Gunpowder, fantasy and you

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Granted, that's mainly because my past two games have been set beneath the surface of the sea. Also, my games are set in the World of Greyhawk where gunpowder "doesn't work".

Yet blaster pistols and rifles definitely do...

 

[Stoat]

You'd still need agriculture since it's necessary for the creation of beer. Unless, I guess, that shaman had a create beer spell. Then all bets are off.

Any magic system that cannot create beer is a bad magic system. Hence, the Decanter of Endless Beer.

One thing that's always puzzled me in these recurring firearms-and-fantasy threads is the idea that firearms must be treated realistically to a degree that nothing else is subjected to the same treatment. Thus, firearms take forever to reload, they explode or misfire often, they do horrendous amounts of damage, they punch right through armor, et cetera (and ignoring the fact that this realism is often not terribly realistic).

The firearms system I used in my game wasn't designed to be realistic. It was designed to be usable, balanced with other mundane weapons, and fun. I think I achieved those goals pretty well.

I've noticed this weird quirk too. An axe does 1d8 points of damage. Nobody blinks. A bullet does 1d8 points of damage, folks complain about how unrealistic it is that a 5th level fighter can survive multiple gunshot wounds. An archer can fire off three of four arrows with lethal accuracy in a 10-second interval, and that's ok. A crossbowman can take a feat and pop off quarrels left and right. A blackpowder weapon that takes longer than a minute or two to reload? Folks won't buy it. Generally in D&D bowstrings don't break and weapons don't get dull. But guns? Blammo!

I like firearms in my fantasy. When I played 3.X, my solution was to make muskets and pistols superior weapons that did slightly better damage than an equivalent crossbow. Anyone could use them without a penalty to attack. A character proficient with the weapon could reload it as a move action. An unproficient character had to take a full round action to reload.

 

[luckless]

I also question why people would think that magic is so unlikely to be a science.

Who made the first spells? How are new spells made? Did someone find a spell book that contained ALL the spells just randomly laying around somewhere in the forest?

Also, if magic does not function consistently, as in you can have repeatable outcomes based on the same inputs, then how do magic users function at all? If nothing ever happened the same way twice, then how does a wizard have any idea what is going to happen when he casts a spell? Why does a spell have the same spell components each time?

(Now that could make for an interesting magic 'system'.
P1: "I cast Fireball!"
-DM rolls dice-
DM: "I'm sorry, your spell creates the illusion of a small mouse eating cheese. The dragon ignores it and swallows you whole."
P1: "... Right. I think I'm going to roll up a fighter now.")

 

[lin_fusan]

Also, if magic does not function consistently, as in you can have repeatable outcomes based on the same inputs, then how do magic users function at all? If nothing ever happened the same way twice, then how does a wizard have any idea what is going to happen when he casts a spell? Why does a spell have the same spell components each time?

I think it is reason that a lot of wizard players treat the magic system like a science on a meta-level, and start to apply real-world physics to their spells and the application of that magic.

I think it is also telling that in the current system, if I want my fighter or thief to do a parkour/Jackie Chan-style walk up a wall corner maneuver to get up a wall, I have to roll a skill check with a percent chance of failure, whereas a wizard can cast Spider Climb and get 100% repeatable results.

In this model, magic is repeatable and consistent, and physical acts are slightly random and not always repeatable.

When the 2nd ed Wild Magic system came out, I thought it was a great idea because I never thought magic should be predictable and repeatable.

And to weakly get back on topic, after reading all these posts, I really like the idea of guns being one-shot, Encounter-like powers, that do pretty decent damage but require several move actions to reload. This way, the guns have some initial impact, bows aren't classed out, and players will probably drop their guns after the initial shot and close to melee.

 

[Mark Chance]

The main reason why people don't "mix" guns with fantasy?

Gun rules are convoluted.

Not mine. Mine are rather simple.

 

[Aeolius]

Yet blaster pistols and rifles definitely do...

Some sacrifices had to be made, to allow vegepygmies into active play...

 

[Celebrim]

Why does a spell have the same spell components each time?

It doesn't. Clueless wizards keep insisting on using the same spell compenents each time, and that's why they keep having different results.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, because on my campaign world the fact magic=science is actually one of my well-accepted tropes, and because I have ideas for making magic more untamed anyway that I hope to implement eventually.

However, I will say that I find it odd that spell-users don't have a certain wary terror of magic. Frankly, I think magic ought to have more in common with a wheellock or matchlock musket filled with irregularly ground blackpowder.

 

[prosfilaes]

Who made the first spells? How are new spells made? Did someone find a spell book that contained ALL the spells just randomly laying around somewhere in the forest?

Boccob made the first spells, and gave them to men. Occasionally new spells can be gotten out of an intelligent outer planar creature, but most "new" spells are recovery of long-lost spells.

 

[David Howery]

Were I making gun rules for (4E) D&D, I'd keep it fairly simple... damage comparable to a crossbow (heavy for musket or arquebus, light for pistol), 3 standard actions to reload, +3 proficiency bonus, brutal 2, high crit. Basically, you shoot somebody on the first round, then drop the gun and pull out a sword. I don't think misfire rules are worth bothering with.

disagree with that last one, because misfires were the main hazard in early guns. They worked fine in armies, because if 2 out of 50 gunners misfire, not so bad... but in the hands of a PC pointing an arquebus at a charging bullettte, a misfire is pretty bad. And misfires were the real problem in those days, not 'blowing up in your face'... flintlocks were an improvement, but still misfire-prone.
Another thing I'd add to your rules is higher than normal range penalties for medium/long ranges... muzzle-loading guns tended to fall off badly in accuracy and damage over 50 yards.
And another fun fact about black powder... you can't store it in glass or steel, because those store up static electricity charges and ... *BOOM*. It's brass or horn for powder flasks, and brass for all the gear... and Lord help that poor PC if his flask fails a saving throw vs. a fireball...

 

[SKyOdin]

I am all for guns in fantasy. Of course, I am a fan of East Asian inspired settings, where gunpowder weapons are very fitting since China had gunpowder for centuries before it reached Europe. I am also a big fan of the 16th century, where guns, archers, and armored warriors on horseback were all still major elements of warfare worldwide.