Guns in a fantasy setting

[ValhallaGH]

I am amazed at how irrelevant all this discussion is.

The original poster (you all remember Elf Witch) was looking for firearms to run a Western. Sure there will still a few muzzle-loaders around, but the six-shot revolvers, breach-loading shotguns, and lever-action rifles were a heck of a lot more common.

Simply add a wizard and a cleric to this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mnFsrmsA94]GUN FIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL - YouTube[/ame]

 

[mmadsen]

A pistol doing 1D8 damage has a better than 60% chance of putting down your average soldier, goblin or orc.

And it has roughly no chance of putting down a 2nd-level ("experienced") combatant.

Further, it has roughly zero chance of not putting down an inexperienced combatant in three shots.

A weapon doesn't have to be hyper-lethal (in real life) to have a good chance of taking someone out with one hit. It does though in a game using hit points.

I would only agree if, in the same game, you can kill someone with a single deep stab with a longsword.

In real life and in certain genres of action fiction, like samurai movies, we do expect a single sword blow to have a good chance of cutting someone down. In other genres, like Hollywood period pieces, that doesn't happen very often

So, it strains credibility that no experienced combatant ever goes down to one mundane sword stroke, in a game like D&D, but it's not that jarring, because we expect that a sword fight should involve a certain amount of back and forth -- and armored combatants certainly can take many glancing blows before their guard is beat down, etc.

Guns, on the other hand, are specifically known for bypassing the skilled defense of an experienced fighter. We see this in Indiana Jones, in various samurai movies, in real-life historical lamentations on the passing of the knight with the rise of the musket, etc.

Does it? If you insist on realistic gun rules, then they should be ... realistic. Which means probably one shot per combat, unless you've got a brace of pistols.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't complaining that gun-fighters should get more than one shot per gun per fight; I was complaining that that one shot never kills anyone (experienced). Shooting the enemy sergeant, or captain's mate, or whatever only ever wings him. Then you have to sword-fight for a while, even though he supposedly has a lead ball in him.

Certainly there should be some chance of a grazing shot, but it shouldn't be 100 percent.

You're right. The official stats for a deer has it with 7 hp (2 Hit Dice, low Con, some Forgotten Realms book of all places). A typical NPC archer (warrior, I guess) might be doing 1d8+1 damage with a bow.

I couldn't find official stats for a deer, but a pony is given 11 hit points, by the book, which means an ordinary hunter with an ordinary hunting bow has roughly zero chance of killing a pony with one arrow. His 1d6-damage arrows also have roughly zero chance of killing a 7-hp deer with one hit -- but a very good chance with two.

Should an ordinary hunter with an ordinary bow have a high chance of killing a deer (or a pony) with one arrow? Probably not, but it shouldn't be close to zero -- in either reality or in fiction.

And for killing people... knives are a Hell of a lot more likely to kill you than a gun.... Bleeding out is bad.

My concern isn't overall lethality so much as one-shot lethality. Both knives and guns have the capacity, in real life, to kill experienced combatants in one good hit, or not to kill ordinary folks in dozens of hits.

Guns aren't hyper-lethal, but if they can't kill in one shot, they don't feel like guns.

 

[Elf Witch]

I want thank everyone for their ideas and suggestions I have copied and saved so many of them to my western game file.

I am looking for copies of some of the books that were suggested and I bookmarked the web pages suggested, I am going to mull every thing over and see what churns out of my brain.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Guns in particular are known for killing with one well-placed shot, and early guns only got one shot. So it hurts the flavor of the game quite demonstrably when a musketball only ever serves as a good start to a swordfight.

Similarly, it hurts the game when you realize you can't kill a deer with an arrow.

And it has roughly no chance of putting down a 2nd-level ("experienced") combatant.
<snip>
In real life and in certain genres of action fiction, like samurai movies, we do expect a single sword blow to have a good chance of cutting someone down. In other genres, like Hollywood period pieces, that doesn't happen very often
<snip>
So, it strains credibility that no experienced combatant ever goes down to one mundane sword stroke, in a game like D&D, but it's not that jarring, because we expect that a sword fight should involve a certain amount of back and forth -- and armored combatants certainly can take many glancing blows before their guard is beat down, etc.

Guns, on the other hand, are specifically known for bypassing the skilled defense of an experienced fighter. We see this in Indiana Jones, in various samurai movies, in real-life historical lamentations on the passing of the knight with the rise of the musket,
<snip>

Guns aren't hyper-lethal, but if they can't kill in one shot, they don't feel like guns.

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. Every complaint you make about the feel of the game re:guns could be made about 2-hand swords. You even touch on it with your discussion of katanas on film.

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

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.

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.

 

[Shades of Green]

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. Every complaint you make about the feel of the game re:guns could be made about 2-hand swords. You even touch on it with your discussion of katanas on film.

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

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.

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.

I think that mmadsen would love a combination of E6 and OD&D demographics - when a Veteran is a 1st level Fighter with only, say, 1d10 HP, a gun with 1d10 damage is going to have a chance of killing a veteran combatant. Higher-level characters are cinematic heroes/villains - who rarely die from a single gun-shot in most cases, anyway.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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. Every complaint you make about the feel of the game re:guns could be made about 2-hand swords. You even touch on it with your discussion of katanas on film.

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

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.

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.

Exactly - complaining that a gun can/can't do it is silly, given that neither can a dagger, a sword, or a bloody big axe.

A well placed blow/shot is lethal, regardless of weapon - a rapier through the heart as much as a bullet through the head. Me, I'd be worried if somebody is swinging a bloody big axe at me.

Nothing in D&D is all that lethal, that is just the way the game is.

So for me, I just took the crossbow, and modified up and down from there. (And made guns a Martial weapon, not Simple or Exotic.)

The Auld Grump

 

[KiloGex]

I've found that the information on firearms in Iron Kingdoms is very well balanced and detailed. The damages are higher than Pathfinder, however the reload times and misfire system is much more engaging and realistic.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I've found that the information on firearms in Iron Kingdoms is very well balanced and detailed. The damages are higher than Pathfinder, however the reload times and misfire system is much more engaging and realistic.

My problem with the guns in Iron Kingdoms wasn't the rules - it was the cost per shot....

Gunpowder is cheap! But that funky alchemical crap they use in IK would price the gun right out of the army....

The Auld Grump

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Guns aren't hyper-lethal, but if they can't kill in one shot, they don't feel like guns.

Kill humans in one shot, yes, but monsters, not necessarily. It's just as much a trope of action movies that certain creatures are so tough that it requires a huge amount of firepower to bring them down.
One bullet shouldn't be able to kill a Tremors graboid, a Farscape Scarran, a B5 Shadow, Jason Voorhees, or a Predator. Many bullets might eventually do the job. But, as you note, depending on the style of story a bullet might need to be capable of killing the greatest human swordsman in the world in one hit.

So perhaps if you were using a wound/vitality system, guns could be one of a very few things with a huge crit range, such that they almost always went to wounds, and the Scarrans of the world would either have high DR that applies against wound damage or an insane wound total. Certain monsters would still need a huge amount of firepower to bring down, but humans relying mostly on vitality points would be generally vulnerable to guns (and, I would say, arrows and bolts).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But that funky alchemical crap they use in IK would price the gun right out of the army....

Well, given the history of RW gunpowder, making it an expensive alchemical Exotic weapon really isn't that far out of line. At least, not if you're looking at the early days of firearms.

Hell- you could even have gunpowder variants...some that produce more fire, some that produce more black smoke...some that produce glowing smoke...

Possibilities, possibilities...

Then there's the more exotic gunpowder weapons, like the Korean Hwacha.

Besides, I wouldn't worry about the army's cost of gunpowder. Remember, we're generally talking about kingdoms- dictatorships- when we're talking about FRPG governments. They'd be able to conscript or otherwise employ their own alchemists to create gunpowder...at a much lower price than on the free market.

Actually, they could even make non-military or non-Noble possession of a firearm illegal.