How did guns change medieval societies?

[TerraDave]

Also worth noting what didn't change:

The landed aristocracy based largely on birth: these guys did not go away!
--and following from that: the role of land as a basis of wealth.

The details may have changed, but land would remain an important source of wealth and status. And its important not to extrapolate from the experience of England, where a "capitalist" class would arise early, and what happened in other Kingdoms and Empires (where it didn't).

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Also worth noting what didn't change:

The landed aristocracy based largely on birth: these guys did not go away!
--and following from that: the role of land as a basis of wealth.

The details may have changed, but land would remain an important source of wealth and status. And its important not to extrapolate from the experience of England, where a "capitalist" class would arise early, and what happened in other Kingdoms and Empires (where it didn't).

Actually in line with this I'd argue that most of the popular notions of the character of the middle ages come more from the early modern period than the middle ages themselves.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

Some OGL rules:

Fuse weapon (tube full of powder with a bullet and wick) does 2d8 (x3), has a -6 to hit, range increment: 20, weighs 10 lbs. Doesn't fire on a natural 3-5, explodes on a natural 1-2. You do get a +2 to your Gunsmithing check to make it though!

Match lock weapons have a -2 to hit, don't fire on a natural 3-4, and explode on a natural 1-2. No penalty to GUnsmithing to craft.

Whhelock/flintlock weapons have no penalty to hit, doesn't fire on a natural 2-4, explodes on a natural one. You take a -5 to Gunsmithing to craft.


Not exactly what was asked for, but it could help.

Those missfire and explosion chances are totally insane. Those rules would only work if you wanted to openly discourgae anyone but the suicidal and mad from using firearms. They weren't that dangerous or unrelliable. 5% of people firing a flintlock do not destroy their weapon and harm or kill themself everytime it is fired.

Also wheelock and flintlocks are fairly different weapons, A wheelock is far more complex then a flintlock to construct.

 

[Celebrim]

Actually in line with this I'd argue that most of the popular notions of the character of the middle ages come more from the early modern period than the middle ages themselves.

Kinda like when people think of the '60's, they are usually thinking of the early '70's?

Yeah, I agree. In fact, I had a good chuckle a few nights ago when PBS was advertising a show about Martin Luther, and they had this line that was something to the effect of, "At the height of the Dark Ages, one man dared take on the Catholic Church..."

Height of the Dark Ages??? Martin Luther took his hammer to the door of the Wittenburg in 1517, which is well into what is regarded as the 'The Reinnaisance'. Furthermore, it's generally felt by most modern historians that the Reinnaisance was itself hardly the technological and scientific revolution that the writers of the Reinnansance cast it as, but rather an evolutionairy step beyond the great technological and cultural advances of the High Middle Ages which had been but temporarily abated by the plague years. And in any event, the term Dark Ages refers to the period of European history in which no virtually new manuscripts were produced (and survived at least) in Western Europe, hense that this period is literally 'dark' to history because we cannot clearly see into it. By 1517, Europe was in no sense dark to history, with not only new manuscripts being produced by the hundreds, but books were being printed by the hundreds and had been for decades. The actual Dark Ages refers to the period beginning in about 500 AD and extending to no later than about 1400 AD, though refering to the whole of the Middle Ages as 'Dark' (as Petrarch did) is no longer considered completely proper by modern historians. In any event, the height of the Dark Ages is surely some time between 500 AD and 900 AD when virtually nothing was being written in Europe.

 

[Wilphe]

Very, very popular tactic in naval fighting during the period, at least. The ship on the weather gauge (upwind of its opponent) could let the smoke from its cannon drift downwind, obscuring it from its opponent.

Firing a final broadside, and then boarding in the smoke, was a popular way to establish a foothold on an enemy's ship.

Of course if you don't have the weather gauge to begin with you aren't going to be boarding your opponent in the first place unless he wants you to

And if they can't see you, you can't see them.

There are good reasons to have the weather gauge, that isn't top of of the list

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Kinda like when people think of the '60's, they are usually thinking of the early '70's?

Yeah, I agree. In fact, I had a good chuckle a few nights ago when PBS was advertising a show about Martin Luther, and they had this line that was something to the effect of, "At the height of the Dark Ages, one man dared take on the Catholic Church..."

Willfully rhetorical historical inaccuracy from PBS? Say it ain't so Celebrim say it ain't so!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Of course if you don't have the weather gauge to begin with you aren't going to be boarding your opponent in the first place unless he wants you to

Or unless you are a faster, better sailor than he is.

And if they can't see you, you can't see them.

But the smoke from your guns blows away from you. The smoke from his guns blows back onto him - and back into his lower decks, as well.

There are good reasons to have the weather gauge, that isn't top of of the list

Of course not. Generally superior mobility is the chief reason to keep the weather gauge - whether you want to fight or run. That being said, if your position gives you an advantage of any sort, you may as well use it, right?

Of course, holding the weather sometimes has drawbacks as well, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Think of the effects of a fireball spell dropped on a cannon crew, igniting their supply of gunpowder.

Not much - because of the risk the gunpowder is kept in a closed box - you would have to burn through the box to set off the powder. (This was done in the real world because of the risk of sparks and fire fom the enemy.)

On the other hand the odds are that the crew are low level experts, so they are still dead, just no earth-shattering kaboom.

Some OGL rules:

Fuse weapon (tube full of powder with a bullet and wick) does 2d8 (x3), has a -6 to hit, range increment: 20, weighs 10 lbs. Doesn't fire on a natural 3-5, explodes on a natural 1-2. You do get a +2 to your Gunsmithing check to make it though!

Match lock weapons have a -2 to hit, don't fire on a natural 3-4, and explode on a natural 1-2. No penalty to GUnsmithing to craft.

Wheelock/flintlock weapons have no penalty to hit, doesn't fire on a natural 2-4, explodes on a natural one. You take a -5 to Gunsmithing to craft.

Not exactly what was asked for, but it could help.

Umm, fuse weapons were unreliable, but they did not blow up one out of ten times they were fired... A whole lot of other things were more likely to go wrong than a catastrophic barrel failure. Weld shots, hangfires, and most common of all the venting of sparks out of the touch hole. Treat it as the opposite of a critical instead, with threat of fumble on a natural 1 or 2, and an explosion only if the second roll is a 1. A normal fumble just meaning that the user takes 1d6 damage or needs to spend several rounds and make a craft (firearms) roll to clear the gun for use.

Rather than giving a -5 to gunsmithing it is easier to say that a wheellock needs to be masterworked.

The Auld Grump

 

[frankthedm]

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.

Now to emulate why you need such

Black/gun/smoke powder dangers​

Fire spells are bad news for anyone that carries explosive powder on themselves. Now normally anything you carry is assumed to survive fire attacks that you survive, however, even a small bit of errant powder can be disastrous when exposed to flame as it carries the spark home. To determine if this unfortunate even occurs, simply note how badly you failed your reflex save in regards to fire with how well put away your powder is.

[FONT=Courier New][B]Retrieved with ~ Save failed by[/B]
In hand            5+
Free action[a]     10+
Move action        15+
Standard action    20+
Full round action  25+
[a]ammunition as a default is a free action to draw. [/FONT]

Thus someone who carries a loaded firearm finds it explodes in his hands if he fails a reflex save versus fire by five points. His shot powder goes off if he fails the same save by 10 or more. If the gunner in question is willing to keep his powder so well put away it adds a move action onto each reload, only a reflex save failed by 15 or more points will be that great of a danger.

 

[pawsplay]

So I ask you, oh great ENWorlders: How did the introduction of gunpowder change real-world societies? What was so great about an unreliable, clumsy, expensive rifle? Why was it better than the good old longbow?

It wasn't. Really, any new technology is usually less effective than the old until it's been refined. However, it had features the longbow didn't. It required minimal training to use, it had tremendous penetrating power, and could be used at a nearly horizontal level making it effective for massed defensive tactics. Under usual battlefield conditions, the longbows have better range. They can also reliably penetrate armor. They can be used to blanket areas with a high rate of fire.

Ben Franklin actually proposed hiring longbowman for the revolutionary army. There were too problems; first, a relative lack of suitable wood for making quality bows in a traditional style, second, a lack of longbowmen. Longbowmen are expensive to hire because they take years of training; that is why at various times English law required men to learn and use the longbow, to create a talent pool for times of war. Thus, in the end, the revolutionary army went with guns, supplemented by mercenary cavalry.

Guns don't actually become better than longbows for target shooting until you get to the era of rifles (late 18th century). They don't become fast until you have bolt action rifles (19th century). While the American Indians were outclassed in armaments, it's worth noting that throughout the 19th century, they were able to use archery credibly against rifle-toting settlers.

Cannons were in use throughout the high medieval period. although an improvement on tension and lever weapons, a bombard is still a bombard.

In short, gunpowder weapons were not revolutionary so much as evolutionary; over the centuries, rifles relentlessly stamped out medieval warfare. But it did not happen overnight.