-3.5- Is Gunpowder going too far?

[Deth Muncher]

Hey all.

In my Oriental Adventures game (which is going swimmingly thanks to you all's help with designing encounters), it's nearing the time when the group should be heading towards a more urbanized area, which I've decided ought to maybe have rudimentary firearms. Rulewise, I have the ones as presented in the DMG, as well as from one of the Dragon Magazines, so there's a whole boatload of options. My question is, how much is overpowering? As in, say I have them fight a group of people right after they learn about gunpowder. If that group of people is armed with wheellock pistols, is that too much? In that example, if the PCs don't die from being shot, then they all have shiny new weapons (albeit with a penatly to hit). Whereas if they go against a group that only has one pistol, then only one person gets it, and then the others feel left out.

I dunno. I pose this to you all.

[infinitypanda]

What level are the PCs? Since the main draw of firearms is the huge damage dice, they would be absolutely deadly at low levels and not much better than bows at high levels (probably worse since they take so long to reload).

[Prak]

Compare them to normal and magical weapons. Specifically damage wise, if they're comparable to normal weapons, don't worry about it, the more truobling thing is what they do with gunpowder once it's available, I had a player learn to make it and started working up an agreement with a dwarven settlement to supply it to them. I didn't have a problem with this* as it allowed a lot of very fun roleplaying.


but then again I'm a pretty loose dm...

you specifically need to look at average damage, for example, a weapon that does a d10 has an average damage of 5.5. a weapon that does, say 2d4, has an average damage of 5. So on and so forth, qith enhancements adding to the average, so a +1 1d10 weapon has avg dam of 6.5.

I believe, IIRC, that alot of firearms deal 2dX damage, so a weapon that does, say 2d8 (avg 9) damage would be equivalent to +5 1d8 weapon.

[aaron_the_cow]

If you introduce guns, only give them to one or two of the badies, so that they are rare and get picks like magic items.

So you can have your +1 sword, or a gun.

[Ravens_cry]

I say let them have their guns, but some form of penalty to AC because you can't use a gun (unless it has a bayonet) for parry and defense.

[BRC]

I say let them have their guns, but some form of penalty to AC because you can't use a gun (unless it has a bayonet) for parry and defense.
that dosn't make any sense, you don't take an AC penalty when unarmed. An Attack Roll penalty for no proficiency would work better, also, the DMG firearms arn't that powerful. Sure they have big damage die, but they take time to reload, and you only get one shot with them before you need to reload, so no rapid shot or ful attack. At low levels they can be devestating, but at higher levels you are actually better off going with a bow.

Now, are you using the DMG firearms, are you just refluffing other weapons? are you completally homebrewing them?

[Deth Muncher]

Well!

@ Infinitypanda - They're level 3.

@ Bloody Red Commie - I'm using the firearms as presented in Dragon Mag #321. This reprints the DMG weapons, as well as adding a slew of others, as well as some other options. As to the non-proficiency, the mag says that unless they take EWP:Firearms, they take the regular penalty to hit for being non-proficient. Also, most of the guns have relatively low damage, or at least on par with bows of their size, as well as having the capability of, in the case of the grenade pistol, being able to launch splash items (like Tanglefoot Bags and whatnot) and such hilarity of the Blunderbuss. I highly recommend everyone pick up a copy of that issue, as the guns presented are amazing.

[ericgrau]

As I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), old firearms were good for a shot or two then you rushed into melee with the bayonets. In the right terrain circumstances that first volley didn't do much and the side without firearms might even win (though usually firearms won). So they'll be nice flavorful addition, but they won't replace the regular weapons.

Gunpowder was made of charcoal, sulfur (brimstone, flammable) and saltpetre (potassium nitrate). Charcoal is made by heating hardwood at burning temperature in the absence of oxygen (so it won't burn), i.e. in a closed container that lets little or no air in. Brimstone is mined. Saltpetre was obtained through organic decomposition of urine-soaked straw or manure in the presence of air. After several months of decomposition, the pile breaks down into organic material less than 1/6 size of the original pile. It contains a good concentration of saltpetre, which is highly soluble. So they simply rinse the stuff out with water, collect the water, then dry the water into "salt".

Modern gunpowder uses some chemical process to get nitrates instead of making saltpetre. This is also why you hear of bombs being made from fertilizer: it's the nitrates. Fuel (charcoal, sulphur or w/e) + oxidizer (nitrate, for example) = explosive. The oxidizer replaces air allowing more rapid and more confined combustion.

[Prometheus]

It really depends on what you want the relationship between magic and technology to be. The ones that seem to make the most conceptual sense are:
a) guns are useless to PCs but markedly better than what would ordinarily be available to armies and can be mass-produced. Therefore, they are threatening in mass, just like a sufficient number Trolls or Ogres outclass Warrior armies
b) guns are rare and powerful. You have to save every shot for when you absolutely need it, but once you use it is the magic bullet.
c) guns are useless unless you know how to use them. Homebrew gunslinger type classes exist as a viable ranged combat option, but don't see much use beyond that.

[Deth Muncher]

Hm. Well, I was planning on introducing gunpowder via Alchemists first, and then NPC weaponsmith experimentors creating the actual weapons. So at first, perhaps making bombs available (and, with the use of a feat and some skill points, that would become available to the PCs. In fact, the only reason I'm introducing this is that one PC in particular wanted gunpowder weapons.).

@ Prometheus - I'm thinking somewhere between B and C. Something like, guns will be fairly rare and useless to untrained PCs, but if they invest some time (read: feat/skillpoints), they'll be able to use them quite well. I'm not exactly sure I want to make a gunslinger class, only because I don't think the PCs would really go for it.

[Skjaldbakka]

Why are guns always treated as exotic weapons? One of the huge advantages of guns, and part of the reason they became prevalent before they became reliable, is the fact that they are really easy to use.

Point, pull trigger. Like crossbows, but less elegant.

[Deth Muncher]

Why are guns always treated as exotic weapons? One of the huge advantages of guns, and part of the reason they became prevalent before they became reliable, is the fact that they are really easy to use.

Point, pull trigger. Like crossbows, but less elegant.

Ah, but aren't guns differently weighted than crossbows? Plus, I think it's more "exotic" in the sense of "Holy crap, what is this boomstick?" as opposed to "This just in from the other side of the water!"

[Cainen]

Does your setting have rapiers or platemail? Alternatively, is the setting similar to ancient China?

If you answered yes to any of the above, then no, it's not going too far.

[Deth Muncher]

Does your setting have rapiers or platemail? Alternatively, is the setting similar to ancient China?

If you answered yes to any of the above, then no, it's not going too far.

Well then, it appears having gunpowder is entirely justified.


The question now becomes: how available should it be to the PCs?

[Stupendous_Man]

Well then, it appears having gunpowder is entirely justified.


The question now becomes: how available should it be to the PCs?

A Taoist monk is making them medicine when suddenly, it explodes in his face...

[Skjaldbakka]

Plus, I think it's more "exotic" in the sense of "Holy crap, what is this boomstick?" as opposed to "This just in from the other side of the water!"

I meant more along the lines of "requiers a feat to use, thus making it easier to train longbowmen" - which isn't historically accurate and doesn't make sense.

[Deth Muncher]

I meant more along the lines of "requiers a feat to use, thus making it easier to train longbowmen" - which isn't historically accurate and doesn't make sense.

Granted. From personal experience, I find it a great deal easier to shoot a pistol or rifle than to fire a bow. I think what I may do is count the EWP: Firearms towards reducing reload time: i.e. With Proficiency, the entire reload process might only take, say, a move action, or even a swift action in some cases, as well as getting rid of the penalty to hit.


And actually, the penalty to hit might just be the first few times they fire it, as they, say, aren't used to the kick of the weapon, but once they're attuned, they're just fine.

[Stupendous_Man]

I see no reason why gunpowder season should ever be hard bought.

[Caeldrim]

i've played in a 3.5 ptolus campaign for a few months now, and decided to give the firearms a crack.

had to take a feat (exotic weapon proficiency - firearms), and buy a license (!) to carrry a gunpowder weapon in the city. the feat was no big deal since we're playing 'feat per level', but the license was pricey. (500gp for a second level character in a low GP game)

The dragon pistol i got was expensive, ammo is expensive, and it's basically a heavy crossbow that does d12 damage. same range increment, same reload time, etc. in sa larger party it'd be devastating, but since we only had 2 PC's, it as a case of 'fire, drop gun, run in with axe'

As long as you're happy with the flavour, i see absolutely no reason NOT to include firearms in your setting... if they start to abuse the guns, just send them up against lots of guys with guns. simple.

[Yukitsu]

Granted. From personal experience, I find it a great deal easier to shoot a pistol or rifle than to fire a bow. I think what I may do is count the EWP: Firearms towards reducing reload time: i.e. With Proficiency, the entire reload process might only take, say, a move action, or even a swift action in some cases, as well as getting rid of the penalty to hit.


And actually, the penalty to hit might just be the first few times they fire it, as they, say, aren't used to the kick of the weapon, but once they're attuned, they're just fine.

A flintlock takes about 10 seconds to fire if you're a pro, IIRC. A swift is pretty unlikely, even if you took rapid reload.

[BRC]

A flintlock takes about 10 seconds to fire if you're a pro, IIRC. A swift is pretty unlikely, even if you took rapid reload.
If these are early firearms they wouldn't be flintlock, they would be muzzle-loaders, which take even longer to reload.

[Deth Muncher]

If these are early firearms they wouldn't be flintlock, they would be muzzle-loaders, which take even longer to reload.

Correct. I'm AFB right now, but I believe reloading a muzzle-loading weapon takes a full round action, provoking AoOs.

[Yukitsu]

If these are early firearms they wouldn't be flintlock, they would be muzzle-loaders, which take even longer to reload.

Doesn't the DMG use flintlock? I don't usually care to try using them, so I haven't checked. :smallconfused:

[Arutema]

Why are guns always treated as exotic weapons? One of the huge advantages of guns, and part of the reason they became prevalent before they became reliable, is the fact that they are really easy to use.

Point, pull trigger. Like crossbows, but less elegant.

Point, pull trigger is the easy part. If you're using early firearms, then you have to fiddle around with loading powder, wadding, and ball separately. To do this properly, and quickly requires training.

Having firearms do good damage should be balanced if you use realistic reload times for muzzle loaders: 2-4 full round actions.

[Flickerdart]

Buying bundled charges you can just stuff down the barrel and shoot should be expensive, but require no skills, really.

Making said bundles, or reloading "traditionally" in-field should be a complex and laborious task that demands skill point investment.

Of course, there needs to be a reason to do this. People won't likely go "sweet, guns!" since most consider them to be out of setting. Muskets didn't exactly have good range, accuracy or stopping power, either. What benefit would they provide?

Aha, got it! Anyone remember that Pirates! game with the Brace of Pistols item? Have people be able to carry around said brace, and shoot a bunch of shots before going Melee. Quick Draw + Rapid Shot should work here, even if the rules say it won't. It oozes flavour!

[Yukitsu]

5 second training time, and low production cost.

[Flickerdart]

5 second training time, and low production cost.
Yeah, but the PCs won't care about that unless they need an army, or are opposing one, in which case they have worse things to worry about.

[Yukitsu]

Just goes to show that real adventurers don't use guns, which was basically true of talented people back then as well anyway.

[Skjaldbakka]

Point, pull trigger is the easy part. If you're using early firearms, then you have to fiddle around with loading powder, wadding, and ball separately. To do this properly, and quickly requires training.

Exactly! Instead of having a penalty to hit, the gun should explode if you roll a natural 1, and jam if you roll a 2,3, or 4, because you didn't load it properly.

EWP would negate that, of course.

I actually had a system worked out for muzzleloaders once, but it really didn't work very well with D&D, in terms of being worthwhile. Of course, once the found revolvers, that changed. Ah, revolvers with spell storing bullets. I had a PC that did that. A lot.

[Deth Muncher]

Dragon Mag 321 says: Unless otherwise noted, reloading a gunpowder weapon requires two hands to hold, one ounce of gunpowder and one bullet per shot, which is a standard action that provokes AoOs.

Now, that's basically just your pistols. Things like the Blunderbuss require lots more of everything, and special things, like the Rocket Launcher require different things.

EDIT: And yes, it's got a misfire table.

[Fizban]

There's a 3rd party book called Sorcery and Steam that goes into a lot of detail with it's gunpowder weapons (considerably more than it's powered armor, actually). It uses a munitions skill that you make checks in to reload properly, with higher checks reducing reload time, as well as a rapid reload feat to bump you up another slot on the table. They include stats for muzzle loader, flintlock, and percussion cap weapons, the last of which gets you up to revolver level tech. They purposefully state that their reload times are ridiculously fast compared with historical times, since otherwise you'd never fire more than once per combat except with a revolver. I think the muzzle loaders were something like 2-4 rounds untrained without nifty checks, while having the proper ranks and feat would allow you to fully reload a revolver with a full round action (percussion caps are more complicated than what we use today).

I'd suggest making all firearms simple weapons once you've used them a few times (along with repeating crossbows while we're at it). Muskets reload with two full actions, or one with the rapid reload [firearms] feat, and flintlocks with a full or standard. Percussion caps load standard or move, revolvers use the same time per bullet, or 2 full rounds to fill without the feat, 1 with the feat. Damage would be on the order of 1d8 or 2d6 with pistols, range increment around 50', and 2d6 or 2d8 with muskets with a range of say, 80'. Then you have the really expensive rifled barrels with a range of maybe 100'. This is all hashed out from memory based on at least three different books that stat up firearms, so take it as you will.

[Deth Muncher]

[QUOTE=Fizban;5416982]There's a 3rd party book called Sorcery and Steam that goes into a lot of detail with it's gunpowder weapons (considerably more than it's powered armor, actually). It uses a munitions skill that you make checks in to reload properly, with higher checks reducing reload time, as well as a rapid reload feat to bump you up another slot on the table. They include stats for muzzle loader, flintlock, and percussion cap weapons, the last of which gets you up to revolver level tech. They purposefully state that their reload times are ridiculously fast compared with historical times, since otherwise you'd never fire more than once per combat except with a revolver. I think the muzzle loaders were something like 2-4 rounds untrained without nifty checks, while having the proper ranks and feat would allow you to fully reload a revolver with a full round action (percussion caps are more complicated than what we use today).


That's quite nifty! I'm actually not familiar with where to obtain 3rd party books, though. Does one buy them at brick and mortar stores, or must they be purchased off of the interwebs?

Oh, but as to damage. Since apparently I'm the only one with the magazine, it says that:

-Regular Pistols do 1d10 damage (or d8 for small)
-Certain kinds of combi-pistols (i.e. shield pistol, spear pistol, etc) do d8 damage.
-There are also bigger guns, like carbines, muskets and rifles, all of which deal a d12.

There are other crazy things, like bombards and field guns and organ guns, and lots of nifty enhancements, like breachloading (makes reloading a move action), or a few different kinds of bayonets to make them more melee-combatworthy.

[Yahzi]

Gunpowder is no big deal. LIke others have said, muskets are pretty much only useful for armies. A 3rd level ranger with a bow will do much more damage.

Rifling, on the other the hand, will completely wreck your game. Under no circumstance should you let your players even pretend to invent rifling. Gunpowder and swords co-existed on the battlefield for hundreds of years, right up until the end of the American Civil War and the mass-production of rifles.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Guns, in my campaigns, are always simple weapons. The whole armor system in D&D is so abstract to begin with that I don't give them any bonus against armor, but I did up the critical from x3 to x4. A musket or harquebus is great for mass use (especially combined with pikes), horrible as a dueling weapon. Pistols, however, can be concealed (and it's getting to be kind of a running gag that any government functionary my players meet will have a pistol hidden on him somewhere XD), or bought by the half-dozen. You don't walk into a fight with just one pistol (again, unless you're a Treacherous Beaureacrat), you get a bandolier with 4-6 and pull off another one after every firing. It's badass and true-to-history (Cavaliers and Pirates would strap on numerous pistols). Also, I dropped the cost on muskets and blunderbusses to that of a Light Crossbow; don't know if that's realistic, but it does make it feel more like a "soldier's weapon." Pistols cost the same, but they're always masterwork weapons because it's the rich that buy them, and each one is a custom job (and usually enriched with engravings/gilding to look fancy).

I don't do the whole "explodes on you on a roll of 1" thing because I think even a 1/20 chance of a catastrophic misfire is too high. (And with my players' luck, they would all have missing fingers by now). Maybe two critical failures in a row, but that already sounds like too much rolling so I just wouldn't bother with it.

[ericgrau]

A Taoist monk is making them medicine when suddenly, it explodes in his face...

Wait, does this monk pee in his medicine or does he add animal dung before letting it ripen for a few months and then making an extract? 'Cuz the saltpetre, well...

Fire arms made most armor nigh-obsolete, so I'd make it a touch attack against all or almost all armor. Easy to fire, but takes a while to load. Not sure what to do about damage, that's where things get screwy in the d&d system what with HP and all.

[Stupendous_Man]

That is how the chinese discovered gunpowder. Someone was making a medicine with sulfer and saltpeter, and heated it...

[ericgrau]

Wow. Leave it to the Chinese to make extracts of well, you know for medicine.

EDIT: Oh, it could also be mined off of certain cave walls. That makes much more sense as an early source. Also see this: http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/gunpdr.htm. I think the Chinese origin may be a myth.

[Tacoma]

I think the main benefits of early firearms (we're talking powder and shot here, not bullets with casings) were the following (I am forgetting some):

+1: You can train a man to use a gun very easily - much easier than using a bow. I'd call all guns Martial weapons for this reason. If you have the ability to use Martial weapons you can become familiar with guns with some practice but without spending a feat. If you cannot use all Martial weapons, you'll need the Martial Weapons feat.
+2: The effects of the gun - bright noise, smoke, flash of light, inexplicable death - were demoralizing for the enemy. It could also scare horses.
+3: The gun, like a crossbow, could be fired while entrenched or lying prone, so reloading and firing can happen behind the cover of a low wall.
+4: The gun does more damage than an arrow and it punches through armor easier. I would use 2d6 for a pistol, 2d8 for a rifle, and a shotgun would fire three shots for 1d6 per shot to everyone in a cone shape 25' long and 10' wide at the end. This increases the effect of damage reduction instead of giving it one shot at 3d6. For bullet guns I'd give a -5 Armor bonus for their Piercing damage, though the Shotgun wouldn't benefit from this.

=1: The effective range of a gun is similar to the effective range of a crossbow. Note that Shotguns have no range increment system, just an area of effect.

-1: Guns are expensive to make and the bullets must be high quality. I'd require all bullets to cost the same as masterwork arrows but with no bonus, as a base cost.
-2: Powder is expensive. It must be kept dry. It can be set off if it gets too hot even if its container makes a save vs. fire damage.
-3: Horses without training near explosions cannot be used near gunfire. So the horses of gunfighter cavalry would be more expensive and rare.
-4: The guns are difficult to maintain and must be kept in excellent condition.
-5: Misfires damage the gun so it requires repair before being used again, and might harm the wielder.
-6: The shot flies too fast to see, so unlike with a bow you cannot adjust range for misses.
-7: Reloading times are very long. All weapons are muzzle-loading and single-shot. You cannot employ standard feats that improve the rate of fire like Rapid Shot. The absolute maximum rate of fire is one shot per round including all possible magic and skill.


This set of guns is actually weaker than a longsword wielded by the same person - or a bow for that matter - unless it's a person of such low level he gets only one attack anyway. And some of these don't even have a game effect listed for them.

So you'll see the low levels like normal guards using guns, but heroic high levels use swords and bows and such - basically how just about every Chinese martial arts epic works.

[Jayabalard]

Gunpowder is no big deal. LIke others have said, muskets are pretty much only useful for armies. A 3rd level ranger with a bow will do much more damage.

Rifling, on the other the hand, will completely wreck your game. Under no circumstance should you let your players even pretend to invent rifling. Gunpowder and swords co-existed on the battlefield for hundreds of years, right up until the end of the American Civil War and the mass-production of rifles.Rifling alone is insufficient; you need advances beyond plain old black powder and even more tech than rifling to start making breech loaders.


-1: Guns are expensive to make and the bullets must be high quality. I'd require all bullets to cost the same as masterwork arrows but with no bonus, as a base cost. It takes some pretty simple tools to cast lead balls of the right size. The materials are very cheap, so this "expensive to make" doesn't really make any sense.

[Philistine]

You can train a man to use a gun very easily - much easier than using a bow. I'd call all guns Martial weapons for this reason. If you have the ability to use Martial weapons you can become familiar with guns with some practice but without spending a feat. If you cannot use all Martial weapons, you'll need the Martial Weapons feat.


So, wait. If a bow is a Martial weapon, and a gun is "much easier" to learn to use than a bow, shouldn't the gun then be in a lower complexity category? I.e., a Simple weapon?

[sleepy]

There's no reason you can't balance firearms for your game. Guns are not the problem.

What you actually have to ask yourself is if you're prepared to add barrels of black powder to your campaign. If you're lower level, you may be concerned with making massive explosions relatively easy to cause. Your players are going to treat blowing a hole in the wall as the default way to get inside anything you put a wall around and try to kill npc's by asploding the building they're in or caving in the dungeon.

[Hunter_Rose]

Rifles were common starting in the 15th century and were carried with the conquistedors to the new world. Early rifles had very heavy barrels and required stands to correctly aim them. The heavier barrel was required because of the pressures involved in fireing a grooved bullet through the rifled barrel. A rifle would take longer to load since you would need greased wadding to clean out the rifling with each re-load and you would need to hammer the bullet down into the breech of the rifle. Early rifles jammed allot. The rifle really didn't become easy to use until the civil war due to the invention of the minet bullet which had a hollowed out end that expanded when the gunpowder charge went off. This would allow a smaller bullet to be loaded into a rifled barrel that woud expand and clean out the rifling with each shot.

It is a mis-conception that muskets were hard to re-load. There are a number of historic accounts of soldiers being able to tap load a musket and get off 6 to 8 aimed shots in a minute. Plus soon after guns were introduced rudimentary cartriges were made of a bullet with wadding and gunpowder wrapped in paper. The musketeer would bite off the top of the cartrige, pour the gunpowder into the barrel, push rod down or tap load the remaining cartrige with bullet and wadding into place, and then pour a measure of finer powder from a powder horn into the priming pan. This could take an experienced loader anywhere for 5 to 10 seconds.

The biggest problem of early firearms were that they used match locks. Match locks were useless in any type of wet weather and made night raids impossible. With the flintlock you could now have better reliability in wet weather and use the weapon at night.

When used in effective formations such as pike and gun combinations guns are devistating, since the pike men can cover the gun troops as they reload. When firearms were first introduced in second addition the rule was that if you rolled maximum damage then you would roll the damage die a second time. This would continue if you kept on rolling maximum damage. It was possible for a arquebus to cause 100 points of damage on one hit this way. I don't know if this has been carried over, but I would use this as a house rule if guns were in my campaign.

I think guns are interesting in a fantasy world that has a setting closer to a renaissance time period. I also like the idea of certain worlds where gun power does not work at all, like on Oerth for the Grayhawk setting. The trouble is how to handle smoke powder/gun powder. In non-oriental setting gun powder is supposed to be treated as a magic item. In an oriental setting it can be made as an alchemical product like alchemal fire. It adds a new dynamic to the fantasy world and opens the door to a more technological game. In my opinion if you introduce firearms into your game I think there should be social and political ripple effects that ultimately cause some changes to the world. I would think that palidans and mages would feel somewhat threatened by this new weapon and would campaign against it. Guns are a great equalizer for magic, and it should be possible for a gun wielding character to snipe at a mage from out of spell range. And, I feel a Palidan would see the weapon as an unfair advantage.

[Stupendous_Man]

Wow. Leave it to the Chinese to make extracts of well, you know for medicine.

EDIT: Oh, it could also be mined off of certain cave walls. That makes much more sense as an early source. Also see this: http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/gunpdr.htm. I think the Chinese origin may be a myth.

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/gun.shtml

This invention seems to have been discovered in China by accident - by alchemists seeking the elixir of immortality. This earliest account reported the experiment: "some have heated together the saltpeter, sulfure and carbon of charcoal with honey; smoke and flames result, so that their hands and faces have been burnt, and even the whole house burnt down."

The gunpowder used for military purpose was first recorded in 919 A.D. By the 11th century, explosive bombs filled with gunpowder and fired from catapults were introduced and used in China. The words "fire cannon", "rocket", "missile" and "fireball" appeared time and again in the official Song history as well as two other books written during the same period.

[Shpadoinkle]

Why are guns always treated as exotic weapons? One of the huge advantages of guns, and part of the reason they became prevalent before they became reliable, is the fact that they are really easy to use.

Point, pull trigger. Like crossbows, but less elegant.

Because they're so damn rare. Nunchaku are basically small flails, and kama are essentially hand-sized scythes, but they're both exotic because in a standard D&D setting, they'd be almost unheard of. Basically the same thing with guns- exotic because virtually nonexistant, not because they're hard to use.

[Heliomance]

But that's not what exotic means in D&D. Exotic weapons are harder to use well. Seriously, it's hard not to hit yourself in the face with nunchaku.

[Tacoma]

True. And sometimes having exotic proficiency means you change how you use the weapon: as in the dwarven axe and the bastard sword changing from two handed to one handed.

Although with the 1.5 STR bonus to damage it's a questionable expenditure of a feat. I'll leave that alone though.

And it's true that the problem is not that the PCs will obtain ten charges of black powder but that they will obtain ten barrels of the stuff. I think if the king knows of the importance of the alchemical components he will keep the mines and other sources of the black powder securely under his control. The small amount of black powder available to the public is on the black market as a result of soldiers selling their powder, small imports from other countries, corrupt government officials, creative alchemists finding other small sources of material, and magical production.

Which gives us an unintended consequence. I want to use Major Creation to create in two castings the minerals required to mix up and make black powder. I cast two spells, have a henchdude use the measuring cups, and for a little while I have free black powder. Doesn't help with guns, but it sure does help with blowing stuff up.

I guess the issue here is that the black powder isn't magical and so there is no special control over it. Not like "this spell is third level and so you must be fifth level to cast it".

[Flickerdart]

Hm. We're not considering one important factor here. So far, all that's been mentioned is hand weaponry, but almost nothing on artillery. Shoot that dragon with a few cannonballs and it's not going to be standing straight.

Are there even artillery rules for D&D?

[Deth Muncher]

Hm. We're not considering one important factor here. So far, all that's been mentioned is hand weaponry, but almost nothing on artillery. Shoot that dragon with a few cannonballs and it's not going to be standing straight.

Are there even artillery rules for D&D?

Yes there are! I'll post them in a sec.


EDIT: Rules.

There are three kinds of artillery presented in Dragon Mag 321: the bombard, the field gun and the organ gun.

The bombard requires the crew chief to make a DC15 check, using his BAB, Int modifier and range incriment penalties, and for the most part follows the catapult rules. Loading it and setting it both require DC 15 Knowledge: Siege Engineering checks, and lifting the cannon ball is a DC 10 Str check.

The field gun fires a cannon ball in a 500 ft long, 5 ft wide line, with a reflex save for half damage. It requires a few DC 15 Siege Engineering checks as well.

The organ gun fires a 10 ft wide, 300 ft. long burst (and thus cannot cause criticals) with a DC 20 reflex for half.

[Telonius]

That's not even getting into Wan Hu (http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/06.html)and the first recorded attempt to win a Darwin Award.

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/images/06.gif

:smallbiggrin:

[Flickerdart]

My god, that's genius! Shoot the Fighter out of a cannon for mad range on your Charge!

[Ravens_cry]

That's not even getting into Wan Hu (http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/rocketry/06.html)and the first recorded attempt to win a Darwin Award.

:smallbiggrin:

From what I understand, he won.

[Tacoma]

The field gun fires a cannon ball in a 500 ft long, 5 ft wide line, with a reflex save for half damage. It requires a few DC 15 Siege Engineering checks as well.


This field gun, it basically has the same effect whether firing at a halfling 500 feet away on a clear field as it does striking the halfling after the bullet has blasted through 99 orcs standing in a line? A camera next to the halfling would register identical velocity (and thus damage potential) whether 99 orcs were struck first or the bullet flew through open air?

Excepting of course that the halfling could be granted some measure of cover by a generous DM.

[AslanCross]

Because they're so damn rare. Nunchaku are basically small flails, and kama are essentially hand-sized scythes, but they're both exotic because in a standard D&D setting, they'd be almost unheard of. Basically the same thing with guns- exotic because virtually nonexistant, not because they're hard to use.

As a previous poster has mentioned, the first firearms were contemporaries of full plate and rapiers. If a setting has those, it's not a stretch to have firearms common on the battlefield.

Wan Hu is awesome. I enjoyed that Mythbusters episode. One of their tries had the rockets detonating explosively instead of igniting as rockets should. I think they had to revamp Buster after that.

[hamishspence]

Depends what you define as a rapier- a history book- Britain BC, used the term for short, thin, thrusting swords- of bronze.

So, in that sense, rapiers have been around for a very long time.

[Deth Muncher]

This field gun, it basically has the same effect whether firing at a halfling 500 feet away on a clear field as it does striking the halfling after the bullet has blasted through 99 orcs standing in a line? A camera next to the halfling would register identical velocity (and thus damage potential) whether 99 orcs were struck first or the bullet flew through open air?

Excepting of course that the halfling could be granted some measure of cover by a generous DM.

This came from the same people who gave us "Chicken Infested," okay?


But realistically, if I had players using this, I'd have each concurrent hit have a negative modifier placed on the next one, and when they finally stopped hitting, it would represent the ball either lodging itself in the last victim, or falling to the ground.

I.e. A player has a + 10 to hit, shot 1. It hits. We proceed to the next victim, with only a + 6 to hit. Etc etc. Heaven forbid someone uses a swift action somehow to cast True Strike.

[Tacoma]

But it's a reflex save right? I assumed all 99 orcs failed because, you know, they're orcs.

[Flickerdart]

You don't understand.

The cannonball only strikes the first orc, who fails his reflex save and soars through the air, hitting the second orc, who similarly stumbles backwards into the third orc...96 orcs later, the poor Halfling is crushed by an orc.

[Deth Muncher]

But it's a reflex save right? I assumed all 99 orcs failed because, you know, they're orcs.

...point.

Perhaps some d% rolling after every sucessful hit? "Okay, you hit this orc. ::rolls dice:: Oh, it appears it deflected off of his armor after hitting him, thus throwing it off target and making it unable to hit anyone else."

[Fizban]

Stormwrack uses a similar system to the one posted above from Dragon for loading, treating bombards as basically bigger and better ballistae: make an attack roll at penalty, deal massive damage, spend half a minute-full minute reloading. Sorcery and Steam I think used direct fire with solid shot, and had artillery rules if you used shells, along with a shotgun blast shot and chained shot that would affect a whole line.

[Tacoma]

I just thought it was kind of silly to say that an arrow stops at one target struck, a Large arrow stops, etc. but then suddenly there's this hude shift and the projectile plows right through and strikes up to 100 people instead of just 1.

Seems like it should have a more linear progression of power output vs. penetration.

[hamishspence]

Well, there is Penetrating shot in PHB2 that allows normal arrows to become 60 ft Line attacks.

[Tacoma]

I hesitate to ask what that combined with the Arcane Archer "porcupine spray" attack could accomplish. It boggles.

[hamishspence]

it takes a standard action, and replaces normal ranged attack (makes an attack roll against everything along the line)

So no Full attacking with it, or similar tricks.

[Tacoma]

To the third-party sourcebooks!

*scene transition*

Batman: Okay Robin, we're here. Grab a third-party sourcebook and start scouring.

-Hours pass

Robin: Okay, if he takes Frenzied Goldfish and six ranks of Profession: Fishmonger's Accountant, and he's underwater, he can fire Hail of Arrows as a swift action and have Penetrating Shot apply to each arrow.

Batman: Good job Robin.

*Batman smacks Robin*

Batman: Now find a build you can use on land.

-Batman goes back to his skooma pipe with a hearty sigh

[Yahzi]

Rifling alone is insufficient; you need advances beyond plain old black powder and even more tech than rifling to start making breech loaders.
You don't need breeches for rifling. The Minie Ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini%C3%A9_ball) works fine with muzzle-loading black-powder.

But then, I suppose a clever Frenchman constitutes an "advance." :smallbiggrin:

[Jayabalard]

You don't need breeches for rifling. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just pointing out that rifling isn't the issue that's going to wreck a game; it's having breech loaded rifles that make for really fast reloading along with high accuracy. Which, incidentally, is about the level of technology at the end of the civil war.


But then, I suppose a clever Frenchman constitutes an "advance." Well, there's about 400 years between the first rifles and that particular advance, and during that time there were advances in the rifling process itself. Along with that, there were advances in chemistry, and by the 1820s people were producing much higher quality black powder. So it's not just a clever Frenchman.

[Egiam]

You know the scene in The Last Samurai where Tom Cruise is educating the gunman in rifles? I think it should be like that. Imagine making them martial weapons. The difference is that there is only a -2 penalty for lacking proficiency. Then there are feats you can take to increase effectiveness, like a bastard sword. I think it would take a round to load and a round to fire with martial proficiency, a round to load and a standard to fire with 1st lvl exotic training and so on.

Also watch the movie Princess Mononoke. Its a japanese anime movie by the same guys as Spirited Away. Its got a lot of japanese firearm battles.

[Ravens_cry]

They looked more like an advance on hand cannons more then rifles. As well, they used matchlocks.

[Deth Muncher]

Hm...I'm thinking I should perhaps post the rest of the rules for the guns here. It's available legally over the webternets via Paizo, but if it ends up violating a rule here in the playground, I'll gladly remove them.

One Handed
-Regular pistol: 50ft range, Small does d8, medium does d10.
-Dueling Pistols (more expensive, always sold in a pair) - Same as above.
-Grenade Pistol: Can shoot bombs, bomb casings (which hold things like Alch. Fire or Tanglefoot Bags), or canisters (i.e. protects something you need to be sure to get to someone at a distance)
-Hilt Pistol (built into a weapon hilt) - Small does d6, medium does d8.
-Shield Pistol (built into, you guessed it, a shield, can do extra damage on bullrushes) - Same as above.
-Holdout Pistol - (Small pistol that sacrifices range and power for the ability to conceal it better) Same as above.
-Spear Pistol - Adds damage to your spear attacks, with same dice as above.

Two Handed
-Blunderbuss - Small does d4, medium does d6. Both damage everything in a spray with a DC 15 Ref Save for 1/2.
-Carbine - Small does d10, medium does d12. Range 100 feet. Made for mounted shooting, you only take half the negative you would while riding.
-Hand Cannon - Small does d8, medium does d10. Range 50ft.
-Musket - As carbine, but range at 150ft. No bonus to mounted shooting.
-Rifle - As musket, but range at 200ft.
-Rocket Launcher - Can launch Explosive, Incendiary, or a Spear.

Let's see how that goes.

[Deth Muncher]

Well, for better or worse (and also because one of my players got REALLY lucky on my rolls), I have now introduced gunpowder into the campaign. Specifically, the Rocket Launcher. The only minor thing about it currently is that he's restricted to using the spear-mode, and I didn't actually tell him how to use it (which should result in hilarity in the ensuing game). Heck, I originally wasn't even going to give him any gunpowder with it, but he rolled really high again when he was getting his rewards from a local merchant, and TECHNICALLY he was the only one who followed the quest he was assigned to a T: namely, protect a wine merchant as he goes back to his village.

[Immutep]

Hey all.

In my Oriental Adventures game (which is going swimmingly thanks to you all's help with designing encounters), it's nearing the time when the group should be heading towards a more urbanized area, which I've decided ought to maybe have rudimentary firearms. Rulewise, I have the ones as presented in the DMG, as well as from one of the Dragon Magazines, so there's a whole boatload of options. My question is, how much is overpowering? As in, say I have them fight a group of people right after they learn about gunpowder. If that group of people is armed with wheellock pistols, is that too much? In that example, if the PCs don't die from being shot, then they all have shiny new weapons (albeit with a penatly to hit). Whereas if they go against a group that only has one pistol, then only one person gets it, and then the others feel left out.

I dunno. I pose this to you all.

just so you know, the guidelines for gunpowder weapons in the DMG are way off the mark. A musket for example wasn't likely to hit anything past 50 feet due to it's indescriminent nature (even a block of men stood tightly packed together as was the practise at the time) and so for a range increment it should be more like 30 feet (allowing a hit further away with reduced chance)

[Fortinbras]

I'm running a gun campaign. I'm having guns do 2d10 damage and make touch attacks. on the minus side they take 2 full round actions to load and with each shot you have to roll d%. A roll of 1-20 means the gun has misfired.

In my camapaign guns supposes to be simple but they require a teacher. the PC's killed all of the monks who knew how to use them (the guns were in storage at the time) so learning how to use them should be interesting

[Deth Muncher]

In my camapaign guns supposes to be simple but they require a teacher. the PC's killed all of the monks who knew how to use them (the guns were in storage at the time) so learning how to use them should be interesting


In that similar vein, the PC who found the Rocket Launcher only got it by rummaging around in a burnt-down village, so he doesn't really know how either.

[Tacoma]

Note that having the guns ignore armor and natural armor (using a ranged touch attack) doesn't make sense. The armor still does something for the wearer. But it won't completely stop the bullet like it would stop a sword, you know?

The interesting story of Ned Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly), the Australian criminal, ends with a shootout between his gang and police in 1880. He had made metal armor from bits and pieces, and while it made him invulnerable to their bullets it slowed him greatly and they shot his unprotected legs. Perhaps things would have turned out different if he had finished his armor. It's a big part of why body armor is still illegal in Australia.

In the 1930s gangsters would wear improvised armor that was just cloth, that could slow or stop the light bullets used then by police. The police responded by upgrading their arms to fire .38 rounds. The gangsters responded by actually getting shot sometimes.

The most successful armies have used helmets. The German helmet design in WW2 was excellent. And the WW2 helmets were just steel, nothing spectacular. Certain soldiers in WW1 wore a very heavy metal breastplate and helmet called the Brewster Body Shield, which could withstand machine-gun fire. And it is possible that a bullet striking a steel helmet could be stopped cold. It's just not a guarantee worth carrying all that weight.

In WW2 some Russian infantry were given metal armor that could protect against 9MM pistol or SMG fire at about 100 feet.

Flak jackets given to pilots and deck crew of aircraft carriers was made from metal and ballistic nylon, so maybe it doesn't count when we talk about medeival armor.

After this they start to get into kevlar and nobody wears metal armor anymore at all.

Point is, while the standard armor available was optimized for slower melee weapons and projectiles like arrows and stones, remember that a gun is inherently no different from any other weapon. The gun fires a tiny bit of metal very fast, delivering it to the victim. The bullet strikes him and penetrates very deeply, even blowing completely through. But it's still an object thrown at someone. Because it's so very small and so very fast we feel like it's somehow different and requires different rules.

[Immutep]

based on what the person above is saying, maybe a better alternative would be a bonus to attack roll based on the weapons calibre?

[Trixie]

Flak jackets given to pilots and deck crew of aircraft carriers was made from metal and ballistic nylon, so maybe it doesn't count when we talk about medeival armor.

After this they start to get into kevlar and nobody wears metal armor anymore at all.

Um, nope. First flak/bulletproof jackets were from silk - nylon was used later. And, actually, is wasn't first use of silk in an armor - both mongols and tatars used it, combining about one-two dozen layers in something that resembled bullet- (actually, arrow-) proof armor :smallwink:

As for the second comment, you do realize that kevlar without metal or ceramic plates in it isn't worth much? So yes, they do.

[Trixie]

@Tacoma

-1: Guns are expensive to make and the bullets must be high quality. I'd require all bullets to cost the same as masterwork arrows but with no bonus, as a base cost.

Wrong! You only need a wooden tower to cast bullets. Both guns and bullets are extremly inxepensive, especially compared to good quality bows and crossbows. In fact, it was weapon of choice of Europe's poorest (and deadliest) armies.

-2: Powder is expensive. It must be kept dry. It can be set off if it gets too hot even if its container makes a save vs. fire damage.

Wrong! It's quite cheap, too. The ingredients are mostly dirt-cheap, you only need to pay for a powder mill. It's better when it is dry, but it can be fired up to pretty wet point.

-3: Horses without training near explosions cannot be used near gunfire. So the horses of gunfighter cavalry would be more expensive and rare.

Um, nope. Yes, they would be a bit more expensive to get, but horses trained to ignore loud thing were around long before gunpowder.

-4: The guns are difficult to maintain and must be kept in excellent condition.

Not true, only our nanometer-machined-tolerance guns are so fragile. The guns of old had almost no moving parts and were difficult to clean, anyway. Sure, if the gunt is too dirty it cannot be fired, but that didn't meant perfectly cleaning it after each shoot.

-6: The shot flies too fast to see, so unlike with a bow you cannot adjust range for misses.

Um, old guns have 12-25 mm lead balls, which flew much slower than today's small caliber, ultrafast bullets (they had larger kinetic energy, though) - so one could see them.

-7: Reloading times are very long. All weapons are muzzle-loading and single-shot. You cannot employ standard feats that improve the rate of fire like Rapid Shot. The absolute maximum rate of fire is one shot per round including all possible magic and skill.

Also not true, you have lots of relations of people firing them 4-8 times per minuter.

This set of guns is actually weaker than a longsword wielded by the same person - or a bow for that matter - unless it's a person of such low level he gets only one attack anyway. And some of these don't even have a game effect listed for them.

In the game, maybe. In RL? I don't think so.

[Tacoma]

Well gee thanks for proving me completely wrong Trixie ;)

Except that I was trying to put together a set of explanations for D&D guns, not real-world guns. Note the phrase "Reloading times are very long. All weapons are muzzle-loading and single-shot. You cannot employ standard feats that improve the rate of fire like Rapid Shot. The absolute maximum rate of fire is one shot per round including all possible magic and skill."

To which you reply "Also not true, you have lots of relations of people firing them 4-8 times per minute."

Six seconds per round results in ten shots per minute, so I don't see what you're complaining about in my suggestion there. And also note that I realize not all guns are muzzle-loading and single-shot. It's pretty clear there are other gun technologies available. I was saying that if you take all these suggestions together you get a gun technology that is limited enough to work in D&D without killing the sword and armor, but still worthwhile.

[Simanos]

I believe, IIRC, that alot of firearms deal 2dX damage, so a weapon that does, say 2d8 (avg 9) damage would be equivalent to +5 1d8 weapon.
Not completely true because that +5 weapon gives +5 to hit as well as +5 to damage.

[Zeful]

It is a mis-conception that muskets were hard to re-load. There are a number of historic accounts of soldiers being able to tap load a musket and get off 6 to 8 aimed shots in a minute.

That fits with 1 shot per round others have stated. So reloading, aiming and firing would be a full round action with the best training and magic gear. A gunman would be outdone by an archer who can have upwards of 6-7 shots a round (46-49 shots a minute) with the best training and magic gear.

[Deth Muncher]

That fits with 1 shot per round others have stated. So reloading, aiming and firing would be a full round action with the best training and magic gear. A gunman would be outdone by an archer who can have upwards of 6-7 shots a round (46-49 shots a minute) with the best training and magic gear.

Outdone in number of shots, sure. Outdone in damage? I'm not so sure. Not to mention, it's not quite a fair argument, as said archer will be having many feats to allow those extra shots per round, whereas the gunman doesn't have that option. If we make it fair, so that each only has one shot per round, then it ties, because the best archers are doing...what, d6+Str with a comp bow? A carbine does like d10 damage. Or more, I posted it earlier and I've forgotten. So it equals out that if they each have 10 shots a minute (that's one shot per round), the gunman does 10d10, and the archer does 10(d6+Str). Assuming the bowman uses a Comp bow, that is. If he uses regular bows, then the gunman has a chance.

[Jayabalard]

Modern gunpowder uses some chemical process to get nitrates instead of making saltpetre. We don't generally use black powder in anything but fireworks any more; we use smokeless powder (which is neither smokeless, nor a powder) instead.


Wrong! You only need a wooden tower to cast bullets. Both guns and bullets are extremly inxepensive, especially compared to good quality bows and crossbows. In fact, it was weapon of choice of Europe's poorest (and deadliest) armies.Bullets, yes, guns not so much. Certainly they're cheaper than good quality bows, but a good quality crossbow is going to be cheaper still.


Um, old guns have 12-25 mm lead balls, which flew much slower than today's small caliber, ultrafast bullets (they had larger kinetic energy, though) - so one could see them.They were still quite a bit faster than arrows, and smaller than arrows; add in the fact that you're generating quite a bit of smoke, especially during volley fire, and trying to see anything is pretty useless, let alone a tiny fast moving projectile. By all means, if you have some comparative muzzle velocities that show otherwise, feel free to post them.


Also not true, you have lots of relations of people firing them 4-8 times per minuter.That's 1 shot per minute, so you're not actually showing him to be wrong with your statement here.


Wrong! It's quite cheap, too. The ingredients are mostly dirt-cheap, you only need to pay for a powder mill. It's better when it is dry, but it can be fired up to pretty wet point.Source? Everything I've read on the subject disagrees with your statement. A quick google comes up with stuff like this (http://books.google.com/books?id=30IJLnwpc8EC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=cost+gunpowder+expensive&source=web&ots=H0u1dKPgl_&sig=qzeVGYzc-qo2ddkZBL7M-bqO8e8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result) and arguments that the high cost of fielding a gunpowder based army is what lead to centralized states. Saltpeter and Sulfur were both fairly expensive; sulfur was imported for most people (aside from Italy).

[Zeful]

Outdone in number of shots, sure. Outdone in damage? I'm not so sure. Not to mention, it's not quite a fair argument, as said archer will be having many feats to allow those extra shots per round, whereas the gunman doesn't have that option. If we make it fair, so that each only has one shot per round, then it ties, because the best archers are doing...what, d6+Str with a comp bow? A carbine does like d10 damage. Or more, I posted it earlier and I've forgotten. So it equals out that if they each have 10 shots a minute (that's one shot per round), the gunman does 10d10, and the archer does 10(d6+Str). Assuming the bowman uses a Comp bow, that is. If he uses regular bows, then the gunman has a chance.

In a one shot a round competition the gunman comes out ahead with 55 (5.5x10) average damage compared to an archers 35 damage (3.5x10) using a normal shortbow (or a longbow if small sized). A Composite +2 Str shortbow evens the playing field to 55 damage each. A longbow is 45 damage (4.5x10) and only requires a +1 Str Composite Longbow to even the field.

[fusilier]

I personally have fired muzzle-loading blackpowder military muskets, and stood next to some-one firing a matchlock, and I can say definitively that you cannot see the bullet in flight! An old Bombard, or mortar, I would expect you to be able to see the projectile in flight, but not from most small arms. They could actually project bullets faster than the speed of sound (if the barrel was long enough).

One of the problems I see on this topic is that black-powder weapons span many centuries, and underwent considerable development. So, yes, British soldiers of the 18th century were known to get around 8 shots a minute from a muzzle-loading musket. This was only accomplished, however, by taking short-cuts that decrease the accuracy and the reliability of the weapon. In short, they loaded powder and ball, and instead of ramming the charge home with a ramrod, blew down the barrel in an attempt to seat the ball. Often times they bored out the vent-hole to a larger size, so they could skip priming, and instead flick the barrel to the side and hope that enough powder from the barrel got into the pan . . .

However, such expedients hadn't been developed in the 16th century, and the technology probably wouldn't have allowed for it. So you need to decide on what technology is available. Black-powder firearms are usually categorized by their ignition system.

If you want I can go into tons of detail on the subject, but this is what I would suggest:

If you want really primitive black-powder weapons -- Hand-gonnes. These use what Gurps calls a Cannon-lock. Essentially the gun is held with one hand, and with the other hand the firer touches a match (i.e. match cord -- a kind of slow burning fuse) to the vent-hole to fire the gun.

More advanced would be matchlock harquebuses and muskets. These have triggers, and stocks. Having to handle a lit match cord while loading with loose powder is always tricky, so soldiers do have to be drilled fairly well (still easier than a bow, but certainly more complicated than a pike).

Wheellocks make pistols possible, because they don't require a lit match cord. They also make stealth easier, and were popular among assassins, leading to the first gun regulations. They are very expensive, however.

Bayonets were a late 17th century invention. The originals are called "plug bayonets": essentially a dagger with the handle shoved down the mouth of the barrel. Socket bayonets that could be kept on the gun while it was fired were not available until the early 1700s. Most muskets make excellent clubs however, and that is how they were usually used in close combat.

When the aztecs encountered guns they quickly figured out how they worked, and they didn't consider them that serious a threat. The horses were considered the real danger.