Black powder/Muskets in 5e

[blackjack50]

This is something I love to have in my games. I love the golden age of piracy lore and enjoy learning about history that is in the 1700s. I always forget to remind my players that they have access to these. So when a player has them…I tend to treat them like a crossbow. Or use Mercer’s rules. But I got to thinking about this a bit more. Especially since I’m a history teacher and an avid outdoorsmen.

The thing about muskets? They aren’t accurate. And they are slow. A top tier and highly trained musket user could get 4 shots in a minute, and a well trained soldier could get 3. That equates to 3-4 shots per 10 rounds of combat (or 1 per 2.5-3.3 turns). A bow can easily fire faster. And a crossbow is about the same fire rate as a musket. But both are more precise and accurate at the same ranges. They just CANNOT compare in damage or simplicity in training. Not to mention…add a bayonet and you have a pike.

What does that mean? Well. If you have a group of peasant farmers? You would be better off forming a militia of musketeers than crossbow men or longbow men. They don’t have to be strong or practiced.

So as a DM? I’d say having peasants in a 1700s era having muskets would be normal. Or having a “powder house” and “armory.” At the very least? Your guards should have a musket and a bayonet. But the key is that the accuracy should be LOW with the weapons. I’d maybe even consider the bayonet as the “normal” weapon. Like a “plug bayonet” where they plug the barrel after they fire (thus rendering the gun unusable until after a short or long rest).

How do y’all feel about this? How much consideration do you give to these concepts? Does anyone else have muskets in game regularly?

[NorthernPhoenix]

If someone really wants to be a pirate type, I'd be inclined to let their character specifically use the non-overpowered guns from the DMG (no space lazers) but i really don't care for trying to give everyone guns and diverting the fantasy setting I've stablished that i want to play in into some kind of gun-revolution plotline.

[blackjack50]

If someone really wants to be a pirate type, I'd be inclined to let their character specifically use the non-overpowered guns from the DMG (no space lazers) but i really don't care for trying to give everyone guns and diverting the fantasy setting I've stablished that i want to play in into some kind of gun-revolution plotline.

Well I think that is part of the game. As a DM you can say no to that, but if you want to have a game where the timeline is past high fantasy setting? The rules work great into the 1700s for combat. You just have to equip the world accordingly. I feel like DnD hasn’t explored that time frame often enough. Or at least? That players/dms don’t use that era often. Which is why I’m wondering if I just don’t see people talking about and they do? And what experiences people have with it I guess.

[Witty Username]

I have seen rpgs use muskets as once per encounter weapons to take into account the reload time.
As for accuracy, D&D ranges trend much lower than historical ranged combat. Quick wiki check, muskets get 50-100 meters (roughly 150 yards, 450 feet, 90 squares). Just using the DMG firearms rules should be fine for that.

[blackjack50]

I have seen rpgs use muskets as once per encounter weapons to take into account the reload time.
As for accuracy, D&D ranges trend much lower than historical ranged combat. Quick wiki check, muskets get 50-100 meters (roughly 150 yards, 450 feet, 90 squares). Just using the DMG firearms rules should be fine for that.

I tend to be ok with it, but I’d almost like to tweak it a bit so that there is more damage, but less accuracy.

[blackjack50]

I have seen rpgs use muskets as once per encounter weapons to take into account the reload time.
As for accuracy, D&D ranges trend much lower than historical ranged combat. Quick wiki check, muskets get 50-100 meters (roughly 150 yards, 450 feet, 90 squares). Just using the DMG firearms rules should be fine for that.

Maybe make an adjustment so that a character can’t reload if there is an enemy within 5 feet?

[Hytheter]

The DMG muskets are stronger than bows, but have a much lower range which is functionally similar to being less accurate. They work fine as is, IMO.

[Toadkiller]

Maybe it’s an action to attempt to reload, roll a d20 and with 10 or more that’s - “reload save”. Two saves and you can fire it again. Roll a 20 and it counts as 2. Or add Dex bonus and rolls over 19 count as 2? Cumbersome. But so is reloading a musket.

Nobody is going to try to reload in melee with those rules. But it is possible to reload and fire several times in a minute if you have cover. The damage would have to be pretty strong to be worth it. Would encourage them to have more than one gun (especially pistols being easier to carry).

[blackjack50]

Maybe it’s an action to attempt to reload, roll a d20 and with 10 or more that’s - “reload save”. Two saves and you can fire it again. Roll a 20 and it counts as 2. Or add Dex bonus and rolls over 19 count as 2? Cumbersome. But so is reloading a musket.

Nobody is going to try to reload in melee with those rules. But it is possible to reload and fire several times in a minute if you have cover. The damage would have to be pretty strong to be worth it. Would encourage them to have more than one gun (especially pistols being easier to carry).

I like that.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Well I think that is part of the game. As a DM you can say no to that, but if you want to have a game where the timeline is past high fantasy setting? The rules work great into the 1700s for combat. You just have to equip the world accordingly. I feel like DnD hasn’t explored that time frame often enough. Or at least? That players/dms don’t use that era often. Which is why I’m wondering if I just don’t see people talking about and they do? And what experiences people have with it I guess.

If you want to play in a setting where everyone has guns, then everyone has guns, i guess. The reason this is less talked about is presumably because it's a less popular setting for 5e compared to other games that are more specifically designed for such things. That said, nothing really breaks mechanically if you use the musket era DMG guns instead of bows. Most people who are not experts (players or NPCs) only get one shot by default anyway.

[Warder]

High damage, one and done, reload between encounters - that's how I'd do it. Also highly volatile, no "braces of loaded pistols" to get around it.

[Keltest]

Maybe it’s an action to attempt to reload, roll a d20 and with 10 or more that’s - “reload save”. Two saves and you can fire it again. Roll a 20 and it counts as 2. Or add Dex bonus and rolls over 19 count as 2? Cumbersome. But so is reloading a musket.

Nobody is going to try to reload in melee with those rules. But it is possible to reload and fire several times in a minute if you have cover. The damage would have to be pretty strong to be worth it. Would encourage them to have more than one gun (especially pistols being easier to carry).

I think for the sake of gameplay simplicity, having RNG in whether you can reload your weapon is probably not ideal. Im trying to settle on some rules for guns in my setting (the primary limiter is access to gunpowder rather than necessarily the rarity of the weapon itself) and i think just requiring an action to reload (which provokes an opportunity attack in melee) is discouragement enough without also giving people a chance for an unlucky streak just not allowing them to attack for turns at a time.

[DarknessEternal]

Never used any muskets. More advanced firearms were already in use before rapiers, so I use those.

[Mobius Twist]

If it helps, I've done a modified version of Fire Lances (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance) in a game set around 1100s-era tech level. You trigger the firing mechanism and then hold it steady for 3 turns, each turn loosing a modified cone of shrapnel with a Dex DC to take half-damage piercing, somewhere around 3d6 each turn. Once that 3-round fire is exhausted, the fire lance is basically a spear.

It's an awkward, two-handed weapon, but it's better than a Burning Hands spell and you can hand one out to each rank-and-file spearman in your army to sweep aside heavy infantry and cavalry they come across. Changes the power dynamic substantially, even if it's single-use in a battle.

[Sorinth]

I think the best way to handle it is to have firearms use Dex saves with the DC set by the gun maker. Then have it be an action to reload and use the same wording as steady aim so you cant move and reload.

The dex portion isnt actively dodging the bullet but more that since in a fight everyone is almost constantly bobbing and weaving its just extra hard to hit ones with good dex.

Getting one shot every 2 rounds fits perfectly with the British army being able to fire 5 shots a minute. But they were the best trained, most other armies were like the OP said at 3 or 4 shots a minute. So maybe make it a skill check but keep the DC to something like 10 so that a well trained person isn't hampered too often.

Primarily this makes firearms feel very different since no other weapon uses saving throws instead of attacks rolls. It fits with the notoriously inaccurate part since most firearms will have low DCs. It also gives that armor piercing quality since a high AC doesn't help (Specialized plate meant to deflect bullets could grant advantage if you wanted). Overall it's a solid weapon for a commoner/similar low skill creature to use but high skilled people would be better off with a longbow which fits historically.

For PCs there is a niche for Rogue-Thief since they could reload as a BA (Fast Hands) and so could take a shot every round. For others they will probably just have a belt of pistols where you draw and fire with your offhand. I would allow that as a part of regular TWF and not class/feat/fighting style lock it but thats just me. Either way it gives pistols a niche for those who don't have good BAs. Just limit the number that can actually be holstered at any one time.

[Toadkiller]

Thought about this some more. The Hornblower and the Aubrey books might give a mental framework even if you don’t want a nautical setting. In one of them the hero (I think it was Aubrey) boards an enemy ship with two pistols and a cutlass.

As I recall the action economy was: fire the pistol, drop it, draw cutlass. Melee fighting. Then fire the other pistol tactically at a tough opponent. Very tabletop RPG combat really.

[Sigreid]

I thought about this a bit in regards to a lance and a fighter, actually. I've toyed with the idea that on a lance charge the fighter rolls all their attacks and for each hit they roll their damage. Cinematically, it's one really, really good hit if they hit multiple times, mechanics wise, it's multiple hits on the charge. You could do the same with guns. They're firing one shot per round, but each attack they have is an attack roll to get a better hit.

[Dark.Revenant]

Why are firearms slow to reload, but crossbows aren't?

[Warder]

Thought about this some more. The Hornblower and the Aubrey books might give a mental framework even if you don’t want a nautical setting. In one of them the hero (I think it was Aubrey) boards an enemy ship with two pistols and a cutlass.

As I recall the action economy was: fire the pistol, drop it, draw cutlass. Melee fighting. Then fire the other pistol tactically at a tough opponent. Very tabletop RPG combat really.

The Spelljammer novels treat them similarly. Fire, then switch to a melee weapon. They use smokepowder consisting of two different components that are inert when they're apart, but highly volatile when mixed together. A pistol blows up in the hand of a giff who tries to fire one, but they're devastating when they work.

That's exactly how I'd use firearms in D&D. Expensive, unreliable, powerful, and implemented in such a way that you can't really be a "gunslinger", but so that they'd be strong complements to traditional weaponry.

[Dork_Forge]

Honestly the versimillitude of slowly loading a black powder weapon soemwhat goes out the window with just how much a PC can do within 6 seconds.

I generally like the firearm rules from the gunslinger, the misfire shows the rudimentary nature of the firearms whilst also allowing someone that wants to be good ways around it. Whilst muskets aren't as accurate as a skilled longbow man, there's also other factors, like powder getting wet or the ball just plain falling out of the barrel before you go to fire.

A lot of these things can be condensed into a 'misfire' for simplicity, but also because the realities of using these things just aren't very heroic. PCs should be able to largely avoid the pitfalls the random wheat farmer that got their gun last week would experience.

For the pirate theme I just don't see muskets as important, because in my had pirates are about boarding parties, a bandolier (or at least a brace) of pistols to draw fire and forget with a main weapon of sword or some such.

If you're looking at an alternative way to do it, the gunsmith artificer from UA basically had a super powerful one shot a round rifle, that might be useful?

[Morphic tide]

Why are firearms slow to reload, but crossbows aren't?
Because the crossbows typically represented are direct drawback or levered where most of the time is actually just getting the right pose, while the firearms typically represented have to have the powder poured in, then the projectile dropped, then be packed down, then the action manually reset.

Of course, if you're wanting to model a winch-drawn crossbow or cartridges of any stripe this would be the other way around, but that's well outside the normal D&D contexts.

[Dork_Forge]

You could also justify higher rates of fire with multiple barrels if desired, a two barrel, side-by-side musket would allow for a couple of controlled shots or a 'burst' for more damage at lower accuracy, kind of like sharpshooter.

[Gignere]

Or maybe they’re a powder mage and can float two shots out of a musket with every shot. God I guess I’m one of the few D&D and powder mage fans.

So I’m ok with extra attacks with muskets and pistols. Hell even fighters with 4 attacks, they’re just powder mages in my mind.

[Thane of Fife]

A bow can easily fire faster. And a crossbow is about the same fire rate as a musket. But both are more precise and accurate at the same ranges. They just CANNOT compare in damage or simplicity in training. Not to mention…add a bayonet and you have a pike.

What does that mean? Well. If you have a group of peasant farmers? You would be better off forming a militia of musketeers than crossbow men or longbow men. They don’t have to be strong or practiced.

This is a myth. We have numerous documented arguments from (for example) 1500's England about whether firearms or bows were better, and they are pretty consistent about arguing that muskets and arquebuses were longer ranged, more accurate, and deadlier than bows, and that they were thus worth using, even though it was harder to train someone to use a firearm than to train them to use a bow.

I recommend bowvsmusket (https://bowvsmusket.com/), which is a blog where the author has helpfully collected a bunch of period sources that touch on comparisons between them. So you can look through those and make up your own mind.

In a fantasy setting, of course, you can come up with reasons why a bow would be better. Maybe they interact badly with magic (the Arcanum solution, I think). I don't know.



(On another note) Personally, one idea I've messed around with was having early firearms in a sort of laser format. I imagined something like having a slot near the back of the musket with an exposed crystal of some sort. Over time, the crystal would absorb light. Then, when it's fully charged, you close the slot and pull the trigger; this strikes the crystal with a hammer, causing it to release an energy bolt down the barrel. Then you open the slot and let it recharge. It would function basically like an ordinary musket or whatever, except that instead of having to actively reload it, you would just have to wait (in the AD&D where I was planning this, I think you could fire a musket once every four rounds or so). And of course it wouldn't need ammunition, though you might have to periodically replace the crystal. I thought it would be an interesting way to show a more advanced fantasy society without going magitech, but still showing that their world's not the same as ours.

[Dork_Forge]

Or maybe they’re a powder mage and can float two shots out of a musket with every shot. God I guess I’m one of the few D&D and powder mage fans.

So I’m ok with extra attacks with muskets and pistols. Hell even fighters with 4 attacks, they’re just powder mages in my mind.

I'm a big powder mage fan, I just don't like making someone a type of mage to justify their ability to use a weapon, tbh I'd just rather not over think it and let the weapon be the weapon. Comparisons with irl never really suite D&D play well imo.

Also nitpick: If floating two shots were a common thing then Taniel wouldn't have warranted the nick name 'Two Shot.' It was a difficult and unusual skill, it's more common for powder mages to just manipulate the trajectory and impact energy of the shot. If you're looking for powder mages to be quicker at the loading and firing procedure, then it'd be that they can skip priming and firing altogether. Just loading the barrel and detonating the powder by thought directly.

Though as we learn in one of the books, a powder mage doesn't need a gun at all, just powder and shot. Adding a firearm just increases accuracy to some degree.

[Dark.Revenant]

Because the crossbows typically represented are direct drawback or levered

I have trouble believing a "heavy crossbow" could be anything but an arbalest. Unless of course such things don't exist at all, which would be strange if plate armor is available.

[Gignere]

I'm a big powder mage fan, I just don't like making someone a type of mage to justify their ability to use a weapon, tbh I'd just rather not over think it and let the weapon be the weapon. Comparisons with irl never really suite D&D play well imo.

Also nitpick: If floating two shots were a common thing then Taniel wouldn't have warranted the nick name 'Two Shot.' It was a difficult and unusual skill, it's more common for powder mages to just manipulate the trajectory and impact energy of the shot. If you're looking for powder mages to be quicker at the loading and firing procedure, then it'd be that they can skip priming and firing altogether. Just loading the barrel and detonating the powder by thought directly.

Though as we learn in one of the books, a powder mage doesn't need a gun at all, just powder and shot. Adding a firearm just increases accuracy to some degree.

Fair enough but it’s a great example of a setting that mixes sword and sorcery with gunpowder and I love it. I think a battlemaster with the gunner feat and sharpshooter makes for a fantastic powder mage with a little reflavoring.

You can reskin the maneuvers as the powder mage burning powder and adding additional power to the shot, and it works great because most maneuvers work after a hit. Sharpshooter is the powder mage ability to fire guns more accurately and farther than non powder mages.

Yes Tomas can shoot bullets without a gun just by igniting powder.

[Dork_Forge]

Fair enough but it’s a great example of a setting that mixes sword and sorcery with gunpowder and I love it. I think a battlemaster with the gunner feat and sharpshooter makes for a fantastic powder mage with a little reflavoring.

You can reskin the maneuvers as the powder mage burning powder and adding additional power to the shot, and it works great because most maneuvers work after a hit. Sharpshooter is the powder mage ability to fire guns more accurately and farther than non powder mages.

Yes Tomas can shoot bullets without a gun just by igniting powder.

It's a great series and I think it does it well, but it isn't representative of repeated firearm use in combat...

Frequently after an initial shot things just go to melee, with either bayonet fencing or use of actual swords, enhanced by the powder trance and redirected energy. You could make a reason to justify it if you did do frequent shots, but besides increased accuracy, a little Wanted-ness, and Tamas the gunplay is basically the same as it would be otherwise. Fire, if enemy is close switch to melee.


I really think this is best dealt with by not trying to justify it, PCs are PCs, they do nuts things in 6 seconds. If the amount of time becomes a problem, then... just ignore the amount of time, change it, or abstract it out to 'a round' which is how most of us talk about and think about it anyway.

[Lord Vukodlak]

This is a myth. We have numerous documented arguments from (for example) 1500's England about whether firearms or bows were better, and they are pretty consistent about arguing that muskets and arquebuses were longer ranged, more accurate, and deadlier than bows, and that they were thus worth using, even though it was harder to train someone to use a firearm than to train them to use a bow.

I recommend bowvsmusket (https://bowvsmusket.com/), which is a blog where the author has helpfully collected a bunch of period sources that touch on comparisons between them. So you can look through those and make up your own mind.

In a fantasy setting, of course, you can come up with reasons why a bow would be better. Maybe they interact badly with magic (the Arcanum solution, I think). I don't know.
.
One can also have something be better for a military vs an adventurer. A bow string made from water and fire resistant material isn’t as much of and issue as gunpowder.

If you regularly run into things that spit fire and wade waist deep in water. Carrying explosive powders not the best idea.

Not to mention it’s a lot easier to shoot a bow and fade back into the foliage then with a weapon that founds like thunder and puffs out clouds of smoke.

[Keltest]

One can also have something be better for a military vs an adventurer. A bow string made from water and fire resistant material isn’t as much of and issue as gunpowder.

If you regularly run into things that spit fire and wade waist deep in water. Carrying explosive powders not the best idea.

Not to mention it’s a lot easier to shoot a bow and fade back into the foliage then with a weapon that founds like thunder and puffs out clouds of smoke.

Maybe most importantly, its a lot easier to carry a spare bow string than it is a gun maintenance workshop, and much easier to fletch more arrows than craft more gunpowder and shot in the field.

[Gurgeh]

Gunpowder might be a little tricky in the field, but making simple musket balls is drastically easier than fletching an arrow. Melt lead (melting point is below 300 celsius, achievable in a campfire), pour into a mould.

EDIT:

Never used any muskets. More advanced firearms were already in use before rapiers, so I use those.
This isn't really correct; if you're talking about early rifles, then they were - as with many other things - a case of a trade-off when compared to contemporary smoothbore muskets. They were far more prone to fouling and more difficult to load (even an expert rifleman would struggle to fire three rounds a minute, while experienced soldiers could manage four or five rounds a minute with a musket), and their superior range and accuracy tended to not be relevant in most battlefield conditions. Rifled weapons didn't supersede smoothbore muskets until the 19th century, and depended on advances in both gun construction (allowing them to be breech-loaded and therefore used from a prone position) and propellant (with blackpowder replaced by newer explosives that produced less smoke and fouling around the barrel).

[Hytheter]

Gunpowder might be a little tricky in the field, but making simple musket balls is drastically easier than fletching an arrow. Melt lead (melting point is below 300 celsius, achievable in a campfire), pour into a mould.

My question would be, if you already had lead to make bullets out of why didn't you already make it into bullets? Else where are you picking up lead to make more bullets in the middle of an expedition?

[Dork_Forge]

My question would be, if you already had lead to make bullets out of why didn't you already make it into bullets? Else where are you picking up lead to make more bullets in the middle of an expedition?

The patriot has an example of this, melting toy soldiers down, so more of a scavenge what you can find or cannibalise other pieces of kit as necessary kind of thing I'd imagine. You could also take a more "oh dear, we're not looking good" approach and cram whatever will fit down the barrels. In one flintlock fantasy book I read a group actually had to make the choice to put their wages (small coins) into their pistols as ammo when faced with a better supplied and overwhelming force.

Archery and musketry both have their own sets of issues with ammunition and upkeep, but it is a give an take rather than a clear winner.

[Sorinth]

This is a myth. We have numerous documented arguments from (for example) 1500's England about whether firearms or bows were better, and they are pretty consistent about arguing that muskets and arquebuses were longer ranged, more accurate, and deadlier than bows, and that they were thus worth using, even though it was harder to train someone to use a firearm than to train them to use a bow.

I recommend bowvsmusket (https://bowvsmusket.com/), which is a blog where the author has helpfully collected a bunch of period sources that touch on comparisons between them. So you can look through those and make up your own mind.

In a fantasy setting, of course, you can come up with reasons why a bow would be better. Maybe they interact badly with magic (the Arcanum solution, I think). I don't know.



(On another note) Personally, one idea I've messed around with was having early firearms in a sort of laser format. I imagined something like having a slot near the back of the musket with an exposed crystal of some sort. Over time, the crystal would absorb light. Then, when it's fully charged, you close the slot and pull the trigger; this strikes the crystal with a hammer, causing it to release an energy bolt down the barrel. Then you open the slot and let it recharge. It would function basically like an ordinary musket or whatever, except that instead of having to actively reload it, you would just have to wait (in the AD&D where I was planning this, I think you could fire a musket once every four rounds or so). And of course it wouldn't need ammunition, though you might have to periodically replace the crystal. I thought it would be an interesting way to show a more advanced fantasy society without going magitech, but still showing that their world's not the same as ours.

When talking accuracy it's important to make a distinction between one person shooting a target and a line of people shooting. In a battlefield situation the accuracy difference is irrelevant since it's about volume of shot in an area. And this is true for both bows and firearms, you aren't aiming at a small target you are aiming at an area.

In terms of training, yes you couldn't take a random nobody and turn them into a competent musketman in an afternoon, but we are talking weeks/months, whereas take a random nobody and they simply can't use a longbow because they simply don't have the strength to draw. But yeah the consequence of training is vastly different, a badly trained musketmen will blow himself and possibly others up, a badly trained longbowman will simply not be able to shoot as expected.

The myth about longbow vs firearms is more about line battles. In a straight line battle the longbow would vastly outclass a musket. But it's irrelevant since in an actual battle a line of longbowman would be wiped out by a cavalry charge unless they had terrain/fortifications. With muskets they just form square and can repel cavalry. In fact this is actually where a lot of the training went, being able to maneuver in formation was a huge part of training.

[TheMango55]

I’m slowly working on a homebrew world based on pillars of eternity 2, which is nautical themed and has early guns. My solution will be that guns will be more powerful than other ranged weapons but reloading a barrel either takes an action or a bonus action, and if you have extra attack you can use one of those attacks to reload a barrel.

I would get rid of the gunner feat in Tasha’s and replace it with one called Quick Draw. It would let you reload 2 barrels in the same time you could normally reload one, and if you make an attack with a pistol you can draw, fire, and holster it all in the same attack action. So a level 20 pirate could draw and fire all 4 of her pistols at the start of combat then switch to cutlass.

[Joe the Rat]

The reloads for crossbows have evolved into weapon balance - if they took longer to load, why would you use them in a small until fast tactical situation when a bow is going to be more useful? Or even at range - why bother with a super-slow weapon that does marginally more damage?

Training. It's faster to train someone to be competent with a crossbow (or black powder weapon) than a bow. Heavy crossbows should have been Simple weapons with Hard Reload (can't move and reload at the same time). It's like the polearm tables - most of them were overlong, slow spears with niche bonuses vs AC, but they were there for equipping enemies with "whatever is appropriate." Some weapons simply aren't great.

But that is water under the editions. If you want comparability, make your firearms follow crossbow rules. If you want realism (or more verisimilitude), make multi-round loading a thing, but up damage accordingly.

For piratical antics, using firearms as one-shot things in boarding actions (or one every three for extended fights with distance for reloading) seems the way to go. If you boost damage, keep in mind that the opening round of combat is likely to be a bit nova with all those pistols going off. I'd also suggest dropping any Dex (or other) stat modifier to damage in favor of more dice: Stat damage boosts can be seen as a reflection of accuracy, which the smoothbores are notably lax upon. It makes shots chancier on the wound vs. cripple, and makes crits nasty. (A Champion with a gun can be a frightening thing).

If you are doing proper cannon, enforce the firing times, or shift pre-boarding to "firing rounds" - effectively each round is 20-30 seconds, giving one round of main gun, and multiple smallarm (arbalest crews, archers, spellcasting) action - with the note that anyone charged with ships duties is not going to be able to continuously plink away at extreme ranges. From my experience with running ship combat, longer game rounds with more distance covered makes for a less sloggy ship-level
battle experience. (I refuse to do blackpowder firearms in my game, but as it is highly artifice-oriented, magic-based replacements (lightning guns, artillery staves, force batteries) do come into play.)

Attack Roll vs. Dex Save: What it comes down to is "does armor matter?". 5e uses the Dex Save in places where 3.5 used "Touch AC" - nimbleness to avoid contact, and your breastplate doesn't help. If it should help, use the attack roll. This also means Shield Expert is more bullet-proof, since they add shield AC to single-target Dex saves.

[TheMango55]

I’m slowly working on a homebrew world based on pillars of eternity 2, which is nautical themed and has early guns. My solution will be that guns will be more powerful than other ranged weapons but reloading a barrel either takes an action or a bonus action, and if you have extra attack you can use one of those attacks to reload a barrel.

I would get rid of the gunner feat in Tasha’s and replace it with one called Quick Draw. It would let you reload 2 barrels in the same time you could normally reload one, and if you make an attack with a pistol you can draw, fire, and holster it all in the same attack action. So a level 11 fighter pirate could draw and fire all 4 of her pistols at the start of combat (if using both hands) then switch to cutlass.

[Sorinth]

The reloads for crossbows have evolved into weapon balance - if they took longer to load, why would you use them in a small until fast tactical situation when a bow is going to be more useful? Or even at range - why bother with a super-slow weapon that does marginally more damage?

Training. It's faster to train someone to be competent with a crossbow (or black powder weapon) than a bow. Heavy crossbows should have been Simple weapons with Hard Reload (can't move and reload at the same time). It's like the polearm tables - most of them were overlong, slow spears with niche bonuses vs AC, but they were there for equipping enemies with "whatever is appropriate." Some weapons simply aren't great.

But that is water under the editions. If you want comparability, make your firearms follow crossbow rules. If you want realism (or more verisimilitude), make multi-round loading a thing, but up damage accordingly.

Is being shot by a musket ball really more damaging then being hit by a crossbow bolt or arrow?

If the goal is realism then I'm not sure upping the damage is a real option. You are simply making it more realistic in one dimension and less so in another.


Attack Roll vs. Dex Save: What it comes down to is "does armor matter?". 5e uses the Dex Save in places where 3.5 used "Touch AC" - nimbleness to avoid contact, and your breastplate doesn't help. If it should help, use the attack roll. This also means Shield Expert is more bullet-proof, since they add shield AC to single-target Dex saves.

If going with the saving throw (My preference) there are a lot of minor rule interactions you may need to tweak. Some examples are things like invisibility, with a save attacking while invisible doesn't help which makes some sense, but trying to shoot an invisible target should still probably do something. Spells like Shield and Mage Armor do nothing which makes guns a sort of anti-mage weapon which might have big implications in terms of world building.

For me the attack vs save comes down to whether you want guns to be more or less interchangeable with other weapons. For the most part in 5e weapons are interchangeable, they are little more then a video game "skin". That's not a bad thing, but if you want guns to feel like a significant invention that they were in real life then the rules for using them should need to be significantly different from other weapons.

It's also worth noting you can do both, attack rolls for masterwork type guns or ones with rifled barrels and saving throws for the generic mass produced muskets/pistols.


An out of the box idea might be to make them Wisdom based attack rolls. If what matters is aiming, that should be more straight perception then dexterity.

[verbatim]

For DM's that normally are not picky about tracking how much arrows the ranger has, guns are a good opportunity to make your players really count their bullets, especially in settings like Ravenloft where guns and ammo are only really readily available in specific domains/towns/etc, and players will have to be strategic about when they really feel the need to spend precious ammo on a fight.

[Thane of Fife]

The myth about longbow vs firearms is more about line battles. In a straight line battle the longbow would vastly outclass a musket.

But my point is that that's not true. There are numerous accounts of direct confrontations between bowmen - even longbowmen - and musketeers or arquebusiers, and the soldiers with firearms usually won.

[Gignere]

But my point is that that's not true. There are numerous accounts of direct confrontations between bowmen - even longbowmen - and musketeers or arquebusiers, and the soldiers with firearms usually won.

Wow thanks for the info I was under the assumptions longbows were better than early muskets, but it seems like muskets/arquebests won not just by being easier to use/train but generally the superior weapon for effective range combat.

Edit: people should check the link that tries to find actual witness accounts of battles of muskets vs bows. So maybe in competition some bowmen can shoot ridiculous distances but in actual combats muskets were generally more effective and had longer effective ranges than even the legendary English longbows.

[Dark.Revenant]

Much of it comes down to the fact that you'd much rather be shot by an arrow than a musket ball. Things like shields don't really hold up to such a weapon, and the wounds have a much higher mortality rate. It's also a rather horrible way to die, screaming in pain as your blood drains and your organs fail due to the giant hole in your chest.

There are stories of crusaders walking away from battle covered in arrows that stuck into their armor and scored only superficial cuts. Against musketmen, that sure as heck wouldn't be the case.

When people talk about how firearms leveled the playing field and made it feasible to train the masses for warfare, there are a lot of different things they might be talking about. There's the philosophical approach, i.e. that the economic strata were leveled; your fancy armor and years of martial training aren't of much use against a ranged, mass-produced weapon that'll either pierce through the armor or crush your chest if it hits at the right angle. But in this case there's the practical approach: with firearms, even the harder-to-use early varieties, it's simply easier to train large groups of people to be a deadly presence on the battlefield. It doesn't matter how well they can aim; a hundred guys pointing in the general direction of a pike formation and opening fire will cause heavy casualties.

[quindraco]

Wow thanks for the info I was under the assumptions longbows were better than early muskets, but it seems like muskets/arquebests won not just by being easier to use/train but generally the superior weapon for effective range combat.

Edit: people should check the link that tries to find actual witness accounts of battles of muskets vs bows. So maybe in competition some bowmen can shoot ridiculous distances but in actual combats muskets were generally more effective and had longer effective ranges than even the legendary English longbows.

Depends on the battle. Here's an example battle where black powder weapons proved disastrously ineffective against crossbows: http://www.arsbellica.it/pagine/battaglie_in_sintesi/Campomorto_eng.html

Firearms did eventually take over completely, and that "eventually" is earlier in time than many people think - by the late 1500s it was appropriate to just mock someone who showed up to battle with a tension-powered missile flinger. But go back long enough and you were right the first time - black powder had serious problems.

[Gignere]

Depends on the battle. Here's an example battle where black powder weapons proved disastrously ineffective against crossbows: http://www.arsbellica.it/pagine/battaglie_in_sintesi/Campomorto_eng.html

Firearms did eventually take over completely, and that "eventually" is earlier in time than many people think - by the late 1500s it was appropriate to just mock someone who showed up to battle with a tension-powered missile flinger. But go back long enough and you were right the first time - black powder had serious problems.

The link just said it was due to raining, in fact there was a comment saying that the soldiers has started preferring black powder guns over other ranged weaponry, but the rain caused it to be unable to be used. So actually even more proof that guns started over taking bows and crossbows even earlier then expected.

[Sorinth]

But my point is that that's not true. There are numerous accounts of direct confrontations between bowmen - even longbowmen - and musketeers or arquebusiers, and the soldiers with firearms usually won.

And how many of those battles did the longbowman stand in one line, the musketeers/arquebusiers stand in another line just shooting at each other? It's not a myth that the longbowmen would win that kind battle, it's just that nobody would ever fight a battle that way.

[Jophiel]

I have seen rpgs use muskets as once per encounter weapons to take into account the reload time.
In my game, firearms do good damage but can't be reloaded on the same turn that they're fired. Action 1: Fire, Action 2: Reload, Action 3: Fire. A feat allows you to reload as a bonus action but you still can't fire that round, it just frees up your action for doing something else. I allow a brace of three pistols (but pistols do about longbow damage anyway) but only one musket or carbine.

Basically, they're opening round weapons before people close into melee combat. If someone wants to keep firing them, the damage evens out but really you want that big hit to start the fight by softening the big guy (or hurting/killing the mooks) then close up with your sword.

[Thane of Fife]

And how many of those battles did the longbowman stand in one line, the musketeers/arquebusiers stand in another line just shooting at each other? It's not a myth that the longbowmen would win that kind battle, it's just that nobody would ever fight a battle that way.

Barnabe Rich (https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/07/14/barnabe-rich-a-right-exelent-and-pleasaunt-dialouge-1574/) and Sir Roger Williams (https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/02/27/sir-roger-williams-briefe-discourse-of-vvarre-to-prooue-bow-men-the-worst-shot-vsed-in-these-days/), both of whom were veterans of warfare in the late 1500's, both wrote works comparing bows and firearms on the battlefield, and both agreed that, while archers could be useful on the field, they should never get in a shooting match with firearms because they would lose. Williams even describes archers as most useful when shooting at cavalry, but says they must be wary of the shot who will accompany the cavalry.

(Also, if you want to continue this discussion, perhaps we should move to the Real World Weapons/Armor thread? I feel like we're kind of hijacking this one.)

[Keltest]

Barnabe Rich (https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/07/14/barnabe-rich-a-right-exelent-and-pleasaunt-dialouge-1574/) and Sir Roger Williams (https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/02/27/sir-roger-williams-briefe-discourse-of-vvarre-to-prooue-bow-men-the-worst-shot-vsed-in-these-days/), both of whom were veterans of warfare in the late 1500's, both wrote works comparing bows and firearms on the battlefield, and both agreed that, while archers could be useful on the field, they should never get in a shooting match with firearms because they would lose. Williams even describes archers as most useful when shooting at cavalry, but says they must be wary of the shot who will accompany the cavalry.

(Also, if you want to continue this discussion, perhaps we should move to the Real World Weapons/Armor thread? I feel like we're kind of hijacking this one.)

I find the merits of firearms versus bows to be incredibly useful for deciding what the advantages and disadvantages should be for my game design, personally.

[olskool]

Here's a little "real-world" info for you.

RANGE AND LOADING:

Prior to the early 1800s, most Black Powder Muskets are flintlocks and smooth-bored. These weapons had an effective range of from 50m (pistols) to 100m (rifles) when shooting at a man-sized target. It would take a poorly-trained shooter around 20 to 25 seconds (3 to 4 combat rounds) to load a SMOOTH-BORE musket (rifled muskets took much longer). A WELL-TRAINED British soldier with a Brown Bess could fire 5 shots a minute, taking about 10 seconds to load (or about 2 combat rounds). If you made the untrained shooter (Basic Proficiency?) a 3-round reload and the trained shooter (Martial Proficiency?) a 2-round reload with a FEAT that could reduce this by one round, I'd say you were in the ballpark for realistic performance. A typical bowman is going to fire EVERY 6-second round. That won't even be a rapid-fire pace for the bowman either.

DAMAGE:

IF you reference the "ETHICAL HUNTING STANDARDS CHART" you will see the "Energy" needed to hunt various types of game. Crossbows and bows use a different type of "wounding mechanism" from firearms but you will see a certain "correlation" in the weapon types' energies. As a general rule of thumb, it takes from 50 to 60 times the energy for a firearm to kill the same size of game that a bow or crossbow can kill. IF my bow generates 100 foot-pounds of energy, I'd need a rifle with a muzzle energy of 5000 foot-pounds to match that bow's killing power. So a musket producing between 2000 and 3000 foot-pounds of energy is doing the same damage as a bow producing between 50 and 60 foot-pounds of energy. This would make the damage of most muskets only slightly better than a bow's. The primary advantage being that the shooter doesn't require the fitness of a bowman to shoot a musket. For game purposes, I would make the damage of the multiple die type to offset the time needed to reload (ie. 2D4, 2D6, or 2D8 based on the caliber in question).

SKILL:

The Bowman requires a significant amount of training to hit their mark. Only the shepherd's sling requires more skill. The Muskateer requires a fair amount of "drill" in the procedure of loading but accuracy is pretty quickly acquired up to the limit of the unrifled weapon. The Crossbowman requires the least amount of skill training to hit their mark consistently. There are many YouTube videos that prove this to be the truth.

I set up my bows with a damage rating based on STR (draw weight)...

Damage: 1D4, STR: 1 to 4 (10lbs to 40lbs of draw weight)
Damage: 1D6, STR: 5 to 8 (50lbs to 80lbs of draw weight)
Damage: 1D8, STR: 9 to 12 (90lbs to 120lbs of draw weight)
Damage: 1D10, STR: 13 to 16 (130lbs to 160lbs of draw weight)
Damage: 1D12, STR: 17 to 20 (170lbs to 200lbs of draw weight)

I then set up my bow ranges based on the staff length of the bow with Short bows (like the Mongol bow), Medium bows (like the Cherokee and French bows), and Long bows (like the Welsh Longbow and the Japanese bows). I don't have my notes so I cannot give you ranges now. PCs can obviously "mix and match length (for range) and draw weight (for damage).
I set up my crossbows as follows...

Hand Crossbow: A very small all-metal crossbow around 150lbs in draw weight using a screw mechanism at the back of the prod (handle) to **** the mechanism. A technologically complex device.
Damage: 2D3, Reload: 2 rounds (the screw is slow).
Light Crossbow: A very light model with a draw weight up to 300lbs and using a stirrup to load.
Damage: 2D4, Reload: 1 combat round.
Medium Crossbow: A moderately heavy model with a draw weight of 350lbs to 600lbs using a goat's foot lever to reload it.
Damage: 2D6, Reload: 2 combat rounds.
Heavy Crossbow: A fairly heavy model with a draw weight of 1000+lbs using either a cranequin or windlass to **** it.
Damage: 2D8, Reload: 3 combat rounds.

I would do something similar for muskets. I'd most likely use similar damages to my crossbows (listed above) as the two would be very close in energy.

[Luccan]

I'd say if you wanted to represent muskets being less accurate, just don't give most people proficiency. Your average conscript shouldn't have a very high Dex, so taking away that bonus should represent that very well. But your Marksman would have proficiency and, since this is a fantasy game, can hit more often than IRL.

Treat a firing team as a single unit that makes an area attack in a line 10feet wide in front of them when firing in unison. Dex saves to avoid damage, instead of just individuals rolling to hit. A barrage of fire like that can deal more damage than an individual musket, maybe just straight up add the damage of each individual musket together for your total (so if you used a d8 for musket damage, a 6 person team deals up to 6d8 damage firing as a group). In the case of a group, I'd probably give the reload a recharge like a dragon's breath weapon, where you roll to see if they manage to reload. Actually makes more sense in this case too, IMO.

You could add a special reloading rule for individual musketeers, along the lines of: "reloading this weapon takes an entire round. A creature may not move or perform any other Actions or Bonus Actions on the round they reload a musket. Additionally, reloading a musket provokes Opportunity Attacks from opponents within melee range". Reloads a little more often in a minute than your stated amount, but not by too much. And that's only if they don't get interrupted. You could maybe even add to the rule that a successful OA stops the reload, but that's probably going a bit far

I'd just give a bayonet d6 or d8 damage. Maybe Reach when attached to the musket if you're feeling generous. And perhaps the opportunity to attack with the bayonet as a bonus action on the same round you fire the musket, treating it like TWF. But that's not as well thought out, just a random idea as I'm typing this.

Edit: oh, another idea for accuracy, you could also give muskets a short close range and a much longer long range. So you could hit something way over there, but you'll have disadvantage on anything not right in front of you. Just another reason firing in a group is generally better than shooting on your own.

[Gurgeh]

Here's a little "real-world" info for you.

RANGE AND LOADING:

Prior to the early 1800s, most Black Powder Muskets are flintlocks and smooth-bored. These weapons had an effective range of from 50m (pistols) to 100m (rifles)
Emphasis is mine - I don't think this is correct; 100m sounds closer to what a skilled shooter could manage with a smoothbore musket. The early nineteenth-century Baker rifle was designed to reliably hit targets at a little under two hundred metres, and there were documented cases of skilled shooters hitting targets at significantly longer ranges; older rifles are less well documented since they weren't mass-produced, but 100m seems like a significant underestimate.

[Hytheter]

Emphasis is mine - I don't think this is correct; 100m sounds closer to what a skilled shooter could manage with a smoothbore musket. The early nineteenth-century Baker rifle was designed to reliably hit targets at a little under two hundred metres, and there were documented cases of skilled shooters hitting targets at significantly longer ranges; older rifles are less well documented since they weren't mass-produced, but 100m seems like a significant underestimate.

I'm pretty sure they made the mistake of conflating the word "rifle" to mean a long gun in general. They seemed to be talking about smooth-bore weapons in particular, and a smooth-bore rifle is an oxymoron. "Rifle to pistol" isn't a valid dichotomy either, since pistols can be rifled. The concept of a pistol musket is erroneous too since (unlike rifles) muskets are defined by being long guns.

Ironic for a comment boasting its "real-world info"...

[Sorinth]

Barnabe Rich (https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/07/14/barnabe-rich-a-right-exelent-and-pleasaunt-dialouge-1574/) and Sir Roger Williams (https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/02/27/sir-roger-williams-briefe-discourse-of-vvarre-to-prooue-bow-men-the-worst-shot-vsed-in-these-days/), both of whom were veterans of warfare in the late 1500's, both wrote works comparing bows and firearms on the battlefield, and both agreed that, while archers could be useful on the field, they should never get in a shooting match with firearms because they would lose. Williams even describes archers as most useful when shooting at cavalry, but says they must be wary of the shot who will accompany the cavalry.

(Also, if you want to continue this discussion, perhaps we should move to the Real World Weapons/Armor thread? I feel like we're kind of hijacking this one.)

I'll be honest it's kind of painful for me to read the Old English. But from the Barney Rich link, the pro-archer Soul says the archers would shoot twice as fast as the muskets and the musket line would be confounded, Mer responds that it would only be 8:5 and says the muskets shots are better damaging. I'm not sure I fully understood his reasoning for that though.

And in the other link it was 3 reasons, the only one really relevant to the line combat being the musket having better range. But it's important to note battlefield range is different from D&D range because on a battlefield you are with a bunch of others and just shoot an area so accuracy doesn't matter. In D&D you are picking out individual targets.

Nothing really disputes that if the two forces stood in a line the archers would be at an advantage beyond. But again it's not a realistic scenario, in more realistic battlefield scenarios the longbow won't be as useful which for sure is one of the many reasons why the musket replaced the bow.

[Sorinth]

If you made the untrained shooter (Basic Proficiency?) a 3-round reload and the trained shooter (Martial Proficiency?) a 2-round reload with a FEAT that could reduce this by one round, I'd say you were in the ballpark for realistic performance. A typical bowman is going to fire EVERY 6-second round. That won't even be a rapid-fire pace for the bowman either.

I don't really see the point of charging a feat tax for firearms beyond well there's already one for crossbows.

For all the talk about what would be realistic firing time for firearms we ignore the fact that a high level Fighter and fire a longbow 8 times in 6 seconds which is as unrealistic as anything. Even a fairly low level fighter (Level 5) can do it 4 times in 6 seconds, which is again completely unrealistic.

So if we are throwing realism out the window for how fast an archer can shoot why would firearms/crossbows have to stick to a realistic firing rate?


One of the big reasons I prefer making them saving throw based attacks is that it interacts strangely with magic. Classic defensive spells like Mage Armor and Shield do nothing to protect against firearms if they are save based. Bless is not as useful attack boost, etc... Basically firearms disrupt the normal tactics which is what they did in real life too. If in D&D we just make firearms like any other weapon maybe more damage it doesn't have that disrupting effect.

[Warder]

One of the big reasons I prefer making them saving throw based attacks is that it interacts strangely with magic. Classic defensive spells like Mage Armor and Shield do nothing to protect against firearms if they are save based. Bless is not as useful attack boost, etc... Basically firearms disrupt the normal tactics which is what they did in real life too. If in D&D we just make firearms like any other weapon maybe more damage it doesn't have that disrupting effect.

I think those are good points, but the biggest reason I'd not have a saving throw is that it's another point in the long, long list of points that favor dex over strength. In a world where "both sides" are expected to be able to use firearms, and firearms are strong alpha strike weapons, it'd suck even worse to be a str-based martial character.

[Thane of Fife]

I'll be honest it's kind of painful for me to read the Old English.

Sorry. :smallsmile:


But from the Barney Rich link, the pro-archer Soul says the archers would shoot twice as fast as the muskets and the musket line would be confounded, Mer responds that it would only be 8:5 and says the muskets shots are better damaging. I'm not sure I fully understood his reasoning for that though.

I think it's just a statement from experience. For another example, Humfrey Barwick (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05277.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext) (pardon more Old English) says ("page" 14)
I neuer sawe any slaine out right with an arrowe, and but with Quarels few, but with Harquebuze and Pistoll shot, I haue been at seuerall times, where 20000. hath béene slaiue outright, besides manie wounded and maimed.

Even granting that as exaggeration, I think the point is made that firearms (at least in his experience) were considerably deadlier than bows and crossbows.


And in the other link it was 3 reasons, the only one really relevant to the line combat being the musket having better range. But it's important to note battlefield range is different from D&D range because on a battlefield you are with a bunch of others and just shoot an area so accuracy doesn't matter. In D&D you are picking out individual targets.

In the same document above, Barwick (on page 11) says he would happy compete at target shooting with his arquebus against the best bowman in England for a good wager.

Here (https://bowvsmusket.com/2017/06/02/chinese-general-qi-jiguang-adopts-musketry/) includes translation of text from Qi Jiguang saying
“In the north,” he wrote, “soldiers are stupid and impatient, to the point that they cannot see the strength of the musket, and they insist on holding tight to their fast lances, and although when comparing and vying on the practice field the musket can hit the bullseye ten times better than the fast-lance and five times better than the bow and arrow, they refuse to be convinced.”

I have not seen any evidence that muskets and arquebuses were not just as capable as bows - if not moreso - of shooting at individual targets with great accuracy.


Nothing really disputes that if the two forces stood in a line the archers would be at an advantage beyond.

But I don't see any reason to think that the archers would be at an advantage. Here we have multiple people with personal experience with both bows and muskets who are arguing that the people with firearms would have the advantage. Against that, we - unless you have a lot of experience with bows and/or muskets; certainly I don't - are just speculating. We may be somewhat informed, but I am still much more inclined to take their word for it than to trust either my or your speculation.

[Sorinth]

But I don't see any reason to think that the archers would be at an advantage. Here we have multiple people with personal experience with both bows and muskets who are arguing that the people with firearms would have the advantage. Against that, we - unless you have a lot of experience with bows and/or muskets; certainly I don't - are just speculating. We may be somewhat informed, but I am still much more inclined to take their word for it than to trust either my or your speculation.

In the first link you posted the one of the people argued that the archers would win that exact scenario. So it's not a question of taking my word for it.

[Soul.] But let it be that one thowsand Archers and one thowsande shot should meete in the playne feelde where no vantage were to be taken by the ground, & admit they were ioyned in skirmish, within .viii or .ix score where the Archer is able to shutte twice to the others once, wherby the Arrowes comming so thick amonst them, wil so astone them that the contrarye part shall not well know where at to shoote.

[Jophiel]

In the first link you posted the one of the people argued that the archers would win that exact scenario.
Well, he argues that, then the other guy is "lol White Room scenarios, you know that ain't gonna happen" and the first guy says "yeah, you're right -- archers be screwed. We should just hang up our bows because they're pointless in future wars".

So I guess it's "true" that the archers might prevail under a fixed, fairly unrealistic circumstance but that doesn't mean much in the end.

[quindraco]

Bear in mind many aspects of a weapon which were a gamechanger in the real world can't come up in 5E - for example, in the real world, we've had battles won solely because one side had breech loaders and the other only had muzzle loaders, meaning the muzzle loading people had to stand up to reload. In 5E, firearms don't shoot better while prone than longbows do - and both firearms and longbows can be reloaded while prone without issue. There are a whole host of issues like this - e.g. muskets load cartridges and do it as quickly as notching an arrow. You don't need to muck about with a powder horn, wadding, and a slug all loaded separately - and even if you wanted to, we have no rules for handling a weapon where the ammunition has to be assembled from multiple sources on the fly, so you'd have to homebrew it (maybe a wadding pouch, a powder horn, and a slug pouch are assumed to hold a similar amount of finalized ammo?). Likewise, you'd be in pure homebrew territory penalizing black powder for getting wet in the rain.

[Dork_Forge]

Bear in mind many aspects of a weapon which were a gamechanger in the real world can't come up in 5E - for example, in the real world, we've had battles won solely because one side had breech loaders and the other only had muzzle loaders, meaning the muzzle loading people had to stand up to reload. In 5E, firearms don't shoot better while prone than longbows do - and both firearms and longbows can be reloaded while prone without issue. There are a whole host of issues like this - e.g. muskets load cartridges and do it as quickly as notching an arrow. You don't need to muck about with a powder horn, wadding, and a slug all loaded separately - and even if you wanted to, we have no rules for handling a weapon where the ammunition has to be assembled from multiple sources on the fly, so you'd have to homebrew it (maybe a wadding pouch, a powder horn, and a slug pouch are assumed to hold a similar amount of finalized ammo?). Likewise, you'd be in pure homebrew territory penalizing black powder for getting wet in the rain.

Breech loaders were significantly faster to reload as well (which I've seen sighted as the primary reason the... French? got hammered in that battle whilst the rest of Europe was like "oh... we should get on that").

You don't have to handle the aspects of ammo for muskets separately, just say they use paper cartidges. It's hardly a technicaly innovation, it was a soldier's hack for speed loading, spend your down time assembling them and then just bite and use in combat.

[Hytheter]

Well, he argues that, then the other guy is "lol White Room scenarios, you know that ain't gonna happen" and the first guy says "yeah, you're right -- archers be screwed. We should just hang up our bows because they're pointless in future wars".

You know, I have to say the notion of old-timey war dudes arguing about tactical optimisation much like we do on boards like this brings a smile to my face.

[Thane of Fife]

In the first link you posted the one of the people argued that the archers would win that exact scenario. So it's not a question of taking my word for it.

[Soul.] But let it be that one thowsand Archers and one thowsande shot should meete in the playne feelde where no vantage were to be taken by the ground, & admit they were ioyned in skirmish, within .viii or .ix score where the Archer is able to shutte twice to the others once, wherby the Arrowes comming so thick amonst them, wil so astone them that the contrarye part shall not well know where at to shoote.

But that's not an actual person arguing that; Rich is using the dialogue as a rhetorical device in order to set up the opposing arguments and then knock them down. He has the soul say that specifically so that Mercury can then describe why it's wrong.

If you do want someone who argued in favor of bows, and can stomach more Elizabethan English, you can look at Sir John Smythe (https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A12567.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext) (I think you'd want to start around the mark for Page 16). The Humfrey Barwick document I linked to earlier is largely a rebuttal of this document by Smythe. My reading of Smythe is that his two main reasons in favor of bows are:

1. Bows shoot about four times faster than firearms (I think that this is why those arguing in favor of firearms are careful to address this point), and
2. It's very easy to mishandle a firearm and squander any of its advantages. He ties this back to the first one by noting that while it is possible to shoot a firearm faster than that, doing so tends to lead people to make more mistakes. [I feel like he's a little unfair here in that, while I can see his argument, when he goes to compare to bows, he assumes that the archer will take good care of their weapon, but he never seems to afford that assumption to the musketeers or arquebusiers. Maybe he has a reason for such.)

Personally, I don't find Smythe's arguments as compelling as those of the others (especially after reading Barwick's rebuttal), but you can read it and make up your own mind.

[Witty Username]

I'm pretty sure they made the mistake of conflating the word "rifle" to mean a long gun in general. They seemed to be talking about smooth-bore weapons in particular, and a smooth-bore rifle is an oxymoron. "Rifle to pistol" isn't a valid dichotomy either, since pistols can be rifled. The concept of a pistol musket is erroneous too since (unlike rifles) muskets are defined by being long guns.

Ironic for a comment boasting its "real-world info"...

Flintlock as I understand it would apply to pistols and muskets.

[Dork_Forge]

Flintlock as I understand it would apply to pistols and muskets.

Yeah, flintlock is just the method of powder ignition and was used on both pistols and long guns. Preceeded by Match and wheel locks and succeeded by percussion caps.