Firearms in D&D

[Tetsubo]

Prior to my campaign imploding I had planned on introducing firearms.

I would have adapted the Sorcery & Steam weapons. I would have made them Ranged Touch attacks. I would also have gone with paper cartidged flintlocks. I was also going to add a Defense Bonus to AC based on level and type of class (borrowed from Arsenal). I don't see heavy armour remaining popular once Ranged Touch attacks become common. I was also going to make them Martial weapons. I wanted a rarity level similar to Britian.

 

[mmadsen]

If you want more realistic firearm stats, an arquebus (or hackbutt) is roughly 4 feet long and weighs about 15 lbs. Ten shots worth of powder and ball weigh a bit over 1 lb -- a dozen "12 bore" bullets (lead balls) weigh 1 lb and require another half pound of powder.

A trained musketeer could hit a particular man at 30 to 50 yards, and one group of soldiers could hit another group at 100 yards. This implies a range increment of, say, 40 yards, or 120 feet, like the heavy crossbow -- for a six-foot musket. The smaller arquebus might have stats like the light crossbow, i.e. 80 feet.

Early musketeers had a rate of fire of roughly one shot per two minutes. It takes almost 20 D&D turns to load a matchlock musket: pour powder down the barrel, drop a ball in, ram it down, load powder in the pan, place the lit match (fuse) back in the hammer, etc. An arquebus, with its shorter barrel, loads a bit more quickly: one shot per minute and a half. In a D&D-style skirmish, you get your one shot and reload between combats. (In later centuries, well-drilled troops loading paper cartridges into flintlock weapons achieved rates of fire up to three rounds per minute -- in D&D terms, two rounds reloading, one round shooting.)

Also, while it takes little skill to aim and shoot a firearm, it takes some skill to reload an early matchlock properly. Unskilled soldiers might misfire almost half the time.

A few people have mentioned treating firearm attacks as ranged touch attacks. Although firearms could penetrate armor, they often didn't, especially at long range or against heavier armor "of proof" -- making them not so different from crossbows. And if a thick breastplate could stop an arquebus ball in the real world, shouldn't a +5 breastplate stop it easily in D&D?

My suggestion: treat a musket as a heavy crossbow and an arquebus (or hackbutt) as a light crossbow, but weighing three times as much, doing one die-size more damage, with a 20- or 15-round reload time, and prompting a morale/fear check in most troops.

And don't forget that smoke obscures the battlefield very quickly.

 

[Desdichado]

mmadsen, the fear effect and smoke effects really only apply when you've got volleys with a line of a bunch of arquebus being fired simultaneously. I don't think that actually would come into play in a typical D&D style combat.

No, for my money, the Freeport rules, or perhaps the Iron Kingdoms rules, are the best ones out there. They have sufficient flavor difference to feel unlike crossbows or longbows, but they certainly don't go so far as to make taking them vs. a crossbow or longbow a foregone conclusion. The Sorcery & Steam rules are also very similar, although a bit more detailed.

I don't know that high detail is really desirable in this case, as it is at odds with the fairly abstract combat otherwise in d20. But to each their own. I prefer ease of use, balance, and distinct flavor.

Oh, did I mention I have an OGL-legal document on my website that essentially reproduces the Freeport gun rules (since I use them in my campaign?) That's right here.

 

[Dark Dragon]

Firearms were not the reason that the use of medevial armor decreased after centuries of use.
An arrow fired by a longbowman could easily penetrate a knight's armor (the french knights suffered a bitter defeat at Azincourt in the 15th (?) century by english longbow archers), as well as a heavy bolt.
The spanish conquistadors still used a type of breast plate, but fire arms were quite common at that time.

Maybe it is just how warfare has changed: new tactics, simpler, but still effective weapons, the upcoming of cannons (a hit by a cannon ball normally kills a soldier outright, regardless of his armor) and so on.

And the production of a full plate, the costs to pay the knight, his horse and barding were in no relation to the role of the knight during battles at the end of the medevial age.

 

[mmadsen]

mmadsen, the fear effect and smoke effects really only apply when you've got volleys with a line of a bunch of arquebus being fired simultaneously. I don't think that actually would come into play in a typical D&D style combat.

Agreed. I had to throw the fear effect in though, because it's perhaps the chief advantage of early firearms. In a fantasy world full of fireballs and giants, guns might not be exceptionally frightening -- or we should remember to treat magic and monsters as really frightening to normal troops.

No, for my money, the Freeport rules, or perhaps the Iron Kingdoms rules, are the best ones out there. They have sufficient flavor difference to feel unlike crossbows or longbows, but they certainly don't go so far as to make taking them vs. a crossbow or longbow a foregone conclusion. The Sorcery & Steam rules are also very similar, although a bit more detailed.

What in particular do you like about those rules, and what are you looking for in firearm rules?

I like the idea of crossbows and arquebuses being roughly equivalent -- the conquistadors, for instance, used both -- with longbows offering a much higher rate of "fire" (but only in the hands of experts).

And I like the idea of early matchlocks burning their fuse continuously ("tssssss.....") -- but that doesn't require any rules.

I don't know that high detail is really desirable in this case, as it is at odds with the fairly abstract combat otherwise in d20.

Agreed.

 

[Desdichado]

What in particular do you like about those rules, and what are you looking for in firearm rules?

Ease of use, distinct flavor, reasonable verisimilitude (at least as much so as with other weapons in d20), and balance.

I posted a link to the actual rules, as interpreted for my setting (all I did really was rewrite the wording a bit, and change the names of the guns; the rules are essentially unchanged from the Freeport campaign setting), but in summary, they all do 2dx damage, take three full actions to reload (barring a feat that reduces it to one) and have a misfire chance, with a misfire table that ranges from essentially "fails to fire, try again next turn" to "blows up in your face doing full damage to you instead of your target. Oh, and your weapon is destroyed by the way." In play, we typically forget to do anything with the misfire table, but the guns certainly have a feel of "fire it once, get a reasonably big bang for your buck, and then put the gun away until the combat is over," which I think is a pretty appropriate use of "early firearms" in an adventuring, swashbuckling skirmish type of scenario, like D&D combats tend to be. If a character really wanted to, he could take the fast reload feat and be a firearms exclusive character, but he'd still only get one attack every three rounds, which means that in terms of average damage dealing ability, they're probably well below a good longbow over the course of a relatively prolonged combat.

Anyway, it has the feel I want for firearms anyway. Someone else may have a different vision of what firearms should be like. To me, though, where I consciously tried to promote a Three Musketeers or Pirates of the Caribbean vibe in my game, they're perfect.

 

[Ace]

Ijust watched a TV special on Maximillian Plate armor last night and the royal armory spent some time talking about guns and the decline of armor

They mentioned that heavy armor could stop a musket round and in fact showed a pre-shot or "proofed" breastplate

What guns did is alter armor from a custom fitted mix of plate and a bit of chain (Plate armor in D&D terms) to nothing more than a breastplate and a helmet made of cheap heavy metal -- Breastplate in D&D basically

This was because all that was required to stop a matchlock round was armor mass -- not expensive custom fitting.

Armies of the period spent the money on Cannon and mass numbers of pikes and arqubus -- not on knigts armor

Also special didn't mention is armor roughly until the flintlock was introduced. This weapon was more reliable, accurate and fired faster and for reasons not entirely clear to me (prehaps costs) armor was completely elminated

In another setting retaining the helmet might be reasonable or even a buff coat (leather armor in D&D terms)

We played in a flintlock setting -- modified swashbuckling adventures but the players really didn't like flintlocks. Comabt came down to "Fire Pistols or Rifle" and charge to melee with sword or bayonett -- I thought this was neat but the other players were "Meh" on the whole thing



In one of my campaigns I intend to allow Alchemical Arms but not gunpowder. I clss them as a seperate proficiency that fighters and swashbucklers get free. Everyone else pays a feat slot

This is kind of an Arcanum flavored thing and the Guns use brass shells lined with a glass containing thunderpowder and an internal vial of binary detonator. They do not detonate with fire -- so in game terms fireball doesn't set off the ammunition

What keeps these weapons from becoming ubiquous is the cost -- each round cost its maximum damage in SP -- a rifle round doing 2d6 costs 12SP -- half at wholesale

getting enough ammo to keep a single man trained will cost 30+GP a month -- roughly 360GP a year + his upkeep

A man in full armor (equal to chain) with shield, javelins and a sword costs half this and upkeep is maybe 10GP

Crossbowman are cheaper too

Grenades will exists but they will cost 10 or 20GP each

Cannon will be rare and cost a fortune per round even more with explosive cannon balls or shrapnel rounds. Only the richest kings will have more than a cannon or two many think its better -- to use fireballs or a trebuchet

The killer setting weaapon will be an airgun -- very expensive do to manufacturing issues but quite deadly with a high rate of fire

This will let me have funky armies of Armored Gunmen with revolving rifles , Archaic looking infantry with sword and javelin, Longbowmen in half plate and Medieval looking guys and all sorts of funky polearms and or/crossbows -- its should be interesting although I expect the players (a different group this time) will want the guns

 

[Sebastian Francis]

Personally, if I were to add firearms to a D&D game, I would not go as far as flintlocks. Touchholes and matchlocks are fine, maybe wheellocks, but never all the way up. Equally I would leave them as smoothbores, rather than monkeying around with rifling.

?????????????????????????????

 

[Aaron2]

And I like the idea of early matchlocks burning their fuse continuously ("tssssss.....") -- but that doesn't require any rules.

A couple things I do. First, a matchlock creates light and some smoke. Making it difficult to hide under some circumstances, such as at night. Secondly, the fuse needs to be lit first so if you are suprised you need to waste time lighting the fuse before you can fire.


Aaron

 

[Tzarevitch]

Ace's post is correct. Heavy plate mail was perfectly capable of stopping arrows, bolts AND bullets of the era. In fact they were specifically built and tested to resist such things. If you look closely at some you will see a small dent where the maker fired a bullet into the armor to prove to the buyer that it can stop a bullet. This is called the "proof".

I saw a program on armor years ago. Here's how it went:

The gun did not doom heavy armor because of ability to penetrate it. Guns doomed heavy armor because they doomed the knight, who was the one who primarily wore such armor. Note that lighter armor types still exist today in the form of bullet-proof vests and other military body armors.

The training and equipping of a single knight is very expensive and is done from birth amongst the noble class. The heavy armor was the halmark of a knight. It was VERY espensive and time consuming to make, to the point that only the landed nobility who formed the pool of people who became knights, could afford it and it became their status symbol.

Since knights came from the nobility, there was only a very limited number of them available to form an army unless the king wanted to parcel out more lands and increase the number of nobles at the expense of his own power. Reliance on these landed nobles also had a political cost to the monarch; he had to pay them for their ability with monies, lands and/or titles. Giving any of those to a noble meant the king had to weaken himself politically (and thereby strengthen them accordingly).

With the advent of efficient and cheap gun designs a king could simply draft large numbers of commoners into his army and train them to fire and reload a gun with far less time, cost and hassle. This increased the monarch's ability to project power and simultaneously reduced his need to depend on the nobility and their knights (a win-win for the monarch).

Now that knights were no longer needed as the backbone of an army, monarchs could set about destroying the landed noble classes from whom the knights were drawn. This way they could rid themselves of potential political threats and consolidate their lands back in the monarchs' hands.

Note, this happened in both Europe and Japan (replace knight with samurai and you have the same story). Firearms relegated the knightly class to the dustbin of history and they took their use of heavy armor with them.

Firearms did not directly do away with armor. Armor use has never gone away. Only the heavy armors that were the halmarks of the knights disappeared, and that is because the knights themselves disappeared. There is no reason in AD&D why heavy armor should decline with the use of firearms, because heavy armor use in D&D is not tied to an obsolete social class.

For the record, I use WWI era firearms in my D&D game and they only require simple weapon proficiency to use, and it works just fine. I even allow an Arcane Archer variant that uses guns. The PCs even ran into a golem that was built with two gatling guns in its arms (2d12/x4 damage each and 3 shots from each gun).

Tzarevitch