TheAuldGrump
First Post
Me, I like guns in my D&D - my homebrew is set in a quasi Reformation/Counter-Reformation period. I started reading fantasy in the 1960s, and much that I read was not pseudo mediaeval. Heck, some of the Grimm's brothers stories mention guns, as does some of Tolkien. Stone Soup, the King's Dragoon, and yes, Solomon Kane and John Carter.
As to the 'why nots'... I think much of it is unfamiliarity with antique handguns.
Some folks seem to think that guns are all powerful and ignore armor - they don't. Crossbows were actually better at piercing armor.
Some folks think that they are slow - they are, but heavy crossbows were slower. A cranquin is slow and cumbersome, making the arbalest slower than a arquebus.
Some folks think that they are hard to learn - they are easier to master than a longbow, but harder than a crossbow. (If any of the three should be an exotic weapon it is the longbow - if you want to train a longbowman start with the grandfather....)
Pricier than a crossbow, cheaper than a well made longbow (which was pretty much out of the game by the time the handgun became a primary weapon), the firing mechanism was often made by the same folks who made the locks for doors.
They did do an awful amount of damage, not so much breaking bone as pulverizing it. Big, fat, slow, soft lead are excellent at transmitting energy - which is also why armor was also good at stopping it. A suit of good armor might be 'proofed' - bearing a nice dent where the armorer took ten steps away from the armor then shot it with a pistol. (Source of the term 'bullet proofed'.
)
So I give them good damage (D10) a good critical modifier (X3) but do not fiddle with the chance of critical, and give them poor ranges. (Both the crossbow and the longbow could outrange an arquebus.)
And they are very susceptible to damp - especially matchlocks. No firing in the rain, no going swimming with your weapon loaded.... And a matchlock has a limited time that it can be held 'ready' whether you are firing or not the match is burning, and to keep it burning it is spun in a circle - it is easy to see what weapon is being used.
Wheellocks can hold fire for a long time, but are bloody expensive - used much more often for pistols than for handguns. As for reliable... not so much - the springs were subject to corrosion and over winding, and sometimes the sparks just didn't hit the pan right if the lock had been knocked askew. And sometimes it just took a while, with the shooter holding the trigger until a spark reached the pan. (Whirrrrrr *BANG!* was better than just Whirrrrr....)
Made by jewelers and locksmiths the wheellock was very expensive.
The whole game changes when the flintlock is invented... cheap, reliable, and able to hold fire. It was just plain better than the wheellock. I have fired a Brown Bess (Land Pattern Musket) that was in active service for a hundred years, first in the British infantry, then cut down to carbine length and its muzzle flared for use by the Navy, then traded to Spain and eventually ending up in Mexico. And the gun still fired just fine. (How much of the gun, aside from the stock, had actually lasted a century of service is anybody's guess.)
A Land Pattern Musket would misfire on the average of one out of sixteen shots under battlefield conditions.
One of the oddities of the Brown Bess - because so very many of them were made it is often possible to buy an original for less money than to purchase a replica....
The Auld Grump
As to the 'why nots'... I think much of it is unfamiliarity with antique handguns.
Some folks seem to think that guns are all powerful and ignore armor - they don't. Crossbows were actually better at piercing armor.
Some folks think that they are slow - they are, but heavy crossbows were slower. A cranquin is slow and cumbersome, making the arbalest slower than a arquebus.
Some folks think that they are hard to learn - they are easier to master than a longbow, but harder than a crossbow. (If any of the three should be an exotic weapon it is the longbow - if you want to train a longbowman start with the grandfather....)
Pricier than a crossbow, cheaper than a well made longbow (which was pretty much out of the game by the time the handgun became a primary weapon), the firing mechanism was often made by the same folks who made the locks for doors.
They did do an awful amount of damage, not so much breaking bone as pulverizing it. Big, fat, slow, soft lead are excellent at transmitting energy - which is also why armor was also good at stopping it. A suit of good armor might be 'proofed' - bearing a nice dent where the armorer took ten steps away from the armor then shot it with a pistol. (Source of the term 'bullet proofed'.
)So I give them good damage (D10) a good critical modifier (X3) but do not fiddle with the chance of critical, and give them poor ranges. (Both the crossbow and the longbow could outrange an arquebus.)
And they are very susceptible to damp - especially matchlocks. No firing in the rain, no going swimming with your weapon loaded.... And a matchlock has a limited time that it can be held 'ready' whether you are firing or not the match is burning, and to keep it burning it is spun in a circle - it is easy to see what weapon is being used.
Wheellocks can hold fire for a long time, but are bloody expensive - used much more often for pistols than for handguns. As for reliable... not so much - the springs were subject to corrosion and over winding, and sometimes the sparks just didn't hit the pan right if the lock had been knocked askew. And sometimes it just took a while, with the shooter holding the trigger until a spark reached the pan. (Whirrrrrr *BANG!* was better than just Whirrrrr....)
Made by jewelers and locksmiths the wheellock was very expensive.
The whole game changes when the flintlock is invented... cheap, reliable, and able to hold fire. It was just plain better than the wheellock. I have fired a Brown Bess (Land Pattern Musket) that was in active service for a hundred years, first in the British infantry, then cut down to carbine length and its muzzle flared for use by the Navy, then traded to Spain and eventually ending up in Mexico. And the gun still fired just fine. (How much of the gun, aside from the stock, had actually lasted a century of service is anybody's guess.)
A Land Pattern Musket would misfire on the average of one out of sixteen shots under battlefield conditions.
One of the oddities of the Brown Bess - because so very many of them were made it is often possible to buy an original for less money than to purchase a replica....
The Auld Grump
Innacurate when compared to reality, most likely, but still opinions and perceptions - something of which nobody should have the right to denigrate. Disagree with: Yes - Denigrate: No
