Pathfinder 1E Yet another Pathfinder With Firearms thread

[Matthias]

I want to run a Pathfinder game using firearms rules but I want to have in-game explanations for why they have not completely dominated international warfare, made fortifications and heavy armor useless, etc. While also allowing advanced firearms more or less as readily available as low- to mid-level magic items. (I have players who like to bring up issues like these, and I want the game world to make sense enough to them while still feeling like traditional "high fantasy").

Here's how I was thinking of handling it in my homebrew game.

The metallurgical and alchemical secrets that make firearms possible are fiercely guarded by those few who know how to build them. Most kingdoms are far from the point where artillery can be deployed on a scale that would make heavy armor or fortifications obsolete. Additionally, many kingdoms have outlawed firearm ownership for common citizens, with exemptions for members of the royal court, royal guardsmen, elite military units, foreign ambassadors and bodyguards, and anyone who can get a dispensation from the monarch to own one. (We will assume any PC who starts the game with at least one level in Gunslinger will have received a royal dispensation to carry firearms or has obtained permission to own one by some other means).

Would you say this will be enough to answer any reasonable questions of believability, or is something more needed?


Other questions:

1) Who would probably control the secrets of making firearms and black powder, but wouldn't flaunt it or think it was worth it try to take advantage of their monopoly to rule the world? A single race, an organization, a guild, or powerful nation-state? The dwarves are the obvious first choice for mastering the art because they are not who you think of when world domination comes to mind, but dwarves with technology is a rather common trope. Is there a less common race (anything from Advanced Race Guide) that you wouldn't immediately think, "It's those guys!" when it was rumored, but once you had undeniable truth, you couldn't help but think, "Wow, yeah that makes a lot of sense." (Again, pretty rich and influential, but not imperialistic.)

2) How much should the enforced "non-proliferation" of firearms change market prices? There would be a black market of course and--if you had the right connections--a cheaper white market to shop at, but prices overall probably do not match the standard values from Ult. Combat or Ult. Equipment.

3) How long until knowledge of making firearms (especially when obtained through divination or other magical means) becomes so widespread as to cause a paradigm shift in personal combat and mass warfare? Where "everyone" has guns and knows how to use them? (Because that is what logically happens when magic is first discovered, only you don't need to have a special connection to the divine or be really smart to know how to shoot, reload, and maintain your weapon.)

 

[Starfox]

IRL, a big part of the reason firearms displaced bows and crossbows was because they were cheaper (in particular the ammunition) and easier to use. As long as you stay at the standard setting rules for firearms in pathfinder, they're simply be too expensive and hard to use to become dominant weapons, especially in warfare. An elite assassin might have a gun, a common soldier wouldn't.

Which I feel is what you wanted to achieve.

Adding a licensing system helps explain why guns are so expensive (licensing prevents any mass production). But pre-modern states were not well able to maintain a license system unless it is embedded in social mores. That only nobles and their retinues uses sword is not a law as much as it is a custom enforced by those same lords themselves. If the kind tries to proclaim a ban on certain weapons, it is far from sure it would work out. As firearms disrupt the social order (by weakening traditional knights) I can see nobles enforcing a ban on them. This situation would remain stable as long as there is no great social upheaval - one a major city with the skills to create guns on a large scale enters rebellion, firearms will become a part of the battlefield. It also would not work for a society engaged in a major conflict with an external force - if your country is in a holy war with the empire of orcus, niceties like social conventions on firearms will go the way of the dodo.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I want to run a Pathfinder game using firearms rules but I want to have in-game explanations for why they have not completely dominated international warfare, made fortifications and heavy armor useless, etc. While also allowing advanced firearms more or less as readily available as low- to mid-level magic items. (I have players who like to bring up issues like these, and I want the game world to make sense enough to them while still feeling like traditional "high fantasy").

Here's how I was thinking of handling it in my homebrew game.

The metallurgical and alchemical secrets that make firearms possible are fiercely guarded by those few who know how to build them. Most kingdoms are far from the point where artillery can be deployed on a scale that would make heavy armor or fortifications obsolete. Additionally, many kingdoms have outlawed firearm ownership for common citizens, with exemptions for members of the royal court, royal guardsmen, elite military units, foreign ambassadors and bodyguards, and anyone who can get a dispensation from the monarch to own one. (We will assume any PC who starts the game with at least one level in Gunslinger will have received a royal dispensation to carry firearms or has obtained permission to own one by some other means).

Would you say this will be enough to answer any reasonable questions of believability, or is something more needed?

These are just my opinion, based on my own flawed understanding of history.

Guns are not "single-player" weapons. This means a lone gunman just doesn't make sense. A few adventurers might pack pistols or rifles, but that's about it.

Guns are "mass" weapons because they are (in flavor, not game terms) inaccurate. It's not easy to shoot a target, even if they're only 30 feet away and didn't notice you, but it's a lot easier to lob a bunch of bullets at a bunch of guys. Most PC interactions with guns would involve a squad of a dozen guys (use the mob rules!) firing bullets at them, with a Reflex save for half damage. Not too different from going up against a single wizard with a wand of fireballs.

Because guns have to be massed for a country to find them useful, the cost of an individual gun must be low. They are currently not. So the only people who can afford them are wealthy hunters, maybe a few nobles (who probably consider them cowards' weapons) and maybe a few eccentric adventurers. If you want, you could decide the only reason guns are so expensive are because their construction methods are secret.

Guns used in armies have two costs -- costs per gun itself, and "cost" of training. Training someone to use a crossbow or a gun is easy. It doesn't take long. With no training at all, it's possible to kill someone with a gun, although it would be hard to deliberately with a medieval gun due to inaccuracy (not so hard if the victim is asleep and you can CdG them). Contrast with the longbow, which at this time in history (a nebulous target date, to be sure) was probably a superior weapon, but training someone to use one effectively was very time-consuming, and quite a few trainees were never going to be any good at it. However, the longbow was certainly more accurate, especially in the kinds of small unit combats that PCs take part in. (NPC adventurers would tend to dislike gunslingers, thinking archers are better and actually "earned" their skills.)

Other questions:
...
2) How much should the enforced "non-proliferation" of firearms change market prices? There would be a black market of course and--if you had the right connections--a cheaper white market to shop at, but prices overall probably do not match the standard values from Ult. Combat or Ult. Equipment.

Recall who wants one. Not many people. Countries would want many, but if you turn up at the black market asking for a single rifle, people might think you're weird.

3) How long until knowledge of making firearms (especially when obtained through divination or other magical means) becomes so widespread as to cause a paradigm shift in personal combat and mass warfare? Where "everyone" has guns and knows how to use them? (Because that is what logically happens when magic is first discovered, only you don't need to have a special connection to the divine or be really smart to know how to shoot, reload, and maintain your weapon.)

I think the shift would come to mass warfare much earlier than personal combat. The problem isn't the spread of knowledge, but simply making more accurate guns. Until they're made accurate, buying guns for personal combat just doesn't make much sense. You're literally better off with a crossbow.

 

[Celebrim]

I want to run a Pathfinder game using firearms rules but I want to have in-game explanations for why they have not completely dominated international warfare, made fortifications and heavy armor useless, etc.

I don't think it should be too hard. I have deliberately kept firearms out of my game since the 1e era, even though I do have what are essentially grenades in a variaty of flavors.

The metallurgical and alchemical secrets that make firearms possible are fiercely guarded by those few who know how to build them.

This is a weak explanation, and I don't think stands very well on its own. The problem with secrets is that if they obtain an advantage for you, then they are quickly stolen. Think how fast the Soviets stole atomic bomb technology, or how difficult it has been to contain its spread. The real thing that prevents atomic bombs from being made in everyone's basement aren't the secrets of production, but the cost of production. In the real world, once the secrets of production where known, gun barrels and blackpowder were inexpensive to produce. The strong explanation for why firearms don't spread is that the explosive that serves in the role of blackpowder in your world is not inexpensive or easy to produce. In other words, you insist that the magical world's chemistry has no relation to real world chemistry. Since it is based on 4 elements and not a periodic table, this is not a difficult assumption. In my own game, not only are explosives expensive and dangerous to produce, but the most stable known explosives are roughly as stable as liquid nitroglycerin. Gunpowder as it exists in my world cannot be stored in quantity because it decays in just a few days, and becomes so sensitive that a breeze can set it off. It cannot be produced in quantity because it requires high skill not to blow yourself up and the larger the batch, the worse the dangers. In short, firearms have been known about for 1000's of years but they have always been an impractical if not actually suicidal weapon. Only a few sages and assassins guilds even know about them, and they would tell you that its really not worth trying to make one.

Most kingdoms are far from the point where artillery can be deployed on a scale that would make heavy armor or fortifications obsolete.

One thing to keep in mind is that the introduction of tube artillery not only did not immediately obselete the castle, but it didn't even immediately obselete the older torsion engines like trebuchet. There was for about a century and a half a period where both were in use and people weren't certain which was superior as a weapon of war. The other important point is that fantasy world fortifications are vastly more powerful than real world ones even before the introduction of cannon, because they have to contend with giants, dragons, and above all spellcasters. Quite a few fantasy fortifications may well be almost impervious to primitive cannon assuming you've taken the steps required to make a castle not be obseleted by wizards.

Additionally, many kingdoms have outlawed firearm ownership for common citizens, with exemptions for members of the royal court, royal guardsmen, elite military units, foreign ambassadors and bodyguards, and anyone who can get a dispensation from the monarch to own one.

This is also a weak explanation. There is no historical evidence social schemes like that ever blocked the spread of new weapon technology, though they were on occasion tried (for the crossbow, for example). One reason is that if the weapon is useful, each kingdom is encouraged to enlarge its position and power by cheating, and licensing the weapon as broadly as possible. 'Gun control' isn't going to work, because it requires your neighbor to concede weapon development to you. Each nation is going to want as many firearm owners as possible, in order to conscript powerful armies to use against the other.

A stronger explanation is to note that the introduction of the hand gonne didn't immediately obselete all other missile weapons. Even the crossbow survived at least two centuries alongside the gonne. The longbow remained competitive with the firearm in terms of accuracy, range, and rate as fire as late as the early 19th century. The only trouble was that the longbow was so much more difficult to use, very few nations could field them in any numbers and the problem only worsed as the rifle began to supercede the longbow as a hunting weapon. In fantasy worlds, this typically presents no difficulty, as longbows are easy to use (martial weapons) and commonly employed in great numbers. Moreover, in fantasy worlds, gonnes are often hard to use (exotic weapons) and have game attributes that don't make them significantly more lethal than missile weapons of other sorts. Often in game there is little reason to try to field large numbers of firearms, and generally more reason to try to field large numbers of spellcasters if you could.

Would you say this will be enough to answer any reasonable questions of believability, or is something more needed?

It doesn't strongly convince me. For me the answer is simple - firearms don't exist or aren't in widespread use because they aren't superior and are perhaps inferior to the alternatives - whether magic or regular kinetic weaponry. In my game I do this by making explosives nasty undependable and dangerous, so firearms aren't reliable weapons in the hands of anyone without significant alchemical knowledge. Training soldiers to have the equivalent of Ph.D.'s in chemistry is expensive as is producing the propelent, and you cannot stockpile such weaponry.

How long until knowledge of making firearms (especially when obtained through divination or other magical means) becomes so widespread as to cause a paradigm shift in personal combat and mass warfare?

In the real world, whereever they were introduced, they were emulated within a decade and generally completely revolutionized warfare within about a century of introduction - faster whenever they were introduced in a more advanced state, muskets for example. But again, this was because they were reliable, cheap, easy to use, easy to stockpile in quantity, and significantly more lethal in many ways than other commonly available missile weapons. Take away those advantages, make them unreliable, expensive, difficult to use, impossible to stockpile, and really no more lethal than longbows or magic, and they become a marginalized weapon.

I will admit that the Patherfinder RAW makes this job more difficult because they use the mechanic of the 'touch attack', which means that the musket resolves for the average D&D military a very intragient and otherwise difficult problem - "What can you do to make your average soldier effective against monsters that have very high AC, usually as a result of supernaturally strong natural armor?" Under my preferred rules for firearms, the advantages they produce are not nearly so radical.

 

[Matthias]

A lot of good things to think about. Ill be going the same route and making gunpowder complicated to produce (even by alchemical standards), and requiring scarce resources which requires careful handling to avoid being harmed by the substance. (Something like 4E's Orium metal from Draconomicon/Metallics).

Realistically, proliferation is probably unavoidable for the reasons stated, but this can be turned around and made an interesting campaign plot point. Make the acquisition of a written record of the secret recipes (heretofore forbidden) a invaluable treasure to center the campaign around. Either the PCs have to guard the scroll of value, steal it, or feverishly reproduce copy after copy and teaching everyone the art of the gun in the name of fighting the new tyranny or a common foreign power.

 

[Wycen]

You could have a religious group, or secular, whatever, tasked with hunting down rogue gun users. I'd make it a divine task so they have a good reason. Murlynd, the gunslinging hero-god of Greyhawk, might not want competition.

 

[Kurtomatic]

As an example of cheap-but-not-dominating firearms in a fantasy setting, I'm looking at running a Ptolus campaign using Pathfinder with some house rules. One of the first things I've done is create a new rarity category (this is addressing the d20PFSRD firearms rules):

Declining Guns: Firearms are a well established technology that was once commonly available, but declining civilization has reduced the sophistication and availability of guns. They are still made by wealthy governments, small guilds, lone gunsmiths, etc. However, many contemporary guns have regressed to simpler designs, and advanced firearms are often treasured antiques. The tooling required to manufacture advanced firearms are highly prized and closely guarded.

The Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearms) is normally required for proficiency with all firearms. All firearms and their ammunition cost 25% of the listed price to purchase or craft. The Gunslinger loses the gunsmith class feature and instead gains the gun training class feature at 1st level.​

The city of Ptolus is part of an old, well established human empire that developed military-scale firearms centuries ago. This empire is now somewhat in decay, with no serious military threats outside of some barbarian hordes. Firearms are now mostly a vestige of imperial military history, and only serious (fairly secretive) technology fetishists attempt to innovate with firearms much.

Under my preferred rules for firearms, the advantages they produce are not nearly so radical.

Do you mind my asking what your preferred firearms rules are? There are several d20 implementations (and house rules, of course). Like many, I find the PF RAW unsatisfactory for various reasons.

 

[Celebrim]

Do you mind my asking what your preferred firearms rules are? There are several d20 implementations (and house rules, of course). Like many, I find the PF RAW unsatisfactory for various reasons.

Not at all. Kenneth Hood is one of the too little celebrated designers for D20. He produced a brief supplement on firearms called simply that. I have a beta copy. I'm not really sure what became of the work, but if there was ever a designer who deserved more of a role in the professional development, it was Ken. His firearms rules are a little more complicated than some others, but not overly complicated and he manages to capture the feel of guns covering the entire range of their technological development and abilities very very well in a very short space. I wouldn't play a D20 game in a modern setting using any other rules.

 

[Kurtomatic]

Kenneth Hood is one of the too little celebrated designers for D20. He produced a brief supplement on firearms called simply that. I have a beta copy. I'm not really sure what became of the work, but if there was ever a designer who deserved more of a role in the professional development, it was Ken.

Aha, a blast from the past! There is a 4.0 version of Grim-n-Gritty from 2005 that is still available, but it doesn't include the actual firearm design system contained in the document you're referring to.

Interesting, thanks!

 

[Derren]

As an example of cheap-but-not-dominating firearms in a fantasy setting, I'm looking at running a Ptolus campaign using Pathfinder with some house rules. One of the first things I've done is create a new rarity category (this is addressing the d20PFSRD firearms rules):

Declining Guns: Firearms are a well established technology that was once commonly available, but declining civilization has reduced the sophistication and availability of guns. They are still made by wealthy governments, small guilds, lone gunsmiths, etc. However, many contemporary guns have regressed to simpler designs, and advanced firearms are often treasured antiques. The tooling required to manufacture advanced firearms are highly prized and closely guarded.

The Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearms) is normally required for proficiency with all firearms. All firearms and their ammunition cost 25% of the listed price to purchase or craft. The Gunslinger loses the gunsmith class feature and instead gains the gun training class feature at 1st level.​

The city of Ptolus is part of an old, well established human empire that developed military-scale firearms centuries ago. This empire is now somewhat in decay, with no serious military threats outside of some barbarian hordes. Firearms are now mostly a vestige of imperial military history, and only serious (fairly secretive) technology fetishists attempt to innovate with firearms much.

Do you mind my asking what your preferred firearms rules are? There are several d20 implementations (and house rules, of course). Like many, I find the PF RAW unsatisfactory for various reasons.

That doesn't really sound all that convincing. Why would a nation unlearn to make weapons? Don't they have to defend itself any more or at least have an army who can defend them if necessary? That such a nation would stagnate technologically and would not have the best firearms any more is reasonable (see China as example) but that they unlearn to do it? For that to happen there must be a religious or social shift which would make guns obsolete or discriminated against (again, see China and ships).

Imo the best solutions would either be only having primitive firearms which are inferior to bows and also have only a short effective range, not enough to prevent a charging enemy from reaching you after taking some losses (see high middle ages) or to have gunpowder be much more complicated to manufacture which limits the spread of guns (and their development).