D&D 5E Guns and D&D - are we doing it wrong? An alternative

[Horwath]

Issue with that is that they become useless to high level fighters. Though maybe that makes certain amount of thematic sense. Crossbows and guns are the "easy" weapons after all, whilst the bow takes time to master.

exactly.

learning to shoot a rifle or a crossbow takes about one minute, for a bow, it's a long time to get really good.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

but let's remember when the fight starts, the firearms are preloaded, and they can be the first to attack.

Other option is firearms are allowed, but they are so expensive and rare as magic ranged weapons. If the gun is not "attuned" with the shooter, then it is weaker against magic effects.

 

[ezo]

I also hate that reloading crossbows is so fast in 5E

Ditto.

It should be a Use an Object action to reload a hand crossbow, one or two for a light crossbow, and three or four for a heavy crossbow if you want any level of "realism".

learning to shoot a rifle or a crossbow takes about one minute, for a bow, it's a long time to get really good.

with that thinking, learning to shoot a bow also takes a minute or less, it isn't hard.

Getting good is the long time part, but that is true for a crossbow, rifle, or any weapon really. For rifles, especially if we're talking muzzle-loaders, it took a LONG time and tons of practice to get even decent at reloading and firing with any sort of accuracy.

 

[Horwath]

Getting good is the long time part, but that is true for a crossbow, rifle, or any weapon really. For rifles, especially if we're talking muzzle-loaders, it took a LONG time and tons of practice to get even decent at reloading and firing with any sort of accuracy.

not really,

I have seen bunch of beginners hit bullseye(10cm across) with crossbows and pistols at short distance, cca 20m, but with bows, shots were all over the place, many not even hitting 1m wide target.
it's really a lot harder to shoot a bow than crossbow/gun, even at short distance.

 

[ezo]

not really,

I have seen bunch of beginners hit bullseye(10cm across) with crossbows and pistols at short distance, cca 20m, but with bows, shots were all over the place, many not even hitting 1m wide target.
it's really a lot harder to shoot a bow than crossbow/gun, even at short distance.

Yeah, really. I doubt any of those things you've seen were with a muzzle-loader or medieval crossbow.

FWIW, with modern bows, I've seen first time shooters do just as well. Here's an example from a renfair (with my girlfriend at the time). I caught the "action shot" in sports mode so you can see the arrow being released. And then the target, near perfect center at about 50 feet IIRC.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I also hate that reloading crossbows is so fast in 5E

You mean 'actually usable as a weapon in the context of the game'?

 

[Eyes of Nine]

It's perfectly possible in a 15th or 16th or even 17th century inspired game to balance firearms with older weapons and still have verisimilitude. The trouble is that this balance is an awkward one for D&D because the balancing factor remains that firearms are a lot easier to be effective with if you don't have a ton of military training than a sword, spear, glaive-guisarme or whatever. The balancing point in D&D terms is level. Below X level you are better off with a firearm, and above X level you are better off primarily focusing on something else (possibly with a brace of single shot pistols as supplemental weapons). Encounter powers aren't fully realistic but they do capture the spirit of an early blackpowder weapon. And that creates a problem, because NPCs get more out of gaining access to a firearm encounter power than PCs do given their array of powerful options already. Like who really gets more advantage out of wheellock musket or (shudder) a 4 bore elephant gun - a typical adventuring PC or a 1st level NPC. Sure, a PC would like to have a one-shot weapon doing say 1d10+2 damage or (shudder) 9d6 damage, but would they like it if hobgoblins had 20 such weapons? It's a problem because low level D&D becomes more lethal and stays lethal for a longer period. Numbers of combatants start to matter more than the skill of combatants.

Super interesting post (clipped most of it, responding to just this one part)

In 5e land, maybe just remove proficiency and ability bonus unless someone takes a "Gunsel" feat or something...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Guns discussions that want balance? Seems like a misplaced expectation

Literally one of the most famous idiomatic phrases in America "You don't bring a knife (or in this case sword, axe, glaive-guisarme, whatever) to a gun fight"

A gun should way outclass any other muscle powered weapon. And then there would literally be an arms race. Also, if you are the only person with a gun, my guess is waaaay more powerful entities are going to want that little gew-gaw. +1 Fun! (for the GM )

And fiction is loaded with people who brings knives, swords, whips, and bare fists to gun fights and do incredibly well. Usually winning handly even against multiple opponents armed with modern firearms.

And frankly, a gun wouldn't even be a mild curiosity to a being able to kill a crowd of people with a single word and a wave of their hand. You can claim it isn't your preferred fiction or genre, but since DnD allows people to dodge lightning bolts from the sky, I'm not sure that "this gun is of interest to the archdukes as it is the single most powerful weapon in existence" really flies.

 

[Hriston]

Used to hate guns in my D&D, but since the first appearance of the arquebuese in 2E, [...] they've been sneaking into some of my games. [...]

I'm somewhat partial to the 2E rules, they do d4 to d10 damage, but when you roll max damage you roll an additional die (also referred to as 'exploding die'). Otherwise, they're very loud crossbows that come with their own fog cloud.

I like the idea of mimicking the effect of fog cloud. Maybe just a 5' or 10' radius cloud so as not to upstage the spell? Also, from some things I'm reading online, it would take a few shots to accumulate enough smoke for heavy obscuration, so the lower end seems right. Also, don't forget the thunderous boom effect of thunderwave.

Sure there is, the "older than old school" is NOT infusing fantasy with sci-fi elements. Those came a bit later. Pure medieval magical fantasy was where it all began as an RPG.

I'm not sure when this was, considering OD&D (1974) comes with Barsoomian random encounter tables.

Later "guns" such as the arquebus were never allowed. When 2E introduced it to the game, a lot of people rebelled against its inclusion.

I've mostly included the above quotes as a jumping off point and to address the bolded claims about 2E. In fact, OD&D (1974) has the arquebus by way of Chainmail (where nearly all the combat rules are located), and the arquebus is included on the weapon vs. armor class table in Supplement I: Greyhawk (1976), p 14.

In the Chainmail mass combat rules, "arquibusiers" [sic] ignore the armor class of their targets, scoring a hit on a d6 roll of 2, 4, or 5 or higher at short, medium, and long range respectively. They have the same range as normal crossbowmen (light crossbow in 5E) and have the rate of fire of heavy crossbowmen. They also deduct 1 or 2 points from the d6 roll for varying degrees of cover and add 1 while resting on a strong support like a wall, prop, etc.

However, on the "Individual Fires With Missiles" table (Chainmail, p 41) which uses the man-to-man rules, the arquebus only ignores armor up through AC 4 (leather armor + shield) having about the same chance to hit as the light crossbow vs. AC 1 or 2 (no armor and leather or padded armor)*. It also has the same probability to hit at close range (5 or higher on a 2d6 roll) as in mass combat and somewhat easier at medium and maximum ranges. Starting with AC 5 (chain, banded, studded, or splint mail), difficulty begins to increase and exceeds the difficulty of the mass combat rules at all ranges beginning at AC 6 (chain mail + shield/chain +). Nevertheless, also beginning at AC 6, the arquebus has a better chance to hit than any missile weapon at its respective ranges, except for heavy crossbow vs. AC 8 (plate armor and shield) at maximum range, which it matches.

To convert the above to 5E, I'd make it a martial weapon with something like the following stats:

Arquebus, cost: ?, damage: 1d8 piercing, weight: 11 lb., properties: Ammunition (range 80/320), loading, two-handed, armor-piercing, smoke cloud, propable.​

​

Armor-piercing. When making an attack with this weapon, the target's AC is effectively reduced for the purposes of this attack by up to 3 points deriving from the target's armor and/or a shield it is wearing. Also, the weapon emits a thunderous boom audible out to 300 feet.

Smoke cloud. When used, this weapon creates a 5-foot-radius sphere of smoke centered on the attacker. The sphere's area is heavily obscured. It lasts for one hour or until a wind of moderate or greater speed (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses it.

Propable. Attacks made with this weapon gain advantage while the weapon is resting on a strong support (wall, prop, etc.)

I'd also add these simple weapons:

Fire lance, cost: ?, damage: 1d6 fire, weight: 6 lb., properties: Two-handed, smoke cloud, special.​

​

Fire lance. When ignited as an action, this weapon emits a 10-foot cone of flame. All creatures in the area must make a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 fire damage. The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.

Hand cannon, cost: ?, damage: 1d6 piercing, weight: 6 lb., properties: Ammunition (range 30/120), loading, two-handed, armor-piercing, smoke cloud.​

*yes, Chainmail has ascending AC.

ETA: I'd also add this item:

Fire arrows. When fired from a bow or crossbow, this ammunition not only deals the weapon's damage to the target on a hit, but, whether the attack hits or misses, all creatures within a 10-foot radius of the target must make a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or take 1d6 fire damage. The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.​