Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?

[TheAuldGrump]

another special rule should be just what happens when the PCs' powder flasks fail their saving throws vs. fire... I used to live for such moments...

and those flasks pretty much have to be made out of brass; no glass, steel, or any of that... not the greatest saving throw...

Actually, apostles were often ceramic. Cow horns were also common containers for smallish quantities of powder.

I generally avoid having anything other than large quantities of powder explode - otherwise it feels like penalizing the player for not using a bow. So, ceramic apostles of nice heat resistant pottery. Large quantities are more often a plot device.

The Auld Grump

 

[David Howery]

Actually, apostles were often ceramic. Cow horns were also common containers for smallish quantities of powder.

I generally avoid having anything other than large quantities of powder explode - otherwise it feels like penalizing the player for not using a bow. So, ceramic apostles of nice heat resistant pottery. Large quantities are more often a plot device.

The Auld Grump

*smacks forehead*
You know, I totally forgot about the horn flasks... and I even own a replica of one for my own muzzle loading guns. I suppose horn would have a fairly good saving throw against fire, don't think it would heat up that much (ceramic seems more likely to both heat up and break)....

 

[Leatherhead]

I object to your use of the term 'everyone' - as I stated way up the thread I just give them good damage, good critical multiplier, short range increments, and the same reload time as a heavy crossbow.

No special rules against armor, no rules for misfires, and no rules for firing in the rain - rain is even worse for bows than it is for guns, and can turn an expensive composite bow to worthless junk just by having it strung and kept in the rain. If I am going to handwave the one I am going to handwave the other.

Getting the powder wet I do have rules for, which comes down to 'buy new powder. or get an alchemist to reclaim the powder, but really, powder is cheap, so just buy more'. Better still 'Keep your powder dry', which works wonders for keeping the rules simple....

The Auld Grump

Noted, I should have said "and/or".

 

[Ace]

Guns are a mixed thing in my play circle, I like them but a lot of players don't. The reasons range from flavor to a dislike of what called the barrage round (everybody shoots first then melee commences) eating into the archers niche protection.

However Iron Kingdoms style expensive ammo guns seemed to get wide spread acceptance. One maybe two gun guys is cool, more than that not so much.

I have experimented with alchemical "cartridge guns" myself, the are fireproof, load quick and seem to work well enough. The also negate cannon (too much powder=boom) or reduce them to regular powder whihc cab be a bug or feature depending

 

[TheAuldGrump]

*smacks forehead*
You know, I totally forgot about the horn flasks... and I even own a replica of one for my own muzzle loading guns. I suppose horn would have a fairly good saving throw against fire, don't think it would heat up that much (ceramic seems more likely to both heat up and break)....

Actually, ceramic is a lot more likely to break if heated up, then cooled down quickly. A fireball isn't likely to do much to it, but putting it in a bonfire, then dropping it into a bucket of cold water will shatter it. Pottery is wonderful stuff, and will last thousands of years. Iron, bronze, and silver will corrode away, but a clay pot will stand the test of time.

The Auld Grump

 

[los]

Solomon Kane is set in the 16th century - post-Columbus. While to a historian the Medieval period carries just into the 16th century, in terms of genre and style, I'd call that well past the pseudo-Medieval period that's D&D's forte.

You do what you want, of course. But if I wanted to do 16th century, age of Cortés, Shakespearean-times kind of stuff, D&D would not be the system I'd choose.

Exactly.

Guns in Seventh See == me happy. Guns in D&D == me not so happy.

 

[Jhaelen]

Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?

Because they don't enjoy reading threads like this one all the time...

 

[Rechan]

For me, I care not for historical accuracy. If I can put a jungle right in the middle of a frozen tundra and defy geography, why be concerned with history?

Same with tone. Guns can work even in a fantasy setting. And like it was said previously, I like things that go boom! For instance, there's no fantasy analog to the shotgun. The shotgun just has perfect sounds, power, and raw damage.

Ultimately, the problem comes down to balance.

1) Time. Others reference the black powder reload issues. It becomes almost pointless to reload when a combat could be over in 3 rounds if you fire the first round and spend the next 2-4 trying to reload. Not to mention the AoOs you're drawing.

2) Cost. This is another big limiting factor. Bullets or powders or the guns themselves cost gold per shot. Meaning that if you want to just compete with the archer in the party, you're going to be broke eventually just funding your attacks.

3) Damage. The logic applies to guns in general, but also to damage: A gun should be different than a bow, otherwise what's the point? Why go to all the effort to make, sink money and loading times, just to get an equivalent damage result? And if you're going to increase the damage, you should make the user suffer.

If these could be solved - make them slightly different without being a waste of tiem OR overpowered - would make me happy.

Then I would solve the in-game problem by making them rare. Perhaps their existence angers the Gods or the Spirits (in Exalted, guns frustrate the Spirits because they can't decide who's in charge of guns: fire, since it burns? Earth, since it makes the metal? Etc etc. So using them is taboo in a spiritual sense). Perhaps they are seen as barbaric, offensive to honor, or too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Perhaps, as someone else suggested, they are bygone relics - no one knows how to reproduce them, and so they are coveted but rare.

Maybe they are, inherently, magical. Just another type of magical device. So it's not powder and a ball, but a dart being spat amid lightning.

It doesn't really matter, as long as it allows the occasional PC to play a gunslinger, squint-eye staring at a group of orcs thirty feet away, a hand twitching to reach for his weapon.

 

[nightwyrm]

1) Time. Others reference the black powder reload issues. It becomes almost pointless to reload when a combat could be over in 3 rounds if you fire the first round and spend the next 2-4 trying to reload. Not to mention the AoOs you're drawing.

2) Cost. This is another big limiting factor. Bullets or powders or the guns themselves cost gold per shot. Meaning that if you want to just compete with the archer in the party, you're going to be broke eventually just funding your attacks.

3) Damage. The logic applies to guns in general, but also to damage: A gun should be different than a bow, otherwise what's the point? Why go to all the effort to make, sink money and loading times, just to get an equivalent damage result? And if you're going to increase the damage, you should make the user suffer.

That brings back memory of an Iron Kingdoms game I played. I played a gunmage and carried around 3 or 4 loaded guns to get around the reload in combat problem but each shot costs like 10 gp. Like Chris Rock said, I must really hate you to pop a cap on your ass. Most of the time I just threw daggers at people. At least they were cheap.

 

[Desdichado]

Ultimately, the problem comes down to balance.

No, I think ultimately it comes down to two things. 1) a lot of people don't like guns in their fantasy. It just feels wrong to them, like an anachronism, although technically, of course, that's not correct. 2) a lot of people have bizarre and incorrect ideas about guns, i.e., how effective they were, how cumbersome and difficult they were to use, their utility vs. other alternatives, how costly they should be, etc. In many cases, designers have overcompensated for either their own misconceptions, or those that they believe their audience will have, making many gun rule sets needlessly crippling or complicated or both.

Personally, I'm a big fan of guns and fantasy. I use D&D as my ruleset, or a house-ruled permutation of it, anyway, and I use guns, to get a kind of Pirates of the Caribbean swashbuckling fantasy/horror vibe. I wouldn't do without them.

But surprisingly, finding gun rules that I liked for 3.5 was more difficult than I thought. Of all the available options, I ended up settling on the Green Ronin Freeport rules, except that I dropped the misfire chance as too cumbersome to bother with.

Then again, it's been years--decades, even---since I saw D&D as a good system for replicating a Tolkien-esque fantasy setting.