Crave,
I have no issue at all with them, and wouldn't mind seeing them. The only thing is that, with a decent Use Magic Device check, any sort of half-useful attack spell wand is going to be WAY better than a gun -- so why would guns even be invented?
Crave,
I have no issue at all with them, and wouldn't mind seeing them. The only thing is that, with a decent Use Magic Device check, any sort of half-useful attack spell wand is going to be WAY better than a gun -- so why would guns even be invented?
Guns would be invented eventually because even though the percentage of arcanaist and people w/UMD is high among adventurers, adventurers only represent a very small fraction of the population. Guns are great equalizer when your opponent is wearing armor. And eventually CAnnons are better at knocking down walls that trebuchets.
Having said that, most DMs I know don't use gunpowder weapons so matchlocks and flintlocks should be a sidebar not included in the main weapons table.
Yeah, I think guns in D&D are doomed to be a house rule or campaign specific. Magic just ends up being a Crutch/Replacement for most types of technology in the standard D&D universe.
There's a whole thread on changing the fact that you can't do much healing with the "Heal" skill. But the answer to "why?" is clearly the availability of healing magic.
So why would anyone be motivated to invent gunpowder and then a somewhat complicated metal tool to shoot stuff at folks? And why would you want to give peasants guns to try to make them the equivalent of an armored knight?
It just wouldn't work in D&D. Really, it can't work if you want to maintain any semblence of game balance and mechanics.
For one thing, the knights are still probably going to have a bunch more levels and hit points than the peasants. And they will have healing potions, maybe some clerics, etc. So unless the knights are ridiculously outnumbered (or just all low level and underequiped), they're unlikely to be completely overwhelmed by the peasants. But if the peasants do have the numbers to "pull off the upset", they don't need guns. The could do it with slings and farm tools.
The other problem is the cost. For game balance reasons, you probably shouldn't just make gunpowder free to anyone who can dig up the ingredients and mix it. The person would have to make a craft gunpowder roll after paying 1/3 the price as a materials cost. If the peasants have the gold to make enough gunpowder to take on some knights, they're not really peasants.
In the grand scheme of things in the D&D universe, there are probably a lot more cost effective ways to gird the loins of a band of angry peasants.
If the price of the guns and ammo is "game balanced" with the amount of damage it can do as compared to magic, I think there's less need or motivation for it.
But if you want to add it to a "magic-phobic" race or culture, that's reasonable. But it's probably unlikely to make it into the final book.
In gurps fantasy they explain that gunpowder has been invented at least 3 times but whenever it happens and mages hear about it they wipe out the inventor and anyone he might have taught. Guns do make an unskilled peasant a match for an armored knight or wizard so it stands to reason that the knights and wizards would stop it from being used as weapons.
In gurps fantasy they explain that gunpowder has been invented at least 3 times but whenever it happens and mages hear about it they wipe out the inventor and anyone he might have taught. Guns do make an unskilled peasant a match for an armored knight or wizard so it stands to reason that the knights and wizards would stop it from being used as weapons.
Yes... the aristocracy of europe did a real good job of keeping the guns out of the hands of the peasants.... and no offense to Steve Jackson, I don't play GURPS.
And remember, backward compatability (that tiny little thing Paizo promised)... there are still people playing Spelljammer or who want to play in FR but not 4e.... there is gunpowder in both those campaign worlds.
I also generally don't want firearms in my fantasy setting. So I'd be happier if they were not included. But, it's just my personal preference, not a judgment of those who enjoy that sort of game. I also don't want any sci fi mixed in.
That being said, I would highly and without reservation recommend Iron Kingdoms to anyone who even slightly likes the idea of firearms and magic in the same setting. They combine guns and steam power in a much more pleasing way than some other settings I could think of. In fact, if I weren't so completely enamoured with Pathfinder, my next campaign would probably be set in Iron Kingdoms, because I like it that much...even with the guns. It is very well written and definitely worth a look. *And* they have rules on guns that you can download for free. So that might be a worthy option--download their rules and use them in any campaign you want. Their rules make guns useful, but not necessarily a no-brainer over other weapons. A nice balance, IMO.
Guns do make an unskilled peasant a match for an armored knight or wizard
No guns don't make unkilled peasants a match for knights and wizards. Knights have too many hit points and healing potions to be easily taken out by guns. Wizards can cast protection or invisibility. Don't even get me started on DR.
The only thing that's going to make a peasant a match for a knight or a wizard is a surplus of equipment to offset both the equipment and the PC levels of the knight/wizard. If you price guns fairly in relation to magic/mundane/alchemical equipment, then it will be fairly expensive to get a bunch of peasants on equal footing with PC types.
If the game is balanced, guns wouldn't be any better than wands, acid, slings, pitchforks, whatever. Realisticly, it would be a less cost effective option for equiping peasants, because guns should probably require proficiencies that peasants wouldn't have. I don't think a gun would count as a simple weapon unless you're talking about modern technology or ubiquity.
In my opinion, if you make guns a better and cheaper option for dealing damage than anything else, you've broken the game.
there are still people playing Spelljammer or who want to play in FR but not 4e
No way, dude! Seriously? I didn't think anyone played Spelljammer any more. I thought they all switched to Eberron.
I would highly and without reservation recommend Iron Kingdoms ... they have rules on guns that you can download for free. So that might be a worthy option--download their rules and use them in any campaign you want. Their rules make guns useful, but not necessarily a no-brainer over other weapons. A nice balance, IMO.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
I have to vote against guns, they're too...Warhammer-ish. I have no problem with that setting, it's just that I don't like the idea of that steampunk/gun tech coming to Golarion.
I seriously doubt they would ever become common in the Pathfinder setting. Although there is that guy in "J1: Entombed with the Pharohs" with the
I think some folks are advocating for including rules on guns so that the PRPG will be backwards compatible with any previously published or homebrew setting that might have them. But it seems far enough from the mainstream that it's not worth including. Just use the Iron thingy rules mentioned above.
mike F: I meant realistically gun armed peasants could take out knights. Theres no rule that says knight have to have levels though, they could just be generic npc warrior class with knight style gear. I know for game balance they'd end up being a 2d4 range touch or something. They're always either lame or far out of balance when i see them written up for a fantasy system.
You are right about the wizards though, d&ds magic system would let them walk all over people with guns. Spells like protection from missles and invisibility would stop peasants with guns cold. Assuming the guns did damage balanced for d20 and not the huge amount of damage games like gurps and hero system have them do.
I'm against guns in the core rules btw. I could handle them if they introduced them sparingly in some later adventure but thats about it.
I also generally don't want firearms in my fantasy setting. So I'd be happier if they were not included. But, it's just my personal preference, not a judgment of those who enjoy that sort of game. I also don't want any sci fi mixed in.
That being said, I would highly and without reservation recommend Iron Kingdoms to anyone who even slightly likes the idea of firearms and magic in the same setting. They combine guns and steam power in a much more pleasing way than some other settings I could think of. In fact, if I weren't so completely enamoured with Pathfinder, my next campaign would probably be set in Iron Kingdoms, because I like it that much...even with the guns. It is very well written and definitely worth a look. *And* they have rules on guns that you can download for free. So that might be a worthy option--download their rules and use them in any campaign you want. Their rules make guns useful, but not necessarily a no-brainer over other weapons. A nice balance, IMO.
I agree 100%
Also can we say greatcoats and armored greatcoats
Fizz
Iron Kingdoms is a great setting. The price originally scared me too, as did the unusual amount of miniature maniacs that claimed it was the only roleplaying game they would ever touch, but when I sat down and read it, I honestly couldn't put it down. A great world, and a great game, save up for it if you can.
That said, I don't think guns work in Pathfinder. They're great for Iron Kingdoms and Spelljammer, and a MUST for Savage Tide(no matter where you're running it), but they just don't say Korvosa to me. I like a lot of what I see when it comes to rules on guns, my only rule of thumb is a relatively unreliable damage die with a good chance of a critical hit (17-20) or an astonishing critical hit modifier (x 3, hell maybe even x4).
If you want to keep the peasants down, better ban crossbows, too. That, not firearms, were the big scare for knights - with those hellish contraptions, an unskilled knave in rags could take out a trained, experienced, and fully armoured knight.
So I'd say guns shouldn't be kept out so paladins can sleep at night.
Not that I'm saying that they shouldn't be kept out.
They shouldn't be in the standard tables. Some place where they keep options - in the core book, mind you - is fine.
I liked FR's smokepowder gunnes, and the kind of weapons they had in some parts of Ravenloft (that gun-powered rapier where you'd skewer the guy and then pull the trigger so the blade "shoots" further in.) I wouldn't mind a small part of Golarion having those (in limited availability and for steep prices even if you are allowed to purchase them at all).
They just shouldn't be a common occurance in Golarion, or in the "assumed standard world model" PRPG's standard rules assume.
Just a quick bit aye.
You could not entrust guns to peasents one they wouldnt hit anything two they are impossible to manufacture on that scale and three their expensive and delicate. The first fire arms took centuries of research to produce the first weapon fieldable. Europe first saw these weapons used by the islamic invaders from the east mainly in the form of cannon. The idea of a hand cannon later evolved and was relized in the musket which was steadied on pole and aimed from a standing position. These weapons were dangerous and expensive assessts. They saw limited use until the invention of the flint lock which gave the weapons a reliable firing system and was the introduction of the trigger. beofre this weapons were discharged by manually inserting a fire source into the rear of the weapon, this proved dangerous and unreliable.
Im going to stress the dangerous, expensive and unreliable part one last time... ok. These are things that make adventures shy away from them, that and the 1 shot every 5 rounds IF your good. Average rifleman in the 1700s was expected to fire twice per minute but under fire themselves or whiel moving it proved to be once per minute.
Of course then you have weather, logistics, manufacturing concerns on top of that, why not just carry a sword? Cheap, never needs to be reloaded, never jams, and usually more effective.
|
Well if there's any seafaring adventures, there BETTER be cannons. I don't care that much about guns, they're easy enough for me to add on my own as a DM (I had a player with a cool gun-wielding Scout and ranks in Craft Alchemy). We don't need a Napoleon running around with an army of gun-wielding Andor people.
I dont know about shipboard cannon, I mean the flavor is nice but the mechanics are sick, 5-15 bls. ball is gonna kill most players in a single shot. There are mechanics issues that need to be straitened out first but I dont see why it ca happen.
I usually run a world with a tech level of about 1500-500 BCE, so cannon was never an issue. Ships would simply ram eachother back then and try to break the others back, or atleast lock up and let the boarding party deal with them. Sometimes I would add greek fire or some balista but keep it simple and small.
No guns please, they have without exception caused balance issues, in any fantasy game I've played in. Either powder and shot is too rare, and the player is asking himself why he spent the gold and took the feats or powder and shot is plentiful and the characters are trying to create gatling guns(damm the gnomes).
To a large degree the prevalence of magical and alchemical items would retard advances in firearms (and technology itself to a degree). I think the Eberron setting showed this very well...the lightning rail, stormships, sky ships and such are not technological devices, they are magical devices with the appearance of technology.
Regarding usefulness, statistic wise firearms ar inferior to even the basic sling in performance. They are unreliable, of limited application given weather , almost prohibitively expensive (a masterwork bow is cheaper than a musket...a masterwork musket comes in at 800gp). There is also the prevalence of fire magic in fantasy settings...not the best idea to be carrying explosive ammunition.
Given how the game system works, even a fifth level warrior could charge a squad of riflemen and stand good odds of killing most of them and survive the encounter himself.
With regards to cannon, a cannon will not match the options available regarding magical ballista, catapult and trebuchet (and magical ammunition for those weapons). These concepts were covered in Heroes of Battle and made for truly frightening weapons...not only does the bolt itself do damage on impact but it emits a fireball. All with out the concern of misfire detonation or a enemy wizard's fireball hitting the powderhouse.
In closing, I think firearms should be included as an option but not standard. Perhaps a free pdf detailing their use in some campaigns since some people will be using Pathfinder RPG for more rennaissance era settings.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
If you want to keep the peasants down, better ban crossbows, too. That, not firearms, were the big scare for knights - with those hellish contraptions, an unskilled knave in rags could take out a trained, experienced, and fully armoured knight.
So I'd say guns shouldn't be kept out so paladins can sleep at night.
Not that I'm saying that they shouldn't be kept out.
They shouldn't be in the standard tables. Some place where they keep options - in the core book, mind you - is fine.
I liked FR's smokepowder gunnes, and the kind of weapons they had in some parts of Ravenloft (that gun-powered rapier where you'd skewer the guy and then pull the trigger so the blade "shoots" further in.) I wouldn't mind a small part of Golarion having those (in limited availability and for steep prices even if you are allowed to purchase them at all).
They just shouldn't be a common occurance in Golarion, or in the "assumed standard world model" PRPG's standard rules assume.
Indeed, the earliest firearms were no better than a heavy crossbow (and took longer to reload, not to mention the higher rate of misfire). What both weapons (firearms and crossbows) could have is a special quality to ignore armor and shield bonuses at 10 feet or less.
|
Sorry Crave, not with you on this one. I've always hated the idea of guns in a "fantasy" setting. In in a somewhat related note, I feel the same way about sci-fi being introduced, too.
NO-ONE EVER READS THE RULEBOOK ON MAGIC ITEM CREATION
STEAM WEAPONRY
REQUIREMENTS
DRUID L3+, HEAT METAL SPELL
SKILLS: Knowledge/Steamtech(8 Ranks), Craft Weapon(8 Ranks)
Non Magical Weapons which require a Heat metal Spell to use.
Steam Pistol(D:2d6, R:50', C:500gp, W:5LB)
Steam Rifle(D:4d6, R:500', C:5,000gp, W:50LB)
Steam Cannon(D:8d6, R:5000', 50,000gp, W:500LB)
Use:
1.Charge the Pressure vessel with water.
2.Load Shot.
3.Cast Heat Metal.
4.Fire Weapon (once every two rounds)
Of course a 3rd level Druid with Craft Wonderous Magic could make the steam weapons usable by anyone.
As to Sci-Fi? Find out about Blacklore: Magic of such Complexity as to be identical to Advanced Technology.
My Frost Ray rifle which is a Wonderous magic item can be built by any 3rd level wizard.
|
Nearly all my favorite settings include some kind of firearms (Spelljammer, Savage Coast and Ravenloft, the only exception being Dark Sun), so I have no problems with firearms, except maybe their general lack of usefulness compared with other weapons. But I like psionics too, so that probably makes me a sci-fi fan.
I use repeating cross bows in my eberron games.Think of it mass produced cocking mechanizers that auto recock a weapon.over time the pull strength would get stronger much more then what a human could pull on his own.add a clip and rock and roll.hummm i'll post mine later just for fun really.
Never understood why some relegate psionics to science fiction...The Deryni Chronicles are solidly fantasy. And Dark Sun would still be fantasy even if you stripped away magic.
I use repeating cross bows in my eberron games.Think of it mass produced cocking mechanizers that auto recock a weapon.over time the pull strength would get stronger much more then what a human could pull on his own.add a clip and rock and roll.hummm i'll post mine later just for fun really.
I love the Chu-ko-nu (repeating crossbow) as a weapon personally, always have. While of chinese origin in our world, it strikes me as a very dwarven sort of weapon. Combined with even a basic magical ablity such as "flaming" it becomes a seriously devestating weapon.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Well if there's any seafaring adventures, there BETTER be cannons.
Yeah, the ballista and catapult never feel right to me in a pirate style game. I prefer cannons. They're rarely significant compared to the wizard's Fireball, but they just feel right. I also like pirates to be able to carry pistols. Guns are a bad fit for many campaign settings though, so I'd say that if PRPG includes them it should keep them in a separate section like the 3.5 DMG does.
If using the gun stats from the DMG I suggest making them simple weapons instead of exotic weapons. They frankly aren't worth paying a feat for, and guns are actually quite a bit easier to use than bows. As simple weapons they might see some use, but they'll hardly take over the game unless you introduce additional house rules. The DMG pricing on guns should be enough to keep them out of peasant hands, and the fact that guns exist doesn't mean that they have to be common.
Actually, I think gunpowder and similar substances are likely to present more problems than guns are. If the players can get their hands on a keg of gunpowder, smokepowder, or whatever it is they're likely to start wanting to blow stuff up. As long as the cost for doing this is greater than the cost of doing similar damage with magic items I guess it shouldn't be too bad though.
"Say Hello to my Little Friend!"
Hello, yellowdingo's Little Friend!
There will be rules for guns in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting hardcover, but I doubt they will appear in the RPG.
That sounds backward to me...
|
|
With regards to cannon, a cannon will not match the options available regarding magical ballista, catapult and trebuchet (and magical ammunition for those weapons). These concepts were covered in Heroes of Battle and made for truly frightening weapons...not only does the bolt itself do damage on impact but it emits a fireball. All with out the concern of misfire detonation or a enemy wizard's fireball hitting the powderhouse.
This assumes cannons can not be enchanted.
I think the the trick to pulling in firearms and cannon into a D&D setting is to attempt to maintain the things/elements of those weapons which make them iconic (whether this is realistic is probably another thread/argument.)
Cannons are iconic siege weapons. Perhaps Cannons should ignore DR, hardness, and (obviously) SR.
Firearms are iconic "equalizers" between commoners and armored foes. Perhaps firearms should ignore armor bonuses and/or require touch attacks, rather than normal ranged attacks.
Personally, I think firearms should be lackluster when viewed strictly on an equipment list, but should have solid feat support and be scalable/extensible via crafting, without magic. So, rather than using Greater Magic Weapon to create a +4 Blunderbuss, a player with the right crafting pre-req just needs to make a high DC (maybe 20 +10/ enhancement bonus).
OK, among other things I'm a SJ fan so the idea of guns have always been partial to me. I don't like how they treat rangers and druids in IK so I would never play there, however, I would take the toys and use them in another campaign and by toys I mean critters and equipment. The heat metal enchanted weapon idear is actually kinda cool. But I liked the anime Last Exile so I may be prejudiced. But they can be rather unbalancing. So if they get included in Pathfinder, yay, if not, oh well.
They shouldn't have any special rules like armour piercing - as I said, crossbows already did that, and they're not armour piercing in D&D. Plus, a dragon whose claws are larger than your whole body and who can easily carry around 40 metric tons without breaking a sweat (which a Great Gold Wyrm can - it's still a light load for him) should be armour-piercing, too.
Keep stuff simple. Just let them do damage like a crossbow one or more sizes larger than itself.
There will be rules for guns in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting hardcover, but I doubt they will appear in the RPG.
Shouldn't this be the other way around?
The 3.5 DMG has some variant weapons, too. Why not use that in Pathfinder as well?
I'll understand if the reason is "they take up space", but, on the other hand, it would probably be no more than one page.
One of the Pathfinder Chronicles Miniatures is a "Janderhoff Wandrifler". looks like a bloody big gun he has in his hands.
So looks like guns will be part of Glorian but not part of the RPG rules.
One of the Pathfinder Chronicles Miniatures is a "Janderhoff Wandrifler". looks like a bloody big gun he has in his hands.
So looks like guns will be part of Glorian but not part of the RPG rules.
That's not a firearm. It's an item you can use to fire two wands at once. No gunpowder or anything involved.
|
Contributor
|
Shouldn't this be the other way around?
Firearms will be in the hardcover, because I'm making sure they go in there. Whether they appear in the PRPG is up to Jason.
The 3.5 DMG has some variant weapons, too. Why not use that in Pathfinder as well?
Because I'm pretty sure they're not in the SRD, as they aren't anywhere to be found on d20srd.org.
I'll understand if the reason is "they take up space", but, on the other hand, it would probably be no more than one page.
Should we focus our energies in the RPG on tweaks that most people will use in their campaigns or on tweaks that almost nobody will use?