Keep Your Powder Dry! Part 1: Firearms for Fantasy Campaigns

New for EN5ider patrons. The core rules include rules for firearms; this article takes a look at some of the very earliest gunpowder weapons. Walk Ciechanowski introduces three ancient firearms, five new weapon properties, rules for customizing firearms, the new Alchemist Advanced Study (for use with EN5ider's Alchemist class), and three new magic items. Illustrated by Sade.

​

 

[Derren]

How did you solve the issue that nearly all RPGs do not model the advantages of firearms which are more economic than effectiveness and instead only focus on the combat aspect in which a (cross)bow is superior in every way?

 

[77IM]

[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] Spoiler Alert: These are extremely early firearms and are presented as inferior to crossbows in almost every way. The harquebus is a simple ranged weapon dealing 1d10 damage and carrying a nasty host of drawbacks regarding weight, range, loading time, chance of misfire, stench, etc. So it's marginally more effective than a light crossbow at close range (short range is 25 feet!) but sucks otherwise. The article does have some good explanations of WHY early armies adopted such lousy weapons; the short version is that it's much easier to train soldiers to fire a gun than to use a longbow or heavy crossbow effectively (in D&D terms, simple vs. martial proficiency) and the ammunition is cheaper to produce and transport (which is not borne out by the rules presented; ammunition is as expensive as bolts and weighs a bit more).

This article seems reasonably well researched and certainly "feels" historically accurate me, although I don't know a whole lot about early firearms, other than what I read in endless debates on RPG forums. The article presents the early guns and then goes a step further by providing some good options for how people in a D&D world would customize or experiment with such weapons. There's a subclass for EN5ider's alchemist class, and some new magic items.

 

[Derren]

[MENTION=2518]The article does have some good explanations of WHY early armies adopted such lousy weapons; the short version is that it's much easier to train soldiers to fire a gun than to use a longbow or heavy crossbow effectively (in D&D terms, simple vs. martial proficiency) and the ammunition is cheaper to produce and transport (which is not borne out by the rules presented; ammunition is as expensive as bolts and weighs a bit more).
.

That is what I meant with economic benefits (by the way, it wasnt so much about training someone to use a bow but about finding people who are strong enough to use 100lb draw strength bows over a longer time.).
But what RPG actually models this things? Most of the time there is no strength requirement for bows. Fatigue is hardly modeled at all (constantly drawing a bow tires you a lot more than filling in gunpowder) and many people gloss over carrying capacity or even abstract ammunition altogether.
So in RPGs there is usually no reason at all to use guns, especially the very early ones or ones with the historical disadvantages (missfire, long loading time, etc.)

So what use is there in having "historically accurate" early firearms when all their disadvantages are represented in the game but their advantages are not?

 

[77IM]

Those are good points, and like I said, I'm not a scholar of medieval firearms, so you probably have thought more deeply about this than I have. I DO wish the price and weight on ammunition for these was lower, since that would be consistent with one of the article's own listed reasons for firearm adoption.

So what use is there in having "historically accurate" early firearms when all their disadvantages are represented in the game but their advantages are not?

It's possible that for D&D adventurers, there isn't any advantage, just like there's not any reason to wear ring mail but it's still a listed armor for completeness. D&D is an adventure game not a medieval army simulator so the factors that balance these weapons at the army level can be glossed over at most tables.

However the article does provide some options to enhance the weapons in a couple of different ways (such as a rifled barrel, or special magical gunpowder, or the alchemist subclass) so maybe for a purpose-built character the harquebus and hand-cannon would be considered balanced weapons. I'm kind of withholding judgement until "Part 2" comes out.

I just think it's nice to see genuinely medieval-looking firearms rules, instead of rules for guns that look renaissance but function like modern pistols and magically punch through all armor.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Think the greatest "issue" DM and players have with firearms (and armor and weapons) is a fail on the part of the DM to develop their setting. They allow a everything in the books without thinking of the campaign setting they are presenting.

I also think rules do not go far enough in firearms as I feel there is a fear factor (to use or to stand in front of) to them that may be more important than accuracy and damage values.

Add to all that; magic, depending on the level of magic, spells become more important than tech or become part of the tech. I can see magic-users being drafted/pressed into service to produce bullets.

 

[Derren]

Think the greatest "issue" DM and players have with firearms (and armor and weapons) is a fail on the part of the DM to develop their setting. They allow a everything in the books without thinking of the campaign setting they are presenting.

I also think rules do not go far enough in firearms as I feel there is a fear factor (to use or to stand in front of) to them that may be more important than accuracy and damage values.

Add to all that; magic, depending on the level of magic, spells become more important than tech or become part of the tech. I can see magic-users being drafted/pressed into service to produce bullets.

Morale is another thing often glossed over (and its debatable how much guns would intimidate enemies in a world where magic which can produce much more dramatic effects).

The world building part is more of an issue that while guns existed alongside many of the inventions in RPGs like full plate, in pulp fantasy, which has formed the understanding of many people of how fantasy is supposed to look like (elves, dwarfs, etc.), guns didnt exist (or only very rarely). This has lead to many people finding fantasy settings less immersive when they have guns in them as they dont feel guns belong there as they are "too modern". Kinda how everyone thinks of the 3 Musketeers as rapier wielding swashbucklers when actually musketeers were as the name already hints at musket troops. (Controversly, many people cant imagine pirates without cannons, even in a fantasy setting).

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Rate of fire is a big deal on early firearms, too. Of course crossbows have an accelerated ROF in D&D but there's no way you're getting 10 rounds a minute out of middle ages arquebuses or handguns. Remember that Richard Sharpe's criteria for a good rifleman is 3 rounds a minute (or 1 per 4 rounds).

 

[Morrus]

Regarding the core firearms rules in the DMG, swords aren't realistically modelled in D&D; I don't see why guns should be an exception. It's not that type of game. D&D is a lot of things, but a realistic medieval simulator is not one of those things.

 

[Derren]

Rate of fire is a big deal on early firearms, too. Of course crossbows have an accelerated ROF in D&D but there's no way you're getting 10 rounds a minute out of middle ages arquebuses or handguns. Remember that Richard Sharpe's criteria for a good rifleman is 3 rounds a minute (or 1 per 4 rounds).

In the early days of firearms weaponmaker did experiment with adding guns to normal weapons which were never intended to be reloaded in the field but instead meant one (possible) kill before entering melee.
Thats where all the gun-clubs, gun-swords, gun-shields, gun-axes, etc. come from. But people rather had a normal sidearm and a real melee weapon instead of having a poor combination of both.