D&D 5E Has anyone used the firearm rules in the dmg?

[Prickly]

During the public playtest I ran 'Death in Freeport' for some guys at the office who had never roleplayed before. This one-shot expanded into the rest of the freeport trilogy and then out into a homebrew world and custom adventures. The world is at technological level similar to the 16th-17th centuries including gunpowder, cannons and muskets.

During the playtest and after I used firearms simply as reskinned crossbows and this approach has worked well so far. I would like to differentiate firearms and crossbows however and I saw that the DMG has renaissance firearms rules.
I like the grenades and the options for exploding gunpowder barrels (something that I was just thumbsucking) but the firearms bug me. The weapons are similar to crossbows, except more expensive, but the do a lot more damage. A pistol does as much damage as a heavy crossbow.

Has anyone played with these rules? and if so did you find them unbalancing?

 

[Paraxis]

I haven't used the rules in game play so consider that but this is how I see it.

Not going to be an issue, lets look at who is going to use them.

The cost is prohibitive at the earliest levels between the 250-500 gp for just the weapon and the 35 gp for powder horn. You will only be able to afford a pistol around level 3 or so maybe later.

They all have the loading property, and unlike crossbows there is no feat to remove this. So you either need a brace of pistols to fire more than once per round, so just after you can afford firearms for any class that gets multiple attacks at 5th level they are no longer attractive.

They make noise, lots of noise, this usualy keeps them from being used by most rogues on a regular basis but even if they do most of their damage comes from sneak attack not base weapon die size.

Cantrips, for most of those classes that don't get multiple attacks they have access to at-will damage dealing spells that are doing 2d8 - 2d10 at 5th level, sure they don't add dex mod to damage like firearms but that just makes them about even at that level.

So firearms seem attactive before 5th level, but after that not a great option for most people.

Proficiency is the other thing, if you make them require the weapon master feat to become proficient almost no one will take them, if you make them martial it keeps them from rogues and who are the most likely to get any long term benefit in situations where stealth isn't needed, and if you make them simple well they become something a few people will want to spend gold on before they hit 5th level.

If anything firearms should be better IMO, maybe make a new feat or let people sacrifice extra attacks they should otherwise be able to take to increase the base damage, example a 11th level fighter with 3 attacks using multiattack only gets to make one attack roll with his pistol but it does 3d10+dex mod damage.

 

[neobolts]

I'm struggling with firearms for an upcoming campaign as well. The established homebrew setting I'm updating for 5e would allow affordable firearms to first level characters. The idea of a pistol fits well with one player's concept for a bard, but that player felt that the ren-era pistol was inferior to the crossbow. I don't have the benefit of the DMG in front of me, but he percieved that the loading mechanics for the guns were worse than bows (without even considering the feat). Is that player right? Is there something I'm missing or should consider tweaking?

 

[iserith]

Yes, I've used the firearm rules. They work fine.

I've even put a (ice) laser gun in an adventure I just wrote, an Eberron heist scenario called "The Snow Job."

 

[Paraxis]

I'm struggling with firearms for an upcoming campaign as well. The established homebrew setting I'm updating for 5e would allow affordable firearms to first level characters. The idea of a pistol fits well with one player's concept for a bard, but that player felt that the ren-era pistol was inferior to the crossbow. I don't have the benefit of the DMG in front of me, but he percieved that the loading mechanics for the guns were worse than bows (without even considering the feat). Is that player right? Is there something I'm missing or should consider tweaking?

Loading is the same whether it is for crossbows or renaissance era firearms.

Loading. Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make. - pg 147 phb

The advantage crossbows have is the crossbow expert feat which removes the loading property from them.

Now modern and future era firearms have the "reloading" property which is different.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've been playing with an idea for firearms: they do d10 damage, but they ignore armor and natural armor. It makes sense to me for modern firearms; maybe someone knowledgeable here can tell me if it makes sense for renaissance era guns.

 

[neobolts]

Hmm. Not sure what they are concerned about then. They are going valor bard, so many they are looking ahead to third level and comparing ren pistol to longbow.

 

[Beleriphon]

I've been playing with an idea for firearms: they do d10 damage, but they ignore armor and natural armor. It makes sense to me for modern firearms; maybe someone knowledgeable here can tell me if it makes sense for renaissance era guns.

It does not, a proper steel breast plate was proofed against musket rounds. The only reason a modern firearm would put a hole in a renaissance breast plate is due to the velocity, and that really only holds true for jacketed rifle rounds. Subsonic pistol rounds like a .45 ACP or 9mm would probably leave a pretty hefty dent, but they're not going to punch straight through. If you really think about it soldiers wore some armour in the WWI, and it amounted to a steel plate. Most chose not to wear it since it was heavy, and didn't do much to protect from machine guns or artillery.

 

[PnPgamer]

Yes, our fighter is currently dual wielding some laser pistols.

 

[Prickly]

Yes, I've used the firearm rules. They work fine.

I've even put a (ice) laser gun in an adventure I just wrote, an Eberron heist scenario called "The Snow Job."

The adventure looks cool. I love eberron.

When you used firearms how prevalent were they? how many party members used them? and did you have adversaries use them?

I haven't used the rules in game play so consider that but this is how I see it.

Not going to be an issue, lets look at who is going to use them.

The cost is prohibitive at the earliest levels between the 250-500 gp for just the weapon and the 35 gp for powder horn. You will only be able to afford a pistol around level 3 or so maybe later.

They all have the loading property, and unlike crossbows there is no feat to remove this. So you either need a brace of pistols to fire more than once per round, so just after you can afford firearms for any class that gets multiple attacks at 5th level they are no longer attractive.

They make noise, lots of noise, this usualy keeps them from being used by most rogues on a regular basis but even if they do most of their damage comes from sneak attack not base weapon die size.

Cantrips, for most of those classes that don't get multiple attacks they have access to at-will damage dealing spells that are doing 2d8 - 2d10 at 5th level, sure they don't add dex mod to damage like firearms but that just makes them about even at that level.

So firearms seem attactive before 5th level, but after that not a great option for most people.

Proficiency is the other thing, if you make them require the weapon master feat to become proficient almost no one will take them, if you make them martial it keeps them from rogues and who are the most likely to get any long term benefit in situations where stealth isn't needed, and if you make them simple well they become something a few people will want to spend gold on before they hit 5th level.

If anything firearms should be better IMO, maybe make a new feat or let people sacrifice extra attacks they should otherwise be able to take to increase the base damage, example a 11th level fighter with 3 attacks using multiattack only gets to make one attack roll with his pistol but it does 3d10+dex mod damage.

well, I always start games a level 3 and my players are level 6 now so they could afford them. I also don't really like the idea of expense being a balancing issue with mundane gear. It limits character concepts initially and then becomes a non issue once they loot some dead bodies.

I suppose not having a feat to ignore the loading property is limiting but couldnt the character just duel wield pistols? not two weapon fighting per say but fighting with two weapons.

I also would like a fighter to be able to build a musketeer so a feat that only removes the loading property would be cool but then I worry about balance. Though it is only a one point average damage difference between a musket and a heavy crossbow.