D&D 5E Please critique my firearm rules

[GreenTengu]

Well, the thing is... early firearms kind of are the same as crossbows.

Crossbows pack a really frightening amount of force behind their bolts. A crossbow can puncture right through armor just the same way as a rifle shot can, if not better. Both weapons take a lot more time to load than the round system really allows.

You think of them as different mechanically, but-- what's the part that is doing the damage? It is a release of a create force behind something that punctures. The amount of force behind the object by the time it reaches the target is not all that different and whether you have a small metal ball or a metal arrow tip with a wooden shaft behind it, it makes very little difference. Certainly claiming your flintlock pistol is any more lethal than a crossbow is farcical and really, it is little things like that that make me say you are trying to make it different just to make it different rather than making it different to make any sense.

Honestly, the differences between the weapons? Well...
Okay, the process of reloading the rifle involves sticking a rod down the barrel to clean out any gunk, pouring new powder in, packing in some wadding and then adding the shot. To reload a crossbow, you need to pull back the string, wind it, place your new bolt. I suppose the crossbow is a bit faster then, but not by much. Not really enough to introduce a new rather unwieldy mechanic.

Your scatter mechanic is broken. Its just out and out broken. A simple weapon that deals 2d8 damage on a shot? Whatever the range it has, it has less range than a melee weapon. Surely you realize that. You cannot have a simple weapon that does more damage in a single attack roll than a heavy, two-handed melee weapon in the same category. Gold cost in and of itself cannot be relied on as a balancing factor. However ridiculous the price you put on something, if it is available it is still available.

I mean, think about this... martial character with firearm feat, has two attacks and a shotgun. First round of battle, moves forward and deals 4d8 damage. Next round he "only" does 2d8. What is even the point of having melee weapons in the game?


I don't even know how I could communicate this to you. If you won't listen, you just won't listen. What you are making here has nothing to do with crunch or realism or dynamic anything. You are simply making things different just to make them different and because you favor them, it is inevitable that you are going to build them in a way that will be broken.

The most functional, realistic and workable way to incorporate firearms without functionally replacing all weapons in the game with firearms is to do what I wrote in my previous post. Anything else is going to be way too powerful or way too weak. Because so much of the game is built on the weapons balancing to a particular formula that you are refusing to stick with simply to be different means that your weapons won't calculate out right and won't be balanced.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe the same as crossbows, but a different damage die. This is something promised for the DMG, will be interesting to see how it is handled there.

 

[Andor]

Honestly, the differences between the weapons? Well...
Okay, the process of reloading the rifle involves sticking a rod down the barrel to clean out any gunk, pouring new powder in, packing in some wadding and then adding the shot. To reload a crossbow, you need to pull back the string, wind it, place your new bolt. I suppose the crossbow is a bit faster then, but not by much. Not really enough to introduce a new rather unwieldy mechanic.

Not really the same speed. I've seen a man using a light crossbow put 9 quarrels into a target in 30 seconds. Armies using muzzle loaders thought 4 rounds a minute was good speed, crack troops might get 5. A heavy crossbow might be the same speed if you consider a hvy x-box to be a windlass operated arbelast. If you think a hvy x-bow only needs a goat's foot to span it, then it should still be faster than a muzzle loader. Probably about the same speed as a breechloading pre-cartidge gun though.

Your scatter mechanic is broken. Its just out and out broken. A simple weapon that deals 2d8 damage on a shot? Whatever the range it has, it has less range than a melee weapon. Surely you realize that. You cannot have a simple weapon that does more damage in a single attack roll than a heavy, two-handed melee weapon in the same category. Gold cost in and of itself cannot be relied on as a balancing factor. However ridiculous the price you put on something, if it is available it is still available.

Don't get hysterical. The scatter mechanic is powerful but hardly game breaking. It can get ugly in the hands of a rogue however. I would probably add a line to the effect that the extra die is added after the dice are doubled by a crit however.

As for why you would ever need a melee weapon, because after you've fired it you have a club.

Still, it is very powerful, and a 6 second reload is impossibly fast for a muzzle loader. Also, are these supposed to be matchlocks? Wheel locks? Flint locks?

For sanities sake I'd probably assume flintlocks and add some rules. Reloading takes 3 actions, and while reloading your foes have advantage on melee attacks against you. Rifling should add one extra action to the loading time. If you want to make them as hazardous as the real thing then double ones (on disadvantage OR advantage) means the gun deals it's damage to the wielder and is useless untill repaired. - Well you kind of have that under the lethal heading, I missed that. But a critical miss is not a defined term, I'd call it out as rolling a one, or double ones.

Just my 2¢

 

[JiffyPopTart]

In my campaign gnomes (and the hobgoblins who have enslaved them) have access to guns via gnomepowder (a gnome only semi magical substance). I didn't want to spend a ton of time developing guns since only a very small number of creatures in the world use them.

I ruled that a gun is treated as a crossbow in all ways except the damage die is increased one step to give the guns SOME advantage and purpose in the world.

 

[Andor]

In reality the advantages of early guns over alternative missile weapons like the bow had nothing to do with deadliness.

They were superior to the bow due to training time. You can train up a competent arqeubusier from a peasant draftee in about 6-12 weeks. The english used to say that if you wanted a good longbow man you started with his grandfather. Of course the bow has vastly superior ROF, range and accuracy over a primitive firearm in the hands of a master. Assuming of course that you had three generations of advance notice in order to lay your hands on a master bowman.

They were not really superior to crossbows in terms of training or rof.

However the big advantage of firearms is that they are scary. They roar, they flame, they thunder, they cover the battlefield in choking grey smoke. Horses need to be trained to tolerate the sound of the guns or they will bolt. They are anti-morale weapons. Which sadly has not been an element in the last 3 editions of D&D.

 

[eamon]

In my campaign gnomes (and the hobgoblins who have enslaved them) have access to guns via gnomepowder (a gnome only semi magical substance). I didn't want to spend a ton of time developing guns since only a very small number of creatures in the world use them.

I ruled that a gun is treated as a crossbow in all ways except the damage die is increased one step to give the guns SOME advantage and purpose in the world.

Yeah, so that probably works for you because access is limited by the setting and/or plot. If I simply made them "better" with no strings attached, there'd be no more crossbows (and possibly no more bows), since almost everyone would choose the obviously more effective weapon. In my campaign (based on Zeitgeist), I'm not going to systematically limit availability. There'll be some minor delays and costs, but for anything other than a very low-level party, these won't be a balancing factor.

 

[mcbobbo]

I have some experience with blackpowder firearms and wanted to offer two bits of feedback:

1) You can probably drop the spyglass part, unless that's just flavor. Muzzleloaders didn't have scopes, probably because...

2) ...they're only good up to about 200 yards. Rifled barrel or not, you're typically talking about a homemade lead ball and less-than-awesome powder and steel for the ignition chamber. So you can't pack a whole lot of powder and can't be sure you're getting a good seal for the rifling anyway (thus the wadding material). Civil War era rifles can push 500 yards or more with very specialized equipment, but that could be further along the technology line than you intend to go.

I'd cap my max range at 600 feet, personally, and maybe allow beyond that with disadvantage.

 

[eamon]

The scatter mechanic is powerful but hardly game breaking. It can get ugly in the hands of a rogue however. I would probably add a line to the effect that the extra die is added after the dice are doubled by a crit however.

Hmm, that's an excellent observation. I could simply rule that sneak attack damage is impossible to deal (it's not exactly a precision weapon, after all), but it feels like the rules are getting a little complex at that point. I could just grant an attack/damage bonus at short range, or simply up the damage... Or just drop the weapon entirely. It's certainly the most complex, rules-wise.

For sanities sake I'd probably assume flintlocks and add some rules. Reloading takes 3 actions, and while reloading your foes have advantage on melee attacks against you. Rifling should add one extra action to the loading time. If you want to make them as hazardous as the real thing then double ones (on disadvantage OR advantage) means the gun deals it's damage to the wielder and is useless untill repaired. - Well you kind of have that under the lethal heading, I missed that. But a critical miss is not a defined term, I'd call it out as rolling a one, or double ones.

Yeah, I'm aiming for flintlocks. I guess I could up the reload to multiple actions, but it's not really going to matter; nobody will use these round-after-round in any case. I could have reloading provoke an attack of opportunity, which isn't terribly 5e-esque, but might balance a feat-backed faster reload time.

 

[ccooke]

Hmm, that's an excellent observation. I could simply rule that sneak attack damage is impossible to deal (it's not exactly a precision weapon, after all), but it feels like the rules are getting a little complex at that point. I could just grant an attack/damage bonus at short range, or simply up the damage... Or just drop the weapon entirely. It's certainly the most complex, rules-wise.

Definitely don't rule sneak attack impossible - 5e sneak attack isn't precision damage, it's about catching the enemy off-guard. The thing to imagine is the rogue is trained to look for the opening where the target is dealing with something else, unaware or whatever and strike then.
the simplest way to deal with it is probably just "This weapon deals one extra dice of damage upon a critical hit"

Yeah, I'm aiming for flintlocks. I guess I could up the reload to multiple actions, but it's not really going to matter; nobody will use these round-after-round in any case. I could have reloading provoke an attack of opportunity, which isn't terribly 5e-esque, but might balance a feat-backed faster reload time.

So, I've been thinking about this. As a suggestion (that may be too complex, but I think looks quite interesting), try this:

Before it can be fired, a flintlock weapon must be loaded and primed. Loading takes one action and reduces your move by half. Priming takes an action.
(This has some nice effects, like preventing you from loading a weapon when grappled or restrained)

A Firearms feat could then be:
* Increase Dex by 1
* Gain the ability to load a flintlock in a single action, without any reduction of speed
* Gain proficiency in a bayonet attachment on two-handed firearms, treating it as a finesse weapon dealing 1d8 piercing damage

That seems to be about the right size for a feat. Bayonets were around very early in the use of firearms, specifically because they took a long time to load. They were said to require some training to use, so without proficiency they would be an improvised spearlike weapon.

 

[Grainger]

I thought that early firearms (until rifled barrels) were extremely inaccurate. Even in the early 19th century the deal was "aim at enemy soldier - you might hit someone in his unit". And this chance of hitting was when you were firing at a unit containing dozens of men.

I have no idea how accurate close range was, but as it's very easy to miss at very close range with modern firearms, presumably early ones were worse. The reason that firearms were adopted by armies was because they required less skill than bows, and because you had lots of gunners firing at large groups of enemies - there was a very good chance some of them would hit someone.

Since D&D does not usually involve fighting formed up groups of enemies, your chances of hitting should be quite low. If firing into melee, you're almost as likely to hit your allies. Firing down a dungeon corridor might be OK, as might firing at a huge opponent, e.g. a Dragon, as long as it's not moving too fast, but hitting an Orc in a swirling melee outdoors? Good luck.

I'm not sure what time period this is meant to represent, but didn't very early firearms have a good chance of backfiring?

Also, when rifled barrels were first introduced, weren't they still less accurate than a bow? It was just much easier to train up people to use firearms than to train and develop them as archers.

So, all that considered, shouldn't there be some to-hit penalties in play, even if damage (if you hit) is relatively high?

Oh, and finally, when firearms became prevailant, nearly all armour became superfluous. If you got hit, armour wasn't going to help you (so should firearm damage ignore armour?). Some units (e.g. cavalry) maintained breastplates, as that was relatively unencumbering, and was useful against sword blows. But gone forever were chain and full plate armour. I guess it depends on how prevalent the firearms are. If the PCs don't expect to face them, then I suppose it's logical to keep the armour. But if firearms are widespread in the game, then it doesn't make sense for people to bother with expensive, noisy, relatively heavy/fatiguing armour.