D&D 5E Guns in your world, and in mine!

doctorbadwolf · Oct 2, 2016

TheCosmicKid said:
Everything is a "legit distinction" to the person posting it. And anything can be "nitpicking and trivia" to a person hostile to it. Nobody is as charitable regarding other people's words and intentions as they are to their own, but we can at least try to do better, can't we?

And now we're arguing about what is or isn't a nitpick. Awesome.

Nope.

TheCosmicKid · Oct 2, 2016

But [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION], that's a legit distinction!

Tony Vargas · Oct 3, 2016

Caliburn101 said:
Rpgs always use flintlock - nothing earlier.

I'm sure I remember a matchlock firearm for D&D from somewhere. Fairly early on, just not sure where.

Like I said upthread, when I introduced firearms of a sort into my current campaign, they were wheel locks, wheel locks are just cool look'n.

doctorbadwolf said:
By the by, does anyone else ever use alchemical or "steampunk" guns?

Yep, firearms charged with exorbitant quantities with 'alchemical reagents.'

doctorbadwolf said:
In the context of fantasy fiction, alchemy generally means "science combined with magic".

I would have said 'more alembics, less mumbling.' ;P

Caliburn101 · Oct 4, 2016

Derren said:
Why do you want a video of armor not designed to stop bullets stopping a bullet?

Because the ill-conceived argument being bandied about here is that Armour Class (to ANY degree and from ANY armour type) should apply vs. firearms...

I'm not going to bother linking the various videos showing penetration of materials and medieval armours - there are plenty to choose from.

After the inevitable 'wheelock' comments, perhaps I should clarify that official games and supplements etc. for D&D are the ones I was referring to where flintlocks are always the ones shown in art and in the weapons statblocks.

The heavier armours against such weapons certainly slowed the bullets down - and deformed them as they penetrated. Slower, deformed bullets do MORE damage to a living creatures innards than a fast sphere blowing through in many cases. So armour on occasion actually made things worse for the target...

In any case, the mechanics of the counter argument reminds me of that used for climate change denial. Ignore the significant body of demonstrable evidence showing 95% of armours didn't do squat to protect vs. firearms (such as those overwhelmingly represented in fantasy fiction and rpgs)... cherry pick the one corner case exception, and then argue that because super-heavy plate could on occasion stop early bullets at optimal ranges, that all armour should be counted as effective protection in the mechanics of the rules.

A ridiculous argument.

Kobold Avenger · Oct 4, 2016

I'm going for a 19th century feel as I'm aiming for something that's clearly steampunk with percussion cap firearms.

So it's something like standard firearms:
Derringer Pistol 1d8
Singleshot Pistols 1d10
Revolvers 1d0
Repeating Rifle 1d10
Infantry Rifle 1d12
Shotgun 2d6

Special weapons:
Elelphant/Dinosaur Gun 2d8
Anti-Airship Rifle 4d6, requires at least 2 people, disadvantage to hit large or smaller targets.
Gatling Gun 4d6 Reflex DC 12, siege weapon cannot be carried by medium sized characters.

Super "Science" or Technomantic firearms:
Flame/Lightning/Freeze/Sonic/Acid/Whatever Pistol 1d10
Flame/Lightning/Freeze/Sonic/Acid/Whatever Rifle 2d6
And there's enhanced versions of melee weapons, bows and crossbows adding some amount of energy damage.

On the subject of platemail, it's gone out of use because there's steam-powered mechano-armour. Though I haven't thought of a good additional benefit that isn't too much to add-on to platemail's stats.

77IM · Oct 4, 2016

Kobold Avenger said:
On the subject of platemail, it's gone out of use because there's steam-powered mechano-armour. Though I haven't thought of a good additional benefit that isn't too much to add-on to platemail's stats.

You could always go the other direction and put penalties on platemail and other heavy armors (movement, fatigue, etc.) which the steam-powered mechano-armor lacks.

Derren · Oct 4, 2016

Caliburn101 said:
Because the ill-conceived argument being bandied about here is that Armour Class (to ANY degree and from ANY armour type) should apply vs. firearms...

As It was already said, show me a picture of leather armor stopping a longbow with a bodkin arrow. Should they also ignore AC?

Tony Vargas · Oct 4, 2016

Caliburn101 said:
Because the ill-conceived argument being bandied about here is that Armour Class (to ANY degree and from ANY armour type) should apply vs. firearms...

A ridiculous argument.

D&D AC is fairly ridiculous on the face of it, anyway. Armor as DR makes tons more sense, and yet, at the same time, armor can sometimes exacerbate wounds. Some level of simplification for playability makes sense.

I happen to think that simplifying guns down to a DEX save rather than attack roll makes a certain amount of sense to capture one sort of 'feel' you can get from them - the classic idea of guns spelling the demise of armor, though, how available they are and how they interact with magic might not mean they do so in the broader campaign world. Putting the ability to force a save in the hands of weapon-users may seem horrifying/sick/wrong/not-D&D, but it's the available alternative to attack AC in 5e. In 3e it'd've been Touch AC, in 4e REF. :shrug:

Mathias Severin · Oct 4, 2016

Here is my take on firearms. I was going for a Blood Borne meets The Brotherhood feel.

It might not be super balanced, but it worked ok for a level 11 group.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GpvnWrexIuY1JTZFVOdGRaLVE/view?usp=sharing

tamilse · Oct 5, 2016

Thanks so much for producing wonderful and most reliable information in here.

doctorbadwolf said:
Very few things in Trek are lacking in any scientific basis. From Q to Warp Drives, it's all stuff we know might be possible, but are varying degrees of removal away from testing for/developing further than the theoretical. Theoretical=\=impossible, or magical.

Science is what makes a given work of speculative fiction science fiction, while the fantastical and wondrous make a work fantasy. Combining those can make something both, or not, depending on presentation, mostly.

Mall of which is part of a nit pickey tangent that has nothing to do with the setting I proposed, since absolutely nothing about that proposal even requires any lack of mystery and wonder. The common man being able to draw basic glyphs to cool a box full of food or heat a pot (or reservoir) of water doesn't make a setting "not fantasy", but even if it did (and it definately doesn't), that element of a setting doesn't preclude the elements that you insist are what make Eberron a fantasy setting. elixir of immortality

A world where physical magic follows rules, where magically created fire still follows the same laws as mundane Fire, except as acted upon by magic, and where magic is studied at the same schools as physics and chemistry, can still have gods and tree spirits and prophecies. And either way, isn't any less a fantasy setting than one where magic is unknowable and even guys like Modenkeinen are basically just guessing, apparently. is immortality possible

doctorbadwolf said:
Note, I roll my eyes at this idea of wizards not really understanding how spells work. IMO, it is 100% nonsensical. Arcane magic is predictable, follows hard and fast rules, and can be mastered and advanced through rigorous analytical study. The fact that sorcerers and warlocks don't have to is irrelevant. A wizard can study their magic and go, "yeah, that is the same fireball spell I cast, your body is just replacing the material components with an exertion of will and physical energy. Fastinating!" And then go into a rant about the mechanics of energy manipulation to create the fireball effect.

Warlocks are a similar case, except by the core fluff their spells come from a patron, so they've no need to actually understand them any more than a gunslinger need understand gunpowder in order to shoot people well. What are dreams

As for bards, they go to college to learn most of their magic. Said magic is just as predictable and based on solid rules as wizardry.

Re: Harry Potter. My eyes are starting to hurt. HP magic is entirely scientific. It works on knowable laws/principles, and can be mastered through rigorous analytical study, and advances all the time due to said study. There is plenty they don't yet understand, and knowledge that has been lost to time, because there didn't used to be schools and careful records. How to become immortal

doctorbadwolf said:
There is no reason to beleive that any artifact in the world couldn't be replicated with the same knowledge that was used to make it, barring a need for circumstances that no longer exist, or happy infrequently, etc. all of it is knowable, just as all of physics is knowable. In both cases, not all of it is known, but unknown=\=unknowable.