Guns in DnD 3.5e

[Edwin]

So, being away from my books, and having a ridiculously bad memory, I can't for the life of me remember if, and if so where, there are any official rules for guns in dnd 3.5e.

Specifically, flintlock pistols and muskets, clockwork guns, and percussion cap guns. Anyone know where I can find such rules?

Thanks in advance. :smallsmile:

[Eldariel]

DMG contains stats for weapons from various eras. So yeah.

[Edwin]

DMG contains stats for weapons from various eras. So yeah.

Thank you.

[jmbrown]

I thought 3.5 nixed the arquebus?

It's not a good weapon, though, and if you plan on adapting it you'll have to crank up the power because there's absolutely no appeal to the thing. Even using D&D in-game logic no army would ever be outfitted with them.

[Psyx]

Using real-world logic, no army would have been outfitted with 'em, either!

A Gm that I play under upped the damage to 3d10, and anyone without the exotic weapon feat for them is always considered flat footed against attacks from them.

[Starbuck_II]

So, being away from my books, and having a ridiculously bad memory, I can't for the life of me remember if, and if so where, there are any official rules for guns in dnd 3.5e.

Specifically, flintlock pistols and muskets, clockwork guns, and percussion cap guns. Anyone know where I can find such rules?

Thanks in advance. :smallsmile:

DMG and FR (Faerun/Forgotton Realms) both have guns.
FR's are supported by a god (Gond?).
DMGs aren't bad though.

[Tengu_temp]

Using real-world logic, no army would have been outfitted with 'em, either!


Power wasn't the strong point of very low-tech guns. They weren't more effective than crossbows, but required much less training, which allowed a fast creation of barely-trained armies that were still effective in combat. It's worth noting that guns did become better than bows and crossbows later.

[Shenanigans]

Power wasn't the strong point of very low-tech guns. They weren't more effective than crossbows, but required much less training, which allowed a fast creation of barely-trained armies that were still effective in combat. It's worth noting that guns did become better than bows and crossbows later.
The intimidation factor of early guns was also a factor, especially when facing lower tech enemies, or those who had never encountered a gun.

Thin of it as "The Boomstick Factor" :)

[Greenish]

They weren't more effective than crossbows, but required much less trainingWhat, the early muzzle-loading guns easier to use than crossbows? I find that hard to believe. They both have the point and click interface, but loading a crossbow seems simpler than stuffing the powder and the bullet down the muzzle with a stick.

[Starbuck_II]

Power wasn't the strong point of very low-tech guns. They weren't more effective than crossbows, but required much less training, which allowed a fast creation of barely-trained armies that were still effective in combat. It's worth noting that guns did become better than bows and crossbows later.

But it is reversed in D&D where Guns require special training and crossbows don't. Heck bows are less training

[Yora]

I guess they suffered less from gravity and side winds, but then early muskets were probably much less perfected than late crossbows.

[jmbrown]

What, the early muzzle-loading guns easier to use than crossbows? I find that hard to believe. They both have the point and click interface, but loading a crossbow seems simpler than stuffing the powder and the bullet down the muzzle with a stick.

Loading a muzzle-loaded gun isn't as difficult as its made out to be. 10 seconds at most (of course it's different in the heat of battle but this is a good assumption). Loading a crossbow is more difficult than its made out to be. They usually had a stirrup that you had to step into and winch back and the more powerful ones had crannequins(sp?) which cranked the bolt into place.

Early guns came with a sort of tripod so their inaccuracy was offset by being able to carefully aim. Bullets shredded through armor at medium range and a person could carry more shot than crossbow or arrow bolts.

Basically, by the 17th century guns swept across Europe and units wore fewer and fewer pieces of armor.

Pros
-More powerful at close range
-Reload faster
-Less training than bows or crossbows
-Shot can be mass produced and reused
-Black powder was plentiful
-Took up less space than equal volume bows/crossbows plus ammunition
-Less affected by wind
-Intimidation factor

Cons
-Carrying a lit match removes the element of stealth
-Smoke gets in your face
-Rain can ruin the powder
-High misfire chance

[Greenish]

Loading a muzzle-loaded gun isn't as difficult as its made out to be.Is it easier than turning a winch?
Early guns came with a sort of tripod so their inaccuracy was offset by being able to carefully aim.And crossbows couldn't use a tripod?

Bullets shredded through armorI shouldn't think the early guns could pierce decent armour from beyond point-blank range, but if you have a source to contradict that, feel free to prove me wrong.

a person could carry more shot than crossbow or arrow bolts.But the blackpowder had to be kept dry, and it cost more than the bolts.

[Spiryt]

Loading a muzzle-loaded gun isn't as difficult as its made out to be. 10 seconds at most (of course it's different in the heat of battle but this is a good assumption).

Lol, no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ynEquVaAA4


http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/tabor_handgonne_e.html

Please ignore the fact that dude have viking era looking sword from whatever reason, or what he's talking about, it's demonstration that's good.

Two link just to show, that even if they weren't talking and demonstrating, but going 'full speed' they wouldn't be really able to get down to 10 seconds at all. Usually it would take longer.

And aside of the dry stats of "faster, stronger" blah blah, this very thing would be one of the big inconveniences of early guns - weaving this all stuff around, putting this there etc... Keeping the bloody match lit whole time, because without fire you only have very awkward club.

Every crossbow is simple in comparison - loading mechanism, bolts, and we go.

My adding to this silly discussion that starts every time when somebody mentions "guns" and "D&D" in one title. :smalltongue: :smallwink:


And crossbows couldn't use a tripod?

You can use a tripod even with cellphone camera, but there's no real point.

No one even have found any sign of crossbow "tripods".

In fact musket furkets were used mainly for very heavy muskets around 1600 or so, and they weren't tripod, but rather 'unipod' of course. :smallwink:

[Psyx]

Loading a muzzle-loaded gun isn't as difficult as its made out to be. 10 seconds at most

Err. No. Three shots a minute was generally considered good going with muskets. That's with pre-measured cartridges, too. Four is elite status troops. And again: This is late flintlock with measured cartridges.



Loading a crossbow is more difficult than its made out to be.

Eh? It takes a strong arm or back without significant mechanical leverage, but no real skill.



Early guns came with a sort of tripod so their inaccuracy was offset by being able to carefully aim. Bullets shredded through armor at medium range and a person could carry more shot than crossbow or arrow bolts.


They used firing sticks. I've not heard of tripods being used, although a citation would be interesting. It's not my particular area of expertise.
And they most certainly didn't shred through armour, either.
I'm not sure about re-using shot, either!



It's worth noting that guns did become better than bows and crossbows later.

About 300 years later...

[jmbrown]

Is it easier than turning a winch?

You put the powder into the muzzle, pack in the shot, ready to fire. 10 seconds at the most. A heavy crossbow, the only thing really comparable to early rifles, required you to slide the crannequin onto the crossbow, place the thing on the ground, then turn it back.


And crossbows couldn't use a tripod?

Which you have to take down to reload the crossbow. You can reload a rifle while it's still resting on its staff.


I shouldn't think the early guns could pierce decent armour from beyond point-blank range, but if you have a source to contradict that, feel free to prove me wrong.

I can't find a truly accurate source outside of a book (as the 20 web pages I bring up quote wikipedia and wikipedia doesn't state its source) but a shot could pierce plate armor at medium to close range and, unlike a piercing arrow or bolt, it causes blunt trauma. If the shot hit it ruptured your insides. Later shot would shatter inside you.


But the blackpowder had to be kept dry, and it cost more than the bolts.

I can't find a source for the cost of blackpowder but it seemed to be quite plentiful in the 16th century and, like I said, shot didn't require the same level of design as an accurate arrow or bolt. You could even reuse shot. Humidity definitely was a problem, though.

[Greenish]

{scrubbed}

[Caliphbubba]

If you're OK with looking at third party stuff Iron Kingdoms by Privateer Press has a lot of firearms related material.

aside from the fact that it was crazy expensive to fire your gun, I think most of their stuff worked OK.

[jmbrown]

Lol, no.
I'm not talking about muskets.

The arquebus could be kept pre-primed with powder already in the flash pan. The arquebus was also lighter than the musket and had a wider muzzle for easier loading. The fact that it was carried pre-primed was part of its danger. It was very easy for the lit match to prematurely light the pan and potentially kill the wielder.

[Greenish]

{Scrubbed}

[Shenanigans]

And they most certainly didn't shred through armour, either.

True, they didn't "shred" through armor, but gunpowder weaponry was certainly more effective against any kind of plate armor than most crossbows. Longbows, on the other hand, were certainly effective against plate (e.g. The Battle of Agincourt) but were more training-intensive. Like you said, crossbows are fairly simple to use; definitely requiring less time and effort to acquire a basic level of proficiency with than a bow. Gunpowder weapons, especially muskets and later, could be great at penetrating armor, depending on the charge of powder and size of the weapon.

[DrWeird]

I find it funny how the threads always become a deeply involved google-search-party over the finer points of crossbows vs. guns when the fact remains that the gun replaced the crossbow with the quick advance of about four centuries of European warfare.

In any case, doesn't the SRD have stats for a flintlock rifle & pistol, regardless of the arquebus's greater age?

[Spiryt]

Well, that's interesting, though that's to a straight plate at 90° angle, and the distance is not given.

I don't know what you mean, but that's indeed straight something can be rolled steel, or whatever, from what I've found it's steel commonly used for building, and is not representative for anything that might have been used for armors at all. :smalltongue:

But yes, it's good presentation that early gun projectiles had at very least potential to stick to the metal surfaces and shred trough it.

[Greenish]

In any case, doesn't the SRD have stats for a flintlock rifle & pistol, regardless of the arquebus's greater age?DMG does, but not SRD.

I don't know what you mean, but that's indeed straight something can be rolled steel, or whatever, from what I've found it's steel commonly used for building, and is not representative for anything that might have been used for armors at all. :smalltongue:I mean that it's a flat plate, not fluted or curved like armour.

[Oslecamo]

Power wasn't the strong point of very low-tech guns. They weren't more effective than crossbows, but required much less training, which allowed a fast creation of barely-trained armies that were still effective in combat. It's worth noting that guns did become better than bows and crossbows later.

Power was the main point of guns even from the begginning.

Crossbows are the extra-easy to use weapons. Really how much simpler can you get? Pull lever, put bolt, aim, shoot, repeat. Even the most idiot peasant could quickly learn how to use one in some hours.

Guns on the other hand have nasty recoils and in the primitive ones re-loading was messy at best, not to talk about the chance for misfire if you put something out of place. Still easier than bows, but more complicated than crossbows.

Other point it's that guns and gunpowder weren't that cheap on the beggininng. When they apeared you had no pratical way to get one for every soldier even if you wanted it. But they were so good that heavy development was put on them, and soon not only guns were better, they were also cheaper, wich shows their true power.

[jmbrown]

{Scrubbed}

Just because something is unsafe doesn't mean it wasn't easier to learn.

A crossbowman could get off about 2-3 shots per minute while a longbowman could get off 10-12 shots. Source (http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-weapons/bow-and-arrow.htm). We've been told muskets (which are longer, heavier, and harder to wield than arquebus) can get off about 3 shots per minute. Crossbows and guns are tied here.

We've seen the image of a shot's effect against armor but we know that, unlike a bolt, a shot inflicts trauma which causes internal rupturing.

A shot has higher velocity but the powder is susceptible to humidity. Shot is easier to craft than a precise arrow or bolt and it can be reused.

We could argue the semantics of weapons all day long but history has shown us that, since the gun's inception, armor became less used and other ranged weapons phased out even before the matchlock was phased out.

[DrWeird]

I do recall waaaay back in my freshman year (back when gas was under a dollar, I believe), my history teacher mentioning the main reason for the switch was the potential to carry far more ammunition by an individual in a package full of metal balls, whereas arrows and crossbow bolts required large quivers, not mentioning the sheer damage metal rounds in your body caused. At least, this was what I was told years and years ago.

[Greenish]

{Scrubbed}

[Spiryt]

I still don't buy the idea that guns came to dominate because of their ease of use.

They came to domination slowly trough almost 250 years, from 30472 of reasons, while more "traditional" missile weapons, as crossbows and bolts were being used alongside.

So while simplifying is always not very good idea, ''ease of use'', or rather "ease of fighting effectively on battlefield with it" was indeed one of the reason they dominated.

[arguskos]

Dragon Magazine #321 has some decent firearm stats in it as well, if you are looking for more weapon stats, OP. :smallsmile:

[Edwin]

Dragon Magazine #321 has some decent firearm stats in it as well, if you are looking for more weapon stats, OP. :smallsmile:

Atleast knowing that there are alternatives is nice, in case I find the ones already mentioned lacking.

And on topic posts are a nice break from the deep, deep discussion going on above. :smallsmile:

[Dsurion]

Wizards put out a web enhancement some time ago relating to adding technology to your setting. I have the PDF sitting here, but I'll see if I can find a link for convenience.

[Tyndmyr]

Just because something is unsafe doesn't mean it wasn't easier to learn.

A crossbowman could get off about 2-3 shots per minute while a longbowman could get off 10-12 shots. Source (http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-weapons/bow-and-arrow.htm). We've been told muskets (which are longer, heavier, and harder to wield than arquebus) can get off about 3 shots per minute. Crossbows and guns are tied here.

I would assume that is only for cranked crossbows. Lighter crossbows were significantly faster, though still not up to bow speed.

Originally, I believe firearms were used for penetrating armor, with steel balls being fired. Good at close range. Certain crossbows were also useful for this, but again, they'd be the very slow types. I doubt rate of fire was a major differentiator...either way, it'd be a specialist weapon in a niche role at first, until developments eventually gave it an advantage.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: There is a whole thread devoted to real world weapon and armor discussion. Also, there's a whole internet outside the Playground for flaming and trolling. Tell them Roland sent you.

[Dsurion]

Ah, found it! I was wrong, though, it was from Monte Cook's site in an article about Chaositech. Still the same document, though.

http://www.montecook.com/images/Technology.pdf

[arguskos]

Ah, found it! I was wrong, though, it was from Monte Cook's site in an article about Chaositech. Still the same document, though.

http://www.montecook.com/images/Technology.pdf
The Chaositech Technology pdf is alright, but honestly, I preferred the Dragon #321 rules. The Hydra Rifle and the Chimera Rifle were pretty awesome too though. :smallbiggrin:

[Dsurion]

Oh, I agree. Heartily so. Just trying to provide more options and inspiration for when traditional guns get boring. I always liked the double pistol after I saw a historical double barrel pistol used by an English highwayman.

[Tyndmyr]

Historically, there's also the Duckfoot. For when a two barreled pistol just doesn't have enough barrels for you.

Naturally, dual wielding them is the next obvious step.

[arguskos]

Historically, there's also the Duckfoot. For when a two barreled pistol just doesn't have enough barrels for you.

Naturally, dual wielding them is the next obvious step.
No. What you do is you play a Thri-kreen, take Multiweapon Fighting, get 4 hydra rifles, and eat your insane penalties to get a shot at living the dream*. :smallamused: Doing this with chimera rifles would get insanely expensive, but would be AWESOME too.

*: Assuming you, like me, dream of firing 12 shots at once at anything in your path.

[Asheram]

There's always the Pistol, the musket, the Blunderbuss and even a flamethrower from the Ravenloft Players handbook and the Van Richten Arsenal.

And then we're not even talking about the Bombs, the clockwork and other little nifty things. (Like Ether. Best way to knock someone out since the invention of the Sap)

[Tetsubo 57]

A heavy crossbow and an early muzzle loader are equally complex. There is no reason to treat a firearm as an Exotic weapon. None. The problem in D&D is that 'exotic' has two different meanings:

1) Rare and unusual. Such as a gonne or matchlock in a standard D&D setting.

2) Mechanically superior. Such as a bow that does more damage.

By the first definition firearms are 'exotic'. But by the second definition they are not. Don't use the first definition. Base the class of 'exotic' weapons solely on their mechanical statistics.

I wax poetic on this topic here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L73vjnO7VM