Firearms: Mechanics vs Thematics

[Zhorn]

So going by firearms as listed in the DMG and Dragon Heist, they're not all that "overpowered" compared to bows and crossbows. Even with a step up in damage dice to d10's for pistols and d12's for muskets, their range is pretty average and the cost of firing them with smokepowder/gunpowder makes them a fair bit more pricey to use.
Then there's that story aspect about smokepowder/gunpowder being some of those restricted/banned substances in the forgotten realms, where most of the lore abiding cities actively try to keep it out of use.

To make the thematics and mechanics gel together a bit better; it makes me want to add a bit of a buff to firearm damage -make firearms feel justifiably more dangerous, more likely to upset the status quo-, but I don't want it to be too good or encroach on other game-mechanics territories.

To that I'm thinking the 'exploding dice' mechanic might be a good choice
Exploding Damage Dice. when the highest number is rolled on a weapon's damage dice, an additional dice of the same size is rolled and added to the total.

1 - It is not a constant like +1/+2/+3 weapons (which I prefer to be just a magic item thing).
2 - Does not mess with the bounded accuracy meddling that increased crit ranges would do
3 - On larger sized dice like d10's and d12's, it would lend itself to having a 'rare but awesome when it happens' feel.
4 - It's not complex in execution
5 - The damage floor isn't being raised, nor are the % chances of those lower damage values changing.
6 - Is entirely a modular ruling. Nothing else needs to be adjusted to make it work.

Opinions? Suggestions? Recommendations?

Clarification: I'm looking for advice on exploding dice and whether or nor it is a good idea as a general firearm rule.
Is there a mechanic it would cause issues with? Something I have not noticed that it would be incompatible with?

[Spectrulus]

I would recommend following Mathew Mercer's suggestion, of the increased damage die but adding a misfire chance, wherein the weapon jams and can become unusable if the player rolls a 1-3.

Look for the Gunslinger class he made, I've used it as a basis for fun times.

[Zhorn]

I would recommend following Mathew Mercer's suggestion, of the increased damage die but adding a misfire chance, wherein the weapon jams and can become unusable if the player rolls a 1-3.

Look for the Gunslinger class he made, I've used it as a basis for fun times.
Not a fan of that subclass.
Mercer: Yes
Critical Role: Yes
Gunslinger: Not so much. It's just a clunkier version of the Battle Master with a restricted weapon type. Misfires are also a nerf to firearms, which is in the opposite direction of my intent.

[Arkhios]

Not a fan of that subclass.
Mercer: Yes
Critical Role: Yes
Gunslinger: Not so much. It's just a clunkier version of the Battle Master with a restricted weapon type. Misfires are also a nerf to firearms, which is in the opposite direction of my intent.

To be fair, Mercer's Gunslinger appears to be more of a conversion from Pathfinder's Gunslinger. Whether it's a good conversion or not, I won't take a side on, but misfires are actually very thematic for firearms; especially early firearms tended to jam often enough to be expected to do so. Even modern firearms are known for that.

[Zhorn]

misfires are actually very thematic for firearms; especially early firearms tended to jam often enough to be expected to do so. Even modern firearms are known for that.

I don't disagree about that, what I'm saying is making firearms mechanically less favourable to use is in direct opposition to my intent.
Story-wise, smokepowder is banned in many cities (most probably due to it's explosive potential more than anything) making it difficult to obtain, AND is a magic item meaning it would be relatively expensive to produce, AND prone to dispel magic negating their usefulness outright. Compared to bows and crossbows, it doesn't make sense for firearms to be used AT ALL, but the story is smokepowder is a great threat to the status quo.
Firearms already have enough negatives connected to them by RAW already. Adding misfires is just making the situation worse.

[Dork_Forge]

You could try putting the minimum damage on the die higher, treat a 1 as a 2 like Elemental Adept. That way they have a higher die AND they're a more reliable amount of damage to help offset the negatives?

Side note: I only recently read Dragon Heist and learned that Smoke Powder was a thing... it just seems stupid, just leave it as gun powder. It doesn't need to be magical and there doesn't seem to be any discernable benefits of it over gunpowder (that I can see at least).

[JackPhoenix]

Side note: I only recently read Dragon Heist and learned that Smoke Powder was a thing... it just seems stupid, just leave it as gun powder. It doesn't need to be magical and there doesn't seem to be any discernable benefits of it over gunpowder (that I can see at least).

The "benefit" is that it doesn't break FR's status quo. That's the whole reason for the difference.

[Lunali]

If you want them to be something that threatens the status quo, make them similar to real firearms. This doesn't mean increasing the damage, as that's already fairly accurate, the real change would be making it so you need much less training to get proficiency. Historically, people with guns weren't really more dangerous than trained archers until fairly recently, they were just far easier to train. This will change the overall balance of power in the world without significantly changing the balance in combat for the PCs.

[JackPhoenix]

If you want them to be something that threatens the status quo, make them similar to real firearms. This doesn't mean increasing the damage, as that's already fairly accurate, the real change would be making it so you need much less training to get proficiency. Historically, people with guns weren't really more dangerous than trained archers until fairly recently, they were just far easier to train. This will change the overall balance of power in the world without significantly changing the balance in combat for the PCs.

I agree. Musket and pistol proficiency is kinda opposite of what it should be, as it's easier to learn how to use full-length handgun accurately. Of course, the developers were worried about more powerful simple weapon...

[Zhorn]

Side note: I only recently read Dragon Heist and learned that Smoke Powder was a thing... it just seems stupid, just leave it as gun powder. It doesn't need to be magical and there doesn't seem to be any discernable benefits of it over gunpowder (that I can see at least).

I like to use modules and I have my players in the Forgotten Realms setting, as such I like to have in-universe consistency on story elements. The gods rewrote the laws of physics so gunpowder doesn't combust on Toril (nor in all of Realmspace's crystal sphere either, I think), but then the god Gond invented smokepowder as a magical version of gunpowder to get around the restriction (because magic).

When I make up my own story elements, I tend to work in the gaps more than overwrite things when it comes to lore, mostly so i can use pre-made material and not have to worry about juggling what has been deemed non-canon at my table.

Forgotten Realms has smokepowder as canon? That's how firearms will exist at my table. Works well enough to explain why firearms exist but are not ubiquitous.
My only issue is that mechanical disconnect to the thematics of it all. As presented by RAW, they are just impractical compared to bows.


If you want them to be something that threatens the status quo, make them similar to real firearms. This doesn't mean increasing the damage, as that's already fairly accurate, the real change would be making it so you need much less training to get proficiency. Historically, people with guns weren't really more dangerous than trained archers until fairly recently, they were just far easier to train. This will change the overall balance of power in the world without significantly changing the balance in combat for the PCs.
Not a bad suggestions, but it doesn't gel with the stories already being told. Namely Jarlaxle's Drow Gunslingers being the primary users of firearms in the official modules, and being being highly trained in combat. If they are as proficient in combat as the text suggests, then they'd have the wherewithal to rely on more reliable and convenient weapons. A heavy Crossbow is cheaper to supply ammo for, easier to replace, and has a superior range.
I'll agree to firearms being easier to gain proficiency in compared to other martial weapons, but I still think there's a need to cover WHY someone with trained martial skills would stick with them long term.

[Dr. Cliché]

Not a bad suggestions, but it doesn't gel with the stories already being told. Namely Jarlaxle's Drow Gunslingers being the primary users of firearms in the official modules, and being being highly trained in combat. If they are as proficient in combat as the text suggests, then they're have the wherewithal to rely on more reliable and convenient weapons. A heavy Crossbow is cheaper to supply ammo for, easier to replace, and has a superior range.
I'll agree to firearms being easier to gain proficiency in compared to other martial weapons, but I still think there's a need to cover WHY someone with trained martial skills would stick with them long term.

Just a point but early guns were frequently used in combination with melee.

Examples include British troops, who would usually fire their muskets only once and then charge in with bayonets, and also pirates and such who would often fire a pistol and then use a cutlass (or other melee weapon) for the remainder of the battle.

As to why guns might be preferable for this, a couple of things spring to mind:
- A gun equipped with a bayonet can double as a spear - the same can't be said for a crossbow or longbow. :smallwink:
- The intimidation factor (most people vastly underestimate just how loud guns are, and early guns were louder still).
- The fact that they produce a *lot* of smoke could be a benefit to Drow and others who are used to fighting in poorly-lit conditions.

[Zhorn]

As to why guns might be preferable for this, a couple of things spring to mind:
- A gun equipped with a bayonet can double as a spear - the same can't be said for a crossbow or longbow. :smallwink:
- The intimidation factor (most people vastly underestimate just how loud guns are, and early guns were louder still).
- The fact that they produce a *lot* of smoke could be a benefit to Drow and others who are used to fighting in poorly-lit conditions.

Which are all fine points in reality; none of which are factors by the RAW we are given.
- The Drow gunslingers are using pistols, not muskets with bayonets.
- There is no intimidation component attached to firearms nor a sound components (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?596118-Audibility-of-smokepowder)
- And there is no smoke effect connected to firearms in game

As for ranged attacks in close range, all ranged attacks in game have access to that via Crossbow Expert.

[Garfunion]

I also been trying to find ways to add firearms to my games in a meaningful non-cumbersome way. Here are some ideas;
•If the firearm misses the target by 5 or less the target takes damage equal to half dexterity modifier(minimum 1)
•Instead of rolling an attack on the target have the target make a dexterity saving throw.

[stoutstien]

One way to do it is to allow them to have higher damage die but no modifier added it it.
this could represent the higher innate damage and ease-of-use but lack of impact of the individual users skill

[PhantomSoul]

•Instead of rolling an attack on the target have the target make a dexterity saving throw.

Hm, an interesting thought -- Mercer's Gunslinger (grit refreshing, advantage) would have to be tweaked if using this method with guns, but a fun possibility (and removing critical hits and critical successes would be a noteworthy change). Also interacts with Conditions a bit differently, and notably 'escapes' the disadvantage on Attack Rolls while Prone.

[Zhorn]

•If the firearm misses the target by 5 or less the target takes damage equal to half dexterity modifier(minimum 1)I'm fond of fail forwards approaches for skill checks, but I'm not to sure about hits under the target's AC.

•Instead of rolling an attack on the target have the target make a dexterity saving throw.
It's an interesting approach, but it does lock firearms out of benefiting from some features; such as the Archery Fighting Style and the Sharp Shooter feat. As mentioned earlier, firearms already have enough drawbacks as is without adding more.

[Garfunion]

It's an interesting approach, but it does lock firearms out of benefiting from some features; such as the Archery Fighting Style and the Sharp Shooter feat. As mentioned earlier, firearms already have enough drawbacks as is without adding more. Doesn’t have to work like that, firearms could be the exception. Just let those features work with firearms.
Instead of +2 to the attack add +2 to the DC.

[Magicspook]

Having a gun do more damage makes no sense; I don't know about you, but I'd rather be hit by a bullet than a bloody crossbow bolt. Nor do I believe were bullets better at piercimg armor than longbows and crossbows.

[loki_ragnarock]

As an alternative to increasing the damage die:
Change the dynamic a little and make firearms a dex save to avoid rather than a roll to hit?

Do half damage on a save?

Special language added to allow for extra attacks to apply?

If the answer to all the above questions is "yes," now you've got a weapon that chews through hp regardless of how good things are at avoiding it. Except rogues, I guess. But even so, something that differentiates itself from longbows while also being a might deadlier on the average. Sure, the longbow outperforms on a crit, but the gun outperforms on a "miss."

[Arkhios]

I wouldn't make firearms function with the Saving Throw for half damage, because it doesn't make sense.

Using saving throw instead of an attack roll is basically same as closing your eyes, aiming blindly, and still somehow aim true and deal at least some damage.

Aim and shoot (=attack roll) is just as valid for firearms that require a direct hit as it is with bows and crossbows.

[Damon_Tor]

I wouldn't make firearms function with the Saving Throw for half damage, because it doesn't make sense.

Using saving throw instead of an attack roll is basically same as closing your eyes, aiming blindly, and still somehow aim true and deal at least some damage.

Aim and shoot (=attack roll) is just as valid for firearms that require a direct hit as it is with bows and crossbows.

I'd say having a dex save over an AC check is about an effect that armor can't deflect, but can be dodged. That's the opposite of gunfire: a bullet moves too quickly to dodge, but can be stopped by armor.

So if anything should be changed here, it's that the target of the attack should lose their dex bonus from their AC.

[Garfunion]

I'd say having a dex save over an AC check is about an effect that armor can't deflect, but can be dodged. That's the opposite of gunfire: a bullet moves too quickly to dodge, but can be stopped by armor.

So if anything should be changed here, it's that the target of the attack should lose their dex bonus from their AC.
Now we are entering the old flag-footed AC territory.

I really think the firearms need to be looked at as a non-magical spell and as such need to be designed like them.

[Kane0]

Simple weapons with double the damage dice but no stat to damage.

[Lunali]

Not a bad suggestions, but it doesn't gel with the stories already being told. Namely Jarlaxle's Drow Gunslingers being the primary users of firearms in the official modules, and being being highly trained in combat. If they are as proficient in combat as the text suggests, then they're have the wherewithal to rely on more reliable and convenient weapons. A heavy Crossbow is cheaper to supply ammo for, easier to replace, and has a superior range.
I'll agree to firearms being easier to gain proficiency in compared to other martial weapons, but I still think there's a need to cover WHY someone with trained martial skills would stick with them long term.

By spending less time learning to use their weapons they are able to dedicate more time to learning other aspects of combat. Alternatively, depending on the weapon, you could allow it to be fired as a bonus action to show its ease of use. Even if the weapon can only be fired once, being able to use it as a bonus action would make it still an attractive option.

[Zhorn]

There are a few interesting suggestions here, but many of them are either having a bigger impact than intended, or not addressing the core issue being raised.

Bonus actions attacks: Interesting and does give them a boosted usefulness, but only in combination with other weapon attacks. On their own they are still the same.

Saving throws: Just makes them different to attack rolls, and means several other rules interactions need amendments to still apply or have any meaningful interaction.
Needs its own ruling on range interactions (close range, normal range, long range)
Ranged weapon attack modifiers were written for attack rolls; adjustments to rules to make them work for fire arm saving throws; do other saving throw rules benefit from the same rule adjustments, or do they need to be hype specific in wording meaning they can't be covered under a general rule.

The reason I suggested the exploding dice mechanic is how minimal it is to apply:
I don't need to change the action economy
attack types are the same
range is the same
the size of damage dice is unchanged
damage floor is unchanged
interactions with feats and class features don't need an amendment to still be compatible
creature statblocks with firearms don't need to have the number/size of dice changed

It can be treated as a general rule: "Damage from smokepowder firearms use Exploding Damage Dice; when the highest number is rolled on a weapon's damage dice, an additional dice of the same size is rolled and added to the total"

[Tvtyrant]

Primitive firearms were best used in mass volleys (actually all of them until rifling were.) Depending on what era the setting is imitating they could be anywhere from utterly atrocious to brokenly good, but most D&D games are playing with post-black death through early modern tech, so they aren't going to be great weapons.

One way you could do it is replace the to-hit with a low Reflex DC save. This replicates the whole ball flying off in random directions problem with smooth bores and how aiming is more point and shoot then expert. If they fail the low save they roll a second low con save, if they succeed they take two exhaustion levels to represent having been tagged by the bullet in an arm or leg. If they fail the con save they drop to 0 HP and lose two exhaustion levels, having been hit in a vital.

[Daithi]

I've seen Eldritch Blast played like magical arrows, so I could imagine seeing it played like magical bullets as well.
With Hexblade Curse, Hex, multiple bolts, +CHA mod damage, and if multi-classing with Sorcerer/Quicken this is a ton of damage.
So, compared to that, I don't see many actual firearms as being over powered.

[Zhorn]

One way you could do it is replace the to-hit with a low Reflex DC save. This replicates the whole ball flying off in random directions problem with smooth bores and how aiming is more point and shoot then expert. If they fail the low save they roll a second low con save, if they succeed they take two exhaustion levels to represent having been tagged by the bullet in an arm or leg. If they fail the con save they drop to 0 HP and lose two exhaustion levels, having been hit in a vital.
Waaaaaaaaay overboard on complexity on that one. Most tables already have trouble remembering how grapples work, running multiple saving throws of different types on a single attack is going to leave someone lost.
Not to mention negating HP outright is clearly overpowered.



I've seen Eldritch Blast played like magical arrows, so I could imagine seeing it played like magical bullets as well.
With Hexblade Curse, Hex, multiple bolts, +CHA mod damage, and if multi-classing with Sorcerer/Quicken this is a ton of damage.
So, compared to that, I don't see many actual firearms as being over powered.
Comparing a weapon to multiple stacked class features is like comparing a single apple to a large exotic fruit basket. Comparisons are most useful when kept in similar quantities and of similar types.

[deuterio12]

If you want them to be something that threatens the status quo, make them similar to real firearms. This doesn't mean increasing the damage, as that's already fairly accurate, the real change would be making it so you need much less training to get proficiency. Historically, people with guns weren't really more dangerous than trained archers until fairly recently, they were just far easier to train. This will change the overall balance of power in the world without significantly changing the balance in combat for the PCs.

Firearms require less training than bows and are easy to mass-produce to boot once you know what you're doing.

Contrast with crossbows, which were already around for centuries and pretty easy to learn to use too, but also were expensive to make due to needing different kinds of crafting skill (you need the skills to make a bow then also add a bunch of extra mechanisms).

Another factor that guns added back in the day but we kinda overlook was the noise. Other weapons until then were pretty silent, but guns made those really loud BANGs that could scare the enemy, in particular if they weren't used to fighting guns yet.

That's probably why gun volley-» charge was pretty popular. All those BANGs would startle the enemy pretty well, leaving them vulnerable to a melee charge. Even samurais loved using guns like this.

Then there was also lots of smoke before black gunpowder was invented. When you're firing hundreds/thousands of guns with primitive gunpowder you basically end with filling the battlefield with thick smoke so you wouldn't be able to aim at range much so better charge into melee anyway. Also why soldiers started wearing extra bright uniforms, otherwise it was pretty hard to tell who was who in the middle of all that smoke.

So basically:
-Fire bullet-»Loud scary sound-»Lots of smoke-»charge through the smoke when your opponent is still shaken from the BANG and can't properly see.

[Zhorn]

updated initial post to emphasise what I was asking about with this thread.

[Beleriphon]

Clarification: I'm looking for advice on exploding dice and whether or nor it is a good idea as a general firearm rule.
Is there a mechanic it would cause issues with? Something I have not noticed that it would be incompatible with?

Nope. That said you might want to look at how critical hits work with this since in some cases that might get a bit crazy. It's unlikely to occur, but it is something to look out for.

[MoiMagnus]

Clarification: I'm looking for advice on exploding dice and whether or nor it is a good idea as a general firearm rule.
Is there a mechanic it would cause issues with? Something I have not noticed that it would be incompatible with?

In average (which is relevant if you consider fights against big monsters with a ton of HP), explosive dices multiply damages by N/(N-1).
So d12 explosive is ~7.1 damages, d10 explosive is ~6.1. So it essentially add half a point of damage per dice.
So quite bad unless you're rolling a ton of dices (and even then, still pretty negligible...)

If the enemy does not have a ton of HP, then you're adding a slim chance of killing the enemy in one blow, which is either a bad or a good thing depending of your table (unexpected random kills shorten the encounter and diminish the tactical interest of the remaining of the battle, but on the other hand they are quite fun).

But in every case, explosive dices are spectacular, but rarely inefficient (significantly less useful than a +1 weapon). So if you want a property that looks cool but does not change anything, that's a good choice. Otherwise...

A simple suggestion that come to my mind is "multiplicative dice":
Roll 2d4 (or 1d4+1d6, or 2d6), and multiply the results instead of adding.
[Average is 7.5/10.5/15.75]

[Zhorn]

Nope.
"Nope" as in it's not a good idea to use, or "Nope" as in there isn't a mechanic that it would cause conflict with?

That said you might want to look at how critical hits work with this since in some cases that might get a bit crazy. It's unlikely to occur, but it is something to look out for.
I've been mulling this over in my mind for quite a while before posting this thread. Firearms, for all the fanfare and big spooky stories about how gamebreaking they are to include in fantasy settings, are actually quite underwhelming for the version that is part of the Forgotten Realms setting, and as I've covered earlier, pretty hamstringed with all the limitations and drawbacks attached to them.
Many of the fixes I've read in different homebrews tend to address this by overshooting the issue, making firearms too good (3d8 baseline damage, etc), or taking on convoluted mechanics that need to be dissected with a flowchat to understand their interactions in combat (saves within saves, multi turn effects, etc).

Exploding dice struck me as that good balance between simplicity to incorporate, crazy highs, and rare occurrence.
It like an expanded crit range without effecting hit rate %
And that lower damage rolls are also just as likely as they are without exploding dice
Gives a sense of being worth the effort in securing smokepowder (being hard to obtain, susceptible to dispel magic), dealing with the restrictive weapon type (ammunition AND loading properties without official feat or feature support), and the added danger of handling a volatile substance while adventuring ("If smokepowder is set on fire, dropped, or otherwise handled roughly, it explodes and deals fire damage to each creature or object within 20 feet of it", Waterdeep Dragon Heist p192).
Like I've covered earlier, without some form of house rule buff, crossbows are just both mechanically better AND cheaper, enough so that it raises the question of why even bother with the effort of getting firearms in the first place.

[Zhorn]

But in every case, explosive dices are spectacular, but rarely inefficient (significantly less useful than a +1 weapon)
That's what I'd consider the goldielocks zone. A +1 SHOULD be better, as that's the level of power you'd expect when getting into magic weapon territory. As mentioned earlier, I'm interesting in just giving them "a bit of a buff" "but I don't want it to be too good"


A simple suggestion that come to my mind is "multiplicative dice":
Roll 2d4 (or 1d4+1d6, or 2d6), and multiply the results instead of adding.
[Average is 7.5/10.5/15.75]
This is interesting. I might just use this for a magic item down the road some time.

[loki_ragnarock]

Specifically on exploding dice:

The larger the dice, the lower the chance of explosions. The greater the number of dice, the higher the chance of explosions.

If you want it to be something that comes up often enough that people really embrace guns as the superior weapon, intuition makes me say that it should be: pistols 2d4 and muskets 2d6.

Now explosions happen with regularity enough that it's not just a ribbon, but a core conceit of firearms. There's just a perverse likelihood that pistols could do more damage than muskets with that set up, as a 1 in 4 chance to explode is better than a 1 in 6 chance. That seems like something to correct for.

So make muskets do 3d4 - better minimum damage than a d12, but a *much* larger chance of exploding dice leading to gleeful smiles about the table.
Have muskets take a bonus action to reload, pistols an interact with object to reload. Limiting them to just the one shot a round lets the time they take rerolling to "explode" dice require no more table time than a character who rolls several attacks. Someone with sufficient training and skill (a level 11 fighter, natch) might be able to outclass them with a bow due to rapid fire, but as a weapon anyone can pick up the guns look much more appealing. Almost even to the extent that it's worth the several gp a shot cost of entry.

Does that satisfy?

For other rule interactions; exploding dice make calculating offensive CR difficult to impossible, as you'll never know the upper limit of damage and the probability curve to find an average gets extremely wonky. If you want NPCs to use them, you can't just take the average damage and run; you have to roll the bones every time. For me, average damage is a time saver, but if you have a diceroller program that can accommodate exploding dice you could probably recoup that time pretty quickly.
Likewise, if you were to use the dice rolling method I suggest, critical hits are going to get INSANE. Ranged crit fishers may occasionally delete the main antagonist in an encounter (or be deleted themselves) when using a musket; the odds are better than good that they'd be getting 7d4 damage at least, which also means they're likely to get 8d4, which means they're then likely to get 9d4 - the more dice they roll, the more dice they are likely to roll still. And that means crits become splatter time. Which feels pretty on brand for a gun, honestly; sometimes you just explode someone's head with your .50 cal smooth bore.
Groovy.
You can, of course, mix things up a bit if the crits are a little too scary; changing the damage dice from d4 to d6 reduces the chance of an individual dice exploding from 25% to 16sih%, but comes with the drawback of higher standard damage. I'm not mathy enough to figure out how that would actually effect average damage overall. But I can tell you that the person rolling 1d12 (with an 8ish% chance) is unlikely to feel the kick of the mechanic often enough to justify paying that many gp per shot... but maybe I'm undervaluing the emotional appeal of rolling 2d12?
That being said, the exploding dice mechanic does come off as a pseudo crit in effect, so maybe having a 5% chance to crit in general followed by an 8% chance to crit anyway *is* enough to justify the cost of doing business. I don't know, depends on your goals.

[Beleriphon]

"Nope" as in it's not a good idea to use, or "Nope" as in there isn't a mechanic that it would cause conflict with?

Sorry, should have been more clear. I was answering your specific question as presented. There is no mechanic it interacts with in any significant way, other than potentially critical hits. As explained by others, the actual damage increase is less than 1 point on average.

[Zhorn]

There's just a perverse likelihood that pistols could do more damage than muskets ... That seems like something to correct for.
Alternate weapon dice to the side for the moment, this is a factor worth noting. While I am more in favour of a simple blanket rule for all situations, a modifier could be added do account for the 'bigger' gun to have a better explosion range on their dice:

Exploding Damage Dice (1). when the highest number is rolled on a weapon's damage dice, an additional dice of the same size is rolled and added to the total.

Exploding Damage Dice (2). when either of the highest two numbers are rolled on a weapon's damage dice, an additional dice of the same size is rolled and added to the total.

So a pistol with a d10 is sitting on a 10% chance for exploding dice, and a musket on a d12 can have a 16.67% chance.
I wouldn't want to let that value get too high, because as I mentioned to reply to MoiMagnus, a +1 weapon should be better on average.


For other rule interactions; exploding dice make calculating offensive CR difficult to impossible, as you'll never know the upper limit of damage and the probability curve to find an average gets extremely wonky. If you want NPCs to use them, you can't just take the average damage and run; you have to roll the bones every time
Depends if you allow chain exploding. Personally, I'd not. exploded dice don't qualify to explode again.
Similarly, only apply the exploding dice property to the weapons dice, not to any rider effects (ie; sneak attacks don't get exploding dice just because it was used with a pistol).

[Mith]

Musing here, but if one uses the 2d4 - 2d6 range, with exploding dice, what if instead of adding dice on a critical hit you instead force a status effect (CON save or suffer Exhaustion, for example).

So you have the joy of potentially annihilating someone just with the luck of the dice, but can also inflict a fairly hefty penalty.

I also like it because IIRC Berserker Barbarians ignore Exhaustion in a Frenzy, so there's the image of a raging Hulk that isn't stopped by measly volley fire.

[KyleG]

Musing here, but if one uses the 2d4 - 2d6 range, with exploding dice, what if instead of adding dice on a critical hit you instead force a status effect (CON save or suffer Exhaustion, for example).

So you have the joy of potentially annihilating someone just with the luck of the dice, but can also inflict a fairly hefty penalty.

I also like it because IIRC Berserker Barbarians ignore Exhaustion in a Frenzy, so there's the image of a raging Hulk that isn't stopped by measly volley fire.

Dex Save or be knocked down perhaps?

I love the idea of exploding dice for firearms and even more so that a crit doesn't do more damage. Plus earlier comments about not adding in sneak attack damage seems legit, although it could be flavoured as targeting specific body parts and hence doing more damage I guess.

I'm curious how we could tie in proficiency to hit. Id want a character to get better at hitting if its his specialty, but then I guess we are getting into class making and not just firearm usage.

What modifier would you tie to 'to hit'? Perhaps Intelligence, you are using knowledge to aim for vital/weak parts?

[Mith]

Dex Save or be knocked down perhaps?

I love the idea of exploding dice for firearms and even more so that a crit doesn't do more damage. Plus earlier comments about not adding in sneak attack damage seems legit, although it could be flavoured as targeting specific body parts and hence doing more damage I guess.

I'm curious how we could tie in proficiency to hit. Id want a character to get better at hitting if its his specialty, but then I guess we are getting into class making and not just firearm usage.

What modifier would you tie to 'to hit'? Perhaps Intelligence, you are using knowledge to aim for vital/weak parts?

If we want a mental stat, I would say Wisdom. Not trying to do a put down, but mainly because Intelligence is the "academic" vs. the Survivalist. Plus attuned senses is Wisdom.

I do like the prone condition. Maybe have the DC scale with number of dice rolled (5x #of dice)? Or the max of base die roll (so 8 for pistol, 12 for a musket, with exploding dice adding 4 to the DC each time).

Cannon would be 5 d4 on the bases of the average person does not survive a hit from a cannon, and the glancing blow (no exploding dice) is still a DC 20 CON check.

[Zhorn]

I'm glad to hear some of you are taking the idea and running with it, but I would suggest against trying to stack too many changes and special rules on top of one another. There are already functions in the game covering a bunch of the ideas you are throwing around

Musing here, but if one uses the 2d4 - 2d6 range, with exploding dice, what if instead of adding dice on a critical hit you instead force a status effect (CON save or suffer Exhaustion, for example).

So you have the joy of potentially annihilating someone just with the luck of the dice, but can also inflict a fairly hefty penalty.

I also like it because IIRC Berserker Barbarians ignore Exhaustion in a Frenzy, so there's the image of a raging Hulk that isn't stopped by measly volley fire.
Raging barbarians already have resistance to slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage, so they already have a built in mechanic to soak more damage than anyway else and keep charging into attacks.


Dex Save or be knocked down perhaps?
See Battle Master Fighter's Trip attack for weapons (str save), or Open Hand Monk's Open Hand Technique for unarmed (dex save). Both accessible at low levels, and the Fighter's maneuvers accessible without multiclassing via feats. No need to double up there.


I'm curious how we could tie in proficiency to hit. Id want a character to get better at hitting if its his specialty, but then I guess we are getting into class making and not just firearm usage.
Overthinking it. DMG already lists firearms as martial ranged weapons. Proficiency with martial ranged weapons = proficiency with firearms. No special house rule or custom class needed.


What modifier would you tie to 'to hit'? Perhaps Intelligence, you are using knowledge to aim for vital/weak parts?
If we want a mental stat, I would say Wisdom. Not trying to do a put down, but mainly because Intelligence is the "academic" vs. the Survivalist. Plus attuned senses is Wisdom.Makes as much sense as swapping all ranged weapons over to Intelligence or Wisdom. This isn't a change to fix anything, this is just change for changes sake. Dex works fine for other ranges weapons, it will work fine for firearms.


I do like the prone condition. Maybe have the DC scale with number of dice rolled (5x #of dice)? Or the max of base die roll (so 8 for pistol, 12 for a musket, with exploding dice adding 4 to the DC each time).

Cannons would be 5 d4 on the bases of the average person does not survive a hit from a cannon, and the glancing blow (no exploding dice) is still a DC 20 CON check.Cannon by the DMG already have a whopping 8d10 to their name that's plenty deadly to the average person, it doesn't need to be redefined to smaller dice to have a higher chance at exploding dice to occur.

Just as a general design philosophy for homebrews and houserules; aim to utilise existing functions of the game first before looking to add new components into the mix. It will result in the things you do make being more easily transferred between tables and less cumbersome to implement. Similarly, it's just easier to adjust the new rule when numbers are not working out as you wanted as opposed to changing other things to make your initial ruling work.