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

[doctorbadwolf]

If by "martial", you mean Fighter, sure. Everyone else is going to be limited to 2 attacks per turn with a Feat to get around the loading property, and that's if you assume "gun = crossbow" which is super generous and not at all realistic (not that I'm advocating realism here, mind you, but I've already noted what the fire rate of early firearms was like, and it's not pretty).

Any martial can kill a same-level wizard by acting first, especially if the caster is for some reason relying on cantrips.

Firebolt is garbage compared to any martial using their class features and subclass.

And yeah, if someone is playing a gunslinger they are gonna be using the simple rules in the phb and probably using a bastion facility or simple magic item crafting to have repeating firearms.

 

[James Gasik]

Any martial can kill a same-level wizard by acting first, especially if the caster is for some reason relying on cantrips.

Firebolt is garbage compared to any martial using their class features and subclass.

And yeah, if someone is playing a gunslinger they are gonna be using the simple rules in the phb and probably using a bastion facility or simple magic item crafting to have repeating firearms.

Ok. And any same-level Wizard can turn the martial inside out or simply make them unable to do anything. And?

I think we're getting away from the topic a bit. Weapons aren't created with high-level characters in mind. NPC's who are likely to be inventing firearms are going to look at the things in the world around them that they can use. A gun has to be significantly better than other ranged weapons in order to be created in the first place.

After doing a little more research on the topic, both rifles and crossbows are easy to master, and equally able to pierce plate armor at short range. The crossbow was more accurate and had a better rate of fire than early rifles, but technology advanced to the point that firearms became cheaper to produce in mass quantities.

Ultimately, firearms had greater potential than other ranged weapons, but it took time to achieve that potential. Again, I'm not stressing any kind of historical accuracy, but for any discussion about whether or not firearms are balanced in a fantasy TTRPG (such as 5e), we need to select the era of weaponry we're using as our inspiration, and keep in mind the options that already exist in-universe.

I brought up cantrips as an example because the game treats them as efficient, low investment ranged attacks. How easy they are to learn, however, is unclear- for PC's, it's easy to get your hands on something like Firebolt. How true that is for NPC's has to be decided by the GM, since 5e doesn't really give you any indication.

NPC's are rather arbitrarily given abilities. If you took any humanoid NPC and said they were an Elf, suddenly they get a cantrip. But you don't even need to do that, the GM can simply decide "yes, this guy has learned cantrips" if they so choose. Similarly, for PC's, anyone can apparently make a deal with a fiend in a back alley and become a Warlock, gaining Eldritch Blast and upgrades in a short amount of time. Could a fantasy nation field enough Warlocks to make a difference on the battlefield? I have no idea, but if they could, firearms would be woefully inadequate to keep up in a war. Maybe.

After all, the game also gives NPC's access to multiattack at fairly low CR's, long before PC's get Extra Attack. But then again, I've also seen NPC's whose multiattack allows them to make attacks and spellcasting, or even multiple spell attacks, so who knows, really how this would play out.

NPC's might even be able to ignore the Loading property for all I know, if someone decides they ought to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ok. And any same-level Wizard can turn the martial inside out or simply make them unable to do anything. And?

I think we're getting away from the topic a bit. Weapons aren't created with high-level characters in mind. NPC's who are likely to be inventing firearms are going to look at the things in the world around them that they can use. A gun has to be significantly better than other ranged weapons in order to be created in the first place.

After doing a little more research on the topic, both rifles and crossbows are easy to master, and equally able to pierce plate armor at short range. The crossbow was more accurate and had a better rate of fire than early rifles, but technology advanced to the point that firearms became cheaper to produce in mass quantities.

Ultimately, firearms had greater potential than other ranged weapons, but it took time to achieve that potential. Again, I'm not stressing any kind of historical accuracy, but for any discussion about whether or not firearms are balanced in a fantasy TTRPG (such as 5e), we need to select the era of weaponry we're using as our inspiration, and keep in mind the options that already exist in-universe.

I brought up cantrips as an example because the game treats them as efficient, low investment ranged attacks. How easy they are to learn, however, is unclear- for PC's, it's easy to get your hands on something like Firebolt. How true that is for NPC's has to be decided by the GM, since 5e doesn't really give you any indication.

NPC's are rather arbitrarily given abilities. If you took any humanoid NPC and said they were an Elf, suddenly they get a cantrip. But you don't even need to do that, the GM can simply decide "yes, this guy has learned cantrips" if they so choose. Similarly, for PC's, anyone can apparently make a deal with a fiend in a back alley and become a Warlock, gaining Eldritch Blast and upgrades in a short amount of time. Could a fantasy nation field enough Warlocks to make a difference on the battlefield? I have no idea, but if they could, firearms would be woefully inadequate to keep up in a war. Maybe.

After all, the game also gives NPC's access to multiattack at fairly low CR's, long before PC's get Extra Attack. But then again, I've also seen NPC's whose multiattack allows them to make attacks and spellcasting, or even multiple spell attacks, so who knows, really how this would play out.

NPC's might even be able to ignore the Loading property for all I know, if someone decides they ought to.

I replied to a post claiming cantrips are better than firearms.

 

[James Gasik]

I replied to a post claiming cantrips are better than firearms.

And the answer is, it depends.

 

[Mort]

I replied to a post claiming cantrips are better than firearms.

With 5.5 True Strike, Cantrips are pretty good WITH firearms!

 

[Reynard]

So, autofire...

One thought I had is to tie the benefit of autofire to Extra Attack (and thereby locking it in to martial characters and fighters especially). Something like "when you use Autofire, you only make one attack roll against a AC of 15. Roll damage dice for each attack roll you would make when taking the Attack Action and then apply the rolled damage dice to a creature you can see within the short range of the weapon nor farther than 30 feet apart. You may apply multiple damage dice to a single target. This use of the weapon consumes half the maximum weapon ammunition." Yes, I recognize that is some messy first draft language, but I think the intent comes across.

 

[Laurefindel]

So, autofire...

One thought I had is to tie the benefit of autofire to Extra Attack (and thereby locking it in to martial characters and fighters especially). Something like "when you use Autofire, you only make one attack roll against a AC of 15. Roll damage dice for each attack roll you would make when taking the Attack Action and then apply the rolled damage dice to a creature you can see within the short range of the weapon nor farther than 30 feet apart. You may apply multiple damage dice to a single target. This use of the weapon consumes half the maximum weapon ammunition." Yes, I recognize that is some messy first draft language, but I think the intent comes across.

I like it: turn multi-attack into a dice pool mechanic.

Actually, never mind auto fire; do that with all (early firearms) guns and restrain them to 1 attack per round, albeit perhaps to a single target.

• eliminates the "crossbow issue" achieving an unreasonable number of attacks in a 6-second round.
• gives gun an actual unique mechanic that set that category of weapons apart.
• does somehow take in consideration the extra attack(s) feature.
• Removes AC from the equation (that part is optional)

 

[W'rkncacnter]

So, autofire...

One thought I had is to tie the benefit of autofire to Extra Attack (and thereby locking it in to martial characters and fighters especially). Something like "when you use Autofire, you only make one attack roll against a AC of 15. Roll damage dice for each attack roll you would make when taking the Attack Action and then apply the rolled damage dice to a creature you can see within the short range of the weapon nor farther than 30 feet apart. You may apply multiple damage dice to a single target. This use of the weapon consumes half the maximum weapon ammunition." Yes, I recognize that is some messy first draft language, but I think the intent comes across.

I like it: turn multi-attack into a dice pool mechanic.

Actually, never mind auto fire; do that with all (early firearms) guns and restrain them to 1 attack per round, albeit perhaps to a single target.

• eliminates the "crossbow issue" achieving an unreasonable number of attacks in a 6-second round.
• gives gun an actual unique mechanic that set that category of weapons apart.
• does somehow take in consideration the extra attack(s) feature.
• Removes AC from the equation (that part is optional)

oh. oh oh oh oh wait. steal a bit of pf2e rules and make it so firearms only ever have a single damage die (so max at d12) unless they're firing multiple projectiles, and each projectile adds a damage die for any properties that let you fire extra rounds.

there's something here...

 

[AlViking]

So, autofire...

One thought I had is to tie the benefit of autofire to Extra Attack (and thereby locking it in to martial characters and fighters especially). Something like "when you use Autofire, you only make one attack roll against a AC of 15. Roll damage dice for each attack roll you would make when taking the Attack Action and then apply the rolled damage dice to a creature you can see within the short range of the weapon nor farther than 30 feet apart. You may apply multiple damage dice to a single target. This use of the weapon consumes half the maximum weapon ammunition." Yes, I recognize that is some messy first draft language, but I think the intent comes across.

That or make it cone AOE attack granting a dex save with bonus for cover if that. Despite how Hollywood depicts it, full auto is primarily used in battle for cover fire or to suppress enemy movement. You burn through ammunition incredibly quickly and it's just not an effective use of ammunition. Weapons quickly overheating is another issue which means that when used in combat it's usually burst fire.

In addition, I agree that you need additional training to use auto fire, it's not that easy to keep the fire focused.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

That or make it cone AOE attack granting a dex save with bonus for cover if that. Despite how Hollywood depicts it, full auto is primarily used in battle for cover fire or to suppress enemy movement. You burn through ammunition incredibly quickly and it's just not an effective use of ammunition. Weapons quickly overheating is another issue which means that when used in combat it's usually burst fire.

well, depending on the situation and the weapon the bursts can be pretty long (i've seen m249 gunners belt out like 20-30 round "bursts" without much care in war footage). but suppressive fire is kinda hard to replicate, and just a cone aoe attack doesn't really do it. i can think of a couple ways to help this.

• make it a burst aoe within the weapon's range (maybe at long range the burst increases in size but cover is more effective?) that lasts until the start of the gunner's next turn. anyone not in cover rolls the save, anyone in cover rolls the save if they leave cover
• as above, but instead of lasting until the start of the gunner's next turn, anyone not in cover rolls dex vs damage, anyone in cover rolls wis vs some sort of demoralize effect

i think i prefer the first one just because it's cleaner