Question regarding bayonets

[PartTimeWarrior]

Hello, there!

I will be running a campaign in a setting roughly set in the 18th-19th century in terms of culture/technology.

One of my players wishes to play a soldier (fighter) specializing in using his rifle both at range and as a melee weapon. I have ruled that reloading is mandatory and cannot be reduced below a standard action and am thus content to allow d10/d12 for the damage of pistols/rifles respectively. I wish to stick to the official rules as much as possible.

The matter that I am iffy about is the melee damage of a large rifle with a bayonet. A suitably large bayonet basically turns the rifle into a glaive ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_bayonet ).

The question is basically this. Is having a glaive that can also deal 1d12 damage at range with a 1 action reload too strong to have at lvl 1? One option that I thought of is having it start off broken and unable to fire unless the player sinks some gold into repairing it.

I am somewhat wary, so I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

[Lupine]

I think that the current plan for muskets is pretty... terrible.

Take for example the British redcoat army: one of the fastest reloading armies in the worlds (with muskets) They got off a shot once every 20 seconds. Alright, for the purpose of combat rounds, we'll put that down to 18 seconds, or three D&D combat rounds. It should take 2 turns to reload, after which they can shoot. Seem extreme? Sure. But a musket was a lot more damaging than a crossbow.

So what should be the reward if the player spends the time to load and shoot this weapon? High, high damage. It should do the same damage as if the soldier had been spending those seconds in melee. The musket is basically a spear when it has a bayonet.
This leads me to think that a musket should deal 3d6 damage from the musket ball.

Now, this will lead to your fighter shooting once, then either casting aside his rifle, or fixing a bayonet and using it as a spear, because it will lead to more damage. But is this bad? not really. See, during the 18th to 19th century (1700s-1800s) doing exactly that was not unheard of (it actually was decently common, if memory serves)

What should really get him is the cost of powder. Yes, he COULD fire his rifle every combat, but it would mean that every combat would be pretty expensive. So he'll probably carry a sword with him, for better damage in melee. That was also fairly common for officers.

You could run with the set-up that they have in the DMG, but I will say that said set up is far, far, from any form of verisimilitude.

[Mr Adventurer]

It's only far from historical verisimilitude, which, to be fair, is perfectly fine unless you decide it isn't. It's absolutely fine for fantasy verisimilitude.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I'd go with a d8 instead of a d10 for a bayonet. It's just not as damaging (weight + holes in vital organs) like a glaive would be (weight + strength + slashing muscles) or a great maul (weight + strength + stunning muscles + fractures).

[Kurt Kurageous]

I think that the current plan for muskets is pretty... terrible.

Take for example the British redcoat army: one of the fastest reloading armies in the worlds (with muskets) They got off a shot once every 20 seconds. Alright, for the purpose of combat rounds, we'll put that down to 18 seconds, or three D&D combat rounds. It should take 2 turns to reload, after which they can shoot. Seem extreme? Sure. But a musket was a lot more damaging than a crossbow.

The unspoken reason armies rushed to gunpowder weapons despite reliability and cost issues is that BOOM! BOOM! and smoke was more intimidating than snap-thwip of arrows/bolts. You can FEEL the blast standing in front of a cannon, you will never feel the 'blast' of a crossbow or bowshot.

The relative damage of the shot is not really the most important thing.

That said, I do agree with your 3d6 for damage for the reasons you stated. I'd also say versus beasts and other sentient beings, perhaps an effect similar to turn undead (CON save or cant move any closer) for one round. And that shot is still subject to disadvantage if targets take the Dodge action.

[Lupine]

It's only far from historical verisimilitude, which, to be fair, is perfectly fine unless you decide it isn't. It's absolutely fine for fantasy verisimilitude.

That's a fair point, but I tend to prefer something a bit more real. That said, he could have a precursor of the enfield rifle, which would be faster reload, but much, much less damaging.

Personally, I think the 3d6 would be more entertaining, especially as a good opener, but you make the final decision in the end.

While I wouldn't run it at my table, your current plan is an acceptable option (though for simplicity, I would rule that the musket with bayonet would be just like a spear without the thrown property.)

[Lupine]

I'd also say versus beasts and other sentient beings, perhaps an effect similar to turn undead (CON save or cant move any closer) for one round. And that shot is still subject to disadvantage if targets take the Dodge action.

Ooooooooo. That sounds super cool! That certainly would help with the cost of reloading. I would also give advantage to the con save if they've seen musket fire often enough to expect it.

Not particularly relevent for OP, but they first started with cannons because they were easier to run, caused similar damage to, and had a longer range than catapults.

[Talsin]

I'd consider it an improvised spear. 1d6 piercing when wielded in 2 hands, with the expectation that it will need maintenance after being used in melee that way to ensure that it can fire again. A rifle isn't designed to be used as a spear.

Regarding the damage of the ranged weapon and time, I think it's fine, though I would just say that on a roll of a 1 the weapon is jammed and requires a whole minute to unjam.

[PartTimeWarrior]

Thank you for your replies!

I am hesitant to allow higher damage per shot mainly due to the large alpha strike potential, as well as the fact that the reload can be worked around by carrying multiple pistols, ect.

As far as the melee damage is concerned, I am more worried about game balance than hard historic precedent. From what I gathered, the player wants to take polearm master for some thematic rifle butt strikes and possibly great weapon master as well. I am inclined to allow these feats to work see it when wielded with a longer sword bayonet for both slashing and thrusting.

The way I am looking at it is like this: if compared to the existing rules, the bayonet rifle essentially saves you an action from having to put away your ranged weapon and drawing your polearm. Do you think this is a strong enough advantage to warrant a reduction in the dmg die from a d10 to a d8?

[Talsin]

Thank you for your replies!

I am hesitant to allow higher damage per shot mainly due to the large alpha strike potential, as well as the fact that the reload can be worked around by carrying multiple pistols, ect.

As far as the melee damage is concerned, I am more worried about game balance than hard historic precedent. From what I gathered, the player wants to take polearm master for some thematic rifle butt strikes and possibly great weapon master as well. I am inclined to allow these feats to work see it when wielded with a longer sword bayonet for both slashing and thrusting.

The way I am looking at it is like this: if compared to the existing rules, the bayonet rifle essentially saves you an action from having to put away your ranged weapon and drawing your polearm. Do you think this is a strong enough advantage to warrant a reduction in the dmg die from a d10 to a d8?

What does it take to affix a bayonet? Bonus Action? Action?

I guess the response would be - What comparative benefit is there to using a rifle versus an actual glaive? Alpha Strike, then on average 1pt in damage reduction? that's a significant boost as long as your combat takes less than 6 melee-attacks (2/round would be 3 rounds etc.). More than that, it starts to break even for total damage. It sounds like your player is asking more for versatility in their weapon rather than trying to break combat damage levels.

The reason I suggest less than a glaive (assuming they use a sword-bayonet) is that it is an improvised weapon. It wasn't constructed to be used that way.

[Talsin]

If allowing the attachment of a specific bayonet allow a rifle to become a glaive, then a glaive is strictly a weaker, less useful option in all respects.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Fixing bayonet in 5e should be just an interaction, not an action.

[PartTimeWarrior]

Thanks! That does, indeed, put things into perspective. If will not do for a rifle to make a dedicated melee polearm obsolete, so I'll go with 1d8 for the melee damage and see how things work out. And yeah, I think its' quick enough for an interaction. Your input has been much appreciated ^^

[Berenger]

The question is basically this. Is having a glaive that can also deal 1d12 damage at range with a 1 action reload too strong to have at lvl 1? One option that I thought of is having it start off broken and unable to fire unless the player sinks some gold into repairing it.

I am somewhat wary, so I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Would the rules allow for him to carry a glaive in addition to his rifle with relative ease? If so, combining both into one weapon isn't that powerful in game terms and allows for a less silly mental picture of the character.

[Keravath]

A rifle with a bayonet?

I'd personally rule it as a spear. Versatile ... d6 with one hand, d8 when wielded with two. I don't think a rifle is usually long enough to be considered a glaive in game terms.

Personally, I don't really care for firearms in my fantasy worlds :) but if I was going to include them then I would probably go with fantasy over verisimilitude.

As far as I know, muskets became more popular because they were simpler to use, didn't require much training, point it generally where you wanted the bullet to go, ammunition was much easier to make compared to having a skilled fletcher making arrows and bolts, and lead balls were able to penetrate armor when crossbows wouldn't ... however, muskets were far less accurate than bows or crossbows and had lower effective ranges. The reason they worked and were adopted by armies is because they were used in mass ranks. In addition, as mentioned, a musket with a blade at the end becomes a decent melee weapon which a bow did not. This allowed the standard infantryman to be armed with both a ranged and melee weapon simultaneously.

If you want to import this into D&D you could give a musket the -5 to hit/+10 damage from sharpshooter built in to reflect their reduced accuracy and increased damage. In addition, the archery fighting style would not work with a musket since aiming was more luck than anything else. As for loading, if you are going with the ball/powder/paper method then 2 actions to load it is probably reasonable. If your weapons are slightly more advanced with cartridges then maybe 1 action to load. The weapon would have the loading property and would be limited to one shot/turn.

Is that weaker than a comparable bow or crossbow? Yes. If you are looking for "realism" then that would represent a single musket by itself in combat .. it would be outperformed by a skilled and trained bowman. The trajectory of the ball from an unrifled musket barrel is mostly random, skill with the weapon doesn't really increase your chances to hit beyond having a basic proficiency in pointing it in the right direction. Later generations of weapons with bullets, rifling, and other improvements become faster to load and more accurate but if you want to include early generation firearms they are likely not as good as comparable crossbows or longbows in the hands of a skilled archer. On the other hand, the musketman with a bayonet can poke the opponent next to them very effectively whereas the bowman is not as effective.

If you want to improve the firearm then you could allow a character with the extra attack feature to use the extra attack to load the musket allowing it to fire once every round.

If you want to create something more balanced for D&D ... you could go with 2d6 damage, -5 to hit/+10 damage, firing every second round .. and then play test it to see if it actually works. (However, keep in mind that a bowman with the sharpshooter and cross bow expert feats will still outperform the musketman ... though they will have invested 2 feats to do so).

[Sorinth]

For the bayonet I would go either 1d6 or 1d8 to match the spear damage rather then glaive.

It was fairly normal in battle to fire once and then bayonet charge, is that how your player is planning to run his character? Also keep in mind if the bayonet is attached reloading the gun is much harder.

If you are after historical accuracy then frankly a musket/rifle wouldn't actually do more damage then crossbow/longbow, and for the musket you should have permanent disadvantage to attacks. The main reason muskets took over from bows is cost. It's much much cheaper to equip and train someone to use a musket then it was to equip/train crossbowman, and don't even talk about longbowmen where the training requirements were crazy.

Obviously when talking about PCs cost isn't the primary concern. So to make it fun interesting you'll have to stray somewhere in terms of being historically accurate either increasing damage, or adding cool effects like enemies having to save or be Frightnened for 1 round or even both if the reloading restrictions are intense.

[Reevh]

A musket is typically about 5 feet long. Add the bayonet and we're talking 6 feet. I think I'd consider that long enough to be a pike (1d10, heavy, reach, piercing). It's not a glaive, really, because bayonets, at least from that era, were more piercing than slashing weapons.

But yeah, I wouldn't consider it overpowered, especially since the character could simply carry a pike alongside his or her rifle.

[PartTimeWarrior]

Thanks very much for the input!

I plan on keeping the reload as a single action as an acceptable break from reality. Going by realism, a heavy crossbow with a winch would certainly take more than a single action to reload, not to mention somebody with the correct feats doing it instantly. This is why I am willing to extend this suspension of disbelief to firearms as well.

There is indeed an action economy advantage in having a bayonetted rifle instead of two weapons, so I agree that a reduction in damage by one tier is probably warranted. So I'll go with 1d8 reach, heavy.Allows for both Polearm Master and Heavy Weapon Master feats to apply. Yeah, I think this ought to be balanced enough. If it proves too weak, I might bump by half a point to 2d4.

Thanks for the input, everyone!

[Gignere]

Thanks very much for the input!

I plan on keeping the reload as a single action as an acceptable break from reality. Going by realism, a heavy crossbow with a winch would certainly take more than a single action to reload, not to mention somebody with the correct feats doing it instantly. This is why I am willing to extend this suspension of disbelief to firearms as well.

There is indeed an action economy advantage in having a bayonetted rifle instead of two weapons, so I agree that a reduction in damage by one tier is probably warranted. So I'll go with 1d8 reach, heavy.Allows for both Polearm Master and Heavy Weapon Master feats to apply. Yeah, I think this ought to be balanced enough. If it proves too weak, I might bump by half a point to 2d4.

Thanks for the input, everyone!

Read Brian McClellan’s Powder Mage trilogy, and I agree with giving musket with bayonet reach and heavy. It would be too cool to build a fighter with, sharpshooter, PAM, and GWM with a musket.