Guns N DND

[Kapture]

I've been fussing with some homebrew firearm rules, that limit their "terrible power", making sense in a magical millieu while still being useful to the general populace.

This is what I've come up with so far:

They do damage as Monte Cook's firearms from his Chaositech web enhancement.

Loading a firearm is a move equivalent action that draws an attack of opportunity.

Only adamantine bullets can be enchanted. Guns cannot pass on enchantments because the bullets are deformed ("destroyed/broken") in firing.

I'm thinking of making them less useful vs. damage reduction. I don't think there are many creatures that have /piercing, so they're not so effective as a type of weapon in and of themselves, but they do enough damage that they will overcome low damage resistance fairly regularly anyways.

I was thinking that they might do half damage versus a damage resistance that they can't over come, because they rely more heavilly than other weapons on kinetic energy. It's kinetic energy that does the damage with all weapons: but to overcome damage resistance, the kinetic energy has to be applied by a specific material. ie, a big honking silver sword does more damage because of it's mass than it's kinetic energy. A little silver bullet does more damage because of it's immense kinetic energy rather than because of it's itty bitty mass.

I'm thinking these rules will make guns useful in mundane situations: personal defense, warfare, ambushes, but not so useful in heroic situations: skirmishes, long term adventuring, against supernatural enemies. They would be more useful for NPCs (useful against a broader array of mortal threats in the short term) than PCs (not as useful against one of a kind supernatural threats over the length of an encounter).

Any thoughts? Am I making sense? Is there a more elegant way to tweak that damage resistance mechanic?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

This delves a bit into the area of house rules, but you could say that certain types of ammo work versus certain types of DR - like ammo designed to pierce, other ammo that acts as bludgeoning damage - like AP or dum-dum ammo in real life.

For making them less useful in heroic situations, I like loading taking a standard action. That means you're likely to have a volley of gunfire but then the swords come out.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

We were using Old West level guns in our just-concluded Planescape campaign. 2d10 for a heavy carbine looks like a lot, really, but it's not compared to a high-Str bastard sword hit.

Now, at lower levels, it'd be killer. But we started at 5th level, and so avoided the "oops, the kobold geeked the mage!" issue.

The gatecrasher was using her sniper rifle a lot, but to guarantee effectiveness, it took her time and money to prepare, and consumed a lot of resources. (Wand o' Hunter's Mercy, Wand o' True Strike, specialty ammo, multiple weapons, etc.). Then again, 100+-point crits were kind of nice.

Brad

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I do not know why people seem to think that guns need to be so powerful - they weren't.

Guns were easier to learn to use than a longbow and faster to reload than a heavy crossbow. These are the major reasons for the success of blackpowder weapons on the battlefield.

Primitive firearms actually had worse armor penetration than either a heavy crossbow bolt or an awl tipped shaft. They fire a big, slow, soft bullet.

Damage flesh and bone was greater, I might use 2d6 with a X3 crit, but not much better than that. Bone would be pulverized by the impact, but proofed armor was available (and sometimes faked ).

Because of their ease of use I treat guns as martial rather than exotic weapons. When the rimfire cartidge become available I treat guns as simple weapons.A better argument could be made for Longbows being exotic weapons - 'if you want to train a longbowman start with his grandfather'.

The Auld Grump

 

[Votan]

I've been fussing with some homebrew firearm rules, that limit their "terrible power", making sense in a magical millieu while still being useful to the general populace.

The firearms in the DMG (except possibly the futuristic versions) are not powerful compared to spells. They are nice, no argument about that, but compared to what you burn for them (exotic weapon proficency feat -- could eb a spiked chain instead) they do not seem to be strong compared to a spell.

Why not just use these as written.

 

[Telas]

Guns were easier to learn to use than a longbow and faster to reload than a heavy crossbow. These are the major reasons for the success of blackpowder weapons on the battlefield.

I normally respect your opinions, but I was under the impression that firearms were what took armor off the battlefield. While the first few generations were indeed as dangerous to the gunner as they were to the target, once powder became more consistent, the firearm ruled the battlefield (at least until they had to be reloaded).

Although I do see the longbow-as-exotic argument. Gunnery was relatively easy to learn, even if it wasn't something you want your peasants to know.

Telas

PS As for firearms and D&D. I don't mix 'em. I want to use a firearm, I go to the range and, well, use a firearm.

 

[Shadowdweller]

I normally respect your opinions, but I was under the impression that firearms were what took armor off the battlefield. While the first few generations were indeed as dangerous to the gunner as they were to the target, once powder became more consistent, the firearm ruled the battlefield (at least until they had to be reloaded).

Indeed. But those earlier generations of guns lasted at least a century, and more likely several hundred years in European history before seeing significant use in warfare.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

Indeed. But those earlier generations of guns lasted at least a century, and more likely several hundred years in European history before seeing significant use in warfare.

Firearms saw use in europe in the 13th century and dominated warfare by the 15th century.
Even this domination of warfare didn't mean forces didn't clash with steel: German and Polish cavalry armed with sabres and lances as primary weapons clashed in a handful of engagements during the Polish invasion (at least one such engagement did end however when the Germans were able to get a machine gun in position to deal with the Poles)

Longbows may have indeed been more effective then firearms but this ended with the accuracy allowed with rifling which wasn't regular or cheap enough for widespread military use until the 1840s. As others have noted firearms don't require years of practice to use effectively in battle while longbows do.

It was possible to make armor that would defeat longbows, crossbows and firearms, but it was far too expensive to field entire armies clad in such armor, It was much more expedient to field larger armie. It really wasn't practical in matters of expense compared to effectiveness to field forces with much in the way of body armor until the late 20th century.

 

[Felix]

"terrible power"

What "terrible power"? The non-futuristic guns in the DMG are sub-standard compared to the other mideval weaponry.

Note the drawbacks:

Require Exotic Weapon Prof: (firearms).
Require Standard Action to reload.
Require gunpowder, which is expensive, flammable, destroyed by water, and quickly expended.
Expensive.
Does not allow high STR to modify damage.
Ammunition is relatively expensive and hard to come by.
Easily sundered, difficult to repair.

The advantages:

Good range incriments.
Two die types higher damage (d10 instead of d6).
Cool.

The first advantage of good range is plutzed when you consider that encounter distances are generally within 100-150 feet. And once the enemies close, who needs a good range incriment?

That last advantage had better be pretty darn important for the PC for him to devote his character to wielding these sub-par weapons. He will eternally be relegated to the rear lines for support as he will only be able to attack once in every two rounds. No one will want to be near him in case a fireball ignites his gunpowder.

Really, the guns in the DMG don't need your help to make them weaker. They're already there.

Only adamantine bullets can be enchanted. Guns cannot pass on enchantments because the bullets are deformed ("destroyed/broken") in firing.

Arrows that hit the target are broken as well, and yet bows pass on to them magic... And the bullet being deformed is part of what makes them hurt; soft bullets pulverize bones as they spread out when hitting the body. It's one of the things what made wounds from those things so ugly.

I was thinking that they might do half damage versus a damage resistance that they can't over come, because they rely more heavilly than other weapons on kinetic energy.

Ware introducing physics into game mechanics. It gets messy. Besides, what you say is absurd... every weapon relies on kinetic energy to damage the foe... why do you think STR bonuses are added to melee weapon damage?

but they do enough damage that they will overcome low damage resistance fairly regularly anyways.

Their average damage is around 6. You'd like to make it harder for them to pierce DR when the lowest DR is generally 5/something?

If you

• a) only allow adamantine bullets (which will be prohibitively expensive) to be enchanted.

• b) do not allow guns to transfer magical properties to the bullets fired (and magical ammo is generally much more costly than a magic transferring weapon).

• c) make the bullet even less able to penetrate DR (which reduces the effectiveness of using the bloody expensive things)

then you will have absolutely nobody who is at all familiar with opportunity costs who chooses to use firearms as a weapon, PC or otherwise. If that is your intent, then you will succeed in a grand fashion.

 

[Telas]

Then you will have absolutely nobody who is at all familiar with opportunity costs who chooses to use firearms as a weapon, PC or otherwise.

Sounds like a well-thought-out list of reasons why they aren't there in the first place....



Telas