Making guns palatable in high fantasy [Design Theory]

[mmadsen]

Well Pathfinder's rule on firearms make more sense to me.

But Pathfinder's hit points work like D&D's, right? So the first few shots are somehow shrugged off, like clockwork.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

But Pathfinder's hit points work like D&D's, right? So the first few shots are somehow shrugged off, like clockwork.

As is the first sword stroke, magic missile, giant rat nibble, etc..

As long as it is applied to all options then it does not fret me none.

Right this very minute I am waiting for the primer to dry on a halfling with a musket... and a turkey.

A-hyuck!

The Auld Grump

 

[gamerprinter]

But Pathfinder's hit points work like D&D's, right? So the first few shots are somehow shrugged off, like clockwork.

Unless you're first level, then you might be dead. It's not 4e though, so hit point loss is real hit point loss, nothing that can be healed with a surge.

The way I look at the reality of guns vs. RPG guns is simple. Most non-D&D humans are equivalent to 0 level humans - a 1st level character might have 6 - 10 hp + possible CON bonus, but 0 level. Any successful gunshot at a 0 level human = death.

I don't see the gun as something that causes massive damage. A bullet just moves so fast and with such velocity that an arm block (which could deflect a sword blade or cause a non-mortal wound) is not effective at all. This to me, is the same as a ranged touch attack. I don't have the effective armor vs. a ranged touch attack. Thus the Pathfinder gunshot is no more mortal of a wound than a sword, but your AC is not going to stop the damage.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In Pathfinder your touch AC does not include Dex modifiers

WHAT?

I run 4e, but am playing in a Pathfinder campaign. I had NO idea of this.

 

[Mercutio01]

In Pathfinder your touch AC does not include Dex modifiers, thus you cannot effectively dodge a firearm discharge as it is a ranged touch attack.

This is untrue. Touch AC does include Dex, deflection, and size modifiers, but doesn't include any armor, natural armor, or shield bonuses.

That said, I do think the way PF handles firearms is one of the better systems I've yet seen in FRPGs.

 

[gamerprinter]

WHAT?

I run 4e, but am playing in a Pathfinder campaign. I had NO idea of this.

No, I was wrong, see below...

This is untrue. Touch AC does include Dex, deflection, and size modifiers, but doesn't include any armor, natural armor, or shield bonuses.

That said, I do think the way PF handles firearms is one of the better systems I've yet seen in FRPGs.

Actually, I was corrected on this point earlier today on another site - you're right of course.

 

[mmadsen]

As is the first sword stroke, magic missile, giant rat nibble, etc..

As long as it is applied to all options then it does not fret me none.

I can see the logic of saying that all weapons are equally unrealistic, but I don't think they really are, because single-shot guns, which should work for dueling, hunting, or breaking the enemy line, simply don't work plausibly if that first and only shot has no chance of killing the opposing duelist, the deer, or the enemy officer.

Unless you're first level, then you might be dead. It's not 4e though, so hit point loss is real hit point loss, nothing that can be healed with a surge.

The problem, as far as realism is concerned, is not that guns are insufficiently deadly; it's that they can't kill in one shot. (The only time they can kill with one shot is when the target is "weak" enough to be guaranteed to die in two shots.)

This stands out, because (a) period guns only had one shot, and (b) guns should be able to stop some troops closing to fight hand-to-hand.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I can see the logic of saying that all weapons are equally unrealistic, but I don't think they really are, because single-shot guns, which should work for dueling, hunting, or breaking the enemy line, simply don't work plausibly if that first and only shot has no chance of killing the opposing duelist, the deer, or the enemy officer.


The problem, as far as realism is concerned, is not that guns are insufficiently deadly; it's that they can't kill in one shot. (The only time they can kill with one shot is when the target is "weak" enough to be guaranteed to die in two shots.)

This stands out, because (a) period guns only had one shot, and (b) guns should be able to stop some troops closing to fight hand-to-hand.

Two samurai are squaring off, neither has a chance to kill the other with that first strike.

Humperdink is squaring off against Montoya, he doesn't run - there is no chance that Montoya will kill him with a single strike.

Bilbo is not worried about the spiders of Mirkwood - he knows that they can't kill him with a single chomp.

Sorry, they really are the same - each of these should be life threatening, on the first strike, none of them are. Why, in the name of cheesy fish shaped crackers, should guns be different?

Change all or change none - don't make guns of the period special. They really, really weren't. I love a blackpowder piece, but they were not much more effective than a crossbow - only faster.

Join a recreation society - there are plenty in the US. Try blackpowder weapons, shoot some targets, get a feel for them.

I am not saying 'look at me! I know more about this than you!' I am saying try it out. Prove me right, prove me wrong - just try it. Who knows, you may enjoy coming home smelling like the Devil's own flatulence. I know that I enjoy myself.

Other than New York (which has some very strict gun and weapon laws) most major cities will have at least one recreation group.

Check with Universities.

England has (or had) the Knights of the Knot, a BCW recreation society. One of the Perry Twins from Games Workshop lost a hand when a cannon blew up. (Wait, that didn't sound fun, did it?)

If it sounds like I am recruiting for blackpowder reenactment, well, yeah.

The Auld Grump

 

[Fanaelialae]

I can see the logic of saying that all weapons are equally unrealistic, but I don't think they really are, because single-shot guns, which should work for dueling, hunting, or breaking the enemy line, simply don't work plausibly if that first and only shot has no chance of killing the opposing duelist, the deer, or the enemy officer.


The problem, as far as realism is concerned, is not that guns are insufficiently deadly; it's that they can't kill in one shot. (The only time they can kill with one shot is when the target is "weak" enough to be guaranteed to die in two shots.)

This stands out, because (a) period guns only had one shot, and (b) guns should be able to stop some troops closing to fight hand-to-hand.

The same is true of any weapon though.

A longbow ought to be quite capable of killing a deer outright, but in D&D it can't.

Miyamoto Musashi won dozens of duels against experienced swordsman, sometimes reputedly with a single strike. That doesn't work in D&D either.

The simple fact is that while they work well with mimicking heroic fiction, hp do not work realistically, and they never have. You might add some plausibility to the hp system by using exploding dice for damage (making a one shot kill with any weapon possible, albeit nonetheless unlikely). That still wouldn't make hp behave realistically though.

In order to even approximate modeling reality, a system would have to allow for one shot kills, people sustaining dozens of serious injuries and still living, short term wound penalties, and long term wound penalties. D&D doesn't even come close to that.

 

[Glade Riven]

I can see the logic of saying that all weapons are equally unrealistic, but I don't think they really are, because single-shot guns, which should work for dueling, hunting, or breaking the enemy line, simply don't work plausibly if that first and only shot has no chance of killing the opposing duelist, the deer, or the enemy officer.


The problem, as far as realism is concerned, is not that guns are insufficiently deadly; it's that they can't kill in one shot. (The only time they can kill with one shot is when the target is "weak" enough to be guaranteed to die in two shots.)

This stands out, because (a) period guns only had one shot, and (b) guns should be able to stop some troops closing to fight hand-to-hand.

WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT REALISM?!

Realism has nothing to do with D&D, pathfinder, or most roleplaying games.