where can I get the statistics on firearms?

[loki8481]

3.0 DMG, page 162.

perfect! thanks so much.

 

[Thanael]

Monte Cook released a PDF somewhere. I don't recall exactly where the actual PDF is, though I can find it sometime soon, if you want.

http://www.ptolus.com/images/Technology.pdf

It's a web enhancement to Chaositech.


There's also Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms firearms PDF

 

[Bungus]

http://www.ptolus.com/images/Technology.pdf

It's a web enhancement to Chaositech.


There's also Privateer Press' Iron Kingdoms firearms PDF

The chaositech PDF still makes firearms too powerful in relatives terms compared to bows. A trained bowman could fire 10-15 arrows per minute, while the best early firearms were firing once in that same minute.

 

[Theroc]

The chaositech PDF still makes firearms too powerful in relatives terms compared to bows. A trained bowman could fire 10-15 arrows per minute, while the best early firearms were firing once in that same minute.

Those early firearms were simple weapons, however, whereas a bow is a martial one. I.e. a peasant could aim and fire a gun more easily than a bow...

That's why the Knight went the way of the Dodo. Easily accessible and simple weapons that penetrated full plate armor.

Also, in that PDF, I was under the impression that the guns functioned similarly to crossbows in their reload speed, meaning that bows were still faster and could use iterative attacks, whereas Rapid Reload would be a necessary type of feat for guns to do the same... I think.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Those early firearms were simple weapons, however, whereas a bow is a martial one. I.e. a peasant could aim and fire a gun more easily than a bow...

That's why the Knight went the way of the Dodo. Easily accessible and simple weapons that penetrated full plate armor.

Also, in that PDF, I was under the impression that the guns functioned similarly to crossbows in their reload speed, meaning that bows were still faster and could use iterative attacks, whereas Rapid Reload would be a necessary type of feat for guns to do the same... I think.

Actually, many early firearms could not penetrate plate armor, especially from any sort of range beyond point blank. The early effectiveness of gunpowder weapons was their shock value - the loud noise scared horses and the black smoke scared everybody... an early firearm was only effective in combat when used on a large scale - 10 rows of 10 gunners, one row fires and steps back and starts to reload, then row 2 fires and steps back and starts to reload, etc. By the time row 10 is done firing, Row 1 is hopefully ready to fire their second volley.

Those Spanish soldiers you always see pictures of would wear breastplate and a helmet because they knew they would only get 1-2 shots off with their guns before they had to engage in melee combat. And, that was with more advanced Renaissance era gunpowder weapons.

Heck, even in the US civil war, some officers still wore breastplate under their uniforms because it could still stop bullets many times.

Gunpowder alone didn't do in the knight - it was also the rise of modern professional armies and the decline of feudalism, coupled with other factors as well.

 

[Darklone]

NewJeffCT is right. In museums around here there are several examples of tobacco boxes that saved their owner cause they stopped a bullet. (e.g. Hohenzollern)

http://www.preussen.de/de/heute/burg_hohenzollern.html

Shock value and morale won most battles... if you look at most ancient battles with less than 10% of the soldiers on both sides actually wounded or killed, you can imagine how many of them ran. And that's what firearm salvos excelled at: Making the enemies run.

 

[NewJeffCT]

NewJeffCT is right. In museums around here there are several examples of tobacco boxes that saved their owner cause they stopped a bullet. (e.g. Hohenzollern)

Preussen.de - Burg Hohenzollern

Shock value and morale won most battles... if you look at most ancient battles with less than 10% of the soldiers on both sides actually wounded or killed, you can imagine how many of them ran. And that's what firearm salvos excelled at: Making the enemies run.

True, while a lot of D&D battles are "to the death", most historical battles featured the losing side's soldiers routing or surrendering first.

Also, a medieval crossbow usually fired about 2 bolts per minute, while a longbow was about 12 arrows per minute. A late medieval firearm took 90-120 seconds to fire again. The longbowman was usually highly trained, though, while a crossbowman and (later) gunners needed far less training.

Still 18-24 shots with a longbow and 3-4 with a crossbow, compared to one shot with an early gun. Both the longbow & crossbow were also more accurate at a longer range as well.

 

[Thanael]

Bungus, perhaps the Iron Kigdoms rules are more to your liking then?

The chaositech PDF still makes firearms too powerful in relatives terms compared to bows. A trained bowman could fire 10-15 arrows per minute, while the best early firearms were firing once in that same minute.

Chaositech is not meant to represent real historical firearms but a fantasy version.

Chaositech is the result of harnessing raw chaos to accomplish seemingly impossible deed, or at least impossible without magic. Chaositech has an opposite, however—and it’s not magic. Whether you call it “steamtech” or “science,” or even something like “ordertech,” chaositech’s opposite involves accomplishing impressive deeds using the natural order of things. Science is far more reliable than chaos-itech but less powerful, bound as it is by the laws of physics.

from Harnessing the Natural Laws: Technology in Your Game

Likewise, it would be weird to be running a fairly traditional fantasy campaign and suddenly throw in laser guns and force fields. So that means that Chaositech isn't designed for traditional fantasy campaigns, right?

No. That's not the way it's been designed. See, chaositech isn't technology. You don't look at this stuff and think Star Trek. It's meant to fit into a fantasy milieu. How? Well, it will pass as magic as easily as it will pass for technology, for it truly is neither. You'll find no discussion of scientific terms or physics applications in the description of chaositech abilities. You will find discussions on chaositech cults, the dread worship of chaos gods, chaotic spells, and how chaositech interacts with magic.

Chaositech is weird fantasy, but it is fantasy. The material within is designed to work in a standard D&D style fantasy campaign. It's how I used it (and continue to use it) in my own campaign.

In fact, because Chaositech was designed for fantasy games, it wouldn't fit well into a straight-up, hard science fiction game. It's too strange -- too supernatural seeming. It's got more in common with Dr. Frankenstein and his monster than with real science.

So, it's not my intention to change your campaign paradigm with chaositech. It will change it no more drastically than a new book of spells or magic items. Yet at the same time, it will introduce some new flavor and new threats the likes of which you probably (hopefully) have never seen. Here is an excerpt from the book to show you some ways you can bring chaositech into your game.

[...]
CHAOSITECH VS. REAL SCIENCE
One great way to introduce chaositech into a campaign is to do so alongside developments of real technology. If you've got dwarves that use steam-powered technology or the occasional firearm, or use "steampunk" technology in your game at all, this is a wonderful chaositech "hook." Because now you can offer up both, as equals but opposites. Chaositech, obviously, is the creation of chaos, and normal technology is the stuff of law. Gods of chaos (the Galchutt) support one, while the gods of law support the other—it's an arms race fueled by religion. The two forces can clash on a spiritual, philosophical, metaphysical, and physical level, and the PCs can choose which to support.

In particular, this option works well with the "tools of the ancient gods" approach, for it creates antoher way in which chaositech differs from conventional technology. While steampowered devices are new, chaositech is old: Chaositech isn't an innovation, it's an artifact.

from Campaign Paradigms