How did guns change medieval societies?

[S'mon]

The most immediate real change to society that gunpowder made though wasn't with handheld firearms; it was with siege weapons.
Cannon were complex and expensive and could only be financed by the richest states; building a castle and maintiaining a few mercenaries was easy for a dissident noble. However the king could now bring up some cannon and blast a way into your castle. The effect of this is to be greatly increase the power of central government. The central government can then raise taxes better, become more efficient and build better and more efficient cannon.

GMing D&D for many years, I've noticed that magic & high level heroes already perform this function - in D&D the side with the most magic and HLCs wins; a D&D king with 15th level wizards & fighters can easily capture the castle of the 9th level baron within a day. That basically makes a decentralised medieval feudal society where barons defy kings impossible.

 

[WmRAllen67]

Firearm development also goes hand in hand with developments in smithing/ smelting, chemistry, and mechanical sciences-- you'll need a clockmaker, not a blacksmith, to make the workings of any of the more advanced firearms (wheellock, matchlock, &c...)

Artillery development could lead to deforestation and a rise in prices of wood and charcoal (for foundries).

War becomes the province of the government, not individual nobles holding their feudal contracts-- as armies get larger, only the government/ king has the finances to support and equip them (and often not even that-- most governments ran deficits, and kings would borrow money from wherever they could-- and so you get the Fuggers, the Medici bankers & al, along with a strengthening of trade and finance, and the rise of systems of capital investment &c &c &c)

The traditional nobility will move from a feudal to a clientage system of power/ influence, though military service remains a vital part of their role.

Naval artillery favors countries with heavy, frame-built ships that can withstand the pressures of mounting and firing cannon-- compare the Portuguese caravels against the Arab dhows in the Indian Ocean, for instance. Larger ships means the ability to travel farther, opening up trade in far parts of the world. Luxury goods such as tea, spices, fine china &c become more common as an indicator of class and sophistication.

(That's not to say that the introduction of guns caused all this, but these are a few of the concurrent changes, historically. Carlo M. Cipola's Guns, Sails and Empires: Technological Innovation and the Early Phases of European Expansion 1400-1700 has more information-- the first chapter deals primarily with the conditions in Europe.)

 

[mmadsen]

I want to keep the rules simple. I don't want to create any new rules for firearms.

If that's the case, just create three clones of the hand crossbow, light crossbow, and heavy crossbow, called pistol, arquebus, and musket.

I also don't want to have to learn too much about the specific differences between different firearm technologies. But it sounds like I might have to, in order to figure out which version I want to represent in my game.

It's pretty simple. All early firearms were muzzle-loaders; you had to pour the powder and jam the lead ball down from the tip of the barrel (the muzzle). In the very earliest firearms, you had to hold a match to the tiny touch hole to light the powder. This was quickly replaced by a trigger mechanism borrowed from crossbows, with a lit "match" (more like a slow-burning fuse) held away from the touch hole until the gunner pulled the trigger. This was a matchlock.

(You'll note that a firearm has three major components: lock, stock, and barrel.)

Later, tinkerers found out how to make a really complicated, really expensive piece of hardware called a wheellock, which spun a wheel, via spring power, which ran its serrated edges along pyrite and showered sparks on the powder in the priming pan.

Later, the flintlock offered a reliable, inexpensive way to ignite the powder in the pan, by striking a flint (on the tip of a spring-loaded hammer) against steel.

For the most part, it sounds like guns really changed things because of the impact they had on armies, not on heroes.

It was seen as the end of an era for the knight (i.e. hero), but it didn't happen overnight. Heroic fiction from the gunpowder era has heroes who do not flinch as thundering guns wreck havoc around them on the battlefield, then they charge (like the knights of old) and engage, sabre in hand.

1) They were cheaper to make than longbows
2) Any peasant could be conscripted, handed a rifle, and sent to war
3) Armies could carry more ammo, and thus outlast their bow-wielding enemies

They were cheaper than both longbows and crossbows, and as easy to use as crossbows -- and they made a really big BANG and really gruesome injuries. But they were very inaccurate.

Firearms are simple weapons. Anyone can pick one up and fire it decently well.

Certainly -- but reloading is very, very slow if you're not a well-drilled soldier (with lots of Firearms Drill feats): three rounds per minute was fast, even after the loading process had been streamlined over the centuries.

Firing a gun requires a ranged touch attack. Unless a suit of armor is specially (magically?) treated, it is ineffective. Things like dex, dodge, deflection still count, though.

Here's where it gets complicated. A longbow arrow or crossbow bolt goes right through a coat of mail too, but we don't ignore that armor's AC. And an arquebus ball doesn't go right through plate armor at range. The ranged touch attack is a simple mechanic, but we're trying to model a not-so-simple phenomenon.

2d8 to 4d8 damage. Guns produce a great force that can be very dangerous.

x4 or maybe even x5 critical. Guns can be extremely deadly, as they aren't stopped by bone.

Ability damage. Probably just on a critical hit. A gunshot will do 1d6 damage to a physical ability. I'm not sure if it should be CON or DEX, but I'm leaning towards CON.

I think this is missing the crux of what hit points are and how D&D combat works. Since a D&D "hit" isn't necessarily a hit, and since hit points don't necessarily represent physical damage, it's probably best to keep it all abstract. On the battlefield, early firearams were not vastly more effective than crossbows.

Fear. The smoke and fire from a firearm strikes fear into your enemies, requiring a Will Save DC 15 to avoid becoming Shaken. This effect only works within 30' of the shooter.

Of course, being charged by an 8' ogre should have a similar effect.

All of these things taken together would obviously make guns COMPLETELY deadly. But I'm less interested in "balance" than I am in grabbing the right "feel" of guns.

I'm not interested in running a simulationist game. I'm interested in running a game where the invention of guns represents a major shift in the battlefield. A new era of combat, if you will. It represents an era where heroes begin to fade away, replaced by masses of untrained people with deadly boom-sticks.

Just make masses of arquebusiers common. One elf archer may be vastly superior, but he took 100 years of training to get that way, and he draws a bowstring made from spider silk. At 100-to-1 odds, all he can do is make a heroic last stand or quit the field.

 

[Someone]

I would recommend two books, "The Military Revolution" by Geoffrey Parker

I´ve read that too: It´s an entertaining read, and makes good points. Many of them have been already discussed, but the book´s main theme is: the gun or the cannon alone won´t make much of a difference: it´s not like the mad scientist from the comics who had just invented a Death Ray and threatens to destroy the world´s main cities if he´s not paid a billion trillion dollars.

A feudal society, with competing nobles with limited resources, couldn´t have used the new technology to it´s fullest. Only those countries on the verge of becoming modern estates, instead of purely feudal societies, could afford them. The book describes how the changes in war technology causes changes in society, and how them in turn allows the development of new tech.

 

[Shades of Green]

Also, I don't think that the hero died with the introduction of firearms on a mass scale; the champion did; most battles were no longer won through the skill, courage and/or savagery of a few knights, but by the actions of masses of soldiers. Aside from the countless faceless and nameless (in the eyes of history) heroes who fight and die among the rank-and-file soldiers, there are many heroes which could still be played - but they are more or less removed from the battlefields of large wars. There is the swashbuckler who is as skilled with his tounge and wits as with his rapier; the explorer who leads a few travellers to unknown shores; the guerilla/resistance fighter who engages the enemy on his own terms (or atleast hopes to) and countless others. But the championing knight dies.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I wouldn't say that. It makes a 9th level baron defying a king with a large cadre of loyal 15th level followers impossible. It actually makes things a lot easier for the 15th level baron to defy the king with lots of 9th level followers of dubious loyalty. And the 18th level wizard-baron who was granted a small fief at 14th level? He's even more invulnerable than any baron has a right to be.

It's still the same equation. A strong king with powerful and loyal followers will beat down the baron. A weak king or even a moderately strong king against a strong baron may have to acquiesce. The question is the relative power of the barons and the king. The english barons defied King John and his son, Henry III. They didn't defy King Edward or Henry II. D&D changes how strength is measured not necessarily who has it.

GMing D&D for many years, I've noticed that magic & high level heroes already perform this function - in D&D the side with the most magic and HLCs wins; a D&D king with 15th level wizards & fighters can easily capture the castle of the 9th level baron within a day. That basically makes a decentralised medieval feudal society where barons defy kings impossible.

 

[DonAdam]

The introduction of guns also meant that any climactic fights must have nearby doves flying by in slow motion.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

A few other things about massed battles with guns:

Smoke. Even a few dozen black powder weapons can produce an enormous amount of stinking smoke, obscuring vision. If you are in a valley (as many battles were) then it was possible to have LOS dropped to fewer than 30 feet after a while.

The fear effect does not happen with any trained troops, even cavalry trained horses become used to the sound. Once guns become common anybody with warrior or fighter levels would be immune to any such result.

The simplist way to protect against fireballs etc. is simply to have secure boxes for the ammunition that are kept closed except when needed. By the 16th century this is already the case for most armies, fire arrows and even sparks from your own cannon can set powder off. If the powder box is kept closed then a fireball will have to destroy the box before setting off the powder. If you feel special then have magic boxes protecting the contents from fire, or have a cleric or wizard cast protection from elements or the like on the containers before the battle. But mostly just good strong boxes will do the trick.

As for non battle changes to society:

The blunderbuss... this is a weapon that changed hunting forever, being the direct ancestor of the shotgun. While useable as a weapon it was intended and used primarily for hunting birds, and allowed a single hunter to kill a goodly portion of a flock with a single shot.

The Auld Grump

 

[S'mon]

I wouldn't say that. It makes a 9th level baron defying a king with a large cadre of loyal 15th level followers impossible. It actually makes things a lot easier for the 15th level baron to defy the king with lots of 9th level followers of dubious loyalty. And the 18th level wizard-baron who was granted a small fief at 14th level? He's even more invulnerable than any baron has a right to be.

It's still the same equation. A strong king with powerful and loyal followers will beat down the baron. A weak king or even a moderately strong king against a strong baron may have to acquiesce. The question is the relative power of the barons and the king. The english barons defied King John and his son, Henry III. They didn't defy King Edward or Henry II. D&D changes how strength is measured not necessarily who has it.

Well, the thing is that win or lose, it's all over fast. The medieval baron's tactic of sitting in his castle outlasting the besieging monarch doesn't work. In the situations you describe the baron is actually _more powerful_ than the monarch overall. But baronial independence in the middle ages didn't require such strength, because the castle gave the defender/resister a huge edge over the attacker.

 

[Devilkiller]

I agree that making guns a simple weapon is a good idea. If ease of use is their most agreed upon advantage then they should be easy to use. Now you just have to come up with some reasons why large armies of conscripted peasants should use their single simple weapon proficiency to learn musket instead of light or heavy crossbow. Since light crossbow fires twice as fast you could have some explaining to do.

Instead of making guns ranged touch attacks I'd suggest having them ignore a certain amount of armor. One workable rule is to let guns ignore armor or natural armor bonuses of up to their average damage. A DMG pistol would ignore the first 5 armor, and a DMG musket would ignore the first 6 armor. Yes, this is complex, but it gives a nod towards the reality that some armor could indeed stop bullets. It also prevents guns from completely eliminating the benefits of magic armor or the really huge natural armor bonuses possessed by some creatures.