Guns in a fantasy setting

[DandD]

D&D can be high magic, but some of its settings are decidedly low magic or exclusive magic. Some official settings I could easily see gunpowder firearms having a place. Ravenloft is a great example of this because magic is a more mysterious and restricted force. Eberron and the Realms on the other hand are much less suited since they feature a more widespread or integrated use of magic.

Which D&D-setting is low-magic?

 

[mmadsen]

Which D&D-setting is low-magic?

He just said Ravenloft, "because magic is a more mysterious and restricted force."

 

[RandomCitizenX]

Which D&D-setting is low-magic?

I am beginning to think that you are not reading my posts, and are instead just skimming over them for something you can quickly try and refute. That said I won't be replying to any more of your posts on this topic.

 

[DandD]

Yet it has tons of magical monsters, and it's a plane where people accidently get trapped in there. And the only guys who had problems where paladins and clerics of good deities.

The very fact that Ravenloft was unpopular and people prefered to play World of Darkness, according to Ryan Dancey himself didn't help at all.

Not low-magic at all, if people could still cast magic missiles.

 

[DandD]

I am beginning to think that you are not reading my posts, and are instead just skimming over them for something you can quickly try and refute. That said I won't be replying to any more of your posts on this topic.

I do, but I do not agree that Ravenloft is low-magic. However, if it makes you feel better, feel free to put me on your ignore list or to not read my postings at all.

 

[Plane Sailing]

How could guns ever threaten wizards if all they do is 2d8 damage? Wizards and Fighters laugh at pitiful guns with their fireballs that do 20d6 damage, or the magic sword +5 that can shoot lightning bolts too for 5d6+10 damage.

Seriously, guys, guns in D&D sucked, and will suck forever. The reason why guns aren't needed is because magic is so much better. Enchanted phasing crossbows +1 are better than modern guns, because their phasing abilities can even bypass solid matter, and they hit better.

It seems that this is not the thread for you.

You think that guns in D&D suck, and that's fine. This thread is for someone who would like to work out how to use guns in D&D.

Best to move on to one of the thousands of other interesting threads, please.

Thanks

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I looked at the ranger powers, they only do at most 4[w] with a single attack rolls. The highest level ranged attack power does 3 3[w] attacks. Which with 2d8 damage for a rifle, it'll certainly out class a longbow but it's not as out of control as I thought. And generally I'd put repeating firearms at about 2d6, so it would be difficult to use that power with a 2d8 damage rifle.

 

[DandD]

It seems that this is not the thread for you.

You think that guns in D&D suck, and that's fine. This thread is for someone who would like to work out how to use guns in D&D.

Best to move on to one of the thousands of other interesting threads, please.

Thanks

On the contrary. I am against the reason that guns should be disallowed or restricted because they might change the balance of the game and be a danger to a potential wizard cast, as Jürgen Herbert theorized, simply by the fact that they don't do much damage, compared to the other offensive capabilities that trained magical monsters, or summoned beasts, or your average magician can do. In terms of game balance, a gun is nothing special, compared to magic missiles and fireball, even worthless. Non-magical bows and crossbows aren't restricted in normal settings, because they don't do that much damage, and fireweapons, who at best do 2d8 damage (and those are stats taken from D20 Modern, with modern fireweapons, so actually, the damage of a blunderbluss or whatever older firearm there is should be even less), won't by that reason ever pose a danger to spellcasters either.
In a semi-realistic way for your average fantasy setting like the FR, Eberron and whatnot, guns would never appear, because there are better alternatives that make more damage and are more reliable than even our modern firearms.
But if you want guns in your game, then you don't need to worry, because they couldn't possibly ever be harmful to a setting in terms of damage, nor ever alter the course of history.
That's why guns suck, compared to the more powerful items already prevalent in every standart D&D-game. There would be no change at all on the battlefields of D&D, no socio-political effects due to peasantry rising against their overlords, or the invention of battle-cannons, because desintegrating rays, magic missiles and cloudkill are all more efficient than whatever gunpowder-weaponry could ever accomplish.

Do I dislike fireweapons in a fantasy game? Surely not. I played Wizardry and Final Fantasy, games where people in medieval-style armour and swords run around and fight dudes and dudettes with guns and laserweapons. When I say they suck, then I mean they are so weak, nobody would make a fuss about them. Spellcasters who can summon forcefields to shield themselves from arrows won't fear bullets either.

 

[Andor]

I've never understood the whole "Guns should do 12d42 +97" meme that often intrudes on these discussions.

If you shoot someone centre of mass with a gun they are probably going to fall over dead, yes. Guess what? The same thing happens with a bow or a lowly dagger and you still fall over dead.

Tell yah what, anyone who wants to test it out is welcome to come over and shoot me with the gun of your choice, as long as I get to shoot you with a broadhead arrow first.

Guns kill people, swords kill people, pointy sticks kill people, rocks kill people, and mousquitos have killed more than all of them put together.

*ahem* Now that that is out of my system, I think Iron Kingdom handled firearms quite well, with one exception, your cost per shot is way way too high. The guns in that world make no economic sense what-so-ever compared to bows and crossbows. The cost per shot is somewhere between 6 and 12 gp per shot. You might as well melt your gold down for bullets directly.

Real world bullets cost 2 to 20¢, getting up towards $1 per shot for exotic calibers like some Weatherbys. Hell the Army pays less for grenades than Iron Kingoms guns use per shot.

 

[mmadsen]

I've never understood the whole "Guns should do 12d42 +97" meme that often intrudes on these discussions.

If you shoot someone centre of mass with a gun they are probably going to fall over dead, yes. Guess what? The same thing happens with a bow or a lowly dagger and you still fall over dead.

Certainly, but I think most people have trouble maintaining the illusion when someone takes multiple gunshots without slowing down at all, when they don't have nearly as much trouble imagining an armored knight taking multiple sword slashes or arrow hits.

And certainly in fiction, anyone good with a gun hits and kills his target with that one hit -- one shot, one kill. No one wants the hero to whittle down his opponent with multiple grazing gunshot wounds.

(I'd say the same thing largely holds with archers too, but it's more believable to survive multiple arrows. It's still not perfect.)