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

So, historically in the real world, very high tech firearms existed long before the period of the US Civil War. In fact, high capacity repeating firearms existed long before the US Revolution. They were simply very expensive, very hard to manufacturer, and finicky as could be. That is why the militaries of the world used muzzle loaders until the 1860s, it fit their ideologies and were highly reliable.

Now an adventurer, especially a mid-level successful one would likely have the gold to buy or commission something more than a blunderbuss. But then you have to look at reliability and supply chains. An Archer can go in the woods and make arrows, maybe not the best, but workable. Homemade gunpowder is not so simple, and likely to be filthy and low powered. Of course magic and magictech science impact that supply chain, depending on the world your characters are in.
i understand all of that. i would probably implement those as magic weapons or something similar if i wanted to include them in my games. i'm not thinking of post-civil war because of repeating firearms - i'm thinking of them because of widespread rifling, self-contained cartridges, and (within a couple decades) smokeless powder and spitzer rounds. yes, rifling and self-contained cartridges existed before that period, but they were mostly exceptional (i know most muskets in the us civil war were rifled - this was a very modern innovation at the time). and yes, smokeless powder and spitzer rounds came out a little later then just "right after the us civil war", but it's a widely known enough event that i found it the easiest marker to use.

all these put together, you get extremely accurate and quite powerful shoulder fired weaponry. far more accurate then any bow or crossbow. THAT is the feeling i want to capture without actually making them mechanically overpowered. i've considered a few different ways to do it - exploding damage dice, different form of range calculations akin to 3e style ranged weapons - but i'm not sure i've settled on anything i've liked a lot.

also, before you ask, yes, most of this doesn't apply to shotguns so they'd probably end up being an exception. that's fine.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've overall grown to accept firearms in D&D because I've found the vast majority of the fantasy I'm interested in isn't medieval. I like pirates with cannons, cowboy gunslingers, duelists using rapiers and pistols, gothic investigators with silver bullets and steampunk mechanics with baroque firearms. In fact, most of the last few settings or games I've played in (Waterdeep, Eberron, Spelljammer and Ravenloft) all featured a PC who used a firearm. None felt inappropriate, none were op. So it never bothered me to allow PCs to have them.

If I ever did a more grounded, medieval or earlier game, firearms (like rapiers, crossbows and full plate) are getting the boot, but most D&D settings are sufficiently advanced that they don't feel any weirder than a samurai or a dinosaur showing up.
 

I know that "verisimilitude" and "simulationism" can be seen as dirty words in some people's eyes. And you can work your way around those words by dressing it up as "thematic details" and "aesthetic preferences". But I'm just going to come out and say it:

Guns don't belong in medieval style fantasy. It breaks verisimilitude. It's not realistic. Shotguns, .45s, and sniper rifles are not the equivalent of fireballs, crossbow bolts, and longbows. Armor like chainmail is effectively useless against guns. There's a reason guns completely changed what warfare and violence means to humanity.

D&D means having knights whack each other with swords and wizards blasting each other with spells, and real world guns generally don't fit into that. That doesn't mean you can't have laser guns show up for fun sometimes. That doesn't mean you can't have magitech. That doesn't mean magic has to be scientific.
 

Thats not how the term works. Combat as sport is about meeting within the field diamond and proceeding as the rules dictate with the combat. The way to beat the goblins is to fight them, at range is within bounds if you use the combat rules as written. Combat as war is finding ingenious plans that avoid the combat rules or set them up overwhelmingly in the PCs' favor. Its not about a fair fight for fair fights sake, its about rewarding skill play.
Ok. Isn't using the most efficient tactic skilled play?
 

I know that "verisimilitude" and "simulationism" can be seen as dirty words in some people's eyes. And you can work your way around those words by dressing it up as "thematic details" and "aesthetic preferences". But I'm just going to come out and say it:

Guns don't belong in medieval style fantasy. It breaks verisimilitude. It's not realistic. Shotguns, .45s, and sniper rifles are not the equivalent of fireballs, crossbow bolts, and longbows. Armor like chainmail is effectively useless against guns. There's a reason guns completely changed what warfare and violence means to humanity.

D&D means having knights whack each other with swords and wizards blasting each other with spells, and real world guns generally don't fit into that. That doesn't mean you can't have laser guns show up for fun sometimes. That doesn't mean to can't have magitech. That doesn't mean magic has to be scientific.
There is lots of other things that don't fit D&D's medieval aesthetic: galleon ships, rapiers, polytheism, and much of the D&D diet (I'm not talking sushi and tacos, I'm talking pumpkins and potatoes). If you really want to be a stickler, we shouldn't have a lot of ancient world elements (like medusas or minotaurs) either. And let's not even get into how much technology is refluffed as magic, allowing for plumbing, continual lamp street lights, not to mention the Victorian aesthetic of Ravenloft or the turn of the century elements of Eberron. Hell, even Greyhawk has a deity who wears a pair of six shooters.

"When consistency gets in the way of samurai gunslingers riding on dinosaurs, it's time for consistency to take a day off." - Barsoomcore.
 

What tactically interesting play there is in 5e sort of falls apart with ranged weapons. Moving at half-speed lets you be totally effective with the weapon. Cover is negated by a number of cheap mechanics. Damage is high enough compared to firing rate and movement even without firearms that enemies that would utterly destroy you at close range don't even survive to hit you once if you can engage anywhere close to max range.

Even without firearms, the 5e ranged weapon rules already render melee combat pretty close to obsolete. Only the convention of small cramped combat areas cause it to not utterly dominate. Every melee combatant needs to invest in insane mobility (or stealth) and use it to close the gap on ranged foes; ranged combatants only need to expend a bit of mobility or stealth after the melee foe both closes the distance and isn't defeated first.

Having firearms whose damage output is significantly larger just increases this gap, and no appeal to realism really works. You have to appeal to what kind of fights you want really, or provide some other huge advantage to melee, to keep it viable. All fights happening in twisty corridors, lots of darkness (magical or not) preventing use of ranged weapons, etc.

And ignoring the massive tactical advantages, the mini game of ranged combat in 5e is more boring than that of melee. Melee cares more about positioning, and at some levels opportunity attacks let you defend other characters by engaging foes before they focus fire. Ranged combat does away with cover pretty fast, and then positioning (other than full cover) matters very little. This in turn makes focus fire the obvious effective strategy.

Now, 5e melee combat mini game isn't the most engaging; it falls short of 4es melee combat mini game (heck, it falls short of 4e's ranged combat mini game!). But it has at least something going for it.

---

All of that grousing being said, I'm trying to introduce magical firearms in a campaign I'm working on.

Instead of being slug throwers, they are magical in nature. I have a gameplay loop I want, so the weapon mechanics are based on that gameplay loop.

The basic one is a lighting throwing weapon. They deal impressive damage, but they use the wielders "soul" or "mana" as a battery. This gives them recharge mechanics that you can't bypass by simply wielding more of them.

There are 3 personal shockguns - the pistol, the rifle and the boomstick.

The sparkpistol is intended to be used as an off-hand weapon. You fire it, then let it recharge while fighting with the other weapon. Swashbuckling is the feel I'm going for.

The sparkrifle is two handed weapon. A soldier would shoot, then take cover and recharge, and repeat. It can have a bayonette attached turning it into a spear for close quarters fighting.

The boomstick is a short ranged two handed aoe weapon that recharges slowly. Great for closing in, using, then switching to melee weapons. It is still called a sparkgun in-world, because thundergun is restricted to siege/ship weapons.

Ship thundercannon fire a lighting "tracer" attack relatively rapidly, then once they hit a target follow it up with a thunder-based explosion.

I've got reasonable mechanics for these. I'm working on some mechanics for the "opposing faction", magma-throwing weapons, but haven't got ones I'm happy with yet.

Maybe this is copping out. But because I'm inventing the rules of these magitech weapons, I can modify them to get the gameplay loop I want, instead of having to deal with "what is realistic" for "standard" guns.
 

I know that "verisimilitude" and "simulationism" can be seen as dirty words in some people's eyes. And you can work your way around those words by dressing it up as "thematic details" and "aesthetic preferences". But I'm just going to come out and say it:

Guns don't belong in medieval style fantasy. It breaks verisimilitude. It's not realistic. Shotguns, .45s, and sniper rifles are not the equivalent of fireballs, crossbow bolts, and longbows. Armor like chainmail is effectively useless against guns. There's a reason guns completely changed what warfare and violence means to humanity.

D&D means having knights whack each other with swords and wizards blasting each other with spells, and real world guns generally don't fit into that. That doesn't mean you can't have laser guns show up for fun sometimes. That doesn't mean you can't have magitech. That doesn't mean magic has to be scientific.
D&D hasn't been medieval in, well, maybe ever.
 

Ok. Isn't using the most efficient tactic skilled play?
People who favor OSR play typically use "skilled play" as shorthand for "play involving negotiation of described situational factors with the GM" (like putting poison in the drinking water, or dropping rocks on a patrol from above) as opposed to play referencing character abilities granted by inherent mechanical progression (often described as "pushing buttons on the sheet").
 

Ok. Isn't using the most efficient tactic skilled play?
What is more efficient? Using gas at no risk or using ranged combat? The point being, a combat-as-sport philosophy is that the Goblins are a combat encounter. Its fun to encounter them and face off using character abilities and team work to defeat the encounter. In combat-as-war, the Goblins are a puzzle encounter and combat is usually not the most efficient tactic, but an acceptable one.

Folks are inclined to bust the paradigms because they dont fit them like a glove. While the philosophies are different, they are not mutually exclusive. You can still enjoy combat as a CaW preferred player, and you can still look to skill play solutions as a CaS preferred player. Folks didnt play one way in the beginning decades ago, and now play another way today. It is simply a way of examining both the rulesets and player preferences and what they imply.
 

People who favor OSR play typically use "skilled play" as shorthand for "play involving negotiation of described situational factors with the GM" (like putting poison in the drinking water, or dropping rocks on a patrol from above) as opposed to play referencing character abilities granted by inherent mechanical progression (often described as "pushing buttons on the sheet").
I don't want to derail the thread further. I have just never really bought the distinction between "combat as sport" and "combat as war".
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top