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

[Laurefindel]

A definition that broad suggests a term that isn't much use to anyone. It sounds like what you mean by "medieval fantasy" is "no guns" and "you have to wear armor."

Well, it's already more precise than just plain "fantasy", but I agree that it's broad. I also agree that 5e is no longer medieval fantasy and since that edition is what's being discussed, I'll drop the whole thing and stop derailing.

As for guns, I think Warhammer Fantasy makes a great use of guns in (medieval) fantasy, both mechanically and in-setting (though I'm admittedly less familiars with the most recent editions of WFRP). Personally, I like systems that treat firearms, early muzzle-loaded or otherwise, differently from simpler weapons. I'm pretty sure you participated in the thread i made about firearms being 'save-for-half-damage' weapons like a fireball spell and the like - i'd prefer having firearms be closer to magic than ranged weapons in D&D specifically.

Then, in modern or sci-fi settings where firearms and modern warfare are the norm, it's melee combat that i like having treated differently. I guess that I see melee combat and firearm-based ranged combat intrinsically different enough to warrant more than a reskin of archery.

 

[Marc17]

I'm already intending to have Spelljammer as part of my 5.24 setting. Having already had PC Giff with guns, I didn't really see any issues. It's already a weird fantasy NOT-EurpeanRenaissance so having a PC with bandolier of really expensive one shot pistols to use at the beginning of battle is fine with me. Especially since I'm going to nix holstering weapons as a free action, so they'll just have to be dropped after being fired which will make look all the cooler. After all, even the Musketeers always used their swords for everything.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

i don't really like pf2e's approach to guns for a few different reasons, but the fundamental one is that it makes them only really practical if you specialize in them, and basically useless otherwise. which is...like...the exact opposite of why they became popular to begin with. it feels a little silly.

My experience is they're bad even if you specialize. The entire class is balanced around PF2E's trademark white room theorycrafting, where it only barely equals bow DPS based on crits. If you don't crit you deal negligible damage. But crits are random without static damage bonuses, so even on a crit you can still deal no damage. Or you crit a low health guy and overkill it significantly. 20 damage on a 5 HP guy is actually only 5 damage.

The PF2E gunslinger was the least fun I have ever had with a class in 30+ years of gaming. I suffered through Outlaws of Alkenstar as a gunslinger, stupidly thinking the wild west adventure path would be a good fit. I routinely dealt zero damage, because hitting a guy for d6+1 damage when they have 5 points of physical resistance is great design.

and since dark sun is there you can apparently skip the armor, too.

the bolded is fundamentally an oxymoron (assault rifles are definitionally select fire - if it's semi-auto only, it cannot be an assault rifle [and also calling a civilian rifle "standard issue" is...uhm...inherently nonsensical? maybe you meant cheap or out-of-the-box?]), but that aside probably the easiest way to handle this is weapon properties that give certain benefits (and possibly drawbacks) for using more ammunition on an attack. like as a simple example you could have a property that lets you spend x additional rounds up to a certain limit to get y bonus to the damage roll (say, every 2 additional shots you fire gives you a +1 damage bonus, and you can spend up to maybe 6 additional rounds per attack). if you want to balance that further, maybe every shot you fire past the first reduces the short range of that attack by 5 or 10 feet.

I like how Savage Worlds does it, where there are different damage bonuses/values and attack penalties based on how much ammo you use.

 

[Tonguez]

Guns don't belong in medieval style fantasy. It breaks verisimilitude. It's not realistic.. There's a reason guns completely changed what warfare and violence means to humanity.

D&D means having knights whack each other with swords and wizards blasting each other with spells, and real world guns generally don't fit into that. That doesn't mean you can't have laser guns show up for fun sometimes. That doesn't mean you can't have magitech. That doesn't mean magic has to be scientific.

Gunpowder weapons date from the 10th century and hand cannons were widespread in China/Vietnam by the 13th Century and reached europe by the 14th century (earliest documented use is 1326 in Florence)

The Loshult Hand Cannon dates to 1350 and was used by a German Knight.

The Point though is that Handguns actually predate 15th Century Platemail - so if Armoured Knights are Medieval Fantasy then Medieval guns should be too

 

[Mecheon]

I continue to say that guns add a strong flavour to a setting however, and disproportionally impose their own genre over other categories of weapon.

Do they, though? Warcraft has plenty of guns and I wouldn't say it really disproportionately imposes a genre on things, outside of other WoW stuff. Dwarven riflemen and elven archers both present different types of threats.

Despite all being legendary weapons, a lot more people care about Frostmourne, Thunderfury (Blessed Blade of the Windseeker), Doomhammer or Atiesh than have ever cared about Titanstrike, and even when it comes to Titanstrike, most people care about the lightning wolf Hati who comes along with it than the gun itself. Stat wise they're basically the same as crossbows and bows.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

My experience is they're bad even if you specialize.

i mean, yeah, same honestly, but i was engaging with theory as presented to make a different point.

The PF2E gunslinger was the least fun I have ever had with a class in 30+ years of gaming. I suffered through Outlaws of Alkenstar as a gunslinger, stupidly thinking the wild west adventure path would be a good fit. I routinely dealt zero damage, because hitting a guy for d6+1 damage when they have 5 points of physical resistance is great design.

oof, yeah, i feel that. my first pf2e character was a goblin gunslinger for the uh...the police AP, i don't care to look it up right now. we had one fight in it before i realized "Dear god, this is terrible. I'm doing 2 damage on a GOOD round." luckily my dm was extremely forgiving and let me do a total respec so i swapped to a strength based melee fighter with a greatpick. THAT was a MUCH more fun experience.

I like how Savage Worlds does it, where there are different damage bonuses/values and attack penalties based on how much ammo you use.

figured i wouldn't have been the first to think of something like that.

 

[GravyFingerz]

Sniping someone from far away feels like a situation that crops up when the story demands it, and I don't think you would have enough time or prep to do an ad hoc sniping set up in response to random encounters or such. When I think of a party sniper, I think of someone using their hidden tactical advantage to negate the advantage of a large number of foes by targeting the leader in addition to the usual lone assassin depicted in movies and shows.

I wouldn't treat sniping any different in game from any other attack, but if you want to do massive sniping damage, be a rogue and use sneak attack to do so. Be an assassin and bam, you have all the tools needed to be an excellent sniper. I also learned by checking the rules that sneak attack has no maximum range, other than shooting at someone long range imposes disadvantage which would negate sneak attack. That's really cool.

 

[MGibster]

There is lots of other things that don't fit D&D's medieval aesthetic: galleon ships, rapiers, polytheism, and much of the D&D diet (I'm not talking sushi and tacos, I'm talking pumpkins and potatoes). If you really want to be a stickler, we shouldn't have a lot of ancient world elements (like medusas or minotaurs) either.

When it comes to preferences, or verisimillitude if you will, it's best not to look too closely at the logic. It's like asking why someone prefers chocolate to strawberry ice cream. I am in full agreement with you in regards to D&D's devotion to medieval accuracy. Plate armor was worn in the same battles with cannons and soldiers wielding matchlocks. But the introduction of firearms in D&D kind of takes me out of the fantasy. I can live with it when it's silly little additions like the Greyhawk god who was a cowboy with two six-shooters or Expedition to Barrier Peaks, but overall I just prefer my D&D style fantasy to be a gun free zone. (That might have been the least American sentence I've ever typed.)

That said, as far as rules are concerned, there shouldn't be able problem dropping firearms in the game. They won't be especially disruptive. Just pattern them off of crossbows and bows and you're good to go.