Firearms in D&D

[Fenris]

New Feat

Firearms Drill [General]
You have spent long hours drilling with firearms, making loading second nature.
Prerequisite: Dex 13+
Benefit: Each time you take this feat you can reduce your reload time by one full-round action. You cannot reduce the reload time to less than one full-round, however.
Normal: It usually takes three full-round actions to reload a firearm. [/Indent]
I'd probably have them fail more often than one shot in 20 though -- maybe a wide fumble "threat" range (1-10) with a fumble confirmation roll against AC 10 or 15. That way, "green" conscripts misfire every fourth shot, and our heroes misfire...rarely.

I think I may increase the misfire rate to 10% (1 or a 2) but let the Firearms Drill feat add a +1 to the misfire table. That way more experianced gunners may fail as often but not as catastrophically and will have significantly less down time.

That and thanks to drnuncheon I added the crossbow penalties to one handed firing in various combinations. Thanks again JD. You really did make my month with these rules!

 

[Desdichado]

Thanks again JD. You really did make my month with these rules!

Glad to help.

 

[ledded]

As it should be, IMO. Although it's not like I made the rules up; those are courtesy of Green Ronin via the Freeport setting (and the d20 Special Dragon magazine Annual from a few years ago.)

I like that the history of firearms afficionados can't peg an exact type to each of these guns. After all, this is a ruleset that has double-bladed swords and other nonsense, so I want my firearms to be similarly abstract.

Yes, I've seen those rules before, but I like your nuances. Personally, I prefer to research most weapons as best I can to use as a base to establish the physics of them, then you can work up to fantastic from there. I don't, however, expect anyone else to care at all . The firearm creation rules that I've been trying to work up myself allow you to build firearms from the advent of gunpowder all the way up to the mid-late 1800's, and follows the historical development of firearms as a guideline, but then even includes things that never existed or are just simply fantastic. They should be simple enough to add a nice flavor to our campaign while still be granular enough for those that like more 'beef' to their guns. Whether they are or not I don't know, but at least I'll have the comfort of them being well-researched .

I do have a few pet peeves with the typical rpg treatment of some melee weapons (particularly WotC). But it's not so much "this is different from the real world" or "these never existed" as it is "the physics of their weight or configuration stats make the weapon impossible to use effectively in a world that has simple nuances similar to the real world, like, oh, gravity and centripetal force". But that's just me. If there are folks that want dire flails or double-bladed longswords or 15 lb greatswords to not only work but be viable options, more power to them; to me it's a decision on campaign world physics more than it is game balance or design. I've played Star Wars with blaster pistols and lightsabers, and those are pretty out there from a historical *or* physics standpoint.

There is a slightly petty and peverse part of me, however, that would like to see a game designer actually go outside and swing a dire flail around for a few minutes. That would almost be as good as that video of that guy on the QVC channel selling cheap stainless steel katanas that are "as good as the originals" banging one on his table for demonstration of it's strength, when it prompty broke and injured him. Nearly a Darwin Awards candidate.

 

[warlord]

About firearms would more modern firearms like ones from the Old West like revolvers,reapting rifles and shotguns unbalance D&D. Also does the gattling gun have any place in D&D I was thinking of using it as a breath weapon for a mechanical dragon.

 

[replicant2]

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.

 

[Desdichado]

Of course, chain is particularly poorly suited to handle piercing type attacks, as it has no method of really deflecting the attack, and it does not spread the force of the blow as it would with a bludgeoning or slashing type attack. That's why chain hauberks were often supplemented with scale cuirasses, which would protect the torso from arrows.

But I agree; I don't know where this persistent, yet profoundly untrue (IMO) myth of the firearm comes from that prompts gamers to do crazy damage with firearms, or ignore armor, or anything like that. It's very common, yet baseless.

The Freeport rules, which I use, do indeed do more damage than arrows, but not really a lot, and IMO, that's just compensation for the other drawbacks of using a firearm; some incentive to actually do so, so to speak. It's more of a metagame construct than anything else.

 

[LostSoul]

No, rather, no weapon should get any equivalent to that "mechanical strength" bonus. It's a poor implementation of the prevalent myth that getting hit with a bullet is so much worse than getting hit with a sword, or what have you. It doesn't make sense from a real-life standpoint (verisimilitude) and it certainly doesn't make sense from a game mechanics standpoint.

I wouldn't have anything to do with it at all.

Urk. I feel quite sheepish now.

I thought about it and based this on the same logic that Str gives you a bonus to hit and damage. I don't see why bows and crossbows and firearms shouldn't have this bonus as well. As I see it, the force of the blow (from your arms/tentacles, or the energy behind the projectile) should help to do more damage...

But I could be way off base here.

 

[ssampier]

Firearms and Technology

In my new homebrew, I decided to allow limited firearms (late Renissance style technology). I am somewhat uncomfortable with using chemical blackpowder for firearms, however. I prefer to use the 2nd edition style "smokepowder" where blackpowder is essentially a magical item, similar to a magical potion.

Anyone have 3.5 rules or suggestions for smokepowder?

 

[barsoomcore]

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

I use Iron Kingdom's rules: light pistol, military pistol, military rifle, long rifle. Works fine.

I think the reason people think guns are so incredibly dangerous is because of movies. In the movies, people fight with swords for extended periods of time, even taking numerous hits before going down. When people get shot in movies they general fall over dead that instant.

One of the reasons for that is simple technology -- movie technology. Having your bad guy slap a blood pack to his chest when he gets shot and fall to his knees theatrically is pretty straightforward. Trying to realistically depict the effect a claymore has on the human body is substantially more problematic, and so in movie swordfights there's generally a lot of clangclangclangouchyoupokedmyshoulderyoucad sort of thing -- people seem to get nicked over and over again before they finally go down. Whereas gun-toting heroes mow down mooks in vast numbers.

A hit from any weapon is more likely to maim than kill, honestly. You're more likely to lose a limb or half your face than just drop down dead. Of course, you'll probably die from the wound, but in the movies people tend to fall over and be quiet.

There's a moment at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring (the movie) where Aragorn rushes over to where Boromir lies, and you can clearly see one of the "dead" Uruk-Hai lift his head a bit to watch. People call that a "goof", and I bet it was, in that I bet PJ didn't intend for that to happen. But isn't it crazy to think that all those big honking soldiers are actually dead? Shouldn't there be groaning, screaming, wounded Uruks all over the battlefield?

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

 

[Desdichado]

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

I'd rather make the extended clang-clang-clang-witty-banter-clang-clang type of swordfight movie myself. Sort of like Basil Rathbone and Danny Kaye in The Court Jester but faster and with katanas and sunglasses, and sexy dangerous women.