Guns in D&D?

Sigh. Read some books on early guns. Flintlocks? 2-3 shots per minute, tops. (3-4 rounds to reload.) Very easy to learn how to use. Very Easy! At natural 1 = misfire or worse. (A 1 in 20 misfire chance is about right historically.) Chance for disease! One of the things that made guns dangerous was the filth the bullet slammed into the wound, increasing the chance of infection. Unfortunately, another of the things that made them dangerous was that they broke bones much more readily than arrows/bolts. This is something that just can't be dealt with using the D&D rules as they are. Short Range! Except for rifles, muzzle loaders were notoriously innaccurate. (A smothbore pistol? Ten feet to hit what you aimed at, if you were lucky. Anything else was pure chance!)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Ed_Laprade said:
You know, starting off a comment with an exasperated, eyes rolling, why-must-I-suffer-these-fools flounce like that kinda pulls the teeth of any argument you may be trying to present.

Just a friendly FYI, Ed.
 

painandgreed said:
Except then you get into the verisimilitude arguement that guns (of the period) don't pack a bigger punch than that shortbow or javelin. Guns gained their place because it was easier to train troops and cheaper to equip them with guns than with other weapons. In D&D terms, they need to be simple weapons and cheaper and lighter than shortbows so you can arm your commoners with them. Then, instead of sending those 20 warriors against the wizard with martial weapons, you can send the 100 commoners with guns and he probably can't kill them all before they get some shots off (and then your warriors can rush in).
See, now here's an angle I wasn't aware of - they didn't pack a bigger punch? I was under the impression that they did, and were largely instrumental into the downfall of heavy armor (armor of proof became too heavy to be feasible, etc). As for easier and cheaper to train with - I know that was the fact with crossbows, but not with firearms.

Off the top of my head, the first workup that comes to mind would be Exotic (specialized training needed early on for the care and feeding of. Musketeers, and the like), slower reload than a hvy crossbow, shorter range, comparable crit figures (19-20/x2), heavier damage, expensive ammo.

As a game world progressed (talking over the course of generations here, rather than in the run of a single campaign) they'd eventually shift down from exotic to martial (training with them becomes standard in most or all armed service fields), though probably never down to simple in any reasonably timeframe. Rather, Martial Weapon Proficiency (Firearms) would just be a common feat choice amongst those non-fighting types that'd use them. But by the time they're shifting down to Martial, you're also seeing other facets of the gameworld changing to react to their prevelance. Much as you said - for reasons of versimilitude.
 


Sejs said:
See, now here's an angle I wasn't aware of - they didn't pack a bigger punch? I was under the impression that they did, and were largely instrumental into the downfall of heavy armor (armor of proof became too heavy to be feasible, etc). As for easier and cheaper to train with - I know that was the fact with crossbows, but not with firearms.

I haven't done detailed scholarship on the subject, but couldn't a heavy crossbow punch through plate in much the same way an early firearm could? (damage to the individual may have been different, of course)
 


Lots of good links to historical firearms info.

Keep in mind, however, that the D&D rules already hold Medieval realism at arms length in order to make the game more fun. I would highly recommend doing with firearms what seems more fun than worrying about realism in a game that already deals in abstractions.

It seems to me the two roads to go down would be:

1. Simple to use... once per combat. Simple weapons, but they take many rounds to reload. The game effect is going to be that everyone that can afford one is going to carry them (assuming they do decent damage) and use them in the first round. People with quickdraw and multiple attacks will want to carry around a bunch of them. That could be fun. Certainly introduces a new dynamic.

2. Hard to use, but worth learning. Exotic weapons, no harder to reload than a crossbow, but probably more damage (or better crits). This is the DMG approach, more or less. This approach means that only a few people will carry them, but those that do will get a lot of use of out them. In the end, it becomes more of a flavor thing than anything. They're basically exotic crossbows.

Two possible missteps:

1. Armor penetration. Yeah, firearms eventually became good at this. But so did bows. So did certain melee weapons. It seems a strange time to introduce the very real aspect of armor penetration for firearms but not other weapons. Plus, you have the complication of magic armor--is it so easily penetrated? If you use an armor as DR variant, this could work. Otherwise, I think it's too wonky for D&D.

2. Explosive misfire chances. Unless you're already using some kind of fumble rules (which personally, I don't feel are worth it in the end--I don't think the d20 offers enough variation to make the chance realistic, which is also why I don't consider the 1 an auto miss and a 20 an auto hit) it seems odd that firearms carry this danger and other weapons don't. It seems odd to me that if you have 20 riflemen line up fire their weapons, one will have his gun blow up in his face every time. But maybe it's years of playing Rolemaster long ago that have turned me off of that kind of thing.

Also, when thinking about "how firearms changed the real world" keep in mind that D&D isn't the real world. There are still spells, manticores and ghosts to deal with. Even if the enemy nation next door has cannons, your castle walls aren't useless in that they protect you from the owlbears and dire wolves prowling the countryside. Even if enemy humans carry guns that can puncture your armor, you'll still want to wear it to protect you from dragon claws and teeth.

Lastly, don't forget that in a D&D world with firearms, magical firearms and ammunition are likely to be as common as any other kind of magical weapons.
 

Sejs said:
You know, starting off a comment with an exasperated, eyes rolling, why-must-I-suffer-these-fools flounce like that kinda pulls the teeth of any argument you may be trying to present.

Just a friendly FYI, Ed.
Yeah, sorry about that. Its a nasty habit I really need to get rid of!
 

I think flintlocks (or matchlocks) have a place, especially in Eberron. Wizards would use them because of their knowledge of Alchemy (cue mention of Warhammer Skaven Warlocks with pistols). Dwarves might use gunpowder charges for mining, and are the most likely race to invent the infantry square (as used by Napoleonic-era British Army). Gnomes would find guns useful as a weapon which does not rely on strength, and would probably be the main manufacturers of wheellocks.
 

Remove ads

Top