Firearms in D&D

Lars Porsenna

First Post
In the campaign I'm playing in currently, the DM has vehemently resisted any suggestion of introducing gunpowder weapons to the campaign. He is under the impression that the introduction of say a matchlock handgun will immediately lead to the development amongst PCs of machine guns and rapid fire weapons. In keeping with the late medieval feel of the campaign, I pointed out that the lack of firearms is an anachronism, not their introduction. Unfortunately, I have better knowledge of exactly how dangerous these early firearms are, and as some points in this thread demonstrate, not very.

One point though: someone above talked about longbows "easily" penetrating plate armor. This is a bit innaccurate. I'm sure plently of people have seen the demos of a longbow penetrating a breastplate or helmet. But these tests are usually contrived and done under very favorable conditions (i.e. at close range). Usually the range at which a longbow reliably penetrates plate armor is also the range in which an armored man-at-arms can be on the hapless longbowman within a few seconds (IIRC around 30yds or so). Under normal combat conditions and at range the longbow was not the medieval equivalent of the "lightsaber" I think Pop history makes it out to be. The real advantage of the weapon was volume of fire, and the fact that horses of the time were vulnerable to the weapon (they didn't have as complete armored protection-sometimes none at all-as the knight). But ultimately, if you look at the famous English victories during the Hundred Years War (such as Agincourt), there are far more reasons behind English victories than simply the longbow. Indeed, I would put greater emphasis in my analysis on the fact that in the "Big 3" (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt) the English occupied favorable terrain that favored that style of fighting, and/or were greatly assisted by the quality of French leadership.

Damon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aaron2

Explorer
Tzarevitch said:
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's a great article in Command magazine #46 about the rise and fall of heavy (armored) cavalry. It talks about how the wheellock carbines (and, later, the pistol) actually extended the usefullness of heavy cavalry for about 100 years until the mid-to-late 1600s. The heavy calvary formations would ride up and fire their guns, retreating beyond the range of the return fire to reload. At such extreme range armor was still useful. After the enemy formation was disrupted, the cavalry unit would charge home.


Aaron
 

LostSoul

Adventurer
mmadsen said:
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?

That's why I suggest giving guns a "Mechanical Strength" value of some sort. A musket that does 1d6, with a +4 Mechanical bonus to Damage and Attack, should reflect the penetrative power of guns and the damage they can cause. The problem with this method is that you have a damage range of 5-10 for the weapon.
 

ledded

Herder of monkies
Some really good rules suggestions (scribbling for future reference) and discussion here.

Not to add too much fuel to the slightly off-topic, but you also have to take into effect other factors in the decline of armor. For instance, as European armies (in general) grew larger on the battlefield from the middle ages onward, the cost of outfitting and training the men grew in proportion, so economy grew to affect this change. Just one of many (admittedly arguable) factors, point being that firearms alone did not doom armor. Just as today, high-powered rifles have not doomed most types of body armor for military/law enforcement occupations, even though few of the ones in use can truly stop a high-powered rifle round.

I've read several anecdotes of the varying firepower of a breech-loaded wheellock/flintlock, and even the quality of the coase powder affecting a shot. There was one instance where a Scotsman actually took a pistol shot to the bare forehead in a duel and it bounced off, stunning him and leaving a "goose-egg" sized lump, but otherwise unharmed. In a similar story, an anecdote from the English Civil War detailed how a back-and-breast wearing cavalryman was shot at approximately 50 yards, the round piercing the front and back of his armor leaving a hole over "two-fingers thick" and killing him instantly. So there are widely varying individual accounts, earlier firearms being susceptible to a wide variety of variables that could affect their power. That is of course difficult to model in a game, but worth considering nonetheless.

As far as proofing is concerned, I even have evidence of breastplates made and sold as late as during the american civil war (in Harpers, no less) that were sold as 'proofed', and were occasionally worn by officers that could afford them. One in particular that I've seen a photograph of was reported to have saved a particular union colonel's life by deflecting musket rounds several times with minimal injury, though he was eventually killed charging a cannon position when the breastplate in question was obviously not up to stopping a grapeshot blast at close range. Not in widespread use by any means, and generally frowned upon as 'unsporting', but they did exist. I have the reference book at home that I can get further information from if anyone wants.
 

talien

Community Supporter
Arcanis not only has firearms, it's worked in rationale as to how they work, where powder comes from, etc. We've been having some difficulty explaining the flintlock pistols in context however. Are they genuine flintlocks? It's hard to believe, since they can be used as light maces in melee. Originally, flintlock pistols were listed as weighing 10 pounds, although that has since proven to be an error (they weigh 5 pounds, 3 pounds if made from Altherian steel).

The Player's Guide to Arcanis goes into much more detail about how the pistols work, but it's still a bit of a challenge to role-play how the firearms are treated. We settled on calling them "handgonnes" (prior to realizing that the flintlock weight was an error) and treating them as a sort of hybrid weapon that's not quite a flintlock and not quite an old-style handgonne. Whatever the case, their use should be impressive on a battlefield.

What happened, tactics-wise, is that the guy with the flintlocks quickly becomes the "magic missile wielding wizard." I.e., he's an instant target and everyone with the means of firing back aims at him. You'll see this a lot in the story hour here: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=103252

Some people call them "iron dragons." Kham just calls them his "harem."
 

even if you allow firearms into the campaign, fighter wouldn't necessarily want to give up their armor. Not being in a massed army of other musketeers, the fighter is way more often going to get into hand to hand combat, guns or no. Thus, he'll still want his plate mail around.
Another thing that doesn't get mentioned is the problem of having black powder around... and then the red dragon breathes on you.... hope you don't have that weapon pointed at another PC... and then you better hope your powder horn makes it's saving throw... :)
 

Relic

First Post
Types of firing mechanisms

Earliest Firearms:

One of the greatest scientists of the Middle Ages was Roger Bacon, born in 1241 in Somerset, England. Between 1257 and 1265, Bacon wrote a book of chemistry called Opus Majus which contained a recipe for gunpowder. The earliest picture of a gun is in a manuscript dated 1326 showing a pear-shaped cannon firing an arrow. Crude cannons were used by King Edward III against the Scots in the following year. In general, the design of the firearm components has remained almost unchanged since the first hand-held weapons were built - except for the ignition system. The earliest guns had a simple hole in the barrel, called a touch-hole, where the powder inside the barrel was exposed. The gun was fired by touching either a burning wick or a red-hot iron to the exposed gun powder. Over the centuries, the development of more sophisticated and reliable ignition systems distinguished later period guns from earlier ones.

Early cannons were prone to bursting, and in some cases convicts were released from prison for the purpose of loading and firing cannons. The first rifled gun barrels were made in the 1400s. This early date may be surprising, but makes perfect sense when one considers that arrow makers had learned to angle the fletchings on an arrow's shaft to make it spin as it flew through the air, giving it greater stability. This technique carried over to firearms. Rifled barrels were rare until improvements in manufacturing techniques in the 1800s made them easier to fabricate.

The Matchlock:

The Matchlock was a welcome improvement in the mid-fifteenth century and remained in use even into the early 1700s, when it was much cheaper to mass produce than the better classes of firearms with more sophisticated ignition systems. The Matchlock secured a lighted wick in a moveable arm which, when the trigger was depressed, was brought down against the flash pan to ignite the powder. This allowed the musketeer to keep both hands on the gun, improving his aim drastically. The gun had its weaknesses, though. It took time to ignite the end of the wick, which left the musketeer useless in case of a surprise attack. Also, it was difficult to keep the wick burning in damp weather. For the most part, longbowmen were more effective in battle than the musketeers. The one real advantage the musketeers possessed was the intimidation factor which their weapons provided. The first important use of musketeers was in 1530 when Francis I organized units of arquebusiers or matchlock musketeers in the French army.

By 1540 the matchlock design was improved to include a cover plate over the flash pan which automatically retracted as the trigger was pressed.

The matchlock was the primary firearm used in the conquering of the New World. In time, the Native Americans (Indians) discovered the weaknesses of this form of ignition and learned to take advantage of them. Even Henry Hudson was defeated by an Indian surprise attack in 1609 due to unlit matches. The matchlock was introduced by Portuguese traders to Eastern countries around 1498, particularly India and Japan, and was used by them well into the 19th century.

The Wheel Lock:

It is said to have been invented by Johann Kiefuss of Nuremberg in 1517, and the idea probably came from the spring driven tinder lighter in use at the time. The idea of this mechanism is simple. Have you ever used a modern lighter which has a flint pressed up against a roughened metal wheel? When you spin the wheel with your finger, the flint pressed against its surface throws off sparks. The same system was used in these firearms to create sparks as needed to ignite the gunpowder to fire the gun. No more waiting to get a wick lit, and no more stressing about it going out when the fog rolls in.

In 1530, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor who ruled over Spain and Austria, imported the brothers Marquarte to transfer their workshops from Augsburg to Madrid. They brought to Spain unsurpassed knowledge of firearms production.

The wheel lock design was eventually improved with more durable springs, their main weak point, and a cover over the wheel mechanism to protect it and keep it dry. The wheel lock was an expensive gun to make and a matchlock cost less than half as much, so it was impossible to equip a complete army with the more costly mechanism. Only a person of substantial wealth could afford one for himself.

By around 1560 German gunsmiths were using wooden stocks and adorning them with inlays of ivory and horn. At about this time the metal parts were fire-blued to add extra beauty and to protect against corrosion. Also, metallurgy had improved to the point that gun barrels were no longer bursting very often. The strongest barrels were of damascene manufacture. In this process, strips of metal about the thickness of a man's finger are wound together. Then, another strip is wound around them for the full length of the piece, then the whole thing is heated and welded. It is hammered and forged into the final shape, then bored out. The damascene barrel was the only one that could survive being packed for its full length with gunpowder then fired. Other gun barrels were at risk with only a quarter of their length packed.

The Flintlock:

The Flintlock was developed in France around 1612. A key contributor to this development was Marin le Bourgeoys who was assigned to the Louvre gun shops by King Henri IV of France. The Flintlock's manufacture slowly spread throughout Europe, and by the second half of the century it became more popular than the Wheel Lock and Snaphaunce. The main difference between the Flintlock and Snaphaunce is that in the Flintlock the striking surface and flashpan cover are all one piece, where in the Snaphaunce they are separate mechanisms. This made the mechanism even simpler, less expensive, and more reliable than its predecessor. This simplicity allowed for more creative gun designs, such as guns with multiple barrels and miniature pistols which could be concealed easily inside a garment. By 1664 experiments with rotating-block repeated fire guns were under way (like a revolver which holds a number of shots in a rotating cylinder) but such weapons were dangerous to operate and would have to wait for another century and a half to be made a standard weapon.

The northern Arabs acquired the Snaphaunce and Flintlock in the late 1600s and often designed their long guns with a sharply curving butt so that they could be tucked under an arm and fired single-handed from the back of a camel or horse.

In the early 1700s the Brown Bess Flintlock made its appearance. It probably got its name from the acid-brown treatment of its barrel. I mention this so that any flintlock owners with those brown-treated guns (like mine!) will understand just how late in the game they appeared. By this time, the flintlock was accurate up to about 80 yards but nobody could aim at a man and kill him at 200 yards. A shooter of average experience could load and fire two to three rounds per minute.

The Percussion Cap

The Percussion Cap ignition system was developed in 1805 by the Reverend John Forsyth of Aberdeenshire. This firing mechanism is a great step in advancement from its predecessors because it does not use an exposed flashpan to begin the ignition process. Instead, it has a simple tube which leads straight into the gun barrel.

The key to this system is the explosive cap which is placed on top of the tube. The cap contains fulminate of mercury, a chemical compound which explodes when it is struck. This is the same stuff as is used in the paper or plastic caps in a child's cap gun. As illustrated above, when the cap is struck by the hammer, the flames from the exploding fulminate of mercury go down the tube, into the gun barrel, and ignite the powder inside the barrel to propel the bullet.

This firing mechanism provided a major advance in reliability, since the cap was almost certain to explode when struck. This mechanism is almost immune to dampness, though in a rainfall one must still be cautious to avoid getting water in the gun barrel or into the ignition system while loading the weapon. The percussion cap was the key to making reliable rotating-block guns (revolvers) which would fire reliably, and in the early 1800s several manufacturers began producing these multiple-shot sidearms in mass quantities. The percussion cap firing mechanism gave an individual soldier a weapon of precision and reliability which was used to devastating effect in the U.S. Civil War.
 


Fenris

Adventurer
Joshua Dyal said:
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.

Joshua,
Way cool gun rules. Thanks for posting the link, they captured what I was looking for in a rules set for firearms as well. Simple but effective without being a no brainer to replace anything else. I had a couple of quick questions about them. I know they are from Freeport, but I didn't know how much you modified them. It seems the sizes are odd. A musket being Medium? Pistols being Small? It would seem that either pistols should be Medium with the Stinger being Small or at least the Arquebuss should be Medium. And I would think all the long arms should be large (needing two hands to fire). Maybe those are straight from Freeport and you can't answer them but I though I would ask and again thank you for solving my firearms dilema.

Fenris
 
Last edited:

Fenris

Adventurer
Bumpity Bump Bump
Bumpity Bump Bump
Look at Frosty go!
Bumpity Bump Bump
Bumpity Bump Bump
Over the hills of snow!
 

Remove ads

Top