Firearms

Celebrim · May 21, 2019

Derren said:
Doesn't matter how large combats are, for the type of combat you want you are several centuries too late when you use Napoleon as example.

That's at least partially true. By the time you get to the Napoleonic Wars, melee weapons are basically obsolete as weapons of war and Kobold Avenger's vision of how wars in that era played out is actually as you say a century or two too late. The thing is though, it would take a bit over 100 years before everyone would really realize that and adjust tactics accordingly, and many of the commanders in that period did believe - sometimes against the evidence of their senses - that battles were fought in the way Kobold Avenger described.

And on the other other hand, the usual conditions that the PC's are expected to fight in is nothing like warfare.

My advice to @[Kobold Avenger] if he wants more shock and charge tactics to prevail would be to limit firearms technology to matchlocks and maybe wheellocks. By the time you get to Flintlocks the days of the melee weapons are largely behind you, and certainly by the time you get to the rifled mini-ball they are past.

77IM · May 21, 2019

So, I discussed my campaign's firearms with my players, and now I am taking a slightly different tack.

1. The players pointed out that the tiny ranges on firearms are actually a meaningful balancing factor versus crossbows.
2. Another balancing factor is the inconvenience of your gunpowder getting wet or burning up. They also wanted misfire rules but I don't want to have to deal with that. Loudness may also matter often enough to, uh, matter.
3. Everybody's OK with changing firearm stats from what's in the DMG.

So, I cut all the prices way down, and also reduced the damage of a pistol to 1d8. This gives us the following equivalence:
hand crossbow + 1 die size - range = pistol
light crossbow + 1 die size - range = arquebus
heavy crossbow + 1 die size - range = musket

Reducing the pistol to 1d8 also gives the dragoon gun (2d4) more reason to exist. It also lets me remove Derringer from the list, reducing it to just 5 guns (and also the term Derringer is anachronistic and wrong; I only used it because it's the term most people recognize).

Finally I made a Gunslinger feat so people can dual-wield pistols. At first I made this identical to Crossbow Expert, but then I changed it up a bit, to make it weaker. By using the TWF rules, a PC won't add their ability modifier to off-hand damage, unless they have the Two-Weapon fighting style. Also they can take Dual Wielder to carry two dragoon guns. However, I might change this back to be more like Crossbow Expert if the TWF thing is too complicated.

Draegn · May 21, 2019

[MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION] Could the bayonet be used one handed if not attached to a musket?

77IM · May 21, 2019

[MENTION=6801461]Draegn[/MENTION] It can also be attached to an arquebus. Attaching a knife to a pistol is kind of a silly thing to do, but pistol-swords were a real thing, so if somebody wanted to build that, it would probably use the stats of a pistol or a longsword (depending on how you used it) which would effectively be the same stats as a pistol with a one-handed 1d8 "bayonet". (Or 1d6 for a shortsword/scimitar version.)

If you just wanted to hold an unattached bayonet in one hand and attack with it, that would be some kind of improvised weapon, maybe doing 1d6 damage (analogous to trying to jab someone with just the point of a spear).

Derren · May 21, 2019

77IM said:
2. Another balancing factor is the inconvenience of your gunpowder getting wet or burning up. They also wanted misfire rules but I don't want to have to deal with that. Loudness may also matter often enough to, uh, matter.

Okay, but then don't forget that wet (cross)bow strings don't really work either.
Crossbows are also far from silent.

LuisCarlos17f · May 21, 2019

You have to imagine sometimes the PCs aren't who are using firearms. Let's imagine a campaign where PCs are from a primitive culture like na'vis or ewoks, and they are invaded by goblins using steampunk mechas and firearms. You can bet the players would try to invent new tricks against firearms, for example little pieces of ectoplasm to block canons or to water gunpowder, summoning swarms, crafting smoke grenades or mind-control to order beast-wars to attack musketeer troops.

Or the PCs can and want to use guns, but the DM has a little house-rule, where special armours are bulletproof resistance and then only can be hurt by weapons attuned to primal forces (arrows or melee weapons).

Derren · May 21, 2019

Draegn said:
[MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION] Could the bayonet be used one handed if not attached to a musket?

Depends on the bayonet.
The first plug bayonets, while looking like a knife, lack a handle so are awkward to hold. Socket bayonets are made to go around the muzzle and have no handle at all.
Only very late in the development were sword bayonets which were supposed to be usable as sidearm.

77IM said:
[MENTION=6801461]Draegn[/MENTION] Attaching a knife to a pistol is kind of a silly thing to do, but pistol-swords were a real thing, so if somebody wanted to build that, it would probably use the stats of a pistol or a longsword (depending on how you used it) which would effectively be the same stats as a pistol with a one-handed 1d8 "bayonet". (Or 1d6 for a shortsword/scimitar version.)

There were a lot of pistol-X variants made in the early days of firearms where the range was very short and reloading even more of a hassle. Pistol-shortsword, pistol-mace (the mace is on the handle and you flip it around after shooting), pistol-handaxe or pistol-buckler.

Kobold Avenger · May 21, 2019

Celebrim said:
That's at least partially true. By the time you get to the Napoleonic Wars, melee weapons are basically obsolete as weapons of war and Kobold Avenger's vision of how wars in that era played out is actually as you say a century or two too late. The thing is though, it would take a bit over 100 years before everyone would really realize that and adjust tactics accordingly, and many of the commanders in that period did believe - sometimes against the evidence of their senses - that battles were fought in the way Kobold Avenger described.

While I use Napolean as an example mainly because he's the most recognizable name of a general from the "Age of Enlightenment" which often gets blended in the Renaissance (D20 Modern certainly groups the Enlightenment into Progress Level 3 with the Renaissance), the era of his wars are sort of the end of the Enlightenment and the beginning of the Industrial. Even though technically the Industrial Age started in Britain roughly before the French Revolution. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden might closer the era aimed for.

But even if it was in the early 1800's, that's assuming it's only Humans vs Humans with no magic around, which is also certainly not the case.

I see Humans, Halflings, Gnomes and Hobgoblins having similar tactics, but I feel that Dwarves and Orcs probably would prefer Blunderbusses with Axe-Blade Bayonets, and would most certainly seek to engage in close range going into charges. Orcs would certainly take the casualties against standard troops of muskets as they charge, possibly supported by War-Beasts. Dwarves would have their Blunderbuss-Axe troops follow in behind their War Machines and Golems.

I see aerial cavalry (like Griffins, Hippogriffs or Wyverns) is likely not going to involve much melee when engaging ground troops as they likely just shoot with their carbines at infantry, or drop rocks or bombs. If they use melee weapons, they'll probably be like lancers as I don't feel there's a justification for using a sabre from a flying beast against enemies on the ground or other flying calvary. And certain creatures like Griffins or Wyverns have melee attacks that are generally better than a sabre.

Then there's magic, where a Necromancer Corps would probably raise a bunch of Skeletons and Zombies cannon fodder to swarm infantry, so that their artillery can open fire on them not caring at all they're also firing on friendly undead forces. Evocation magic is the most obvious usage, as they certainly could fill-in the roles of historical artillery, or provide mobile artillery support when there's an arcane officer that's part of an infantry unit.

But that's a big if, for if the campaign even goes extensively on the battlefield.

Derren · May 21, 2019

Kobold Avenger said:
While I use Napolean as an example mainly because he's the most recognizable name of a general from the "Age of Enlightenment" which often gets blended in the Renaissance (D20 Modern certainly groups the Enlightenment into Progress Level 3 with the Renaissance), the era of his wars are sort of the end of the Enlightenment and the beginning of the Industrial. Even though technically the Industrial Age started in Britain roughly before the French Revolution. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden might closer the era aimed for.

But even if it was in the early 1800's, that's assuming it's only Humans vs Humans with no magic around, which is also certainly not the case.

I see Humans, Halflings, Gnomes and Hobgoblins having similar tactics, but I feel that Dwarves and Orcs probably would prefer Blunderbusses with Axe-Blade Bayonets, and would most certainly seek to engage in close range going into charges. Orcs would certainly take the casualties against standard troops of muskets as they charge, possibly supported by War-Beasts. Dwarves would have their Blunderbuss-Axe troops follow in behind their War Machines and Golems.

I see aerial cavalry (like Griffins, Hippogriffs or Wyverns) is likely not going to involve much melee when engaging ground troops as they likely just shoot with their carbines at infantry, or drop rocks or bombs. If they use melee weapons, they'll probably be like lancers as I don't feel there's a justification for using a sabre from a flying beast against enemies on the ground or other flying calvary. And certain creatures like Griffins or Wyverns have melee attacks that are generally better than a sabre.

Then there's magic, where a Necromancer Corps would probably raise a bunch of Skeletons and Zombies cannon fodder to swarm infantry, so that their artillery can open fire on them not caring at all they're also firing on friendly undead forces. Evocation magic is the most obvious usage, as they certainly could fill-in the roles of historical artillery, or provide mobile artillery support when there's an arcane officer that's part of an infantry unit.

But that's a big if, for if the campaign even goes extensively on the battlefield.

Even outside of large battlefields 1800 is much too late for your vision of weapons. The 16th or 17th century like in the 30 year war would fit much better.
And honestly, in my opinion I think the Warhammer Fantasy dwarves are much better. There they are the masters of firearms. Think about it, they are slow, so getting into melee is hard, usually have no mounts to ride on making the slowness issue even worse, but are also short and thus small targets at range. The only downside is that early gunpowder and enclosed tunnels with bad ventilation do not mix at all. But thats what crossbows are for.

Celebrim · May 21, 2019

Kobold Avenger said:
But even if it was in the early 1800's, that's assuming it's only Humans vs Humans with no magic around, which is also certainly not the case.

I see Humans, Halflings, Gnomes and Hobgoblins having similar tactics, but I feel that Dwarves and Orcs probably would prefer Blunderbusses with Axe-Blade Bayonets, and would most certainly seek to engage in close range going into charges. Orcs would certainly take the casualties against standard troops of muskets as they charge, possibly supported by War-Beasts. Dwarves would have their Blunderbuss-Axe troops follow in behind their War Machines and Golems.

Tactics are governed by weapons and terrain.

It sounds to me very much like you want tactics to be governed by stylistic and not realistic concerns, which suggests to me that you are going to want to avoid realistic weapon stats and instead balance weapons according to your desire for tactical diversity and racial trope fighting styles. For example, historically the blunderbuss was basically never employed on foot, since the slow pace of foot troops vastly compounded the problem with the weapon's limited range. The blunderbuss is a cavalry weapon, or something that can only be employed at close quarters (in a mine or aboard a ship). Your dwarves are setting themselves up to get cut to pieces unless your muskets have even more limited range, accuracy, and rate of fire than historical - or perhaps armor is more effective against firearms than it historically was. Orcs charging disciplined Muskets might work against 14th century tech like gonnes and matchlock arquebuses, but by 18th century technology, they'd have no more luck than the Scots did charging at Culloden. To solve those problems you are going to have to invent weapon and armor characteristics that logically allow for your desired end result.