Ebberon - If not guns, then what?

[WayneLigon]

I'm currently running an Eberron campaign. Just sent out the 15th play session writeup, as we're nearing the 1/3 mark of Eyes of the Lich Queen.

I strongly debated with myself about using guns. The setting and tone almost seems to demand it. The image of flying pirate ships fighting to come about in order to give a thundering broadside was almost too fascinating to resist. But resist I did.

 

[Aeric]

Not entirely true.

The warforged entry in FoW states (page 101) "Even the rawest warforged deployed in battle is a trained fighter rather than a mere warrior, which helped to justify the expense of a construct soldier." This is born out in the following stat blocks. Meanwhile, the earlier sections on the armies of the Five Nations do present most common soldiers as having levels in warrior or even commoner.

So FoW specifically calls out that all warforged - even the "rawest" - use PC class levels, which in Eberron is a remarkable thing.

I stand corrected. I admittedly have yet to read through FoW. I've just skimmed through it at this point.

As for the gun issue, I'm going to stay out of it - you can find my opinions on older threads. With that said, improving crossbows is a fine thing to explore!

What I'm really looking for here is some speculation on what the premier weapon of the Last War might have been. With all that magic flying around (literally, in some cases), it seems that a radical improvement on the weapons of the day never really surfaced. If anything is going to come out of a hundred-year-long war, it's going to be improvements in military techology.

Unless--as I'm starting to suspect--the Kingdom of Galifar was nowhere near as advanced as the present-day Five Nations in terms of mundane armor and weapons, and everything is actually right on track. If they were using a Crusades-level of technology (no plate, no longbows, etc.), then it might make a little more sense to me.

Any comment on that, Hellcow?

 

[Aeric]

Eh, just a few thoughts.

In general I agree that wands would be specialist weapons similar to rocket launchers or mortar - used by specialists attached to a squad, but not carried by common soldiers. Beyond this, I'll note that a few large-scale weapons have been suggested in the past that just got overlooked in FoW. According to the ECS, Zilargo did provide Breland with "elemental weapons" towards the end of the Last War. These have never been clearly defined, but in my opinion are artillery channeling the power of elementals - not using alchemical substances (though the Zil are skilled artificers as well) or firing solid shot, but things like water cannons or flamethrowers. The Dreaming Dark novels also talk about siege staves, which I was seeing as tree-trunk scale staves sacrificing mobility for increased range and area of effect. DD also mentions the use of blast disks (from Heroes of Battle)

I do remember reading about those elemental weapons. That's pretty much how I imagined them, too.

I had something similar to the siege staff in my last campaign. It was essentially a cannon which used wands for ammunition. You loaded the wand in a wand sheath similar to those available to the warforged, and the cannon scaled up the wand's effects. Best of all, it could be easily operated by non-spellcasters, unlike the wand itself.

That's mainly what I'm looking for with all of this, only on a personal level--a relatively-cheap magic weapon that can be used by the common man (i.e. a non-spellcaster without the Use Magic Device skill).

I'm a firm believer in the idea that war breeds innovation. We know that the Last War has been responsible for the development of warforged, eternal wands, and airships (though rarely used in the war itself, certainly it was hoped that they could be - and finding a safer form of travel was also a paramount concern). I'll also assert that *I* believe that the Last War has produced a host of new spells. This includes spells from non-core books like the Spell Compendium or Heroes of Battle, but there's no reason to assume that thhe wizards of Galifar knew all of the spells listed in the Player's Handbook one hundred years ago. Perhaps the magi of Aerenal or the ancient giants knew the secrets of sending, but it's entirely possible that until the Last War, the only people in the Five Nations who could do this were the House Sivis heirs with the Greater Dragonmark of Scribing. From chain lightning to something as simple as wind wall, it's possible that spells we take for granted were developed by the people of Khorvaire during the Last War... and subsequently stolen by spies of opposing nations or duplicated after they'd been seen in the field.

That certainly does make sense.

Thanks, Hellcow!

 

[Aeric]

I'm currently running an Eberron campaign. Just sent out the 15th play session writeup, as we're nearing the 1/3 mark of Eyes of the Lich Queen.

I strongly debated with myself about using guns. The setting and tone almost seems to demand it. The image of flying pirate ships fighting to come about in order to give a thundering broadside was almost too fascinating to resist. But resist I did.

I didn't have guns in my last campaign, and nobody (myself included) missed them. If I include them in my next campaign, it will only be because I wasn't able to come up with anything better. It's easy to look at an advanced world like Eberron and throw in guns simply because we had guns at a certain point in history. We never had magic, though. At least not to the extent that Eberron has. To me, it's a lot more fun trying to work within the parameters of the world, take the tools we are given, and come up with something that is original instead. Hence this thread.

 

[Hellcow]

What I'm really looking for here is some speculation on what the premier weapon of the Last War might have been. With all that magic flying around (literally, in some cases), it seems that a radical improvement on the weapons of the day never really surfaced. If anything is going to come out of a hundred-year-long war, it's going to be improvements in military techology.

Honestly? This is a case of the needs of the story superceding what we might see as logical. In my earliest vision, the "magic level" of Eberron was higher, and I was considering magical sidearms. But the problem is that frankly, once you replace bow and sword with the wand or even the fully automatic crossbow, you're not playing something that is going to feel like D&D any more - and despite its unique elements, it's still supposed to be D&D at its core.

With that said, one thing I'll note is that the evolution of Western armor and weaponry was strongly affected by the role of first the longbow, crossbow, and musket. For a time heavy armor was king, but as more and more weapons allowed common soldiers to penetrate armor, it became a liability; and on the melee side we moved from heavy weapons intended to knock down an armored foe (morningstar, arming sword) to longer, lighter weapons intended to provide the advantage of reach and speed against an unarmored enemy (smallsword).

To get a sense of Eberron, it would be worth looking at other martial cultures that never DID develop gunpowder. I don't have the time to do research on this right now, but for example, how long did the Roman legion stick with its tried-and-true equipment? Were there significant advances in the equipment of the individual soldier over the centuries of Rome's expansion? Because in many ways, Eberron is closer to this than to the later events than led to the downfall of plate and the rise of the musket. In D&D, neither the bow or crossbow is as deadly as it was in the real world; that's simple fact, and unless you're going to change the rules, it's something you have to accept. Magical attacks, whether wands or full spells never fell into the hands of the common soldier, and there's very little benefit to avoiding armor. Fireball or magic missile will hit you either way... but these are reletively rare threats, and armor WILL protect you against both sword and bow. In D&D, unless you're some sort of super-dex fighter, need to rely on swift movement, or you're trying to avoid ACP or ASF, there's no reason NOT to wear full plate (assuming you're proficient) - as opposed to real life, where inferior plate armor can mean that once you're knocked down, you can't even stand up on your own.

Essentially, it comes down to the fact that D&D isn't realistic. It's a game, not a historical simulation. Eberron takes that a step farther; it's supposed to be over the top. If you want to Tumble in full plate, good for you; that's what action points are for. While it's a reasonable path to take, I'm not prepared to say that they didn't have full plate during the Age of Galifar, and yes, this does mean that by the core books, there weren't a lot of amazing innovations for the common infantry soldier during the war; in many ways, this is a self-enforcing cylce, because if no nation developed a new innovation for the common infantry soldier, then the other nations never had to innovate to counter it. So instead, ingenuity was devoted to large-scale weapons and works of magic - things like airships, siege staves, or spells. These things could play a dramatic role in the outcome of a battle - they simply didn't have a significant impact on the equipment of the typical soldier.

So, long story short: Despite its unique elements, Eberron is still supposed to feel like D&D, which means the sword and bow have not been replaced by something completely new. This can be justified by the fact that no new military innovation has come up that has made existing gear obsolete (as I said, when I have time I'm going to look into Roman history to see what their history of infantry innovation was like; my feeling is that they had a system that worked for them and largely stuck with it). There was considerable innovation, but this was focused on transportation, magical support or artillery, or things like the warforged - not on some new weapon or defense for the typical soldier.

Anyhow, I need to bow out of the topic at this point - I have far too much work to do, and need to reduce my board presence for a while.

(And lest it go without saying, I'm not suggesting that you STOP trying to come up with new ideas - more power to you. I'm just explaining why the basic setting uses sword and bow instead of wand or unqiue new weapons!)

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm currently running an Eberron campaign. Just sent out the 15th play session writeup, as we're nearing the 1/3 mark of Eyes of the Lich Queen.

I strongly debated with myself about using guns. The setting and tone almost seems to demand it. The image of flying pirate ships fighting to come about in order to give a thundering broadside was almost too fascinating to resist. But resist I did.

I kidnapped the party's female ward and kept her in a Forge in Karrnath. The players came to the rescue swooping down in their airship. It turns out the Forge in question is primarily used to manufacture guns (something previoulsy unheard of).

Needless to say the party manages to blow up the entire site escaping with the ward careering through mountain valleys pursued by angry Karrnathians. The character's managed to bring with them two pistols.

I asked out of character that this was their moment to decide whether or not to have guns available in Eberron.

The kalashtar promptly tossed his overboard muttering something about "useless trinket". The disguise-rogue hid his under his tunic. So, to me guns exist but is a well kept secret by those lucky few that have one.

 

[Kurotowa]

Let's also not forget that necessity is the mother in invention. Gunpowder is, after all, not a simple or obvious invention. We need to look at when tactical needs there are and what the possible solutions are before we just assume that guns are inevitable.

In the real world, the Chinese had crude gunpowder for centuries. There were various attempts to weaponize it, mostly explosive pots hurled from catapults or tied to oxen stampedes, though IIRC there were a few stabs at projectile weapons as well. But they didn't serve enough of a tactical niche to warrant further development. Besides, peace was breaking out in the area. It was when gunpowder hit brutal war torn Europe, with lots of heavily fortified stone castles all over the place, that it suddenly was worth the effort. And it did take effort, decades of refinement to improve the quality in a dozen ways before it became even close to practical. You know "hoist by his own petard"? A petard was an iron pot full of explosives on a long pole, and the idea was the light the fuse and then use it to blow open the enemy gate. The phrase comes from the inexactness of the fuses and their distressing tendency to explode early.

My point, somewhat round about as it is, is that guns don't just spring out of nowhere. They're the end result of a fairly long and very messy technological evolution. There's less drive for petards and cannons when you have siege golems and wizards to help break heavy fortifications, not to mention when there's fewer heavy stone castles cluttering up the place. If there's a need for simple and deadly ranged weapons you can hand to peasant armies, you're more likely to invent a specialized crossbow that can fire capsules containing the already existing alchemical mixtures. Who needs a gun when you can combine the range of a crossbow with the damage and touch attack of Alchemist's Fire? That's a logical outgrowth of the existing technology, with minimal disruption to the game.

 

[Aeric]

A lot.

Thanks for your lengthy replies, Keith. I'll let you get back to work now.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Let's also not forget that necessity is the mother in invention. Gunpowder is, after all, not a simple or obvious invention. We need to look at when tactical needs there are and what the possible solutions are before we just assume that guns are inevitable.

In the real world, the Chinese had crude gunpowder for centuries. There were various attempts to weaponize it, mostly explosive pots hurled from catapults or tied to oxen stampedes, though IIRC there were a few stabs at projectile weapons as well. But they didn't serve enough of a tactical niche to warrant further development. Besides, peace was breaking out in the area. It was when gunpowder hit brutal war torn Europe, with lots of heavily fortified stone castles all over the place, that it suddenly was worth the effort. And it did take effort, decades of refinement to improve the quality in a dozen ways before it became even close to practical. You know "hoist by his own petard"? A petard was an iron pot full of explosives on a long pole, and the idea was the light the fuse and then use it to blow open the enemy gate. The phrase comes from the inexactness of the fuses and their distressing tendency to explore early.

My point, somewhat round about as it is, is that guns don't just spring out of nowhere. They're the end result of a fairly long and very messy technological evolution. There's less drive for petards and cannons when you have siege golems and wizards to help break heavy fortifications, not to mention when there's fewer heavy stone castles cluttering up the place. If there's a need for simple and deadly ranged weapons you can hand to peasant armies, you're more likely to invent a specialized crossbow that can fire capsules containing the already existing alchemical mixtures. Who needs a gun when you can combine the range of a crossbow with the damage and touch attack of Alchemist's Fire? That's a logical outgrowth of the existing technology, with minimal disruption to the game.

Stoneage people realised that you can propel a twig to lethal speeds with a a stick and a piece of string. I don't buy that the idea of propelling a metal ball with a pipe and an explosion is all that far fetched. I made that connection as a six year old using fire crackers to rocket a bucket to lamp-post heights. Why the Chinese didn't is baffling to me. Perhaps they thought the principle too messy and dangerous?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Spellarms

A long time ago, I posted this on the Eberron boards. Never got around to fully develop it, though, but it could give an idea as to how 'firearms' could be used in Eberron.

Ok, Repeating crossbows are called repeaters and are martial weapons. They have a 6 shot magazine to allow for 4 attacks + haste + rapid shot. So, a 1 round duration at high lvls.

For a 1.000 gp, you can add a version of mage hand to the repeater which then has to be masterwork, making it possible to use fire multiple shots one handed. The usual penalties apply. Of course, it doesn’t work in anti magic fields.

The next evolution is the bolter. This removes the ‘arms’ from the crossbow, as it uses the 0 lvl spell launch bolt from FR. It has either 6 ‘barrels’ or tubes if you will, holding one quarrel each, or a large ‘magazine’ on top or below or whatever looks the most cool. Advantage: looks cool, sort of like a six-shooter and it can be used one handed at no penalty as a light weapon. Disadvantage: cost and vulnerable to anti magic.
Price: as masterwork repeater + 1.000 gp., dam. 1d8

The hvy bolter uses a 1st lvl spell of my own making, similar to launch bolt, but called launch missile . Allows firing of one quarrel per attack for 1/round per lvl, doing damage as a hvy crossbow. Not a light weapon (not decided on this yet).
Cost: Masterwork + 2000 gp

Both are martial weapons. Rogues have prof. with repeaters and bolters, and at 5th lvl with hvy ones.

Finally, we have the spellarm. This is a device looking like an age of sail gun, or even better – like the guns carried by the woman at the Iron Kingdoms guide cover. That’s where I got my inspiration.

A spellarm works like this. Any wand inserted (beechloading) in it, can be used to power firings of the various 1st lvl Orb spells from Complete Arcane. They can be fired just like a wand (i.e. once per round). Damage increases if it’s a second level wand, third level etc., by using metamagic

This means that a 1st lvl wand will fire the spell normally. The type of damage depends on the spellarm: fire, cold, lightning or acid. Attack is a ranged touch doing 1d8 at 1st lvl, 2d8 at 3rd, 3d8 at 5th, 4d8 at 7th and 5d8 at 9th and beyond.

A 2nd lvl wand will up the damage to d10’s instead. There are also special spellarms that turn the charges into Scorching Ray . This can be advantageous depending on caster lvl. The ray would still deliver cold, fire etc. depending on the spellarm.

A 3rd lvl wand increases the damage to d12’s.

At 4th lvl, the damage is 1d8 instead per caster lvl to a max of 10d8 at 10th lvl. Some special spellarms fires empowered Scorching rays instead, allowing for a whopping 18d6 at caster lvl 11.

You can apply the same method to create ‘rifles’ that uses staves.

I don’t think the ‘gun’ is unbalanced in and of itself, in that the PCs still have to pay gp for every shot, as if they were using a regular wand, which is just treasure. But now they would have something to use all those different wands for, instead of selling them.

I haven’t yet decided on the cost of these spellarms. Basically, they just allow non-spell users to use wands. This is most likely to equal a feat, although a low powered one in my opinion, which I would rate at approx 5.000 gp + masterwork weapon.

Next, should it require a feat from casters already able to learn Lesser Orb? In that context, I’m thinking of making a feat ‘Wand firing’ – makes you able to use either arcane or divine wands. Unbalanced? Maybe at double charge cost?

Unless of course I say that they require the ‘focus arcane energies feat’ to use, in which case they shouldn’t cost more than perhaps 500 gp – after all, it’s the ammunition that's mighty expensive. I would allow anyone capable of casting arcane spells to not need the feat.