Guns in a fantasy setting

[Dannyalcatraz]

As you note, this is a problem with bows and crossbows in D&D. Really, it's the nature of hit points. Either a weapon can kill something in one shot, in which case it generally will kill it in two, or it simply cannot kill it in one shot and needs two, three, four, or whatever number of shots, plus or minus one.

No, the problem is thinking that bows, arrow, or guns need different rules from other weapons in a HP system. HP are just an amalgam of actual wound-taking ability and your ability as an experienced combatant to avoid taking a quality hit.

Because most weapons can kill in one blow or wound in several. If I grabbed a paring knife out of my kitchen and slashed your femoral artery or jugular vein, you'd likely be dead before the first responders got to you. And that's one strike from a 2" blade.

What makes guns so deadly is a combination of ease of use, range, RoF, reliability, range and compactness and the properties of the rounds they shoot... But those didn't all come together at once. It took hundreds of years to get the formula right.

So you could, fo purposes of your game, have guns that combine those elements in various combinations, just don't give any one weapon ALL of them.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It is funny how actual matchlock firearms were considered roughly equivalent to crossbows by soldiers of the time, and thus they'd pose no balance issues in the game, but nobody wants "lame" guns in their game; they wan't repeaters at the least, and they really want automatics.

One of the tragedies of guns in d20 games is "realism".

Today people use guns, and tons of information is available, including things like "temporary vs permanent wound channels", "foot pounds of force delivered" and other things which, while real, have nothing to do with game balance. People didn't write many books on swordfighting, but when guns came to the fore, so did the printing press. As a result, we have a pretty good idea of how quickly you can reload a gun, but not a crossbow. Both are pretty slow, so slow they have little use outside of a mass army if you intend to use the weapon more than once. However, few people are going to have an easy time finding out how long it takes to reload a crossbow on Wikipedia or Google, so crossbows taking a move action to reload is fine, but guns "have to take several rounds".

The end result are realists tend to make primitive guns unfun. They're (realistically) time-consuming to reload, can backfire, produce a bunch of smoke, and in short are only reliable in a large formation.

Making matters worse, we hear more stories about people getting shot than, say, sliced with a greatsword these days. As a result, people think of guns as "one shot one kill" (they are not) whereas it's realistic to get cut several times without significant injury (also not realistic). As a result, guns rules are made deadly in systems that can't handle it. High crits, touch attacks, low hit point setting rules, or something like that.

 

[Eric Tolle]

Guns are actually pretty easy to model in 3.X. Simple weapons, 1D8 for pistols (range of hand crossbow), 1D10 for rifles (range of medium crossbow), 10k turn reloading time that provokes opportunity attacks. I would give firearms a pretty high misfire chance (1-3 on the to-hit roll), which can be reduced down to 1 out of 20 with firearms proficiency, which also increases range. Further feats could reduce reloading time, etc..

The real problem is that ranged weapons in general are pretty meh in 3.5, so you'll probably want to use the Pathfinder rules and feats. Or just play Warhammer.

 

[mmadsen]

As you note, this is a problem with bows and crossbows in D&D. Really, it's the nature of hit points. Either a weapon can kill something in one shot, in which case it generally will kill it in two, or it simply cannot kill it in one shot and needs two, three, four, or whatever number of shots, plus or minus one.

No, the problem is thinking that bows, arrow, or guns need different rules from other weapons in a HP system. HP are just an amalgam of actual wound-taking ability and your ability as an experienced combatant to avoid taking a quality hit.

In reality and in many genres of action fiction, a single arrow, bolt, or bullet should be able to take out an experienced combatant.

(In most genres of action fiction, a single arrow, bolt, or bullet should not be able to take out the protagonist though, whether or not he's an experienced combatant.)

Guns in particular are known for killing with one well-placed shot, and early guns only got one shot. So it hurts the flavor of the game quite demonstrably when a musketball only ever serves as a good start to a swordfight.

Similarly, it hurts the game when you realize you can't kill a deer with an arrow.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Glen Cook is working through a fantasy series called The Instrumentalities of the Night. It is a clear analogue of Medieval Europe, even cultures and geographies and history.

In it the world is undergoing an impending accelerated Ice Age. However, a small band of soldiers stumbled upon an alchemical recipe for gunpowder that is fatal to immortals, especially the uncaring forces of nature ready to wipe humanity from existence. There are numerous scenes where the soldiers are setting up an ambush trap on such powerful immortals, catching them by surprise and killing them.

Ambushes being particularly fatal to even the most powerful of creatures is a staple of Cook's fiction, look through the Black Company books. The Black Company RPG brought to the D20 community an ambush system that is particularly gritty and maybe could be looked through for fantasy firearms.

The parts are these:
Characters have an extremely low Massive Damage threshold of (Con score + character level)
Massive Damage saves are Fort (DC 10 + 1 per 5 hp damage)
Failing this save by 5 or more leaves character at 0 hp and disabled
During a surprise round, each time any character that has not acted yet takes damage they make a Massive Damage save.
During a surprise round, any damage exceeding the Massive Damage threshold is dealt to Con.

These pieces could give you some material to build your own firearms rules that make them effective and scary, for instance, maybe characters have a lowered massive damage threshold just against firearms. Or maybe firearms are remarkably more deadly against targets that have not acted yet.

Just some thought to pick through for you.

 

[NewJeffCT]

It is funny how actual matchlock firearms were considered roughly equivalent to crossbows by soldiers of the time, and thus they'd pose no balance issues in the game, but nobody wants "lame" guns in their game; they wan't repeaters at the least, and they really want automatics.

I think that might be part of it - they don't want guns to be lame. Then, people will think, "why did my DM just introduce a handgonne to our game, and then make it suck?"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I had some success the last time I did it. Guns were an emergent tech that had just gotten widespread...but not all of the kinks had gotten worked out.

1) They were generally dependable (I only used dangerous misfires on a 1), but slow to reload.

2) Fire/Heat spells were more popular with casters because they could set the gunpowder off...

3) There was one model that was EXPENSIVE, but had 8 short barrels so could be fired quickly- essentially a pocket Gatling/revolver. However, it was not accurate, and they hadn't QUITE worked out how to guarantee that only one barrel fired at a time. Sometimes, all fired simultaneously, resulting in a shotgun effect...and breaking the gun.

4) rounds for masterwork weapons were expensive, since the guns were handmade, having variable barrel sizes.

 

[Eric Tolle]

A better

In reality and in many genres of action fiction, a single arrow, bolt, or bullet should be able to take out an experienced combatant.

But they can. A pistol doing 1D8 damage has a better than 60% chance of putting down your average soldier, goblin or orc. It's not the gun's fault do many opponents require an anti-tank missile to put down.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In reality and in many genres of action fiction, a single arrow, bolt, or bullet should be able to take out an experienced combatant.

I would only agree if, in the same game, you can kill someone with a single deep stab with a longsword.

Guns in particular are known for killing with one well-placed shot, and early guns only got one shot. So it hurts the flavor of the game quite demonstrably when a musketball only ever serves as a good start to a swordfight

Does it? If you insist on realistic gun rules, then they should be ... realistic. Which means probably one shot per combat, unless you've got a brace of pistols.

Similarly, it hurts the game when you realize you can't kill a deer with an arrow.

You're right. The official stats for a deer has it with 7 hp (2 Hit Dice, low Con, some Forgotten Realms book of all places). A typical NPC archer (warrior, I guess) might be doing 1d8+1 damage with a bow.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

One of the tragedies of guns in d20 games is "realism".

Today people use guns, and tons of information is available, including things like "temporary vs permanent wound channels", "foot pounds of force delivered" and other things which, while real, have nothing to do with game balance. People didn't write many books on swordfighting, but when guns came to the fore, so did the printing press. As a result, we have a pretty good idea of how quickly you can reload a gun, but not a crossbow. Both are pretty slow, so slow they have little use outside of a mass army if you intend to use the weapon more than once. However, few people are going to have an easy time finding out how long it takes to reload a crossbow on Wikipedia or Google, so crossbows taking a move action to reload is fine, but guns "have to take several rounds".

The end result are realists tend to make primitive guns unfun. They're (realistically) time-consuming to reload, can backfire, produce a bunch of smoke, and in short are only reliable in a large formation.

Making matters worse, we hear more stories about people getting shot than, say, sliced with a greatsword these days. As a result, people think of guns as "one shot one kill" (they are not) whereas it's realistic to get cut several times without significant injury (also not realistic). As a result, guns rules are made deadly in systems that can't handle it. High crits, touch attacks, low hit point setting rules, or something like that.

Yep - gonnes, hackbutts, etc. were actually faster to load than a heavy crossbow. Lower range, less armor penetration, but faster to reload - and both the crossbows and the arquebus were much easier to learn than a bow.

I spent some of last Sunday putting lead (actual lead) and blackpowder (actual gunpowder) through some eighteenth century muskets. One thing that gets left out - if it it is at all damp when you are out firing your gun you will stink like the Devil's own flatulence for several days afterwards.... My girlfriend was offended just running across my shirt in the laundry - after it had already been washed once.

The smoke and fog hugged the ground like a wet blanket.... But I had fun.

Not my guns, sadly, I can't quite bring myself to spend the money.

And for killing people... knives are a Hell of a lot more likely to kill you than a gun.... Bleeding out is bad.

As a 'realist' I give guns low range increments, a 20 critical chance, and a X3 crit modifier. A 'fumble' range of between 1-2 or 1-3. Unless both the roll to hit and the roll to confirm the fumble are in the fumble range then all that happens is that the gun is fouled. I have never had a gun explode. But I fouled three times last Sunday and had to clean the gun pretty thoroughly. Fog and drizzle is bad for guns.

Damage is between D8 and D12, depending on gun. Same time to reload as a heavy crossbow. I don't think that they are 'unfun', but I didn't make them game breaking either.

The Auld Grump, never been in either a gunfight or a knife fight, and has no urge to do so.