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

[David Howery]

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

true. But I think horn is even more resistant to fire. Due to my youth in rural MT, I actually got to experiment with trying to burn cow horns (after de-horning), and they char but generally don't burn.... and even then it takes a while. I think a horn flask exposed to something like a fireball would come through pretty good, since it wouldn't be exposed to the fire for long; the outside would be black and charred in a few places, but the inside would be fine.

 

[Rechan]

Hobo, I was saying it came down to balance for me. I'm fully aware people don't like guns in D&D because it violates their vermisilitude and whatnot, given this thread.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Hmm. FFZ guns don't cost more time or gold, and don't do damage any differently, with pretty much the same mechanics.

How are they different?

1. The special, "magical" versions of each weapon have different abilities attached. For instance, the first "treasure weapon" for Bows is the Dark Bow, which makes enemies less likely to hit your characters. The first treasure weapon for the Guns is the Blaze Edge, which deals lightning damage.
2. The jobs that can use them are different, and have different ways to use them. Alchemists can use Guns to transmute their foes into useful items, while Gunners can use Guns with more power if they spend a turn readying their shot. Hunters gain the ability to hit enemies who are agile and evasive instead.
3. Certain feats work with certain weapons. Guns might pierce defenses, while Bows might gain a faster rate of fire.

It's not a tremendous difference, but it's there.

Combat in FFZ is waaaaaay too abstract to worry about exact ammo costs, load times, and other record-keeping exercises.

 

[Rechan]

Is FFZ your game, KM?

 

[Desdichado]

Hobo, I was saying it came down to balance for me. I'm fully aware people don't like guns in D&D because it violates their vermisilitude and whatnot, given this thread.

Oh, haha. Whoops! Fair enough. I misinterpreted your statement there.

Although that could be a reflection of my point #2, maybe. Lots of gun rules---probably most that I've seen---tend to be fairly poorly designed, so that guns are either way too good, and of course everyone would want them, or way to crocked so of course nobody wants them. Or... they're just right, but finicky and cumbersome to use from a mechanics perspective, compared to other weapons.

 

[Saeviomagy]

How about them dumb ole English Long Bowman - what a waste of time. So that's why the French cut off the fingers of a captured English Bowman, to teach them a lessen for choosing such an inferior weapon to battle. The French hated them because of that.

And apparently french soldiers killed any german found with a saw-edged bayonet in wwII. Are you telling me that it was a devastatingly effective weapon?

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Although that could be a reflection of my point #2, maybe. Lots of gun rules---probably most that I've seen---tend to be fairly poorly designed, so that guns are either way too good, and of course everyone would want them, or way to crocked so of course nobody wants them. Or... they're just right, but finicky and cumbersome to use from a mechanics perspective, compared to other weapons.

That's one of the things I've noticed, too.

The rules I've seen, it's either guns = useless or guns = magic wands of super-death that auto-kill anyone you shoot with them.

Both are patently silly. If they were useless, we'd all be using swords and crossbows. And if they were magic wands of super-death, people wouldn't survive being shot with them.

Brad

 

[cattoy]

It doesn't matter one bit if a bullet can pierce platemail or not.

A dagger can't pierce platemail and nobody gives a damn that you can still stab a fighter in full plate to death.

 

[Mark Chance]

It doesn't matter one bit if a bullet can pierce platemail or not.

A dagger can't pierce platemail and nobody gives a damn that you can still stab a fighter in full plate to death.

Yes, but a character dagger-stabbing an orc who's dressed in platemail is fantasy. If that same character uses a pistol against the orc, it's an exercise in historical simulationism.

 

[cattoy]

Yes, but a character dagger-stabbing an orc who's dressed in platemail is fantasy. If that same character uses a pistol against the orc, it's an exercise in historical simulationism.

Yeah, because the historical records clearly document the effects of bullets on orcs.

Historical simulationism and D&D? down that road lies only madness.