D&D 5E (2014) Let's Talk About Guns in 5E

[Reynard]

cleave mastery lets you hit multiple targets, I'd allow it for ranged weapons too

I feel like you are trying to move the goalposts here.
Guns don't need to work like fireball wands, they need to work like crossbows. That's all.

 

[Marc17]

Thematically, it will make the largest difference I think. Technically, guns are nothing but ranged piercing weapons and designed to do similar damage as hand held peircing weapons (ie enough to kill a guy). Especially the case if not dealing with modern guns and propellants,They probably should be simple weapons. Perhaps martial training to get better range for rifles, perhaps also firing rate. Getting your assassination head shot would be a character ability, not a function of the weapon. Light pistol rounds = 1d4. Pistol rounds = 1d6. Assault rifle rounds 1d8. Full rifle rounds 1d10. I wouldn't expect heavier crew served weapons to come up any more than siege weapons do.

 

[Mort]

I'm not a big fan of firearms in my D&D, but that's more for esthetics than any mechanical reason.

I have a gun wielding BM fighter in my high-level group (now 19th level) and it hasn't caused any issues whatever - she fits right in. As for mechanics additions or changes, we haven't bothered with any and everything seems to work fine.

 

[Reynard]

Here is an interesting tangential discussion: assuming guns are not mechanically disruptive, should they be found in the PHB equipment list? There usual placement in the DMG implicitly gives the DM authority over that aspect of world building (plus genre and tone to some degree). But in recent times, players are often expected to have much more input on the world building aspects of D&D. So if guns are in the PHB, that lets a player decide whether they exist, no?

 

[payn]

Here is an interesting tangential discussion: assuming guns are not mechanically disruptive, should they be found in the PHB equipment list? There usual placement in the DMG implicitly gives the DM authority over that aspect of world building (plus genre and tone to some degree). But in recent times, players are often expected to have much more input on the world building aspects of D&D. So if guns are in the PHB, that lets a player decide whether they exist, no?

As a big optional rules guy, I like the concept of a foundational core. I'd vote to not put firearms in that core since its a pretty divisive topic for D&D. I've always viewed supplemental material as GM and player discussion territory.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

my main thing with guns is, if they're relatively modern (think post us civil war) or later, i prefer they feel DIFFERENT then most other weapons. not better, necessarily, just obviously different enough to feel it.

the sniper problem is interesting. because, yeah, if you have relatively modern weaponry, the thought of "but what if i wanna snipe a guy?" will come up. my solution would probably be to make it a skill challenge (or something similar if that name makes you cringe) - sniping is complicated! you gotta find a good vantage point, get set up, find your target, adjust for wind and distance, fire, hope you didn't screw up your math, and get out, probably under fire. you can throw in other complications too - sentries, counter snipers, body doubles, crowds, whatever.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Personally, i prefer firearms to be an optional rules in the DMG or splatbook than be in the PHB core rules like the latest 5.5

 

[Distracted DM]

A lot of things besides a gun can be used to accomplish the same thing.

Poison and fire are great for taking out enemies without getting close.

Dumping oil down a hole and lighting it, spiking the wine at the bandits tavern, leaving a posion corpse for the troublesome owl bear, using shape change to do bombing runs, the necklace of fireball and your familiar, just animating undead and sending them into fight, the list goes on.

Honest access to blackpowder as an explosive is more troublesome than the actual guns. Especially when you can combine blackpowder and magic.

Fill some skeletons rib cage with a barrel bomb and send them in mass toward the enemy.

RPGs are always going to have ways for clever players to avoid a straight up fight with or without guns. The question is if that is a bug or a feature for your favored playstyle.

I'm glad to see players think through their problems and treat "combat as war," coming up with ingenious ways through or around encounters.

I don't think there's anything particularly ingenious, creative, or clever about using a rifle, longbow, or crossbow to kill a foe from 1000+ft.

 

[Reynard]

I'm glad to see players think through their problems and treat "combat as war," coming up with ingenious ways through or around encounters.

I don't think there's anything particularly ingenious, creative, or clever about using a rifle, longbow, or crossbow to kill a foe from 1000+ft.

Doesn't combat as war just demand effectiveness, and ingenuity only matters if there is no tried and true way of getting the job done?

 

[SkidAce]

As a big optional rules guy, I like the concept of a foundational core. I'd vote to not put firearms in that core since its a pretty divisive topic for D&D. I've always viewed supplemental material as GM and player discussion territory.

I agree with @payn