Gunpowder in D&D, or why do firearms get the shaft?

[littha]

An interesting article on the subject of firearms in D&D:
http://greyhawkery.blogspot.com/2012/01/blackpowder-weapons-in-greyhawk.html

Personal favourite being the Secret of the Firebrands feat for paladins.

[veekie]

Well, I was more focusing on the act that explosives exist in the fantasy version (the prototypical one), and the discussion was whether or not explosives would be developed.  I was a tad late, but only because I registered for the new boards not a week and a half ago.

So now that explosives exist, the question is, will a race (or races) develop explosive based weaponry?  I say why not?  Even in the real world we pursue avenues that have no obvious immediate benefits.  Although those comments about gunpowder being a medicine first, why would that happen in this world if there's magical healing?  The answer is the same as why not guns: magic is not omnipresent.  There are villages that have never seen a magic user before.  So I'm saying that explosive based (not necessarily gunpowder based, allthough the new substance would likely be called gunpowder, it just wouldn't necessarily be chemically similar to ours) would almost certainly be developed eventually, the question now becomes: Are they available now or is it going to take place at a later time in this setting?

Timing is the flexible issue, since most settings have the premise that it's been pseudo medieval for centuries, with bits of savagery and past empires. Generally speaking though, an individual shouldn't face much problems getting hold of one(maybe its lost tech, which could give you some ammo difficulties, or maybe its some prototype by a wizard/artisan), common use would face difficulties with moving to mass production(there was a sizable shortage of saltpetre and sulfur initially until production caught up).

So just style mostly. And rules that don't suck.

[dman11235]

So now let's work on some good rules, because you don't have to use them.  My first statement is going to be a "let's make magic not cost gold", however, so I will bow out now, and watch for a bit, let you guys come up with stats.  The question: how will they fit in with existing ranged weapons, specifically bows?  I think we need to fix those as well, so that all of the ranged weapons fit well with each other, and each take their own niche.

[veekie]

Well, currently the ideas seem to be to rework them together with crossbows(which are pretty terrible even for simple weapons).

My idea had crossbows with a high crit multiplier(20/x3?), and Mighty option that added one more action step to reload for each point short of the strength. If you were strong enough, you could cock a crossbow pretty fast without the crank. If you were limp wristed, you spent some time winding it up.

Guns would be basically crossbows with no special critical abilities(20/x2), but bigger base dice and shorter range. Higher calibers of the same category would simply be Mighty, but offer a -2 penalty for each point of str short to reflect recoil.

Martial proficiency would be basically free Improved Reload.

[Prime32]

Bows need rules on arcing your shots over cover. I think Cragtop Archer has that as a class feature?
EDIT: No, their ability increases your range to 15 range increments.

[X-Codes]

Bows need rules on arcing your shots over cover. I think Cragtop Archer has that as a class feature?
EDIT: No, their ability increases your range to 15 range increments.

I'm not certain it's possible to effectively use a bow that way.  This isn't Worms we're talking bout.

[Prime32]

I'm not certain it's possible to effectively use a bow that way.  This isn't Worms we're talking bout.

There's a difference between "hard" and "impossible". If high-level rogues can balance on air, high-level fighters shooting over walls doesn't seem too bad to me.

[dman11235]

Not only that, but I mean, volleys?  They did use this in real life.  Do note that bows all used arcs for their distance shots, so two shots of identical everything except the presence of a barricade would be identical arcs, adding a barricade doesn't make the shot itself harder.  Aiming would be harder, but if you target a square, why not?  You'd have to target a square, not a creature though, unless you could actually see the creature somehow, then there would be no penalty.  You have to be careful however, as adding 3D geometry to bows would definitely make it too complicated.  I think maybe bows ignore partial cover further than 5 feet from a target?  And they end up less powerful than either one, so actually, from weakest to strongest, damage wise (taking crits into account): bows, guns, crossbows?

[Sinfire Titan]

I think the issue with arcing shots is that DND combat often takes place in the 30ft range. You have to aim at a steep angle to arc a shot over cover at that range, and that means you are largely guessing about where the arrow will land.


Trying to replicate actual arcing involves adding more math to the encounter...

[Bozwevial]

I think the issue with arcing shots is that DND combat often takes place in the 30ft range. You have to aim at a steep angle to arc a shot over cover at that range, and that means you are largely guessing about where the arrow will land.


Trying to replicate actual arcing involves adding more math to the encounter...

That honestly doesn't bother me that much. If you have a cragtop archer who can shoot things from a mile away with a bow and actually stand a reasonable chance of hitting when that's a fairly impressive feat to perform with a specialized firearm, I don't see a reason why arcing shots over cover, even at close range, should be any less reasonable.

And if you're a factotum or something, you can just do the math in your head.

[dman11235]

No, see, the math problem comes from metagame math.  Can you calculate (not approximate) a projectile arc in your head in an instant?  That's why only simple rules should exist, and I think mine listed earlier is a little too clunky.

[Sinfire Titan]

No, see, the math problem comes from metagame math.  Can you calculate (not approximate) a projectile arc in your head in an instant?  That's why only simple rules should exist, and I think mine listed earlier is a little too clunky.

While I do agree that the complexity of the math is an issue, I also feel the need to remind you that we're talking about D&D, not reality. I can accept a break from reality as far as doing some math for an arc goes.

I do feel that archers have a lot of problems, but arcing rules add a layer of complexity to the game that slows things down, especially when some players aren't that good at math, and some aren't very good at geometry.

[dman11235]

?  I was saying the arcing would be very complicated and probably shouldn't be implemented.  The only possiblility was the whole maybe ignore some cover.  So I was saying sacrifice reality for the sake of saving math.

[Bozwevial]

Clarification:

I am in favor of a rule permitting arcing shots.

I am not in favor of a rule that requires the calculation of these arcs.

I am in favor of a rule that does not slow down gameplay overmuch, even if it sacrifices some bits of realism when a character arcs a shot over an adjacent wall or does so in an area with a low ceiling.

[X-Codes]

The battlefield example of arcing shots is one thing, because they're firing their bows at 45 degrees to maximize the horizontal distance covered by their volley.  If you wanted to produce a similar kind of arc at very close (<100') range, then you will have to shoot your bow with something less than a full draw.  As a result, the arrow would do significantly less damage and probably also be a lot less accurate if the arrow isn't traveling fast enough for the fletching to keep it straight.

[dman11235]

That is true.  I think arrows would be best left as a laser, like they are now, but as part of the unique factor of them, add a way to increase range with that increase in firing angle, maybe have bow be less damaging, but more accurate with a higher fire rate.  Crossbows do the most damage, with the best penetration, but have a low firing rate, and lowest acuracy, guns have medium accuracy (no modifiers), medium damage (no modifiers), the fire rate would have to be figured out, but I think full attacks should be possible, only having restricted ones to crossbows.  Theses stats would be assuming access to feats/PrCs/etc. that benefit specific weapon groups, so the fire rate/accuracy/range of the bow would be because of a feat, or a PrC, otherwise they would be very similar to a gun.

That seem reasonable?

[brainpiercing]

Not only that, but I mean, volleys?  They did use this in real life.  Do note that bows all used arcs for their distance shots, so two shots of identical everything except the presence of a barricade would be identical arcs, adding a barricade doesn't make the shot itself harder.  Aiming would be harder, but if you target a square, why not?  You'd have to target a square, not a creature though, unless you could actually see the creature somehow, then there would be no penalty.  You have to be careful however, as adding 3D geometry to bows would definitely make it too complicated.  I think maybe bows ignore partial cover further than 5 feet from a target?  And they end up less powerful than either one, so actually, from weakest to strongest, damage wise (taking crits into account): bows, guns, crossbows?

There are Teamwork abilities that do this, IIRC. It doesn't make sense for an individual, really, to start ballistically targetting his enemies. If anything, someone should write up a martial class that does things like that as special abilities (and actually we have archer PrC class features that ignore cover, too). A normal human doesn't need to be able to do it.

I like the take on gun rules so far. I'm never too much of a friend of high crit multipliers, but Mighty crossbows are definitely a good addition. As it is, the best crossbows are hand crossbows, it would be nice if heavy crossbows were actually a valid option again.

[DDchampion]

Hmm, guys, there's already volley rules in heroes of battle. Both targeted and arching and whatnot. The arcing ones lose any Str bonus they had, but deal area damage.

Also plenty of stats for guns here and there, and honestly, compared to D&D bows/crossbows, they're just fine if you ask me. If you want to make guns better than what they are now, you would need to buff every other weapon out there or see the game turn into some western shooter because you made guns the superior choice.

And before anyone comes crying "WWWAAAHHH ranged weapons are dealing less damage than melee weapons", congratulations, you just found the reason why melee is still viable. Because ranged has the advantage of RANGE, of course it needs to have some drawback to melee weapons so characters still have reasons to have swords and axes and other pointy sticks.

[dman11235]

Two things: one, those rules are for vlooey attacks (also in the Miniatures Handbook, iirc), and two, guns/crossbows are strictly worse than bows in D&D vanilla.  1) mighty, no mighty crossbows and definitely no mighty guns, 2) fire rate, only bows can fire at full attack rate except I believe light (hand?) crossbows with a feat and a class feature, 3) bows have support from bow-specific classes and feats in more quantity and, more importantly, quality than either other group, especially guns.

[Prime32]

Typically guns/crossbows were used for a single shot, then discarded in favor of a melee weapon.
Instincts may say "don't pay for two magic weapons if you're not going to use one", but enchanting the ammunition could be viable.

Something which would help here: an alternate full attack option where you make a single powerful attack rather than multiple ones. That way you can make a full attack with a single-shot weapon without reloading, and the damage scales better by level.