Firearms and Artificers

[Darthnazrael]

Eberron: Rising from the Last War proposed that Artificers might optionally be allowed to be proficient with Firearms as mentioned in the DMG, but it doesn't really elaborate further. Surely level 1 Artificers shouldn't be running around with Antimatter Rifles doing 6d8+Dex Necrotic per attack. So I decided to math out what I think a fair implementation would be with respect to the 3 (non-UA) subclasses of Artificer. This is how I would allow an Artificer to use Firearms in any game I ran.

First of call, a caveat: The Revolver, Hunting Rifle, Automatic Rifle, and Antimatter Rifle are all banned, even when their technology level opens up to a character. The Automatic Rifle *could* be allowed, since it doesn't do additional damage as opposed to other 2H Modern Firearms, merely allows a small AoE basic attack. But that's still a bunch of AoE damage with the only drawback being needing to reload sooner, and it is strictly better than the shotgun in every aspect.

Firearms Proficiency
At 1st level, Artificers become proficient with Renaissance-era Firearms, and can craft them using Tinker's Tools, Woodcarver's Tools, or Smith's Tools.
Arcane Firearm
At 5th level, Artillerists normally gain this ability. It works as written, but its additional damage is also applied to Firearms attacks. Additionally, at this level, Artillerists become proficient with Modern-era Firearms, and can craft them using Tinker's Tools, Woodcarver's Tools or Smith's Tools.
Bring Out the Big Guns
At 11th level, Artillerists become proficient with Future-era Firearms, and can craft them using Tinker's Tools, Woodcarver's Tools, or Smith's Tools.
Force Multiplier
At 11th level, Battle Smiths become proficient with Modern-era Firearms, and can craft them using Tinker's Tools, Woodcarver's Tools, or Smith's Tools.
I compared the damage progression of these changes to a few benchmarks, charted here, including those from other classes (Warlock and Great Weapon Fighter, specifically), as well as existing damage progressions from the class. These changes achieve my desired goals for Firearms proficiency in Artificers, outlined below:

• As Artificers are the only characters with Proficiency in Firearms (except Gunslingers, which is not being addressed here), Firearms should be a signature weapon for the class. Therefore, it should be the most mechanically advantageous weapon for at least one subclass, or at least compete with whatever is.
• I think Firearms should fill a different role with each of the 3 subclasses.
For alchemists, the most supportive and 'caster'-y of the subclasses, they should fill a role similar to the light crossbow for the wizard: "That thing I wield until my cantrips are a better choice." The damage progression shows exactly that, with Fire Bolt quickly and easily surpassing Renaissance Firearms wielded with no access to extra attack as of level 5.
For Battlesmiths, weapons are preferred over cantrips as a means of attack, so Firearms should be a competitive choice. A Battlesmith with Great Weapon Master and a Greatsword remains the most consistent damage dealer, as well it should since it is risking the front line, but access to Renaissance Firearms, followed by Modern firearms at level 11, allows ranged Battlesmiths to keep pace but never match nor surpass GWM Artificers. If you're wondering how a level 11 damage buff for Firearms doesn't pass up the lack of such in GWM builds, I will point out how much GWM benefits from the consistently increasing attack bonus of Artificer Infusions, as compared to the already already-accurate but lower-damage firearms. It was important, however, that Battlesmiths not have the full Firearms progression of the Artillerist, because gaining an increase in damage alongside an extra attack is too powerful, like if an Eldritch Knight could use Booming Blade w/ Extra attack at level 5. Notably, before becoming a Battlesmith, a Great Weapon Battlesmith build may choose to dump their STR and rely on Firearms as a better attack option until they become Battlesmiths, and start using their INT for Greatsword attacks.
Artillerists literally have an ability called 'Arcane Firearm'. And the word 'artillerist' itself evokes gunnery themes. As the DPS subclass with this theme, it only makes sense that Artillerists make competitive use of Firearms. Allowing them to progress through the full tree keeps firearms competitive with Fire Bolt as the attack of choice. Specifically, at low levels, like with all Artificers, Firearms are the correct choice. At 5th level, the match is incredibly close: a semi-automatic pistol slightly underperforms Fire Bolt (also a 1H option), while the Shotgun slightly overperforms, meaning an optimized level 5 Artillerist is choosing between Fire Bolt + Shield vs. Musket. At level 11, even with the Future-era Firearms, Fire Bolt is still doing slightly more damage than any firearm.
On the subject of 'Arcane Firearm', I felt it made no sense to have an ability called Arcane Firearm that added damage, just not to Firearms. So all of the comparisons listed above include Artillerists adding their +1d8 to Firearms attacks as of level 5, per my suggestion. This is a factor in keeping Firearms a competitive choice for as long as they are.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I disagree with connecting Artificer to firearms because I think firearms, as they are presented in the DMG, are fundamentally flawed, mainly in terms of verisimilitude (or, at the very least, flavour).

Why does a Renaissance pistol do the same damage as a heavy crossbow? How do characters manage to reload Renaissance weapons in one round when the intent (from my understanding) is that these are weapons that still use black powder and percussion caps?

The reloading issue is somewhat rectified when 'modern' styled weapons and the assumed adoption/creation of cartridges, but why does a shotgun only do 2d8 damage? Ironically, the average zombie cannot be killed by a shotgun blast.

I understand the need for balance, but it directly conflicts with the idea of firearms (as most people colloquially understand them) as miniature cannons that spit balls of death at ludicrous speeds towards the enemy. I think that if the Artificer were to wield firearms, it would have to be a design uniquely grounded in the themes of the class (namely, the synthesis of the mechanical with the magical) rather than giving them muskets, SPAS-12s and laser guns.

Of course, this is mainly just my grievances with the firearms as a whole, but I think it should be worth considering both the purpose and flavour of them if you wish to add them to your game. Though, looking back at it, I think the revolver as presented would actually be a good fit for my games :smallbiggrin:.

[Sorinth]

I disagree with connecting Artificer to firearms because I think firearms, as they are presented in the DMG, are fundamentally flawed, mainly in terms of verisimilitude (or, at the very least, flavour).

Why does a Renaissance pistol do the same damage as a heavy crossbow? How do characters manage to reload Renaissance weapons in one round when the intent (from my understanding) is that these are weapons that still use black powder and percussion caps?

The reloading issue is somewhat rectified when 'modern' styled weapons and the assumed adoption/creation of cartridges, but why does a shotgun only do 2d8 damage? Ironically, the average zombie cannot be killed by a shotgun blast.

I understand the need for balance, but it directly conflicts with the idea of firearms (as most people colloquially understand them) as miniature cannons that spit balls of death at ludicrous speeds towards the enemy. I think that if the Artificer were to wield firearms, it would have to be a design uniquely grounded in the themes of the class (namely, the synthesis of the mechanical with the magical) rather than giving them muskets, SPAS-12s and laser guns.

Of course, this is mainly just my grievances with the firearms as a whole, but I think it should be worth considering both the purpose and flavour of them if you wish to add them to your game. Though, looking back at it, I think the revolver as presented would actually be a good fit for my games :smallbiggrin:.

I think you could argue that modern firearms should deal more damage then a heavy crossbow, but honestly not much. If verisimilitude is what you are after then you have to factor in that people survive gun shot wounds all the time so doing a ton of damage isn't even realistic. Historically the reason firearms became so prolific was because they were easy to mass produce and it was to train people to use them.A longbow in a trained person hands was without question the better weapon compared to a renaisance (And even later) firearm, but crafting the longbow was harder and it took a huge amount of effort to turn your average Joe into someone capable of using the longbow whereas it was relatively easy to train and equip that person to use a musket or rifle.

[AdAstra]

Muzzle-loading single-shot firearms are kinda unworkable by nature as a primary weapon in DnD, with its expectation of 6 seconds per round in the recent editions. Fundamentally, the way we conceptualize firearms as working in a realistic setting is inherently at odds with how DnD combat tends to work: attritional, with a large number of blows being struck at foes to bring them down. Even single shots from firearms, on the other hand, are generally expected to be at least seriously harmful to fleshy humanoids, with numbers, inaccuracy, and cover being the primary factors of "durability". At the same time, muzzle-loaders are so slow to reload compared to DnD combat that most of the time you wouldn't be able to get off more than one or two shots before the fight is over.

So in order to accommodate guns, you're more or less forced to do one of the following:

-Ditch realism and tone down firearm power. Increase fire rate so that firearms characters can actually contribute.

-Make firearms something of a limited-use item. Guns are
powerful, but can only really be used once in most fights. Most rounds you'd be expected to rely on other options. Even if you do this, you still can't make guns too strong or else combat involving guns remains too lethal for a combat-heavy game.

-Dramatically change the nature of the combat system. Something along the lines of rounds taking 30 seconds to 1 minute, allowing muzzle-loading firearms to shoot at least once per round. Combat will either be much more lethal on a round to round basis, or characters will be far more durable than most people would consider realistic.

Also the idea that guns were only useful due to being easier to use is pretty easily dispelled. Bullets will do better against armor for a given level of investment (it's easier to make a bigger gun than to acquire a soldier capable of using a larger longbow, with the longbow already being at the upper end of warbow power), and despite smoothbores' reputation for inaccuracy, is actually easier to get hits with against targets at all ranges. People just don't consider how hard it actually is to get hits with longbows, even when well-trained and in good conditions, much less ones you would actually see in combat. They were very much area weapons at anything beyond short range. The effective rate of fire for longbows is also often overstated. While they can be very fast in short bursts, that tires the archer out very quickly. The rate of fire that an archer can effectively sustain is a lot closer to that of crossbows. That's in addition to the easier training and logistics.

[MeeposFire]

Artificers do not care about reloading as they have an infusion to make reloading a thing of the past (also no worries about ammo).