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

[AlViking]

i agree with most of this, guns aren't special, don't mythologize them, don't have a feat that circumvents loading, but i would at least say don't make them all loading by default, there should be guns you can fire quickly and guns you can only shoot once a round.

Doesn't that come down to ammunition capacity? A musket only has 1 round before a reload, a revolver typically has 6.

 

[Marc17]

Make them martial weapons, make sure they have Loading. Don’t create a feat that removes this.

Too late. A Giff racial feature is that they ignore Reload. They are after all, spiritually connected to firearms via their gods.

Reading up on all of the guns in 5.x. Funny enough, for all the connection between Giff and firearms, nothing is described in the Spelljammer books that I can find except for the Musket and Double Barreled Musket attack descriptions in the Giff monster stats.* The 5.24 DMG has guns but they are obviously modern weapons with Burst Fire abilities and no prices as they are meant to be found in special markets in such places as the City of Brass (IIRC). No prices anywhere. Is there any other references I'm missing?

For my own treatment, I'm dividing up rules by how I want them to affect my game, as adventurer's weapons, good for equipping infantry, or just not quite as good as bows. Balancing the damage, cost, range, and other factors to suit that usage for whatever I want for a particular campaign.**

*Really sort of brings home what a shoddy job that set of books was. It's why I bought the 2E Planescape book rather than the 5E one when I became interested. Looks like it was all done by Chris Perkins. Another thing I can blame him for.

**Currently ignoring them as siege weapons, which is where they really should come in with importance for some mediaeval or early modern weaponry.

 

[saviirkad]

Late to this party, but…

They’re just another type of weapon, nothing inherently special about them. I’ve been playing WFRP 4e with a wide range of guns for years, it plays the same.

Make them martial weapons, make sure they have Loading. Don’t create a feat that removes this.

There seems to be a wide attempt to mythologize guns as needing to be special. They don’t, it’s a game.

Remove loading entirely and I agree.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Doesn't that come down to ammunition capacity? A musket only has 1 round before a reload, a revolver typically has 6.

personally i would rather we just drop tracking baseline ammo of all kinds, i don't think it adds much unless you're explicitly using special ammo, not to mention martials already make attacks at an improbable speed, just say the artificers who invented them included a reloading enchantment in their fundamental design or something.

 

[Reynard]

personally i would rather we just drop tracking baseline ammo of all kinds, i don't think it adds much unless you're explicitly using special ammo, not to mention martials already make attacks at an improbable speed, just say the artificers who invented them included a reloading enchantment in their fundamental design or something.

Tracking ammo has value in certain styles of games (survival horror, for example). i don't think it is especially fun or helpful in 5E, and is also just another knock against martial characters versus casters.

 

[SkidAce]

Too late. A Giff racial feature is that they ignore Reload. They are after all, spiritually connected to firearms via their gods.

Reading up on all of the guns in 5.x. Funny enough, for all the connection between Giff and firearms, nothing is described in the Spelljammer books that I can find except for the Musket and Double Barreled Musket attack descriptions in the Giff monster stats.* The 5.24 DMG has guns but they are obviously modern weapons with Burst Fire abilities and no prices as they are meant to be found in special markets in such places as the City of Brass (IIRC). No prices anywhere. Is there any other references I'm missing?

For my own treatment, I'm dividing up rules by how I want them to affect my game, as adventurer's weapons, good for equipping infantry, or just not quite as good as bows. Balancing the damage, cost, range, and other factors to suit that usage for whatever I want for a particular campaign.**

*Really sort of brings home what a shoddy job that set of books was. It's why I bought the 2E Planescape book rather than the 5E one when I became interested. Looks like it was all done by Chris Perkins. Another thing I can blame him for.

**Currently ignoring them as siege weapons, which is where they really should come in with importance for some mediaeval or early modern weaponry.

5E (2014) PH: No guns
5E (2014) DMG: All the guns (basic pistol 1d10, musket 1d12, plus modern/futuristic), prices

5E (2024) PH: basic pistol and musket, prices
5E (2024) DMG: modern and futuristic ONLY, NO Prices.

 

[AlViking]

personally i would rather we just drop tracking baseline ammo of all kinds, i don't think it adds much unless you're explicitly using special ammo, not to mention martials already make attacks at an improbable speed, just say the artificers who invented them included a reloading enchantment in their fundamental design or something.

Tracking the amount of ammo carried is something I don't do either. But if I have a game with a derringer 1-shot firearm or a double-barrel shotgun and a revolver it seems like they should be handled differently in play.

I'd still limit number of attacks for balance and because aiming effectively takes a moment. Whether or not loading requiring an action can be bypassed (something I dislike about crossbow expertise) by either proficiency or a feat is a different issue. I don't want to totally ignore it - it makes sense to me that someone not proficient with a revolver would not know how to use a speed loader for example. On the other hand reloading a musket and firing several times per turn doesn't really work for my brain any more than firing a heavy crossbow does. I guess we all have certain lines that are just a bit too far.

If you make loading a bonus action that muzzle loader could only be fired twice per round which is closer to reality but then again this is D&D.

 

[GrimCo]

I wouldn't move them to simple weapons because in order to be proficient with them it really does take quite a bit of practice. Anyone can use a gun of course, just like anyone can use a longbow. Someone using them just won't be as effective as someone trained to use them.

Not really, at least if we are talking about muskets and matchlock/wheelock pistols. They are smooth bore weapons. You don't aim them like modern guns. You point them in direction of enemy and hope you hit. That's one of the reason why guns won over longbows. At best, musketeer was doing 3 shots per minute and was effective at 50-100 yards. Pistols were worse, you fired once and kept distances to 5-10 yards if you wanted to hit something. Longbow man fired 10-12 arrows per minute and was effective up to 200 yards. But, you can train basic gun proficiency in 1 day and in few weeks of drills, you have battlefield ready soldier. With longbow having 100-160 lbs of draw, you need to be strong to even pull it. People started training at ages 7-8 and trained once a week for a decade to effectively use war longbow.

In short, musket is simple weapon for the same reason crossbow is simple weapon. You don't need long training to use it effectivley on the battlefield. There is no special technique or strength requirement.

Modern firearms are even easier to use. After 9-12 weeks of basic training, you are proficient. You can hit man sized target using iron sights at 100-200 meters.

 

[AlViking]

Not really, at least if we are talking about muskets and matchlock/wheelock pistols. They are smooth bore weapons. You don't aim them like modern guns. You point them in direction of enemy and hope you hit. That's one of the reason why guns won over longbows. At best, musketeer was doing 3 shots per minute and was effective at 50-100 yards. Pistols were worse, you fired once and kept distances to 5-10 yards if you wanted to hit something. Longbow man fired 10-12 arrows per minute and was effective up to 200 yards. But, you can train basic gun proficiency in 1 day and in few weeks of drills, you have battlefield ready soldier. With longbow having 100-160 lbs of draw, you need to be strong to even pull it. People started training at ages 7-8 and trained once a week for a decade to effectively use war longbow.

In short, musket is simple weapon for the same reason crossbow is simple weapon. You don't need long training to use it effectivley on the battlefield. There is no special technique or strength requirement.

Modern firearms are even easier to use. After 9-12 weeks of basic training, you are proficient. You can hit man sized target using iron sights at 100-200 meters.

One of the things that I think D&D gets wrong and always has is that there's a huge difference between mass volleys which rarely if ever apply to D&D combat and combat as used by the game. While longbow archers could send arrows 600 feet, they were not aiming at individual targets. The effective range of a modern composite longbow for hunting is generally accepted to max out at around 40 yards. So while the short range is okay for longbows the long range IMHO is a bit silly, to put it in perspective it's 2-3 city blocks in most US cities.

But that's what we have - we assume that if you have proficiency in a longbow you can somehow target something you can barely see. Modern rifles with scopes can of course greatly increase that distance but then you have to know how to compensate for the drop of the bullet, take into account wind and humidity. Becoming a sniper takes a lot of training.

Anyway back to answering your question - I think training is necessary because there is a significant difference between firing at a stationary target at relatively close range and knowing how to aim quickly at the barbarian swinging a greataxe about to chop off your head. It's not impossible, you can still fire away. You just aren't going to be adding your proficiency bonus.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Personally i like firearms to be the "easy but way too cost, rate of fire, and logistics expensive " option in my D&D.

Meaning a rich noble can buy some muskets and store a lot of shot and bullets to hold back a few dozen guys with only 2 commoner men-at-arms during a siege. which can be stolen by hobgoblins to hold a nearby fort.

But no one has the money and roads to arm a force of riflemen.

ignoring that if firearms were logistically expensive they never would have caught on, "commoner men-at-arms" is kind of a contradiction unless you just mean "commoner" to mean "not a noble". men-at-arms were highly trained and well equipped. they wouldn't need an "easy" option (though depending on what it was they might like it).

I wouldn't move them to simple weapons because in order to be proficient with them it really does take quite a bit of practice. Anyone can use a gun of course, just like anyone can use a longbow. Someone using them just won't be as effective as someone trained to use them.

for one, not everyone can really use the type of longbow that would be used in war. they had heavy draw weights - typically 120 to 200 pounds iirc. most longbow training is literally just developing the necessary muscle to loose arrows with one for a long enough period of time to be considered useful in a fight. firearms are way, WAY easier - not just because they're more intuitive to aim, but because they require way less working out. a lot of firearms training back then were formation and reloading drills, and even then you wouldn't train for that long (maybe a few weeks?).

for another, you could say that about any weapon, including dnd's simple weapons (and ESPECIALLY including certain ones). spear fighting requires training. quarterstaff fighting requires training. slings require a TON of training. simple vs martial is really just a balance conceit, and if you don't care about balance that much, it quickly becomes clear that simple weapons don't actually require no training - just relatively little (except the sling. that thing is simple purely for balance reasons they brought entirely upon themselves).