Guns in a fantasy setting

[Pbartender]

Non-magical bows and crossbows aren't restricted in normal settings, because they don't do that much damage, and fireweapons, who at best do 2d8 damage ... won't by that reason ever pose a danger to spellcasters either.

You know, this statement got me thinking... From a practical standpoint, what's really the difference between, say, a crossbow and an early musket? They're both point and shoot. They both take time to reload. One shoots arrow-like bolts, and the other shoots the equivalent of sling bullets. They'd both have roughly equivalent ranges (and both have shorter ranges than the typical longbow). For both, the fact that all of your accelerating force comes from mechanical (or chemical) sources, rather than muscular strength, means that less training is required for full effectiveness.

So... Why not use crossbow/hand crossbow stats just as they are, but redescribing them as muskets and pistols? Piece of cake. No special advantages, and they still count as "crossbows" for the purposes of requirements for feats and powers.

On the other hand, you can also take a look at ranged weapons, and say, "Hey, there's no off-hand ranged weapons, and there's no high-crit ranged weapons... Firearms can take up two rolls, thereby filling out their own useful niches as weapons."

 

[NewJeffCT]

If guns are applied realistically to the setting, I do not have a big problem with them.

The problem is that medieval-era firearms were very slow to load and inaccurate beyond short range. The main effect was the fear factor from the smoke and the loud noise, which would often scare horses. They were powerful at short-range, but would often not be able to penetrate plate armor at longer ranges.

Firearms were around in the medieval era, but a medieval-era harquebus (or earlier handgun) took a good two minutes to reload, far slower than a crossbow. The effectiveness of medieval-era firearms only came about when they were used in massed groups where rows of harquebusiers would take turns firing while the other rows reloaded.

The revolution of firearms in the early years was that they were far easier to mass produce than bows & arrows and that it was easier to carry around gunpowder and 100 bullets than carrying around a quiver of 20 arrows or crossbow bolts.

Unfortunately, most of the firearms rules for D&D I have seen seemingly make firearms into something that was more like rifles & pistols from the American Civil War era instead of 500 years earlier when guns were something new to Europe and the Middle East. That is not really fair when the rest of the game is based on a fantasy Medieval Europe around 1300AD, give or take 100 years.

Even Civil War era guns were single-shot and took time to reload.

Sure, if you want to use firearms, that is fine, but give them the 20 round reload time that is maybe able to cut down to less time with various feats.

 

[Andor]

In a semi-realistic way for your average fantasy setting like the FR, Eberron and whatnot, guns would never appear, because there are better alternatives that make more damage and are more reliable than even our modern firearms.
But if you want guns in your game, then you don't need to worry, because they couldn't possibly ever be harmful to a setting in terms of damage, nor ever alter the course of history.
That's why guns suck, compared to the more powerful items already prevalent in every standart D&D-game. There would be no change at all on the battlefields of D&D, no socio-political effects due to peasantry rising against their overlords, or the invention of battle-cannons, because desintegrating rays, magic missiles and cloudkill are all more efficient than whatever gunpowder-weaponry could ever accomplish.

What you say is true only in settings like Forgotten Realms where highlevel spellcasters breed under your sofa like dustbunnies. In most D&D worlds Wizards who can throw a disintegrate around are both rare and valuable, not to mention powers in their own right.

Any bellmaker can churn out a cannon on short notice however.

Incidently if masses of men can march into chain and grape then your fireball is nothing.

Seriously Wizards are severely overrated when it comes to mass combat. Set up a 50,000 man army some time and see how many your wizard can kill even if they all just stand there and take it.

Monsters like Giants and Dragons might have a real impact, but wizards simply don't have the staying power to effect a large battle.

A druid is an armies worst nightmare, but not in personal combat. Druids command poison, disease, insects and weather and that's what destroys armies.

Cannon are much cheaper and easier to aquire and replace than wizards are, and more effective in mass combat. Even they did not spell the death of massed battle, that came in WW1 with machine guns, gas, and heavy artillery battalions that could rain explosive shells from miles away.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

By the way one point about crossbows (and to a lesser extent, bows):

the high power, crank or lever spanned crossbows that really could slam through armour, usually required steel bow limbs, or specially made ones.
That's a problem right there.

Until the invention of glass fibre bow limbs, very recently, you always had serious problems with metal fatigue causing the crossbow's bow to snap, possibly killing you or causing serious injury. That's also why the heavy draw weight crossbows were (comparitively) expensive.

However...in a fantasy world it's easy to say that;
"The elves have a tree blessed by Corellon that makes superb bows that never break, other races got hold of some of these trees and and use them to this day to produce crossbows and ballistas that almost never break."

ie, fantasy worlds and inventive DM's can get aorund problems of our boring world

Also note that some crossbows were designed to fire lead balls, just like a gun, sone even had barrels apparently. They were mostly used to hunt small game and birds from what I can tell.

From that idea, I had crossbows in my game that fired buzzsaw like disc blades that did ferocious damage, but had short range, muhaha!

For example:

"Silverblades 4th ed Razorbow" superior ranged weapon, 2handed
prof +3, damage 1d12, range 10/20 price 75 gp; weight 5lbs; group crossbow; properties, high crit, load minor

 

[DandD]

What you say is true only in settings like Forgotten Realms where highlevel spellcasters breed under your sofa like dustbunnies. In most D&D worlds Wizards who can throw a disintegrate around are both rare and valuable, not to mention powers in their own right.

Any bellmaker can churn out a cannon on short notice however.

Incidently if masses of men can march into chain and grape then your fireball is nothing.

Seriously Wizards are severely overrated when it comes to mass combat. Set up a 50,000 man army some time and see how many your wizard can kill even if they all just stand there and take it.

Monsters like Giants and Dragons might have a real impact, but wizards simply don't have the staying power to effect a large battle.

A druid is an armies worst nightmare, but not in personal combat. Druids command poison, disease, insects and weather and that's what destroys armies.

Cannon are much cheaper and easier to aquire and replace than wizards are, and more effective in mass combat. Even they did not spell the death of massed battle, that came in WW1 with machine guns, gas, and heavy artillery battalions that could rain explosive shells from miles away.

But you need a trained gunnery crew for the cannons, and a trained targeter who knows how to set the cannon, so that it fires in the right angle and hits the target. Magic is far far far far more precise. A singular spellcaster of relative low-level is cheaper to maintain than a three-man group, the cannon and the ammonition, more mobile, more devastating, more survivable, and can better hide himself if needed. Heck, you don't even need a caster there personally, a guy with the Use-Magic-Device skill (in 3rd edition) is sufficient and could carry a wand with 50 fireball-charges. Of course, even mightier magic like a ring to summon a balor demon or changing the weather to smite the others with hail will make artillery redundant.

Cannons and other firearms aren't setting-changing anymore, when you have the ability to let the heavens melt down and rain acidic snow, or call a heavenly host to trample the 50.000 man-army.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Cannons aren't simply be made by a "bell maker", and a bell maker is very presitgious and rare job in it's day and age, fyi

Cannons require knowledge of casting, a bell maker is a good candidate, but they take a lot of testing and learning to cast correctly or they blow you, not the enemy, to bits

hence most nations had "proof houses" ot test cannons and guns. Still do in fact, here in the UK.

 

[Pbartender]

A singular spellcaster of relative low-level is cheaper to maintain than a three-man group, the cannon and the ammonition, more mobile, more devastating, more survivable, and can better hide himself if needed. Heck, you don't even need a caster there personally, a guy with the Use-Magic-Device skill (in 3rd edition) is sufficient and could carry a wand with 50 fireball-charges.

An ordinary cannon would have one significant advantage over a spellcaster... Range.

Especially in 4E, I can't think of a single spell with a range greater than 100 feet. Cannons can fire a cannonball much, much farther than that.

Heck, even an run of the mill longbow has twice the range of a fireball.

 

[RandomCitizenX]

An ordinary cannon would have one significant advantage over a spellcaster... Range.

Especially in 4E, I can't think of a single spell with a range greater than 100 feet. Cannons can fire a cannonball much, much farther than that.

Heck, even an run of the mill longbow has twice the range of a fireball.

Another thing to consider is the amount of training which goes into each option. Historically it was much easier to train someone to use a musket accurately than a longbow. Considering the time that is often depicted going toward wizard training, firearms could be an option for army units who do not have the time or resources to become wizards. Wizards should still be a vital part of the army, but honestly not everyone can be one.

 

[drothgery]

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.

Shouldn't that be Ranger (or rather, Rangers get a rifle/musket/generic longarm feat, and Rogues get a pistol feat)?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

There's no minimum ability score to use a firearm. Having a high dexterity score helps of course, but even someone with a really low dexterity can use a firearm.

For magic on the other hand, minimum ability scores are required, at least if you're using 3e. But even in 4e it's a good idea to have higher intelligence/charisma/whatever.