Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[Stoat]

It begs the question, why have them at all if they aren't actually treated differently? Especially since some players will ask legitimate questions as to why they aren't treated differently and why they can't use gunpowder itself for other purposes.

Speaking for myself, I want firearms in D&D and I want them to be treated differently from bows. However, it seems that in many cases "treating firearms differently" translates to "making firearms an unplayable PITA." If using a firearm requires accepting multi-round load times, frequent catastrophic criticals, or the risk of my shot spontaneously exploding, then firearms aren't really a viable choice for me.

On the other hand, a system similar to the one outlined by the Auld Grump draws a flavorful difference but also makes firearms playable.

 

[Hussar]

Marcq, I think you're missing the point though. Players, by and large, don't ask why there aren't differences between a spear and a hand axe. After all, in 2e, anyway, they both did a d6 damage. Both could be thrown about the same distance. Effectively, there was no mechanical difference.

In 3e, a club and a short spear are almost identical. A short spear has a 10 foot longer range increment and does piercing instead of bludgeoning damage. That's the only difference.

So, why have clubs and spears in the game? It's mostly asthetics. Some people wand a club and others want a spear.

It's interesting that you would appreciate TheAuldGrump's rules there as somehow being "different". The only difference between his rules and a crossbow is the idea that the gun might jam. Of course, we don't ask how people keep firing crossbow bolt after bolt without the string stretching or breaking, so, I'm not really sure we need jamming rules, but, that's just a minor thing anyway.

But, essentially, TheAuldGrump's gun is a heavy crossbow. Yet, you say you don't want reskinned weapons.

On a completely side note, I just remembered that back in high school, after the Stephen King Gunslinger books started rolling out, one of my players built a 2e ranger around the idea of Roland. Worked fine.

 

[Brutalskars]

Alright. I found my groups stats for the following weapons. If it means anything.

Flintlock Rifle: 2d6(4-12) ballistic(or piercing depending on what you want), range 45ft, Brutal 1, Fumble 3, Reload 2 move actions
Cost 45 gold

Flintlock Pistol: 1d10(3-10) ballistic(*^*) range 30 ft, brutal 2, fumble 3, reload 1 move action
Cost 30 gold

Small Bomb: 2d6 fire, blast radius 10ft, range thrown of some sort or placed.
Cost 20 gold

Blunderbuss: 2d8(4-16) ballistic(*^*), range 15ft cone, reflex 15 for half, reload 2 move actions, allies are effected, brutal 1, fumble 3(Your attack roll is simply to see if you fumble)
Cost 40 gold

Ammunition for flintlocks is about 5 bullets for 2 gold, and a powder horn is 1 gold, enough powder for the horn to fuel 20 shots is 15 gold.

Refined powder for 20 shots is 30 gold, but reduces fumble from 3 down to 2, and adds 5ft onto the range increment. It also makes blunderbuss DC go up to 17.

Imbued Powder for 20 shots is 45 gold, but has the same effects as refined powder, but this powder was alchemically and magically imbued to fire even when wet.


A keg of basic gunpowder, or enough fuel for 200 shots of flintlocks costs 1,500 gold. Refined costs 2,200 and Imbued costs 3,000.





Feats for the weapons are here.
Flintlock Knack - reduce reload time by one move action on all flintlock weapons
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int or Wis 13

Blunderbuss Accuracy- Increase DC for half damage by 1, this may only be taken once
Prerequisites: Int or Wis 13

Pistol Whip/Rifle Combat- You may use flintlock weapons as melee weapons without damaging them. Pistol, 1d4 bludgeoning. Rifle/blunderbuss, 1d8 bludgeoning.
Prerequisites: None

It is important to remember, crossbows and bows are much more quiet than guns, the sound of these weapons is extremely hard to conceal unless using magic.


Other possible weapons you may make from this list are things like double barreled weapons, so you can fire two shots, but reloading both barrels takes the reload time of a single barreled weapon x2. So Flintlock Pistols would take 2 move actions for example for both barrels.

Or perhaps get real creative and make a grenade launcher, like a spring loaded mechanism, or make them able to be used in slings.


But yeah. These are just some homebrew basics.

 

[SKyOdin]

It begs the question, why have them at all if they aren't actually treated differently? Especially since some players will ask legitimate questions as to why they aren't treated differently and why they can't use gunpowder itself for other purposes.

I don't think anyone has brought up the idea of arbitrarily disallowing the use of gunpowder outside of guns. I am not sure where you pulled that from.

Why not have laser rifles that are also treated exactly like a bow? Why not have a PAK 88mm that is treated like a ballista? Why stop there? Why not a full salvo of an M270 MLRS treated like 12 slingers?

That's hyperbole. No one has been saying anything like that. People have been disputing the necessity of complex additional rules such as failure rates and so on. No one has even suggested using identical stats for a musket and a longbow so far.

To be honest though, it would be much simpler to model a modern or futuristic weapon in D&D than an early modern firearm. The only big thing that causes the need for additional rules is tracking the ammo loaded in the gun. People know that older guns needed to be reloaded after every shot, and generally don't like hand-waving that away. However, that problem doesn't exist for more modern or futuristic weaponry. A laser rifle could conceivably be powered by a battery that won't run out in combat, so it dodges the ammo tracking concerns. Modern guns on the other hand can be quickly reloaded by swapping magazines, which is so fast that it wouldn't even take an action. You could abstract out bullet tracking to the same degree that people track arrows in D&D currently. So the concerns about reloading go away with modern weapons, making them arguably a better fit for D&D than older firearms.

As for the game mechanics, I believed I offered my opinion on this exact point some pages ago in this thread, IIRC: the D&D game system isn't designed to span a wide range of weapon capability. I personally don't think it is well designed to handle firearms all that well as do my other players, who as I've said before include a high proportion of engineers and a hunter.

Meh, D20 Modern worked well enough for me, and it used the 3E D&D rules for guns and sci-fi weapons. I don't see what those rules are lacking. Can you point out what would be needed for gun rules in your opinion? We can't have a discussion if all you say is "no, that won't work" without any explanation of why.

 

[Haltherrion]

On the other hand, a system similar to the one outlined by the Auld Grump draws a flavorful difference but also makes firearms playable.

Yeah, I liked Auld Grump's system and left a note on it. Seemed a reasonable disctinction without being a lot of trouble.

 

[Haltherrion]

It's interesting that you would appreciate TheAuldGrump's rules there as somehow being "different".

Guess I don't play often enough with heavy crossbows to catch that or might be an edition difference. He seemed to be giving it its own damage and range increments, dealing with the mechanics of tihs type of weapon, its ammo and applied some thought to how it affected armor. While I wouldn't necessarily pick the same numbers, that sort of treatment seemed fine to me.

Per your general comment about why we don't, in D&D, differentiate weapons so much, I touched on that in another recent reply. Take the extreme case of a ballista versus a WWII anti-tank gun. Should those be treated the same? Few would do so I would think, therefore most would agree that at some point in weapon capability it is worth differentiating. Where thay point falls on the spectrum is up to some discretion. As I said in that reply, I think firearms are worthy of being differentiated. Obviously many others don't. For simpler firearms, it isn't such a big deal. By the time you get to World of Warcraft and it's crossbows, bows and monster "hand" cannons , it seems somewhat silly to not differentiate but that's just me.

 

[Haltherrion]

That's hyperbole. No one has been saying anything like that. People have been disputing the necessity of complex additional rules such as failure rates and so on. No one has even suggested using identical stats for a musket and a longbow so far.

Yes, tried to make it clear later in that post My point was at some span of capability, you need to differentiate. Where in that span do you start differentiating? Reasonable people can disagree. Myself, I think it starts with firearms, partly based on my players' reaction to such things. They quibble over such things. Others may not differentiate with most firearms likely to be in their system.

Meh, D20 Modern worked well enough for me, and it used the 3E D&D rules for guns and sci-fi weapons. I don't see what those rules are lacking. Can you point out what would be needed for gun rules in your opinion? We can't have a discussion if all you say is "no, that won't work" without any explanation of why.

I think it is the span that is the issue, not the basic mechanic. If you have a wide range of systems with varying capability, it gets hard to model with something as simple as the d20 system. It could be ignored or one could not introduce weapons that cause such a large span (what requires such a span is up for interpretation of course) or one could tweak or change the system. Lots of ways to handle it.

As for what would work, I already indicated Auld's basic approach seemed fine for the simpler firearms likely to be in a fantasy system. I might make some different choices and probably would allow penetration bonuses on some armor types were I to do it. That would then beg the point of why other weapons would also not be modeled more precisely. I don't really want to get into that so I'd rather just leave the firearms out.

Why would I care? Partly for my own level of suspension of disbelief and partly because I don't want to hear the players make a comment about how the gun ought to really be handled every time they used one or saw one used. It is a distraction to the game immersion and there are already plenty of such distractions. This is a combination of my own aesthetics and my own sense of what my players would tolerate for their own aesthetics and suspension of disbelief. YMMV

 

[Haltherrion]

But yeah. These are just some homebrew basics.

Looks interesting and a reasonable cut of it. Thanks for sharing.


Your treatment of them (and other recent posts) does suggest another way to look at this whole firearm element:

1. It could be casually integrated. Essentially reskins of other ranged weapons without much on how they act differently or ramifications of gunpowder in the world setting.
2. It could be lightly integrated. Firearms are distinct weapons with their own characteristics. Setting impact is light but basic economic factors are accounted for and some impact on society and fortifications, armies, etc. is considered.
3. It is tightly integrated and is one of the cornerstones of the campaign, or at least part of a larger theme, like a steampunk setting.

Seems like you did at least #2 (maybe #3, can't tell from what you said). Without complicating things too much for the players, it is fairly easy to incorporate a few (1-3) level 2 changes.

If firearms seem intriguing and they get at least a level two treatment, that seems reasonable treatment to me. I might still choose another campaign on aesthetic reasons but I wouldn't be making such a choice out of worry that there would be lots of arguments over the use of such weapons or I would have trouble with the suspension of disbelief.

My own personal preference also likes introducing a few concepts in a setting that require "level 2" type changes but I tend to pick things like how divine classes associate with gods or spirits and don't have much interest in doing so for firearms. That's just me

 

[Haltherrion]

I think the reason people are trying to come up with a way to integrate gunpowder despite not wanting to think too much about it is that somewhere else someone else has asked why it isn't existing in settings that have other technology from the same era. There seems to be a continual cycle of questions as soon as one person bothers to suggest any setting element that isn't precisely accurate.

It gets back to the people's personal boundaries for suspension of disbelief. These are personal which to me means both that it varies from person to person and there isn't much inherently wrong or right about them. You might like peanut butter more than chocolate; I don't Neither is objectively wrong.

That there are boundaries to suspension of disbelief itself is not really arguable. Some may draw them tight and some may draw them loose. A few people might like an anything goes kind of story (Hitchhiker's guide ) but I don't know anyone who has no boundaries all the time. Particularly in an interactive game, nearly everyone wants some consistency so they have some ability to evaluate their decisions.

I've always had issues with firearms and these boundaries, both my own boundaries and my players'. I prefer to avoid the issue by not having firearms but with a reasonable amount of attention from a setting designer, they can certainly be integrated into the fantasy game and 'reasonable' does not mean a 200 page dissertation

(Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you, there's nothing wrong with your specific question.)

Not at all; it's all good

 

[TwinBahamut]

It begs the question, why have them at all if they aren't actually treated differently? Especially since some players will ask legitimate questions as to why they aren't treated differently and why they can't use gunpowder itself for other purposes.

I guess my question is "why do they need to be treated differently?" Why do guns need to be different in order to justify including them? Why can't they just be one more weapon choice, no different than the choice between a shortsword and a rapier? Honestly, I have absolutely no interest in unique gun rules for a D&D game. The rules we have right now for differentiating weapons are good enough. What is more, the list of major ranged weapons really could use the addition of guns. It is kind of limited right now, and ranged weapon users would benefit from having the same kind of variety that melee weapon users have.

Of course, the best reason is simply that I think they would be fun to have and I don't have any objection to guns in fantasy. I don't see the need for any other reason.

Also, I never said anything about there being a mysterious lack of gunpowder use outside of guns.

Why not have laser rifles that are also treated exactly like a bow? Why not have a PAK 88mm that is treated like a ballista? Why stop there? Why not a full salvo of an M270 MLRS treated like 12 slingers?

I assume at some point you'd find modeling advanced weapon systems as the equivalent of much simpler systems inappropriate. It would seem I find find that point earlier on the technology spectruum than you do. Are you right and I'm wrong? I wouldn't think so any more than the converse can be stated. But am I unreasonable for not liking them to be treated that way? I don't think so. Am I unreasonable for avoiding games that don't meet my needs as gamer? Again, I don't think so. We all invest a lot of time in a campaign; why invest it in one that is continually offending the suspension of disbelief you are willing to accept?

I think everything here is based on rather strange logic. You are rather arbitrarily saying that guns are "more advanced" than other weapons, and are basing your claim on the idea that "more advanced weapons" must have different rules than other weapons. I don't agree with either.

Guns are not more advanced than other D&D weapons. Historically speaking, they all existed alongside each other for centuries. I thought this point had been well established in this thread. The technology for making guns is no more advanced than the technology needed to make good plate armor and crossbows. Stating that the changeover occurs because of advancements in the "technology spectrum" means you would have to apply the same logic to other equipment in the game, like the rapier or full plate armor. Because you are not, it is simply not a consistent or logical way of looking at things.

As for the idea that more advanced technology requires different rules... My response would be "not necessarily". Sure, a few things need different rules, but only because they have elements that make them behave completely unlike previous weapons. For example, a homing missile may need different rules than other weapons, simply because homing attacks and area of effect attacks work very differently than most default weapons do. However, the level of abstraction the current rules provide can easily cover any less significant change in technology. It is the change in effect and usage that matters, not the level of technology itself.

Ultimately, a gun and a bow really are not very different. The physical principles behind them are very different, but they are nothing more than two different ways of throwing a projectile at an enemy at lethal speed. Nothing more, and nothing less. Why should they have different rules (beyond the normal rules differences, at least) when their basic effect is so similar?

To further address the point that "we need different rules for more advanced weapons", I have to ask how is a laser weapon any different than a Brilliant Energy weapon. Would a Brilliant Energy rifle and a laser rifle have any meaningful differences? Would a laser rifle have any more impact on a setting than a Brilliant Energy bow would (assuming the cost is the same)? I really don't think they would be different at all. Advances in technology and advancements up the chart of magical weapon bonuses are not that different.

As for the game mechanics, I believed I offered my opinion on this exact point some pages ago in this thread, IIRC: the D&D game system isn't designed to span a wide range of weapon capability. I personally don't think it is well designed to handle firearms all that well as do my other players, who as I've said before include a high proportion of engineers and a hunter.

Sure, the D&D system doesn't make weapons feel different all that well. But, as I've been trying to argue, that hardly matters in the case of guns. I honestly believe that, as far as it matters for game rules, guns are more similar to bows than swords are to axes. If the rules for swords and axes work, I don't see why rules for guns would not.

If it works for your group, that's fine but this whole thread was about whether one personally likes firearms and gunpowder weapons. I don't and I've tried to give reasonable reasons for it without simplifying or belittling the contrary viewpoint.

I don't see where I have been simplifying or belittling anything...

As for your reasons... I've done nothing but try to point out why I don't accept those reasons, and why I don't share them.

If you see nothing wrong with treating the firearms as equivalents of non-firearm weapons in your game, go for it. No doubt the firearms you use are considerably more primitive than my examples weapons; they were selected to make a point that there is a spectruum of weapon capability and as setting designers, you have a choice on how to model them and how, if at all, to distinguish them.

I don't think whether guns are primitive or not really has a lot of bearing on this topic. Of course, neither does any discussion of what I may use in my game, if for no other reason than the fact that I don't have a game right now. I've only been talking about the abstract, and perhaps my preferences for the potential inclusion of guns in a rulebook or future iteration of the rules.

To recap my own issue with firearms, they introduce some reasonable questions and expectations from the players. If you aren't going to address them, why bother having them? If you do address them, as many have made clear they do in their own settings, and I assume Eberron does as well, then cool. It's purely a matter of aesthetics at that point.

Eberron doesn't have guns...

Anyways, nitpick aside, I simply don't understand what you mean by "addressing" guns. There are countless ways of implementing guns and gunpowder into the rules and into a setting, some of which may have an impact on the setting, some of which may not. These impacts would have an impact regardless of how the rules for guns may work. And honestly, even if guns were thrown in without anything being "addressed" I don't think it would be a problem for the game.