D&D 5E Please critique my firearm rules

[aramis erak]

I've fired some smoothbores... both pistol and longarm...

Accuracy is such that, at 30-40', the pistol shot group is about 3". Mostly, that's due to inconsistent powder, or so I'm told. (I wasn't loading, just firing.) The musket, at 50', was about 2.5". Both were 0.60 caliber.

The power isn't that great, either.

But you definitely can hit someone you aimed at. I found them more accurate than a bow in my hands.

 

[GreenTengu]

I'll say once again.

Crossbows are every bit as powerful as early firearms. The idea that one would increase the die size is just silly. Crossbows are a bit bulky, but they were in no way flat out inferior. In fact, up until pepperbox and revolvers were invented, if you were going after a single target crossbows were a pretty suitable and fair alternative-- the drawback generally being that their shape is a little more bulky and their ammo is a bit more difficult to carry around.

But in terms of reload time and raw stopping power, in terms of actual use of the weapon-- there is no reason there needs to be any actual mechanical difference in use of the weapon.

I don't really see a whole lot of merit to adding a pretty expansive and complicated subsystem to try to deal with all the fairly small differences between them. There is just as much difference between the proper use of a pike and a halberd, but other than weight, gold cost and damage type, there is no difference between them.

 

[Grainger]

That contradicts what I've read about Waterloo, for example (for the muskets, not the limited number of rifles there). I'm not disputing your experience, by the way. Perhaps musket accuracy tails off rapidly at slightly greater ranges. I don't have time to dig my book out this morning, however.

I was going to give a historical example, but for the sake of brevity I'll just say that I have doubts about the safety, let alone the usefulness of gunfire in a swirling melee. If we look at pre-automatic weapons in general, too, soldiers didn't stand there and reload while attacked with melee weapons. That's what bayonets or sabres were for.

It would also vary enormously by situation. In a town fight, you don't want to hit bystanders. In an open field, it's a bit easier, at least until the enemy is among you.

That all said, I suppose a similar argument could be made for bow or crossbow fire. How useful are they in melee, in reality? D&D doesn't penalise them, so perhaps firearms shouldn't be penalised either. Sorry - I've gone round in circles here, but I think it's all worth considering.

I just think it's a bit daft to have people loading muzzle loaders while someone hacks at them with a battle axe. Perhaps the same should be true for crossbows.

 

[Grainger]

I'll say once again.

Crossbows are every bit as powerful as early firearms. The idea that one would increase the die size is just silly. Crossbows are a bit bulky, but they were in no way flat out inferior. In fact, up until pepperbox and revolvers were invented, if you were going after a single target crossbows were a pretty suitable and fair alternative-- the drawback generally being that their shape is a little more bulky and their ammo is a bit more difficult to carry around.

But in terms of reload time and raw stopping power, in terms of actual use of the weapon-- there is no reason there needs to be any actual mechanical difference in use of the weapon.

I don't really see a whole lot of merit to adding a pretty expansive and complicated subsystem to try to deal with all the fairly small differences between them. There is just as much difference between the proper use of a pike and a halberd, but other than weight, gold cost and damage type, there is no difference between them.

If they are functionally similar as you say, I fully agree that it's pointless to introduce more rules to handle one, and not the other. We might just have to live with the mental image of people loading arquebuses or muskets (or crossbows) while someone is right up at them hacking away. (Yes, I know the RAW have a penalty to point-blank missile fire, but they don't cover reloading; people didn't historically keep reloading - they'd be more likely to use the firearm as a club rather than keep loading).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

They seem fine for Renaissance to early Enlightenment era guns. My preference for a campaign would be for more Industrial Revolution (and by extension Steampunk and Wild West) era with breach-loading and multiple chambers but those are different aims.

I wouldn't bother with rifled as a special quality, as that adds more complication to the rules. If something is rifled vs smoothbore, I'd just say that it has a greater range.

I'd definitely say that Bayonets attached to rifles should do 1d8 damage if you haven't decided on that already, as they pretty well are spears and 2-handed.

 

[Tzarevitch]

They seem fine for Renaissance to early Enlightenment era guns. My preference for a campaign would be for more Industrial Revolution (and by extension Steampunk and Wild West) era with breach-loading and multiple chambers but those are different aims.

I wouldn't bother with rifled as a special quality, as that adds more complication to the rules. If something is rifled vs smoothbore, I'd just say that it has a greater range.

I'd definitely say that Bayonets attached to rifles should do 1d8 damage if you haven't decided on that already, as they pretty well are spears and 2-handed.

I agree with this. I'm starting an Iron Kingdoms campaign so I had to create firearms rules for Civil War-Old west era firearms. I agree, don't bother with smoothbore as a trait; just decrease the range. It also won't matter much because PCs will graduate away from them in favor of better rifled weapons. NPCs who don't have access to better weapons are the only ones who use smoothbores in my game. I allow a bayonet to function basically as a spear but it gives the wearer disadvantage if he fires it with the bayonet attached.

 

[aramis erak]

The historical impact of crossbows versus guns boils down to two factors: guns penetrated metal armor better, and guns required less practice for accuracy. Both deliver comparable energy to flesh (and both dump that energy pretty efficiently).

The crossbow, in the real world, has a reload speed limited by the wielder's strength. D&D5 ignores this.
The firearm, in the real world, has a reload speed limited by the wielder's manual dexterity and overall agility. Both of which roll into Dex in D&D 5.

So, in the real world, the best crossbowmen were both dexterous and strong, while the best musket-men† were simply dexterous. Both require taking the weapon off posture to reload, both have a multi-step reload.

The muskets, tho', pretty typically run about 2-3x the energy on the projectile. And concentrate it on about 1.5x the surface, for about 1.3 to 2x the penetration versus armor...

But the best energy is on very light quarrels - about 1 oz - and in the era of wood quarrels, that means pretty weak woods - balsa, willow - which don't have good arrow qualities, and will shed energy on shattering if not a good hit.

D&D doesn't model armor penetration well - and the energy dump is often lower with musket, because the ball is more likely to go through the target. we're talking crossbows in the 60-100 foot pound range, and .60 cal muskets in the 150 to 400 foot-pound range. Oh, and the wearing of breast and back plates made muskets WORSE... because they usually dumped enough going through the first time to bounce off the opposite armor, and back in.

You can easily justify increased damage for firearms as a move towards realism.

No other changes are needed - the lack of granularity is going to make any difference other than what you need for loading rather moot. The ranges should even be comparable. The price for early ammunition and powder is high - the materials aren't that rare, but are in much demand for other things, and making powder is dangerous, smelly, and unpleasant work.

Making crossbow bolts is skilled labor...but really, about half as long per bolt as making powder.

So, powder per shot, probably double. Bullets, cheap - same as sling - but higher quality preferred. Damage, up a die to two.

-=-=-=-=-

†properly musketeers, but that term's baggage laden in english.