Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Firearms
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Black Plauge" data-source="post: 4875905" data-attributes="member: 69833"><p>While modern firearms clearly outclass any traditional D&D melee or ranged weapon, it took centuries for firearm development to reach the point where non-firearm weapons were completely displaced. When considering importing firearms into 4e it's necessary to consider the many factors that lead to this history, and determine what era's firearms you're looking to import.</p><p></p><p>In 4e mechanics I see the issues thusly:</p><p></p><p>Range: Early firearms were notoriously inaccurate over anything but very short ranges. A smooth bore, bell-shaped muzzle, and the lack of precision machining meant the bullets were prone to dancing like a knuckle-ball. As technology developed, all of these limitations were eventually overcome to the point that the accuracy of modern firearms is more limited by environmental conditions and the skill of the shooter, than by a property of the weapon (thought that still plays some role, especially in regards to barrel length). As such, the earlier the era of firearms that you're shooting for, the lower the range numbers should be. A range of 5/10 (the equivalent of a thrown dagger) represents a certain level of refinement in gun manufacture that wasn't present in the earliest guns. I wouldn't hesitate to give guns a 3/6 or 4/8 range if shooting for the very earliest stages of the development. By the same token, however, more modern weapons could easily have ranges of 50/100 or even higher.</p><p></p><p>Proficiency: Guns tend to be really simple to use, but much harder to use effectively. Most anyone can pick up a gun and figure out which end to point at the enemy and how to make it fire. Getting it to hit the enemy, however, is a bit harder, especially with the older, more inaccurate weapons. As such, I'd make firearms superior weapons, and give them a proficiency bonus based on the era of weapons I was shooting for. The earliest weapons would have a proficiency bonus of +1 while more modern ones might have a proficiency bonus of +3. +2, the same basic proficiency bonus as most ranged projectile weapons, would be appropriate for most firearm eras.</p><p></p><p>Reload: This is where realism and fun game mechanics are most likely to come into conflict. Most early firearms should have reload times that are measured in the form of multiple standard actions. Flintlocks (technology that first appeared around 1630), for instance, could only be fired about 3 times per minute. Given a 6 second round this means that their reload should be 2 or 3 standard actions. Earlier weapons should have even longer reload times. Such reload times, however, are likely to make firearms unpopular with players. It's only in the late 19th and early 20th century that fire arms reached a point where their reload times would be on the order of 1 action (standard or otherwise). If dealing with magazine weapons then you have to have two separate reload times, just like the Repeating crossbow. The first, and the one actually called reload, would be a free or minor action and would be the process of cycling through the contents of the weapon's magazine (free for semi-automatic, minor for bolt-action types). The second would be the action required to replace the magazine and would be longer, probably a standard action for most types.</p><p></p><p>Auto-fire: Machine guns, a 19th century development (though precursors show up as early as 1718) have the capability to fire multiple bullets each time the trigger is pulled, greatly increasing the potential damage. This isn't a capability to make multiple attacks, as the bullets are not individually aimed, but rather the ability to create area or close effects. In particular, a machine gun used to "sweep" across an area would be a close burst effect while one fired in a single direction would be an close line* effect. Damage would be less for the close burst than for the close line as the destructive power would be spread over a larger area. Rather than count actual rounds of ammunition, I would measure the capacity of a machine gun in terms of the number of rounds of combat it can sustain fire, but would otherwise treat it as a magazine weapon for reload purposes.</p><p></p><p>[*]Close line X would be an effect that starts in a square adjacent to your space and which effects X squares in a line away from you. All effected squares must touch exactly two other effected squares except for the first and last (similar to a Area Wall effect).</p><p></p><p>Damage: When they hit, fire arms tend to do a whole lot of damage, even on the oldest designs. Multiple damage dice, high crit, and brutal would all be appropriate for them. For balance reasons I wouldn't suggest all three though. High crit is most appropriate for small caliber weapons which are most devastating when they hit a vital area. Multiple damage dice is more appropriate for larger caliber weapons which deal significant damage no matter where they hit. Brutal, in my opinion, is best used to represent the accuracy of firearms and thus is an era appropriate stat. Early weapons wouldn't have this quality, as the dance of the bullet was such that while you might hit the person you're aiming at, you didn't necessarily hit them squarely or in their center of mass. As a result, you need the possibility of lower damage totals to represent those slightly off-target hits. More modern weapons which hit with much better reliability could have Brutal 1 or 2 applied to them. The transition to Brutal 1 is probably somewhere in the 19th century (or maybe the 18th, I'd have to do more research to figure it out) while the transition to Brutal 2 is more an early 20th century innovation.</p><p></p><p>Armor Penetration: Firearms rendered heavy metal armor obsolete as said armor provided next to no protection from them and thus wasn't considered worth the additional weight. However, I wouldn't represent this by creating a new mechanic that allowed firearms to ignore AC bonuses from armor. Proficiency bonuses for weapons already, to some extent, represent their ability to overcome armor. As such, firearms would probably have higher than normal proficiency bonuses. It's only when firearm development reaches the point when armor became totally useless unless it was specifically developed to counter a firearm that new mechanics are necessary and for such weapons I would favor a much simpler mechanic: firearms target Reflex defense rather than AC. Then armors which are specifically designed to counter firearms would give conditional bonus to Reflex. While still a new mechanic, it would be far easier to keep track of than a limited reduction to an opponent's AC.</p><p></p><p></p><p>* * *</p><p></p><p>Applying the above to the original post, I would say that the weapons presented here aren't very good representations of historical firearms (though they appear balanced mechanically). Their reload times are too short, damages to low, and proficiencies too easy (for the most part). Additionally, the Firearm Proficiency feat is overpowered and of variable value. Depending on one's current proficiencies it gives the effect of 2 to 8 Weapon Proficiency feats at once (2 if you're like a Ranger and already have proficiency with all simple and military ranged weapons, 8 if you're like a Barbarian and aren't proficient with any ranged weapons). On top of that it grants special abilities when using firearms. Now, while the second is perfectly okay since it's a Multiclass feat (all the others do that too), the first is not (no other multiclass proficiency feat grants proficiency with a whole class of weapons).</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, they do appear to be balanced mechanically. They generally have a shorter range than crossbows, but have high crit and/or higher damage dice. Reload times are similar to crossbows.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Black Plauge, post: 4875905, member: 69833"] While modern firearms clearly outclass any traditional D&D melee or ranged weapon, it took centuries for firearm development to reach the point where non-firearm weapons were completely displaced. When considering importing firearms into 4e it's necessary to consider the many factors that lead to this history, and determine what era's firearms you're looking to import. In 4e mechanics I see the issues thusly: Range: Early firearms were notoriously inaccurate over anything but very short ranges. A smooth bore, bell-shaped muzzle, and the lack of precision machining meant the bullets were prone to dancing like a knuckle-ball. As technology developed, all of these limitations were eventually overcome to the point that the accuracy of modern firearms is more limited by environmental conditions and the skill of the shooter, than by a property of the weapon (thought that still plays some role, especially in regards to barrel length). As such, the earlier the era of firearms that you're shooting for, the lower the range numbers should be. A range of 5/10 (the equivalent of a thrown dagger) represents a certain level of refinement in gun manufacture that wasn't present in the earliest guns. I wouldn't hesitate to give guns a 3/6 or 4/8 range if shooting for the very earliest stages of the development. By the same token, however, more modern weapons could easily have ranges of 50/100 or even higher. Proficiency: Guns tend to be really simple to use, but much harder to use effectively. Most anyone can pick up a gun and figure out which end to point at the enemy and how to make it fire. Getting it to hit the enemy, however, is a bit harder, especially with the older, more inaccurate weapons. As such, I'd make firearms superior weapons, and give them a proficiency bonus based on the era of weapons I was shooting for. The earliest weapons would have a proficiency bonus of +1 while more modern ones might have a proficiency bonus of +3. +2, the same basic proficiency bonus as most ranged projectile weapons, would be appropriate for most firearm eras. Reload: This is where realism and fun game mechanics are most likely to come into conflict. Most early firearms should have reload times that are measured in the form of multiple standard actions. Flintlocks (technology that first appeared around 1630), for instance, could only be fired about 3 times per minute. Given a 6 second round this means that their reload should be 2 or 3 standard actions. Earlier weapons should have even longer reload times. Such reload times, however, are likely to make firearms unpopular with players. It's only in the late 19th and early 20th century that fire arms reached a point where their reload times would be on the order of 1 action (standard or otherwise). If dealing with magazine weapons then you have to have two separate reload times, just like the Repeating crossbow. The first, and the one actually called reload, would be a free or minor action and would be the process of cycling through the contents of the weapon's magazine (free for semi-automatic, minor for bolt-action types). The second would be the action required to replace the magazine and would be longer, probably a standard action for most types. Auto-fire: Machine guns, a 19th century development (though precursors show up as early as 1718) have the capability to fire multiple bullets each time the trigger is pulled, greatly increasing the potential damage. This isn't a capability to make multiple attacks, as the bullets are not individually aimed, but rather the ability to create area or close effects. In particular, a machine gun used to "sweep" across an area would be a close burst effect while one fired in a single direction would be an close line* effect. Damage would be less for the close burst than for the close line as the destructive power would be spread over a larger area. Rather than count actual rounds of ammunition, I would measure the capacity of a machine gun in terms of the number of rounds of combat it can sustain fire, but would otherwise treat it as a magazine weapon for reload purposes. [*]Close line X would be an effect that starts in a square adjacent to your space and which effects X squares in a line away from you. All effected squares must touch exactly two other effected squares except for the first and last (similar to a Area Wall effect). Damage: When they hit, fire arms tend to do a whole lot of damage, even on the oldest designs. Multiple damage dice, high crit, and brutal would all be appropriate for them. For balance reasons I wouldn't suggest all three though. High crit is most appropriate for small caliber weapons which are most devastating when they hit a vital area. Multiple damage dice is more appropriate for larger caliber weapons which deal significant damage no matter where they hit. Brutal, in my opinion, is best used to represent the accuracy of firearms and thus is an era appropriate stat. Early weapons wouldn't have this quality, as the dance of the bullet was such that while you might hit the person you're aiming at, you didn't necessarily hit them squarely or in their center of mass. As a result, you need the possibility of lower damage totals to represent those slightly off-target hits. More modern weapons which hit with much better reliability could have Brutal 1 or 2 applied to them. The transition to Brutal 1 is probably somewhere in the 19th century (or maybe the 18th, I'd have to do more research to figure it out) while the transition to Brutal 2 is more an early 20th century innovation. Armor Penetration: Firearms rendered heavy metal armor obsolete as said armor provided next to no protection from them and thus wasn't considered worth the additional weight. However, I wouldn't represent this by creating a new mechanic that allowed firearms to ignore AC bonuses from armor. Proficiency bonuses for weapons already, to some extent, represent their ability to overcome armor. As such, firearms would probably have higher than normal proficiency bonuses. It's only when firearm development reaches the point when armor became totally useless unless it was specifically developed to counter a firearm that new mechanics are necessary and for such weapons I would favor a much simpler mechanic: firearms target Reflex defense rather than AC. Then armors which are specifically designed to counter firearms would give conditional bonus to Reflex. While still a new mechanic, it would be far easier to keep track of than a limited reduction to an opponent's AC. * * * Applying the above to the original post, I would say that the weapons presented here aren't very good representations of historical firearms (though they appear balanced mechanically). Their reload times are too short, damages to low, and proficiencies too easy (for the most part). Additionally, the Firearm Proficiency feat is overpowered and of variable value. Depending on one's current proficiencies it gives the effect of 2 to 8 Weapon Proficiency feats at once (2 if you're like a Ranger and already have proficiency with all simple and military ranged weapons, 8 if you're like a Barbarian and aren't proficient with any ranged weapons). On top of that it grants special abilities when using firearms. Now, while the second is perfectly okay since it's a Multiclass feat (all the others do that too), the first is not (no other multiclass proficiency feat grants proficiency with a whole class of weapons). On the other hand, they do appear to be balanced mechanically. They generally have a shorter range than crossbows, but have high crit and/or higher damage dice. Reload times are similar to crossbows. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Firearms
Top