How will guns change a D&D world?

[Yair]

I like how it is handled in the Murchard's Legacy campaign setting. Essentially, the early firearms are crossbows that do more damage but are apt to explode; not precisely historical, but close. They didn't really make such a big difference, the big difference was in the CANNONS that blew up fortifications and armies. These gave a definitive edge to gunpowder-wielding armies, until spells were invented to detonate gunpowder from a distance (it takes only a tiny spark of energy...). These effectively eliminated gunpowder completely from the battlefield as it became a liability rather than an asset.

So that's how they affected at least one D&D world: not at all, ultimately.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Considering the current lethality of firearms in the D&D rules (as in not lethal at all) it wouldn't change much at all. If I were to incorporate them I'd lower the massive damage threshold to a more reasonable level to make it more likely that a gun could drop someone with a single shot or at least make them a ranged touch attack so that armor really wouldn't be much help against one (and it shouldn't). Then again, a 4 foot piece of steel impaling someone also should have the potential to drop someone with a single thrust too. I'd probably go with the ranged touch attack option rather than mess with all the combat rules to make the game as lethal as it should be.

Edit: I'd also put guns in the simple category. It should be fairly easy to train anyone to use a gun. As was once said... "God made all men, Sam Colt made em all equal".

 

[Geoff Watson]

Guns wouldn't change a D&D world at all, unless the DM thinks guns are much better than they historically were.

Geoff.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Ranged touch attack is a bad idea for guns.
Is a heavy crossbow at point-blank range a touch attack? A storm giant's longbow? How about a ballista? Dragon's bite?
Things that would shred armor in a second still have to get past the armor in d20 rules.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Guns changed medieval society based on their armor penetration ability and the fact that one could use them with decent competence in only a few weeks of training.

Compare this to the crossbow or longbow which could do the same thing. The crossbow was heavy and hadlarge cumbersome bolts. The longbow requires years of training to use effectively.

Neither of the chief advantages of guns applies in DnD. Guns do not get any bonus to defeat armor they hit you based on your AC just like any other weapon. Also just about every gun I have ever seen written up in DnD requires an exotic weapon prof which makes them harder to use them bows which are martial weapon prof.

So no, unless the rules were changed (ie guns are touch attack) and made simple weapon prof you would never see them widely accepted or used in a DnD world.

Why would anyone bother?

Now large black powder bombs and smaller primitive hand grenades? Yes those I could see being used. I can easily imagine dwarves running around throwing small bombs with burning fuses coming out the side a la "Pirates of the Carribean".

 

[Tzarevitch]

Honestly, guns don't really cause all that much of a change to the game. All they really amount to is a smaller, faster-firing crossbow, with much greater ammo capacity. Low strength characters who would use crossbows tend to use guns instead. High strength characters still use bows because they can employ their strength on a strenth-rated bow. Everyone also carries a backup pistol.

I ran a game for over a year using WWI era firearms. Modern firearms were generally simple weapons. People frequently kept revolvers or derringers for self-defense, and farmers frequently kept a shotgun in the house. (Firearms were fairly cheap in my game).

Contrary to popular belief, they do not supplant magic in any way, shape or form. (They only thing is that they supplant is the crossbow.) They also do not unbalance the game, even if you allow rapid fire weapons such as machine guns as I did.

The only thing that the DM has to watch out for is the potential for the players making really big explosives, because hand in hand with firearms technology comes explosives technology. Sooner or later the players will try to create a really BIG bomb. The DM early on needs to be aware of this and decide on how to handle it. Also, ranged combat becomes much more common when efficient pistols appear, so the DM needs to be familiar with ranged combat rules and cover and concealment rules.

Lastly, the DM needs to just allow magic to advance normally alongside firearms technology. There is no reason why a pistol +1 keen, flaming burst, shorcking burst or something similar shouldn't exist and be available to the PCs and NPCs.

At least one of my players kept stocks of +1 holy pistol bullets made of silver or cold iron for fiend-slaying. After the initial shock of running into a warforged titan wielding a pair of heavy gatling guns +1, flaming, frost, shocking, keen, collision (2d12+6 +1d6fire, +1d6frost, +1d6 electricity 19-20/x4crit) guarding a baatezu bunker on the Gray Waste, they learned to expect anything . . . including the bearded devils who later attacked them with unholy handgrenades fired out of grenade launchers.

Tzarevitch