Firearms in D&D

[barsoomcore]

Katanas?

Sunglasses?

Sexy Dangerous Women?

DANNY KAYE????

Sold! Save me a front-row ticket to THAT one.

 

[barsoomcore]

Exists there a thread I am not capable of derailing? I laugh at your topics, pitiful thread-mongers! I laugh at your on-topic posting and your silly ineffectual ignore lists!

Okay, sorry. Gotta have my megalomaniac moment for the day.

Um, carry on talking about whatever this thread is about.

*waves*

Hi, everyone!

 

[Desdichado]

Exists there a thread I am not capable of derailing?

Well, invoking a musical was kinda cheating on my part. Of course it derailed! Life could not better be.

 

[ledded]

Just a bit of advice for DM's out there who plan to add firearms to their campaign: Don't overestimate the killing power of firearms vs. standard missile weapons (crossbow, longbow, etc.). D&D is not a realistic game, and if you try to make a musket "realistic" by having it ignore armor or do massive damage, then you'd better rethink your rules for other weapons, too.

For example, a standard six-foot english warbow circa 1400 had a draw weight of 100 pounds, rougly twice that of today's competition bows. It could punch through chain, and even penetrate plate at close distances when fired at a flat trajectory. Needless to say, when hitting a leather-armored footsoldier, the effects were devastating. Crossbows were similarly nasty, albeit slower-loading.

Therefore, if a longbow does 1d8, a musket ball should do 1d8.

As with all games, this is a bit of an oversimplification. Personally, I think that larger bows/crossbows *should* do more damage, but they are not always on a par with a black powder weapon. Early matchlocks, certainly... there are even recorded statements to the fact that a crossbow often hit harder than a unrifled matchlock at close range, but later rifled muskets had a measurable edge in range and power over a crossbow. It's really about what you are trying to emulate in your game, earlier matchlock firearms or a little bit later but more effective flintlocks.

But that being said, IMO you are right by saying you shouldnt attribute special qualities of armor piercing and obscene damage to early firearms because there really isnt any reason within the realm of physics to do so, no more than quite a few other weapons.

 

[ledded]

Barsoom's all amok with flintlocks. Cause they're super-cool, that's why.

You said it brother. Cuz they're cool baby.

<snip>When I make swordfight movies, it's gonna HURT. Word.

I've read a few in-depth studies of the average mortality of battlefield wounds delivered by swords and the like, and you are correct. If you want reality, there be a lot more wailing and crawling and oh-mommy-it-hurts type scenes in battles, particularly with movies featuring melee weapons. However, that kind of stuff disturbs the average viewer. Think of the D-Day scene of Saving Private Ryan... guys lying screaming holding their entrails, a man walking around holding his severed arm in the other hand, etc. The problem is that most folks are either not interested in the versimilitude of the situation, or become so desensitized that it means nothing, which is why I'm glad they don't do it more often.

There was a scientific study done at the digsite of the Battle of Wisby, and the wound types mentioned were horrific. Skulls with the nasal bridge caved in all the way to the ear sockets by sword or axe blows, shattered femurs, chest cavities completely punctured by what looked like warhammer blows, etc indicate that there were often incredibly traumatic and maybe even instantly fatal wounds. But by and large, given the dearth of anecdotal and physical evidence, the majority of battle deaths were caused by disease or eventual infections/complications from wounds in most medieval conflicts.

So in *my* remake of the HMS Pinafore, the decks will run awash in blood as those who are caught singing off key are thrashed most terribly by those who can sing *and* deliver a witty one-liner.

 

[icedrake]

I agree with everyone talking about how you have to ignore aspects of physics in exchange for balanced mechanics with the orginal DnD combat/weapon stats.

My group's playing in Ravenloft and we're using its stats for firearms. B/c of the cultural rating system in the world, only a few countries have the technology to produce firearms.

To use a gun, you need EWP: Gunpowder weapons; pistols do a d10 of damage and Muskets do a d12. When calculating your AC against them, your armor's halved, rounded up. Standard action to reload, but Rapid Reload: Firearms reduces that to a move action. (Rapid Reload: xbow's a different feat.)

These rules are balance well against bows and xbows, and I'm thinking of using them in other worlds as well just to add some options to PCs.

 

[Krieg]

.../snip/...But by and large, given the dearth of anecdotal and physical evidence, the majority of battle deaths were caused by disease or eventual infections/complications from wounds in most medieval conflicts.

That hold true in every conflict up until the invention of effective anti-biotics at the beginning of WWII.

Mmm...sepsis.