Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[cignus_pfaccari]

So, I go with high damage, a x3 critical modifier, but don't use any special rules for ignoring armor - 'cause it doesn't.

The Auld Grump, who feels that guns and D&D get along just fine....

Indeed. We had a Planescape game with cartridge-using guns that resembled what you have above in terms of stats, and they were okay, just...not that useful to my kensai compared to his sword, which he got 1.5x Str and Power Attack damage with. Or compared to the fireballs and chain lightnings from the wizard, or to the druid who could wild shape into a dragon.

In other words, in 3/3.5, they weren't especially attractive at higher levels, or if you didn't have a character built to take advantage of them (which was in itself pretty hard, especially if the DM's rules interact poorly with existing feats).

They might be easier to use in 4e, actually, since they turn into the [W] for powers.

The druid player and I were looking into a way to make the guns actually competitive, and were working up a variant monk to Flurry of Shots with, but neither of us really cared that much to complete it. He was happy with his powergaming cheese, I was happy with mine, and no one else really wanted to try it.

Brad

 

[pawsplay]

One of my hobbies is firing blackpowder weapons - and there are things that are seldom addressed by games. Smoke is very thick, and on a foggy day hangs around for a long time, and gives you a wicked cough. The stuff smells like rotten eggs. (I typically call it 'The Devil's Own Flatulence.')

I've read accounts from the Civil War that described the noon day as being "black as midnight" after very short periods of fire.

Good plate was most often 'proofed' - the armor smith loading a pistol, taking ten steps back, then firing at the armor. The resulting spall was often decorated. The aror was 'bullet proofed'. (Yes, that's where the phrase comes from.)

On the other hand, there is a reason chain went away - the links would be driven into the flesh, and the wounds were much more likely to become infected as a result.

That's what I was talking about in terms of guns vs. armor types. During the conquest of the Americas, Spanish soldiers could be severely disciplined for discarding their helmets or breastplates, rules enacted during the European wars to ensure armor discipline in the face of cavalry charges and gunfire. The same armor served equally well, of course, against the native American civilizations. However, apart from the mounted officers, the soldiers often abandoned it or purposefully sabotaged it because of the exertion of hauling it around in the heat and humidity, which can be fatal in its own way.

Though I seem to recall a Polish factory making the stuff until around 1910.

People still make it. Captain America in the comics wore chainmail, actually, and it's because military chainmail was not unheard of basically until WWII. And you can buy butcher's mail today... stops a circular saw!

 

[David Howery]

Guns are radically effective against armor. Except... breastplates and full plate will stop them, so they shouldn't get a bonus against that type of armor. So, what we need is a special chart that compares weapon type to armor worn...

as I always understood it, how effective primitive guns are vs. armor is very dependent on the range... at short range, they punch through anything, but they fall off really fast when you start getting over 50 yards or so... but that might be a bit too much complication for a D&D game...

 

[Zhaleskra]

pawsplay, we had those as an optional rule in AD&D 2e.

 

[lin_fusan]

Incidentally, D&D tech levels are all over the damn place.

You have medieval knights worshipping a greek pantheon in ren-era plate mail using a caveman-esque club and a roman shield. Oh, and he has a 20th century morality system. This is ignoring the futuristic alien crashes that occur from time to time and the 16th century sailing techniques and how every other kingdom seems to be in a different era as far as social structure goes.

So saying firearms is "too high tech" just makes my head spin. Compared to which of the thousands of years that D&D "tech" makes up?

I would posit an inverse supposition that since D&D has tech levels all over the place, then not having them in a setting is as equally valid and arbitrary as having them.

 

[Haltherrion]

Actually, when guns came onto the scene, castles first got very large. And guess what? We still build castles now. We just call them forts, or bases, or security zones.

Admittedly, I should have defined castles when I made my statement but you are really stretching the definition of castles if you include modern military bases.

By the 1600s, the classic castle that was a combined residence and military fort was going away (Sidney Toy, Castles, Their Construction and History, chapter17). Fortifications became purely military and changed considerably in look.

But harkening back to various lengthy threads on the effect of magic on castles (let alone gunpowder), it would be necessary to define more clearly what is meant by castle to take this farther. I will observe that most castle books I can find end their coverage around the 1600s. I would also observe that most gamers won't call any 'modern' fortifications castles probably going back at least into the 1800s and probably much earlier. Vaubhan's forts are cool but not very castle-ish to my eye, for instance and he was active in the 1600s.

Certainly effective cannons meant tall curtain walls were both easily knocked down and unsuitable for mounting cannons. Same for tall dungeons. Those would probably be two important castle-elements for many. If you like, start a new thread but please take a stab at defining what you mean by a castle.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I would posit an inverse supposition that since D&D has tech levels all over the place, then not having them in a setting is as equally valid and arbitrary as having them.

So long as we agree that the reasons are arbitrary and not based on "history."

Since, if there's anything I've learned here, people tend not to really know the history in the first place.

 

[anest1s]

Admittedly, I should have defined castles when I made my statement but you are really stretching the definition of castles if you include modern military bases.

By the 1600s, the classic castle that was a combined residence and military fort was going away (Sidney Toy, Castles, Their Construction and History, chapter17). Fortifications became purely military and changed considerably in look.

But harkening back to various lengthy threads on the effect of magic on castles (let alone gunpowder), it would be necessary to define more clearly what is meant by castle to take this farther. I will observe that most castle books I can find end their coverage around the 1600s. I would also observe that most gamers won't call any 'modern' fortifications castles probably going back at least into the 1800s and probably much earlier. Vaubhan's forts are cool but not very castle-ish to my eye, for instance and he was active in the 1600s.

Certainly effective cannons meant tall curtain walls were both easily knocked down and unsuitable for mounting cannons. Same for tall dungeons. Those would probably be two important castle-elements for many. If you like, start a new thread but please take a stab at defining what you mean by a castle.

Castles were around long after gunpowder was around, for that I am certain too...
A massive stone wall is still better than no wall after all...

 

[Haltherrion]

Castles were around long after gunpowder was around, for that I am certain too...
A massive stone wall is still better than no wall after all...

Old castles weren't torn down but after cannons became reasonably effective, fortifications were built in a very different manner than the classic concept. And those old castles that found themselves under cannon fire tended to fall apart.

Again, I suppose it depends what you mean by castle. If you mean a stone fortification, yes they last quite a bit longer but I bet most players have something else in mind. I'll see if I can create an interesting way to do a poll on it.

 

[anest1s]

Old castles weren't torn down but after cannons became reasonably effective, fortifications were built in a very different manner than the classic concept. And those old castles that found themselves under cannon fire tended to fall apart.

Again, I suppose it depends what you mean by castle. If you mean a stone fortification, yes they last quite a bit longer but I bet most players have something else in mind. I'll see if I can create an interesting way to do a poll on it.

Stone fortification and maze-like roads kept many castles undefeated...also even after the gunpowder, there were build many home-towers (at least in greece) the fact that defenders used gunpowder too, helped. A very nasty use of explosives, was digging holes under the wall and exploding them. And yet, the castles could survive long sieges...