Microsoft Word.
How many programs named Word do you know of? :)
If the game world has guns, then it has gunpowder.
If it's magical gunpowder, then it will still be in bombs and barrels.
because technology develops very slowly in a world where there is magic.....the tech just isnt needed
that and game balance to make it playable
im ok with 'muskets' but 1st level people lighting barrels of gunpowder can wipe out level 10 people...and thats not how d20 games work
1st level guys can kill high level dudes with good tactics, and that's a problem? You don't have things like poison, carefully planned ambushes, rockfall traps, etc in your games?
What about dumping molten lead on a high level fighter who is scaling the wall of a castle you are defending? Shoving a guy out of a very high tower window(falling damage, baby!)? Tripping a guy in full plate and knocking him into deep water to dorwn> Poisoning a powerful wizard's wine cup. A net can bind up a high level guy, and then you move in for the kill with posioned reach weapons. Get him helpless and then coup de grace!
Tactics, baby, tactics!
Tactics can be dealt with by tactics. Explosive devices not so easy. Gunpowder takes some of the skill out of it. It is a leveller. For me however, an additional problem with gunpowder, and guns, is they mark a tipping point towards technology / real world physics. I've gone out of my way to divource my game from "real world" science (physics, biology, chemistry and all). Had to, really -- in 1974 when we started playing D&D we were wargamers and gunpowder weapons figured into the medieval miniature games we played. If you let gunpowder in, the next thing you know they were planning on blowing up the dragon and nobody needed the high level hero. Magic required long study and practice before you got the big boom. It made that kind of power rare. And I think it needs to be in a world with room for extraordinary heroes.
If you plan on a "magical" version of gunpowder then the question becomes why would anyone use it? There are more effective magical "booms" available. Say a Wand of Fireballs for example. If the weapons are primitive enough to not outshine bows / crossbows then why bother to expend the magic to make them?
If it is a technological / scientific invention, a al the real world, then it has to be a new technology to fit in. It didn't take gunpowder weapons more than a few centuries to surpass other missile weapons in the real world. If it's been around for more than a couple of centuries it should be advancing, even if it does so slowly. And yes, I'm fully aware of the span of time from primitive hand gunnes to matchlocks to flintlocks. History is what I do. Compare the span in which bows existed as a primary weapon to gunpowder weapons. When you hit the gunpowder phase in an inventive experimental culture (such as late medieval - Renaissance / early modern Europe) it moves fast.
Although I can see the fun in a three musketeers / pirates with gunpowder and magic type setting it just doesn't seem viable for a lot of existing campaigns. It also seems to be a narrow time range in which you are capturing that moment of coexistence of magic and technology. Many fantasy campaigns exist in an "eternal now" where technology is frozen and things remain the same for generations. Much like the medieval concept of things.
Just some thoughts...
Microsoft Word.
How many programs named Word do you know of? :)
Read the rest of my post. You just failed at cracking wise! :P
Lighting a barrel takes tactics.
Since it destroys an entire dungeon room or surface building you have to shoot it from the doorway. Even then, it has to be a barrel with extra metal bands. Making an explosive trail of gunpowder requires a Dex. check, and a rat could easily interrupt the trail. A fuse requires skill too. Removing a fuse requires no skill.
|
Weapons and armour go hand in hand. Nobody worries that there is full plate in the game, even though this in its most commonly accepted european version is dated to the 15th and 16th centuries.
Gunpowder was about in europe in the 14th century and earlier elsewhere.
Generally it is up to the flavour of your game. If you want your heroic knight blasted away by massed muskets thats fine. If you want your heroic knight to run a barrel of powder up to the castle gates and blow them off thats fine. If you don't well don't use gunpowder. In game terms the mechanics are pretty balanced as I see it...
Tactics can be dealt with by tactics. Explosive devices not so easy. Gunpowder takes some of the skill out of it. It is a leveller. For me however, an additional problem with gunpowder, and guns, is they mark a tipping point towards technology / real world physics. I've gone out of my way to divource my game from "real world" science (physics, biology, chemistry and all). Had to, really -- in 1974 when we started playing D&D we were wargamers and gunpowder weapons figured into the medieval miniature games we played. If you let gunpowder in, the next thing you know they were planning on blowing up the dragon and nobody needed the high level hero. Magic required long study and practice before you got the big boom. It made that kind of power rare. And I think it needs to be in a world with room for extraordinary heroes.
If you plan on a "magical" version of gunpowder then the question becomes why would anyone use it? There are more effective magical "booms" available. Say a Wand of Fireballs for example. If the weapons are primitive...
How does gun powder negate tactics? It's just another element of you can add to a plan. If PCs some how manage to sneak in enough gun powder to successfully target the weak points in a dragon's lair that they were able to locate and then manage to detonate them with out the Dragon ever noticing the PCs are their, then you have very clever PCs. Remember, Guy Fawkes didn't get this plan to work with the British Parlament Building, and he and his conspiritors were up against other humans.
Gun Powder is not an efficient explosive, . The Gun Powder plot was supposed to use aroud 30 or so barrels of Gun Powder to attempt to level Parlament. It is not something you could just bring a couple of barrels up the mountain, detonate it, and expect the mountain to cave in on the Dragon to kill it. Demolition requires more than just a bit of explosive and gun powder isn't TNT or Dynamite.
Also, you'd have to determine what the damage of a massive explosion of gun powder would be. I, for one would probably have a cask of gun powder (figure around 1 foot diameter) would be the equivelent of a 3d6 fire ball with a Ref DC of 15 for half and with possible upgrades to up to 5d6 if it's loaded with nails and things. A full Barrel I'd cap at 10d6 damage, myself. When you start thinking about using barrels of Gun Powder as bombs, you also have to start thinking about cost. Paizo has their powder costs 10 gp a shot. Now if I say that a cask contains about 100, that's about 1000 gp for a 1 shot 3-5d6 explosive. A 5th level wand of fireballs costs 11,250 GP to make, roughly 225 gp per fireball. I forget what the cost of a bead of force is, but I believe it's less than 1000 gp.
I like how arcanis solved that, gunpowder is magic, a gift from the gods, and unstable when in large quantities. You would blow yourself to hell long before getting enough together to blow up anything. They did this once and pissed off the god that gave it to man, now things are much more strict.
I don't see a problem to solve.
If you really want to restrict powder, though, just rule that no one has discovered how to corn the stuff.
How does gun powder negate tactics? It's just another element of you can add to a plan. If PCs some how manage to sneak in enough gun powder to successfully target the weak points in a dragon's lair that they were able to locate and then manage to detonate them with out the Dragon ever noticing the PCs are their, then you have very clever PCs. Remember, Guy Fawkes didn't get this plan to work with the British Parlament Building, and he and his conspiritors were up against other humans.
Large explosions produced without magic tend to reduce the skill needed to kill high level characters or monsters. Sure it takes a bit of planning, but shooting the barrel at a distance is a bit simpler than less explosive methods. Guy Fawkes and company tipped their hand in an anonymous letter before the bomb could be set off. Is there any other tactical way that a literal handful of conspirators could have eliminated the entire Parliament? Let me know. There is always an element of planning / skill. Gunpowder / explosives reduce the requirement.
Gun Powder is not an efficient explosive, . The Gun Powder plot was supposed to use aroud 30 or so barrels of Gun Powder to attempt to level Parlament. It is not something you could just bring a couple of barrels up the mountain, detonate it, and expect the mountain to cave in on the Dragon to kill it. Demolition requires more than just a bit of explosive and gun powder isn't TNT or Dynamite.
Nor is it C4 or Semtex. Parliament is large. That's why the 30 barrels. They wanted the big bang to get all the members and King James I and company. I wouldn't suggest being in a house in which 1 barrel was set off.
Also, you'd have to determine what the damage of a massive explosion of gun powder would be. I, for one would probably have a cask of gun powder (figure around 1 foot diameter) would be the equivelent of a 3d6 fire ball with a Ref DC of 15 for half and with possible upgrades to up to 5d6 if it's loaded with nails and things. A full Barrel I'd cap at 10d6 damage, myself. When you start thinking about using barrels of Gun Powder as bombs, you also have to start thinking about cost. Paizo has their powder costs 10 gp a shot. Now if I say that a cask contains about 100, that's about 1000 gp for a 1 shot 3-5d6 explosive. A 5th level wand of fireballs costs 11,250 GP to make, roughly 225 gp per fireball. I forget what the cost of a bead of force is, but I believe it's less than 1000 gp.
You're underestimating the power imo. The corned black powder used in the plot was not too dissimilar to the powder used in artillery as recently as the 19th century. The charge used to send a 12 pounder Napoleonic cannon ball sailing into the distance some hundreds of yards to mow down bunches of hapless infantry is measured in ounces (20 oz. is the suggested maximum charge). The primitive grenades of the 1600s used only a couple of ounces of confined powder to have an effect which, while not as efficient as a modern grenade, could be lethal to any small group of troops.
Why would gunpowder be used in a magical world. I was talking with my brother and we were talking about alternatives. Why not base guns off of a small dab of Oil of Impact or a small Thunderstones. Using gunpowder is a loaded idea as it is common place in the real world thus everyone knows what it is made of. Using magic is a way to introduce flintlocks without the added baggage of gunpowder.
Just thinking.
I understand what you're getting at, but it's roughly like saying "hey, if you have floating disks, why do people have stairs? You could just as easily make elevators." Weak analogy, I know, but it's genre convention. Fantasy rarely starts at a blank slate. That's no reason that you couldn't do a more magitek or early steampunk setting, but it's considered a sub-genre.
Large explosions produced without magic tend to reduce the skill needed to kill high level characters or monsters. Sure it takes a bit of planning, but shooting the barrel at a distance is a bit simpler than less explosive methods. Guy Fawkes and company tipped their hand in an anonymous letter before the bomb could be set off. Is there any other tactical way that a literal handful of conspirators could have eliminated the entire Parliament? Let me know. There is always an element of planning / skill. Gunpowder / explosives reduce the requirement.Nor is it C4 or Semtex. Parliament is large. That's why the 30 barrels. They wanted the big bang to get all the members and King James I and company. I wouldn't suggest being in a house in which 1 barrel was set off...
Lets see, with out magic or gun powder, tunnel under Parlament, dig out under key walls, get timber and oil, and light a fire. Good old sapper tactics that had been around for a long time. With magic it would be a matter of what method I chose to use. I remember in 2nd Ed. my group dropped a small mountain on fort because they didn't put any limitation on the Reduce spell. We found an enormous slab of rock and had two wizards casting all their 1st level spells as Reduce on it. Each Reduce shrunk the rock a bit more until it was something that could be carried. We flew up over the fort, yelled at the giants to surrender, they laughed, we flew up my companion dropped the rock and his Reduce spells, I dropped all my Reduce spells, and the fort got flattened. When 3.0 came out the first thing we did was make sure they limited the Reduce spell. Even with loop holes like this no longer available, destroying a building with magic is still really easy, especially for Druids. The bonus with magic is that you don't even have to spend much money on it.
Now for Guy Fawkes and Dragons: Yes, they tipped their hands, which is one of the reasons I mentioned it. Dragons are known for their sharp senses. Sneaking into ones lair with several barrels of gun powder, you might as well be doing the same thing.
On the efficiency of Gun Powder: gun powder is not an efficient explosive. C4 converts more of its mass to energy, it is very stable, and far more versitile. Black Powder was efffective for propelling projectiles because all the energy is being channeled one direction. You still needed a large amount of Black Powder to launch a cannonball. By comparison smokeless powder required less powder to get the same force but has to be properly measured so you don't overcharge it, which could be disasterous.
On the Lethality of Explosives: If I stood next to a barrel of gun powder when it detonated, I'd be dead. If I stood next to the spot where a 10th level fireball hit, I'd be dead. If a Rogue used sneak attack againts me, I'd be dead. Chances are if I got hit with a good shot from almost any weapon list in DnD, I'd be dead. DnD is not a lethal system and represents characters that would best be described as demi gods and super heroes. Once you pass the first few levels, characters are beyond the human norm. Early grenades, and really grenades in general, are more about wounding then killing. If you're at ground 0, chances are you're screwed. The farther you get from the grenade, the less likely you are going to be killed outright by it but you'll still proubably be injured. Now, in the real world, getting wounded back in the days of the early grenade could very well kill a lot of people eventually, due to things like infection.
Now figure that the average soldier is a 1 to 2 level warrior. Using the example of a cask bomb I provided doing 3d6 to 5d6 (probably 1/2 fire and 1/2 piercing) to 40ft with a Ref save of 15, that would at least mess up most soldiers in an army. A Dragon would laugh this off with ER and DR. Of course this really doesn't strike me as very cost effective.
If you're going to make guns and gun powder more "realistic" in DnD then you should be doing the same with everything else. All the weapons would have to be more lethal. If you don't then the system you are using has a double standard. Guns need to scale with other weapons, grenades need to scale with alchemist fire and acid, and a one shot big explosive shouldn't out scale magic. You have to balance first and deal with realism second. If you do add something that is balanced then it shouldn't cut back on the amount of planning you need to pull off a plan.
|
I like how arcanis solved that, gunpowder is magic, a gift from the gods, and unstable when in large quantities. You would blow yourself to hell long before getting enough together to blow up anything. They did this once and pissed off the god that gave it to man, now things are much more strict.I don't see a problem to solve.
If you really want to restrict powder, though, just rule that no one has discovered how to corn the stuff.
The problem is people trying to use large quantities to blow stuff up
|
Here's a suggestion:
An alchemist's bombs are made from several inert compounds that only catalyze when they're mixed within the alchemist's personal magical aura, then either explode or go inert within a few seconds. Why not the same system for the stuff that makes guns work? Let's call it "blast jelly" for the time being.
The characteristics of blast jelly:
*Blast jelly comes as a pair of semi-liquid catalysts.
*When these two gels are mixed, they create a rapidly-decaying compound.
*If this compound is subjected to sharp pressure or great heat, it explodes.
*If these conditions aren't met within 5-10 seconds, the compound "burns out" and hardens into an inert solid.
*The larger the amount of chemicals mixed, the greater the amount of heat or pressure needed to catalyze the reaction.
*Because of the volumes involved, by the time a large portion of blast jelly was mixed completely, portions of it would already be turning inert. This creates a fairly hard limit on the useful limits of blast jelly.
*A few drops of blast jelly has the same explosive potential as a large firecracker--or a capful of gunpowder.
*A soda-can-sized quantity of blast jelly is the maximum useful limit to its mixing capacity. This amount is like a grenade--and is probably the same stuff alchemists use to create bombs, for that matter. Theirs work better because they're mixing "on the fly," so they're using fresh ingredients for maximum volatile effect (and other pseudo-science).
At some point in history, people had basically discounted blast jelly as a child's toy, like the snapdragon fireworks that we have in the real world, since it's too unstable to use as a missile weapon for field combat. One good knock from an enemy soldier, and your flasks of blast jelly either explode on you, or go inert.
One day, entirely by accident, someone saw a cap of blast jelly shoot a rock skipping across the ground, where it then hit another rock, jumped off the ground, and shattered a window. The person who saw that thought, "Wouldn't it be useful to throw rocks with blast jelly?" And thus, a new category of weapons were born.
To make a blast jelly bullet, you take a metal cylinder and divide it into four compartments. The largest one at the top of the bullet contains a metal pellet or slug; technically, this part is the bullet while the rest is the catalyst, but only alchemists really care about the distinction. The smaller part of the bullet is the catalysis chamber. This tripartite chamber contains the two components of blast jelly, and a few drops of alchemist's fire, all separated by a thin layer of metal.
The mechanism of a firearm works by using a simple lever (a metal "pin" connected to a spring-loaded trigger) to rapidly puncture a hole into the tripartite catalyst chamber, rapidly mixing the blast jelly components, and then exposing them to the alchemist's fire and air. The subsequent explosion separates the bullet from its housing and sends it shooting down the barrel (longer barrels are more stable, as discovered by early experimenters), accompanied by a gout of flame and smoke (thus the name, "fire-arms").
In a perfect world, the casing of the bullet is then ejected from the firearm by cracking open the barrel and pulling it out (some advanced firearms have levers to eject spent casings). Multi-shot firearms have been theorized, but the intense heat from the blast jelly reaction often causes damage to single-barrel firearms, and the few multi-shot experiments thus far have ended in tragedy as the fragile tripartite chambers are ruptured by close-proximity vibrations and heat. Anything short of close-range explosion doesn't bother them, so "blasters" often carry large quantities of "jellies" in padded cases not unlike an archer's quiver.
See, now you have a fantasy equivalent of firearms without worrying about any of these problems, or it being too much like the real world. =3
Alternately you don't need a magical substance to fire a bullet. A gun could simply have a bullet in and a simple non-enhancement bonus enchantment fires the round when you pull the trigger. No gun powder, no mess.
Weapons and armour go hand in hand. Nobody worries that there is full plate in the game, even though this in its most commonly accepted european version is dated to the 15th and 16th centuries.
Gunpowder was about in europe in the 14th century and earlier elsewhere.
Generally it is up to the flavour of your game. If you want your heroic knight blasted away by massed muskets thats fine. If you want your heroic knight to run a barrel of powder up to the castle gates and blow them off thats fine. If you don't well don't use gunpowder. In game terms the mechanics are pretty balanced as I see it...
Anyone who can afford a castle can afford an Orb of Storms.
|
|
Why is that a problem? The game is FULL of magic that can do that.The problem is people trying to use large quantities to blow stuff upI like how arcanis solved that, gunpowder is magic, a gift from the gods, and unstable when in large quantities. You would blow yourself to hell long before getting enough together to blow up anything. They did this once and pissed off the god that gave it to man, now things are much more strict.I don't see a problem to solve.
If you really want to restrict powder, though, just rule that no one has discovered how to corn the stuff.
Because magic is something you build up and earn, anyone with the recipe can produce gunpowder and use enough to do as much or more than the "heroes". A bored peasant with the right resourses could kill anything if so inclined, slay the most ancient dragon or level the stronghold of the evil one.
Gunpowder is known in the real world, yes. But so are swords. The argument that one should not use something found in the real world in one's fantasy world carries no weight on its own. It depends on the history of the item, and the kind of world you're building. Moreover, whatever happened to character knowledge versus player knowledge? Just because I can find a chemistry book telling how to mix gunpowder doesn't mean my character automatically has that knowledge. (Not to mention the fact that even with a chem book, I probably couldn't do it myself, without blowing something up.)
In the case of gunpowder, it has existed for centuries, but not always used in the same way, in all places at the same time. There was centuries of experimentation, innovation and gigantic failures to get to its modern uses. You could set your game world at any level of advancement in-between.
As to the OP's question as to alternative means of exploding things, who's stopping him? Over 31 years of playing, I've seen, discovered, invented, and had inflicted upon my own characters countless ways of blowing things up. Given that track record, what's one more? Like gunpowder?
Because magic is something you build up and earn, anyone with the recipe can produce gunpowder and use enough to do as much or more than the "heroes". A bored peasant with the right resourses could kill anything if so inclined, slay the most ancient dragon or level the stronghold of the evil one.
Or, he could miserably fail his skill check for mixing it, and blow himself to Kingdom Come. Or, he could threaten to do just what you're saying, causing the heroes to come after him. Or, he could have a bad recipe and hire the heroes to go get the mad wizard who sold him the faulty script.
I can't imagine this theoretical peasant got this recipe for free and is just using household items. You still have to buildup the resources to pay for all of what you're listing here. Gunpowder, especially in large quantities, comes from, and is a resource, just like any other. Requiring commerce just like any other.
It's also a scenario resource, plot point, goal, just like any other.
Here's how I'm further implementing gunpowder,
64. Deals
Str 11, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 6; Male 'Halfling' merchant hp 6. This guy always wears an overcoat lined with pockets full of 'wears'. He always has a few second hand pistols and horns full of gunpowder.
DM notes: This is a goblin wearing a hat of disguise. He sells stuff for the Dregs tribe that lives in thunder mountain. The Dregs tribe is made up of goblins who survived the destruction of their tribes and moved into an abandoned mine in what is now called Thunder Mountain. They make gunpowder, and steal guns and such from any fool they catch alone in the wilderness.
I think you should leave gunpowder making to the NPCs. Even with the right formula, some of your mixers will become 'smitherenes'.
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fireworks/index.html
Lets see, with out magic or gun powder, tunnel under Parlament, dig out under key walls, get timber and oil, and light a fire. Good old sapper tactics that had been around for a long time. With magic it would be a matter of what method I chose to use. I remember in 2nd Ed. my group dropped a small mountain on fort because they didn't put any limitation on the Reduce spell. We found an enormous slab of rock and had two wizards casting all their 1st level spells as Reduce on it. Each Reduce shrunk the rock a bit more until it was something that could be carried. We flew up over the fort, yelled at the giants to surrender, they laughed, we flew up my companion dropped the rock and his Reduce spells, I dropped all my Reduce spells, and the fort got flattened. When 3.0 came out the first thing we did was make sure they limited the Reduce spell. Even with loop holes like this no longer available, destroying a building with magic is still really easy, especially for Druids. The bonus with magic is that you don't even have to spend much money on it.
You're going to dig extensive tunnels under Parliament and undermine key walls. Good luck. Do you know how big the Houses of Parliament are? It's otherwise known as Westminster Palace. The current version is 8 acres all told. The Guy Fawkes version was quite a bit smaller. Good luck with the massive amount of tunneling, hiding the resultant earth and the workforce needed to conduct a large seige operation without being noticed. It's one thing for a handful of people to move a quantity of gunpowder into a basement that, partially, lies below Parliament, it's another for dozens of people (assuming you want to finish that in the next year or so) to file in and out of a small basement. Without being noticed :) With 5 people (iirc the number of conspirators) old age would have killed more members of Parliament than anything else. Dig deep too btw and drag in timbers for support or you'll collapse some of the building before you're ready to bring down the chambers they met in. It's one thing to undermine the wall of a castle in a specific place, another to collapse a building succesfully / simultaneously and kill a large number of people without giving them a chance to escape. Gunpowder was the only practical method short of seiging the place with a cast of thousands.
Barring abused low level spells you need to spend the time to become high level enough to destroy an important building which, in all likelihood, is magically protected from, at the least, low level magic. There is a cost to that which is probably a bit difficult to measure in GP.
Now for Guy Fawkes and Dragons: Yes, they tipped their hands, which is one of the reasons I mentioned it. Dragons are known for their sharp senses. Sneaking into ones lair with several barrels of gun powder, you might as well be doing the same thing.
Observe the subjects habits. Plant the explosives on a favorite route. Be patient. Detonate when appropriate. Loot later. The potential gain is worth the time and patience. All done at a distance with a low level party, some financial backing and time.
On the efficiency of Gun Powder: gun powder is not an efficient explosive. C4 converts more of its mass to energy, it is very stable, and far more versitile. Black Powder was efffective for propelling projectiles because all the energy is being channeled one direction. You still needed a large amount of Black Powder to launch a cannonball. By comparison smokeless powder required less powder to get the same force but has to be properly measured so you don't overcharge it, which could be disasterous.
I know the relative efficiency of modern explosives vs. black powder. Less efficient does not mean "harmless". A properly contained barrel of black powder tamped down does the same thing. The explosive power of the "30 barrels" of gunpowder was going to be channeled upwards into the buildings structure. Mother earth being a bit harder to move. I worked various American Civil War field peices as a reenactor. Including a 12 pounder smoothbore. 20 ounces is the maximum recommended charge for that weapon. Eight ounces is the max for a six pounder. There are various grades of powder for smallarms and cannons. They are tailored to do the job for weapons with different characteristics.
On the Lethality of Explosives: If I stood next to a barrel of gun powder when it detonated, I'd be dead. If I stood next to the spot where a 10th level fireball hit, I'd be dead. If a Rogue used sneak attack againts me, I'd be dead. Chances are if I got hit with a good shot from almost any weapon list in DnD, I'd be dead. DnD is not a lethal system and represents characters that would best be described as demi gods and super heroes. Once you pass the first few levels, characters are beyond the human norm. Early grenades, and really grenades in general, are more about wounding then killing. If you're at ground 0, chances are you're screwed. The farther you get from the grenade, the less likely you are going to be killed outright by it but you'll still proubably be injured. Now, in the real world, getting wounded back in the days of the early grenade could very well kill a lot of people eventually, due to things like infection.
This we agree on.
Now figure that the average soldier is a 1 to 2 level warrior. Using the example of a cask bomb I provided doing 3d6 to 5d6 (probably 1/2 fire and 1/2 piercing) to 40ft with a Ref save of 15, that would at least mess up most soldiers in an army. A Dragon would laugh this off with ER and DR. Of course this really doesn't strike me as very cost effective.
This is the question. How much damage should a barrel of gunpowder do. Hit a watermelon with a sword. Then set it next to a barrel of powder and set it off. In one case it's cut / crushed / smushed. Effectively "dead". In the other case it's vaporized. The first is 1d8 damage. The second... hard to say really. A "lot" certainly. The problem is with figuring how much. Magic is "easy" to figure. It doesn't involve any "real life" correlations. Gunpowder drags reality along with it. You can ignore that and call it something else (say firepowder), but people have expectations and beliefs about the relative destructive power of it, for better or worse.
If you're going to make guns and gun powder more "realistic" in DnD then you should be doing the same with everything else. All the weapons would have to be more lethal. If you don't then the system you are using has a double standard. Guns need to scale with other weapons, grenades need to scale with alchemist fire and acid, and a one shot big explosive shouldn't out scale magic. You have to balance first and deal with realism second. If you do add something that is balanced then it shouldn't cut back on the amount of planning you need to pull off a plan.
I don't plan on making them more realistic -- in my game. I've studiously avoided gunpowder and gunpowder weapons for 35 years in my homebrew campaign for that reason. It creates issues and changes the nature of your fantasy world when you begin including more "real life" than necessary. especially "realia" that people have experience with and expectations of. I want a world with surface versimilitude, but deeper differences. My chemistry / biology is based on the 4 elements plus "spirit". Magic is the physics of my world. Down is down and things fall because they're supposed to -- no gravity needed. My world is flat. You can fall off. "Science" does not, as we know it, exist :D
By the time you do what is needed with "gunpowder", and I agree with you on what is needed for the game to work, it ceases to be real world gunpowder. It does not stop complicating the existing world though. If it's not magic, then you have provided an alternative to magic that avoids the rules of acquiring arcane power. It is "mundane" and undercuts the importance of magic. If it is magic, it tends to be overly expensive, less bang for the buck, and not so useful as a result. A "meh". why bother cousin of conventional, more powerful, magic. My 2 cp, ymmv of course.
Still, visions of a musketeers / pirates setting with magic and matchlocks (or wheellocks / flintlocks) is attractive...
|
With gunpowder comes dinomite.
Also, gunpowder weapons led to the end of armor in the real world.
If you do choose to make guns part of your game world, you should include the armor power protection from missles.
This may get moved to the Gunslinger topic. I can never tell.
With gunpowder comes dinomite.
dinomite.
Dino-Mite.
OH GOD! NEW MONSTER!
Like explosive blue compsognathuses with bulging eyes....
Because magic is something you build up and earn, anyone with the recipe can produce gunpowder and use enough to do as much or more than the "heroes". A bored peasant with the right resourses could kill anything if so inclined, slay the most ancient dragon or level the stronghold of the evil one.
I'd say the problem might be more about your basic peasants having a lot of ranks in Craft Alchemy and Knowledge Engineering, not to mention having the money to buy barrels of gun powder.
You're going to dig extensive tunnels under Parliament and undermine key walls. Good luck. Do you know how big the Houses of Parliament are? It's otherwise known as Westminster Palace. The current version is 8 acres all told. The Guy Fawkes version was quite a bit smaller. Good luck with the massive amount of tunneling, hiding the resultant earth and the workforce needed to conduct a large seige operation without being noticed. It's one thing for a handful of people to move a quantity of gunpowder into a basement that, partially, lies below Parliament, it's another for dozens of people (assuming you want to finish that in the next year or so) to file in and out of a small basement. Without being noticed :) With 5 people (iirc the number of conspirators) old age would have killed more members of Parliament than anything else. Dig deep too btw and drag in timbers for support or you'll collapse some of the building before you're ready to bring down...
I'm not talking about leveling the entire Parliament first off. Guy Fawkes might have intended to take out the entirety of Westminster, education being what it was back then, with the 36 Barrels, but I seriously doubt that it would have done that as most of the blast would go out the path of least resistance: the tunnel. The Queen's chamber, where the House of Lord met in the old castle would have been my target, with or with out gun powder. For sapping, I'd probably require one main tunnel and a few to branch off to either side. Yes it would be a bit more work, but not nearly what you claim, as my target is Parliament.
On the other hand, I might be being a bit complex. Simple arson would also work. Fire did a number on the old castle back in the 1830's, iirc. Of course this would be more of an attack against the palace itself. Still if done right you could trap a lot of people inside. I could also, since a lot of people who have a big problem with gun powder seem to accept that a player's modern knowledge translates to their characters, make mustard gas bombs so my buddies and I could just gas the chamber. I know how to make black powder and I know how to make mustard gas so what's to stop my character.
As for using magic, I'm not going to go through the PF Core book and detailing how you could use basic spells to work different hypothetical situations, sorry. Still, Create Water has a lot of potential.
So, at what point did I say gun powder was harmless? All I've been saying is that it isn't efficient and that it isn't this magic substance that can bring down mountains with a few barrels. Now I could claim I'm a chemist or demolitions expert or something but this is the internet so my claims mean nothing. That's why I'll take this next part from Wikipedia, which I've found to be reliable on simple scientific subjects like this:
Advantages In firearms, black powder allows loading by volumetric measure, whereas smokeless powder requires precise measuring of the charge by weight to prevent damage due to overloading, though damage by overloading is still possible with black powder.
In quarrying, high explosives are generally preferred for shattering rock. However, because of its low brisance, black powder causes fewer fractures and results in more usable stone compared to other explosives, making black powder useful for blasting monumental stone such as granite and marble.
Black powder is well suited for blank rounds, signal flares, burst charges, and rescue-line launches. Black powder is also used in fireworks for lifting shells, in rockets as fuel, and in certain special effects.
Brisance is the shattering capability of an explosive. It is a measure of the rapidity with which an explosive develops its maximum pressure. The term originates from the French verb "briser", which means to break or shatter. Brisance is of practical importance for determining the effectiveness of an explosion in fragmenting shells, bomb casings, grenades, structures, and the like.
A brisant explosive is one that attains its maximum pressure so rapidly that a shock wave is formed. The net effect is to shatter (by shock resonance) the material surrounding or in contact with the supersonic detonation wave created by the explosion. Thus, brisance is a measure of the shattering ability of an explosive and is not necessarily correlated with the explosive's total work capacity.
So, in the example of the Dragon's lair, chances are you won't be bury it under tons of rock as the energy goes out the path of least resistance. What happens to a cannonball if you put it on the ground next to a plastic cup filled with enough gunpowder to launch it out of a cannon and set it off? It might go rolling for a bit but will not be nearly as deadly as if it was in a cannon.
Now, as you have stated, you could get financial backing to buy gun powder and use it to ambush said dragon. That requires planning and I'm personally down with that. It can be done with out gun powder too. If a group of PCs go to a ruler and say "we have a plan to kill that dragon that's been plaguing your city. (Details plan). Can your court wizard make us a few Beads of Force?" The PCs have a plan, back it up with role play to get the materials they need, and set out to make it work.
In one game I played in we had three halfling characters ambush an wipe the floor with an NPC wizard that was over 8 levels above us because we had a damn good plan and waking up to three characters Coup de Gracing you puts most in a bad position.
As for how much damage they do I've listed suggestions. So, with your example with the watermelon, 3d6 for a small cask could very well represent a watermelon scattered all over the landscape. Translating real life into abstract concepts like hit points is difficult to actually do. Do you think a Kukri represents a weapon known for decapitating it's targets? Why isn't a spear or short sword more effective considering their very lethal history? Why can a character fight to full effect at 1 HP? Why should a gun powder explosive be so lethal when everything else has to be constrained within this system? If you'd like here is a reference for modern explosives from D20 Modern, for what was considered balanced takes on explosives:
If you don't want to use it in your games, I'm cool with that. I only use them about 1/3 the time at most. Please don't try to claim that it takes the thinking out of the game, makes everything easier, and means that the game has to become "more realistic", especially when "realistic" is more in line with movie magic.
With gunpowder comes dinomite.
Also, gunpowder weapons led to the end of armor in the real world.
If you do choose to make guns part of your game world, you should include the armor power protection from missles.
This may get moved to the Gunslinger topic. I can never tell.With gunpowder comes dinomite.dinomite.Dino-Mite.OH GOD! NEW MONSTER!
Like explosive blue compsognathuses with bulging eyes....
I asked everyone to let go of the misspelling, but if you want a monster, here's one.
Smithereens.It's an undead swarm of tiny, burning, cinders. It distracts and burns 1D6 a round every round there is contact. It's immune to fire but takes double damage from cold. This creature becomes common when gunpowder does. Those who know how to create gunpowder usually hire or force others to make it because that is usually when it might go off, blowing the mixer to smithereens.
I don't see a problem to solve.
If you really want to restrict powder, though, just rule that no one has discovered how to corn the stuff.
Clever solution from a Brazilian setting: Gunpowder is a new technology with only destructive uses. Research into it has caused many explosions that usually kill the researcher. Therefore the allied Kingdons have banned the thing. You can only get it through the black market where it is expensive and not always good quality. It takes a high rank of Craft to create even small doses, and any kingdom stocking or researching the stuff would be automatically be considering as preparing for war and the other kingdons would gang up on him. Carrying or possesing a six-shooter immediately brands you as a dangerous outlaw, so most gun users hide in small towns on the desert or on far away islands, they are either cowboys or pirates. It is actually a pretty nice way to keep separate from most things and still lets you have the occasional pirate.
Because magic is something you build up and earn, anyone with the recipe can produce gunpowder and use enough to do as much or more than the "heroes". A bored peasant with the right resourses could kill anything if so inclined, slay the most ancient dragon or level the stronghold of the evil one.I'd say the problem might be more about your basic peasants having a lot of ranks in Craft Alchemy and Knowledge Engineering, not to mention having the money to buy barrels of gun powder.
And by this point he's an adventurer not a peasant. Where did he get the recipe? From the black market, the government or is he good friends with a local mad scientist? Maybe he invented it, but unlike what captain Kirk taught us the components to create gunpowder are not that easy to come by. You at the very least need to know how to get sulphur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur
SulfurFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
This article is about the chemical element. For other uses, see Sulfur (disambiguation).
phosphorus ← sulfur → chlorine
O
↑
S
↓
Se
16SPeriodic table
Appearance
Lemon yellow microcrystals sintered into cake
Spectral lines of Sulfur
General properties
Name, symbol, number sulfur, S, 16
Pronunciation /ˈsʌlfər/ SUL-fər
Element category nonmetal
Group, period, block 16, 3, p
Standard atomic weight 32.065g·mol−1
Electron configuration [Ne] 3s2 3p4
Electrons per shell 2, 8, 6 (Image)
Physical properties
Phase solid
Density (near r.t.) (alpha) 2.07 g·cm−3
Density (near r.t.) (beta) 1.96 g·cm−3
Density (near r.t.) (gamma) 1.92 g·cm−3
Liquid density at m.p. 1.819 g·cm−3
Melting point 388.36 K, 115.21 °C, 239.38 °F
Boiling point 717.8 K, 444.6 °C, 832.3 °F
Critical point 1314 K, 20.7 MPa
Heat of fusion (mono) 1.727 kJ·mol−1
Heat of vaporization (mono) 45 kJ·mol−1
Specific heat capacity (25 °C) 22.75 J·mol−1·K−1
Vapor pressure
P (Pa) 1 10 100 1 k 10 k 100 k
at T (K) 375 408 449 508 591 717
Atomic properties
Oxidation states 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, -1, -2
(strongly acidic oxide)
Electronegativity 2.58 (Pauling scale)
Ionization energies
(more) 1st: 999.6 kJ·mol−1
2nd: 2252 kJ·mol−1
3rd: 3357 kJ·mol−1
Covalent radius 105±3 pm
Van der Waals radius 180 pm
Miscellanea
Crystal structure orthorhombic
Magnetic ordering diamagnetic[1]
Electrical resistivity (20 °C) (amorphous)
2×1015Ω·m
Thermal conductivity (300 K) (amorphous)
0.205 W·m−1·K−1
Bulk modulus 7.7 GPa
Mohs hardness 2.0
CAS registry number 7704-34-9
Most stable isotopes
Main article: Isotopes of sulfur
iso NA half-life DM DE (MeV) DP
32S 95.02% 32S is stable with 16 neutrons
33S 0.75% 33S is stable with 17 neutrons
34S 4.21% 34S is stable with 18 neutrons
35S syn 87.32 d β− 0.167 35Cl
36S 0.02% 36S is stable with 20 neutrons
v · d · e
Sulfur or sulphur ( /ˈsʌlfər/ SUL-fər; see spelling below) is the chemical element that has the atomic number 16. It is denoted with the symbol S. It is an abundant, multivalent non-metal. Sulfur, in its native form, is a bright yellow crystalline solid. In nature, it can be found as the pure element and as sulfide and sulfate minerals. It is an essential element for life and is found in two amino acids: cysteine and methionine. Its commercial uses are primarily in fertilizers, but it is also widely used in black gunpowder, matches, insecticides and fungicides. Elemental sulfur crystals are commonly sought after by mineral collectors for their brightly colored polyhedron shapes. In nonscientific contexts, it can also be referred to as brimstone (the "burning stone").[2]
What goes with Sulfur? Why devils of course.
Devils are giving the recipe for gunpowder to goblins and other bad guys. :)
I'm not talking about leveling the entire Parliament first off. Guy Fawkes might have intended to take out the entirety of Westminster, education being what it was back then, with the 36 Barrels, but I seriously doubt that it would have done that as most of the blast would go out the path of least resistance: the tunnel. The Queen's chamber, where the House of Lord met in the old castle would have been my target, with or with out gun powder. For sapping, I'd probably require one main tunnel and a few to branch off to either side. Yes it would be a bit more work, but not nearly what you claim, as my target is Parliament.
They wanted to kill the King, the members of Parliament and hangers on. In short, a lot of people. The amount of work is considerably more than dragging some gunpowder into a basement and counting on the explosive power to demolish a structure. With 5 people to do the work. How many sappers worked to undermine a castle wall in a siege? A lot more than five, with a lot simpler job. You're talking about collapsing the whole building simultaneously - assuming your trying to kill them all and not just make them flee the building.
On the other hand, I might be being a bit complex. Simple arson would also work. Fire did a number on the old castle back in the 1830's, iirc. Of course this would be more of an attack against the palace itself. Still if done right you could trap a lot of people inside. I could also, since a lot of people who have a big problem with gun powder seem to accept that a player's modern knowledge translates to their characters, make mustard gas bombs so my buddies and I could just gas the chamber. I know how to make black powder and I know how to make mustard gas so what's to stop my character.
Arson would not give the kill rate that an explosion would. People would escape and rigging the arson would require intimate access to the structure that the conspirators did not have. I'm not worried about player knowledge, I'm concerened with the usage it would be put to in the setting by the culture developing it. Over time, the usages, from guns to explosives, would be explored. Mustard gas. The only thing stopping your character is your DM :)
As for using magic, I'm not going to go through the PF Core book and detailing how you could use basic spells to work different hypothetical situations, sorry. Still, Create Water has a lot of potential.
Many spells do, I'm sure. I'm just as sure that there are counters to them. If you have magic involved in war, as D&D / PF obviously does, it's use in battle / seige warfare would have been standard practice. Defence against it, in so important a structure, would be routine.
So, at what point did I say gun powder was harmless? All I've been saying is that it isn't efficient and that it isn't this magic substance that can bring down mountains with a few barrels. Now I could claim I'm a chemist or demolitions expert or something but this is the internet so my claims mean nothing. That's why I'll take this next part from Wikipedia, which I've found to be reliable on simple scientific subjects like this:*skip wikepedia entries*
So, in the example of the Dragon's lair, chances are you won't be bury it under tons of rock as the energy goes out the path of least resistance. What happens to a cannonball if you put it on the ground next to a plastic cup filled with enough gunpowder to launch it out of a cannon and set it off? It might go rolling for a bit but will not be nearly as deadly as if it was in a cannon.
You pointed out it wasn't C-4, I pointed out that less efficient did not mean it was not deadly. I wasn't considering "burying the dragon. Just using gunpowder like an IED in a constrained area (say an exit tunnel) for a bit of "roadside" mayhem. No need to blow up the lair, just the dragon. As you've pointed out the explosive force would be directed "up" at the passing dragon.
Now, as you have stated, you could get financial backing to buy gun powder and use it to ambush said dragon. That requires planning and I'm personally down with that. It can be done with out gun powder too. If a group of PCs go to a ruler and say "we have a plan to kill that dragon that's been plaguing your city. (Details plan). Can your court wizard make us a few Beads of Force?" The PCs have a plan, back it up with role play to get the materials they need, and set out to make it work.
I have no problem with planning either. I beleive that gunpowder reduces the requirement for high level magic / characaters to deal with situations. It reduces the value and effectiveness of being high level by providing an alternative that is available to anyone who knows the formula and has the will to employ it. It's a leveller, reducing the value of magic and high level characters. In short, the court wizard in your example provides the necessary element of high level intervention necessary to kill the dragon. Gunpowder, if non-magical, eleiminates that.
In one game I played in we had three halfling characters ambush an wipe the floor with an NPC wizard that was over 8 levels above us because we had a damn good plan and waking up to three characters Coup de Gracing you puts most in a bad position.
And gunpowder wouldn't have made it easier, and with less worry over the level difference? A good plan is always nice. I'd argue it's easier with explosives :)
As for how much damage they do I've listed suggestions. So, with your example with the watermelon, 3d6 for a small cask could very well represent a watermelon scattered all over the landscape. Translating real life into abstract concepts like hit points is difficult to actually do. Do you think a Kukri represents a weapon known for decapitating it's targets? Why isn't a spear or short sword more effective considering their very lethal history? Why can a character fight to full effect at 1 HP? Why should a gun powder explosive be so lethal when everything else has to be constrained within this system? If you'd like here is a reference for modern explosives from D20 Modern, for what was considered balanced takes on explosives:D2o Modern SRD Weapons.
I agree with you here. The level of abstraction and the basic concepts of combat and levels in D&D / PF make this type of thing difficult. It's been a while since I cracked out my copy, but D20 Modern and 3.5 ogl based frpg rules are fairly different beasts because of things like explosives and guns. That's my point.
If you don't want to use it in your games, I'm cool with that. I only use them about 1/3 the time at most. Please don't try to claim that it takes the thinking out of the game, makes everything easier, and means that the game has to become "more realistic", especially when "realistic" is more in line with movie magic.
I'm not going to use guns / powder in my main game, although as mentioned I've considered an alternate setting game for the fun of it. I'm not saying it "takes the thinking out of the game, makes everything easier, and means that the game has to become "More realistic"". You are exagerating my take on it and missing the main point by a hair or two.
To whit, I am saying that it changes the game by reducing the value of magic, reducing the power difference between high level and low, and reducing the power of caster vs. non-caster by providing an alternative to arcane power. I am also saying that it introduces an additional element of science / reality to the game. Not "realism" given the many abstractions in the system, just bits and pieces of our reality added to the game reality. It may seem to be just one more mundane intrusion into the magical setting of the game, but in subtle ways it's a game changer.
My 2cp. I see your points btw. I just have a different opinion on it. Given the difficulty involved in just deciding on the power of gunpowder I don't think we are going to come to any final conclusions about it's effects / usefulness. Unless Paizo ponies up some game "facts" of course.
I guess I did not know what I was starting :)
My brother who loves to invent in game objects came up with his idea for Dwarven powder for a campaign we are building. His idea is:
2 part Charcoal
1 part alchemist fire
1 part Dragon Guano
You take the charcoal and the dragon guano and soak it in alchemist fire until all of the liquid is absorbed. You let it dry and very carefully powder the material.
I told him he was a sick man. This then degenerated into a conversation about various types of dragon guano and their effects using Blue for blasting caps and black for thermite.
This is what years of Military Intelligence gets you I guess.
As a side note i believe dwarves would be the first to develope any type of powder to aid in mining.
He also is working on a pump alchemist fire thrower.
And he blames me for the stuff we come up with if it was not for him i never would have spent the past 20 odd years playing this game. :)
As a side note i believe dwarves would be the first to develope any type of powder to aid in mining.
I don't know, I could see some Gnomish alchemist stumbling upon it - and if he/she mananged to avoid blowing himself/herself up, then spreading the idea.
Of course either dwarves or human would then need to develop the idea into something actually useful ...
That is true a Gnome would invent it and dwarf would perfect it and keep it conealed as a clan secret never to be released on the pain of death.
That is true a Gnome would invent it and dwarf would perfect it and keep it conealed as a clan secret never to be released on the pain of death.
Depends. Did the gnome get to tell anyone else before his/her untimely "labratory accident?"
Gnomes would invent it; Dwarves would perfect; but only when it gets leaked and reach the humans that guns would be invented. Either by the humans, or to kill the humans.
Every time I forget to copy my posts :(
Every time I forget to copy my posts :(
I remebered at the last second before my last post. It died and I had to "reply" again and paste it in, I've been there and I feel your pain...
I gave up a long time ago on trying to be too realistic about gunpowder with regards the decibels of the report, flash of the muzzle, smoke versus smokeless powder, etc. Here's why: fireballs.
If you start worrying about the details of gunpowder weapons deafening characters and frightening horses, you're going to have to start explaining why fireball and lightning bolt spells don't.
However, I do think it's fun to work in rules about misfires, etc.
In the old days, we didn't necessarily deal with guns, but I did have a DM around 1983 - 1984 who was very fond of what he and his brother called "barrel bombs." These were dwarvish inventions (the notion of dwarves first coming up with explosive powder goes back a long, long way), invented to clear large sections of rock in mining, but that were especially beloved by giants and goblins. I don't know if he made it up independently or got the idea from someone else, but I played with his brother for years after that, and barrel bombs occasionally made an appearance over those years, in my own games, always exotic items from far away that nobody knew how to replicate.
For simplicity, give each make of powder one game important flaw.
Goblin powder from thunder mountain is loud. After firing the user has 1D4 rounds of deafness.
Colonial powder, was smoky. George Washington had breathing problems due to the irritating gun smoke.
Some powder creates a smoke cloud in a 5X5 area, like fog but persists only 1D4 rounds and only indoors or underground.
Some powder creates a blinding flash.
Choose the flaw or roll once for each source.
1-Loud
2-Irritating smoke
3-Smoke cloud
4-Blinding flash
It can be reformulated for a different flaw, such as smokeless powder which has a flash.
A quick question, borne out of the OP's original question and my own unfamiliarity with the setting. Guns (and therefore gunpowder) were developed in Alkanstar due to that region's lack of magic, correct? My question is, does alchemy still work in that region?
For simplicity, give each make of powder one game important flaw.
Goblin powder from thunder mountain is loud. After firing the user has 1D4 rounds of deafness.
Colonial powder, was smoky. George Washington had breathing problems due to the irritating gun smoke.
Some powder creates a smoke cloud in a 5X5 area, like fog but persists only 1D4 rounds and only indoors or underground.
Some powder creates a blinding flash.
Choose the flaw or roll once for each source.
1-Loud
2-Irritating smoke
3-Smoke cloud
4-Blinding flash
It can be reformulated for a different flaw, such as smokeless powder which has a flash.
That's only on a misfire right?
That's only on a misfire right?For simplicity, give each make of powder one game important flaw.
Goblin powder from thunder mountain is loud. After firing the user has 1D4 rounds of deafness.
Colonial powder, was smoky. George Washington had breathing problems due to the irritating gun smoke.
Some powder creates a smoke cloud in a 5X5 area, like fog but persists only 1D4 rounds and only indoors or underground.
Some powder creates a blinding flash. The blinding only lasts one round.
Choose the flaw or roll once for each source.
1-Loud
2-Irritating smoke
3-Smoke cloud
4-Blinding flash
It can be reformulated for a different flaw, such as smokeless powder which has a flash.
On a missfire you get the misfire effects and the flaw.
How about full priced powder has no flaw?
So you get the flaw in every shot? If you don't want guns on the game just tell the players "there's no guns in this setting".
The flaw is sort of a compromise.
The gun lovers at a particular table can't whine about the price of gunpowder, and the gun haters can't say it's too perfect to be believed.
It's also another roleplaying opportunity.
The smoke cloud gives you 50/50 cover.
Even with the best powder, when you fire a gun, everyone of your foes knows you are there, but they may not want to come running.
In my setting guns run off of power crystals (I haven't given them a name yet). The power crystal allows the gun to fire 10 rounds of ammo before it has to be changed.
Bombs in my setting are spherical clockwork devices that use the destructive properties of the power crystals when they're broken. The person slips the power crystal in the center of the device and sets the timer. When the timer goes off the clockwork casing spins and collapses crushing the crystal causing an explosion.
To me, the compromise can't be in the form of too many additional rules, or flaws that interfere with fun. Like any other explosive resource (see spells), if the damage it deals compensates for the time and effort (including price) required to use it, fairness and balance ought to be apparent to the players without the distractions.