Ambushbug1971
First Post
Can anyone point me to some rules/stats for introducing primitive firearms into a D&D campaign?
Firearms in D&D
- Thread starter Ambushbug1971
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
(double post)
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
The DungeonMaster's Guide has some, although frankly, I think they suck. They're really bland and boring.
I'd go with either the Freeport rules (found in the Freeport Campaign setting, or Dragon Magazine Annual from 2001) or the Iron Kingdoms rules.
I'd go with either the Freeport rules (found in the Freeport Campaign setting, or Dragon Magazine Annual from 2001) or the Iron Kingdoms rules.
the firearms IMC are all exotic weapons, and require multiple rounds to load.
Muskets deal 1d12 points of damage, have a range of 60ft, and a crit of x3, it takes 5 full rounds to reload a musket.
Pistols are the same, but with a 10ft range, take 4 rounds to reload, and can be fired in melee without provoking an AoO.
The feat Exotic Weapons Proficiency [Blackpowder weapons] covers the use of all firearms IMC.
The feat Firearms Drill 1-3 can be taken to reduce to reload time of the weapons (as the name implies it can be taken 3 times, each time reducing the reload time by 1 full round).
Muskets deal 1d12 points of damage, have a range of 60ft, and a crit of x3, it takes 5 full rounds to reload a musket.
Pistols are the same, but with a 10ft range, take 4 rounds to reload, and can be fired in melee without provoking an AoO.
The feat Exotic Weapons Proficiency [Blackpowder weapons] covers the use of all firearms IMC.
The feat Firearms Drill 1-3 can be taken to reduce to reload time of the weapons (as the name implies it can be taken 3 times, each time reducing the reload time by 1 full round).
painandgreed
First Post
I would think that the big advantage of such weapons would be that their attacks would considered ranged touch attacks as they penetrated armor very well.
While not particularly realistic, I used the following firearms rules in my game:
Harnessing the Natural Laws: Technology in Your Game: http://www.montecook.com/images/Technology.pdf
The only change I made when I implemented them in my campaign was I cranked the damage die down by one degree (as Monte had done in an earlier version of the rules: Technology in Ptolus: http://www.montecook.com/arch_ptolus5.html). I wanted them to be worth the exotic weapon feat, but not overwhelming. So far, it has been working very well and I have found the rules to be elegant and simple to implement.
Harnessing the Natural Laws: Technology in Your Game: http://www.montecook.com/images/Technology.pdf
The only change I made when I implemented them in my campaign was I cranked the damage die down by one degree (as Monte had done in an earlier version of the rules: Technology in Ptolus: http://www.montecook.com/arch_ptolus5.html). I wanted them to be worth the exotic weapon feat, but not overwhelming. So far, it has been working very well and I have found the rules to be elegant and simple to implement.
Taren Seeker
First Post
I suggest the Player's Guide to Arcanis. It has multiple types of Flintlocks, crafting rules, feats for use, and 3 prestige classes all designed to take advantage of them.
They walk the line between following some historical limitations and making them playable and attractive weapons when compared to Bows, Crossbows, etc.
They walk the line between following some historical limitations and making them playable and attractive weapons when compared to Bows, Crossbows, etc.
LostSoul
Adventurer
If I were to make guns in D&D, I'd make them like crossbows with a STR bonus to attack rolls and damage. That STR bonus would be independant of the musketeer's own STR.
I'd make the reload time quite slow. From what I have read, firing three rounds a minute was good back during the Napoleonic wars.
I'd make the reload time quite slow. From what I have read, firing three rounds a minute was good back during the Napoleonic wars.
Frankly, you could just use crossbow stats for an early matchlock arquebus -- it's not like the combat system is realistic to start with.
The Strategy Page's Infantry Missile Weapons in the Renaissance covers the topic in some detail:
The Strategy Page's Infantry Missile Weapons in the Renaissance covers the topic in some detail:
By 1500 infantrymen had three different missile weapons available to them. There was the arquebus, a relatively light firearm manageable by one man, as well as the very common crossbow, and the longbow, which was mostly limited to use by the English. Technically the arquebus was inferior to both the other two weapons in range, accuracy, and rate of fire, while the longbow was generally superior to the crossbow.
[...]
The inferiority of the arquebus to the other two weapons was actually even greater than the data suggest. Since it was subject to fouling due to the build up of unburnt powder in the barrel, the effective range of the arquebus tended to decay after a few rounds. So it would certainly be reasonable to conclude that the arquebus was in every way inferior to the two older weapons. Technically, this was precisely the case.
But the arquebus possessed several advantages over its two rivals.
Relatively speaking the arquebus was cheaper than either the longbow, which had to be meticulously handcrafted from yew, and the crossbow, which required equally meticulous workmanship and rather expensive steel as well. The arquebus could be mass-produced by a foundry in fairly cheap cast iron. In addition, while the range, accuracy, and effectiveness of an arquebus round were inferior to those of the other weapons, an arquebusier could carry more ammunition than either of his competitors. Arquebus ammo weighed less than arrows or crossbow bolts, even after adding in the powder charge.
[...]
The arquebus had one more very important advantage over its rivals. It was perhaps the critical advantage in determining the rather rapid conversion of armies from archers to arquebusiers. A man required considerably less skill to become an arquebusier than either a crossbowman or a longbowman. A few weeks training was all that was necessary to turn out a fairly capable arquebusier. In contrast, it took years to properly train a the bowman, who had to develop considerable musculature before being able to use his weapon to its fullest capacity. This was particularly true of longbowmen, of whom there was a saying that in order to a good one you had to start with his grandfather.
Naturally, D&D's firearms rules get every one of those elements wrong. They make firearms harder to use (exotic weapon proficiency vs martial or simple), more expensive (500 gp vs 75 gp or 50 gp), with no lighter ammo (2 lbs vs 3 lbs or 1 lb for 10 "rounds"), but more damage (1d12 vs 1d8 or 1d10). And they give firearms and crossbows ludicrous rates of fire (five rounds per minute).[...]
The inferiority of the arquebus to the other two weapons was actually even greater than the data suggest. Since it was subject to fouling due to the build up of unburnt powder in the barrel, the effective range of the arquebus tended to decay after a few rounds. So it would certainly be reasonable to conclude that the arquebus was in every way inferior to the two older weapons. Technically, this was precisely the case.
But the arquebus possessed several advantages over its two rivals.
Relatively speaking the arquebus was cheaper than either the longbow, which had to be meticulously handcrafted from yew, and the crossbow, which required equally meticulous workmanship and rather expensive steel as well. The arquebus could be mass-produced by a foundry in fairly cheap cast iron. In addition, while the range, accuracy, and effectiveness of an arquebus round were inferior to those of the other weapons, an arquebusier could carry more ammunition than either of his competitors. Arquebus ammo weighed less than arrows or crossbow bolts, even after adding in the powder charge.
[...]
The arquebus had one more very important advantage over its rivals. It was perhaps the critical advantage in determining the rather rapid conversion of armies from archers to arquebusiers. A man required considerably less skill to become an arquebusier than either a crossbowman or a longbowman. A few weeks training was all that was necessary to turn out a fairly capable arquebusier. In contrast, it took years to properly train a the bowman, who had to develop considerable musculature before being able to use his weapon to its fullest capacity. This was particularly true of longbowmen, of whom there was a saying that in order to a good one you had to start with his grandfather.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
