D&D 5E Guns in your world, and in mine!

[TheCosmicKid]

Arguing that the AC contribution of physical medieval armours should make hitting a target more difficult with a firearm is supporting precisely this contention.

Am I also allowed to dictate to you what contention you are supporting, or is this strawmannery strictly one-way?

 

[jasper]

Firearms would be simple range weapons, 1d4+1 bludgeoning . Pistol Ammunition (range 30/120). Muskets ammunition (range 80/320), loading, two handed. So better than darts or slings, less than bows. And leave AC along because I don't want to add another formula to the mix.
Now you could do what T20 (traveler based on 3E system) did. Have your con be life blood. And have fire arms do x dice. With armor worn reducing damage Ac -10= reduction. Ex. Chain AC 13-10 = 3 pt damage reduction.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Because the ill-conceived argument being bandied about here is that Armour Class (to ANY degree and from ANY armour type) should apply vs. firearms...

Problem being that there is an equally ill-conceived argument being bandied about that NO D&D style armours should apply vs firearms of ANY type.

We are aware that the primary reasons for the decline of armour and rise of firearms were more to do with economics than actual effectiveness of one vs the other. We're also aware that relatively primitive armours could be made effective against even rather sophisticated firearms: just ask the Kelly brothers.

I'm not going to bother linking the various videos showing penetration of materials and medieval armours - there are plenty to choose from.

Indeed. Of both firearms, bows, crossbows and most hand weapons as well.
Certainly for most martial weapons, if a weapon was utterly ineffective against the armour of its time, it would have been discarded.
The point that you may be missing is that there is actually an area between "ignores the armour" and "utterly incapable of penetrating". Glancing blows and non-optimal angles of impact are a thing.

The heavier armours against such weapons certainly slowed the bullets down - and deformed them as they penetrated. Slower, deformed bullets do MORE damage to a living creatures innards than a fast sphere blowing through in many cases. So armour on occasion actually made things worse for the target...

. . . And sometime that "slowed down" you speak of was enough to bring the ball to a stop, giving no worse than a nasty bruise. From actual anecdotes we're aware that even arming jackets and leather were capable of doing this. Sturdier armour was just better at it. The fact that we have examples of armour stopping musket balls doesn't obviate the examples of musket balls managing to penetrate armour. And nobody here is arguing that it does.

In any case, the mechanics of the counter argument reminds me of that used for climate change denial. Ignore the significant body of demonstrable evidence showing 95% of armours didn't do squat to protect vs. firearms

95% sounds a lot higher than the studies I've seen on the subject seem to indicate. Could you pass me a link to the source paper please?

(such as those overwhelmingly represented in fantasy fiction and rpgs)... cherry pick the one corner case exception, and then argue that because super-heavy plate could on occasion stop early bullets at optimal ranges, that all armour should be counted as effective protection in the mechanics of the rules.

In the end, the majority of people here seem to be aware that there is no absolute truth one way or the other, any more than there is regarding many other weapons and the AC system. Thus, the basis that you should be judging the mechanics that you want to use on should be more to do with the actual game.
What role in both mechanics and setting do you want firearms to fulfil in your game?

 

[Caliburn101]

Am I also allowed to dictate to you what contention you are supporting, or is this strawmannery strictly one-way?

I am genuinely surprised and disappointed you would resort to calling 'strawman' on a reasoned argument opposed to your own position.

I don't believe there is anything remotely misleading about my position, or my summary of the other side of the debate. If you cannot, or will not seek to understand a plainly stated counter-position, I really don't think you are in a valid position to label it.

For the sake of argument, I will assume miscomprehension on your part and attempt to further clarify.

*************************************************

Some people are arguing that some heavy armours (heavy plate) could stop early bullets, and this was more widespread than my take on it.

No-one is currently arguing that anything but the minority of armours (the heaviest) could prevent the penetration of a musket style bullet.

The argument contrary to mine is that because a minority of armours could stop a bullet, that all armours should provide as effective a defence (in the form of AC) against firearms as they do against daggers, arrows and spears.

My argument is that because the majority of armours (and I argue a high proportion of these) couldn't stop bullets, the AC of armour should not count against firearms.

Proportionality is therefore on the side of my position.

If primitive crafted materials could stop bullets reliably, the widespread use of 'pavise musketeers' would have been noted by history - a shield can be thicker and more resistant than any armour...

... and yet this never happened in the real world.

In game terms, to allow for the minority discrepancy in my overall position, I would use the following house rule for firearms;

1. Firearm user makes an attack roll (as per the standard rules)
2. Defender makes a Dex save (as per the standard rules), and if wearing heavy armour does so with the bonus for light cover (to take account of the chance of deflection or bullet-stopping under ideal conditions)

History is clear - avoidance of bullets has nearly always been the best option (until the invention of Kevlar), and usually achieved either by cover (already workable with the standard rules), or by being unpredictable and swift in movement (as most readily simulated by a Dex save against the attack roll).

I hope you can agree at least in principle that heavy armour giving a light cover bonus to the Dex save takes the limited stopping power of armour against firearms it's due consideration.

It is, I hope you would agree, a much better solution that the one used by Paizo with Pathfinder...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I am genuinely surprised and disappointed you would resort to calling 'strawman' on a reasoned argument opposed to your own position.

It's not an argument against my own position. It's an argument against a position which you have made up and attributed to me. When somebody makes this kind of argument, I am going to call it a strawman, because that's how the term is defined in all the textbooks. And when somebody is arrogant enough to insist that their made-up position is mine even after I have told them quite clearly that it isn't, then I couldn't care less if they are "genuinely disappointed" in me for calling them out, any more than I'd care about the judgment of a guy who just keyed my car. After all the disrespect you've shown, you don't get to take the moral high ground.

There is nothing remotely misleading about my position, or my summary of the other side of the debate. If you cannot, or will not seek to understand a plainly stated counter-position, you are in no position to label it.

No, you don't get to blame this on my lack of understanding. You're right that your position is plainly stated; there's not much to misunderstand in "their contention that guns act just like more primitive weapons against medieval armours of all types". Your problem is not that I don't understand this statement, it's that this statement is false: you are saying that's my contention, but it isn't. You are the one who has failed to understand the counter-position.

 

[Caliburn101]

Incomplete post, see below.

 

[Caliburn101]

I can see that continuing to explain myself further on this issue to you is pointless. I am not remotely interested in debating with anyone resorting to misrepresenting my argument and then using that as a basis for being insulting... so I won't be commenting further.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I can see that continuing to explain myself further on this issue to you is pointless. I am not remotely interested in debating with anyone resorting to misrepresenting my argument and then using that as a basis for being insulting... so I won't be commenting further.

Good riddance.

Now:

I hope you can agree at least in principle that heavy armour giving a light cover bonus to the Dex save takes the limited stopping power of armour against firearms it's due consideration.

Three days ago:

Because the ill-conceived argument being bandied about here is that Armour Class (to ANY degree and from ANY armour type) should apply vs. firearms...

A ridiculous argument.

It's fine to change your argument. It's not fine to change it, then pretend that it's always been that way and that I've misrepresented you. Nor to pretend that you haven't yourself been insulting. And if you were going to to make that pretense, you should at least have gone back and edited or deleted a post or two.

 

[Jago]

I had an entire thread about this before The Crash ... hm. Saddening that all that discussion was lost. Anyway, I'm going to merrily plop myself in here because I could use some community opinion.

Now, I'm not going to get involved in any realism vs. mechanics and all that, but I would like some opinions.

I'm going to try running a game with a very Renaissance bent where Wheelocks are definitely a thing, though like their historical counterparts are going to be pretty rare and expensive compared to a simple(r) sword or crossbow.

My mechanical idea behind them factors in everything from 5E, just to keep it simple, but I still want to make them a little unique. The big difference would be the "Inaccurate" quality: Firearms cannot add Dex to damage.

All firearms are Simple Weapons.

The current concept is:

Wheelock Pistol
3d6 Bludgeoning/Piercing
3 lbs.
Ammunition (range 30/90), Inaccurate, Loading, Reload (1 Action)
Costs 1,000 GP

Wheelock Musket
5d4 Bludgeoning/Piercing
8 lbs.
Ammunition (range 50/100), Inaccurate, Loading, Two-Handed, Reload (1 Action)
Costs 1,200 GP

Ammunition
Firearm Cartridges (20) - 5 GP


For Crafting both firearms and ammunition, the crafter must be proficient in Tinker Tools and Alchemist's Supplies.

Firearms can never lose the Loading or Reload properties. The Sharpshooter Feat affects them normally.


The idea was to make these be pretty potent, scary, 1-shot weapons (at lower levels), but then making them relatively useless unless you really want to sacrifice your turn reloading it (during which time someone with a Bow or a Crossbow + The Feat can get off a series of shots and add their Dex to each).

 

[Caliburn101]

Good riddance.

Now:
Three days ago:
​

It's fine to change your argument. It's not fine to change it, then pretend that it's always been that way and that I've misrepresented you. Nor to pretend that you haven't yourself been insulting. And if you were going to to make that pretense, you should at least have gone back and edited or deleted a post or two.

You regard me posting a workaround to incorporate a compromise with your ridiculous assertions about armour as a pretence? This is the worst kind of crass duplicity, and I find your cynicism in having once again redefined what I have said crass and beneath contempt.

I openly offer compromise, you twist it out of shape and throw it back in my face.

Thankfully the updated tools on this site now afford me to exercise choice in the quality of respondent I see on my screen.

Good riddance indeed!