3.5: Adding Guns to My World

[Elkad]

Starts backing away....

Other than the 15yr old, we all carry. Backup carry covers his lack. Has nothing to do with the game.

No new players have fled in terror when realizing they were gaming with the well-armed.
No 1-rolling d20s have been executed.
No drunken brandishing, despite a fair amount of moderate drunkenness.
Any unholstering has been done with great forethought and care, and only for the purposes of showing off a new purchase or similar.

I don't think any more about letting people into my home while armed than I do about letting them in with a phone in their pocket. It's a tool, nothing more.

[Fizban]

Why you need so many magical pistols, if they already loaded with magical bullets? (Also, spells such as Magic Weapon...)
Duh, Sherlock!

Magic ammo is overpriced (it should be per 100 shots, not 50), and it runs out, but that isn't a bad idea for a partial workaround.

Please, excuse me, but there you a wrong: almost all ranged-oriented stuff in 3.X works with firearms just fine; firearm doesn't need any "special" content, because 90% of general already available freely
Still, I will point one thing: Master Siege Engineer - works with firearms (cannons), crossbows (ballista), but not bows

If you're trying to claim that specific feature is an advantage, it has to be an advantage. If bows can boost their range with anything that guns don't get, guns don't have a decisive advantage there. A quick googling says that PrC is from dragon mag, which most people don't have.

BTW, which, exactly, age you mean?
If XV - then OK; but if XVIII - then it's too slow: 4 shots/minute were required standard, but skilled soldiers could shot up to 7/minute (with muzzle-loading smoothbore)

No idea what those numbers apply to, but (muzzle loading) matchlocks were around in the 1500s, while the breech loading guns started growing in 1770 as construction techniques improved. I didn't find any muzzle loading stats that mentioned people going that high, but that's still less than one shot per combat round.

3) This one is also in the form of cone frustum, but wider tip pointed to the target. Shortest range and widest shot spread. Direct descendant of blunderbusses.

This is actually a misconception, the flared barrel doesn't actually spread the shot, it just effectively shortens the barrel a bit more. The comparison was with a Mossberg, I expect it would be a cylindrical smooth bore, but that doesn't matter? They tested a flared barrel blunderbuss and the spread was plenty reasonable, not a giant doom cannon.

[ShurikVch]

If you're trying to claim that specific feature is an advantage, it has to be an advantage.

No - I trying to claim it's overpriced, and it runs out

If bows can boost their range with anything that guns don't get, guns don't have a decisive advantage there.

They don't: Hawk's Vision give the same benefit for any ranged weapon - including firearms and futuristic blasters
You better to point Aquatic Shot, because it's impossible to use early firearm underwater

A quick googling says that PrC is from dragon mag, which most people don't have.

Correct. I used it just for counter-example

No idea what those numbers apply to

Prussian infantry of XVII century - 5/minute is standard, maximum - 7 shots (and 6 reloads)/minute; they used muzzle-loading smoothbore flintlocks (with paper cartridges)

(muzzle loading) matchlocks were around in the 1500s, while the breech loading guns started growing in 1770 as construction techniques improved.

Actually, breechloaders were around far longer than it: for example, google "Peter Peck" 1553

I didn't find any muzzle loading stats that mentioned people going that high, but that's still less than one shot per combat round.

Even repeating crossbows never shot faster than 9/minute, yet you haven't any problems with them shooting in-game as fast as bows. Bias much?

This is actually a misconception, the flared barrel doesn't actually spread the shot, it just effectively shortens the barrel a bit more. The comparison was with a Mossberg, I expect it would be a cylindrical smooth bore, but that doesn't matter? They tested a flared barrel blunderbuss and the spread was plenty reasonable, not a giant doom cannon.

Sorry, but I have "slightly" different information: according to Probability estimations of distance of shot: a function of the dispersion of pellets (A. F. Lisitzyn ℗ Forensic science, 1974):

X is range - in meters
Y is spread - in centimeters
As you can see, even lower curve for 20 m (not even 27, like you said) give spread about 0,5 m; and for higher curve it's ~ 1 m (which is one heck of AoE )
Spread size depend on diameters of bore and shot (table for shot diameters from 2 to 8,5 mm)
Note under the picture says it's for "standard conditions"; spread can be increased by usage of: gunpowder, shortened cartridges, flared or sawed-off barrels, non-spherical shots, homemade wadding, and so on

[Nifft]

I don't think any more about letting people into my home while armed than I do about letting them in with a phone in their pocket. It's a tool, nothing more.

My phone has a dice-rolling app.

Now I want a gun with a dice-rolling app...

[Zombimode]

As you can see, even lower curve for 20 m (not even 27, like you said) give spread about 0,5 m; and for higher curve it's ~ 1 m (which is one heck of AoE )

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the chart, but 1 meter spread is not "one heck of AoE". Not even close. 1 meter is about 2/3 the side length of a single square.

[ShurikVch]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the chart, but 1 meter spread is not "one heck of AoE". Not even close. 1 meter is about 2/3 the side length of a single square.

OK, maybe I'm used too strong words, but still - let's agree: "1 m spread on 20 m" is a much more impressive than Fizban's "16 inches at 30 yards"

[Fizban]

Actually, breechloaders were around far longer than it: for example, google "Peter Peck" 1553

Which is why I said growing instead of first invented. So if we take that we can have muzzle loaders at standard action and breech loaders at move action and it's actually accurate, if you assume maximum training and don't want to leave room for the difference between match/flint/percussion, color me surprised. Now all you need is proper damage values and variety.

Even repeating crossbows never shot faster than 9/minute, yet you haven't any problems with them shooting in-game as fast as bows. Bias much?

Repeating crossbow has the same advantage as bows with a smooth movement that doesn't interrupt aiming. Most people are going to have trouble imagining the motions required for muzzle loading a gun being sped up to match dnd firing speeds, but bows and repeating crossbows don't have that problem. As for not finding the same stats you used, well gee, sorry my wiki research isn't on your level.

Sorry, but I have "slightly" different information: according to Probability estimations of distance of shot: a function of the dispersion of pellets (℗ Forensic science, 1974):

That spread is only 2.5 times the size of the one I found, still not that crazy as already mentioned. I really don't feel like arguing about about who's sources are more accurate: I'm not a gun enthusiast and researching the most advanced physical understanding of the the internals so I can post it here does not interest me. I expect the gun they tested for that table simply had a shorter barrel/longer flare than the one I googled, which seemed pretty long and had a fairly tight barrel.

A 1 meter spread is still not a cone attack nor a line attack (unless it specifically states that the first creature hit stops the line), so if you have blunderbuss stats that say it's a line or cone attack they fail.

[Manyasone]

I don't think any more about letting people into my home while armed than I do about letting them in with a phone in their pocket. It's a tool, nothing more.

A hammer is a tool, hell, even an axe is a tool...A gun is not a tool, a tool serves multiple purposes.
*sigh* some people...

EDIT: I'm aware this is off topic, but come on, I had to say this

[LordOfCain]

A hammer is a tool, hell, even an axe is a tool...A gun is not a tool, a tool serves multiple purposes.
*sigh* some people...

EDIT: I'm aware this is off topic, but come on, I had to say this

Um... a gun's also a handy dandy kitchen device. A cookie to anyone who gets the reference.

[dascarletm]

A hammer is a tool, hell, even an axe is a tool...A gun is not a tool, a tool serves multiple purposes.
*sigh* some people...

EDIT: I'm aware this is off topic, but come on, I had to say this

The definition of a tool does not require multiple functions. I wish people would stop changing the definition of words to suit their narratives. I'll just say that since I don't want to talk politics.

Spoiler: Definition

Show

A quick google search gives me this:
"A device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function."

[Manyasone]

The definition of a tool does not require multiple functions. I wish people would stop changing the definition of words to suit their narratives. I'll just say that since I don't want to talk politics.

Spoiler: Definition

Show

A quick google search gives me this:
"A device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function."

Very well then...Tools can be used for both creation and destruction...Weapons can only be used for destruction, unless you count the creation of corpses.

Not politics, merely an important distiction. I am not any sort of activist concerning gun carrying, but I am a cynical bastard and invoking a hundreds of years old law "to protect yourself from the Redcoats" is just very, very...USA.
As a wise man once said "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken"

[Nifft]

The definition of a tool does not require multiple functions. I wish people would stop changing the definition of words to suit their narratives. I'll just say that since I don't want to talk politics.

Spoiler: Definition

Show

A quick google search gives me this:
"A device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function."

You should be aware that Weapons and Tools are totally different types of Proficiency. Musical Instruments are yet a third type, even the ones that are held in one hand.

Also: recognizing that weapons and tools are different types of thing is not a political stance. It's just linguistic accuracy.

I feel like anyone with a weapon should care about accuracy.

[ShurikVch]

Which is why I said growing instead of first invented.

OK. Still, it was more dependent on chemistry than metallurgy: you can't have percussion caps without fulminate of mercury and chlorate of potash, and without percussion caps breachloading is lacking

Repeating crossbow has the same advantage as bows with a smooth movement that doesn't interrupt aiming. Most people are going to have trouble imagining the motions required for muzzle loading a gun being sped up to match dnd firing speeds, but bows and repeating crossbows don't have that problem.

OK, then what's you will say about the Heavy Crossbow?
You know - with a winch (lower left corner):

Rapid Reload feat allow to shoot with it at every turn, which means - 10/minute.
Only the best of modern crossbows may allow such rate of fire (and, frankly, draw weight of those crossbows aren't that impressive)

That spread is only 2.5 times the size of the one I found, still not that crazy as already mentioned. I really don't feel like arguing about about who's sources are more accurate: I'm not a gun enthusiast and researching the most advanced physical understanding of the the internals so I can post it here does not interest me. I expect the gun they tested for that table simply had a shorter barrel/longer flare than the one I googled, which seemed pretty long and had a fairly tight barrel.

A 1 meter spread is still not a cone attack nor a line attack (unless it specifically states that the first creature hit stops the line), so if you have blunderbuss stats that say it's a line or cone attack they fail.

Wikipedia article about blunderbuss (in my language) says:

During the period of blunderbuss's production, existed widespread misconception about the muzzle flare increasing spread of pellets (and thus - hit area), but, in fact, it wasn't the case: for increasing spread of pellets will be necessary make not just a muzzle flare, but the whole barrel in the shape of expanding cone. Though such weapon really existed, but was exceptionally rare (because expensive)

So, what's the form of D&D blunderbusses?

Their trumpet-shaped barrels were designed to scatter shot across a wide arc

A primitive shotgun, this weapon has a wide, bell-shaped barrel and is designed to hold and fire shot that scatters when discharged.

So, does it sound like "expanding cone"?

Also, if you are so much against the idea of AoE blunderbuss, then 1st edition of Warcraft the RPG had Blunderbuss which, while hitting targets in 5' "line", wasn't true "area attack": rather than "auto hit, Reflex for half", it caused separate hit for every affected creature; if you annoyed about the "hitting creatures who are behind the other creatures", then I will point on Cover rules

Very well then...Tools can be used for both creation and destruction...Weapons can only be used for destruction, unless you count the creation of corpses.

Crowbar is a tool. For which, exactly, creation you can use it?

[Manyasone]

Crowbar is a tool. For which, exactly, creation you can use it?

That's easy, you can create openings

[Ashtagon]

That's easy, you can create openings

A gun can do that too.

[Yahzi]

Adding guns to my world

Some of us have written whole novels about this.

Others have discussed the mechanics; I think any of them are fine. The key to understanding guns is understanding that players don't want them.

In D&D, it is the man, not the weapon. A 5th lvl Fighter with a spoon is more dangerous than a commoner in plate and sword. Your players are super-heroes who can do supernatural feats with their weapons; the actual chunk of metal or wood in their hand is largely irrelevant.

What guns do (as others have noted) is make ordinary, untrained commoners dangerous to the professional fighting classes. This is why the Japanese actually got rid of them once; to protect the monopoly on violence held by the samurai. Note: your players are the samurai of their world. Go watch The Last Samurai to see how samurai felt about guns.

The other thing everyone misses about guns is scaleability. Ballistae non-withstanding, there is a limit to how much force you can achieve with wood and rope. You can't just keep making them bigger and bigger; a ballistae big enough to kill a dragon in one shot would simply fall apart.

But guns... guns are different. Want double the power? Just double the powder. Sure, there's a limit on how big you can make the barrel using medieval technology... but in the real Middle Ages they made guns that could fire a mile. And if that's not good enough, you can always make a bomb of arbitrary size. The Dutch made a fire-ship that killed 800 men in one shot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburners).

Dragons, giants, and other monsters are still fearsome; but they are no longer the undisputed queens on the board. They cannot stand and roar; they must duck and weave, dodge and hide, like ordinary men. De Gaulle said, "Armor without mobility is merely a target," and it's true of huge monsters too, in the age of gunpowder.

[Fizban]

Others have discussed the mechanics; I think any of them are fine. The key to understanding guns is understanding that players don't want them. . .
What guns do (as others have noted) is make ordinary, untrained commoners dangerous to the professional fighting classes. This is why the Japanese actually got rid of them once; to protect the monopoly on violence held by the samurai. Note: your players are the samurai of their world. Go watch The Last Samurai to see how samurai felt about guns.

Half right. Guns don't make commoners significantly more dangerous to adventurers than any other weapon. Every gun source I've seen requires exotic proficiency in spite of the whole point being that they're as simple to use as a crossbow, most don't have any better damage, and those with better damage only match strength+longbow. While you're right that guns are a threat to scads of 1st level NPCs who go from having a decent chance of surviving a crossbow shot to a significantly lower chance of surviving a rifle shot (if you're using good stats), this doesn't threaten PCs any more than usual. Meanwhile, it takes a high level specialized character to do the same things with a gun that a low-level ranger can do with a bow, which if anything emphasizes the fact that this character is a badass.

But guns... guns are different. Want double the power? Just double the powder. Sure, there's a limit on how big you can make the barrel using medieval technology... but in the real Middle Ages they made guns that could fire a mile. And if that's not good enough, you can always make a bomb of arbitrary size. The Dutch made a fire-ship that killed 800 men in one shot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellburners).

That's not how any of these mechanics work? Even the Warcraft tinker mechanics effectively put a hard limit on how much damage you can do, and killing large groups of people is a function of area, not damage. A gun that fires a mile isn't going to be accurate without significantly more tech or magic, and Stormwrack already has a cannon with max range 2,000ft.

Dragons, giants, and other monsters are still fearsome; but they are no longer the undisputed queens on the board. They cannot stand and roar; they must duck and weave, dodge and hide, like ordinary men. De Gaulle said, "Armor without mobility is merely a target," and it's true of huge monsters too, in the age of gunpowder.

Sure they can, AC and DR work on guns just as well as anything else. You're thinking of volley fire mechanics, which work just as well for cross/bows as they do for guns, and bombs of arbitrarily large size, which have no stats and are thus simply arbitrary.

[Yahzi]

Every gun source I've seen requires exotic proficiency

As you note, that's just silly. Any vaguely historical representation will make them Simple (like crossbows already are). Also, all the "touch" attack stuff is supposed to represent that guns made armor obsolete (not at first; but by the time you get to breech-loaders, yes).

However, the problem is also that the representations are too historical. Guns are the size they are because people are the size they are. If we lived in a world where people could be 15 ft tall (or have the vitality of an elephant), we'd have built bigger guns.

Also, the thing about bombs is that they can be made by commoners. It takes a wizard to make a fireball; but a commoner can make explosions of arbitrarily large sizes quite easily.

Now, in the real world, people didn't go around lobbing giant bombs at each other. But that's because they didn't need to. If Da Vinci had figured out how to make his tanks work, people would have made anti-tank rockets. And in D&D, there are lots of things that might as well be tanks.

Essentially, the point is that gunpowder makes killing things an engineering problem, instead of a mystical test of your personal character. This is pretty much the antithesis of the Heroic story.

I mean, I'm all for guns in D&D; but I'm the DM. I'm on the commoner's side.

[Fizban]

But you haven't refuted any of my points? You seem to be saying that because you would let guns ignore armor and deal whatever damage you want and write bomb stats that do whatever you want, these printed stats that don't do any of those things would do that. Sure, if you run your guns and gunpowder in a way that takes the heroic fantasy out of the game then they'll take the heroic fantasy out of the game, and that's why no one does that when they write up their stats. Unless what you're saying is that statted guns aren't guns because they're not designed from an in-universe perspective, but that basically applies to everything in dnd from castles to magic so. . .

And if you ask any char-op player, killing things is already an engineering problem. Take wizard/party of level X with Y resources and use it to kill Z. Even without personal ability or resources, a town contains NPCs of level X and has buying limit Y, enact scheme to leverage these into killing Z.

[ShurikVch]

Sorcery and Steam by Fantasy Flight Games.

Everything else is crap. The DMG just isn't worth using, Pathfinder is a mess of stupid failure checks and touch attacks and other garbage, even the Warcraft books have them hooked into the tinker class rules except not and also more malfunctions.

BTW, are you familiar with the Kolter Firearms rules (in the Freeport)?
If yes, then how is it?

Also, do you seen my reply #43?

[Mato]

My question is this: What mechanics should I use for introducing early firearms to my setting?

I'd suggest looking into the Modern d20's supplement Past for further information. Modern uses the 3.0 rule set that you can update as needed if you're already familiar with the differences, primarily has weapon size in 3rd became light/one/two in 3.5.

Wealth conversion is the hard part through. The actual core book (not the srd) has a table for converting purchase DCs if you want a more gold based transaction system. But the system correctly interprets how a semi-auto handgun is cheaper now than a shard sword was then.

So I'd consider WotC's already canonical pricing on this, which they released through two different online articles. The first is laser guns, and power armor & robots, but you can use their pricing to quickly judge how to price other firearms based on how much better or worse they are compared to the lasers. The second is about mech armor and the Future Tech supplement gives you an increased ranged of mech building choices.

The systems are pretty easy to learn. Like a musket is a two-hander that deals 2d8 and takes two full-rounds to reload. The supplement even explains how it interacts with the quick reload feat. You can also find general firearm rules such as covering fire or burst/auto rules through Modern's SRD.

[Yahzi]

Sure, if you run your guns and gunpowder in a way that takes the heroic fantasy out of the game then they'll take the heroic fantasy out of the game,

But that's the point of guns - to change the game.

If you want them to act like regular weapons, just take the entry for Heavy Crossbow write in Musket. As everyone has pointed out, early firearms were pretty close.

The reason players ask for guns, though, is because they think the guns will make them more powerful, in a way magic items won't. If all they want is different fluff for the same thing, why even have a discussion over mechanics?