D&D 5E Fireguns, pistols, musket... A question of balance.

[Ednoc]

Wow... Thanks you guys for all that help.

2) The biggest reason firearms will be balanced until rather late in their development is their very slow rate of fire. Most of the improvements in firearms between their introduction in the 14th century and their dominance in the 18th century was in rate of fire and reliability, with a lesser but important improvement in range and accuracy. Depending on what century you model your technology on, you'll have a reload time between 9 rounds (14th century) and about 2 rounds (17th century), with pistols generally being slower and more complicated to reload so that they were generally treated as one shot disposable weapons during battle. Only attacking every 3rd to 10th round isn't exactly game breaking. As such, these aren't going to be weapons that anyone with the possibility of multiple attacks per round are going to rely on commonly, and indeed they are mostly going to be weapons used only in the first round or so of combat before closing to melee. As such, they are slightly better heavy crossbows with slightly longer rates of fire and poorer reliability especially in wet conditions.

I really LOVE the idea, but what I fear most is that my PCs are, I think, going to fire one shot, then throw up their firearms, go to melee, then reload after battle, etc... So firearms will be put in a sort of pre-melee sort of thing...
I'm thinking that would be maybe something close to be realistic, even more for pistol who were designed to kill people fast but not to be reloaded in the middle of a fight. But I don't know if it will be interesting for players in term of pure gameplay, if you know what I mean.

I don't want my players to feel they have to use a weapon at first just because it does a lot of damage then go to full melee or whatever. I want to suggest an interesting alternative to bows and crossbows and I think taht this point is difficult since we have to make them exist while there's already two options for ranged people, make them balanced etc...

The blunderbuss always come back and I like the idea of a weapon who can deals some splash damage. Firing in a cone may be intersting except if you have some friends in front of you. (Or not, if you're some kind of a bad person ?)

I think they should have short range since long range is not something that would be possible at a time. I'm no expert, but I think these weapons (Flintlock) shouldn't have so much range.
Ammunations don't have to be expensive, for obvious reason (A little piece of metal must be cheap to craft)

In term of damage, it looks like nobody is perfectly OK with that, but it's always something like 1d10/1d8 or 2d4 for pistol, most the time. Or if there's a longer loading time, you add more damage etc...

And here is the real issue.
Make them reload as "fast" as crossbows ?
Make them more powerful, but with 2 or more round of reloading and let them to be a "One-shot-per-fight" kind of weapon ?
And maybe really annoying for players to having to wait 2 rounds of doing nothing except reloading there weapon and looking other PCs doing things... ?
Should we allow a feat like we have for crossbows that make double pistol possible ?


I think we all approve that firearms don't have to be martial since it's less difficult to use a gun than a bow. (Except for the loading part, maybe ?)

I don't really like the "Slow Loading" idea... Have to do an INT check every time you try to reload your weapon add more probability to do nothing in your turn just because your hands are shaking or something like that. It might be really frustrating. (Even more if you miss all your shot after that...)

Once again, I know there no perfection in any way, and I probably would have to playtesting all that stuff before I would be satisfied with something but... Eh. I like to do good stuff and see my players enjoy the game so...

And, once again, thank you all.

 

[Celebrim]

I really LOVE the idea, but what I fear most is that my PCs are, I think, going to fire one shot, then throw up their firearms, go to melee, then reload after battle, etc... So firearms will be put in a sort of pre-melee sort of thing...
I'm thinking that would be maybe something close to be realistic, even more for pistol who were designed to kill people fast but not to be reloaded in the middle of a fight. But I don't know if it will be interesting for players in term of pure gameplay, if you know what I mean.

I know what you mean, but first, it is something close to realistic. That's how combat - especially small scale combat - in that period was typically fought. Secondly, whether it is interesting for the players is a matter of what sort of stories they are connected to. The period from the 15th century to the 17th century is one of the most obscure to modern persons, in that most stories and fantasies and even study of history focuses on the eras either immediately before or immediately after this period. This 'early-modern' period is an era when most people couldn't name one battle that occurred, and when most people - even readers - probably haven't read one book set in that era. So that sort of combat, while realistic and I would argue interesting, just isn't one that the players are going to naturally connect to. (You might be slightly better off in France, as that was France's real Golden Age, but I'd wager not by much.)

Remember, the 'Three Musketeers' were primarily swordsmen. That's because after the first round or so, your musket is a club.

I don't want my players to feel they have to use a weapon at first just because it does a lot of damage then go to full melee or whatever. I want to suggest an interesting alternative to bows and crossbows and I think taht this point is difficult since we have to make them exist while there's already two options for ranged people, make them balanced etc...

I would argue that crossbows are typically used in a similar manner. One of the worst invasions into the rules I think we've seen is the idea of 'weapon specialization'. It's too engrained into the rules and culture to go away now, but it tends to make martial classes very one dimensional in that every character either wants to be wholly melee or wants to be wholly missile. But it's not that unusual for a melee character to have a crossbow cocked and ready as a backup weapon, and to employ in the (sadly rare) occasions when the initial engagement is beyond charge range but not beyond the range of effective missile fire. I think you'll see muskets and pistols used in the same manner.

The blunderbuss always come back and I like the idea of a weapon who can deals some splash damage. Firing in a cone may be intersting except if you have some friends in front of you. (Or not, if you're some kind of a bad person ?)

Ken Hood's firearm rules. And no, firearms do not fire in a cone. A typical 12 gauge shot gun firing shot only has a spread about 2' in diameter at 30 yards. Even without a choke, it's not going to be much bigger than that - far to little spread to turn from a line into a cone in a D&D sense.

I'm no expert, but I think these weapons (Flintlock) shouldn't have so much range.

A Flintlock is a relatively advanced '4th generation' weapon. And by the time get to the Flintlock, you have long barreled rifles such as the famous 'Kentucky Rifle' with effective ranges that are basically modern - out to about 400 yards in the hands of an expert. Flintlocks are right about the dividing line were firearms begin to rapidly overtake ancient weaponry in terms of effectiveness. At right about the same time, you also get the first effective and highly mobile field artillery. Welcome to the Napoleonic Era.

And maybe really annoying for players to having to wait 2 rounds of doing nothing except reloading there weapon and looking other PCs doing things... ?

As I said, firearms - and by that I mean firearms of all eras - tend to be more effective in the hands of NPCs than PCs. It's the Sam Colt makes all men equal problem. I mean, they managed to have a unit of expert longbowmen participate at Waterloo, and one particularly skilled warrior was still favoring the longbow and claymore during WWII... but the better the firearms are, the less easy it is to be heroic in the face of overwhelming odds. To have an age of 'heroes' the technology has to favor defense over offense, so that a warrior caste individual (a Hoplite, a Knight, a Samurai) can defeat unarmored foes at 12:1 or better odds. That's what creates the heroic image of a warrior. Compare with Kurasawa's treatment of the musket in 'Seven Samurai'.

I don't really like the "Slow Loading" idea...

If you don't go for 'slow loading', you'll tend to end up with firearms being either basically identical to other weapons, differing only in flavor, or else basically strictly superior versions of other weapons. This actually is more likely to imbalance your game than any other approach, as I've long held the belief that the party jointly maximizing its ranged combat potential is just about the most effective approach in D&D, as range combat tends to negate opposing tactical advantages (such as favorable terrain), tends to be something most D&D monsters are bad at, and tends to have far more advantages in all editions (rate of fire, ect.) than disadvantages or else disadvantages which are easily negated.

I guess it comes down to whether you are ok with firearms feeling 'firearmish' or just being another weapon that basically uses the same rules as any other weapon. Player ignorance of firearms here helps, as they won't have any or will have little in the way of expectations to disappoint.

And, once again, thank you all.

np

 

[RCanine]

I really LOVE the idea, but what I fear most is that my PCs are, I think, going to fire one shot, then throw up their firearms, go to melee, then reload after battle, etc... So firearms will be put in a sort of pre-melee sort of thing...

I'm curious why you're afraid of that; isn't that more-or-less how they early firearms were historically used? Bayonet charges were still a major part of warfare even up to the American Civil War.

 

[Tormyr]

I lean toward guns being refluffed bows and crossbows. It is more of a flavor item for a steampunk or early Victorian setting.

To a certain extent, it does not matter what you do with guns if they do about the same damage per round as another ranged weapon. So if you have a gun do 2d8 damage, it might take an action to reload it to balance the DPR out.

 

[marcelvdpol]

I lean toward guns being refluffed bows and crossbows. It is more of a flavor item for a steampunk or early Victorian setting.

That is always a possibility. You can take a Hand Crossbow and call it a Pistol but use the same stats and properties. This keeps the balance intact and allows reflavouring weapons for use in another setting.

However, if you want a setting where Firearms are used / available next to bows, crossbows, longswords, rapiers etc you might want them to be different from the normal Hand Crossbow, Light Crossbow or Longbow.

To a certain extent, it does not matter what you do with guns if they do about the same damage per round as another ranged weapon. So if you have a gun do 2d8 damage, it might take an action to reload it to balance the DPR out.

From a balance perspective it is quite important that Firearms have about similar DPR compared to other weapons of similar handedness and range. A Hand Crossbow for example does 1d6 damage, has a range of 30/120 and needs 1 hand to fire (but 2 hands to reload). A Firearm with similar range and handedness should deal a similar amount of damage over a single round with the same character; this depends amongst others on the abilities of the character (Extra Attack for example).

To make a Firearm different it therefore needs to have other properties which might amount to the same DPR but with slightly different types (Bludgeoning damage vs Piercing damage or added Fire as a type of damage in exchange for reduced long range).

Needing an Action / Bonus Action to reload reduces the usefulness of the Firearm for characters with Extra Attack compared to the Longbow. Crossbows due to the Loading property are only allowed to be fired once per Attack unless the character has a Feat which removes this restriction. Firearms could be even slower than Crossbows (although this is historically perhaps not accurate) so that it costs an Action or Bonus Action; in exchange a Firearm could do more damage and adds a damage type (Fire).

 

[Simonb1]

Hi all,

If you are going to make early firearms one shot per combat, then expect characters to carry upto 6 pistols at once.

Simon

Ps look at blackbeard and US civil war gurellas with cap and ball revolvers for examples of people carrying lots of pistols.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm curious why you're afraid of that; isn't that more-or-less how they early firearms were historically used? Bayonet charges were still a major part of warfare even up to the American Civil War.

This is almost entirely because they were still 'fighting the last war', which in this case would have been the greatly admired Napoleonic Wars, and both sides had not yet really absorbed what the changes in accuracy and rate of fire meant.

Civil War era weapons cover 5th, 6th and even 7th generation firearms, as there was a very rapid advance in firearm technology in the United States during the war. They begin with weapons that other than reliability and ease of employment aren't that different from the weapons they fought with in 1776, but they have a number of more advanced weapons and they very quickly learn that the newer weapons rather outclass the older ones when employed properly. Rate of fire climbs very rapidly from initially perhaps firing ever 4th round to firing every 2nd round, to by the end of the war weapons like the Henry Rifle (invented right before the start of the war, but not fully appreciated) even capable of firing twice in the same round. Most of both sides still used slow loading weapons, ironically because the North feared that if it provided soldiers with more rapid firing weapons it would not be able to logistically support them in the field. If you are familiar with the first year or so of WWI, this ought to cause you some bitter laughter.

As a relative number, no bayonets wounds were inflicted in the whole of the Civil War. Oh sure, you can find cases of bayonette charges and hand to hand fighting and a few that were even successful, but melee combat of all sorts amount to less than 1% of the casualties inflicted as a whole. Even at Little Round Top, which was notable in part because the maneuver was so unusual and undertaken as an act of desperation, most of the casualties were from point blank musket fire and the primary effect of the bayonet was psychological. The bayonet had ceased to be a militarily important weapon, but most people didn't yet realize it. By the end of the American Civil War, even with rifled muzzle-loaders still being used by the majority of the men of both sides, both sides had been forced to evolve to trench warfare that completely foreshadowed the World War I. However the European armies failed to recognize the implications thereof, or else arrogantly dismissed it as a result of a lack of American fighting spirit and quality leadership, resulting in almost every European expectation of what the war would be like, being completely wrong.

If you get firearms up to the level of cap locks, revolvers, and especially the repeaters as were used in the Civil War, realistic melee combat is all but going to go away. There will probably be a period where the DM won't quite understand the implications of the technology and there are always going to be moments when shock tactics work, but eventually, it's going to really dominate the setting.

 

[RCanine]

Sure, my point wasn't that bayonets were big in the civil war, it was that hundreds of years after the first firearms, they were still being used. You mentioned you were afraid of firearms being used as single-shot weapons before being abandoned for melee combat, but that's how early firearms were used, so unless you're running a modern campaign, I wonder why you dislike the idea.

 

[AnimeSniper]

Okay first off early firearms implementation always comes with a few headaches for both players and the GM so you can use the 5e rules RAW with a few tweaks to the system based upon the era type of the intended firearms.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm is good to give you a starting grasp of early era firearms.

Ignition; Matchlock, Wheellock, Snaplock, Flintlock, and percussion cap all have diifferent outcomes when in campaign and each means could affect the usage of said firearms especially early firearms when exposed to rain... wet/damp powder doesn't ignite for the earlier four exce[t for percussion cap.

Round type affects ranges... a round ball bounces done the barrel due to it being a smaller size then the barrel while a conical mini balls base expands to fit the barrel as it fires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minié_ball
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_shot

Rifling, twisted grooves with the barrel plus the mini-ball greatly improves range and accuracy