|
I'm a bit of a gun nut, especially when it come to WW1 and earlier military rifles, and I have worked up rules for circa 1770 guns (and working on cannons) and would like to get some opinions on them.
First it requires a feat to be able to wield firearms. Pistols are one handed light exotic ranged weapons and rifles are two handed exotic weapons (if a player comes from a land where firearms are common they can be considered martial weapons). Reloading a pistol in combat requires two full round actions and reloading a rifle requires three full round actions (the old standard of a soldier being able to fire three rounds in a minute). To make it a bit more useful I use two new feats, Reload on the Run: Reload actions are now standard actions, and Improved Reload on the Run: Reload actions are now move actions. I have on constructed a chart to determine damage and range for firearms, using barrel length and caliber. Caliber determines the type of dice roll (d4, d6, etc) and barrel length determines the number of dice rolled. The three calibers I use (and their damage die in parenthesis) are, .30 (d4), .50 (d6), and .74 (d8). The barrel lengths (which determine if the gun is a pistol or rifle) are 8" (small pistol), 14" (large pistol), 26" (carbine like rifle), and 34" (full sized rifle). 8" rolls 2 dice, 14" rolls 3 dice, 26" rolls 4 dice, and 34" rolls 5 dice. Range increments for a smooth bore are 10' for 8", 20' for 14", 30' for 26", and 40' for 34". Multiply the range by 3 for rifled weapons but they count as masterwork. Price wise they should start a 600 to 700 gp, just to keep them out of the hands of 1st level parties. All weapons can have a bayonet attached to make them count as melee weapons, but that incurs a -1 to attack and requires the Bayonet Proficiency Feat (a ranger could be proficient in the use of a rifle but not the bayonet). Small pistol bayonet counts as a dagger, large pistol counts as a short sword, and both rifle bayonets count as a spear. Enchanting a firearm works just like a bow, but the bayonet is a different weapon and must be enchanted separately.
I think these rules strike a good balance between real guns and fantasy roleplaying.
|
First it requires a feat to be able to wield firearms. Pistols are one handed light exotic ranged weapons and rifles are two handed exotic weapons (if a player comes from a land where firearms are common they can be considered martial weapons).
I would keep the requirement as an exotic weapon, as they are in the PF Campaign Setting. Additionally, and this is a variance form the Campaign Setting, I do believe there should be a distinction between muzzle-load weapons and breach load weapons; there are distinct variances in what is required for the user to use the weapon.
Reloading a pistol in combat requires two full round actions and reloading a rifle requires three full round actions (the old standard of a soldier being able to fire three rounds in a minute). To make it a bit more useful I use two new feats, Reload on the Run: Reload actions are now standard actions, and Improved Reload on the Run: Reload actions are now move actions.
Sounds like the equivalent of Rapid Reload for firearms.
I have on constructed a chart to determine damage and range for firearms, using barrel length and caliber. Caliber determines the type of dice roll (d4, d6, etc) and barrel length determines the number of dice rolled. The three calibers I use (and their damage die in parenthesis) are, .30 (d4), .50 (d6), and .74 (d8). The barrel lengths (which determine if the gun is a pistol or rifle) are 8" (small pistol), 14" (large pistol), 26" (carbine like rifle), and 34" (full sized rifle). 8" rolls 2 dice, 14" rolls 3 dice, 26" rolls 4 dice, and 34" rolls 5 dice. Range increments for a smooth bore are 10' for 8", 20' for 14", 30' for 26", and 40' for 34". Multiply the range by 3 for rifled weapons but they count as masterwork.
So a large bore pistol (say .50) with a 14" barrel length would do 3d6 and have a range increment of 20'? If ti was rifled the range increment would increase to 60'? Just want to be sure I have the calculations right. I'm thinking the range increments may be a little on the low side in comparison to the bow, or even better, the crossbow. Should a bow be so extremely more accurate than a firearm?
Also, how would you deal with the scattergun concept?
I personally have always been a fan of the "exploding dice" concept for firearm damage (roll max on a die and you roll it again adding to the total damage), but increasing the base damage can work as well.
Price wise they should start a 600 to 700 gp, just to keep them out of the hands of 1st level parties.
And this is where I would disagree. Price would be dependent on the relative availability of such weapons. If they are not widespread, the price should be 3x or higher what you have listed. For an area where they are common (and not restricted), I can see the starting price range you listed as reasonable.
All weapons can have a bayonet attached to make them count as melee weapons, but that incurs a -1 to attack and requires the Bayonet Proficiency Feat (a ranger could be proficient in the use of a rifle but not the bayonet). Small pistol bayonet counts as a dagger, large pistol counts as a short sword, and both rifle bayonets count as a spear.
Would a PC using a bayonet without the feat then suffer a -5 penalty (-1 from the bayonet plus the -4 non proficiency penalty)? The breakdown for bayonet damage seems reasonable.
Enchantment rules are standard and I see no issue there.
All in all, looks like a reasonable rule set (though I would tweak out the items I mentioned above if I were to use them).
|
|
Your damage is right and the -1 for using a bayonet, is only on ranged attacks, sorry. The short range is to show the inaccuracy of smooth bore weapons, rifles losing accuracy after about 50'. Maybe the range penalty could be +1 for smooth bore weapons. And these rules are for only muzzle loading weapons.
All of this together seems to make firearms a very unattractive option.
Low damage, slow reload, very short range and costing an exotic weapon feat. Is there any advantage in using a firearm?
All of this together seems to make firearms a very unattractive option.
Low damage, slow reload, very short range and costing an exotic weapon feat. Is there any advantage in using a firearm?
I say the same thing for the current firearm rules, although I exchange cost for very short range.
Then again, the "is there any advantage" question can almost be placed on any exotic weapon.
Shamus Young (of DM of the Ring fame) wrote an interesting article of the game design issues involved in introducing firearms into (fantasy) roleplaying games. http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=6194 It's a good read.
I believe the best way to handle firearms is to give them the same stats as other ranged weapons. A hand gun is treated as a light crossbow, a rifle as a heavy crossbow, etc.
Weapons shouln't veer to far from the standard damage ranges. Crits, sneak attacks and a host of feats (improved crit, manyshot, rapid reload, etc) can quickly unbalance the game.
If you want to make firearms more interesting (and more unpredictable) you could increase the crit range to x3 damage, but have it explode on a natural 1. (or something similar).
|
|
All of this together seems to make firearms a very unattractive option.
Low damage, slow reload, very short range and costing an exotic weapon feat. Is there any advantage in using a firearm?
Well, it fits more with the concept of firearms during the golden age of piracy when boarding an enemy vessel. Take the first shot then close for melee. But yes, not the most attractive weapon.
So if I've got this right, a .74 caliber, 34" barreled rifle has a range increment of 120 ft. and does 5d8 damage.
The first feat you take goes towards using the weapon at all - so for simplicity, I'd treat all firearms as a single exotic weapon proficiency. Then two more feats to increase reload time mean it's up to a move action reload, hence at best 1 shot per round.
That sounds fairly balanced to me. For that feat and financial investment, an archer will be blasting out ~3d8+12 damage per round, and the archer will only increase, while the rifleman falls further and further behind without iterative attacks.
On the other hand, a second level fighter could pull it off. It seems awfully unbalancing to have a 1/round 5d8 blast - not that fighters are really schooling everyone else for power at the moment - and even if you confine the crit to 20/x2, it'll end most fights before level 5 in one shot. If you're fine balancing encounters for that sort of event, then by all means, go with your build.
If it were my game, I'd want to address (in game rules) why a character would ever use a) shorter barrel rifles and b) lesser caliber guns. Moreover, I'd probably standardize things so there weren't quite so many different tiers of damage and range to work through - you'll lose some historical verisimilitude, but you'll score big on player comprehension.
Oops. I missed the extra dice thing there. So much for my reading and comprehension.
I like what calvinNhobbes mentioned, I might have to decrease the damage and increase the crit multiplier. I like the rate of fire for a muzzleloading weapon, but making them simple weapons makes since (point shot, much like a crossbow).Yes, for musket type weapons a slow rate of fire on par with crossbows would make sense. The rapid rate of fire comment was more for automatic modern firearms.
I think the real balancing factor would be ammunition cost and availability.
I wouldn't say ammunition would be so hard to find. Lead was relatively common, and making gunpowder is relatively simple and cheap once you know how.
If they're exotic after having just been invented, such a conclusion would make sense though. Their inventors would charge quite a bit for even one bullet.
I like what calvinNhobbes mentioned, I might have to decrease the damage and increase the crit multiplier. I like the rate of fire for a muzzleloading weapon, but making them simple weapons makes since (point shot, much like a crossbow).
My suggestion would be to take a cue from weapons like the Bastard sword. Make them exotic weapons that can be fired as a simple weapon with some additional downside (perhaps only characters with the full proficiency can properly reload them, or they lose accuracy in the hands of someone unskilled, as they don't anticipate the kick of the shot.)
I don't much like the suggestion of giving firearms massive damage and/or critical multipliers, as has been said before, there's not much difference between being beheaded with an Ax and being brained with a bullet. I'd keep them on par with a bow or crossbow (d8/d10, 20/x3) and give them some unique perks, like a lot of the other exotic weapons. My suggestion would be a combination of some sort of Penetration value that helps reduce your opponents armor (and this is where barrel length could come into play I suppose) and foes losing their dexterity bonus to AC (you can't dodge bullets). This just gives early guns the right "feel" to me, slow, cantankerous, dangerous to keep around, but the great equalizer, making everyone's AC gravitate towards a common value regardless of how fast or armored they are.
Treat them as "touch" attacks.
Exotic Weapons
Everything else damage, etc as light crossbow
Treat them as "touch" attacks.
Wow. What a great idea! I'd been house-ruling my way through a (disastrous for various reasons) Napoleonic D&D campaign, balancing out the ease of use of firearms vs. the effects of the weapons vs. realistic reloading times.
What I came up with was very heavy damage weapons (3d8 for pistols, 3d12 for muskets, etc.) with LONG reload times (10 'attack' actions for rifles i.e. they take 10 attack actions to reload, so if you have iterative attacks, you can load them faster).
What I found was that the first round vs. a prepared opponent was DEADLY. Which makes sense, but isn't that fun to run. People wanted to use firearms all the time (again, a good idea, but hard to run and hard to fight against).
But keeping their damage on-par with melee weapons and crossbows, but making them touch attacks balances them out nicely. They're more likely to be used for softening attacks, especially keeping long reload times. Food for thought.
While firing weapons is easy, reloading them quickly isn't nearly so, but it may need to be something that's glossed over, or minimized.
Granted, here, I'm primarily concerned with flintlock muskets and early rifles (which had their own proficiency, due to the fact that they weren't used correctly by folks that didn't have training in them).
Touch attacks would seem to overdo it. Early firearms were such that plate mail could reliably deflect their bullets. I believe steel infantry armor was issued (and used) up through the 20th century.
Treat them as "touch" attacks.
Well, I like the whole touch attack idea, but I have to agree with Coriat when he says:
Touch attacks would seem to overdo it. Early firearms were such that plate mail could reliably deflect their bullets. I believe steel infantry armor was issued (and used) up through the 20th century.
Magically hardened Iron Golems and Adamantium clad dwarven defenders for instance should have bullets pinging off their armor, not punching through it.
Perhaps something like:
- Firearms (general): Attacks made with firearms are made as if the target were flat footed. Most firearms, although exotic weapons, can be fired (but not reloaded) as if they were simple weapons by the untrained. A character attempting to reload a firearm without the appropriate training must take 10 times as long as normal to load the firearm or run the risk of the weapon misfiring. A weapon that was loaded hurriedly will misfire 20% of the time (this roll is made separately from the attack roll). A weapon that has misfired must be carefully cleared by a character with the appropriate proficiency.
- Pistol: 1d8, 20/x3, 20 ft. range increment
Against targets with an armor and natural armor bonus of +4 or less, attacks made with a pistol are touch attacks. Against targets with either an armor or natural armor bonus of +5 or more, attacks are made as normal.Loading a pistol is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunities.
Normally, operating a pistol requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a pistol with one hand at a –2 penalty on attack rolls. You can shoot a pistol with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two light weapons. This penalty is cumulative with the penalty for one-handed firing.
- Arquebus: 1d10, 20/x3, 40 ft. range increment
Against targets with an armor and natural armor bonus of +7 or less, attacks made with an Arquebus are touch attacks. Against targets with either an armor or natural armor bonus of +8 or more, attacks are made as normal.Loading an Arquebus requires two full-round actions, each of which provokes attacks of opportunities.
- Musket: 1d12, 20/x3, 60 ft. range increment
Against targets with an armor and natural armor bonus of +10 or less, attacks made with a Musket are touch attacks. Against targets with either an armor or natural armor bonus of +11 or more, attacks are made as normal.Loading a Musket requires three full-round actions, each of which provokes attacks of opportunities.
I think all that gets the feel of firearms across, and with the appropriate set of feats, they could be competitive with crossbows without simply duplicating them statistically.
EDIT: Fiddled a bit with some of the stats, upping the damage slightly and lowering the crit range. Feels more right to me now. Also changed the misfire chance to a separate roll. After all, why should all your misfires come on attacks you would have missed anyways?
Treat firearms as a touch attack.
Armor doesn't help because you hit the joints in the armor or give plate (and I'm making the assumption that it is agreed that all other armor types are a bit rubbish in stopping bullets) DR5 against bullets.
Adamantine bullets...ignores armor.
Treat firearms as a touch attack.
Armor doesn't help because you hit the joints in the armor or give plate (and I'm making the assumption that it is agreed that all other armor types are a bit rubbish in stopping bullets) DR5 against bullets.
Adamantine bullets...ignores armor.
Well, yeah the armor doesn't help if you hit the joints. But the assumption is that you swung around the protective armor anyway. By that logic the bullet shouldn't be a touch attack.
The adamantine bullets should also explode on impact. They are, in fact
Treat firearms as a touch attack.
Armor doesn't help because you hit the joints in the armor or give plate (and I'm making the assumption that it is agreed that all other armor types are a bit rubbish in stopping bullets) DR5 against bullets.
Adamantine bullets...ignores armor.Well, yeah the armor doesn't help if you hit the joints. But the assumption is that you swung around the protective armor anyway. By that logic the bullet shouldn't be a touch attack.
The adamantine bullets should also explode on impact. They are, in fact ** spoiler omitted **
If I was designing rules for firearms I would use touch attacks because its simple. Otherwise your getting bogged down in all sorts of nonsense. Why should padded armor provide protection against bullets? Or a chain shirt?
As for adamantine bullets grubbing around in corpses for the bullets is a job for the monkey familiar. He carries around the black powder and shot...
If I was designing rules for firearms I would use touch attacks because its simple. Otherwise your getting bogged down in all sorts of nonsense. Why should padded armor provide protection against bullets? Or a chain shirt?
Because they're really bad bullets? Why should they come anywhere near hitting their target unless they're rifled?
Although why bullets "stay away" from some people wearing heavier armor is beyond me.
Touch attacks would seem to overdo it. Early firearms were such that plate mail could reliably deflect their bullets. I believe steel infantry armor was issued (and used) up through the 20th century.
I've seen a couple of shows on the History Channel where experts used historically accurate replicas and an arqeubus could pierce the breastplate of a mounted knight. The steel breastplates and other bits of armor used after the introduction of firearms were either ceremonial or used to defend against melee attacks. Though chainmail was worn by WW I tank crews to deflect shards of shrapnel from cutting up their faces.
But I don't want to start a thread-jack. That's just my two bits in regards to history.The biggest problem I've had trying to put guns in any fantasy game is keeping my own sense of "realism" in regards to firearms and how they would work within the spirit of a fantasy world.
I made pistols (d8) simple, muskets/rifles (2d6) martial and I gave armors a penalty to AC of -4, -3, -2, on the range increments. I also used much more realistic reload speeds to keep things more or less level.
If I was designing rules for firearms I would use touch attacks because its simple. Otherwise your getting bogged down in all sorts of nonsense. Why should padded armor provide protection against bullets? Or a chain shirt?
Because they're really bad bullets? Why should they come anywhere near hitting their target unless they're rifled?
Although why bullets "stay away" from some people wearing heavier armor is beyond me.
So how would you do it?
I would just give an attack bonus (+4, +7, +10) instead of how you have it worded. Makes it more confusing than it needs to be.
An attack bonus would make them way, way too good against unarmored targets, and wouldn't give them the feel of penetrating armor. As for the wording, it's a bit verbose I'll admit, but it's very similar to the wording on the Whip (which people use without it being a problem).
Armor doesn't help because you hit the joints in the armor or give plate (and I'm making the assumption that it is agreed that all other armor types are a bit rubbish in stopping bullets) DR5 against bullets.
Armor as DR instead of AC (or in addition to AC) is a whoooooole different houserule, and probably more of an added complication than adding firearms deserves.
I'm a bit of a gun nut, especially when it come to WW1 and earlier military rifles, and I have worked up rules for circa 1770 guns (and working on cannons) and would like to get some opinions on them....
Looks like you got a good start, and there're lots of good suggestions in the thread already. I have a set of firearms rules in a PDF available for download by folks who subscribe to my free newsletter. They're still in the playtest stage, but could prove useful to you.
Check my site for details about Quid Novi? (the newsletter), if you'd like.
-- Mark L. Chance (Spes Magna Games)
exploding dice is the best way to handle firearms.
bleed damage on a critical representing internal bleeding is good as well.
people have been shot with a .22 and lived since the light round tends to bounce, and typically can't penetrate a skull. Something like 1d4 sounds about right for that kind of damage, however if is penetrates the skull doing 4 dmg, it might bounce around more causing another d4, and perhaps another d4, and of course some brain bleed.
Medieval Armor doesn't stop bullets, that's why full plate went out of usage, a musket would punch through it. Chainmail worthless...
The reason a blanket 'touch attack to hit' rule for guns is bad is because there are a lot of creatures with ridiculously thick hide. A bullet at the proper angle can penetrate a piece of platemail, sure, but that's only 9 points worth of armor. What about a dragon with 30 points of natural, plus another 4 mage armor?
That kind of stuff would be as thick and hard as the plating on a tank - never mind the issue of damage reduction. Guns (especially early guns) just don't have enough penetrating power *over* a longbow with bodkin tip arrows to justify that excessive ease of hitting.
By the same stroke, exploding dice for bullets make just as much sense. Trauma to the body is trauma to he body; if you were pierced clean through, whether it was by a bullet or a rapier is plainly irrelevant.
Aiming for realism with graduated scales of gun effectiveness is a cool idea, but any way you slice it, the game gets substantially more complex. If you're going to really go all in for firearms, you're going to have to do a loooot of editing. The armor as DR proposals are probably the most direct, but those have issues all their own.
The reason a blanket 'touch attack to hit' rule for guns is bad is because there are a lot of creatures with ridiculously thick hide. A bullet at the proper angle can penetrate a piece of platemail, sure, but that's only 9 points worth of armor. What about a dragon with 30 points of natural, plus another 4 mage armor?
Out of curiousity, what's your opinion on my suggestion, with touch attacks vs. foes with a low armor/natural armor, and regular attacks on those above. (Essentially giving each firearm a certain amount of armor which it can "penetrate").
If I was designing rules for firearms I would use touch attacks because its simple. Otherwise your getting bogged down in all sorts of nonsense. Why should padded armor provide protection against bullets? Or a chain shirt?
Why should padded armor provide protection against an arrow? Especially the arrow that my 20 Str fighter just shot, that hits significantly harder than a bullet? (d8+5 damage vs d12 damage)
More practically, it's quite plausible. At long range even heavy clothing could stop a 15th century firearm. At close range, it didn't make that much difference, yes. This works fine with padded armor as written.
Say you have a 50/50 base chance to hit (you're one conscript soldier shooting at another). If it's long range, you're taking a -8 increment penalty to your shot, and so you now would need a 18 to hit, then that padded armor makes a significant difference (only 2/3 as many hits). If it's point blank and you had a 50% chance to hit, then the padded armor makes hardly any difference (9/10 as many hits). As it should be.
I've seen a couple of shows on the History Channel where experts used historically accurate replicas and an arqeubus could pierce the breastplate of a mounted knight.
I suspect that they screwed something up in their test, then, since that contradicts literally hundreds of well-attested and explicit historical accounts.
The steel breastplates and other bits of armor used after the introduction of firearms were either ceremonial or used to defend against melee attacks.
Factually incorrect. Armor continued to be used as protection from bullets for roughly four hundred years after the introduction of firearms to Europe, even discounting the WWI/WWII stuff (which was, as you say, more for protection against shrapnel).
Out of curiousity, what's your opinion on my suggestion, with touch attacks vs. foes with a low armor/natural armor, and regular attacks on those above. (Essentially giving each firearm a certain amount of armor which it can "penetrate").
It makes some sense as far as historical accuracy goes. On the other hand, it really bogs down gameplay. Pretty much every weapon would require an armor piercing rating, which would subsequently render light armors irrelevant, etc...
It would be cool as long as you're willing to alter a lot of the fundamental structure of combat, but it'd be a beast to introduce just for the sake of slightly-more-realistic firearms.
I agree that would probably be more record keeping than it's worth.
So how would you do it?
If I was designing rules for firearms I would use touch attacks because its simple. Otherwise your getting bogged down in all sorts of nonsense. Why should padded armor provide protection against bullets? Or a chain shirt?
Because they're really bad bullets? Why should they come anywhere near hitting their target unless they're rifled?
Although why bullets "stay away" from some people wearing heavier armor is beyond me.
I'd make more feats, like an improved point blank shot, for example. Maybe give the guns a 70 foot range, a big damage die for their size, and make them martial if you're using a reload time. If not, They should be exotic.
Bullets should have a x3 crit as well. x4 we are talking about two weapons, a pick and a scythe, both of which are a long metal spike that goes in you (That's how I imagine a scythe critting anyway). Making the tiny ball of metal a x3 is actually pretty generous from a fluff standpoint, but gameplay wise it's necessary.
Since the bullets are going to be inaccurate anyway, it makes sense that they might glance off even a light suit of armor, should the wearer be lucky. The most effective way to stop bullets? Wicker. The branches hit the bullets and change their flight pattern. A specific arrow head might be slightly more resilient, but nonetheless, even a small impact can affect the flight of the missile quite a bit.
I wouldn't do a thing. Round objects are bad at penetration anyway.
Were this d20 modern I'd just say it ignores light armor bonuses unless magic and only grants half the medium armor bonus, but make the damage two small dice, like 2d3 for a .22.