Firearms

Beleriphon · May 16, 2019

Celebrim said:
There are enough incidents in history where there was a "BIG BANG" as a result of stored gun powder, and enough still extent ruins where the damage from the explosion is observable in all or in part, that I think we can establish that for enough weight of dry, well stored, finely ground and well compounded gun powder, there is in indeed a "BIG BANG". It won't look like a Hollywood explosion (which is typically mostly gasoline), and it won't be as brisant as an explosion from a high explosive, but it will still lift the walls of your star fort into the air or turn your giant man-of-war into a pile of splintered debris.

That only happens if the explosion takes place in the powder magazine, which was usually deep inside a fort to prevent accidentally lighting it off during a battle. If it was though, it would blow a hole in the walls. However, just setting a keg of powder off on top of a wall wouldn't actually do that much damage because all of the pressure just goes up into the air. Even modern high explosives wouldn't do much if you just strapped hunk of C4 to the side of a star fort set it off.

Heck, even a middling sized nuclear weapon wouldn't actually do that much to a start fort, unless is was dropped right on top of one, and that's largely the heat rather than the pressure wave.

Celebrim · May 16, 2019

Beleriphon said:
That only happens if the explosion takes place in the powder magazine, which was usually deep inside a fort to prevent accidentally lighting it off during a battle. If it was though, it would blow a hole in the walls. However, just setting a keg of powder off on top of a wall wouldn't actually do that much damage because all of the pressure just goes up into the air. Even modern high explosives wouldn't do much if you just strapped hunk of C4 to the side of a star fort set it off.

While I agree with the science, now you are banking on the players in your game not being conversant in these matters and lacking basic demolition skills.

The point I'm trying to make is that RPG combats tend to be based on a notion of fairness, and there is a general agreement to avoid dwelling on deaths that would be unfair. Primitive firearms are pretty easy to balance in combat with melee weapons or even magic. The biggest problem you have is that lethality is increased at low levels, particularly with respect to low level NPC's armed with firearms. A volley of musket fire is realistically no joke to any character in a mundane/low heroic tier. But since PCs tend to quickly get out of these levels that's not a hard design problem.

Rather, my experience with gunpowder is that the PC's are less interested in using it to have guns, than they are interested in stealthy sabotage. So unless you want to run a game where the PC's and the NPC's are trying to murder each other with explosives, I'd suggest not introducing any explosives which are relatively stable and can be produced in quantity - including even low brisance explosives like gunpowder.

Tony Vargas · May 16, 2019

I'm not even so sure it's that big a deal. Why do firearms have to be particularly lethal? They just punch holes in people down range. Spears punch holes in people, arrows & quarrels punch holes in people - a dagger can certainly kill, but only does a d4.
Historically what made firearms so revolutionary wasn't that they were deadlier or longer-ranged than bows but that they required less training and physical ability to use, so you could field more troops armed with them. What made them fearsome to peoples unfamiliar with them was the noise (and that the projectile might not be noted right away), as much as the lethality. Oh, and the sheer amount of smoke from black powder is just crazy, modern powder is rightly called 'smokeless.'

So, if we really want to model firearms well in the game, they'd be 'simple' weapons, that would do decent damage without much regard to who's using them (no stat bonus to damage), and hit reasonably well, again without much regard to training (a static bonus to hit instead of proficiency, perhaps). And, of course, a low RoF, due to reloading, so all those Extra Attacks and such you get at high level are meaningless.
Appealing at low level, meh beyond that.

tglassy · May 16, 2019

Unless you're the new Artificer with the Repeating Weapon infusion on the firearm, so it doesn't reload, never runs out of ammo and you can fire two shots a round at lvl 5...

Celebrim · May 16, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
I'm not even so sure it's that big a deal. Why do firearms have to be particularly lethal? They just punch holes in people down range. Spears punch holes in people, arrows & quarrels punch holes in people - a dagger can certainly kill, but only does a d4.

Historically what made firearms so revolutionary wasn't that they were deadlier or longer-ranged than bows but that they required less training and physical ability to use, so you could field more troops armed with them. What made them fearsome to peoples unfamiliar with them was the noise (and that the projectile might not be noted right away), as much as the lethality. Oh, and the sheer amount of smoke from black powder is just crazy, modern powder is rightly called 'smokeless.'

So, if we really want to model firearms well in the game, they'd be 'simple' weapons, that would do decent damage without much regard to who's using them (no stat bonus to damage), and hit reasonably well, again without much regard to training (a static bonus to hit instead of proficiency, perhaps). And, of course, a low RoF, due to reloading, so all those Extra Attacks and such you get at high level are meaningless.

Appealing at low level, meh beyond that.

You are IMO correct in all regards. This is in fact exactly the rules for firearms I have - simple weapons, barely more damage than crossbows, static bonuses to hit, and low rates of fire. They are typically appealing only to low level characters, and are eventually obsoleted by magic and high level martial skills.

This is why I'm focusing on what is less obvious - the fact that practical firearms require practical explosives. Black powder grenades are no particular problem. The problem starts to be the amount of gunpowder that PC's are capable of transporting or conjuring using magic combined with typical player mentalities.

Tony Vargas · May 16, 2019

Celebrim said:
This is why I'm focusing on what is less obvious - the fact that practical firearms require practical explosives. Black powder grenades are no particular problem. The problem starts to be the amount of gunpowder that PC's are capable of transporting or conjuring using magic combined with typical player mentalities.

I suppose it doesn't have to be conventional black powder (in my 4e pirate game, 'thunderfire rods' used 'alchemical reagents'), and could have different characteristics, like merely smoldering when touched off outside of a gun rather than being a functional low explosive.

Beleriphon · May 16, 2019

Celebrim said:
While I agree with the science, now you are banking on the players in your game not being conversant in these matters and lacking basic demolition skills.

Having played games with guys that work in the mining industry, I know what somebody with demolition skills can do. I've never been so convinced a half dozen stick of dynamite can take down a castle.

The point I'm trying to make is that RPG combats tend to be based on a notion of fairness, and there is a general agreement to avoid dwelling on deaths that would be unfair. Primitive firearms are pretty easy to balance in combat with melee weapons or even magic. The biggest problem you have is that lethality is increased at low levels, particularly with respect to low level NPC's armed with firearms. A volley of musket fire is realistically no joke to any character in a mundane/low heroic tier. But since PCs tend to quickly get out of these levels that's not a hard design problem.

Rather, my experience with gunpowder is that the PC's are less interested in using it to have guns, than they are interested in stealthy sabotage. So unless you want to run a game where the PC's and the NPC's are trying to murder each other with explosives, I'd suggest not introducing any explosives which are relatively stable and can be produced in quantity - including even low brisance explosives like gunpowder.

Very true, I don't consider a fort to much of an issue, and its not like the idea of explosives to blow things apart it new. Sure a blackpowder grenade isn't going to do the same to a wall as a dedicated breaching charge, but its not like it wont do anything. Its just a matter of setting the rules up clearly, and early for what you want. For example Star Wars SAGA Edition has rules for using explosives, but there are different rules for using shaped charges for intentionally damaging something like a wall, a door, or a star ship hull with explosives (weapons in ship to ship combat kind of assume that they're meant to have penetrating warheads and what not).

I'd honestly rule that a keg of blackpowder will blow up, and quite forcefully at that, but most of the damage is going to be from shrapnel from the container. Max it out at maybe 8d6. Something akin to a fireball spell. If arranged in such a way to specifically deal damage to a structure it does double damage to structures, and half damage to creatures in the blast radius. That's assuming a relatively large, not possible to throw in combat sized keg. Actual blackpowder grenades might do 2d6 damage in an area, but they're specifically designed to lethal while being relatively portable for the amount of explosive they contain.

77IM · May 16, 2019

Draegn said:
[MENTION=12377]77IM[/MENTION] Have you considered deafening effects from firing firearms? Either temporary or permanent.

I have not, because it wouldn't be in-genre.

Satyrn · May 16, 2019

77IM said:
I have not, because it wouldn't be in-genre.

Hear hear! :heh:

Kobold Avenger · May 16, 2019

A DM could also rule that since blackpowder firearms have been going off for a few rounds in the same general area, the entire area is now obscured with smoke.