Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[mxyzplk]

I don't put guns in every campaign world, but I don't see why not have them in many. I wrote these firearms rules for Pathfinder (free download from RPGNow). They have misfire and slow reloads but have exploding damage. The way they're designed they're not really meant to be someone's primary weapon (as in shooting a gun every round for sustained DPS) - just like early firearms IRL, they are used for opening or closing punches by people who are generally doing something else or volleyed by large units. I've been using them in a long term pirate campaign and they hit the right balance - some characters bother with them, others don't. They're OGL, feel free and use them if they are useful.

I almost never buy the "magic not science" line. Very few campaign worlds have magic so pervasive that anyone can use it. If not everyone can use it, then those other people will be happy to go for "next best". If all castles aren't built by magic, and magic doesn't replace all the alchemical items, or indeed replace normal missile and melee weapons, then it's a nonsensical claim. Is a crossbow not technology? Is a longbow not technology? Previous centuries would strongly disagree with you. The main reason gunpowder is not accepted in D&D is a legacy concern from Gygax & friends that it would be unbalanced somehow, and then justified in odd ways. And you do have to worry about the more explosive applications of gunpowder, but at least with early black powder it was not nearly as easy as "toss a match and it explodes like a ton of TNT" like you see on the movies.

 

[jonesy]

1) Melt some lead.

2) Pour the lead into the mold.

3) Let it cool off..

More like this:

0. Lead is a dangerous poison. Protect your eyes, breath and hands.

1. Clean and lube the mold. You get it wrong and the bullets will be deformed.

2. Melt lead to proper temperature. You get it wrong and the bullets will crack or warp.

3. Remove lead slag. You get that in the bullets and they will be useless.

4. Set the bullets down to cool. You need to be careful or they will warp.

5. Lube the bullets by soaking in a container of beeswax and grease or something similar. This usually takes a whole night.

Fumble any stage and your bullets will be wildly inaccurate. Also, mold making itself takes some skill.

The whole thing is like a skill challenge.

And you need all the material that that requires. Longbow arrows are easy by comparison.

 

[luckless]

Not only is it not that complicated, it was required for nearly every early gun owner! Those things were individually hand crafted for much of their history. You didn't just go down to the bullet store and buy a sack of musket balls for your gun. Most guns were sold with a mold such that the owner could make shot for his musket. My understanding of the process was that it followed these steps:

1) Melt some lead.

2) Pour the lead into the mold.

3) Let it cool off.


EDIT: If I was looking to represent musket era firearms in my fantasy games then I'd probably have them do a high-ish amount of damage, long reload times, and the ability to reduce the effectiveness of armor.

4) Open mold to remove shot.

5) Snip spur and finish round.

The powder is likely bought. While it is a fairly simple process to produce, it is far easier doing it in large, more industrial batches.

I think it isn`t till the mid or late 18th century that you see the production of shot towers to produce quality round lead shot in large amounts. Before that bulk shot was done in water dropping, which would produce slightly out of round shot. You could buy shot, but it would often require a little `convincing`before it would work. Even your custom cast shot might need to be shaved or pinched before it would fit properly.

It took a few hundred years before barrels came close to having standard sizes, which made casting your own shot in small lots as needed rather attractive.

And you need all the material that that requires. Longbow arrows are easy by comparison.

As someone who has done both shot casting and fletching, casting shot is easy. An arrow is a lot more complex than just finding a stick and slapping a few feathers on the end. They have to be properly 'tuned' to the weight of the bow so they bend around the bow properly when fired.

As far as casting goes, the tools are simple: A mold, which you keep clean and everything is good. A melting ladle, which you make sure is dry before you try melting lead.

You really don't have to worry too much about how fast or slow you cast. You're not likely going to over heat the lead, you'll cast it when it melts. Digging the slag off of a small cup of lead is a whole of a 2 seconds job. Warm your mold a little, carefully pour the lead in, and in less than a minute it will cool enough to safely pop out.
I've never seen a manual that called for waxing the shot directly, rather you use a waxed wad as you load.

Arrows require more tools and supplies, and in the amount of time it would take a skilled fletcher to cut and shape a single arrow you could cast hundreds of rounds, even if you were casting them one at a time.

 

[anest1s]

I do want to put gunpowder in my campaign, but the DMG musket and pistol looks really, really weak, and not interesting. I mean, a repeating crossbow is better.

Any ideas?

 

[Jon_Dahl]

I do want to put gunpowder in my campaign, but the DMG musket and pistol looks really, really weak, and not interesting. I mean, a repeating crossbow is better.

Any ideas?

Well it's just my opinion, but I think that you could use ranged touch attacks to simulate the armor penetration ability of gunpowder weapons. Only mithril and adamantine would be excluded.

This is of course a gross oversimplification, but would get closer to the truth. I don't think the damage should be increased.

To make it a bit more accurate (but weaker), only allow ranged touch attacks within 60 ft of range. This is also inaccurate, but again a step in the right direction.

Edit: And I think because of the general inaccuracy, all targets should always have concealment. This would fix the "not interesting" part but not the "really, really weak" part...

 

[anest1s]

Well it's just my opinion, but I think that you could use ranged touch attacks to simulate the armor penetration ability of gunpowder weapons. Only mithril and adamantine would be excluded.

This is of course a gross oversimplification, but would get closer to the truth. I don't think the damage should be increased.

To make it a bit more accurate (but weaker), only allow ranged touch attacks within 60 ft of range. This is also inaccurate, but again a step in the right direction.

Edit: And I think because of the general inaccuracy, all targets should always have concealment. This would fix the "not interesting" part but not the "really, really weak" part...

Hmm...maybe generally remove AC...because even not considering the armour penetration, the speed of a bullet isn't the same with the speed of an arrow (then again I don't know about bolts). AC is tricky. Maybe extra damage but miss chance would be better. Like +5% for every 10ft...

Or giving it a range incr. of 15, and touch attack...this way distance would count more than armour. But then, wouldn't it be very useless against crossbows hitting from very far away?

 

[Dice4Hire]

Nah, my version of fantasy does not include guns. Fantasy with guns is a different genre to me, and I don't play or run that genre.

I will be starting up a Modern game soon, and that will have guns of course, though it won't be fantasy. I do do Deadlands, and it has lots of guns.

 

[Kraydak]

In theory, I have no problem with gunpowder in my fantasy. In practice, the properties that separate firearms from other weapons (bows and melee weapons) tends to interact badly with gaming systems. Guns are slow, but hit extremely hard. A brace of pistols fills the same role as having your 3e Wizard loading two Fingers of Death, and save-or-die effects generally create problems.

Guns also have the problem that there is real, workable RL data on them that people can find easily. Admittedly, the same is true of bows, but everyone ignores that, and pretends bows are actually significantly more accurate than early firearms.

 

[Mark Chance]

In theory, I have no problem with gunpowder in my fantasy. In practice, the properties that separate firearms from other weapons (bows and melee weapons) tends to interact badly with gaming systems. Guns are slow, but hit extremely hard. A brace of pistols fills the same role as having your 3e Wizard loading two Fingers of Death, and save-or-die effects generally create problems.

Why is this so? Again, why are firearms expected to be realistic, conform to "workable RL data", et cetera, when other weapons in most game systems aren't subjected to the same criteria?

 

[Kraydak]

Why is this so? Again, why are firearms expected to be realistic, conform to "workable RL data", et cetera, when other weapons in most game systems aren't subjected to the same criteria?

Reskinned bows aren't guns.

I was going to elaborate on the above, but there just doesn't seem to be any point.