Firearms: Yes or No

[mmadsen]

Firearms were around in the era of swords and plate armors; as far as fantasy I think that playing King Arthur and his Knights is no more fun than playing Pirates or The Three Musketeers.

In all fairness, King Arthur exemplifies the mythic past, and modern fantasy arose out of an attempt to recreate such Medieval Romances. Excluding guns from fantasy makes perfect sense.

The Three Musketeers, while certainly Romantic, is not a fantasy story. It's historical fiction -- during a period when guns and swords both played important roles. Excluding guns from The Three Musketeers would be silly. (Playing them down would fit the genre though.)

 

[HellHound]

You lose interest as the explosions get bigger? Huh. That makes you pretty much the opposite of the average Hollywood film-goer.



Barsoom has flintlocks. Cause they're cool. People use them because, well, pretty much because they're cool.

BOOM! POW!

Yep. Cool factor.

Our classic D&D game is gunless.
Our Arcanis games have guns, but no one uses them in the first of the two. The other game has a noble Val running around with a brace of Altherian flintlocks for when his spells run out.
Our BESMd20 game is modern, but gunless (magical girls with big guns? nah... not whe they have "Mighty Ocean Blasting Wave Power!")
And our Dragonstar Rokugan game, while it has guns, sees little use of them since the two main combat grunts are both half-dragons with 26+ strength (hmmm... repeating shotgun vs Katana...)

 

[EB3]

Why firearms were developed

Humanophile, as far as I understand the advantage of firearms was that it was much easier to train people to use them. )

A quick roleplayer/wargamer/historian opinion. Imagine the English Civil War (1640s) and lets take a second and imagine warfare at this time. May be a long post, cause I'm like that.

1) Firearms, like artillery, could punch through ANYTHING. High penetration. People, plate, barding and horses...which leads to...
2) The sound and smoke of firearms scared the bejeezus out of horses. The smoke obscured the infantry formation.
3) and, as someone else said, any doofus could be trained to use them.
4) Add combined infantry arms formations with pike and shot (ie a Tercia), and you have a lethal combination.

Think about the era. Cavalry, in general, ruled the open battlefield. Move fast? Check. Armored in sexy plate? Check. Cool destructive weapons? Check (lance, swords/sabre, pistols/carbines, hooves). Ability to terrify the locxal peasants/infantry? Oh, yeah, Check.
Let put it in an example. Mr. Palidan and 19 of his close friends are going to charge a mob of 50 odd peasants in an open field. The numbers are against Mr. Palidan, but that's about it. Armed with D&D melee weapons the infantry has no chance - the lance gives the horseman range, the horse gives speed/mobility, and hooves and sword will finish up all of the close stuff. Palidan has all of the options. Charge through and panic the mass, charge in and fight, whatever. Oh, and the peasants are in clear view. If the peasants all have bows/crossbows, even with good accuracy they can get a few hasty shots off maybe sneak through the armor and then they are toast. I mean, they won't even be able to outrun the horses.

Now, give Mr. Peasant 20 firelocks. Give his other 30 friends 14 foot pikes. Mr. Palidan has to close. As he does, boom! Some of Palidans buddies drop, horses drop (effectively removing the rider from combat), some horses panic. A big plus for Mr. Peasant, even if he hits nothing...firelocks create a huge smoke screen in front of the infantry. Don't underestimate this. Now the cavalry can't see what they are charging. It becomes hard to impossible to pick out indiviadual targets. Oh, and you don't see that the shooters have fallen back and that you are now riding into an impailing wall of 14 foot toothpicks (ala Braveheart).

Cool, huh?

For Sword and Sorcery RPGs, era firearms are not portrayed well. Mainly, they are too complicated. The typical hardgun of the time was a firelock (a like candle-like wick would fall into a tray of powder to set off the charge and propel the shot), not a flintlock or precussion cap. Rain or water meant - no shooting. They were incredibly SLOW to fire. Someone said that it was quicker than a heavy crossbow - uh, uh! Maybe twice as long. Again, this was NOT the American Civil War. Next, D&D would need rules that, in the unlikely chace of one of these monsters hitting (negative to-hit?), armor would basically mean nothing (AC adjustment). Finally, DO NOT forget the smoke. Big stinking clouds of it. Oh, and the panic/terror effect on attackers and defender of that bad boy going off (will saves anyone?).

With all of that, yes, I have used firearms in D&D campaigns, ussually by dwarves, gnomes, or halflings. Which makes sense to me since these guys aren't known as great cavalry races and firearms, as above, can be a wonderful equalizer for the infantry.

 

[mmadsen]

Firearms, like artillery, could punch through ANYTHING. High penetration.

Certainly firearms have excellent penetration against medieval armor, but armor "of proof" was made -- at extra expense, and weighing much more than thinner armor.

Now, give Mr. Peasant 20 firelocks. Give his other 30 friends 14 foot pikes. Mr. Palidan has to close. As he does, boom! Some of Palidans buddies drop, horses drop (effectively removing the rider from combat), some horses panic. A big plus for Mr. Peasant, even if he hits nothing...firelocks create a huge smoke screen in front of the infantry. Don't underestimate this. Now the cavalry can't see what they are charging. It becomes hard to impossible to pick out indiviadual targets. Oh, and you don't see that the shooters have fallen back and that you are now riding into an impailing wall of 14 foot toothpicks (ala Braveheart).

Even without firearms, well-trained pikemen could face down heavy cavalry. With firearms, they had some offense.

Next, D&D would need rules that, in the unlikely chace of one of these monsters hitting (negative to-hit?), armor would basically mean nothing (AC adjustment).

Some people have suggested making firearms use ranged touch attacks -- no armor bonuses to AC. That seems severe when we know that armor of proof did exist -- and +5 plate has to be better than that.

Other people have suggested a penetration bonus, i.e., +4 to-hit, only vs. armor bonuses. If you wanted to make things a bit more complicated, you could have that penetration bonus drop off with each range increment.

Finally, DO NOT forget the smoke. Big stinking clouds of it. Oh, and the panic/terror effect on attackers and defender of that bad boy going off (will saves anyone?).

Good points. Of course, I can't imagine the panic/terror is any worse than when facing down demons, wizards launching fireballs and lightning bolts, etc.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

1) Firearms, like artillery, could punch through ANYTHING. High penetration. People, plate, barding and horses...which leads to...
2) The sound and smoke of firearms scared the bejeezus out of horses. The smoke obscured the infantry formation.

I had heard - from a wargamer friend - that the smoke was a factor in this way as late as the 1770's: the British lines would fire, create a huge cloud of smoke and hope to kill a few of their opponents, then charge through the smoke and use the bayonets. Don't know if that's true or not.
The penetrating power of guns is very good, but not so much that it should be a touch attack (as others have suggested). You have adamantine plate, dragonhide, and the huge natural armor bonuses of some creatures... and other offensive weapons that should be more penetrating (such as a giant using a spear or pick).

 

[Bigwilly]

It was the gnome!

In my campaign, the party had heard about these new fangled things called muskets. The party gnome ROG/ILL basically worked out how to make gunpowder (high alchemy roll) and then went on to design firearms (knowledge engineering or metallurgy - possibly both). The dwarves got all excited about them and one even became a musketeer (PrC). Then his clan found out about them. Now the dwarves are researching and developing new firearms and techniques, although not without a few accidents.

So yes, guns. But only dwarves and they are the standard D&D pistol, musket and blunderbuss.

Bigwilly

 

[ledded]

In all fairness, King Arthur exemplifies the mythic past, and modern fantasy arose out of an attempt to recreate such Medieval Romances. Excluding guns from fantasy makes perfect sense.

The Three Musketeers, while certainly Romantic, is not a fantasy story. It's historical fiction -- during a period when guns and swords both played important roles. Excluding guns from The Three Musketeers would be silly. (Playing them down would fit the genre though.)

Oh certainly, I never meant that it didnt make sense. I have played in a very high fantasy campaign where most technology (gunpowder, clockwork stuff, etc) was expressly forbidden and would have altered the mythical feel of it. But that doesnt mean they should *always* be excluded; regardless of the origins of modern fantasy, the Three Musketeers, Pirates, and even later stuff are part of our modern culture's view of fantasy and are valid options for play with firearms. Just broader horizons, is all.

It may not be right to have firearms in a particular game, but they can be valid and quite fun for *a* D&D game nonetheless.