D&D 5E No One Plays High Level?

[James Gasik]

I was thinking more along the lines of a "Seek Gunpowder" spell that sent out a cloud of sparks. But there are many options.

Pathfinder has firearms, and spells that dampen powder, force misfires, and the like totally exist.

 

[Oofta]

Pathfinder has firearms, and spells that dampen powder, force misfires, and the like totally exist.

There hasn't exactly been a demand for firearms in my games, which is unsurprising given how infrequently they're represented in fantasy fiction. But if we did, those kind of spells are something I would look to add.

 

[James Gasik]

There hasn't exactly been a demand for firearms in my games, which is unsurprising given how infrequently they're represented in fantasy fiction. But if we did, those kind of spells are something I would look to add.

Firearms occupy this strange space in gaming. Some people are convinced that such weapons would instantly destroy the faux medieval setting with an industrial revolution, make armor useless, and obliterate monsters left and right. The reality is, full plate armor and cannons didn't exist until the 1300's in our world, we had hand cannons in the 1200's, and both the bastard sword, arquebus, matchlock, and the rapier were all invented in the 1400's.

The limitations of early firearms make them very difficult to use in the short skirmishes D&D is known for. Conversely, if you add firearms to a game and they aren't immediately superior to other weapons in all respects, some people will reject that outright! It's somewhat akin to the "katana madness" that once infected the gaming sphere where people who have bought into the mythology surrounding a weapon insist that it should be reflected in the game's mechanics.

All of this is quite silly when you consider D&D, in particular, which in the past deliberately made certain weapons strictly inferior to others based on designer bias and wanting to elevate certain forms of combat in the game- look at all the various times weapons that were once feared on battlefields are barely worth using over the years, like slings, crossbows, warhammers (really Gary, d4+1?) and so on.

It's especially amusing when one considers siege weaponry, since the Magic-User was originally designed to be an analog for such weapons on the battlefield!

 

[Oofta]

Firearms occupy this strange space in gaming. Some people are convinced that such weapons would instantly destroy the faux medieval setting with an industrial revolution, make armor useless, and obliterate monsters left and right. The reality is, full plate armor and cannons didn't exist until the 1300's in our world, we had hand cannons in the 1200's, and both the bastard sword, arquebus, matchlock, and the rapier were all invented in the 1400's.

The limitations of early firearms make them very difficult to use in the short skirmishes D&D is known for. Conversely, if you add firearms to a game and they aren't immediately superior to other weapons in all respects, some people will reject that outright! It's somewhat akin to the "katana madness" that once infected the gaming sphere where people who have bought into the mythology surrounding a weapon insist that it should be reflected in the game's mechanics.

All of this is quite silly when you consider D&D, in particular, which in the past deliberately made certain weapons strictly inferior to others based on designer bias and wanting to elevate certain forms of combat in the game- look at all the various times weapons that were once feared on battlefields are barely worth using over the years, like slings, crossbows, warhammers (really Gary, d4+1?) and so on.

It's especially amusing when one considers siege weaponry, since the Magic-User was originally designed to be an analog for such weapons on the battlefield!

Personally I don't have a problem mixing firearms and magic. You can go several ways with this. One example would be that in close quarters combat you draw a pistol fire off a shot and then charge into battle. Maybe don't even add anything to attack and damage but proficiency bonus, which would give strength based PCs something to do while they close. Then state that armor is relatively cheap and better made, so it's effective against firearms (which it was for a long time anyway).

But anytime you have firearms you get people that want to play that gunslinger, shoot that matchlock multiple times per turn, etc.. It's bad enough that with a feat people can shoot a heavy crossbow multiple times.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As a Warhammer fan I don't find mixing gunpowder and fantasy weird at all, but I also understand that it is not something everyone wants and would not fit every campaign. Having hacked a bunch of rules for my setting where high tech is early bronze age stuff, I wish D&D had better support for playing at different tech levels. Sure, the DMG has some rules for more advanced weapons, but they really aren't well integrated or well thought out. You could easily have a full supplement book to cover this sort of stuff in detail.

 

[Distracted DM]

Oh, I've enjoyed @pogre 's photos of their gaming table, and I was struck by their comments "our combats play fast" and "we just wrapped at 19th/20th level" – which AFAICT seem to be exceptional as I've more often heard that combats take longer at higher levels.

The context was they have a very combat-centric fast-and-fun beer-and-pretzels D&D game.

I don't have any context for your high-level games, so no questions right now, but if you'd like to share something on your mind, go ahead!

Ahhh, yeah I have to imagine "combat plays fast" is relative.
If you're finishing a 5e level 19-20 encounter in <60 <180 mins that isn't a pushover, I can't imagine a secret that's anything other than "my players and I all know exactly what we're going to do each round, we pre-roll or roll dice online, and few surprising or unexpected events occur."

Either that, or you're upping enemy damage and lowering HP- which I have considered but never pulled the trigger on.

It's high level. You have more options, features, and dice to take into consideration- not to mention more math. The stakes are usually higher, you're more invested... Everything is going to take more time.

 

[Mort]

Ahhh, yeah I have to imagine "combat plays fast" is relative.
If you're finishing a 5e level 19-20 encounter in <60 <180 mins that isn't a pushover, I can't imagine a secret that's anything other than "my players and I all know exactly what we're going to do each round, we pre-roll or roll dice online, and few surprising or unexpected events occur."

Either that, or you're upping enemy damage and lowering HP- which I have considered but never pulled the trigger on.

It's high level. You have more options, features, and dice to take into consideration- not to mention more math. The stakes are usually higher, you're more invested... Everything is going to take more time.

You want to see combat grind to a halt. Try running a few high level combats (of any complexity) with a Peace domain cleric!

Wow, that was painful and I wasn't even DMing!

 

[Minigiant]

That's not actually the best way to be a defender or striker. IMHO.

Striker yes.

Defender no but still very good.

High level play is slower than low level play. That doesn't make it unplayable.

. The issue is the people demanding faster turns also the same people demanding tons of options.

 

[Quickleaf]

You want to see combat grind to a halt. Try running a few high level combats (of any complexity) with a Peace domain cleric!

Wow, that was painful and I wasn't even DMing!

Where was the pain point with the Peace cleric? Was it that everyone suddenly had a reaction to choose from with Protective Bond? I’m guessing that high level PCs usually have at least one reaction option already, so more an intensification of an existing problem rather than creation of a new problem from scratch. Was it having to remind everyone about the d4 from the Empowering Bond? So an intensification of the Bless problem encountered at 1st level?

 

[kigmatzomat]

Fair enough. I just looked them up and it says that the 12 pounder was a 1 per minute rate of fire and the 8 pounder was 2 per minute. The 4 pounder shows 2-3 per minute. None of which are fast enough to take out a group of mid to high level PCs.

I don't want to derail this so for those who care

Spoiler

Ever had a party get 'sniped' by an aimed shot of iron ball from a mile away able to hit a specific horse-sized target? Because that's what counter-battery fire is: Cannons shooting other cannons at that range.

Although with a group they likely use case shot, where a cheap tin can would be filled with 50-100 musket balls. Aim twenty yards in front of the party, the can bursts and create a fan of lead, each ball able to shoot through multiple people or a horse.

So the party responds with overwhelming force yeah? Wait, no, nothing has close to a mile range. Hope you have a caster with teleport still alive, because you now need to run four thousand+ feet to get in bow range. Lets say magic-boosted speed of 90, take double moves so thats 22 rounds.

Huh, that's 2 minutes 12 seconds. Take two more shots. Except since "close" range for a cannon is at 1,000ft (or as I like to call it "still well out of bow & spell range") they switch to canister for the second, creating a cone of lead. Even at that range, grapeshot was more than likely to punch through one person to hit people behind them.

Aiming doesn't need to be precise when using a massive shotgun with a cone yards wide, fire rates can go up. One shot every 9 rounds? Every 8 rounds?

Yeah but now the PCs with longbows can start to shoot back. That single cannon will go silent quickly. Except cannons are rarely singletons. They are units. Napoleon would take a 100-200 cannons on campaign and concentrate fire on specific targets.
But lets be reasonable. Lets say there are six 12 pounders, each 75+ feet from the next, ordered to fire at a feisty group of PCs.

How do they survive 18+ cannon blasts on that run to bow range?