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

[Indagare Nogitsune]

And factions could use magic to summon new creatures with bulleproof traits.

Depending on the type of damage bullets do, technically anything resistant or immune to it would work. Werecreatures are rather famous for needing silver bullets.

 

[Cergorach]

And factions could use magic to summon new creatures with bulleproof traits.

Resistant to Piercing damage:
Air/Fire Elementals, Animated Shrubs or Trees, Ghosts, a Swarm of Bats/Rats or Crawling Hands, etc.

But even basic Skeletons have enough HP to not die in one hit from a Musket, chances are that they can close fast enough to do some damage. Heck, they even have short bows that outdistance the Musket by a significant factor! And zombies have enough staying power to also be a significant threat. Especially in packs...

 

[Reynard]

I think all world building should serve play, so if part of the world building is "guns vs wizards" what that looks like should be less focused on whether it is "logical" and more focused on what makes a better, more gameable setting. The Mages Guild versus the Gunsmith Consortium is an interesting idea for a faction conflict in a setting, actually.

ETA: Even better if mages were originally responsible for inventing powder!

 

[Rocker26a]

I think all world building should serve play, so if part of the world building is "guns vs wizards" what that looks like should be less focused on whether it is "logical" and more focused on what makes a better, more gameable setting. The Mages Guild versus the Gunsmith Consortium is an interesting idea for a faction conflict in a setting, actually.

ETA: Even better if mages were originally responsible for inventing powder!

For sure! I was thinking earlier that nobody's mentioned ideological aversion to the use of magic as a possible thematic backing for all this. Particularly as it relates to combat, war n' so on.

 

[VashVet]

I think all world building should serve play, so if part of the world building is "guns vs wizards" what that looks like should be less focused on whether it is "logical" and more focused on what makes a better, more gameable setting. The Mages Guild versus the Gunsmith Consortium is an interesting idea for a faction conflict in a setting, actually.

ETA: Even better if mages were originally responsible for inventing powder!

Absolutely! Magic versus science as a central tension. Does it threaten a political power structure? Was the discovery of gunpowder a lost science that was rediscovered, or maybe a gift from the Gods? What does it look like when gunslingers duel battle mages?

 

[Reynard]

For sure! I was thinking earlier that nobody's mentioned ideological aversion to the use of magic as a possible thematic backing for all this. Particularly as it relates to combat, war n' so on.

Only those filthy heathens toy with forces beyond their understanding and control. We, the righteous, forge weapons that harness the power of ingenuity to cleanse the world!

 

[Reynard]

Absolutely! Magic versus science as a central tension. Does it threaten a political power structure? Was the discovery of gunpowder a lost science that was rediscovered, or maybe a gift from the Gods? What does it look like when gunslingers duel battle mages?

It could also simply be economic. As someone mentioned upthread, a (war) wizard is a huge investment of years of education, so the Guild is going to want to get compensated for that investment when they hire out battle mages to lords and such. but when the gunsmiths come in, they can do much the same cheaper. It doesn't HAVE to be ideological -- although that is cool too -- it can be simply a matter of greed.

 

[Rocker26a]

Only those filthy heathens toy with forces beyond their understanding and control. We, the righteous, forge weapons that harness the power of ingenuity to cleanse the world!

There's a potential sociopolitical angle there that also pleases me. I'd say magic in a D&D setting is often (though not always of course) a privilege of the privileged. Literal ivory tower mages and those they elevate, deities and their high priests doing the same, even queue jumpers like Warlocks, you might question who exactly has the resources to contact a greater power for contract negotiation in the first place.

Whereas firearms, particularly in the sort of contexts we're imagining here, they're the products of workshops, tools. Labour.

One possible approach amongst many, anyways!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It could also simply be economic. As someone mentioned upthread, a (war) wizard is a huge investment of years of education, so the Guild is going to want to get compensated for that investment when they hire out battle mages to lords and such. but when the gunsmiths come in, they can do much the same cheaper. It doesn't HAVE to be ideological -- although that is cool too -- it can be simply a matter of greed.

And that fits history, so it is easily understood.

Muskets arent as good a weapon as almost any war bow. They just arent. In any way.

But they are trainable in hours rather than years, and can be made into a reasonably effective spear for when an enemy closes, while bowmen need to carry secondary weapons.

Which not only means that you can field entire armies with muskets as opposed to separate archers and formation combatants, it also means that you can spend years training a combatant to do a bunch of other stuff on top of shooting accurately, to much greater degree, even if they didnt grow up with it.

Muskets kinda suck, until you are fielding an army, and then they are fantastic.

In most fantasy settings, including dnd, even Eberron, bowmen are much more common than spellcasters.

 

[Rocker26a]

And that fits history, so it is easily understood.

Muskets arent as good a weapon as almost any war bow. They just arent. In any way.

But they are trainable in hours rather than years, and can be made into a reasonably effective spear for when an enemy closes, while bowmen need to carry secondary weapons.

Which not only means that you can field entire armies with muskets as opposed to separate archers and formation combatants, it also means that you can spend years training a combatant to do a bunch of other stuff on top of shooting accurately, to much greater degree, even if they didnt grow up with it.

Muskets kinda suck, until you are fielding an army, and then they are fantastic.

In most fantasy settings, including dnd, even Eberron, bowmen are much more common than spellcasters.

Heck, it's not even the first time in history it's happened! Look at the advent of the Crossbow!