• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Pathfinder 1E This has been asked many times....Advanced Fire Arms -- Rapid Reload

delericho

Legend
FWIW, my rough statement of where the ROF 'should' be:

A 1st level Warrior, who hasn't devoted any feats beyond mere proficiency, should be able to fire a "Sharpe-style" rifle/musket three times in a minute. That suggests they should require 2 full actions to reload.

The damage of the weapon, plus the type of proficiency required, can then be set accordingly.

YMMV, of course.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


ggeilman

First Post
From Wikepedia:
As muskets became the default weapon of armies, the slow reloading time became an increasing problem. The difficulty of reloading—and thus the time needed to do it—was diminished by making the musket ball much smaller than the internal diameter of the barrel, so as the interior of the barrel became dirty from soot from previously fired rounds, the musket ball from the next shot could still be easily rammed. In order to keep the ball in place once the weapon was loaded, it would be partially wrapped in a small piece of cloth.[19] However, the smaller ball could move within the barrel as the musket was fired, decreasing the accuracy of musket fire[20] (it was complained that it took a man's weight in lead musket balls to kill him).[21] The only way to make musket fire effective was to mass large numbers of musketmen and have them fire at the same time. The tradeoff between reloading speed and accuracy of fire continued until the invention of the Minié ball.
The main tactic for infantry attacks from 1700 or so was a slow measured advance, with pauses to fire volleys at enemy infantry. The aim was to break the enemy by firepower and leave the pursuit of them to the cavalry. If the defenders did not break and flee, however, a bayonet charge and hand-to-hand combat would be necessary. Many officers in the French army preferred the a prest attack – a rapid charge using swords or bayonets rather than firepower and British General Charles Grey became known as "no flint" Grey because of his fondness for bayonet attacks.
The British Army was the first army that fought in two ranks rather than three. This allowed the infantry soldier to fire his musket without the need for the front rank to kneel. Another British tactic was platoon fire. At the time a platoon was a half-company. The right-hand files of a company would form the first platoon and the left-hand files of that same company would form the second platoon. The platoon fire would begin at one of the flank platoons of the battalion or regiment, and one or two seconds after the platoon beside them fired, the next platoon would fire. The effect would be platoon volley after platoon volley rolling down the face of the battalion or regiment, and the result of such disciplined fire was a constant hail of bullets on the enemy formation.
By the 18th century a very experienced soldier could load and fire at a rate of four shots per minute. Soldiers expecting to face musket fire learned disciplined drills to move in precise formations and to obey orders unquestioningly. British soldiers in particular acquired a reputation for drilling until they could perform coolly and automatically in the heat of combat.[citation needed] Use of musket infantry tactics was utilized to the fullest by King Frederick William I of Prussia in the early 18th century. Prussian troops under his leadership could fire a shot every fifteen seconds with almost unrivaled discipline, and his finest infantry units could fire a shot every ten seconds.

So even with crack troops we still aren't getting to 1 shot/round. And nowhere in the rules has it taken into account the affect of fouling!
 
Last edited:

delericho

Legend
And nowhere in the rules has it taken into account the affect of fouling!

Do they need to? It's surely easy enough to fold that under a general missed attack (in exactly the same way that a longbow string could break, a weapon could become dulled or weakened through use, or all manner of other things).

IMO, one of the worst things about most sets of firearms rules (for D&D at least) is that they tend to throw in lots of special cases (such as the possibility of fouling and/or armour penetration), and very quickly make firearms much more hassle than they're really worth.
 

ggeilman

First Post
Do they need to? It's surely easy enough to fold that under a general missed attack (in exactly the same way that a longbow string could break, a weapon could become dulled or weakened through use, or all manner of other things).

IMO, one of the worst things about most sets of firearms rules (for D&D at least) is that they tend to throw in lots of special cases (such as the possibility of fouling and/or armour penetration), and very quickly make firearms much more hassle than they're really worth.

Not really. The problem with black powder fouling is that it gets worse with each round fired so the affects are cumulative and eventually you run the risk of the weapon just blowing up on you which actually did happen with early weapons. You really need to run a patch through it every few rounds or suffer a cumulative affect of -1 to hit per shot. I shoot black powder sometimes and we use specially lubed bullets to reduce the fouling, but still need to clean afterwards. Molds just weren't advanced enough until the mid 19th century to have groves for lube.
 

delericho

Legend
Not really. The problem with black powder fouling is that it gets worse with each round fired so the affects are cumulative and eventually you run the risk of the weapon just blowing up on you which actually did happen with early weapons. You really need to run a patch through it every few rounds...

Actually, in a fairly standard 3.5e/PF game, that can probably be filed under "not worth bothering with". Because even a few shots fired will represent 10-15 rounds of combat, and the overwhelming majority of combats in the game simply don't last that long. The PCs can be assumed to be maintaining their weapons properly between combat, and leave it at that.

Now, it might potentially be an issue for those higher level Fighters who are firing every round or two. (Remember: superhuman characters doing superhuman things...) However, it's also extremely likely that those characters will be using magic weapons, at which point it can be assumed that the weapons just don't foul.

That said, if the system includes rules for Critical Fumbles (perhaps using Paizo's own decks), then those rules would be an ideal place to implement the results of the weapons fouling and/or exploding. But if the game isn't using critical fumbles already, I'd be hesitant to implement them just for this.

(There is one other possible implementation I might consider: increase all the reload times by 1 full round action, and then allow a "fast load" option to drop them down again... but with the penalties accruing as you suggest. Though here I should point out that I'm not suggesting the "run a patch through it" is a 6-second action... I'm suggesting that for convenience it's being averaged out across several reloads.)

But, of course, YMMV.
 
Last edited:

N'raac

First Post
It's actually quite difficult for me to answer that, because I'd come at the issue from an entirely different point - start by setting the damage, weapon type, and rate of fire assuming a 1st level Fighter, and then scale up to 11th level.

However, in this instance I would be inclined to say it's actually about right. Especially if the pistol is classed as a Simple weapon compared with the archer's Martial longbow (which, if firearms are relatively common, it probably should be).

So it should, based on your starting point below, scale up much faster than longbow fire. Is that reasonable? Or will it mean firearms wait a few levels until their RoF catches up with (passes?) longbows? Seems problematic, especially if damage is bumped up to make these a competitive weapon for low levels. If it's not, then it's hardly "realistic" to consider firearms the Great Equalizer they were in the real world.

And on the other, other hand, I would actually argue that the big problem here is actually the Manyshot feat, which I didn't like when it was introduced in 3.5e, and don't really like here, either. That one really is quite absurd - methinks Andy Collins may have watched "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" one too many times. :)

Well, we wouldn't want PC's to be able to do things they see in movies about Robin Hood - what's THAT got to do with the source material? :erm:

A 1st level Warrior, who hasn't devoted any feats beyond mere proficiency, should be able to fire a "Sharpe-style" rifle/musket three times in a minute. That suggests they should require 2 full actions to reload.

Currently a full round action, so he can shoot 5 times a minute (every second round). 2 full actions? Fire it once at the start of combat (especially if they will have higher damage, and simple weapons!), then forget it!

The damage of the weapon, plus the type of proficiency required, can then be set accordingly.

Unless it's exotic, weapon type makes no real difference to the warrior-types.
 

delericho

Legend
So it should, based on your starting point below, scale up much faster than longbow fire. Is that reasonable?

For balance reasons, they should really scale at the same rate. Because I've been working off gut feel, rather than going through all the permutations, it's very likely I've made at least a few mistakes.

Seems problematic, especially if damage is bumped up to make these a competitive weapon for low levels. If it's not, then it's hardly "realistic" to consider firearms the Great Equalizer they were in the real world.

While firearms came to be considered a great equaliser, I rather doubt that applied to the level of technology we're discussing here.

Well, we wouldn't want PC's to be able to do things they see in movies about Robin Hood - what's THAT got to do with the source material? :erm:

Well, you have to consider the quality of the movies. :)

One other thing, that sadly seems to be missed by RPG designers with distressing regularity: what is cool, fun and interesting when done once in a film, is frequently lame and stupid when a PC is doing it regularly. The feats system (and, incidentally, 4e's power system) is a bad way to model that sort of action. Though, admittedly, I don't really know what would be a better way of handling it.

2 full actions? Fire it once at the start of combat (especially if they will have higher damage, and simple weapons!), then forget it!

Yep. That is indeed the most likely consequence of 'realistic' reload times for firearms.

We can have:

- 6 second combat rounds
- 'realistic' firearms
- characters whose signature weapon is a firearm

Pick any two.

One of the problems with firearms is that a very significant minority of players absolutely demand those realistic reload times (and rules for fouling, and other such things), and if they don't get them it absolutely breaks their suspension of disbelief. Indeed, firearms rules seem to be one of those areas that is especially prone to that problem.

(If I were to hazard a guess, I would suggest that it's probably because those players probably know a bit more about firearms than they do about other game elements. So when they're presented with something that is working in a manner that they know is flat wrong, their SoD just shatters. Incidentally, I have exactly the same problem with the "Universal Roaming" mobile phones in the new Doctor Who - I have no issue with them travelling through time in a magic blue box... but a telephone that makes calls across that time vortex? Oh no!)

Unless it's exotic, weapon type makes no real difference to the warrior-types.

No, but it does make a difference to non-warrior types. And it is a factor that the game uses for balancing the different weapons. As such, if and when we were to lock down the weapon stats, it is something that should be considered - even if it is the least important such point.
 

N'raac

First Post
For balance reasons, they should really scale at the same rate. Because I've been working off gut feel, rather than going through all the permutations, it's very likely I've made at least a few mistakes.

Balance and realism often fit poorly together. To apply a similar "rule of three", I suggest we like fantasy games to have:

- realism
- balance
- weapon diversity

select any two. The fact is that, in a realistic game, we would see progression in weapons, not a lengthy weapons list in widespread use. The Romans conquered the world with the metalworking techniques that enabled creation of short swords. But you wouldn't see short swords as the weapon of choice in the 15th century - metalworking had moved on. How many British soldiers carried spears as they went off to fight the French?

While firearms came to be considered a great equaliser, I rather doubt that applied to the level of technology we're discussing here.

This is where it started. What the rules currently lack is the wide array of one-shot firearms built into melee weapons. We ended up with bayonets, but that's when the firearm came to be viewed as the principal weapon. Firearms were the great equaliser for a couple of reasons. They rendered armor much less useful (hence its gradual disappearance, until modern tech created materials that provide some protection at limited cost to mobility) and they were easy to use.

One other thing, that sadly seems to be missed by RPG designers with distressing regularity: what is cool, fun and interesting when done once in a film, is frequently lame and stupid when a PC is doing it regularly. The feats system (and, incidentally, 4e's power system) is a bad way to model that sort of action. Though, admittedly, I don't really know what would be a better way of handling it.

This is an RPG issue across the board. Characters in the source material don't start off with their most powerful combat options, but RPG players invested character resources in those abilities, and they want to use them. We end up with characters who spam certain abilities because balance demands they have only a few very effective abilities. They could have a lot of abilities that are harder to pull off, but then the GM wants to challenge the optimizers, so the jack of all trades rarely or never succeeds. How often does someone use combat maneuvers they didn't invest feat (chains) in?

Building mechanics that motivate following the source material is desirable, but very difficult in practice.

Yep. That is indeed the most likely consequence of 'realistic' reload times for firearms.

We should really expect that, shouldn't we? After all, that was reality. One shot firearms, often built into a melee weapon based around clubbing or spearing (both easy concepts to train the conscripts in), with the more elite (Three Musketeers, say) carrying one or more firearms, then closing with more sophisticated weapons (fencing blades, by that time) they are better trained/skilled in.

If the firearm rules are realistic, then we should get the same tactics as the real world generated.

But then, we might want to consider more realistic rules for other weapons. Steven Brust's Taltos novels provide some insights on the merits of two weapon fighting, where the main character is trained in "Eastern style" fencing. He attacks presenting only a side, a comparatively small target, where the two weapon wielders present their entire body, since they face their opponent directly. The only advantage the fencer gets in d20 is wielding a shield - again presenting his entire body but covering a good portion of it.

We can have:

- 6 second combat rounds
- 'realistic' firearms
- characters whose signature weapon is a firearm

Pick any two.

Not sure I'm onside with this, but only from the perspective of 6 second rounds. How much complaining did we hear in the 1 minute round days about "why can't I swing my weapon more often than once a minute"? I can remember defining a Wizard back in they day as swinging his staff 10 - 20 times per 1 minute round. One of those wild swings might actually hit as he flailed about, panicked, with no real skill whatsoever. The rest? He's lucky if ONE hits!

One of the problems with firearms is that a very significant minority of players absolutely demand those realistic reload times (and rules for fouling, and other such things), and if they don't get them it absolutely breaks their suspension of disbelief. Indeed, firearms rules seem to be one of those areas that is especially prone to that problem.

(If I were to hazard a guess, I would suggest that it's probably because those players probably know a bit more about firearms than they do about other game elements. So when they're presented with something that is working in a manner that they know is flat wrong, their SoD just shatters. Incidentally, I have exactly the same problem with the "Universal Roaming" mobile phones in the new Doctor Who - I have no issue with them travelling through time in a magic blue box... but a telephone that makes calls across that time vortex? Oh no!)

Demanding realism in only one aspect breaks balance, without question. Realism demands a system where characters can fall from incredible heights and survive, only to slip and fall in the bathroom and be killed instantly. The real world isn't all that "realistic", when compared to the realism demanded by many players - and that's before we add magic in!

No, but it does make a difference to non-warrior types. And it is a factor that the game uses for balancing the different weapons. As such, if and when we were to lock down the weapon stats, it is something that should be considered - even if it is the least important such point.

That's an area where I think Pathfinder set up a fine rules set. Early firearms are Exotic as they emerge, so few characters will use them. As the tech emerges, they become more understood, and become Martial weapons. When they are practically and economically functional to equip an army, they move down to Simple, consistent with their being readily available and easy to use. Once Simple, why wouldn't everyone carry one? "Realism" again - that's what happened in the real world. Firearms were simple enough that anyone who might expect to get into combat would carry one.
 


Remove ads

Top