Best rules for modern/semi-modern firearms?

[Fabius Maximus]

So, does anyone have a personal favorite for modern (20th century) or semi-modern (1800-1900) firearms? Pathfinder seems to really focus on the earlier designs, leaving a lot of third party publishers to try and fill in the gaps.

So what would you consider:

1. Most useful and flavorful.

2. Adding the least rules crunch to the game.

3. Making them useful. (this is for more or less modern settings, so absent magic, the guns should be better than swords/plate, etc.).

Thanks!

[Elkad]

The problem is you have to nerf the hell out of them to make them fit D&D rules. (or accept that combats will be over nearly instantly, and incredibly lethal)

D20 Modern probably has the damage about right. Rate of Fire and range increments are sorely lacking.

A few hours of practice with a modern rifle will have you putting a round a second on a moving target within 100' with a very high hit percentage.
Hitting a stationary target at medium range (300m/1000' feet) is even easier. Which isn't even possible with most of the rifles listed in d20 modern.

Actual training will have you taking headshots at 1/second on that guy 100' away (or 4/second at his body). Or hitting at 800m (half a mile) with a full-sized rifle every 2 seconds.

[Powerdork]

Reduce the damage of most weapons by massively pushing the damage dice towards d2s, and then give crossbows higher numbers of d2s, enough to make them viable for your purposes. Reduce hit points to taste.

[Saint-Just]

In D&D\PF there is a problem that even absent Epic\Mythic rules many things that characters do are epic\mythic in a common sense of the word. There is a plenty of characters who can kool-aid man their way through the walls, shrug off being hit with 100-pound boulder, survive explosion unscathed thanks to the Evasion etc. If you calibrate damage against, say steel then you'll probably get plausible results against 1-st level characters but as you approach high level PCs would be able to ignore more more and their melee damage which may have started inferior to the standard "rifle" will overtake it.

Same goes for the plate. As far as I am aware PF doesn't allow massive damage to ignore\reduce AC, I am sure 3.5 doesn't. Plate turns away spears and catapult-launched stones with equal ease. You cannot even just say "plate is not good anymore" because you still have the difference between "tiers" of armor in the modern context - high-quality flexible body armor is practically impenetrable for the pistol bullets but wouldn't have noticeably affect the rifle bullet.

[Elkad]

Maybe high level characters can shrug off bullets.

They'd never get to high level with any kind of realism. Every Hobgoblin with an AR15 in a small room should be hitting you 4 of 6 times in your first round of combat, for 8d8 damage. Oops, new character time.

[Another_Lurker]

Those dates cover everything from Needle Rifles and early black powder metallic cartridges to repeating, self-loading, and fully automatic firearms, not to mention the hundreds other sub-categories that could potentially confer benefit under the Pathfinder rules.

To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing quite *that* comprehensive out there.

Pathfinder's existing Firearm rules should suffice for most everything up to the late 1860s or so when the lever-action repeaters start coming into vogue.

After that, AP 71: Rasputin Must Die! includes statistics for WWII-era weapons. The main things here are swift-action magazine loading from stripper clips, box mags, machine gun belts (which IMO should take longer than a Swift to change out), and the like, as well as the inclusion of a couple machine guns. Those get a line attack per iterative out to the weapon's max range as a Full Attack, which... Sure, not the cone or small Burst I'd expect for a proper beaten zone, but it not nothing.

D20 Modern's weapon set will take you... Well, not *quite* up to modern day, but late '80s or so. M16s, AKs, Cold War Battle Rifles, law enforcement weapons, and hunting arms galore. Adding this is also going to bring considerably more crunch. D20M includes chambering weapons for different cartridges, penalties to hit if your Strength bonus isn't high enough, several different fire modes based on the actual mechanical capabilities of the weapon, along with an extra damage die on all the guns and some with 19/x4 base crits.


As for making standard equipment obsolete, most everything above would fall into the "Advanced" category of firearms, which resolve attacks against Touch AC when the target is within the first 5 range increments. With any reasonable level of availability- Commonplace Guns makes Firearms Martial rather than Exotic, and Guns Everywhere makes them Simple- the only people actually going around in Full Plate and swinging swords will be ceremonial guards on display.

[TotallyNotEvil]

IMO, it wouldn't be far fetched to say armor above a certain threshold of Hardness is effective against bullets as anything else.

One standard I'd probably use if I were introducing commonplace, and especially modern firearms, is that Hardness 20 or higher works fine against anything short of Adamantine bullets. Honestly, that's probably really overshooting it. IIRC, MBTs have Hardness 20 in modern.

So +5 steel armor could do it, +3 Mithral armor could do it and plain Adamantine armor could do it. Of course, Mage Armor and things like that also could do it, being Force effects.

A Hardness 15 standard would be reasonable, too. +3 steel armor is pretty respectable.

It's one thing for low level characters to be mowed down, but people who can regularly survive RPG-in-the-face levels of damage, which is a CL 10 Fireball, then it stands to reason the sort of equipment someone like that uses, and the sort of foes someone like that faces, are no less sturdy.

So I'd recommend some degree of "armor's hardness greater than X" making them effective, or a +X enchantment. And the same for a certain amount of NA. A Babau has essentially fullplate for skin, for example, and that's not a high level creature.

Modern body armor works just fine against bullets after all, and in fact Modern has some tactical suits which are essentially modern day fullplates. I see no reason something like literally magical Mithral armor would be any less effective.

Hell, one of the optional rules touches something I was going to comment: DR is pretty effective against bullets. Modern suggests a certain amount of DR vs bullets for each kind of armor, and goes as high as 7 for entirely mundane gear.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Same goes for the plate. As far as I am aware PF doesn't allow massive damage to ignore\reduce AC, I am sure 3.5 doesn't. Plate turns away spears and catapult-launched stones with equal ease. You cannot even just say "plate is not good anymore" because you still have the difference between "tiers" of armor in the modern context - high-quality flexible body armor is practically impenetrable for the pistol bullets but wouldn't have noticeably affect the rifle bullet.

One of the few pathfinder sourcebooks (3rd party?) I've actually read had primitive firearms, and dealt with the AC problem by saying firearms halved the AC from armor. Magical armor and stuff would still be moderately effective without making guns weirdly ineffective against leather; you take that one step further and say enhancement bonuses from magic armor/shields aren't halved, and neither are super-hard special materials like adamantine.

[D+1]

I'd suggest that you first need to pick a reality for your ongoing game to exist in. Either it's the one where the PC's are typically found that most often scales to them, or it's the reality from which the weapons actually come - the "real world" where such weapons are a recipe for rapid instantaneous death and wholesale slaughter by otherwise weak and unheroic NPC's. In a typical fantasy existence even modern guns would be assigned to a power niche and STAY THERE. PC's would not have access to the most powerful modern guns BECAUSE they are so powerful and unbalancing in a campaign where retaining some semblance of balanced classes and gear is still required. Or it's a grittier, deadlier "realistic" world such as the modern world where the PC's can be shot dead out of the blue in a ride-by shooting.

In the fantasy world of PC heroes the stats are whatever you feel keeps them in balance with the rest of the game and your campaign setting and many of them won't vary all that much by caliber, manufacturer, etc. They'll be broken down into simple categories as they often are - pistols, long arms, and heavier weapons. If you want them used a lot in your game they'll have better stats than swords and bows, and then classes, skills and feats to go with them. If you want them kept more as equal options with traditional weapons then the weapon stats and related classes, feats, and skills will reflect that.

In a "realistic" depiction of modern weapon capabilities upon the PC's, instant death largely irrespective of level, hit location, and special damage results would be called for.

[Elkad]

After that, AP 71: Rasputin Must Die! includes statistics for WWII-era weapons. The main things here are swift-action magazine loading from stripper clips, box mags, machine gun belts (which IMO should take longer than a Swift to change out), and the like, as well as the inclusion of a couple machine guns. Those get a line attack per iterative out to the weapon's max range as a Full Attack, which... Sure, not the cone or small Burst I'd expect for a proper beaten zone, but it not nothing.

Squad MGs (M-60, MG3, M240, PKM, etc) take no longer to load than a stripper clip or speedloader, if you have 1.5 hands free (which means on a mount or bipod, not held. Or in D&D, extra limbs or an Unseen Servant as assistant gunner).
If you don't run it out of ammo (so you don't have to mess with the feed tray) and just link your belts, its as fast as changing a box magazine in a modern rifle. Just line up the last round and first round and squeeze.

Line attack makes sense through your battlesight zero range (Point blank to something between 300-500m depending on caliber and what zero you use). That's the whole point of a battlesight zero - you don't have to adjust the sights, because the rise and fall keeps it in an acceptable elevation change through the whole range. So getting an attack on everyone in that range makes sense.
Beaten zone is for when you are dropping them in at 600-1000m, and the shape changes as the range changes. At 600m it's an oval. At 1000m it's damn near a circle. (7.62x51, the one I have a few hundred thousand rounds of experience with)
You can do a cone by swinging I guess, but you aren't going to get multiple hits per target that way.

And of course if you are an armorer, you can trim the end of the barrel of a GPMG a quarter-inch, recrown it, and get rifle accuracy out of it. They are issued with deliberate inaccuracy, on the theory that you don't need to shoot one guy eleventeen times.
But if you are shooting a pit fiend, you probably want the ability to put an entire 9-round burst in his mouth at 300m.

[Saint-Just]

And of course if you are an armorer, you can trim the end of the barrel of a GPMG a quarter-inch, recrown it, and get rifle accuracy out of it. They are issued with deliberate inaccuracy, on the theory that you don't need to shoot one guy eleventeen times.

I would like some proof about "deliberately inaccurate" machineguns. It's one of those theories that gets repeated time after time but never has official documentation to back it up (which it should, because it's not some super-secret stuff).

[Elkad]

I would like some proof about "deliberately inaccurate" machineguns. It's one of those theories that gets repeated time after time but never has official documentation to back it up (which it should, because it's not some super-secret stuff).

Mine is just anecdotal, but I've shot one. Owner told me it had been done.

I shot about a dozen M60s, and went through several new barrels on my personal one. All basically the same for accuracy - varied slightly with barrel life, etc. And then I shot the one that the Division champ took to the all-army M60 competition (after I won battalion and brigade, and came in 3rd to him at the Division championship). World of difference. I still wouldn't have beat him, he was just better than me, but it's groups were about half the size of the ones from mine. I damn sure would have beat the 2nd place guy (who was also using a stock gun, same as me) with it.

I don't think it's "deliberate inaccuracy" in terms of wanting people to miss. It's just sloppy tolerances deliberately designed for field conditions. Every mass-manufactured gun can be improved by a competent gunsmith. (or any other product for that matter - overclocking your PC, tuning your car, sharpening your own kitchen knives, etc)
I reworked the sear/op rod interface on mine, because that's easy to do with a stone. My trigger was as good as his. Recrowning a barrel I can't do sitting on my bunk. Tuning the gas system takes tools I didn't have as well.
"Sloppy tolerances" gives a reliability advantage.. A "perfect" firing chamber is susceptible to jamming with bad ammo. A gas system tuned for exact bolt throw will short-stroke and jam if the gun gets too dirty. Etc.

A MG with 4MOA accuracy that can eat 10k rounds without a malfunction is better than one with 1MOA accuracy that jams 1% of the time in field conditions.

[Saint-Just]

Mine is just anecdotal, but I've shot one. Owner told me it had been done.

I shot about a dozen M60s, and went through several new barrels on my personal one. All basically the same for accuracy - varied slightly with barrel life, etc. And then I shot the one that the Division champ took to the all-army M60 competition (after I won battalion and brigade, and came in 3rd to him at the Division championship). World of difference. I still wouldn't have beat him, he was just better than me, but it's groups were about half the size of the ones from mine. I damn sure would have beat the 2nd place guy (who was also using a stock gun, same as me) with it.

I don't think it's "deliberate inaccuracy" in terms of wanting people to miss. It's just sloppy tolerances deliberately designed for field conditions. Every mass-manufactured gun can be improved by a competent gunsmith. (or any other product for that matter - overclocking your PC, tuning your car, sharpening your own kitchen knives, etc)
I reworked the sear/op rod interface on mine, because that's easy to do with a stone. My trigger was as good as his. Recrowning a barrel I can't do sitting on my bunk. Tuning the gas system takes tools I didn't have as well.
"Sloppy tolerances" gives a reliability advantage.. A "perfect" firing chamber is susceptible to jamming with bad ammo. A gas system tuned for exact bolt throw will short-stroke and jam if the gun gets too dirty. Etc.

A MG with 4MOA accuracy that can eat 10k rounds without a malfunction is better than one with 1MOA accuracy that jams 1% of the time in field conditions.

I do not doubt that average MG's accuracy can be improved (so can an average infantry rifle's one) by a gunsmith. And both costs savings and reliability in the field conditions are concerns that are taken into account by every military everywhere (or at least they should be).

I've read your phrasing "deliberate inaccuracy" as oft-repeated myth that MG's are purposefully made in such a way that projectiles would spread in a cone and therefore increase the chance of at least one hit even if your aim is off. After re-reading I do say that your phrasing was merely ambiguous, so I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

[Elkad]

your phrasing was merely ambiguous, so I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Yeah it does read that way. My own fault.

In game terms it should be something like "a masterwork MG needs masterwork ammo, or the malfunction chance is double a non-masterwork weapon."
Should probably also require a minimum skill level (to cover for the better maintenance it needs).

Maybe "runaway gun" should be on the malfunction table too. "Weapon expends 10d10 rounds of ammo uncontrollably". To cover for idjits that stone the sear down too far, or let the trigger assembly fall off (notorious with the earliest M-60s).

[Tiktakkat]

Maybe high level characters can shrug off bullets.

They'd never get to high level with any kind of realism. Every Hobgoblin with an AR15 in a small room should be hitting you 4 of 6 times in your first round of combat, for 8d8 damage. Oops, new character time.

Except if the hobgoblin has an AR-15 then so do the PCs.
Which means the functional effect is simply making the Rocket Tag of high level play start at 1st level.

Meanwhile, just because someone has a firearm does not mean they actually hit with a firearm all the time, so that hobgoblin better be making some good attack rolls.
Seriously, accuracy is not included in the weapon. I recall one comment from one of the authors of GDWs "Twilight 2000" RPG that given the number of rounds fired to cause one casualty, he considered setting the rules so that players rolled to see if they happened to be hit each round of a firefight rather than rolling to hit, but the effect on the perceptions of players that their combat skills were not particularly relevant decided against it.

Also, who does house clearing like that? If we are throwing around modern weapons that casually, how about sending a nice flash-bang, or even a good old frag, into the room first to do a bit of recon?
Which of course raises the issue of how the scale of dungeon crawls would have to be changed.


All of that shows to me that a lot of the questions of adding firearms to D&D, modern, semi-modern, even muskets and the like, is because while players have no problem with a less-than-simulationist rules set for melee weapons and bows, they insist on a hard simulationist rules set for firearms, and then want them even more overpowered and destructive.
Yes, a bullet from a modern rifle kills.
You know what also kills?
A sword cut.
But the damage from a rifle must be 3-10 times that of a sword because . . . "gun!"?

So the "best" rules for such weapons?
As horrible as it might sound, the 4E "solution" of refluffing special effects but leaving all attack powers essentially the same might be the best.
It's a gun. It's like a bow, but louder, and reloads differently. Otherwise, same attack roll, same damage.

[Elkad]

No, a bullet isn't more deadly than a sword. But the skill level to use a firearm is much lower (also true with crossbows), and it is exceedingly difficult to stab someone with a sword 11 times in two seconds.