D&D 5E Guns with a kick! Effect on game world?

[TheCosmicKid]

In a 4E swashbuckling campaign I planned but never got to run, I balanced the muzzle-loading firearms as an "encounter power" -- a minute to load means you fire once in battle and then switch to your sword, but that one shot can be quite a doozy. An extra die or two of damage over the basic attack, and it targeted Reflex defense instead of AC.

I think this approach would work well in 5E as well, if it suits your campaign for firearms to be be more seasoning than main course. If you want dedicated "musketeer" characters, though, obviously you're going to want the unrealistic-but-combat-viable reload times like crossbows have.

 

[Gnarl45]

I'm fine with the way firearms work in 5E. it really just makes them like everything else BUT what if you want to make them more like real life? What if you want the game world to be in the throws of advancement?

What if Firearms ignored armor? Just punched right through it!

If that was the case and guns became more commonplace(not sure how long that would take) what effect would that have on a D&D society?

I'm thinking of creating a game set in a early renaissance type of game world.

Less Tolkien and Conan and more ....something else.

I love the idea of Goblins with crude guns and Dwarven armies pulling massive Cannon.

The first firearms were only marginally better than crossbows. Both were worse weapons than bows .

Crossbows and guns were interesting because any peasant with a week of training could use them efficiently enough to kill a knight. Using a bow or using a sword required significantly more training.

The big change of the end of the Middle Ages wasn't really related to guns. It was more about demographics. In the first half of the Middle Ages, the population shrunk significantly. In an underpopulated Europe, it was more interesting to have few but highly trained knights. In the second half of the Middle Ages, it was better to have hordes of cannon fodder with crossbows and guns.

The impact of guns in your game world is directly tied to how densely populated your world is. Kingdoms with lots of peasants to spare would rely on infantry with guns and pikes. In the more frontier-like parts of your world, they would use heavily armored knights.

But none of this should stop you from playing in a world with guns! 16th century helmets look really lame by the way. You might want to stick to 14th century with smokepowder guns .

 

[77IM]

I was under the impression that early guns weren't that big a deal -- crossbows could do just as much -- but that the first cannons were an immediate game-changer.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I was under the impression that early guns weren't that big a deal -- crossbows could do just as much -- but that the first cannons were an immediate game-changer.

Cannons predated handguns. Which makes sense if you think about it: easier to build big than small.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Cannons predated handguns. Which makes sense if you think about it: easier to build big than small.

They didn't, actually. The fire lance was the first "gun-like" weapon, with gunpowder projecting shrapnel down a bamboo barrel. Then the bamboo was replaced by metal when saltpeter was incorporated (more powerful explosions), and the shrapnel was replaced by more form fitting projectiles. That was the 12th century. Canons, in the way you think of them (being artillery rather than hand held) came after.

 

[Sean Sutter]

I haven't read all the discussions. But I do love D&D and History. It took a long time for guns to become dominant, and armor evolved with it to a point. We know now that people essentially abandoned armor until they realized shrapnel will rip out your brain and a steel helmet is a super good idea.

The most interesting wild-card is that the world already has magic, so lightning fast bolts that stop your heart aren't that game-changing.

Ultimately though, it's already a world where you can basically get decapitated, roll a 10+ three times and then have a cleric pray for you and you'll be able to walk it off. or maybe take a short rest.

Warhammer definitely fleshed out a wonderful dark-renaissance setting. Everything is crap and we died.

 

[Imaculata]

They didn't, actually. The fire lance was the first "gun-like" weapon, with gunpowder projecting shrapnel down a bamboo barrel. Then the bamboo was replaced by metal when saltpeter was incorporated (more powerful explosions), and the shrapnel was replaced by more form fitting projectiles. That was the 12th century. Canons, in the way you think of them (being artillery rather than hand held) came after.

I actually use the Firelance in my campaign. It is awesome.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I haven't read all the discussions. But I do love D&D and History. It took a long time for guns to become dominant, and armor evolved with it to a point. We know now that people essentially abandoned armor until they realized shrapnel will rip out your brain and a steel helmet is a super good idea.

The most interesting wild-card is that the world already has magic, so lightning fast bolts that stop your heart aren't that game-changing.

Ultimately though, it's already a world where you can basically get decapitated, roll a 10+ three times and then have a cleric pray for you and you'll be able to walk it off. or maybe take a short rest.

Warhammer definitely fleshed out a wonderful dark-renaissance setting. Everything is crap and we died.

That's really the key here. Yeah, a bullet would bypass armor and take you out in real life. But in D&D, if taking a lightning bolt or sword to the chest doesn't stop you, neither should a 7.62 round.

 

[Umbran]

They didn't, actually. The fire lance was the first "gun-like" weapon, with gunpowder projecting shrapnel down a bamboo barrel.

It is questionable that this was really "gun like", insofar as it was not intended for what we think of today as "ranged combat". The projectile was present, but it was used as much or more for the flame-throwing effect it produced. It had a range of a few feet, and was intended to shoot the guy you were about to stab anyway - it is a boost in melee, essentially.

To quote a couple of Wikipedia articles:

The earliest firearm was "discovered... in Manchuria dating from the 1200s", and the earliest artistic depiction of a hand cannon is a firearm-wielding figure that was found in twelfth-century Sichuan. The earliest reliable evidence of hand cannons in Europe comes from the 14th century, during which time both Europeans and Arabs appear to have begun using them. In East Asia, the Koreans acquired knowledge of the hand cannon from China in the 14th century. Japan was already aware of gunpowder warfare but did not mass-produce firearms until 1543, when the Portuguese introduced matchlocks known as tanegashima.

Meanwhile, for artillery canons...

The first confirmed use of cannon in Europe was in southern Iberia, by the Moors, in the Siege of Cordoba in 1280. By this time, hand guns were probably in use, as scopettieri—"gun bearers"—were mentioned in conjunction with crossbowmen, in 1281. In Iberia, the "first artillery-masters on the Peninsula" were enlisted, at around the same time.

So, yes, human-carried guns predate artillery, but artillery followed quickly.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I stand corrected.