In my own homebrew campaign I have one dwarf tribe, who have developed fire arms, the High Forge Mountain tribe. This includes match lock pistols and muskets, cannons and exploding mortars. With my current group of players, we have come up with a dwarf "dragon powder" god, Rutger. Match lock musket and pistol are both exotic weapons feat available only to High Forge Mountain dearves.
I just wanted to know who has fire arms in thier campaign? WHat do the people ofthe Paizo message boards think of fire arms in a D&D game? How does it affect the campaign? Game rules? etc.
Rutger Hauer?
Anyway...
I dont use such weapons in my game but I have had (pirate) npc's use pistols in a couple of games, allowing the players to loot said devices after the baddies were dealt with. None of my players ever decided to keep the guns and they sold them on for a fair few gp.
I like do like the idea of 'ye olde' powder weapons in the game (as a completely new invention) and would encourage them in the Savage Tide AP one day.
I'm thinking of running the STAP in an alternate Earth setting with 1840's level technology, but that's an on again off again thought, depending on how much prep work it'll entail.
I've always liked the thought of dwarves clearing caves of orcs with 8 gauge shotguns, but I've never been able to make firearms work in a D&D campaign without losing the flavor I'm looking for.
I've always been curious why using firearms requires a feat. Making the mechanism work requires only a few minutes of instruction, after the weapon is armed all you do is point and shoot. A crossbow crank probably looks pretty tricky to a simpleton too but it's still a simple weapon because the ease of using it in combat overides the complex priming mechanism.
If game balance is the only issue I think that it is already solved. Guns are useful in mass battles and giving otherwise non combatants a way to contribute. The grueling loading time of you standard flintlock pistol or musket will make them obselite in the eyes of serious combatants. Even the mage would probably rather carry ammo that wouldn't explode if he got set on fire. (not sure how well that applies to other peoples mages but for me it tends to happen a lot)
I've always been curious why using firearms requires a feat.
All weapon profeceincies are feats. The reason firearms in my campaign are not simple weapon, as crossbows are, is because they are so rare, and so are those who know how to use them. To the American Indians of the 1400-1500 fire arms were exotic weapons. Anyway that is why it is a exotic weapons feat in my campaign, because it is so rare and access to the technology is strictly controlled.
Why use fire arms when there are wizards? Because it is easier to learn to fire a match lock musket, than to cast searing light.
If I wind up using firearms in my game world, then they will be rare and exotic weapons. We used them once in a one-shot game, and nobody liked them that mcuh.
All weapon profeceincies are feats. The reason firearms in my campaign are not simple weapon, as crossbows are, is because they are so rare, and so are those who know how to use them.I've always been curious why using firearms requires a feat.
Thats my point exactly. Crossbows are widespread in use in most of the typical d&d settings. I don't doubt that firearms are rare and I would say that characters would not be able to load one without detailed instructions. But once you get past that point I have trouble seeing someone skilled with a crossbow fumble around with a rifle. They function on the same aiming system point and shoot.
I just wanted to know who has fire arms in thier campaign? WHat do the people of the Paizo message boards think of fire arms in a D&D game? How does it affect the campaign? Game rules? etc.
I have done so in the past, and if played correctly it can be fine. BUT, YOU must know about the guns you let people use. If you do not understand guns, then you may not know that you can not stand next to a guy firing a flint-lock with getting your own face burned. Also the noise...dont forget the noise when they fire it in a 10x10 room.
Having played a few d20 past, and modern games, the pervalence of firearms does reduce the power of the wizard somewhat, but it causes the magic users to focus on utility rather then damage output.
WFRP also has little problem with firearms in their fantasy setting.
However firearms must at least be an advanced feat due to the maintenence required of the weapon. IMO
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I have done so in the past, and if played correctly it can be fine. BUT, YOU must know about the guns you let people use. If you do not understand guns, then you may not know that you can not stand next to a guy firing a flint-lock with getting your own face burned. Also the noise...dont forget the noise when they fire it in a 10x10 room.
I disagree. Once you start down the slippery slope of reality, there are a lot of combat related rules that should be revised. Having people next to a person using a gun getting burned or becoming deaf would not only be cumbersome, it's not really necessary to balance the weapon mechanically. If you're going to start saying that guns need space to fire, you're going to have to say that greataxes need more space than a 5' corridor can provide and that armor should provide DR instead of a bonus to AC. That's a fine set of house rules if realistic combat is your bag, but those are not the principals of the core rules' combat mechanics.
I've previously considered this topic at some length.
What makes a weapon Exotic is not that it is simply rare, but that it requires special training to use effectively. It would be more accurate to call them Complex weapons. Now, what's Martial for one race or culture might be considered Exotic in a foreign one, as is the dwarven waraxe. However, "point and fire" is straightforward enough to use with minimal training just as the crossbow, and as such it is a Simple weapon.
However, making a gun a Simple weapon is often a Bad Thing in D&D. It's inherently more powerful than the crossbow, and unless you build in some balancing factor it's as powerful as an Exotic weapon. Such a balancing factor might include an attack penalty (a primitive, inaccurate gun) or extreme rarity and expense of ammunition (as uncommon and pricey as potions).
Widespread, affordable guns are generally a bad thing in D&D, since historically they made armour obsolete - an interesting possibility, but not something most D&D games are likely to incorporate. Crossbows were simple enough for commoners to use and they beat chainmail, necessitating knights to wear plate armour. Once guns began to beat even the thickest plate armour that was feasible to wear, armour began to go out of fashion and the age of melee weapons and armour began to end.
My worry is that if you let guns into a D&D game, then the application of magic to guncraft will see modern firearms quite quickly, making armour obsolete. A convenient way to avoid this is to make it that the dwarves closely guard the secrets of creating firearms and their ammunition, preventing anyone else from developing the technology.
Even so, you have the issue that guns are as easy to use as a crossbow (thus Simple) but presumably have some benefit over crossbows (greater power represented by increased damage and perhaps armour piercing, represented as a to-hit bonus) which is offset by other factors such as great expense and rarity.
I've previously considered this topic at some length.
What makes a weapon Exotic is not that it is simply rare, but that it requires special training to use effectively. It would be more accurate to call them Complex weapons.
I would argue that a combination of rarity and complexity of use would cotegorize a weapon as exotic. Using a match lock pistol is not as easy as pulling the trigger of nine mm automitc pistol, youy just don't point and shoot. You have to light a match. You have to load the weapon from the muzzle, both bullet and powder. You have to prime the pan with powder cock the weapon pull the trigger and wait for the weapon for discharge. I am sure there are a few more steps in firing a match lock I do mot know. But with a mounted knight bearing down on me in the confusion and of a battle field it can't be that easy.
My worry is that if you let guns into a D&D game, then the application of magic to guncraft will see modern firearms quite quickly, making armour obsolete. A convenient way to avoid this is to make it that the dwarves closely guard the secrets of creating firearms and their ammunition, preventing anyone else from developing the technology.
In my campaign it is a closly guarded secret and not yet in wide use. This keeps fire arms rare and special in the game. Surprising no dwarf character with access to the feat have taken it in our campaign. I don't think a mundane weapon can ever compete with magic. A magic missle is guaranteed to hit, fumble on firing a matchlock musket in my campaign, the weapon could explode. I think the technology should tip the balance in a mundane battlefield if at all.
Any way thatnk for the debate.
Contributor
|
Hi all,
Anyone who believes that early matchlocks were simple to use should check out De Gheyn's "Exercise at Arms." It is a drill manual for training soldiers in using musket, caliver and pike. IIRC there are about 50 steps outlined for the process of loading and firing the wheellock musket. Hmm.. can't find mine right now, but I have a reference that "Directions for Musters" (written in 1638, and mostly copied from De Gheyn) has 48 'postures' (ie. steps) for the musket. From what I understand, these manuals were used by officers to train their troops to a level that they would do more damage to the enemy than to themselves.
Of course, in 1643, The Westminster trained bands (17th century militia), having been trained in these methods, destroyed most of their own forward ranks by firing in the wrong sequence, killing 70 or 80 of their own men.
Now, I'm not saying that a good soldier couldn't figure out how to use one on their own, or with very little instruction. I just think it would be difficult, and I'd assess a -4 non-proficiency penalty. Just like an exotic weapon.
Craig Shackleton
The Rambling Scribe
One issue about firearms -
Sure, the dwarves carefully maintain control over the technology. But what happens if one of them is killed in battle somewhere and no dwarf is around to abscond with the fallen weapon? A party picks the item up, and sure they don't know what it is or what it does (It's a particularly powerful magic wand [pistol] or staff [rifle] that takes a ton of preparation to make it work properly is how I tend to describe them).
Knowing this, they cast Detect Magic/Identify on it. Since it's not magical in nature, the spell fails, so they take it to a Sage, who has heard that there are dwarves out there who make these things.
So, two choices. Take the gun to the dwarves and sell it back to them (they'll not like having to buy something they consider theirs to begin with) or... Have a high-Intelligence Wizard Backwards Engineer the thing and figure out how it works. Said Wizard could then figure out, from a sample of gunpowder, how to make said gunpowder.
Said Wizard would then likely kill himself the first time he actually tries to fire it, but that's reality for you. Assume the guy is smart enough to figure out how much to use (given a small bore, a light projectile and the imminent danger of blowing up the thing with too much powder)...
Suddenly, you have a Wizard with disgustingly high Intelligence who has figured out how to make and sell the technology the Dwarves use. He gives the item back to the party and keeps his notes. The party goes off and starts using the thing while the Wizard starts finding someone to sell his new-found invention to.
Dwarves hear about it, hunt down the party (interesting adventure in and of itself) and the Wizard gets offed before he can sell many (and before he can fully explain how they work)...
Or you end up with a repeat of Medieval history as has been described, with the subsequent elimination of armor (though I really don't see that happening, since there's a prevalence of claw/claw/bite monsters out there and armor still helps against them.
All of this aside, I had a Halfling Wizard from Lantan who owned a pair of pistols. He fired them to initiate combat, and then relied on his spells, since it would take the entirety of the combat to reload them. They did perhaps 1d8 damage at range, no bonuses, and no modifiers to-hit. They were, in effect, a longbow with a twist. They did not fiddle with the game, and the way to deal with explosive ammunition is to put them in a magic bag (Heward's Handy Haversack).
Syrinx
I have used them. In large scale combats, they become particularly more common, but in smaller ones, they can be problematic. A group of guys with swords against slow moving muskets coudl easily win.
I think you have to do a realism ignoring move. Assume most people are scared of them, or the main chruches are opposed to them. Or that they are common in war, but not otherwise. In a large battle, where they may also be wizards, humaonids, and magic, they are just another weird thing going on.
Realize that during late Sengoku-period Japan, fully armored Samurai and musket-wielding Ashigaru were on the field together. Early firearms did not totally undo armor. It definitely changed the way it worked.
So, in conclusion: A few minor adjustments on armor and on the way they are used, plus a healthy dose of lookign the other way, should make it easy to add them.
I use firearms in my own game. They are hard to find and expensive, but more woth it for the money compared to the mage who has to buy any spells he does not learn going up in level. I believe that by 3.5 rules, firearms no longer ignore armor, so they are just another missile weapon that takes forever to reload. The game mechanics even balance them out.
I use fire arms in my campaign.
The two main cultures that use them are an Oriental culture and players that choose characters from this oriental culture get access to Arquibus as a simple weapon. In this culture the arquibus is a weapon one trains masses of peasant militia to use. I also have a matriarchical human jungle culture that has access to an array of gunpowder weapons more advanced then the Arquibus.
I used the 2nd edition concept of having the weapons get to keep rerolling damage if your first roll for damage was high enough. In actual play the weapon is a problem not because it is to strong but because in D&D terms it is too weak. One of my players runs around with a weapon that can fire twice before being reloaded and does 1-12 points of damage with another die of damage being done if a 10-12 is rolled. Seems awsome - and then the other players get to around 6th level and they yank out their bow and fire slews of arrows using various feats. Ultimatly I had to make sure that I added feats so that the character with the gun had some hope of keeping up as long as she kept pumping feats into her weapon. If I did it again I might rule that the gun only needs to hit touch AC as that might help to keep it a viable weapon for longer when compared to what one can do with a longbow in this game.
I did not bother with the idea that the technology has to be secret. I don't think it matters much if it is not. In the worlds of D&D a longbow in a skilled warriors hands is probably a better weapon. The things that gunpowder did that really changed the world was make castles vulnerable to siege cannons. In a D&D world though there is all this magic around. You really want to knock a castle down you hire a mage. I feel that magic essentially puts a huge damper on something like gunpowder technology. Anything you could possibly do with a cannon could probably be done better with a 7th level mage.
Interesting idea - Make the "gun" fire vs. Touch AC. If you do this, then you'll want to incorporate the variant "Armor as DR" rule to properly register the value of having armor to begin with.
I actually like that idea...
Hmmm...
*wanders off to cause havoc for his pistol-wielding halfling*
Syrinx
Guns hitting touch AC doesn't sit well with me. It makes them too good to ignore all armour as if it wasn't there.
Interesting idea - Make the "gun" fire vs. Touch AC. If you do this, then you'll want to incorporate the variant "Armor as DR" rule to properly register the value of having armor to begin with.
Yeah, I like that idea, too. I implemented "armor as DR" as a house rule for the campaign I run. Also halved hit-dice and boosted the damage die of most weapons. However, I'm unsure yet whether I'd recommend it. Combat without armor is really brutally short now. :) But it also results in some strange effects like a pack of dogs being unable to hurt a man in chainmail. With a -3 to grapple, they could't even tackle him! :)
...we have come up with a dwarf "dragon powder" god, Rutger.
I would've gone for Ruger :)
Also, since no joke is beneath me, there would have been a set of dwarven twins named Smith & Wesson -- no doubt master artificers of said firearms.
Regards,
Jack
...we have come up with a dwarf "dragon powder" god, Rutger.I would've gone for Ruger :)
Also, since no joke is beneath me, there would have been a set of dwarven twins named Smith & Wesson -- no doubt master artificers of said firearms.
Regards,
Jack
You are correct Ruger. Any way no Smith & Wesson, But i did have a Yosemite Sam, A dwarf named Redbeard to be exact. He is a warrior/ priest of Clangadin, has an eye patch, wears silver chainmail, boots of springing and striding, weilds twin dwarven war axes, and a brace of six match lock pistols. Red Beard always has a lit match burning in his mouth. Any way he would spinging into combat blasting away with pistols then swinging his twin dwarven waraxes.
We have used firearms in some D & D games before, and the results weren't too catastrophic. As long as match lock pistols or muskets are rare and expensive, and the damage isn't ridiculously overpowering it won't throw the whole game out of whack. I am just surprise no one went a little further with this and ran into the problems my campaigns did. The hand held wepaons were nothing, what had the potential to wreak havoc was that with the advent of gunpowder, there were cannons! THAT was what changed the entire landscape of the game and why we no longer allow any firearms in D&D. As a side note one of my players was Dming for a day and threw a one shot magical item (with 32 charges and once gone that was it)...the item in question was a laser submachine gun from a distant future or something lol...those kind of games can be kooky and fun, but hardly classic D&D.
Anyways that's just 2 copper. Interesting thread though.
Be Safe all.
Would it be so bad for match lock musket becoming a simple weapon? How would wide spread use change the game? Mechanics? Story telling? Role playing?
How would you make the rules for match locks to maintain game balance and FUN,
if match lock musket was a simple weapon?
how about favorite wepon of dwarves?
Would it be so bad for match lock musket becoming a simple weapon? How would wide spread use change the game? Mechanics? Story telling? Role playing?
How would you make the rules for match locks to maintain game balance and FUN,
if match lock musket was a simple weapon?
how about favorite wepon of dwarves?
I think it would probably depend on how useful they were. If they were high damage, large crit multiple & vs. touch AC they are going to have to be exotic (with some serious other drawbacks to balance them out too, like long reload times).
If they are just about as effective as an arrow or crossbow bolt, then they can be martial. They can probably be slightly more powerful even, since there is an additional component (gun, ammo & gunpowder vs. bow & arrow), they can be more expensive, and they can have the crossbow reload issues.
You could even make them simple weapons, in the right environment.
If you like the dwarves-as-gunmakers, then they could be martial weapons for them even if exotic for everyone else, but they would either need to offset that. Make it a choice like the elves with their swords (either dwarven war axe OR matchlock pistols), unless they get the feat to allow proficiency with all racial weapons.
Or you can give the gnomes the guns, if you like the gunpower/alchemy connection. It fits in with the whole tech-gnome paradigm, so some will love that and some will hate it.
What about dividing proficiency with different types of firearm among the varuious races (dwarves get shot throwers, elves get rifles, gnomes get hand guns, etc.)?
Here's what I came up with a few weeks ago when I did some thinking on putting guns into the game.
The history of war has always been an arms race, with the winners being the side that developed the best weapons and defences. The only thing that could beat a powerful, accurate and reliable gun was an even better gun, and so like any technology we see guns becoming cheaper, better and more popular over time. While armour can sometimes stop a bullet, this becomes less and less true as guns get better.
Historically, social change eliminated the idea of knights - specifically, lords who rode into battle. These were the only people who could afford the heavy, advanced armour good enough to stop bullets, and as guns got better, even the heavy armours were little use against bullets.
In short, in a world where guns have become simple and widespread among mercenaries and the soldiery, and the feudal system is largely in ruins since knights no longer hold power, what we have is a world where clever adventurers with guns can become rich and powerful.
However, guns have not yet made melee weapons entirely obsolete. (Consider The Three Musketeers, where rapiers are used for duelling, despite the availability of firearms.) Since melee weapons are still used, armour is still used, although this is usually light or medium armour. Wars are mainly fought with guns, although some kind of swords and cheap, light armour are still used for fighting in close range, since guns in the pre-rifle era don't have the accuracy over long range to have sniping matches, or the rate of fire to mow down charging enemies. Most, or at least many soldiers are careful mercenaries who will naturally want to invest in some protection.
##
A setting I once thought of which uses guns was a city controlled by a wealthy merchant. The merchant and his men hold great power here, as the saying "money is power". Almost certainly, everyone who comes to this city does so with the aim of striking it rich. Guns are widely available, if not cheap - the ruler of the city doesn't really care what goes on just as long as he's in charge and everyone pays their taxes, and he's rich enough to hire enough mercenaries and magic to protect the city from anyone inside or out who would disagree.
In such a setting, there's an entire new field of magic dealing with guns and gunpowder. For one, alchemy is used to create gunpowder. In addition, magic is used to provide special protection against guns as with mage armor, since normal armour is limited in how well it does. Magical guns exist, and we can extrapolate that at great expense a hastened gun could be made with a greater rate of fire, or explosive bullets made.
Here's what I came up with a few weeks ago when I did some thinking on putting guns into the game.
...
thanks for sharing.
...
Or you can give the gnomes the guns, if you like the gunpower/alchemy connection. It fits in with the whole tech-gnome paradigm, so some will love that and some will hate it.....
In my campaign gnomes have developed firearms and the dwarves are unaware. I also toyed with the idea of gnomes dveloping match lock rifles, but it has not shown up in a game.
It will be interesting to develop the relation between gnomes and dwarves as the gnomes develop and spread firearms technology. Gnomes in my campaign are traders and travelers, and natural diplomats between the races, it should be only a matter of time before firearms are in wide use.