Community

I have actually used them with some friends. We use single shot, muzzle loaders that do 3d10 DMG, but they take two minutes to reload. We blame this on the gunpowder needing to be very compact, so it takes a long time to smush it down. So we'd usually take one shot each, then draw our swords.

I whole heartedly agree. As a DM, in a custom world that I am building, I added guns [flintlock, rifle, a 3-shot flintlock, a blunderbuss, and a cannon the dwarves made]. A single feat makes you proficient in all of them. The states are close to that of the DMG, but not the same. I felt they didn't carry the flavor well (IMO). As my players play through the world, they see no game balance problems and love the idea. It does forward the time period a bit more then some players may care for, but I don't force anyone to play in my games. Now, the prices are higher than what a 1st level character should have, unless he doesn't buy any armor.

Now, the in-game reason for guns existing in my world is a emperor years ago (now dead) want some of his finest minds (mainly wizards) to construct something that his troops could easily use, has a powerful/magical like effect without being magical. They (the wizards) through alchemy discovered explosives. Not that far of a leap considering alchemist fire. In a fantasy world, I say that the guns are NOT real world guns and should NEVER be compared to such.

Now, the out-of-game reason for having guns is so I can have "Pirate of the Caribbean" style games if I wanted. Or even western style game. I can move the time period up some to a more Renn time period all while holding a Roman-esque empire. This is a fantasy world and there is no reason to say things didn't develop in a different order than it did in ours.

Actually, you only have to worry about balance at the low-end and only at the low-end.

Since firearms don't allow the use of your Str modifier, they're sub-par for an 'archer' builds damage, being about as damage effective as crossbow (actually, less damage effective than an x-bow actually).

So:

Bows:
+1

Crossbows:
+0

Firearms:
+0

Bows and Crossbows will probably fire more often (and using the +1 Crossbow of Reloading out of the Mini Handbook, you can use a crossbow as fast as a bow) than most firearms.

Bows:
+2

Crossbows:
+1

Firearms:
+0

Also, the 'bows' let you use magical arrows, there are no magical 'bullets' out of the box.

So:

Bows:
+3

Crossbows:
+2

Firearms:
+0

However, all weapons can be magic-ed! This is a firearms only saving grace; except for one problem; so can bows and crossbows:

So:

Bows:
+4

Crossbows:
+3

Firearms:
+1


Final analysis: Bows are able to shoot faster than a crossbow (this can be gotten around for about 4,000 gp to make a +1 light crossbow into a +1 Reloading Light Crossbow), and you can use your strength bonus for extra damage.
Crossbows and Bows can both use Magical Ammunition. Finally, Firearms can be made magical (but so can Bows and Crossbows).

Bows are
> Crossbows (better than)
and
>>>Firearms (as much as three orders of magnitude better than firearms)

Crossbows are
< Bows (worse than bows)
and
>>Firearms (as much as two orders of magnitude than a firearm)


Really, primitive firearms won't be used that much, and those that do use them will be out performed by traditional bow-users in terms of attack speed, base damage output, or potential damage output. The only difference is that a crossbow user will have slightly less average damage than the firearm users. So, armies of conscripts in your campaign world will use firearms, but will probably use crossbows just as much since they're cheaper to create ammunition for.

On the other hand, professional mercenaries will have squads of Rapid Shotting (and perhaps, even Arrow Storming) musketeers, -7 to your attacks rolls for +3 attacks per round can really add up to quite a lot of fire if you're using the grouped fire rules from Heroes of Battle.

The funny thing is that, regardless of what I just said; those same men with crossbows will do more damage with 1-50 +2 bolts thanks to a Greater Magic Weapon cast on every 50 bolts. So, really, the 'purists' are actually right, but not for reasons that they would care to acknowledge: Guns aren't commonly used b/c they suck as weapons. Legolas beats Athos, Porthos and any other musketeer in a shoot-out.

The reasons people think that a firearm > Bow, is that they never consider the fact that magic is forgotten in such a thought. If the natives of the Americas had +1 Icy Longbows with Flaming Arrows (thanks to a Flame Arrow spell cast on 50 arrows ahead of time), they would have wiped the floor with the English and their +1 Flaming Muskets.

The inherent power of a firearm won't be seen by the players since they aren't groundpounders in His Majesties Royal Shortbowmen who face The Dauphin's Imperial Musketeers, using shortbows vs muskets.

Instead of being Grundgar, Dwarven Hunter with his tamed Polar Bear Snuggles; they'll be Soveliss, Rapid-Arrowstorm-Shotting the enemy hordes of the Duergar 34th Ice Muskets Brigade with a +4 Penetrating Shot Composite Longbow with +1 Flaming Icy Keen arrows; while his foes are stuck with +1 Icy Shock Muskets at best.

In any case, it doesn't matter whether a PC uses a Bow or not from a flavour point of view. The mechanics of your character can be represented with whatever the hell you want. For example, you could be Grundgar, the Dwarven Hunter. Who uses a mithral rifle with adamantine bullets and has a Polar Bear companion. Just write down that you have a darkwood weapon that uses adamantine ammunition that you buy in lots of 50 for the exact same cost as adamantine arrows. Since really, flavour can be have it's neck twisted to represent anything you want it to.

Mechanically, the above works exactly like a bow user using adamantine arrows, but no one knows any different. Sort of like the 'soulknife' that I made for a campaign; he was a ranger as well. He just had 'soulknife channeling knuckles' that he wore on his fingers (instead of a bow) and 'psychic bullets' that he carried in a belt pouch (instead of arrows).

Really, I could play a 'fighter' but have all of my class levels in wizard. It's easy; I have the 'Furious Growth' fighter feat (aka Enlarge person); I fire 'unerring daggers' (magic missile) and I drop 'One Thousand Flaming Caltrops!' on my enemies at a distance (aka... fireball).

Really, if players want guns, let them, just re-write your bows and arrows and presto! You've got rules for guns that only a really savvy player will figure out.

Well said! Fire arms are pretty cool in a fantasy setting. I’m currently involved in a campaign in which we are allowed fire arms. They are in no foreseeable way over powered. In fact, I think the only way fire arms can be really powered is when a dm is stupid enough to say: "Sure you can have a laser rifle dealing 3d8 damage and counts as a range touch attack."

When it comes down to it, it is up to the dm to decide on his setting. That said, I think DMs should consider or at least listen to a player’s suggestion about the setting.

How is it moot? The original article is a discussion giving reasons why you should allow guns in your fantasy game. Just because rules exist doesn't mean the discussion over whether those rules should be used is over.