Guns in a fantasy setting

[mmadsen]

But in general, the times I've seen people talking about wanting firearms to be dangerously lethal to their user, they're talking about rates of error that're somewhere around 1/36 or more.

I believe that matchlock firearms would misfire more often than that, but they certainly wouldn't explode that often.

Even if they did though, that wouldn't necessarily mean they weren't worth using. You'd have to weight the pros against the cons. A bombard that took down a castle wall might be well worth using with a 1-in-36 chance of killing the crew.

 

[MommaDM]

See also early gunpowder use in China.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You mean the part about gunpowder being discovered as an unintended result of research into immortality?

How's that for irony?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Well, early gunpowder weapons used by in China were things like "Fire Lances" which was an early flamethrower on a stick.

And then there was some weapon which fired a box of arrows, sort of like a machine-gun which unleashed a volley of arrows. But that weapon could have been a Korean invention first. It was indeed a siege weapon.

 

[Andor]

You mean the part about gunpowder being discovered as an unintended result of research into immortality?

How's that for irony?

Heh. I read an amusing article once conjecturing on why Black Powder was the first explosive invented when all the components of nitroglycerin were commonly known to eraly alchemists. The author concluded it was more likely that Black Powder was merely the first explosive anyone survived inventing.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Firearms - at least, fairly modern and effective firearms - don't work well with "default" D&D since D&D assumes a "balance" in combat between the different character types. Guns would strengthen the Martial characters over others, and it would require a lot of fiddling to rebalance things.

On the other hand, you could easily drop guns into a fantasy campaign run under, say, GURPS. In GURPS, any combat balances ultimately derive from the setting assumptions - people, including player characters, will whatever tactics prove to be the most successful. Magic can still have a use in such settings - it might not necessarily be as damaging as a gun, but it can do all sorts of things that technology simply cannot do.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Atually Red Steel came from depletetion Cinnabryl. Cinnabryl was used to help offset the drawbacks of Leagcy Abilities. Smokepowder was used for firearms in Red Steel.

That's the ticket! Thanks for enhancing my answer so accurately (I couldn't be bothered to dig up the box set and find out the precise details myself!)

Cheers

 

[Nightson]

Guns don't impact a setting much at all unless you do something silly like introduce guns 200-300 years ahead technologically of the quasi time setting.

 

[DandD]

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.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

DandD,
well, the new barret sniper rifle is designed and proven to be accurate to 2500 metres....

You won't even see the guy who blows yer head off
Note that IMHO, sniping should allow sneak attack and be an autocrit and cause a coup-de-grace effect. But only slow moving enemy not aware of the sniper would qualify.
This should apply to crossbows at ranges of 35 yards or less, 20yards for bows, 30' for eveything else. Non-firearms just lack the precision.