Jürgen Hubert
First Post
Somewhat true for 3.X, though as others have pointed out, the damage values for guns were always fairly low.
However, that kind of damage could be pretty devastating in 4E. 1[W]=2d8? No other weapon is that good...
Guns in a fantasy setting
- Thread starter Pozatronic
- Start date
Somewhat true for 3.X, though as others have pointed out, the damage values for guns were always fairly low.
However, that kind of damage could be pretty devastating in 4E. 1[W]=2d8? No other weapon is that good...
RandomCitizenX
First Post
What if I placed the same enchantments on said gun? It seems silly to say "Guns are useless since with magic enchantment I can make this awesome crossbow" since the guns would have access to the same magical alteration. In 4th ed, guns become even more possible since powers which key off of weapon damage do multiples of the weapon die. Imagine a pistol being used with the high level ranger power that lets him do three 2xW shots. The crossbow with it's 1d8 will be at a disadvantage if the pistol uses anything 2d4 on up in damage.
DandD
First Post
2d8 is for a modern firearm. Seriously, muskets, blunderbluss, and whatever there is won't ever endanger magic weapons and magic effects.
In a fantasy world, standing in rows together is something that only idiots would do, because invisible wizards, flying demons, and instantly summoned fiendish dire scorpions will wreck your precious battle formation in seconds.
Fantasy combat is like modern mobile warfare. A gun is worthless, compared to the ninja-abilities of some people, who can teleport themselves, or their allies, or invincible monsters miles away to wreak havoc, while shielded by magical forcefields, invisible, and perhaps even phasing out of normal reality.
Guns aren't threatening the game balance, nor are they even hindering the feel of it. Every time I read that somebody doesn't allow guns in his game because they're unbalancing I instantly know they don't know what they're talking about.
Your 2d8 damage flintlock is worthless, compared to my 5d6+10 lightning bolt throwing magical sword.
And 1000 peasants armed with flintlocks are worthless against a single low-level wizard who walks near them invisible and then kills them all with one fireball.
Everybody who played Warhammer Fantasy Battle just once already knows that huge masses of regiments only exist to be destroyed in one turn by wizards, dragon-riding heroes in magical fullplate, and gargantuan demon beasts who barf out flesh-melting acid over several miles.
It's cool if you're the guy who kills all those lowly peasants, but those lowly peasants know that in reality, their masses and their gun mean nothing in this world. They might as well have been equipped with pointy sticks and sharp stones. It would have been more economically for their warlord. And only thanks to the mishap-rules is there some kind of small balance why Warhammer Wizards don't always dominate and replace entire armies.
But in D&D, where magic works all the time, and there is no mishap that might turn you into a mindless blob, then having guns doesn't make you better at all. It only becomes an expensive, but useless piece of metall that is out-matched by every wondrous item.
In a fantasy world, standing in rows together is something that only idiots would do, because invisible wizards, flying demons, and instantly summoned fiendish dire scorpions will wreck your precious battle formation in seconds.
Fantasy combat is like modern mobile warfare. A gun is worthless, compared to the ninja-abilities of some people, who can teleport themselves, or their allies, or invincible monsters miles away to wreak havoc, while shielded by magical forcefields, invisible, and perhaps even phasing out of normal reality.
Guns aren't threatening the game balance, nor are they even hindering the feel of it. Every time I read that somebody doesn't allow guns in his game because they're unbalancing I instantly know they don't know what they're talking about.
Your 2d8 damage flintlock is worthless, compared to my 5d6+10 lightning bolt throwing magical sword.
And 1000 peasants armed with flintlocks are worthless against a single low-level wizard who walks near them invisible and then kills them all with one fireball.
Everybody who played Warhammer Fantasy Battle just once already knows that huge masses of regiments only exist to be destroyed in one turn by wizards, dragon-riding heroes in magical fullplate, and gargantuan demon beasts who barf out flesh-melting acid over several miles.
It's cool if you're the guy who kills all those lowly peasants, but those lowly peasants know that in reality, their masses and their gun mean nothing in this world. They might as well have been equipped with pointy sticks and sharp stones. It would have been more economically for their warlord. And only thanks to the mishap-rules is there some kind of small balance why Warhammer Wizards don't always dominate and replace entire armies.
But in D&D, where magic works all the time, and there is no mishap that might turn you into a mindless blob, then having guns doesn't make you better at all. It only becomes an expensive, but useless piece of metall that is out-matched by every wondrous item.
DandD
First Post
Your magical gun is more expensive to make than a magical crossbow.
But really, actually, with magic, there wouldn't be either guns, nor crossbows, but magic sticks that shoot out magic missiles all the day...
And you know what? That happened already in D&D 3rd edition. Rogues with their Use-magic Device skill, sorcerors and wizards, packing two wands loaded with 50 magic missile charges shooting never-missing magical missiles behind cover and such.
That's what D&D-Fantasy Combat looks like. Guns and crossbows are for losers. Unless the gun or the crossbow has an enchantment that gives them infinite ammo, or can be instantly modified into a moderrn grenade launcher like every good and modern assault rifle
is capable to, nobody is going to fear those measly 2d8.
RandomCitizenX
First Post
According to that logic why should anyone use any weapon except a club? Looking at the 4th ed equipment list a great club is 2d4 and costs 1gp. Why would anyone use the Falchion which does the same damage for 25 times the cost. The reason is because there are other factors than base damage and cost which decide a weapon's usefulness. If the gun is going to cost a higher rate, it will most likely include other balancing factors like higher range and damage.
I do agree, though, that in a very high magic level setting gun like wands would most likely rise up instead of gunpowder based weapons. This is the reason why I don't want to see gunpowder firearms pop up in Eberron. In a setting where magic is more elite and only available to a select few, or a setting which wants to play up the differences between science and magic, then the firearm could be a much more viable part of that world.
DandD
First Post
The Falchion is better than the Greatclub because it has a higher crit-range (in 3rd edition), or has the high crit-ability.
Now, if there were cheap magical enchantment to grant normal greatclubs the same advantages as falchions, then yes, no falchion would be needed either.
And the thing is, D&D is high magic. Magical robots (golem), mecha, androids, mutant monsters, extraterrestrial beings from the Far Realms, sentient invisible air, deadly sonar-attack dealing frogs, whatever there is, there are things that are far beyond our normal science, and their stuff works regularely and without any problems.
Now, if there were cheap magical enchantment to grant normal greatclubs the same advantages as falchions, then yes, no falchion would be needed either.
And the thing is, D&D is high magic. Magical robots (golem), mecha, androids, mutant monsters, extraterrestrial beings from the Far Realms, sentient invisible air, deadly sonar-attack dealing frogs, whatever there is, there are things that are far beyond our normal science, and their stuff works regularely and without any problems.
Pbartender
First Post
That's why in a game like 4E, you can include a feat or two to go with them, for example...
MUSKETEER [Rogue]
Prerequisite: Dex 13, rogue
Benefit: For the purposes of power requirements, firearms count as crossbows.
There you go. Now a rogue with a musket can use that measly 2d8 with all of his nifty Ranged powers.
Last edited:
RandomCitizenX
First Post
I think you missed my point. I was saying that you can't just use damage and cost to balance the weapon because there are other factors (using the greatclub and falchion as examples), and you then pointed out the same type of factors I was already talking about.
D&D can be high magic, but some of its settings are decidedly low magic or exclusive magic. Some official settings I could easily see gunpowder firearms having a place. Ravenloft is a great example of this because magic is a more mysterious and restricted force. Eberron and the Realms on the other hand are much less suited since they feature a more widespread or integrated use of magic.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
I played in a WFRP2 game, part of the campaign as a Pistolier. Then I ran a Pirates of the Warhammer Caribbean game in which I increased the prevalence of guns and cannon. Things worked quite well both times.
The real upside of guns in that system is that they are "Impact" weapons so you roll 2d10 for damage and take the better die. Since you crit on any result of 10 then you effectively double your chances to crit such that you're critting 20% of the time with a firearm. That's pretty cool.
On the other hand, firearms are slow to reload (even given the unrealistically fast times they use in WFRP) and you are almost certainly better off to simply drop the weapon after shooting and use your hand weapon. This advantage is more pronounced if you're a trained warrior.
Late in the campaign for my PotC style game, one of the PC's had accumulated enough pistols, muskets and musketoons that he could "fire and drop" pretty much every round for a typical fight (lasting 6-8 rounds). But that was impractical in many instances like if the fight was a running battle and you don't want to leave your expensive pistols scattered across the ground where they might get lost. Leaving them scattered on the deck of a rolling ship in the midst of battle was an even worse idea.
In terms of their relationship to magic, well magic is dangerous in Warhammer already. You're probably no more likely to sustain severe injury from your weapon than you are casting spells. And guns don't make you go insane either so that's a bonus. Also, there is kind of a taboo against magic users in WFRP where you've got Witch Hunters roaming around. That taboo isn't there for gunpowder. So guns are probably safer on the whole than magic is, thus making them a more attractive option.
All in all firearms made an interesting and, to my way of thinking, crucial aspect that helped catch the flavor of that setting extremely well. Having recently watched the PotC movies again, I'd say that the amount of gunfire vs. swordplay in my WFRP game was about right if I'm trying to emulate those films.
One thing I sometimes see mentioned is the idea that firearms are a slippery slope and, once they are introduced, it's only a few hundred years until you have AK-47s all over the place. There are plenty of reasons why that might not happen (and probably some reasons why it would take less time than that). But I don't really worry or care about that. My campaigns tend to last about 6-9 months of realtime and maybe a couple of years of game-time. So they're pretty much a snapshot in time of the game world. I don't really care all that much what happens later unless we're going to revisit the setting later, which we don't frequently do. And even on the occassions where we have, it's usually not several hundred years later. More often it's a generation. And that's a time frame during which only small innovations have likely taken place.
The real upside of guns in that system is that they are "Impact" weapons so you roll 2d10 for damage and take the better die. Since you crit on any result of 10 then you effectively double your chances to crit such that you're critting 20% of the time with a firearm. That's pretty cool.
On the other hand, firearms are slow to reload (even given the unrealistically fast times they use in WFRP) and you are almost certainly better off to simply drop the weapon after shooting and use your hand weapon. This advantage is more pronounced if you're a trained warrior.
Late in the campaign for my PotC style game, one of the PC's had accumulated enough pistols, muskets and musketoons that he could "fire and drop" pretty much every round for a typical fight (lasting 6-8 rounds). But that was impractical in many instances like if the fight was a running battle and you don't want to leave your expensive pistols scattered across the ground where they might get lost. Leaving them scattered on the deck of a rolling ship in the midst of battle was an even worse idea.
In terms of their relationship to magic, well magic is dangerous in Warhammer already. You're probably no more likely to sustain severe injury from your weapon than you are casting spells. And guns don't make you go insane either so that's a bonus. Also, there is kind of a taboo against magic users in WFRP where you've got Witch Hunters roaming around. That taboo isn't there for gunpowder. So guns are probably safer on the whole than magic is, thus making them a more attractive option.
All in all firearms made an interesting and, to my way of thinking, crucial aspect that helped catch the flavor of that setting extremely well. Having recently watched the PotC movies again, I'd say that the amount of gunfire vs. swordplay in my WFRP game was about right if I'm trying to emulate those films.
One thing I sometimes see mentioned is the idea that firearms are a slippery slope and, once they are introduced, it's only a few hundred years until you have AK-47s all over the place. There are plenty of reasons why that might not happen (and probably some reasons why it would take less time than that). But I don't really worry or care about that. My campaigns tend to last about 6-9 months of realtime and maybe a couple of years of game-time. So they're pretty much a snapshot in time of the game world. I don't really care all that much what happens later unless we're going to revisit the setting later, which we don't frequently do. And even on the occassions where we have, it's usually not several hundred years later. More often it's a generation. And that's a time frame during which only small innovations have likely taken place.
GreatLemur
Explorer
I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that firearms would never develop into anything useful in a setting with really good dwarven-made crossbows and easily-available wands of magic missile.
That said, I think guns can work just fine in a fantasy setting, especially if it's got any kind of focus on alchemy at all. Mechanically, I really love the way Iron Kingdoms handles them. They require some time and a skill check to reload, but they do multiple dice of damage, and have both a wide crit threat range and a big crit multiplier. So there's a lot of incentive to fire 'em, drop 'em, then finish the fight with blades, and that sounds pretty cool to me.
That said, I think guns can work just fine in a fantasy setting, especially if it's got any kind of focus on alchemy at all. Mechanically, I really love the way Iron Kingdoms handles them. They require some time and a skill check to reload, but they do multiple dice of damage, and have both a wide crit threat range and a big crit multiplier. So there's a lot of incentive to fire 'em, drop 'em, then finish the fight with blades, and that sounds pretty cool to me.
