Firearms - Page 16
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 162

Thread: Firearms

  1. #151
    Dwarves could also likely use World War I tactics about 100 years early, since they're typically good at digging, engineering and prefer living in tunnels so trenches are going to be a small adjustment. But this has now diverged far into Mass Combat which PCs generally aren't involved in and won't since there aren't any Mass Combat rules without diving deep into other rules outside the base that been discussed. PCs don't wait around with Archers and Siege weapons waiting for the horn signal charge or retreat in most "standard" campaigns, they aren't going to behave like military units of any time period they're in.

  2. #152
    Back on the subject of firearms for character vs character combat, reload times of 1 bonus action or 1 action I feel is not going to rework the existing D&D system if firearms stay within the maximum 1d12 or 2d6 damage limit.

    On the subject of armor, it's easier if you either treat it like nothing is different, or slightly more complex is just plain don't have heavy armor proficiency in the campaign.

    Taking an idea from D20 Modern, firearms could in fact do Ballistic Damage which is a sub-type of Piercing Damage, but that's only if your going to work in a bunch of rule interactions for such a damage type.

    I certainly approve of the idea of their being "lesser" firearms, most RPG systems that have guns in them have tiers of weapons in the same category. With the idea that PCs start out with "peashooters" before moving on to cutting edge equipment later on.

    I've toyed with the idea of what a Carbine could be, whether it's something to not bother with as it just could be a musket. But it could also be the name of the "lesser" two longarm.
    XP 77IM gave XP for this post

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Kobold Avenger View Post
    Back on the subject of firearms for character vs character combat, reload times of 1 bonus action or 1 action I feel is not going to rework the existing D&D system if firearms stay within the maximum 1d12 or 2d6 damage limit.

    On the subject of armor, it's easier if you either treat it like nothing is different, or slightly more complex is just plain don't have heavy armor proficiency in the campaign.

    Taking an idea from D20 Modern, firearms could in fact do Ballistic Damage which is a sub-type of Piercing Damage, but that's only if your going to work in a bunch of rule interactions for such a damage type.

    I certainly approve of the idea of their being "lesser" firearms, most RPG systems that have guns in them have tiers of weapons in the same category. With the idea that PCs start out with "peashooters" before moving on to cutting edge equipment later on.

    I've toyed with the idea of what a Carbine could be, whether it's something to not bother with as it just could be a musket. But it could also be the name of the "lesser" two longarm.
    If you want "lesser" firearms go with rifling. That rifling increased accuracy was known for a long time, but it was very expensive to make and hard to reload properly. Those would be your "greater" firearms.
    The lesser ones would be smooth-bore muzzle loaders used by the masses.

  4. #154
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)

    jasper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    montgomery al
    Posts
    3,798
    Don't forget if you forge your bullets into katana shape they now do 9000 HP per hit. Hmmm I wonder should I find the you tube vid which shows a butter knife splitting a bullet.
    Laugh 77IM laughed with this post

  5. #155
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)

    Azzy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    St.Aug, FL
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by jasper View Post
    Don't forget if you forge your bullets into katana shape they now do 9000 HP per hit. Hmmm I wonder should I find the you tube vid which shows a butter knife splitting a bullet.
    And ignore Resistance and Immunity.

  6. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by jasper View Post
    Don't forget if you forge your bullets into katana shape they now do 9000 HP per hit. Hmmm I wonder should I find the you tube vid which shows a butter knife splitting a bullet.
    If they're katana shaped, they're so sharp they split atoms causing nuclear fission...

  7. #157
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Colombus, OH
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Kobold Avenger View Post
    Back on the subject of firearms for character vs character combat...
    I have D20 rules for all firearms between their invention and the mid-19th century somewhere, based mostly on the firearms rules document by Ken Hood (of "Grim and Gritty" fame) which I consider the best 3.X era rules document on firearms by far.

    Between the 14th and 18th century, the muzzle energy from firearms didn't substantially increase, nor did the effective range of high end muzzle loaders in the hands of an expert increase substantially except at the very beginning and very end of that period. What you mainly saw over this period was increases in practical rates of fire, increases in reliability particularly in adverse conditions, and decreases in cost.

    Ken's basic model of a firearm as is relative to the discussion involves the following:

    a) Simple Weapon - Ease of use and much greater ease of mastery compared to existing weapons was one of the main attractions.
    b) Relatively Accurate - Once the basic idea of a stock was invented and you get past the 'hand gonne' stage, the fast flat trajectory bullet was just simply much easier to aim than any other prior weapon. Ken models this with an inherent bonus to accuracy on most firearms, although this bonus is small during the relevant period.
    c) High Effectiveness Against Armor - Most models of the gun make armor either fully effective or else completely ineffective. Ken opts for a more realistic but more complex model of reducing the armor bonus of the target by a degree that increases with the muzzle energy of the weapon so that armor less effective and becomes less effective over time as weapons improve in penetrating power. This system would be somewhat harder to apply to 5e but still seems applicable.
    d) Long Reloading Times - This is the main reason firearms didn't completely takeover the battlefield. Early versions had reloading times near 30 seconds - approximately 5 full rounds in 3.X D&D rounds. As firearms technology improved, the time to reload a practical military weapon declined toward 2 full rounds late in the period, or perhaps 1 full round by a well practiced expert (ei, if you take a feat). For something like a wheellock pistol though, the reload times remained very high - some estimates are as high as 10 rounds. So these are typically fire and forget weapons, where you reasonably treat each separate pistol as your reload.

    Greater and lesser weapons certainly existed at the time and indeed their were military implications to it during different periods of the relevant timespan. For example, the difference between a Musketeer and a Fusilier was essentially that the Fusiliers were provided with a higher quality weapon, because the higher quality weapons were too expensive initially to provide to any but elite units.

    Carbines existed as a concept right from the beginning, but they were typically not called carbines, but things like musketoons. They differ only in having a shorter barrel, and therefore being lighter in weight. D&D doesn't typically model the advantage is wieldiness of a weapon, and hasn't since it dropped weapon speed and weapon length present in 1e from the rules, so the reason for using one probably won't come through in D&D, but a shorter barrel reduces muzzle energy and in consequence reduces damage, accuracy, and range increment. The difference isn't that great though, so if a musket had something like 1d10+1 damage, +1 accuracy, 80' range increment, then the musketoon version with the shorter barrel would be more like 1d10 damage, +0 accuracy, 60' range increment.

    Prior to the 19th century and the Mini ball, rifling tends to increasing loading time, increase cost, increase range, and increase accuracy. Until the Europeans ran up against American militia with great practice hunting, rifling was considered to be a poor tradeoff, as rate of fire was considered the most important trait of a firearm (and for military applications cost wasn't far behind). However, the British at least, learned a few things from attempting to take back the colonies, and afterwards began fielding elite units of rifles - an advantage they would have over the French in the Napoleonic wars.

    If you apply Ken Hood's rules, I think you'll get realistic combat with firearms relative to the period's technology, while still allowing PC's to remain heroes of story at higher levels. If you don't want realism though, then you'll need to figure out where to tweak it from there to get what you want. If you start moving past the end of the 18th century, into Napoleon and later, you'll run into the problem that guns are so lethal to low level characters, that D&D's basic rules assumptions probably won't allow for heroic play if you use anything like a realistic progression of firearms technology. Caplock weapons with rifled miniballs - much less revolvers and civil war era breach loaders - will absolutely wreck low level characters. Go into the late 19th century or 20th, and you start having units of low level soldiers being a legitimate threat to mid to high level characters.
    XP 77IM, Imaculata, jasper gave XP for this post

  8. #158
    On the subject of modern settings (whether it's a level-based RPG system or some point buy skill system RPG), it's generally assumed that starting characters fight the equivalent of small-time gangsters and rentacops at the beginning of the game. Only later in the campaign are they going to be fighting against special forces and professional hitmen.

    But back to D&D and it's numbers, going by the CR table with an average of 4.5-6.5 damage a round with some of the damage values for firearms discussed, a low level character creature with a firearm is about a CR 1/2 threat. It does mean that almost all creatures that were originally CR 1/4 do become CR 1/2 if they have firearms.
    XP SkidAce, 77IM gave XP for this post

  9. #159
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    The Emerald Coast
    Posts
    2,248
    5 rounds of reloading is a bit harsh for 3.5, which is why I made it only 1 round of reloading. It may not be realistic, but I think it is more fun to play that way.

  10. #160
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Colombus, OH
    Posts
    12,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaculata View Post
    5 rounds of reloading is a bit harsh for 3.5, which is why I made it only 1 round of reloading. It may not be realistic, but I think it is more fun to play that way.
    I've totally not got any problem with that. And it could even have color of realism at least in the loading times if you patterned the technology after say late 18th century flintlock muskets or even 19th century caplocks. One round of loading probably isn't going to be game breaking if you don't otherwise load the firearm up with realistic or fantastic advantages. Keep damage, range, and penetrating power under control and you basically have a potent crossbow, and crossbows in D&D have never exactly dominated gameplay.

    Back on the subject of how much realism do you want, and why you don't have to be consistent, part of the answer to that is simply, "What's fun is unique to an individual and a group." A bit more elaborately, what sort of realism a person cares about depends on what they are passionate about, what sort of fiction that they've been exposed to, and what sort of fiction that they've previously explored. A person or a group could very easily go, "Last time we played we explored realism in this area, but this time maybe we'll use less detail in that area and introduce a new realistic element in another." There's no rule regarding what realism you have to use. And there is no rule that says, "You can't be realistic about this."

    If I ran a game with firearms for a guy who was a historical reinactor and was simply nuts about historical firearms, what level of detail I'd need to go into to suspend his disbelief and stoke his interest is different than what I'd need to go into for a table of average 14 year olds playing pirates. There is no right and wrong here. It's all about achieving a particular effect. I've never felt the need to go into things like temporary hearing loss and clouds of smoke building up from firearms discharge, but if you want to go there, that sounds cool. Indeed, for me all the discussion of how there was no need for temporary hearing loss due to firearms discharge because there were these loud spells that didn't do that, only convinced me that it would be cool if temporary hearing loss was a side effect of a loud spell.
    XP 77IM gave XP for this post

Similar Threads

  1. Firearms
    By Raven Swords in forum *Pathfinder & Starfinder
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Thursday, 31st July, 2008, 04:17 PM
  2. Firearms
    By marune in forum *Pathfinder & Starfinder
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Wednesday, 16th February, 2005, 11:14 PM
  3. Firearms in D&D
    By Ambushbug1971 in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: Friday, 26th November, 2004, 09:15 AM
  4. Firearms: Yes or No
    By Ibram in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: Friday, 28th May, 2004, 11:19 PM
  5. Firearms in D&D?
    By Shirt Guy John in forum *Pathfinder & Starfinder
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Friday, 4th October, 2002, 02:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •