PDA

View Full Version : I need some good rules for how to handle guns



Thoughtbot360
2007-12-16, 06:37 AM
Topic^

The DMG has some guns, but they have the problem of being too weak in the long run. Also, they take a while to reload.

The question is: How should guns be handled to balance them with other weapons? I'd prefer early guns because those are easier to balance with things like spears and maces and medieval gear in general than others.

Technically, they are a lot like crossbows: strength doesn't affect damage, you can't use manyshot with them, they are complex machines with many parts, they make better improvised clubs than bows do...

However, guns have plenty of differences: guns make a lot more noise, you can not tip a bullet with poison like you can tip a bolt, early guns required a supply of gunpowder(and cleaning tools, but gunpowder is more relevant to the next point) and a gunner who lets a single spark (or a magical fireball/lightning bolt) touch his gunpowder will take damage relative to the amount of gunpowder he was carrying and was therefore ignited, getting said gunpowder wet (or magically protecting it from fire and then forgetting to dispel the protection) leaves him without out ammo....(both of those problems can be solved by hiding gun powder in some kind of airtight container and then non-magically fire-proofing the container but not the powder inside)

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-16, 07:27 AM
What do you want out of guns? They are 'correct' for an exotic weapon prof. as presented in the DMG.

UserClone
2007-12-16, 07:34 AM
I agree with Skjaldbakka. Also, shouldn't this be in homebrew?

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-16, 05:59 PM
I simply doubled the damage guns deal and called it good. Yes, this makes them powerful at low levels; to be honest, though, I don't really care, mostly because it fits flavor-wise and it isn't like anyone can't grab exotic weapon proficiency and do it (or be gnomes, who IMC get it for free, being the race that invented them). I always thought it was kind of silly that the fire every-other round weapons were so much worse than bows, when in reality crossbows were quite potent weapons (though guns sucked for a long time, I find it more fun to make them not suck).

Chronicled
2007-12-16, 06:11 PM
1. Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.
3. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
4. ...

...oh, you meant in D&D. :smallwink: Then I'll just second what's been said here.

Matthew
2007-12-16, 06:21 PM
I give guns a Strength Rating that they use to hit and damage.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-16, 06:34 PM
You could try something along the lines of a Spellshot Pistol (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3203504&postcount=97). Reflavoring it to be completely mundane is a snap (though you'd have to drop the spell rounds, which I don't think you were planning on using anyway).

Prophaniti
2007-12-16, 06:35 PM
Early guns shouldn't suck in terms of damage, so doubling it is a good idea. Where they should suck is in accuracy. The DMG lists the range increments at 50ft for the pistol and 150ft for the rifle. The problem is that in order to have a chance at hitting something you had to put a lot of shot downrange. That's why the tactic of lining a bunch of men up across from the enemy and just blasting at each other came into such prevelance, indeed was used continually untill WWI. I personally would double (or even x2.5) the damage and either -
A)shorten the range increment to an almost ridiculous range, say 80ft for the rifle and 40 for the pistol, but keep the max range the same. That way you have realistically ridiculous penalties when you try to shoot someone at any significant distance.
B)add a constant minus to hit with gunpowder weapons due to their inaccuracy.

I would also add that the feat 'Precise Shot' (and probably all related feats, excepting 'Point Blank Shot') cannot be used in conjunction with a gunpowder weapon. This gives you weapons that can pack a serious punch, IF you can manage to hit with them. Oh, and I agree this should probably be in Homebrew.

BRC
2007-12-16, 07:05 PM
Here is how I would handle early firearms.
1: Early Firearms malfunctioned alot, I would say 20% chance of misfire every time.
2: Early Firearms were very inacurate, I would say -3 to attack rolls.
3: Early Firearms took a long time to reload, I would say multiple full-round actions, more of a fire once a combat type thing.
4: Early Firearms were rare and amazing thing, DC 17 Will save to not get shaken or panicked if your opponent has one and you don't, perhaps more depending on the backround of the targets.
5: Compared to crossbows and bows, even early guns packed quite a punch, give the, lots of damage if you manage to get a succsessful hit off.

StickMan
2007-12-16, 07:15 PM
I agree with above two poster on all regards early guns blew chunks for accuracy. Range incressment should be like 10 Feet max for anything before a gun based off 1700-1800's. Should do lots of damage however and should also give an intimate bonus against anyone who has never seen them before (This is part of the reason they were effective against Native Americans who had, arguably more accurate bows).

BRC
2007-12-16, 07:18 PM
I agree with above two poster on all regards early guns blew chunks for accuracy. Range incressment should be like 10 Feet max for anything before a gun based off 1700-1800's. Should do lots of damage however and should also give an intimate bonus against anyone who has never seen them before (This is part of the reason they were effective against Native Americans who had, arguably more accurate bows).
also there was smallpox, but remember, every time you try to use real-world history with a fictional universe the flying spaghetti monster kills a kobold, please, think of the kobolds.

Lord Tataraus
2007-12-16, 07:25 PM
Here is how I would handle early firearms.
1: Early Firearms malfunctioned alot, I would say 20% chance of misfire every time.
2: Early Firearms were very inacurate, I would say -3 to attack rolls.
3: Early Firearms took a long time to reload, I would say multiple full-round actions, more of a fire once a combat type thing.
4: Early Firearms were rare and amazing thing, DC 17 Will save to not get shaken or panicked if your opponent has one and you don't, perhaps more depending on the backround of the targets.
5: Compared to crossbows and bows, even early guns packed quite a punch, give the, lots of damage if you manage to get a succsessful hit off.

They did not misfire that often if keep clean. I'd give a 5% and +5% chance per day.
In the hands of a skilled soldier they were accurate up to 70 yards with a maximum range of 200 yards. Not as bad as you would expect, though this is based off early 1700s, late 1600s, non-rifled muskets.
A trained soldier could fire 3 rounds a minute. Each combat round is 1/6 a minute so, full-round action reload is fine for a skilled soldier. I would set the reload time to 1 round and have Rapid Reload decrease it to a Full-Round (there is a difference)
Depends how rare they are, the bayonets are what really scared people since the chances of getting mortally wounded from gunfire where not as high as you would expect.
Not really, considering their inaccuracy, firearms would disable a limb and really damage a torso, but did not kill too easily. The damage came when there were a hundred bullets ripping through one's body. A headshot was insta-kill, but besides that you'd live1. A crossbow was much more deadly because it was very accurate and thus more damaging.


1 - Soldiers died not from direct damage but from infected wounds which is not at all reflected in D&D combat. And with magical healing the effectiveness of firearms and bayonets are nulled. A bullet was meant to lodge itself into the victim so that either the bullet stayed and poisoned the victim until dead (its lead you know) or the bullet was painfully and messily extracted, thus making the wound worse and causing horrible infections. The common bayonet was constructed in a fashion to produce the same effect. Bayonets had three edges, creating a unique cut that is impossible to mend, thus creating an open wound and causing infection. Most people don't realize that war during the age of firearms was biological.

BRC
2007-12-16, 07:30 PM
They did not misfire that often if keep clean. I'd give a 5% and +5% chance per day.
In the hands of a skilled soldier they were accurate up to 70 yards with a maximum range of 200 yards. Not as bad as you would expect, though this is based off early 1700s, late 1600s, non-rifled muskets.
A trained soldier could fire 3 rounds a minute. Each combat round is 1/6 a minute so, full-round action reload is fine for a skilled soldier. I would set the reload time to 1 round and have Rapid Reload decrease it to a Full-Round (there is a difference)
Depends how rare they are, the bayonets are what really scared people since the chances of getting mortally wounded from gunfire where not as high as you would expect.
Not really, considering their inaccuracy, firearms would disable a limb and really damage a torso, but did not kill too easily. The damage came when there were a hundred bullets ripping through one's body. A headshot was insta-kill, but besides that you'd live1. A crossbow was much more deadly because it was very accurate and thus more damaging.


1 - Soldiers died not from direct damage but from infected wounds which is not at all reflected in D&D combat. And with magical healing the effectiveness of firearms and bayonets are nulled. A bullet was meant to lodge itself into the victim so that either the bullet stayed and poisoned the victim until dead (its lead you know) or the bullet was painfully and messily extracted, thus making the wound worse and causing horrible infections. The common bayonet was constructed in a fashion to produce the same effect. Bayonets had three edges, creating a unique cut that is impossible to mend, thus creating an open wound and causing infection. Most people don't realize that war during the age of firearms was biological.
*looks at dead kobolds*
True, okay, make that Intimidation only against people from cultures that don't have firearms, though theres really no way to do the whole infection thing in DnD without making up an enterly new ruleset. Also a combat round is 6 seconds, so it is 1/10th of a minute, not 1/6th, and a skilled solider is different then a 1st level solider who took rapid reload. I would say that it takes a dexterity check to reload quickly, if you fail the save you get a -2 to damage and accuracy for your next attack with the weapon since you didn't swab the gun/apply the powder/do the other stuff right.

Nebo_
2007-12-16, 07:42 PM
The Iron Kingdoms campaign setting has some good rules for guns. They do a lot of damage, but that's largely balanced by reload times. There is a chance for misfire if you don't load properly, which is a fairly low DC skill check.

Lord Tataraus
2007-12-16, 07:44 PM
*looks at dead kobolds*

I don't like kobolds :smallbiggrin: and this is something I know a lot about (American Revolution to Civil War) so I had to use my knowledge.


True, okay, make that Intimidation only against people from cultures that don't have firearms, though theres really no way to do the whole infection thing in DnD without making up an enterly new ruleset. Also a combat round is 6 seconds, so it is 1/10th of a minute, not 1/6th, and a skilled solider is different then a 1st level solider who took rapid reload. I would say that it takes a dexterity check to reload quickly, if you fail the save you get a -2 to damage and accuracy for your next attack with the weapon since you didn't swab the gun/apply the powder/do the other stuff right.

Oops, I got it backwards, a round 6 seconds so it is 1/10 or a minute. Right. So, 2 round reload time means you fire on round 3, 6, and 9 there is the fastest you can reload if you want realism. You correct about the infection thing, so I guess you can go ahead and make guns more powerful. That's what I am doing for my setting that uses firearms, though I've reduced the reload time quite a bit.

BRC
2007-12-16, 07:47 PM
I don't like kobolds :smallbiggrin: and this is something I know a lot about (American Revolution to Civil War) so I had to use my knowledge.



Oops, I got it backwards, a round 6 seconds so it is 1/10 or a minute. Right. So, 2 round reload time means you fire on round 3, 6, and 9 there is the fastest you can reload if you want realism. You correct about the infection thing, so I guess you can go ahead and make guns more powerful. That's what I am doing for my setting that uses firearms, though I've reduced the reload time quite a bit.
I personally like the idea of requiring a skill check to reload, maybe with EWP: Gunpowder Weapons comes 5 ranks in Reload Firearm, which you can then improve in order to reload faster, or to load your firearm with speical types of ammunition.

Worira
2007-12-16, 07:58 PM
Would a gun really be more intimidating than, say, a Lightning Bolt?

Mewtarthio
2007-12-16, 08:06 PM
Here is how I would handle early firearms.
1: Early Firearms malfunctioned alot, I would say 20% chance of misfire every time.
2: Early Firearms were very inacurate, I would say -3 to attack rolls.
3: Early Firearms took a long time to reload, I would say multiple full-round actions, more of a fire once a combat type thing.
4: Early Firearms were rare and amazing thing, DC 17 Will save to not get shaken or panicked if your opponent has one and you don't, perhaps more depending on the backround of the targets.
5: Compared to crossbows and bows, even early guns packed quite a punch, give the, lots of damage if you manage to get a succsessful hit off.

Should do lots of damage however and should also give an intimate bonus against anyone who has never seen them before (This is part of the reason they were effective against Native Americans who had, arguably more accurate bows).

I disagree. I understand that firearms should, indeed, terrify those who've never seen anything like them. I understand how a culture unacquainted with explosives would mistake a weilder of a firearm for some sort of divine being calling down thunder from heaven.

This is DnD we're talking about. People really do call down thunder from heaven. Frail-looking men can cause rooms to fill with flames hotter than the hottest forge. Heck, first-level bards just learning how to sing can make little sparks and explosions to impress the kiddies. If anyone from a DnD culture saw a firearm, they'd treat it just like some sort of new magical weapon.

Also, Stickman, I don't normally point out typos, but a weapon that provides an "intimate bonus" when used? :smallredface:

BRC
2007-12-16, 08:08 PM
Would a gun really be more intimidating than, say, a Lightning Bolt?
to a society familiar with magic but not with firearms, yes. The unknown is scary, for the same reason that if nowadays somebody cast a lightning bolt spell it would scare us. Technically it has the same effect as say, a powerful automatic weapon fired in a straight line, but thats somthing were reletivly familiar with, people shooting lightning out of their fingers is not.
EDIT: Also, remember that only a very small percentage of people can do powerful magic, as in fireballs and lightning bolts. In the same way that we would be afraid of a powerful firearm like a machine gun, they would be afraid of a powerful spell, like a fireball.

Nebo_
2007-12-16, 08:23 PM
I once played a barbarian with the whirling frenzy variant who was forced to attack at long range. I fired a gun, then had someone pass me another right away so I could get my second attack. I just love the idea of hiring a commoner to carry all of your guns and reload them when you need it. You could also have an unseen servant reload the empty guns for you.

Mewtarthio
2007-12-17, 03:31 AM
to a society familiar with magic but not with firearms, yes. The unknown is scary, for the same reason that if nowadays somebody cast a lightning bolt spell it would scare us. Technically it has the same effect as say, a powerful automatic weapon fired in a straight line, but thats somthing were reletivly familiar with, people shooting lightning out of their fingers is not.

That's not really a fair comparison. If a guy started shooting lightning out of his hands, we'd panic because that violates the laws of physics that we're so comfortable with. DnD has a very loose and flexible form of physics that does whatever people tell it to do. A stick that shoots thunder and kills people wouldn't seem very strange at all. Now, if they found it still worked in an antimagic field, they'd have reason to be a little worried, but the first thing through their heads would be Somebody's bypassed the antimagic field.


EDIT: Also, remember that only a very small percentage of people can do powerful magic, as in fireballs and lightning bolts. In the same way that we would be afraid of a powerful firearm like a machine gun, they would be afraid of a powerful spell, like a fireball.

True, which is why I said they'd react the same way to any strange magic item. The average peasant finds that a Quall's Feather Token (tree) is terrifying and confusing, much less a staff that shoots out death. A twentieth-level adventurer considers a Helm of Brilliance to be moderately impressive. In short, DnD characters will have no special reactions to firearms: They'll look at them like any other item that can cause a lot of damage.

Hawriel
2007-12-17, 03:58 AM
Help Creating the Thirty Years War (Updated!)

Check this thread out on a posters campain idea. He wanted early gunpowder weapons in his game and there are alot of feadback for him. Some by me witch I would just be repeating here.

Hallavast
2007-12-17, 05:51 AM
I've always been a fan of making guns ignore all or part of armor bonuses. Don't know if this is balanced or not, though.

Sleet
2007-12-17, 09:38 AM
The way to design firearms rules is to make them reflect how you want firearms to be used in the game, not to model reality. In my game, I wanted everyone to pack heat; I made them simple weapons. I wanted them to be not terribly overpowering, so they were 2d6 damage (2d8 for muskets) / x3, but with two full-round actions to reload (reduced to two standard actions or one full round action with the feat Rapid Reload). I didn't change the armor rules (none of this touch attack business).

The end result is that everyone fires their pistols in the first round of combat, then drew their rapiers and cutlasses and waded into melee. Very cinematic, very fun, and very much what we were going for.

Nobody will agree on what a set of "realistic" firearms rules is, and I'll spare the thread my own opinions on that. Don't design them to be "realistic." Design them to fit the tone of your game.

Skjaldbakka
2007-12-17, 10:10 AM
to a society familiar with magic but not with firearms, yes. The unknown is scary, for the same reason that if nowadays somebody cast a lightning bolt spell it would scare us. Technically it has the same effect as say, a powerful automatic weapon fired in a straight line, but thats somthing were reletivly familiar with, people shooting lightning out of their fingers is not.

So are you saying that people firing automatic weapons doesn't cause people to panic? I beg to differ. Trained soldiers wouldn't panic, but a trained soldier probably wouldn't panic from a lightning bolt either.

Adventurers shouldn't have to make will saves against guns. They deal with weird sh*t all the time. A gun is just another variety of that. Common folk ought to panic from guns, but common folk tend to panic period.

Dervag
2007-12-17, 11:15 AM
1 - Soldiers died not from direct damage but from infected wounds which is not at all reflected in D&D combat. And with magical healing the effectiveness of firearms and bayonets are nulled. A bullet was meant to lodge itself into the victim so that either the bullet stayed and poisoned the victim until dead (its lead you know) or the bullet was painfully and messily extracted, thus making the wound worse and causing horrible infections. The common bayonet was constructed in a fashion to produce the same effect. Bayonets had three edges, creating a unique cut that is impossible to mend, thus creating an open wound and causing infection. Most people don't realize that war during the age of firearms was biological.I think you're exaggerating the effect somewhat. First of all, many people who were shot lived long lives with the bullet stuck in them too deep for the surgeon to extract; the bullet was not an effective source of lethal lead poisoning.

Andrew Jackson, for instance, was shot during a duel in 1806. That bullet lodged in his body and could not be removed, as did several others over his long and rather violent life. And yet he lived over forty years past that date, and was by no means incapacitated by those bullets. Sure, he was lucky, but the fact remains that the bullets didn't poison him fatally.

Likewise, the triangular bayonet doesn't produce unhealable wounds. It is quite possible to stitch up a jagged wound, be it in the shape of a triangle or any other shape. It does, however, make the blade more resilient when flexed than a flat blade would be.

It is absolutely true that the main killer in gunpowder-era warfare was wound infections and disease rather than the wounds themselves. But this wasn't because the weapons were designed to do that- it was because nobody had figured out how to keep wound infections and diseases under control yet.


to a society familiar with magic but not with firearms, yes. The unknown is scary, for the same reason that if nowadays somebody cast a lightning bolt spell it would scare us. Technically it has the same effect as say, a powerful automatic weapon fired in a straight line, but thats somthing were reletivly familiar with, people shooting lightning out of their fingers is not.
EDIT: Also, remember that only a very small percentage of people can do powerful magic, as in fireballs and lightning bolts. In the same way that we would be afraid of a powerful firearm like a machine gun, they would be afraid of a powerful spell, like a fireball.Yes, but the point is that even if you use a gun around a bunch of Neolithic people in a D&D world, there's a good chance they won't be terrified the way that, say, the real-world Aztecs were the first time they saw guns. After all, the gun can't really do anything that the priests and sorcerors can't do. Even though they might be very worried by the fact that all these gun-toting soldiers appear to be powerful sorcerors who can make blasts of thunder with their magic wands seemingly at will, they're not going to be terrified as if they had just seen a new thing in the world. The idea of people being able to do that isn't unprecedented for them.


Adventurers shouldn't have to make will saves against guns. They deal with weird sh*t all the time. A gun is just another variety of that. Common folk ought to panic from guns, but common folk tend to panic period.Perhaps a good rule is that anyone who wouldn't panic when they saw a wizard shooting fire or lightning or thunder won't panic when they see someone fire a gun. They might worry. They might retreat. But they won't panic, and they won't think "Oh no, the gods have come down to Earth!" or anything like that.

Which means the PCs probably won't panic the first time they encounter guns, even if they come from a gunless culture. And neither will most of their enemies except at the very lowest levels, or the party wizard would be able to win all encounters just by tossing a fireball into the air to show how powerful he is. In a real pre-gunpowder setting, that would definitely end the fight quickly. No one would want to challenge a firespitting demon or wizard. But in D&D, it's a well known fact that some people can do that, even if I personally have never seen them do that.

I've never seen someone shoot somebody, either, but I know it's possible. I'd probably be incredibly frightened if that happened right in front of me, but it wouldn't be supernatural fear.

Leadfeathermcc
2007-12-18, 08:35 AM
The way to design firearms rules is to make them reflect how you want firearms to be used in the game, not to model reality.

Thanks, I am stealing your build for my E6 game. :smallwink: