Gunslingers in Your World? It's More Likely Than You Think

[Loonook]

I do not aim with my hand; he who aims with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I aim with my eye.

I do not shoot with my hand; He who shoots with his hand has forgotten the face of his father. I shoot with my mind.

I do not kill with my gun; he who kills with his gun has forgotten the face of his father. I kill with my heart.


So, I've been thinking on it, and thinking on it... And I just do not see a need for firearms to be eliminated from a Fantasy setting. In a world where men walk around with iron golems, flaming swords, and the ability to open doors to the Planes, I'm just not feeling the complete need to remove the gun as a valid weapon choice, or penalize it as heavily as it has been with series like Pathfinder. We let ourselves be trapped in the idea that guns could overthrow society with their introduction...

Let me present a different option to you.

Why not just use the Line of Eld or the Order of the White as your example of how gund are treated? Guns aren't toys, and they are definitely Exotic weapons, and those who know of the ways of the gun are secretive. While some simplistic poorly-made firearms exist outside of this group, these men carry their iron like ancestral daisho. The guns are relics of a living age, but really how much more powerful would they be in comparison to any other weapons?

Deadlands d20 marks its most powerful non-scatter gun at 2d8+2. I will not suggest scatterguns are perfect for every game in their Deadlands form, but the benefits of carrying a firearm (critical of 19-20) are weighed by the possibility of jamming (reliability that can be reduced). So 5% of the time that gun is going to jam, or have the ability to do so.

So, what is the point of this? Allow the firearm. Gunslingers as a group of warriors of technology, who use a dangerous arm and know the hazards of their use. Would a gunslinger use a firearm in all cases? No, of course not. The use of axes, slingshots, bows, etc. would not be uncommon, just due to the rarity of ammunition/need to reload with this expensive material. Not a lot of people who know the ways of the gun, and the party would hae to stop to craft ammunition and repair their guns, possibly reducing their reliability.

And also, a group of semi-Paladins who protects the world through their science and technology? How can you not love it? .

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[delericho]

Firearms fit some worlds, and they don't fit others. I can certainly see a group not wanting to include firearms (of any sort) in their "Lord of the Rings"-esque fantasy world. Conversely, I can most certainly see a place for them right alongside the artifice of Eberron.

(Personally, when including firearms, I basically just make them reskinned crossbows - decent damage Simple weapons, but with the weakness of a relatively slow (but still unrealistically fast) reload.)

So, include them if you wish. Exclude them if you wish. Either works for me.

(I do take some issue with your thread title, though. It's not "more likely than you think". We're talking about imaginary worlds here, constructed by the DM and the players. And that applies even if they're using a pre-gen setting - they bring life to the setting, are likely to make at least some changes, and are of course free to make whatever changes they wish. So gunslingers are, in fact, exactly as likely as the group thinks!)

 

[Jackinthegreen]

One of the main resistances concerning firearms is supposedly D&D is meant to be at least similar to a medieval setting. In practice of course it doesn't turn out like that because certain non-magical stuff is most definitely comparable to things we have today and far superior to things back then, and many magical/psionic effects outright trounce what we have even now.

Someone is going to make a boomstick, period.

 

[Samloyal23]

I find it kind of logical to have less tech with more magic, at a certain point magic being available enough to make something like gunpowder obsolete. But in the campaign I am designing now the anti-magical terrain of one dwarven community makes magic harder to use, so they have well-developed flintlocks. It is all a matter of balance and continuity within the setting...

 

[Omegaxicor]

I find it kind of logical to have less tech with more magic, at a certain point magic being available enough to make something like gunpowder obsolete. But in the campaign I am designing now the anti-magical terrain of one dwarven community makes magic harder to use, so they have well-developed flintlocks. It is all a matter of balance and continuity within the setting...

My thoughts exactly, who would make a gun when s/he can buy a scroll of magic missile...

you, and many others, may want it for a character (I want it for mine only for the novelty) but would it really be thought up in the world that doesn't need it?

 

[Samloyal23]

My thoughts exactly, who would make a gun when s/he can buy a scroll of magic missile...

you, and many others, may want it for a character (I want it for mine only for the novelty) but would it really be thought up in the world that doesn't need it?

It all depends on the logic of the individual setting. I decided to come up with a very specific set of reasons why guns exist in my setting, and I'm still looking at some fairly strict limitations on them. But I have other campaigns that I have worked on where having guns would not have worked well at all...

 

[delericho]

My thoughts exactly, who would make a gun when s/he can buy a scroll of magic missile...

Anyone who can't afford to field an army of wizards?

See, that's the thing about firearms - once you get past the really early and exotic models, they pretty quickly become something that people can be taught to use quickly and easily (much like crossbows), and they can be mass-produced relatively quickly and easily (much like crossbows).

And firearm technology fairly quickly outstripped the capabilities of crossbow technology, thus supplanting it on the battlefield. (It took a bit longer to outstrip the most powerful longbows... but those took years of training to use effectively, where firearms took, what, weeks?)

And so it is in the fantasy world - yes, you could raise an army of wizards, have them mass-produce scrolls of magic missile, and have a resulting unit that would probably be better than a unit of riflemen... but for the same money you can have 100 wizards or 10,000 riflemen. Suddenly it's not such a clear-cut question, is it?

you, and many others, may want it for a character (I want it for mine only for the novelty) but would it really be thought up in the world that doesn't need it?

We've never had problems coming up with new ways to kill one another. And even if the early versions of a new technology are less good than the mature forms of an existing technology, it may well still see further research, if it promises the possibility of outstripping the old.

Finally, of course, not all nations will work the same. If the dwarves in the campaign world tend to be non-magical in nature, or even if wizardry is just extremely rare amongst them, it makes sense that they'll devote considerable resources to developing some equaliser against the magically-powered armies of their rivals.

 

[Loonook]

The world doesn't need guns?

In a world where a small group can possess the ability to warp time, summon demons, set the air on fire, call lightning from the heavens, that world does not need something to protect itself?

Let us face it, the world has mages who walk around in it. In essence most worlds exist in a pact of Mutual Assured Destruction between nations. And magic is far more dangerous than any revolver.

The society that contains magicians would love to have a bit of an advantage against them. It is strange that we don't provide any sort of balance against the caster then complain when it is offered . In settings where magic and firearms exist together (Deadlands, Urban Arcana, Dragonstar) the firearm is just an addition, and the possibility of having an item that could do a bit of long-ranged damage for a higher price could actually add a bit to a setting.


Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

We've never had problems coming up with new ways to kill one another.

This. A hundred times this. Those who want to take care of problems violently will devote resources to it. In D&D this often results in magic, but as already mentioned fielding magic-users is expensive and any entity worth its research would at least dabble in nonmagical possibilities.

Sure it's possible to have a setting where they haven't yet discovered firearms in some form, but I'm quite sure it wouldn't take much for any moderately magical society to conceptualize guns, then improve on them substantially through magic, minor or major.

Dangit, now I want to play a gun-toting Artificer.

 

[Omegaxicor]

I think I see your point (I would rather have 100 Wizards than 10,000 riflemen, mostly for versatility) I don't think Guns will ever outstrip Magic but I imagine they be equal to Crossbows pretty early on, IF there was an area with little or no magic then they would advance as we have with guns.

I really think that, from what you have said, guns are just a form of Exotic Crossbow but in worlds without the high magic that many worlds use they could be added with ease (and even to High magic worlds but with less success I think)