Making guns palatable in high fantasy [Design Theory]

[Dice4Hire]

I am also not a fan of guns though how they were handled with the Gith (I think) was pretty good.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm pretty sure you meant giff there.

 

[mmadsen]

The thing to bear in mind, and this is important, is that any weapon can kill you with a single strike.

Yes, getting hit is much more like save-or-die than take 1d8 points of damage.

Ask an emergency room medico which kills more often -- a knife wound or a gunshot? You may be surprised that knife wounds are more lethal by a large percentage. You know, the standard d4 dagger?

I believe it's a knife assault that's more dangerous than a typical gun assault, not a knife wound vs. a gun-shot wound. A knife assault is always at close range, where the attacker can grab with one hand and deliver dozens of thrusts with the other. Many gun assaults only involve a single hit. Also lumping small-caliber pistols in with rifles and shotguns (with buckshot) is a bit like lumping knives, swords, and axes together.

The one way knife assaults are decently modeled by hit points is that the first few knife wounds tend to be "defensive wounds" to the arms and hands, before the (untrained) attacker finally gets in close and delivers a plunging wound to the heart or other vital organs.

Guns are not more lethal -- they merely allow the application of force at an increased range.

The key strength of guns is not the super-lethality of gun-shot wounds, but they are more dangerous in the sense that they often can bypass shields, armor, and skill at arms. You don't accumulate defensive wounds while fending off gun-shots, and you don't typically get battered and bruised in a gun-fight until you finally succumb.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I believe it's a knife assault that's more dangerous than a typical gun assault, not a knife wound vs. a gun-shot wound.

While you're right about the number of strikes deliverable in a knife assault, as I recall, TAG has it right- because of proximity and the sheer size of the wound, knife wounds tend to be more dangerous on average.

A knife wound will be more likely to hit something like a major vein or artery simply because the assailant isn't going to be attacking from 25 yards or so...especially if the assailant knows what he's doing.

Do you know how some special forces train to take out a scout? A single knife thrust to the side of the neck ripped out through the front. It takes out 2 major blood vessels and the larynx.

A single slash to the femoral artery will be fatal in just a few minutes.

 

[mmadsen]

How or why would a magical society even begin to develop guns? Would they even be the same as "real world" firearms?

When we think of guns, we tend to think of small arms, but gunpowder made its biggest splash early on as a way to knock down enormous walls with ease. Once the big, heavy siege cannon demonstrated its power, then lighter field artillery proved itself against infantry and cavalry. The arquebus was just a loud, smokey alternative to the crossbow.

Firearms became popular because they were just as easy to use as the crossbow and less expensive -- and really, really awesome. Don't underestimate the importance of being awesome.

So, the magical equivalent of firearms wouldn't have to look like a gun, but it should probably cheaply and easily allow conscripts to overcome well-trained and well-equipped knights while making quite a show.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How or why would a magical society even begin to develop guns?

Assuming you don't have the skill, intellect, genetics or whatever it takes to cast spells, a good firearm could be the great equalizer between casters and non-casters...just as it was in the real world between people who trained their entire lives to become warriors and those who didn't.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I agree with Umbran's first response. I also generally don't care for tacking on guns in my D&D fantasy, when I'm already conceding plate armor, rapiers, and other things that don't fit in the equivalent time period I prefer. And unlike some previous respondents, an early fantasy 17th century is probably the last period I would want to play D&D in. (Printing presses? Argh! ) If I'm going to 17th, let's just bebop on up to Dumas, and go full pistol and rapier, with cloaks and witty comments for armor.

All that said, if you want a fantastical firearm in your D&D, and don't want to start with genre expectations as Umbran recommended, then I'd say to remember that form follows function. That is, the fantastical firearms aren't going to look very much like pistols or rifles or cannons, because the magical, alchemical, etc. properties that make them fantastical are going to have different needs. Sure, the stocks might be similar (assuming a kick on a rifle or musket), but the triggers will almost assuredly be different, and the barrels definitely will be. Turtledoves' "Darkness" series is one I also liked, but the "stick" with a hole in it where human contact triggers a shot is ... a good example of that kind of thinking, though (like the rest of the series), a little too transparent for my tastes in a game.

Just once, I'd like to see someone make this effort and do it with glass enclosed ammo of acid or fire or "magical goo" shot from a small mortar.

 

[cattoy]

His point is that there is no reason to make guns the deadliest weapons in D&D...or any other FRPG.

My counterpoint to that is, if guns are so expensive to create, so dangerous to operate and no more lethal than anything else you already have, then why make them?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My counterpoint to that is, if guns are so expensive to create, so dangerous to operate and no more lethal than anything else you already have, then why make them?

Nearly every period crossbow requires some physical strength to reload; no gun does. A trained child could reload an arquebus, but would be physically incapable of reloading a 150lb pull crossbow. That means you have a bigger pool of people who can be made into a credible threat.

Others have already pointed out the superior penetration guns had, which means you can affect more targets- even if the wounds crossbows and bows are just as deadly, that makes the gun a Better weapon in certain situations.

Also (experts, correct me if I'm wrong), but it is easier to keep a period gun operational in wet weather than it is for a crossbow.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Nearly every period crossbow requires some physical strength to reload; no gun does. A trained child could reload an arquebus, but would be physically incapable of reloading a 150lb pull crossbow. That means you have a bigger pool of people who can be made into a credible threat.

Others have already pointed out the superior penetration guns had, which means you can affect more targets- even if the wounds crossbows and bows are just as deadly, that makes the gun a Better weapon in certain situations.

Also (experts, correct me if I'm wrong), but it is easier to keep a period gun operational in wet weather than it is for a crossbow.

Slightly - you don't want to keep either loaded in damp weather. One warps, and damp powder can etch the inside of the barrel.

Me, I like flintlocks. Cavalry charges still happen, bayonets and the saber still see play, but the gun has become reliable. I have seen a Brown Bess that went through a hundred years of service, in five different armed services. Cut down to carbine length, muzzle flared, still capable of firing after all those years.

Show me a new gun that has done that!

The Auld Grump - Gods, I lust after that gun....