How will guns change a D&D world?

[Shades of Green]

Some cultures rely less on magic (or, atleast, offensive magic) and more on crafted weapons; Dwarves and Gnomes come to mind. Sure, Gnomes like casting illusions, but creating a crafty clockwork trap that does the kills their enemies in an interesting way is more pleasing to them. I also picture Dwarven mages as better in forging and enchanting weapons than in flashy combat casting.

In my campaign they were invented and developed over the last 700 years by Dwarves. While there are Dwarven offensive casters (this is still 3E, not 2E), they were not nearly as effective as the Sila (an Elven kingdom) ones they were facing, and the first cannons (forged and enchanted by the Dwarven mage-blacksmiths) levelled the playfield. Three years later, when the Dwarven kingdom allied itself with several Human ones against the Great Horde, laying the foundation of what would become the Empire, they have already developed early man-portable Arquabuses (sp?) which, combined with the huge numbers of Human troops, crushed the Great Horde once and for all.

And yes, Sila and Thiragin Elves have not used firearms until 200 years ago, since up until then their combat-mages (necromancers in the case of Thiragin) were highly effective (atleast in their eyes).

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It features modern firearms, but Grunts by Mary Gentle details what happens when guns and other modern weaponry are introduced to a fantasy world.

 

[Shades of Green]

Another it depends. Effectiveness and price are important. If a musket is an expensive and unreliable alternative to a wand, guns would have little effect.

In my campaign, a musket is a much cheaper, highly available (if somewhat less relyable and far less accurate) alternative to a wand. Ofcourse, in other people's campaigns it might differ.

About armor in campaigns using firearms: always remember than in a typical D&D world, soldiers will occasionally come across monstrous opponents, many of which are uncapable of using firearms but more than capable of clawing/stinging/biting etc a soldier with melee attacks. Many of these critters might even be employed by certain armies. So armor has some relevance, though a good compromise (atleast in my campaign) is equipping the troops with light armor (Imperial troops, considered to be "heavy" troops, use chain-shirts, most armies use Padded, Leather or Studded Leather armors). Anything heavier than Chain Shirt would be reserved for troops specializing in melee combat, particularly against monsters (especially undead/demons), and many fighters would go the Dexterity route rather than the Strength one.

 

[Celebrim]

Since D&D is a game, the effectiveness of guns depends entirely on the It depends entirely on the mechanics under which guns are implemented.

Depending on the rules used to simulate them, guns could have no impact at all or they could make low level play so dangerous that reaching the mid to upper levels of play would be virtually impossible. In short, if guns are made powerful and no other changes are made, heroes get to be less common and less important because potent guns will help NPC's mooks far more than they will help PC's. You're average PC party can already unleash an 'artillery barrage' without resorting to firearms. A volley of fire from a group of goblin musketeers wielding Kentucky long rifles will go a very long way toward evening that up.

On the other hand, I find it highly unlikely that firearms would ever be developed on a typical D&D world. Before such weapons would get to be effective enough to make a big difference, they would have to go through centuries of evolution during which time they would be competing with D&D's highly advanced magical technology. A wand of fireballs makes an early gonne appear quite low tech, and an even fool hardy experiment. Early gonne's were dangerous enough to use as it was, without all that black powder being exposed to a barrage of magical fire. The only way that firearms would be likely to appear on a D&D world is if advanced firearms of some sort where gifted fully formed by a diety of some sort, or if they had as long of a history in the world as magic.

 

[Shades of Green]

On the other hand, I find it highly unlikely that firearms would ever be developed on a typical D&D world. Before such weapons would get to be effective enough to make a big difference, they would have to go through centuries of evolution during which time they would be competing with D&D's highly advanced magical technology. A wand of fireballs makes an early gonne appear quite low tech, and an even fool hardy experiment. Early gonne's were dangerous enough to use as it was, without all that black powder being exposed to a barrage of magical fire. The only way that firearms would be likely to appear on a D&D world is if advanced firearms of some sort where gifted fully formed by a diety of some sort, or if they had as long of a history in the world as magic.

Again, it depends on the level of magic in your world. My world has a moderate level of magic, which means that wands exist and are used but aren't common; a primitive gonne could be far more easily and cheaply replicated, and with no XP cost.

And about gods? As i've said earlier in this thread, it depends. Chaotic gods of war won't have an issue with it; Evil gods might love the idea (more destruction! yey!), or hate it (power to the people is anathema to gods of tyranny). Dwarven gods will support technological progress as long as it is used in a Lawful manner, while the One Mother goddess of the Celirans generally dislikes machines (they are mockery to Her life and Her greens), though not all of her aspects (see my "Prehensile Tails" thread for information about Her) would be so opposed to technology, especially not the heretical Machine Mother worshipped by the Matriarchate.

But it all boils down to the flavor of combat you want for your game. Knights in shiny armor/LoTR? then don't include guns at all. Pirates/The Three Musketeers? allow matchlocks/flintlocks with extremely long reloading times (so that the character would fire all of his pre-loaded guns but then would switch to his rapier). Steampunk? repeater crossbows and flintlocks (and abouve!) firearms, and a relative pro-technological approach (atleast in the cultures who benefit from it).

 

[jgsugden]

In the end, it will depend upon how the DM uses them.

If the DM makes them cheap, effective and available, it would seem that they would overpower the conventional weapons of the fantasy setting. Of course, if the DM decides that people shun these weapons (despite their cheapness, effectiveness and availability) then they won't have the expected effect.

This is a fantasy game. 99.99999% of the world is controlled by the DM. In the end, the game will develope as he dictates.

 

[mmadsen]

The chief advantage of firearms is not that a gun is better than all alternative weapons, or that it's as good as a wizard's wand; it's that it delivers a lot of bang for the buck. We shouldn't expect to see player characters quick to switch to firearms any more than knights, samurai, or mamelukes were quick to switch.

Where we'd see the change is in the low end. If peasant levies drill with spear-and-shield, they'll switch to pikes and matchlocks. Hundreds of guys with a 1-in-20 chance of doing 1d12 can do some damage...

 

[James Heard]

In my firearms friendly game the biggest difference has been with spellcasters, who now mostly carry pistols and long guns instead of crossbows. They're simple weapons IMC, so they're the ones who benefit the most from having that sort of backup weaponry. Bows and swords still have the edge in ROF and damage respectively for the fighters, so few of my players bother with them for that. No one's ever gone there yet, but I'm pretty certain that artillery is where it will get nasty because cannon are going to be cheaper than Wizards who can cast Fireball and can fire as long as you've got ammunition for them. That's just as it should be IMO, because early firearms weren't particularly impressive but early artillery is another fish entirely.

 

[Wilphe]

The chief advantage of firearms is not that a gun is better than all alternative weapons, or that it's as good as a wizard's wand; it's that it delivers a lot of bang for the buck. We shouldn't expect to see player characters quick to switch to firearms any more than knights, samurai, or mamelukes were quick to switch.

Where we'd see the change is in the low end. If peasant levies drill with spear-and-shield, they'll switch to pikes and matchlocks. Hundreds of guys with a 1-in-20 chance of doing 1d12 can do some damage...

Quoted because it's true.

"What, I've trained my whole life and bested terrible monsters in single combat and now I can get taken out by a bunch of peasents with muskets?"*


You could even get that as a campaign theme, with the protagonists being the last generation of heroes, about to be thrown on the scrapheap of history by technological progress...


*D&D is probably the wrong system for this though - hit points and levels don't model it well.

 

[Shades of Green]

Hmmm... I'm considering NOT making guns ranged touch attacks after all... But still, they'll be simple weapons; and will do ALOT of damage. And artillery WILL make armor far less valuable on the battlefield. So expect heroes to run around with breastplates or lighter armors rather than Full Plate.