d8), and you use more charges.

Burst Fire costs more charges, does more damage... call it 3d8 for 3 charges.

Spray fire does damage in a cone, with a Dex save for half. It does 2d8 damage to that cone, and costs 10 charges (or whatever).

It doesn't require attunement. It doesn't give a proficiency bonus (except in the case of an aimed single shot). And it regains charges weirdly. But there you go, a functional SAW, with selective fire.

(You might take a look at Savage worlds, too; they have some firearms rules that shouldn't be too hard to port to 5e)

[Damon_Tor]

I ran a modernish (1940s) setting where firearms, magic and traditional weapons operated in a sort of rock/paper/scissors state due to firearms' complexity making them inherently vulnerable to magical countermeasures. For example, a first level spell "inhibit combustion" was available to most casting classes which was cast as a reaction to any sort of perceptible combustion (which would include a gunshot, as well as things like bombs and even car engines and such) which stopped the triggering combustion and prevented that object from combusting for 1 minute. Other spells had bonus effects vs firearms: heat metal, for example, could cause the gun to fire randomly.

But the guns were readily available and just as powerful as the DMG suggests they should be.

[Kane0]

Mage hand would be remarkably effective actually, 10 pounds of force is more than enough to hold a crucial part out of place. Just have to work on the range, and perhaps number of targets

[The Jack]

Firearms are a complicated topic.

Adding in matchlocks, wheelocks, and flintlocks doesn't change balance much. While such guns are relatively easy to use they're fairly low powered and take a long time to reload. I generally like to cite Lamentations of the Flame Princess as a good example of incorporating them, they take ten rounds to reload (five for flintlocks), misfire on one in five attacks (one in ten for flintlocks) with Fighters cutting that time by one fifth, deal 1d8 damage, and ignore five points of AC that are provided by armour. Great for the first round, but you're probably not using it again in combat and the encumbrance system means you aren't carrying more than a couple of firearms anyway.

Note that with my rules firearms are still very good at the upper end. Possibly not the best weapon for professional warriors, but probably one of the better picks for classes like Bards, Rogues, and Warlocks. I'm fine with this, as I tend to ruin with relatively light monetary rewards after expenses are deducted, so having bullets cost four to ten times as much as bolts is a good balancing factor. But if you use standard monetary rewards you might need some other balancing factor.


In the context of DnD 5e, these rules are dumb. I'm sorry, they're just dumb. They don't fit, they don't work, it's horrible. How is it that you can look at a system where Heavy crossbows reload in less than a turn and decide that firearms should take ten or five?

5e thrives on simplicity. At most, you can say that a big gun that shoots bigger calibers take their die number of turns to load.

Also -Early guns were beaten by armour-. Ignoring 5 points of AC is silly.

[Zhorn]

Definitely wouldn't want to over-complicate firearm rulings. Adding in differing damage rules and attack timing compared to other weapons just sounds like needless complexity.

If the game your setting up is all weapons are firearms, then I can understand introducing a different combat system, but if you're tacking firearms on top of the standard fantasy swords and sorcery format of 5e, I'd suggest sticking to the pistol and musket from the renaissance list instead of the modern firearms, and keep the same attack roll and damage roll rules that all other weapons follow.

Might just be my personal biases speaking though. If any of my players asks to play Mercer's Gunslinger, I suggest they opt for a Battle Master instead (with a firearms version of crossbow expert to deal with the loading thing). Mostly the same toolkit without worrying about misfires and such.

[JoeJ]

In the context of DnD 5e, these rules are dumb. I'm sorry, they're just dumb. They don't fit, they don't work, it's horrible. How is it that you can look at a system where Heavy crossbows reload in less than a turn and decide that firearms should take ten or five?

Yes. If you want guns to be a thing that people actually use, you can't have crossbows be an unambiguously better choice. Guns should be slightly better than crossbows at about the same price (counting ammunition cost as well), or equal to crossbows but slightly cheaper, or very slightly inferior to crossbows but a lot cheaper*. However you do it, though, the players need to see that there is a good reason to use a gun rather than a crossbow.

(*if you choose this option, expect to see PCs using guns at low levels and upgrading to crossbows when they can afford them.)

[Anonymouswizard]

In the context of DnD 5e, these rules are dumb. I'm sorry, they're just dumb. They don't fit, they don't work, it's horrible. How is it that you can look at a system where Heavy crossbows reload in less than a turn and decide that firearms should take ten or five?

5e thrives on simplicity. At most, you can say that a big gun that shoots bigger calibers take their die number of turns to load.

Also -Early guns were beaten by armour-. Ignoring 5 points of AC is silly.

Well done for not noticing that I was lifting the rules from another system to constitute what well done gun rules might look like, in short guns there are powerful but are a 1/combat thing. LotFP explicitly mentions that players building ranged characters will likely prefer the 'inferior' bow's ability to fire any turn, and that the main purpose of the gun rules is to allow weaker combatants to have an ability to get around armour. Sure, the rules don't work for D&D5e (without some adjustment you'd probably want to lose the armour piercing), but they work for Lamentations of the Flame Princess (which is, ironically, more rules-light than 5e, so these are about the simplest firearms rules I've seen).

For 5e-based firearms rules? Slighter higher damage (maybe) than the equivalent crossbow in exchange for requiring an action to reload. More advanced firearms may trade damage for additional shot capacity, so a revolver might be 1d6 damage but hold six shots. A feat will allow a reload as a bonus action along with a couple of other benefits (not entirely sure what yet). It's a bit more complicated, but doesn't require tracking how many rounds into your reload you are. Maybe a chance of misfires leading to wasted attacks, but only if the group is okay with that.

[TrueFullmetal]

This is sorta related, but I added old-school firearms to my pirate campaign, and I made pistols 3d10 and 3d10 + 1d8 so I could be realistic. This ended in the first real fight being immediatly ended after one of my player intantly killed the enemy captain.

[The Jack]

Well done for not noticing that I was lifting the rules from another system to constitute what well done gun rules might look like.

I assumed 'lamentations of the flame princess' was some obscure module. In any case, we're in the 5e thread, and you're posting stuff which is antithetical to 5e game design.

[blackjack50]

Something to consider is what kind of gunplay do you want? Do you want action hero type fighting? Or something more realistic? Because you could emphasize Dex for Armor Class and so you can RP people as missing (rather than getting shot in armor). You would also want to have penalties for getting shot. Like leg hits vs grazing shots. Kevlar giving a boost.

I would increase the damage of the weapons by A LOT or reduce player health if you want realism. Make it so they actively avoid gunfights because it would be very easy to be permdead. Unless they have a strong advantage or a reason to fight. Make them play to their strengths too. Long range snipers are not useful inside. Can’t be concealed. Handguns are better for quick draw. Shotguns are devastating but limited range. Assault rifles are expensive and all around midrange and very deadly. I would also emphasize cover. Players shouldn’t want to seek combat out in the open. Good way to get picked off.

[JoeJ]

I assumed 'lamentations of the flame princess' was some obscure module. In any case, we're in the 5e thread, and you're posting stuff which is antithetical to 5e game design.

It's a different game entirely, using "old school" rules (so more or less compatible with AD&D).

[Dr. Cliché]

Lets look a some common handguns for comparison. A 9mm Parabellum bullet (the one in most 9mm handguns like the Glock 17, or the current US military issue sidearm the M19) has a mass of 7.5 grams and seems to average around 350 m/s for velocity. So we get around 450 joules of energy. Again more than the crossbow, but not that much more. In fact the lighter bullet may do less damage because a huge amount of energy will be lost just penetrating a target.

Anyways, I suppose my point is that guns aren't that much more dangerous than crossbows and bows. They're just easier to use, and a modern gun can fire hundreds of rounds per minute compared to trained users managed maybe 10 per minute for a bow, and at best half of that a crossbow.

I fear you're very mistaken on this point. Guns are far deadlier than crossbows, even on a per-shot basis.

- They're actually a lot better at penetrating armour (not to mention flesh) than crossbows. The drastically higher velocity makes a lot of difference (plus they're smaller, so experience less resistance).

- In addition, the tendency of bullets to deform and/or break apart on impact means they can cause severe internal damage - far more than a crossbow.

- Finally, a crossbow bolt neatly plugs the wound it causes, giving the victim far more time to treat it. In contrast, bullets leave open entry holes (sometimes exit holes as well), through which the victim can quickly lose a great deal of blood.


Also, are you sure your math is correct? Using your figures for the weight and velocity of the 9mm handgun bullet, I end up with a little over 900 joules of kinetic energy. :smallconfused:

[The Jack]

One of the most powerful modern crossbows is comparable to the 7.62x39 (The AK 47 round) in KJs output. They're very optimised. Older crossbows had much higher draw weights, but I can't say much about the power because their design was less optimised.

-Guns damage is largely dependent on bullet size (or shot, how much powders used etc). A 9mm pistol will be so much worse than a heavy crossbow (even if I don't really know exactly where a heavier medieval crossbow stands).

A gun will be better on a size/weight comparison. But a small gun won't beat a big crossbow (It might with a monster bullet, cause bullets are the power after all, but big caliber pistols are rare)


@doctor cliche- The size is actually in the crossbow's favour, because they're pointier and longer. Guns win out on mass and velocity.



A crossbow is more likely to infect the enemy too.


Just trust my damage table, alright?

[Misterwhisper]

I would just keep it simple and fluff the normal crossbows.

Hand crossbow is a pistol
Light crossbow is a blunderbuss
Heavy crossbow is a rifle

[The Jack]

I would just keep it simple and fluff the normal crossbows.

Hand crossbow is a pistol
Light crossbow is a Rifle
Heavy crossbow is a Bigger Rifle
The blunderbus is a fine idea but it's not really a light crossbow replacement.

Matchlocks (the firing mechanism) fit the medieval stuff of DnD best. fairly contemporary Wheel locks (a different firing mechanism) were rich fancy things that didn't need a wick, but people didn't like em because they were good conceal weapons and they were more expensive to make.

I think they did actually big rifles as seperate from smaller ones. We begin with was arquebus (med) and muskets (heavy crossbow) were big arquebus, the term musket was eventually used for any gun, but they started off as a specialised weapon. Although people did just experiment with gun size before they started with specialised weapons.

[Anonymouswizard]

I assumed 'lamentations of the flame princess' was some obscure module. In any case, we're in the 5e thread, and you're posting stuff which is antithetical to 5e game design.

Oh no, it's completely fair to call out how 5e is designed differently (although to be fair the time I ran 5e I did get good use out of those rules, having some conscripts being a fight with d10 muskets before switching to their melee weapons for the rest of the combat). At the end of the day the point was 'guns tend to exchange reload speed for higher damage or other benefits', and in the right group a ten-round reload isn't exactly unreasonable (I've been in the occasional game where 'only takes one round to reload instead of two' is a benefit of some guns). But yeah, for general 5e reloading should be an action at most, so you just have to track if it's loaded or not.


It's a different game entirely, using "old school" rules (so more or less compatible with AD&D).

B/X actually, but yeah that's the gist of it.

[Marcloure]

People stop wearing full body metal armor because firearms became a thing, they punch really hard against plate.

If you want that feeling of a weapon that changed how we go to war, you have to consider that it will hit more often against armored targets, and that it is way harder to dodge than an arrow. Effectively, it should gain an innate attack bonus, probably a +3 for pistols (pierce leather, hide and rings), and +5 for rifles (almost pierce plate).