D&D 5E (2014) Let's Talk About Guns in 5E

[James Gasik]

For shame.

I thought that was Clarke's Third Law.

 

[James Gasik]

I guess the question that needs to be answered is twofold for any innovation. "How would someone create it?" and "Would it be worth the effort?".

Some have speculated that Rome, at it's height, had all the things it needed to start the Industrial Revolution. The Greeks had figured out how to use steam to power simple machines, the Romans had engineering knowhow and metallurgy.

But the simple truth is, with a ready supply of cheap labor, there wasn't a need for that kind of industrialization, necessity being the mother of invention.

So for example, let us assume that learning how to use a cantrip is as easy in the game world as it is for PC's. If anyone can use firebolt, there isn't much use for guns. Actually, if magical training becomes widespread, you might start wondering why people use bows! Take for example 2014 high elves, all of whom know how to use a cantrip. You could field an army of magical elven artillery, with each soldier knowing firebolt or even ray of frost to slow down enemy infantry, without having to supply all your marksmen with ammunition.

Of course, many people don't assume that magic is as easily acquired for NPC's, mostly because they don't want their campaign worlds to be warped by magic to become more like Eberron- it's the same bias against certain forms of technology. People want their fantasy Ren Faire worlds just so, and are ok with galleons, bastard swords, and articulated plate armor, but not so ok with self-powered stagecoach golems, skeletons as cheap labor, or, in the case of this thread, firearms.

When I first read Pathfinder 1e's rules for firearms, the question I immediately had was "who created these, and why?". Sure, ok, city of alchemists in a magic dead zone would create a lot of cool things, and even explosives is fine, but crossbows and longbows are perfectly cromulent weapons, and early firearms had enough downsides to not really be competitive options.

Worse, there's the idea that firearms are easier to use than longbows- which was immediately shredded because you basically needed special class features to make guns the equivalent of bows. It would be as if D&D had a special "Welsh Bowman" class, the only people who could use longbows that are in any way a match for the superior crossbow!

As an aside, how "easy" firearms are to use, is a bit dubious. Sure, all you need do is aim and fire using the iron sights, making it as accurate as a crossbow, but the skill to be able to quickly reload under pressure is not easily acquired. During the Napoleonic Wars, a rifleman needed to be able to sustain a rate of fire of three shots per minute to be worth fielding!

In D&D turns, that's less than one shot per three rounds! Firearms would have to be insanely powerful to justify that, since in most combats, you'd be able to fire maybe twice with a rifle!

Even if the need was present, and you have an explosive of some type (be it alchemical or even magical) that you could use to readily propel a projectile, let's look at the kinds of monsters D&D worlds are full of.

Is a dragon going to be that much more vulnerable to a gun than a sword or an arrow? Given that heroes slay dragons with swords and arrows already, again, the damage would have to be incredible (or the range, in the case of flight).

I wonder if people wouldn't instead just create bombs and better delivery systems for them.

Another thing to consider, however, is that magic could obviate many problems of our guns. An enchanted firearm could solve many of the issues involved, making them the equivalent of modern firearms. But would magicians be all that interested in creating their own competition? If guns become better than offensive magic, would they see this as a threat to their bottom line?

Many inventions in our world were suppressed or discarded for being too good for the market to bear. Many things that we frequently have to replace could be made much longer lasting, but then the companies who make those products would go out of business!

Now all of this having been said, I'm not against firearms in a fantasy setting. But I think they should be rarer, more expensive, and ultimately, only somewhat superior to other options, otherwise, the game risks changing radically, with swords and shields being phased out for rifles with bayonets, and "pure melee" classes like the Barbarian would eventually go extinct, among other changes.

For example Kobold Press has firearms rules. My Fighter is an archer who uses a greatbow. Same cost as a rifle, same damage*, but I have twice the short range, though I do need 13 Strength.

*of course, gunpowder weapons do "explode", that is, if you roll the maximum damage on a die, you can reroll it, up to a number of rerolls equal to your proficiency bonus, so the top end damage of 2d6 is higher, but I can be 100' away instead of 50', so I still have an advantage

 

[Indagare Nogitsune]

But with science like that, you could cure cancer!

The humanoid pterodactyl looks at you and says: "I don't want to cure cancer! I want to turn people into dinosaurs!"

 

[AlViking]

I don't really follow this. I said "magical innovations" not "technological innovations". I know perfectly well that if given one solution that's known to work (magic) it's not very likely that other solutions (chemistry/medicine/etc.) are going to be looked at quite as seriously. However there is a Medicine skill, which implies people at least know enough non-magical healing for it to be a viable option. There are also regular tool proficiencies, which implies people don't see magic as a solution for everything.

Plus there are people who study magic: Wizards (especially Order of the Scribes) and Artificers. While 5e seems to be very unfriendly towards the creation of new magic items, from an in-world perspective there ought to be quite a lot of study on the matter. Armors were developed to counter various types of weapons: weapons various types of armors. People are constantly looking for ways to get the upper hand in battle scenarios.

Since at least the Industrial Revolution, there has been a tie between military advancement in tech and the eventual use of that tech in civilian life. Now, a magic Industrial Revolution (similar to Eberron) might not happen, but people would indeed be using magic as a solution and probably try to be innovative with it.



That's also true, and this can be very campaign-dependent. However, there's also not really any good reason it couldn't either. The trick, mostly, is figuring out what exists and how it works. The mass manufacture of items is certainly where the limitation comes in. If it becomes quick and easy to create magic items then it also means the costs of those items go down. The balance issue becomes one of dealing with folks who have what they need for most scenarios rather than the starvation rations that is more typical of D&D.



So, I gave examples of spells that would likely give the same effects as the weapons in question both to show that (from a game perspective) they don't have to be over-powered but also that there are already spells that could give the same effect. I don't think firearms (as we recognize them) would be developed because there are already spells that do the same thing. However, that doesn't mean they couldn't be developed. The Artificer (Artillerist) comes immediately to mind for this.

I don't think it makes sense to talk about levels of magic or magi-tech without discussing levels of technology, especially in a thread dedicated to guns.

I do think it makes sense to think at least at about how magic would change the world even if we all come to different conclusions. We can make the impact of magic just about anything we want - I was just explaining my approach and reasoning.

As far as medicine checks, I see it mostly used to identify how someone died or if you need to cast something like remove curse to fix them. Artificer are still creating magical items and potions, not researching a germ theory of disease.

 

[Indagare Nogitsune]

I guess the question that needs to be answered is twofold for any innovation. "How would someone create it?" and "Would it be worth the effort?".

I think, even more so, is "does it fit here?" There's a large amount of Ren Faire in fantasy worlds. They won't make sense as applied to real history. As Remathilis mentioned, Eberron basically worked things backwards to get what they wanted. It could be the same for any setting that has any tech someone really wants to be in it.

I wonder if people wouldn't instead just create bombs and better delivery systems for them.

Bombs would get met with magical shields against them. The whole thing will likely end when someone finds a way to vanish entire cities to the Shadow Realms.

Another thing to consider, however, is that magic could obviate many problems of our guns. An enchanted firearm could solve many of the issues involved, making them the equivalent of modern firearms. But would magicians be all that interested in creating their own competition? If guns become better than offensive magic, would they see this as a threat to their bottom line?

Well, that depends. There's a difference between a magical firearm that acts like Hank's bow from the D&D cartoon and one that relies on ammo. It'd be then like the printer and ink scenario where a printer can become very cheap but the ink to use it becomes very expensive. Plus, some of them would start selling "bullet proof vests".

Many inventions in our world were suppressed or discarded for being too good for the market to bear. Many things that we frequently have to replace could be made much longer lasting, but then the companies who make those products would go out of business!

Don't forget that having a reputation for "making things that last" used to be a matter of pride before folks started getting greedy. It also presumes a society that will go capitalist to that extent rather than turning into one where universal basic income guarantees everyone's needs are met, so buying stuff on a whim is much easier.

Now all of this having been said, I'm not against firearms in a fantasy setting. But I think they should be rarer, more expensive, and ultimately, only somewhat superior to other options, otherwise, the game risks changing radically, with swords and shields being phased out for rifles with bayonets, and "pure melee" classes like the Barbarian would eventually go extinct, among other changes.

Well, it also depends on the type of fantasy. For instance, something based on the Golden Age of Piracy would look weird without guns as side-arms.

For example Kobold Press has firearms rules. My Fighter is an archer who uses a greatbow. Same cost as a rifle, same damage*, but I have twice the short range, though I do need 13 Strength.

*of course, gunpowder weapons do "explode", that is, if you roll the maximum damage on a die, you can reroll it, up to a number of rerolls equal to your proficiency bonus, so the top end damage of 2d6 is higher, but I can be 100' away instead of 50', so I still have an advantage

There's another thread on guns that, I think, covers some of this.