The thing that I don’t like about most “Gun Rules” in the game is that they try to do three things, all of which I completely disagree with:
First, they try to capture the variability of blackpowder weapons like as if they were wands or independent magic items… that is to say, they make up a new class of gun for every preference (“is that a light pistol, heavy pistol, heavy repeating pistol, medium long barreled pistol?”). In a nutshell, they complicate things.
Second, they are completely enamored with the idea that a gun is going to blow up in your face at any moment! Blackpowder weapons WOULD misfire frequently, but this was only because the powder didn’t ignite – not because the weapon would blow up. The Warhammer fantasy battle moniker simply does not apply in real life.
Third, they COMPLETELY IGNORE the reasons WHY blackpowder weapons eventually came to completely dominate the battlefield, making bows and crossbows obsolete. I wonder sometimes if the people who made these rules have ever even fired a bow and a blackpowder rifle?
My rules for firearms are very simple. First, start with the basics as presented in Pathfinder chronicles (For my game I made changes to the pistol/revolver ranges)
----------- DMG / Crit / Range / Cap / Wgt / Type
Blunderbuss / 2d6 / x2 / 20 / 1 / 5lb / B/P
Musket ---- / 1d8 / x3 / 90 / 1 / 9lb / B/P
Pistol ---- / 1d6 / x2 / 30 / 1 / 4lb / B/P
Revolver -- / 1d6 / x2 / 30 / 5 / 5lb / B/P
Rifle ----- / 1d8 / 19-20(x3) / 150 / 1 / 8lb / B/P
Scattergun / 3d6 / x2 / 30 / 1 / 8lb / B/P
Now we must ask the question, “Why are firearms superior?” After all, they are unbelievably slow to reload and they require utilizing dangerous blackpowder. The reasons are obvious – they are accurate in a way which no other weapon was, they were more physically damaging that arrows and bolts, and they made armor obsolete.
To take this into account I did two things to my firearms – gave them a strength bonus that penetrates armor, and gave them a point blank accuracy bonus.
Consider the strength bonus for a second. If you have the opportunity, go out with a .22 caliber pistol to the firing range and take a few shots. It’s easy, it’s fun, and it doesn’t take much effort. Now switch over to a .357 magnum revolver – I imagine if you’ve never shot one before the recoil will scare the wits out of you. The .357 is what I would call a pistol with a high Strength modifier, while the .22 has none, and while the .22 round probably won’t punch through a suit of platemail, the .357 is known to be able to crack an engine block.
Now, go out with a bow and arrow with your pistol. Pick a target and take turns shooting the target first with your bow and then with your pistol. Unless you have trained extensively with the bow, odds are you will be RIDICULOUSLY more accurate with the pistol than the bow. Blackpowder weapons, however, were not as accurate as modern weapons (with the exceptions of rifles) so after a certain range that accuracy was diminished. Nevertheless, ask yourself – if some crazed lunatic with an axe was charging at you, would you feel safer with a bow, a crossbow, a katana, or a pistol?
----------- / Pt Blank ATT / STR Mod / Max STR(of weapon)
Blunderbuss / +4 / x1 ½ / 16
Musket ---- / +2 / x1 / 18
Pistol ---- / +3 / x1 / 16
Revolver -- / +3 / x1 / 14
Rifle ----- / +2 / x1 ½ / 20
Scattergun / +4 / x2 / 22
Notes:
Firing a Musket, Rifle, or Scattergun draws an attack of opportunity. Firing a Blunderbuss, Pistol, or Revolver doesn't.
Attack bonus for applies ONLY to the first range increment for Muskets, Pistols and Revolvers. Rifles, Scatterguns, and Blunderbuss maintain the ATT bonus at longer ranges.
Strength Modifier of any particular weapon VARIES with the amount of charge (blackpowder) put in the weapon. The STR of the charge must not exceed either the STR of the character or the Max STR of the weapon – if it is greater than what the character can handle, bad things happen (I have not developed rules on this, but typically I just say to the character you are thrown to the ground by the recoil and take non-lethal damage equal to the damage of the shot); if it is greater than the MAX STR of the weapon, bad things happen to the weapon (this is where exploding weapons on a critical miss comes into play)
The STR Bonus for all weapons, except Blunderbuss and Scattergun, add to both the damage done by the shot and REDUCE the Armor/Natural Armor factor of the target. If the weapon reduces the armor value to zero, excess armor penetration is lost. Example: A warrior in Plate Mail would be more susceptible to a shot from a 18 STR rifle (+6 armor penetration, +2 accuracy) while a Quickling would be more susceptible to a 18 STR scattergun (No armor penetration, +4 accuracy).
Also, Scatterguns and Blunderbuss lose energy the further away the target is from firer. Damage in the second range increment is at ½, in the third range increment is at ¼, and in the fourth range increment is at 1/8. After the fourth range increment, damage from these weapons is negligible.
That is my basic rules for firearms. I have other rules taking into account feats (e.g. Minuteman, Heavy Weapon Shooter) and skills (Quickdraw). But I just want to give you the general idea.
|
I use an even easier method:
Guns = Bows.
Simply put, if you want a Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun, or any other kind of "gun" projectile weapon, get the Bow/Crossbow you'd like to use, then call it a gun.
The only IG difference is that Bolts & Arrows are not interchangeable with Bullets, but any "bullets" are useable with any gun.
This way, you get whatever kind of weapon you want, without having to add new rules and new complexities.
I use an even easier method:
Guns = Bows.
I like the idea of simplicity you present. However, I like guns to have an allure to them that draws players out. "Why would I want to travel all the way to Alkenstar just for something that mimics a bow."
Also, as I may have implied, in my mind GUNS are superior -- but they are also more complex and elusive. In my world, if you see a dozen archers marching down the street, it is of no importance -- but if you see a dozen sharpshooters from the walls of Cloudreaver Keep marching down the street, you definitely take notice.
One other way in which guns are different than bows is due to the fact that, YES! you can load and shoot a bow MUCH faster than you can shoot a blackpowder weapon.
Pathfinder tries to cloud this fact by making the time to reload a black powder weapon only one round. The most highly skilled British infantry of the Revolutionary War could load and fire their muskets (using cartridges) 4 times a minute.
Based on that, in my campaign the time it takes to reload a blackpowder weapon is 4 full round actions. If they are using premade cartridges this is reduced to two full round actions. If the character has the feat "Minuteman," these full round actions are changed to move actions.
Typically speaking, a blackpowder shooter in my game fires once with his rifle (musket/scattergun), drops the weapon and pulls two pistols next, and then pulls a sword. Unless there is someone to fend off attackers, there is no time to reload
You also have to remember that the Brown Bess of the Revolutionary War was not very accurate. That's why they had to line up in rows, fire a volley or two, then charge with bayonets. There were several accounts of musket balls bouncing off people as well, and they weren't even wearing armor.
Overall, I think your idea is very balaced. Firearms require an Exotic Weapon Feat (I think) and should do a little more than bows and crossbows.
You also have to remember that the Brown Bess of the Revolutionary War was not very accurate. That's why they had to line up in rows, fire a volley or two, then charge with bayonets. There were several accounts of musket balls bouncing off people as well, and they weren't even wearing armor.
Overall, I think your idea is very balaced. Firearms require an Exotic Weapon Feat (I think) and should do a little more than bows and crossbows.
Thank you for the compliment and I definitely agree with your observations of Muskets. They were only accurate up to 30 to 50 yards, which is why the point blank attack bonus only applies to that first range increment. So at up to 90 feet they get a +2 but after 90 they get a -2. Rifles, however, continued to be accurate at extreme ranges.
I also completely agree with the fact that they are an Exotic Weapon. Firing a musket is not so hard at all... but loading one? DFINITELY exotic to an axe wielding dungeon runner.
My only exception is for people from Alkenstar. Any character from Alkenstar in my campaign gets it for free. However, in my campaign the Alkenstar mana dampen affects characters -- no wizards, clerics, sorcerers, bards or magic of ANY kind exists, and all PCs (and NPCs) gain a +2 to all saves against spells or spell-like abilities.
The reasons why firearms were displacing bows and crossbows off the battlefields aren´t of interest for a standard gaming group. In terms of range, accuracy, fire rates and armor penetration (at least the first few generations of) firearms were inferior to bows and crossbows anyway.
So as a game designer you can ignore the firearms completly or have to find a way to make them usable in the game. Thus those complex and "unrealistic" rules are created.
I believe Enthallo is leaving out that realism is not always the highest priority among balance and simplicity of mechanics. Wanting more realistic firearms in a game is certainly a valid desire, but I think it is equally valid that many Game Masters and Players do not want guns to be The Weapon of Choice™.
I believe Enthallo is leaving out that realism is not always the highest priority among balance and simplicity of mechanics. Wanting more realistic firearms in a game is certainly a valid desire, but I think it is equally valid that many Game Masters and Players do not want guns to be The Weapon of Choice™.
As we've been discussing in other threads, so long as a weapon cannot make multiple attacks in one round, it will never be "the weapon of choice" :\
The problem with firearms in games is that people are fine with bows being fantasy weapons that ignore reality, but they're not ok with other weapons doing the same thing. Nobody sits there and talks about how bows should cause you to become fatigued, or how you should be limited to one attack per round, or how you should do less damage to enemies with high AC. But as soon as guns come out, everyone clamors to point out all the flaws it should have for "realism" purposes.
Good point. Furthermore, I think the arbitrariness of the 'realism' argument applies to a lot more aspects than just firearms.
I believe Enthallo is leaving out that realism is not always the highest priority among balance and simplicity of mechanics. Wanting more realistic firearms in a game is certainly a valid desire, but I think it is equally valid that many Game Masters and Players do not want guns to be The Weapon of Choice™.As we've been discussing in other threads, so long as a weapon cannot make multiple attacks in one round, it will never be "the weapon of choice" :\
The problem with firearms in games is that people are fine with bows being fantasy weapons that ignore reality, but they're not ok with other weapons doing the same thing. Nobody sits there and talks about how bows should cause you to become fatigued, or how you should be limited to one attack per round, or how you should do less damage to enemies with high AC. But as soon as guns come out, everyone clamors to point out all the flaws it should have for "realism" purposes.
I'm playing in a PbP at the moment with a musket wielding gnome range. His musket does high damage, but does take rounds to reload, to me, it's really fun, I have to use the bayonet after I blow the head off a big nasty creature, when I move on to the next, or I have to find a safe place to reload. he's making a pistol now, so he won't be so vulnerable after the first shot.
to the previous poster, making guns equal bows or crossbows...huh...k, the really tweaks simulationism. So does the musket get to fire as silently as a bow? Can you get rapid reload? Even crossbows aren't represented properly in my experience. A Crossbow can pierce armor rather easily as well.
Good point. Furthermore, I think the arbitrariness of the 'realism' argument applies to a lot more aspects than just firearms.
That's why I didn't bring up the "realism" in the game...
But if a Gun= a bow, then why have any difference in stats for any weapons? a sword = a mace, a spear = a sword...
But if a Gun= a bow, then why have any difference in stats for any weapons? a sword = a mace, a spear = a sword...
Why indeed.
But if a Gun= a bow, then why have any difference in stats for any weapons? a sword = a mace, a spear = a sword...
The same reason there was a broadsword in 2nd Edition, flavor. I also agree, "That's not realistic!" is an invalid arguement when I have a character that can throw balls of fire into a bunch of zombies.
You all bring up some very interesting points regarding the place of firearms within a fantasy campaign.
And it is very difficult for a firearm to compete with the imagery of Legolas on top of the ramparts of Helms Deep with his bow, puting his arrows into the eyes of orcs, one after another after another.
But for people who really like the idea of packing some "heat", you can't really compete with that bow-shooting dynamic -- inaccurate as it may be! The only way for firearms to compete with the idealistic fantasy bow is to either make the firearms just as unrealistic (either by making them rapid-shooters like bows or ultimate damage monsters) or by finding some middle ground where they still retain their flaws (on account of reasonable comprimise) yet still remain a viable, useful alternative.
The rules for firearms in the Pathfinder Chronicles campaign book fails to make firearms even SLIGHTLY appealing -- you're honestly better off throwing rocks than shooting (you at least get your strength bonus and full attacks per round throwing rocks!). This is why I created my alterations to the rules.
You all bring up some very interesting points regarding the place of firearms within a fantasy campaign.
And it is very difficult for a firearm to compete with the imagery of Legolas on top of the ramparts of Helms Deep with his bow, puting his arrows into the eyes of orcs, one after another after another.
But for people who really like the idea of packing some "heat", you can't really compete with that bow-shooting dynamic -- inaccurate as it may be! The only way for firearms to compete with the idealistic fantasy bow is to either make the firearms just as unrealistic (either by making them rapid-shooters like bows or ultimate damage monsters) or by finding some middle ground where they still retain their flaws (on account of reasonable comprimise) yet still remain a viable, useful alternative.
The rules for firearms in the Pathfinder Chronicles campaign book fails to make firearms even SLIGHTLY appealing -- you're honestly better off throwing rocks than shooting (you at least get your strength bonus and full attacks per round throwing rocks!). This is why I created my alterations to the rules.
I think most GMs are afraid of the Everfull Quiver full of firearms. Or the autoloading pistol, and of course a six-shooter would work using standard actions and rapid shot.
if you want to use firearms I say take a different appraoch instead of classing them as a weapon class them as a wonderous item use activated.
You can now make them very powerful one shot items and can easily give them costs in line with other ranged magic items e.g. wands. You also avoid multiple attack BAB issues, since like wands its a simple 1 spell cast as a std action.
create bullets and blackpowder as secondary wonderous items
if you want them to bypass armor then make them a ranged touch attack effect. which means high dex high bab characters will get the most benefit from them.
you can even give them special rules that ranged accuracy feats will apply to the weapons.
and then you can avoid all the problems of getting them in line with other fantasy weapons.
|
|
Good point. Furthermore, I think the arbitrariness of the 'realism' argument applies to a lot more aspects than just firearms.That's why I didn't bring up the "realism" in the game...
But if a Gun= a bow, then why have any difference in stats for any weapons? a sword = a mace, a spear = a sword...
Stats, sure. Appearance, I consider malleable in pretty much every manner. "Longsword" stats on your "bladed morning crab blade" keeps the math nice and easy.
seeYou all bring up some very interesting points regarding the place of firearms within a fantasy campaign.
And it is very difficult for a firearm to compete with the imagery of Legolas on top of the ramparts of Helms Deep with his bow, puting his arrows into the eyes of orcs, one after another after another.
these.
If any of these are spoilers get the hell off the internet and go watch what is quite possibly one of the greatest trilogies known to man.
Firearms have plenty of mythical, fantastic, and reality bending stories about them - and they're just as known as their medieval counterparts. A wandering man of law who brings good and justice to wherever he's called...you think paladin? Who says Paladin doesn't have a gun? (That was a terrible joke, I apologize)
The big problem is that, while D&D has lots of things that would revolutionize the setting in insanely drastic ways (flying monsters would literally destroy the concept of the castle, disease curing clerics could revolutionize medicine and, with it, bring about vast social changes in class hierarchy, wizards eliminates the existence of standing armies, etc, etc), nobody cares and thinks that people would still be living in normal ol' Semi-Dark Ages Europe, whereas they think the introduction of the firearm would change everything irreparably forever.
We've romanticized the knight to the point of absurdity - which, quite frankly, is fine, as it's a fantasy game, but we also refuse to romanticize anything else, which strikes me not so much as bad, but weird. A lone bow wielding elf who hunts orcs is no better or worse then a lone gun wielding human who hunts orcs, and yet if you suggest one you'll get nods, whereas if you suggest the second, some people in the hobby get noticeably upset.
Your choice of video clips rocks!
Legolas never had the string guitar, staccato piano, or melancholy horns backing up his game! Clint rocks
There's two kind of men in this world... men with loaded guns, and men who DIG!
I've been working on a steampunk setting for sometime now and I'm finally getting to run it. Beforehand though, I was trying to figure out how to get guns to work and posted this thread with all the houserules I was using (for guns and other steampunk stuff as well). Also to make up for less attacks per round and reload time I allowed characters to have multiple barreled revolving flintlocks (but unlike that picture they can have up to 6 barrels and be pistols or muskets) at an increased price. Originally I had the guns dealing 2d4 (small pistol) 2d6 (small musket/medium pistol) and 2d8 (medium musket). I later decided to trim them down to 1d8 (small pistol) 1d10 (small musket/medium pistol) and 1d12 (medium musket) and give them exploding die. Finally I've decided to allow guns (and crossbows for that matter) to add dexterity as precision damage on damage rolls (to kind of show that they're more accurate or something like that). I still haven't tested this out to see how powerful it will be but I hope it will put guns and crossbows up as viable weapons for a characters "weapon of choice."
Unseen servants to reload the weapons for you.
I'm a pretty big fan of firearms for medium BAB classes. With the vital strike feats and deadly aim (and the exploding dice rules) you can rack up some nice damage even though you are only taking one shot.
After think a while I come with this:
- Rifle: 1d10, x4, 150ft., 1 shot/standard action to reload, P/B
- Pistol: 1d8, 19-20/x3, 60ft., 1 shot/move action to reload, P/B
- Revolver: 1d6, x2, 60ft., 5 shots/full-round to reload all five, move to reload one, P/B
- Still thinking about scatterguns and blunderbusses...
Special:
- Anyone without Exotic Proficience (firearms) but who knows how to use a light/heavy/repeating crossbow can shot with a rifle without penalty, but not how to recharge it. Same with hand crossbows (in my games hand and repeating crossbows are marcial) and pistols/revolvers;
- Anyone with Exotic Proficience (firearms) can add his DEX modifier to the damage when firing with a rifle, and rifles only. This extra damage is considered precision damage, but it's effective at any distance within the first range increment (150ft.);
- The Rapid Reload feat drop the action needed to reload to: MOVE with rifles, SWIFT with pistols, and STANDARD(all five)/SWIFT(one) with revolvers. It also give another benefit: you can reload pistols and revolvers (one shot only) with the same hand you wield the gun (think in this like a finger-trick);
- The Two-Weapon Fighting feat also let you go akimbo... sorry, dual fight with pistols and revolvers. For this pistols are considered one-hand weapons and revolvers light weapons.
New itens:
- Reloader: this tiny device hold together up to five bullets in a circular fashion, making easy to reload a full charge of a revolver. Using this, reload all the five shots of a revolver is a standard action (move with Rapid Reload). Preparing the bullets in the device is a full-round action, but they can be prepared ahead of time, and the entire set is treated like any ammunition, for sake of rules. Price: 10 GP
- Telescopic sight: this portable spyglass was especially made to be mounted on top of most rifles, making easy to pinpoint long range targets. With this, the penalty for shoot after the first range increment decreases to -1 for each increment. Also you can add your DEX modifier to damage with rifles within 2 range increments (300ft.). Price: 100 GP
As said before, there's no difference between shooting with a crossbow and a gun. That's why the crossbow proficiency thing. The DEX in damage, along with Deadly Aim and Vital Strike make up for the one shot per round for gunslingers, compared to bow fighters. The high multiplier calls for "A 20? BOOM, HEADSHOT!". And the revolver a viable weapon for ranged fighters, especially dual weapon.
|
Kobold Quarterly 13
PC Classes
The Arquebusier
A Gun-Toting Base Class for
the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
This hase a very good set of rules for Fire Arms. The group I play in uses them. Tome of Battle hase some good ideas as well. Realy like the alchemical ammuntion form Tome of Battle. With that sayed over all I wold give Tome of Battle fire arms rules a B+ and Kobold Quarterly 13 a A.
But if a Gun= a bow, then why have any difference in stats for any weapons? a sword = a mace, a spear = a sword...
Another argument occurred to me last night. Let's take this in the opposite direction, if differentiating weapons is important, then should we not re-introduce weapon speed? What about how different damages interact with armor (slashing/bashing vs. leather/metal)?
This is all a matter of degree and preference. I fear I may have come off rather dismissive towards the OP with my first few responses. I was having a day yesterday and I offer an apology.
My suggestion would be if you want to change a weapon and/or add some semblance of 'realism', you keep in mind certain compromises were made previously for reasons. Measure how much effort will be required to achieve what you are after against the payoff of the results, not only for yourself, but for those you game with. If you are the GM, will your players also enjoy all your labors or will it just be something that annoys them?
I would also try to keep as close to the RAW as possible, making changes in baby steps. Changes can often have unforeseen consequences. After something has worked out, you can continue to make more changes.
Looking purely at the historical early firearms, the reason they replaced bows and crossbows were that they were easier to use. They were as fast to fire as crossbows and took less effort while inflicting damage that was as serious if not more so at range.
Accuracy of smooth bore weapons were appalling, but it generally didn't matter because you were aiming at large bodies of men. Penetration wasn't that good - many suits of armour were sold as 'proof' meaning 'bullet proof' and were tested by taking the discharge of a pistol at point blank range. Rifles were harder to load because the ball was a tighter fit to the barrel of the gun, but had much greater accuracy and effective range, but rate of fire was still poor - so poor that Wellington was still making enquires about the possibility of acquiring longbowmen in the Napoleonic wars.
More powerful firearms came in about the turn of the 20th century with more powerful explosives that would perforate armour easily, and with cartridges and magazines the rate of fire was improved drastically. Only weapons of this kind of calibre would get a 'penetration bonus' in my book.
However, I would make all firearms 'simple' weapons.
Looking purely at the historical early firearms, the reason they replaced bows and crossbows were that they were easier to use. They were as fast to fire as crossbows and took less effort while inflicting damage that was as serious if not more so at range.
Accuracy of smooth bore weapons were appalling, but it generally didn't matter because you were aiming at large bodies of men. Penetration wasn't that good - many suits of armour were sold as 'proof' meaning 'bullet proof' and were tested by taking the discharge of a pistol at point blank range. Rifles were harder to load because the ball was a tighter fit to the barrel of the gun, but had much greater accuracy and effective range, but rate of fire was still poor - so poor that Wellington was still making enquires about the possibility of acquiring longbowmen in the Napoleonic wars.
More powerful firearms came in about the turn of the 20th century with more powerful explosives that would perforate armour easily, and with cartridges and magazines the rate of fire was improved drastically. Only weapons of this kind of calibre would get a 'penetration bonus' in my book.
However, I would make all firearms 'simple' weapons.
I agree and disagree with you. Muskets were inaccurate... yes, that is true. But bows and crossbows were MORE inaccurate. Archers in lines of battle fired arrows not too dissimilar to muskets, however they couldn't point their arrows directly at their enemies, they arched them up and fired them in the air, and hoped that the arrows would land where they were supposed to.
Crossbows superceded bows and arrows because it was easier to train a crossbowman than it was an archer. Contrary to popular belief, only the largest crossbows (eg arbalests) could be classified as Armor penetrating. Take a look at the comparison of the Heavy Crossbow shooting at laminate armor and the Chinese repeating crossbow shooting at plated mail armor on "The Deadliest Warrior" (Vlad vs Sun Tzu). The Xbow bolt was deflected once and failed to penetrate significantly a second shot (which took about half a minute to load)
The reason shafted projectile weapons are inferior is because they carry their energy in the shaft, which vibrates as it flies. When they strike a soft target, that energy is transfered into the tip. If they hit a hard target (armor) that energy is deflected laterally.
Bullets don't have that problem. If there is enough energy in the shot, the bullet will part steel plate. A muzzle loaded pistol would not have enough energy to bust through plate, but it would tear a hole through chain or leather armor pretty quick (and, as you might see from the max strength of my weapon list, it can only have a max Armor piercing of +2).
And yes, for all who want to throw it back at me, I am VERY concerned with realism in my game. I game with adults 35+ years, and they insist on believing in the world I present to them.
I agree and disagree with you. Muskets were inaccurate... yes, that is true. But bows and crossbows were MORE inaccurate. Archers in lines of battle fired arrows not too dissimilar to muskets, however they couldn't point their arrows directly at their enemies, they arched them up and fired them in the air, and hoped that the arrows would land where they were supposed to.
In battlefield use this is quite true, this is how they were used - but with bows and crossbows you had the option of aiming them with relative success, and they'd go where you pointed them. With muskets there was no such guarantee because the ball was slightly smaller than the barrel, and it could bounce around meaning it could leave the barrel at a slight random angle. It's been worked out that if you aimed at a man-size target a hundred yards away with a musket, even if you had the barrel precisely on target your chances of an actual hit were as low as 1/30. A decent archer or crossbowmen had a somewhat better chance.
Crossbows superceded bows and arrows because it was easier to train a crossbowman than it was an archer. Contrary to popular belief, only the largest crossbows (eg arbalests) could be classified as Armor penetrating. Take a look at the comparison of the Heavy Crossbow shooting at laminate armor and the Chinese repeating crossbow shooting at plated mail armor on "The Deadliest Warrior" (Vlad vs Sun Tzu). The Xbow bolt was deflected once and failed to penetrate significantly a second shot (which took about half a minute to load)
In Europe, where longbowmen were never invested in, this is true that crossbows 'replaced' them. In England, the crossbow was used parallel to the longbow at best (longbows were always used in preference, though), and the crossbow was then abandoned in favour of the musket. The longbow stayed in use right through to the English Civil War (mid 17th century) when it was deployed by Royalist forces.
The reason shafted projectile weapons are inferior is because they carry their energy in the shaft, which vibrates as it flies. When they strike a soft target, that energy is transfered into the tip. If they hit a hard target (armor) that energy is deflected laterally.
The short bodkin was effective vs armour because when it struck plate the recoil was deflected back into the shaft, which stored it and returned it to the point. It kind of punched it's way in a bit like a hammer-drill, I'm told by a friend of mine who does re-enactments (not sure how accurate this is). I saw a comparison between the English lonbow and the Japanese yumi that concluded that the yumi was more accurate and more powerful - but both could penetrate the Japanese armour of the period, while the yumi's arrowhead bounced off chainmail while the bodkin point sank into it.
Bullets don't have that problem. If there is enough energy in the shot, the bullet will part steel plate. A muzzle loaded pistol would not have enough energy to bust through plate, but it would tear a hole through chain or leather armor pretty quick (and, as you might see from the max strength of my weapon list, it can only have a max Armor piercing of +2).
I agree, against lighter armour bullets were effective. Then again, so were arrows and crossbow bolts. Armour went out of fashion not because of muskets but because of economics - it was simply too expensive to invest in all that heavy armour for a substantial number of men. Even so, in the Napoleonic wars and even beyond heavy cavalry still wore curasses of armour that could and did deflect musket shot. These disappeared by the end of the 19th century (except for the Household Cavalry who still use them for ceremonial duties) but the use of sword-armed cavalry continued - the last cavalry charge in anger with swords was in 1918 toward the end of the WWI.
And yes, for all who want to throw it back at me, I am VERY concerned with realism in my game. I game with adults 35+ years, and they insist on believing in the world I present to them.
Nothing wrong with realism as far as I'm concerned. If you get the details right for the 'real world' stuff in your game right then it makes the fantasy elements more 'real' as well.
And yes, for all who want to throw it back at me, I am VERY concerned with realism in my game. I game with adults 35+ years, and they insist on believing in the world I present to them.
I am not sure Pathfinder was designed for the level of realism you hope to achieve. Are you familiar with G.U.R.P.S.? I can not speak for 4th edition, but 3rd edition was much more concerned with accurately portraying firearms. Not perfect, but I think it would be closer to what you are looking for.
Again, I apologize if it felt like I was throwing your preference back at you.
??? to the OP. That is FAR too complicated, and actually ignores some of your own points.
Now, to be constructive, here are my own firearms (for Spelljammer):
Musket - 2d8 dmg, x5 crit, 15lbs, Piercing, 20' range, takes a FRA to reload, reduced to a SA with Rapid Reload, Exotic weapon.
Pistol - 1d10 dmg, x5 crit, 5lbd, Piercing, 10' range, takes a SA to reload, reduced to a MA with Rapid Reload, Exotic weapon.Starwheel varieties exist, but they reduce the damage by 1 step and still take time to reload each chamber.
Now, I know that these arms are ok, but still will not likely be the primary weapon of a character. However, you don't take a Musket because you want to apply a bunch of modifiers to multiple shots. You take one because it is a 2d8 weapon and crit's like a MOFO!
And this is early smoothbore tech. With rifling, the range increment is doubled. With cased shells, even single shot, the weapon becomes Martial. Multiple chambers open the possibility of using Rapid Shot. Etc...
You are right... the thought processes behind it are complicated, but it boils down to simplistic rules.
Your rules for muzzle loaders are definitely superior to Pathfinder's, however I am still a stickler on the slow reload times for blackpowder weapons. The big one shot punch that you have to scramble to reload is my driving philosophy.
And yes, for all who want to throw it back at me, I am VERY concerned with realism in my game. I game with adults 35+ years, and they insist on believing in the world I present to them.I am not sure Pathfinder was designed for the level of realism you hope to achieve. Are you familiar with G.U.R.P.S.? I can not speak for 4th edition, but 3rd edition was much more concerned with accurately portraying firearms. Not perfect, but I think it would be closer to what you are looking for.
Again, I apologize if it felt like I was throwing your preference back at you.
I did play GURPS, and Hero System, and a half a dozen other gaming systems. I liked and disliked aspects of all of them.
Now I play Pathfinder and I am looking to make guns that are realistic for my players and don't suck -- and for me, that takes more than just saying "Guns=Bows" or making guns into a wondrous magical item.
For the sake of space, Dabbler, I will be succinct:
Point 1
100 yards with a bow? I disagree. Aiming is irrelevant at that range. Chaos theory applies.
Point 2
Bows WERE superior to crossbows, I agree, but it was harder to train an archer than a crossbowman. Cost vs benefit went to the crossbow. The Royalists used bows during the English Civil war because they were too poor to afford musket and powder... no other reason.
Point 3
I know of the bodkin, and I've seen them fire. Their true armor piercing capabilities stop at chainmail. The tips pierce the hard plate segments of Japanese Laminate, but not deep enough to be fatal.
Point 4
I agree in a sense. It does become an economic question. Why invest in something that is exceedingly expensive yet its level of protection is exceedingly marginalized? Cavalry continued to wear armor because their ranks were typically recruited from more affluent families -- who could afford that kind of idealized nonsense.
But you and I have different opinions of things, I think. There is no harm in that.
To agree with a few posts I've read :
1) Crossbow = Easy Army. One of the reasons they proliferated so fast was that to get a good archer took months of practice (english longbowmen took years, granted they could take someone off a parapit from 100 yards away, but that took years of practice). You can take anyone and put a crossbow in their hands and they'll be hitting a human sized target at 50 feet in an afternoon. They can hit a human sized target at 100 feet in a week or two. If they can't, you yank them out and give them a pike and tell them to stand in front of the cavalry charge. Great incentive to get them practicing.
2) Guns = Easy as Crossbows, plus penetrate armor, plus better range. You can take someone and give them a black powder rifle and they'll be filling it, priming it, and firing it in a day. I myself was firing my first muzzle loader rifle after an hour's training, then shot the rest of the afternoon. I could hit a human target pretty reliably at 100 feet after a couple of hours. After that, they can hit a horse sized target at 100 yards in another day. If you're talking musket, then they can hit a line of charging soldiers in an hour (which is the original method used). If you look at the british soldiers, they'd have a musket with a bayonet attached. Three ranks. First rank fires, kneels. Second rank fires, Kneels, First rank reloads. Third rank fires, kneels. Second rank reloads. First rank stands up. First rank fires, kneels, second rank stands up, third rank reloads. Lather rinse repeat. The idea wasn't to 'pick out the whites of their eyes' as the old song goes, it was to send a wave of balls at the other guys, 50 rounds every 3 seconds, continuously. You don't aim for that, you just fire into the charging soldiers and bayonet them when they get too close. That sort of coordination took time and training, but it wasn't anywhere near what it took to train a good archer (especially a longbowman).
3) Accurate Advanced Guns = End of Other weapons and Armor. If you're handing out cap and ball revolvers, expect the rest of the weapons to eventually die out, and the armor. A black powder gun is just too powerful, if it's built to match reality. A 44 Colt Peacemaker (the 1860's cap and ball variety) will penetrate any armor in PF as if it weren't there. It's basically a ranged touch attack. And, it's going to do massive damage if it's historically accurate. You get shot by one of those in the chest, and you're either dead or an angel threw you a get out of jail free card. If you want that, play Boot Hill (a surprisingly accurate representation of what gunfighting was like in the old west, every time you're shot at you have a 15% chance to die graveyard dead, no roll, just automatic dead, and if you get hit in the head, it's more like 99%, and anywhere but limb it's about 50%). So, I'd prefer my guns in PF to be slightly (greatly?) unrealistic.
I still say you guys are going about this the wrong way.
consider how you would add a laser gun to pathfinder ?
would you try and put it in the weapon list ? NO
you'd make it a wonderous item add somthing like scorching ray to it and presto gun that fire's heat rays.
now imho firearms in a fantasy setting might as well be laser guns for the tech jump they represent.
if they are protoypes then they should be wonderous items, weapons on the weapon list are mass produced they been proven to work and as such people are trained in thier use on a regular basis.
in a fantasy setting guns are close enough to appearing magical anyway, you point a stick hear a boom, puff of smoke and 30 feet away somone falls over hit by an invisible force.
wonderous items are a far better rule base to make a firearm with , will cause far fewer clashes as well
I still say you guys are going about this the wrong way.
consider how you would add a laser gun to pathfinder ?
would you try and put it in the weapon list ? NO
you'd make it a wonderous item add somthing like scorching ray to it and presto gun that fire's heat rays.
now imho firearms in a fantasy setting might as well be laser guns for the tech jump they represent.
But they already are in the Pathfinder Fantasy Campaign. Wedged between Nex and Geb, in a strip of land completely devoid of magic on account of centuries of wizard warfare, lies the Grand-Duchy of Alkenstar. There are no wizards or clerics or anything mystical there, but there are fortresses and walls and horrors living in the mana wastes outside those walls.
And there are guns (and as far as I am concerned, the rules for those guns suck!)
A lot of people are pretty ignorant about the firearms that were actually used in the medieval period. Other people have already pointed out the facts better then I could, such as Dabbler. We should be talking about the firearms of the 14th and 15th centuries, not, for instance, the Wild West. The firearms of that period just didn't have many of the properties people associate with firearms, such as armor-piercing capability, that would make them overpowered.
A lot of people are pretty ignorant about the firearms that were actually used in the medieval period. Other people have already pointed out the facts better then I could, such as Dabbler. We should be talking about the firearms of the 14th and 15th centuries, not, for instance, the Wild West. The firearms of that period just didn't have many of the properties people associate with firearms, such as armor-piercing capability, that would make them overpowered.
I mentioned Wild West as the natural progression of guns over time, not as what you'd expect to see in a PF campaign. If you want to limit to what you'd see in a 14th century...
You'd be looking at a matchlock, or even just a tube with an opening that a torch got touched to. The latter would mostly be used for shot in a tube, an anti-personnel weapon. Most of that shot was slag from the blacksmith shop, useless for anything except shrapnel.
As early as the Ming dynasty you'd have musketeers with flintlocks performing the classic three row attack (which Napoleon later used, and then the English).
After the matchlock, you had other advancements, the doglock, the flintlock, the wheellock. Eventually you got to cap and ball and then cartridge rounds. Later still, bullets like you'd expect today.
I hope that's more 'historical' for you. ;)
I actually did 2 topics on this in my Blog:
"Gun in a Knife Fight"
Low Fantasy Gun Rules
(They have developed since then but that's the basics)
Good luck!
Let them have wild west revolvers.
Seriously.
It's not going to drastically alter or unbalance the game with flying monsters and wizards. Nor will it completely alter the feel of the game or genre in the game that has angsty elf rangers or lone human bounty hunters.
I still say you guys are going about this the wrong way.
consider how you would add a laser gun to pathfinder ?
would you try and put it in the weapon list ? NO
you'd make it a wonderous item add somthing like scorching ray to it and presto gun that fire's heat rays.
now imho firearms in a fantasy setting might as well be laser guns for the tech jump they represent.
But they already are in the Pathfinder Fantasy Campaign. Wedged between Nex and Geb, in a strip of land completely devoid of magic on account of centuries of wizard warfare, lies the Grand-Duchy of Alkenstar. There are no wizards or clerics or anything mystical there, but there are fortresses and walls and horrors living in the mana wastes outside those walls.
And there are guns (and as far as I am concerned, the rules for those guns suck!)
well if you insist then all i can say is that your rules need to be more simplifed.
for rules that need to be used every single round of combat you descriptions are too long winded.perhaps you could breakdown into a few sentences the weapon explanation and rules. That would make it more easy to see how simple or complicated it would be to actually use said rules.
I actually did 2 topics on this in my Blog:
Good luck!
I think our systems are quite similar. Instead of the Strength bonus (and Max Bonus) you opt for an increase in damage. Instead of the Armor/Natural armor reduction, you go for the Penetrating feat reducing DR. All in all our ideas are very similar, just different approaches.
You are right... the thought processes behind it are complicated, but it boils down to simplistic rules.
Your rules for muzzle loaders are definitely superior to Pathfinder's, however I am still a stickler on the slow reload times for blackpowder weapons. The big one shot punch that you have to scramble to reload is my driving philosophy.I noticed a typo. Muskets are supposed to deal 2d10.
The reload times are still slow. A musket can only be fired every other round, max. The difference is whether you can move and reload, or just stand there and reload. 5 shots/min is a bit fast, but this IS a fantasy game, after all :P
Oh, and for Blunderbuss, I use 6d6 in a 30' cone, REF for 1/2 damage. It's a non-magical cone spell.
Where are you getting your info for your weapon stats? In my the campaign book (albeit it is for 3.5) the stats for Muskets is 1d8 dmg and the stats for blunderbuss is 2d6?
well if you insist then all i can say is that your rules need to be more simplifed.
for rules that need to be used every single round of combat you descriptions are too long winded.perhaps you could breakdown into a few sentences the weapon explanation and rules. That would make it more easy to see how simple or complicated it would be to actually use said rules.
You're right. Let's see if this is a more easier to comprehend display
-------------- DMG / Crit // Range / Cap / Wgt / Type / ATT/ STR Mod / Max STR
Blunderbuss // 2d6 / x2 ///// 20 /// 1 // 5lb / B/P // +4 / x1 ½ //// 16
Musket ---- // 1d8 / x3 ///// 90 /// 1 // 9lb / B/P // +2 / x1 ////// 18
Pistol ---- //// 1d6 / x2 ///// 30 /// 1 // 4lb / B/P // +3 / x1 ////// 16
Revolver -- // 1d6 / x2 ///// 30 /// 5 // 5lb / B/P // +3 / x1 ////// 14
Rifle ----- /// 1d8 /19-20(x3) 150 / 1 // 8lb / B/P // +2 / x1 ½ //// 20
Scattergun- // 3d6 / x2 ///// 30 /// 1 // 8lb / B/P // +4 / x2 ////// 22
Notes:
*ATT bonus applies only to first range increment for Musket, Pistol, or Revolver
*STR Mod of the STR bonus adds to damage of the weapon and reduces the Armor/Natural Armor of the target AC for the purposes of the ATT roll for Musket, Pistol, Revolver and Rifle.
*STR Mod of the STR bonus adds to damage ONLY for Blunderbuss and Scattergun. Furthermore, damage for these weapons is halved for every range increment after the first, to the max of 1/8th damage at four range increments.
*One handed firearms do not draw an attack of opportunity when fired. Firing two handed firearms does draw attacks of opportunity, as does reloading ANY firearm.
*Reloading a firearm takes 4 full round actions using a powder horn and separate ball and wad. Using premade paper cartridges to reload takes 2 full rounds. Minuteman Feat(rapid reload for muzzle loaders) reduces time to 2 movement actions.
Does this help make it easier to understand?
Oh, and for Blunderbuss, I use 6d6 in a 30' cone, REF for 1/2 damage. It's a non-magical cone spell.
My blunderbuss works like this: the first 20ft. is 1 line that deals 4d6 damage, the second 20ft. is 3 lines wide, the middle line deals 2d6 damage and the 2 outside lines deal 1d6 damage, the last 20ft. is 5 lines wide with all the lines dealing 1d6 damage. After the first target is hit in any line all the lines it behind stop. A small creature reduces the die to d4’s and a large creature increases the die to d8’s. When using a Blunderbuss, precision damage (i.e. sneak attack damage) may only be applied to the 1st enemy hit, if more than 1 is hit simultaneously choose 1 to take the precision damage.
Granted it's slightly more complicated than most weapons if you don't see little crappy diagram I drew up but it works more closely to the way a real blunderbuss would (i.e. the closer the enemy is, the more damage you'll do).
But you and I have different opinions of things, I think. There is no harm in that.
None at all!
I think the best way for adventurers to use guns, and the way we used them in a game of 7th Sea, was simply to carry a lot of them! My character in that carried a musket for long range, and half-a-dozen pistols for every other eventuality. Each combat was usually followed by an hour's worth of reloading, but we kept up a pretty good rate of fire. Eventually, I had a pair of double-barrelled pistols made to make things a little quicker and easier.
Pirates tended to use pistols the same way, loading and carrying a number of them for close-quarters.