|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 5:31PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
I was just reading over Ed Greenwood's article on Early guns from Dragon #60. Have firearms made an appearance anywhere else in D&D canon. I think they would be an excellent addition, but hard to manage and would really stress future history in the campaign. But I’m sure there are creative workarounds that could be implemented to keep them from dominating the game. Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 5:39PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
I love the idea of firearms in D&D. However, ranged combat is generally balanced around bows and crossbows, and so firearms almost always end up either overpowered or terrible, the latter more often than you might think. My campaigns' solutions? See those mechanics normally used for bows and crossbows? Bam! Now they're guns instead. Sure, there are sometimes some extremely minor discrepancies, but this is one area where reflavoring works very well in general.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 5:39PM
#3
|
|
|
2nd edition had firearms in the Hisorical Reference book 'a mighty fortres' as well as in the Players Option 'combat & tactics' . Good addition for that sort of game yes. Personally I find it awkward for Forgotten Realms though
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 5:44PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
i've seen a few firearms tables spread around a handful of books over the years.
as for using them in a game, i think it could work out in the right campaign. i certainly wouldn't want them being part of the core assumptions though.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 5:56PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2010
|
I would say Firearms, Firearm-Related Specialities and possibly a Gunslinger class with some interesting Prestige Classes (Magical Gunslinger for example). Would be a great module to be added later on. Definitely not in PHB1 though...
It just isn't core D&D to me - and, if I need to run Firearms in the mean time, I'll give them to a few select NPCs and make them rare, or just switch the rules for bows over.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 6:07PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
Oh yeah, I’m with you guys there, not core! But it would be a great module. I can’t think of a well done rule set governing firearms in a fantasy setting. I think I saw a post by James Raggi about a gun supplement for LotFP, but I’m not sure.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 6:08PM
#7
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I agree firearms should appear in a supplement. Here's what I did for 4e.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 6:19PM
#8
|
|
|
Firearms are definite module fodder, and would best be at home in a setting that caters for them, typically post-Renaissance.
I would design them as short-to-medium range missile weapons with a high crit bonus that gain advantage against creatures beneath a particular movement rate, e.g. 30'. This would reflect firearms making it more important for opponents to be agile rather than armored.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 6:20PM
#9
|
|
|
I don't see a reason why they need to be relegated to a supplement. I say put them in the PHB, but make sure it's clear that the inclusion/exclusion of firearms is a worldbuilding choice, and is thus left to the DM, whose approval the players will need to get before being allowed to use them.
Also. . .
Death to smoke powder!
I shouldn't have to rely on finding a magic powder as treasure to power my gun.
Death to backfires!
Guns should be as reliable as crossbows. Gimps can be added as flavor options, but not included for balance.
Screw realistic/quazi-realistic reloads!
If you use guns, you should be able to use them every round. Just about the only realistic way to treat guns is to make them one shot per encounter SoD (using the threshold version of SoD) weapons.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 6:23PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
I agree firearms should appear in a supplement. Here's what I did for 4e.
I love weapons that have debilitating results instead of damaging ones. I used this technique in Rifts once the players became too powerful to slow down with normal weapons. Your suppressive zone certainly fits that bill, and may well be the way to do firearms damage. I would add a deafness clause as well I think, and maybe a mandatory morale check of some sort. Good write up though wrec, I’m going to print it out I think.
|
|
|
