Guns in a fantasy setting

[TheAuldGrump]

Ah, I had forgotten about Spellslinger, by Fantasy Flight, part of their Horizon line.

For 3.X, it is a mix of D&D and the wild west, it likely has a lot of what you want.

The Auld Grump

 

[mmadsen]

This is what I was getting at with my earlier statement about wanting different rules for the lethality of guns (Post #31). You don't need them.

While some people have asked for guns to be super-lethal, that is not what I've suggested. I have pointed out that early guns were considered comparable to the crossbows of the time. The conquistadors, for instance, had equal amounts of each.

My point is, perhaps, subtle. Guns do not reliably kill their targets with one shot, in real life, but they often do, and early firearms either killed their targets with one shot, or they did not kill their target at all, because they only had one shot.

So, what many consider a minor flaw in D&D's combat system -- with certain advantages attached to it -- leads to jarring consequences in the game when we move from swordfights between armored men to gun-fights: you can't hunt with a gun, you can't duel with pistols, the opening volley never kills any veterans, etc.

Certainly, we see guns take down "experienced" combatants in film, but rarely with one shot.

I don't know why you'd claim that gun-shots rarely take out anyone competent in film. Certainly many protagonists have plot-protection, but ordinary grizzled veterans in a war movie don't take multiple shots to put down.

You bring up Indy- but that's 1) pulp, which is grittier than fantasy in almost all ways, and 2) it's unclear as to how "experienced" those who get killed that way really are.

Now that's just silly. Indiana Jones belongs to perhaps the least gritty genre ever, the Hollywood Saturday Matinee Serial. There is nothing noir or hardboiled about it. And the fellow he shoots is obviously meant to be a paragon of martial skill. (If anything, it was humorously against genre for Indy to shoot him.)

Furthermore, look at the great archers of action films and you'll encounter the same problem you're having with guns- they get a lot of one-shot kills.

I agreed with that point earlier. It's just more pronounced with a weapon that should bypass shields and armor, like many guns.

The inability of weapons to end an encounter with a single blow is just part of D&D's HP/damage system. No weapon needs to be singled out for beefing up.

Yes, it's an artifact of D&D's hit point system, but the problem is more pronounced with certain weapons than with others. And it's not an issue of "beefing up" certain weapons; they don't have to be more lethal so much as differently lethal.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Guns do not reliably kill their targets with one shot, in real life, but they often do, and early firearms either killed their targets with one shot, or they did not kill their target at all, because they only had one shot.

I could just as easily say:
"2 Handed Swords do not reliably kill their targets with one shot, in real life, but they often do..."

By asking for guns to be different in D&D, you ARE asking for an increase in their lethality. Those are inextricably intertwined due to th game's HP system.

I don't know why you'd claim that gun-shots rarely take out anyone competent in film. Certainly many protagonists have plot-protection, but ordinary grizzled veterans in a war movie don't take multiple shots to put down.

War movies are a separate subgenre of film with their own rules- most of which tend towards realism- but even within them, we sometimes find characters taking multiple shots and surviving long enough to perform heroic actions, like hitting the plunger on the dynamite charge, firing one last round to save a buddy, etc.

Now that's just silly. Indiana Jones belongs to perhaps the least gritty genre ever, the Hollywood Saturday Matinee

Those matinee films are a lighter outgrowth of pulp films- same tropes, just more family friendly- guns, though, are just as serious. The difference is that they are rarely used in prolonged shootouts. Instead, the mere brandishing is usually sufficient. But when actually fired, people go down.

And the fellow he shoots is obviously meant to be a paragon of martial skill. (If anything, it was humorously against genre for Indy to shoot him.)

He was and it was. And check out later episodes in that film and others in the series...lots of one shot kills or serious woundings...and a Nazi through the propellers. Nazi soup for you!

Yes, it's an artifact of D&D's hit point system, but the problem is more pronounced with certain weapons than with others. And it's not an issue of "beefing up" certain weapons; they don't have to be more lethal so much as differently lethal.

I don't think you can separate the two in D&D: the ability to take down a high HP character with one shot is, by definition, an increase in lethality. You're making a distinction that, in this case, makes no difference.

Look at D&D magic: lots of different ways to kill foes...and not always with damage. And the spells that do more damage or have higher probability of stopping a foe with alternatives to damage- stoning, disintegrating, etc.- are higher in level and harder to obtain.

Weapons have no such alternatives to damage, no such tiering...and no reason they should.

 

[mmadsen]

By asking for guns to be different in D&D, you ARE asking for an increase in their lethality.

I guess I haven't made myself clear. I have not asked for guns to be different in D&D -- and not all differences in lethality are increases in lethality, either.

I have said a number of times that I'd simply treat guns as crossbows -- loud, smoky crossbows.

If, though, you want guns to behave like guns, then D&D's hit point system models that poorly. It's an imperfect, if workable, system for other weapons, but its flaws stand out when dealing with single-shot weapons that are supposed to be deadly.

With D&D's hit point system, you can't hunt with a gun, you can't have a pistol duel, no one (experienced) ever falls in the initial volley of fire, etc.

I don't think you can separate the two in D&D: the ability to take down a high HP character with one shot is, by definition, an increase in lethality.

The ability to take down a high-hp character with one shot is not, by definition, an increase in lethality -- unless you do it by simply increasing the damage until it has a chance of a one-shot stop, which then gives it a near-guarantee of a two-shot stop.

Under the D&D model, a 10-hit die character takes 10 normal hits to take down -- nine flesh wounds followed by one telling blow. The "problem" is not that such a character might take nine flesh wounds before finally taking a telling blow; the "problem" is that the first nine shots have roughly zero chance of being a telling blow, and the tenth shot has roughly zero chance of not being a telling blow.

If, in a Western game, a .22 pistol has a 1-in-10 chance of taking someone out, it's not particularly lethal or effective -- it takes roughly 10 shots to take the target out -- but it's a threat from the very first shot. You wouldn't sit across the poker table from somebody with a tiny pistol and say, "That can't hurt me!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The ability to take down a high-hp character with one shot is not, by definition, an increase in lethality

It most certainly is, by definition, an increase in lethality.

If N is the number of creatures you can kill with a given weapon with one shot- and N excludes high-level characters- the ADDITION of being able to kill high-level characters to the number of creatures you can kill with one shot has increased to N + X (where X represents the number of high-level characters now threatened wih one-shotting).

 

[prosfilaes]

With D&D's hit point system, you can't hunt with a gun, you can't have a pistol duel, no one (experienced) ever falls in the initial volley of fire, etc.

There's nothing different from an arrow attack.

Under the D&D model, a 10-hit die character takes 10 normal hits to take down -- nine flesh wounds followed by one telling blow. The "problem" is not that such a character might take nine flesh wounds before finally taking a telling blow; the "problem" is that the first nine shots have roughly zero chance of being a telling blow, and the tenth shot has roughly zero chance of not being a telling blow.

That's HP, not guns. And again, that's a feature, not a bug. It may not be a feature you like, but it is a feature. If you want Rolemaster, you know where to find it.

If, in a Western game, a .22 pistol has a 1-in-10 chance of taking someone out, it's not particularly lethal or effective -- it takes roughly 10 shots to take the target out -- but it's a threat from the very first shot. You wouldn't sit across the poker table from somebody with a tiny pistol and say, "That can't hurt me!"

It doesn't take 10 shots to take the target out; 7 gives you a 52.2% chance of killing someone. And you might very well sit across a table with a 1-in-10 chance of hitting you (that killed you if it hit) and say "That can't hurt me"; that kind of bluff is well within the range of a hero.

 

[mmadsen]

It most certainly is, by definition, an increase in lethality.

No, it is not an increase in lethality; it is a change in lethality.

An attack that ablates one-tenth of a target's hit points per hit will cause nine flesh wounds followed by one telling blow.

An attack that has a one-in-ten chance of taking a target out might take that target out in one hit, or two, or three, ..., or ten, or eleven, ..., or twenty, or twenty-one, ...

The two mechanics yield different distributions of results, even if both have the same expected value of ten hits to take the target out.

If you want to play out hunting with a Kentucky long rifle, dueling with a brace of pistols, or boarding a merchant ship with guns blazing, the first combat system gives jarring results: the single-shot guns cause zero casualties (against two-HD animals and characters).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Your assertion does not change the underlying logic: N + X > N.

You are asking for an increase in lethality by trying to include more targets within a weapon's "one shot, one kill" lethal range.

A weapon that had a 10% chance of killing ANY creature in the game would be selected by EVERY PC. That's a sign that it's too good.

 

[mmadsen]

You are asking for an increase in lethality by trying to include more targets within a weapon's "one shot, one kill" lethal range.

It is simultaneously reducing the number of targets in its "ten shots, one kill" range.

If you have ten hit dice, and you're facing two different attacks, which is more lethal, the one that does one die of damage, or the one that forces a saving throw that you'll only fail on a natural 1?

The first attack has no chance of taking you down on its first nine shots, and then it will take you down on the tenth. The second has a 1-in-20 chance of taking you down on each hit.

 

[prosfilaes]

The two mechanics yield different distributions of results, even if both have the same expected value of ten hits to take the target out.

No, a gun that kills once every 10 shots has a 50/50 chance of killing someone in 7 shots.

If you want to play out hunting with a Kentucky long rifle, dueling with a brace of pistols, or boarding a merchant ship with guns blazing, the first combat system gives jarring results: the single-shot guns cause zero casualties (against two-HD animals and characters).

That's false; two-HD creatures can have as low as 2 hit points. A 1d8 weapon has a 28% chance of killing two d6 HD creatures with no Con modifier. In any case, I don't know why it makes more sense for daggers not to kill anyone in one hit then guns not to kill anyone in one hit.

If you have ten hit dice, and you're facing two different attacks, which is more lethal, the one that does one die of damage, or the one that forces a saving throw that you'll only fail on a natural 1?

The second. Way more lethal. Most battles don't last ten rounds for the first to accumulate to a lethal level. If the battle does last multiple rounds, you can run away, activate a healing belt, get the cleric to heal you, etc. The first provides no warning; you're just dead.