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

[Frozen_Heart]

I've never seen the issue with firearms in DnD, and I'd definitely allow them assuming that particular setting supports them (pistol and musket that is, not the advanced firearms from the dmg).

I know a lot of people say that guns instantly make it not fantasy, but as I hopped over to DnD from Warhammer, firearms like those used by The Empire are a fantasy staple for me.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Some consideration is still required; because once you allow the introduction of something gunpowder-like, players are probably going to try to see how much they can get and whether they can solve problems via blowing them up, whether by planting barrels of it or by trying to make primitive grenades... followed by somebody insisting that they can therefore use Minor Conjuration to create such grenades (see arguments from players insisting that it's totally legit that their 3rd-level conjurer could spam Catapult Munitions).

Oh, Also, this is part of why i was advocating for ‘magic guns’ earlier, as it completely sidesteps the issues of needing to introduce gunpowder.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

Crossbows, daggers and Longbows are not the equivalent of crossbows, daggers and longbows. While chainmail can be somewhat effective against daggers, the entire combat system is not realistic.

No one, and I mean no one is going to be perfectly fine after getting shot by 10 crossbow bolts or stabbed 25 times with a dagger, chainmail or not. If we can stretch verisimilitude with respect to these weapons I don't see a problem with doing similar for a .45s or a Mossberg 12 gage pump.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Early versions of firearms were kind of crap. But they were loud and belched smoke which would be terrifying ... except magic would already as or more terrifying.

casting magic is also much harder to learn then shooting guns in most settings. ig if we're talking something like eberron where learning low level magic is just a part of normal education and militaries field staves and wands preloaded with cantrips you'd have a point, but otherwise the significantly easier logistics that comes with fielding firearms compared to most ranged options puts guns and magic in different niches. like, sure, you CAN have a setting where magic is common enough that firearms (and probably most weapons by extension) legitimately have no niche, but like...that wouldn't be my default expectation.

 

[AlViking]

casting magic is also much harder to learn then shooting guns in most settings. ig if we're talking something like eberron where learning low level magic is just a part of normal education and militaries field staves and wands preloaded with cantrips you'd have a point, but otherwise the significantly easier logistics that comes with fielding firearms compared to most ranged options puts guns and magic in different niches. like, sure, you CAN have a setting where magic is common enough that firearms (and probably most weapons by extension) legitimately have no niche, but like...that wouldn't be my default expectation.

We're not talking about firing a gun, we're talking about inventing them. I see no reason to assume they would be developed in a world where magic works.

If you want guns in your D&D go for it. I decided I did not and I also wanted a fairly static level of technology and magic so I came up with logically consistent explanations.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

We're not talking about firing a gun, we're talking about inventing them.

but things are invented for a reason. unless you're arguing that inventing a gun inspires terror, which...was not the impression i got.

I see no reason to assume they would be developed in a world where magic works.

and i see no reason to assume they wouldn't be. the mere presence of magic does not, as far as im concerned, make the invention of firearms more or less likely. i think you need more details to shift things one way or the other. it sounds like those details exist in your game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

We're not talking about firing a gun, we're talking about inventing them. I see no reason to assume they would be developed in a world where magic works.

If you want guns in your D&D go for it. I decided I did not and I also wanted a fairly static level of technology and magic so I came up with logically consistent explanations.

If magic is common, maybe this holds up. if it isnt commonplace, nonmagical weapons development would accelerate, not diminish.

 

[Rocker26a]

We're not talking about firing a gun, we're talking about inventing them. I see no reason to assume they would be developed in a world where magic works.

I'd actually argue the opposite is true at the baseline; it's been pointed out earlier in this thread, magic isn't typically equally available and equally distributed across a given setting's population. Not everyone is a Wizard, even though being a Wizard is generally useful. So those without magic have to close the relative gap via other means.

 

[Reynard]

If magic is common, maybe this holds up. if it isnt commonplace, nonmagical weapons development would accelerate, not diminish.

Right. If magic exists, but is somehow curated, other people are going to work really hard to find an equalizer. It becomes a race.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Right. If magic exists, but is somehow curated, other people are going to work really hard to find an equalizer. It becomes a race.

Yep. Nothing incentives cannons quite like knowing there are naitions with more fireballs than you