D&D 4E Firearms in 4E

Pbartender · Feb 6, 2009

AngeltheTechrat said:
Cartridges? No way.. Bullets and powder for these muskets and flintlocks. Cartridges are way too modern.

Allow me to re-iterate...

Realistic Shmealistic. This is D&D.

If the game can have repeating crossbows and glo-sticks... *AHEM!* ...I mean, sunrods as mundane items on the basic equipment list, there's no reason pre-made paper cartridges can't be the standard for flintlock muzzle-loaders.

Paper cartridges, as in a lead ball and a measured amount of gunpowder rolled up in a slip of paper like short, fat cigarette.

Heck, forget flintlocks and wheellocks... This is D&D! We've got magic! Make them magiclock firearms! Prestidigitation, an at-will cantrip, can light small fires. This exceptionally minor enchantment can be what sets off the gunpowder charge when you pull the trigger. All you have to do is shove the paper cartridge full of powder and lead down the barrel, aim and pull the trigger. That's no worse than reloading a hand-cranked or lever-action crossbow, I'd say.

Let's be honest... If you're going to jerk around with ball and powder and multiple rounds to reload the stupid things, who's going to bother using them in the game?

UngainlyTitan · Feb 6, 2009

Pbartender I love the idea of using prestidigitation to fire gunpowder weapons. It does make them more reliable than historically and now you can use them in the wet as the primer pan cannot get wet. Makes for some interesting campaign and setting implications.

Pbartender · Feb 6, 2009

ardoughter said:
It does make them more reliable than historically and now you can use them in the wet as the primer pan cannot get wet.

But the cartridge in the barrel or in your belt pouch still could.

Nevertheless, D&D has never taken into account the effect of dampness on bowstrings, so why should we start now with gunpowder?

IanArgent · Feb 7, 2009

Thanks for reminding me about Brutal; I'd forgotten - and this is an excellent place for it.

I still don't want firearms of this type being reloaded in combat. I don't want PCs wasting actions in combat reloading - it sucks for the player AND the rest of the party when the gunner says "I reload" when his initiative comes up. I included the rifle for completeness; now that I think on it I'm dropping the thing, and would almost prefer to drop the musket. Likewise making them require feats or a class feature; for what I want to do with them I don't want to expend too many character resources. The original thought was to make them basically an encounter-powered item that anyone could use, sort of like an alchemical item. In fact I toyed with the idea of writing them up as an alchemical item, but that ended up being too restrictive.

Anyway - let's try this again. Compare the Pistol to the crossbow and the musket to the longbow.

Blackpowder pistol * Simple Ranged Weapon

cost: 50 gp
Damage: 1d8
Proficient: +2
Range: 10/20
Properties: Load Special (may not be reloaded in combat), crossbow group, Brutal 2
Weight 5 lbs

If used with a power/ability that requires multiple shots, the user must have that many loaded pistols ready to wield

Blackpowder musket * Simple Ranged Weapon
Cost: 75 gp
Damage: 1d10
Proficient: +2
Range: 15/30
Properties: Load Special (may not be reloaded in combat), crossbow group, Brutal 2
Weight: 10 lbs

May not be used with powers/abilities that require more than one shot to be expended

Blackpowder charge * Alchemical Ammo
Formula cost 20 gp
Component Cost 1 sp
Level 1
Requires the Alchemist Feat to create

Compared to the crossbow, the pistol is more expensive, as accurate, and more damaging. It is essentially an encounter-powered item that adds brutal 2 to a power that can use a crossbow.As the the tiers go up it can become slightly less accurate when compared to the crossbow because you have to enchant multiples of them (so will trail behind the crossbow by 1 point of enhancement bonus).

The musket/longbow comparison is much the same. Lower accuracy compared to the longbow is traded off versus the musket being a simple weapon.

JiffyPopTart · Feb 7, 2009

When I read your topic name I thought to myself...

You know....firearms would be easy as +0 proficiency weapons that got to attack Reflex instead of AC.

And then I read that is exactly what YOU thought, so, there you go.

In my campaign world I had gnomes as the only race that could use gunpowder (it was semi-magical and a racial ability). During the campaign I had a plot where the chaos dwarves (using Warhammer minis) were invading the gnomelands in an effort to get the secret. The PCs failed in the story arc to protect the gnomes and thus when I started a second campaign in the same world (but 100 years in the future) now chaos dwarves were the only ones who could use gunpowder.

DS

Pbartender · Feb 7, 2009

Sabathius42 said:
When I read your topic name I thought to myself...

You know....firearms would be easy as +0 proficiency weapons that got to attack Reflex instead of AC.

The problem with that is as a weapon, is short-circuits the benefit of powers that target Reflex defense (like Piercing Strike), making them nearly useless. And how do you handle weapon-based attacks that target Will or Fortitude (Walking Wounded, for example)?

If you want it to target Reflex all the time and only be able to shoot it one per encounter, then make it like a magic item (like Urizen does above). The problem with that, is it probhibits the use of powers in conjunction with it.

In another thread, it was suggested to make it a special magical power you could add to clubs (pistols), staffs (muskets) or spears (muskets with bayonets).

Starbuck_II · Feb 7, 2009

Krensky said:
Well, this is partly rationalization, but from what I can tell the most common claimed rate of fire for an English longbowman was eight arrows a minute. A minute is 10 rounds, 8/10 is 1.25, round to one round.

With the same procedure, and the English standard for a musket armed infantryman to be able to fire three rounds a minute: 3/10=3.333, round to 1 shot every 3 rounds.

That rate would make pistols and muskets capable of being reloaded, but in a close fight you'd fire and use the bayonet or the musket as a club or just drop it and draw a sword.

Yes, but in real life the trained slinger got more accurate range, just as fast reloading, and longer not as accurate range as a bow.
In D&D, we get sucky slings that are more equivalent to sling shots (like Dennis the Menace used).

D&D rarely uses weapons even close to real potential.

JiffyPopTart · Feb 7, 2009

Pbartender said:
The problem with that is as a weapon, is short-circuits the benefit of powers that target Reflex defense (like Piercing Strike), making them nearly useless. And how do you handle weapon-based attacks that target Will or Fortitude (Walking Wounded, for example)?

I don't really see the issue in letting someone do that.

Theoretically the +0 proficiency and targetting Reflex behaves exactly like a +2 or +3 proficiency weapon that targets AC. Both should hit around the same number of times.

You are therefore aren't really giving anyone a great benefit by letting them have firearms.

If you word the gun as "allows you to substitute AC with Reflex for any power that targets AC" you wouldn't have any issues at all with Fortitude or Will powers, however I don't see why swapping one defense for another (except AC, which is on a different scale) would unbalance anything. If nothing else having a weapon that could ONLY attack Reflex would actually be a turn-off.

DS

Halivar · Feb 7, 2009

I lean more towards pure reflavoring of bow weapons. Keep the stats the same. Why not? It's not the stats that matter, from a narrative perspective; it's the schtick. In this case, a "boom-schtick." (YES! I PUN!)

ProfessorCirno · Feb 7, 2009

Krensky said:
Well, this is partly rationalization, but from what I can tell the most common claimed rate of fire for an English longbowman was eight arrows a minute. A minute is 10 rounds, 8/10 is 1.25, round to one round.

With the same procedure, and the English standard for a musket armed infantryman to be able to fire three rounds a minute: 3/10=3.333, round to 1 shot every 3 rounds.

That rate would make pistols and muskets capable of being reloaded, but in a close fight you'd fire and use the bayonet or the musket as a club or just drop it and draw a sword.

All of that misses one rather important point: accuracy.

The english longbowman wasn't shooting at targets 30 feet away. The english longbowman was shooting at targets that they couldn't see, because they weren't aiming, they were firing a volley. They weren't pointing out one specific target and hitting it in the neck, they were in groups of many other longbowmen, shooting at other large groups of footsoldiers, where accuracy doesn't really matter due to reasons of "One of these is bound to hit something."

That's where the "Well, longbows are fast" argument falls. Yes, they are fast. When you're very far away from what you're shooting at, and you aren't aiming for accuracy, you're aiming for distance.

Crossbows have suffered just as much as guns have, if not more so. For some unknown reason, it was decreed that crossbows would essentially be bows, only with 100% more suck. They reloaded slower, did lower damage thanks to no strength modifier adding damage, and had no awesome special ability to make up for it. Meanwhile, if you want realism, the crossbow was declared heretical by the church to use against anyone but non-Christians. It's not a problem with realism, it's a problem with developers having some bizarre errection for bows*

*Must. Resist. Wood. Joke.