Guns N DND

[Felix]

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

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

 

[ARandomGod]

I do it simpler. They're relatively powerful, they cost a good amount to make, and 'spark' is a cantrip.

"They have guns sire"
"OK, bring out the apprentice mages! Apprentices, cast 'spark'"

BOOM.

 

[Terath Ninir]

There is a big difference between modern firearms and ancient firearms. Ancient firearms were not very good, and really start to look bad in comparison to firearms.

BTW, firearms didn't kill armour; they just provided the coup de grace. Pike formations and crossbows killed the armoured knight quite effectively.

 

[Kapture]

Thanks for the input, everybody.

I am going to scratch the damage reduction house-rule.

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.

Ah! Good. That's mostly what I wanted. I wanted guns to be a choice for PCs, not a trump.

 

[Jesus_marley]

of course you could always go with a gnomish built rail gun... uses lodestones. weighs a ton though... literally.

*runs away laughing maniacally*

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

Sorry to take so long to get back, I had forgotten about this thread.

Guns were indeed a part of what took armor off the battlefield, yes. Armor began being designed to withstand crossbow bolts somewhat (Maximillian plate), but crossbows were dead slow.

Guns were not as good at going through armor, but very good at killing horses. And a heavily armored knight on foot is doomed. Early guns relied on volume of fire, something not possible with the arbalest (heavy crossbow), which takes more than a minute to reload. Like a lot of people here, I am sure, I have fired both. When you are aiming at either the horse or the rider, and it does not matter much which you hit the inaccuracy of the gun does not matter as much.

A crossbow bolt was a truly scary thing, something not covered well by the rules. The square head could puncture a quarter inch of steel, by comparison 'proofed'* armor was relatively common. It was a crossbow shot that used to be blamed for the death of chivalry, the greatest knight in the land was shot through the armor on his back and killed by a single crossbow bolt. I wish that I could remember the knight's name. Does ayone else remember?

An early handgun fired an enormous ball, and the seal between the ball and the barrel was not the best, a lot of the force was expended around the ball. If enough was vented in this manner you could end up with a weld shot, where the lead ball melted and welded itself to the inside of the barrel. The story of handguns being as dangerous to the user as the foe is a gross exageration, though eye injuries were common, because of the design of a primitive gun it would vent through the touch hole, straight into the eye of the user. You would fire your gun with your eyes closed, which also explains the lack of accuracy of the weapon. The invention of the matchlock made a huge difference, you could keep your eyes open until you pulled the lever at the last second. Then came the Wheellock, one of my favorite silly weapons, though I have never gotten to fire one. You know those toys that shoot sparks by spinning a wheel against a bit of flint? Well that was how it worked.

Some of the tactics used also minimised the effect of handguns - the Spanish Hapsburgs would put them in units 30 ranks deep, about a dozen ranks of which would actually get a chance to fire in a typical battle. For some gods unknown reason they made all their units (called 'battles') square, including their missile troops. And do not get me started on the caricol, possibly the stupidest technique ever invented for warfare!

My two favorite blackpowder guns that I have fired - A bucaneer musket (7 feet long, muzzle more than an inch across) and a Brown Bess that saw over a hundred years of service! First in the British Army, then the British Navy - where it was cut down to carbine length and the muzzle flared, then sold to the Spanish, and finally ending up in Mexico! Impressive, and the gun can still be fired!

Just in case you couldn't figure it out, I like early guns!

The Auld Grump, though a Brown Bess ain't all that 'early'...

*EDIT* Proofed armor was armor where the crafter would take ten steps away from the armor and fire a pistol at the breastplate. Proofed armor had a dent and a big lead splotch where the ball failed to penetrate. Not that anyone ever used a half charge in the pistol, no siree Bob!

*EDIT 2* And like Cyberzombie mentioned, the Pike broke the back of the massed cavalry charge, which was the other major factor in the end of armor. Eventually all that would be left would be the plackart - the portion of a breatplate that covered your gut, and the buffcoat, a heavy leather coat that would not stop a bullet, but woulld stop splinters and stones that were thrown up by a near miss.

 

[Endur]

Not sure if you are referring to him, but Richard the Lionhearted, King of England, was slain by a crossbow bolt. Richard liked crossbows and all other weapons.

It was a crossbow shot that used to be blamed for the death of chivalry, the greatest knight in the land was shot through the armor on his back and killed by a single crossbow bolt. I wish that I could remember the knight's name. Does ayone else remember?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Not sure if you are referring to him, but Richard the Lionhearted, King of England, was slain by a crossbow bolt. Richard liked crossbows and all other weapons.

No, though I found his death amusing. It was a Christian city he was besieging at the time. Richard was a bloody minded ald Quean!

This was much later, around 16th century I think. Guns were in use, but not all that common.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* As a second aside, gunpowder was not expensive, it was cheap! The most expensive part is the sulphur. Saltpeter was taken from manure piles, and charcoal is made by brning would in as sealed area.