In terms of rules as written, Monks absolutely can catch bullets (and throw them back).
In terms of realism, if we're talking the earlier (Renaissance) firearms then the speed of a musket ball was actually pretty similar to the speed of a crossbow bolt from a good quality crossbow, which means the main difference is the size (a musket ball is a lot smaller than a crossbow bolt).
In terms of balance I don't think there's any issue, as a Monk's ability to catch a projectile is random and damage based, and firearms generally do more damage, so it's already harder to catch a musket ball than an arrow or crossbow bolt.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I can believe a monk can catch a bullet about as much as a person throwing a fireball or granting a wish. This game is all about suspending reality to create a fantasy. The rules as written say yes, this works. I would even bet this is an intended feature. There is absolutely no reason to take this ability away from a monk. If someone argued they should not be able to do that based on some argument about not being realistic, laugh in their face. That's a really dumb argument in a game like this. It's far from a game breaking ability and saying a monk can't do this kills some of the fantasy that makes the monk cool.
In terms of rules as written, Monks absolutely can catch bullets (and throw them back).
In terms of realism, if we're talking the earlier (Renaissance) firearms then the speed of a musket ball was actually pretty similar to the speed of a crossbow bolt from a good quality crossbow, which means the main difference is the size (a musket ball is a lot smaller than a crossbow bolt).
In terms of balance I don't think there's any issue, as a Monk's ability to catch a projectile is random and damage based, and firearms generally do more damage, so it's already harder to catch a musket ball than an arrow or crossbow bolt.
No, that is simple not true. A bullet from an early firearms could easily reach about a 1000fps whereas the velocity of a corssbow bolt is measured in the hundreds.
That said, if I ever would allow firearms in a D&D game I would allow monks to catch and throw back bullets just because it is cool, ridiculous and very funny.
No, that is simple not true. A bullet from an early firearms could easily reach about a 1000fps whereas the velocity of a corssbow bolt is measured in the hundreds.
So were most early to renaisance firearms; you're thinking of the speed at which a musket ball travelled down the barrel, but renaissance firearms used balls of lead which deformed in the air (and the barrel) and slowed down extremely quickly. You'd be talking rifled barrels and shaped bullets (Minié ball onwards) for a firearm that can maintain velocity out to a much longer range, but that's definitely not what the DMG musket is intended to represent with its 40' short range.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No, that is simple not true. A bullet from an early firearms could easily reach about a 1000fps whereas the velocity of a corssbow bolt is measured in the hundreds.
So were most early to renaisance firearms; you're thinking of the speed at which a musket ball travelled down the barrel, but renaissance firearms used balls of lead which deformed in the air (and the barrel) and slowed down extremely quickly. You'd be talking rifled barrels and shaped bullets (Minié ball onwards) for a firearm that can maintain velocity out to a much longer range, but that's definitely not what the DMG musket is intended to represent with its 40' short range.
No, no I'm not. Firearms used unjacketed lead bullets up to the 1800s (and there are still calibers today that are usually unjacketed) and they weren't "deformed in the air". That's pretty much physically impossible even with modern ammunition.
Forty feet of range is ridiculously short for any firearm (then again, the ranges for all ranged weapons in D&D is very short) but that doesn't change the fact that even early firearms fired shots at a much higher velocity than a crossbow.
Firearms used unjacketed lead bullets up to the 1800s (and there are still calibers today that are usually unjacketed) and they weren't "deformed in the air". That's pretty much physically impossible even with modern ammunition.
Even well into the 1800's they were still using basic lead balls in muskets; these were cheaply made (as were the muskets) and riddled with impurities, and deformed in the barrel by the explosion of the gunpowder as they weren't designed to catch the force as later shaped bullets were. The deformation doesn't magically end once the ball is out of the barrel; you're literally exploding a little ball of soft metal at your target. Without rifling (which became widespread relatively late due to the deforming issue and residue build up) the shot also ends up spinning in a near random direction as it leaves the barrel, which doesn't improve its aerodynamic properties either.
The advantage of early firearms wasn't the speed, piercing or accuracy, but that they required very little training to be effective with in a ranked mass of soldiers; hell, half of the actual wounds inflicted by early firearms were flesh wounds, and it was an infection that would kill you.
Forty feet of range is ridiculously short for any firearm (then again, the ranges for all ranged weapons in D&D is very short) but that doesn't change the fact that even early firearms fired shots at a much higher velocity than a crossbow.
The range is actually not that ridiculous for muskets; muskets were effective up to about 100 feet when fired in ranks, because you essentially couldn't miss a massed target. When firing at a specific target rather than a mass, 40-50 feet is about right as the accuracy of your typical musket was not great. You could hit something further away, but to do-so reliably it'd probably need to be the first shot after thoroughly cleaning a good quality musket, and using a musket ball that's been made to a good standard to remove impurities, get it as spherical as possible etc., real sharpshooting was done with rifles, but early rifles were expensive to make, harder to maintain and slower to fire.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Firearms used unjacketed lead bullets up to the 1800s (and there are still calibers today that are usually unjacketed) and they weren't "deformed in the air". That's pretty much physically impossible even with modern ammunition.
Even well into the 1800's they were still using basic lead balls in muskets;
Like I said, there are still ammunition that uses pure lead bullets, that is not the important bit.
these were cheaply made (as were the muskets) and riddled with impurities, and deformed in the barrel by the explosion of the gunpowder as they weren't designed to catch the force as later shaped bullets were. The deformation doesn't magically end once the ball is out of the barrel; you're literally exploding a little ball of soft metal at your target.
That's not what you said though. You claimed that they were "deformed in the air". It is by laws of physics impossible for a lead bullet fired from a musket or similar firearm to recieve enough air resistance for it to deform. Even so, that has nothing to do with the fact that you are still completely wrong when it comes to the velocity of early firearms.
Without rifling (which became widespread relatively late due to the deforming issue and residue build up) the shot also ends up spinning in a near random direction as it leaves the barrel, which doesn't improve its aerodynamic properties either.
The advantage of early firearms wasn't the speed, piercing or accuracy, but that they required very little training to be effective with in a ranked mass of soldiers; hell, half of the actual wounds inflicted by early firearms were flesh wounds, and it was an infection that would kill you.
No, even early firearms were quite capable of delivering lethal wounds. It goes without saying that a weapon that need time to kill by infection is not a very effective weapon of neither war nor hunting. "Good shot, soldier! Now let's hope the guy you shot doesn't do anything for a week until he dies of infection".
Forty feet of range is ridiculously short for any firearm (then again, the ranges for all ranged weapons in D&D is very short) but that doesn't change the fact that even early firearms fired shots at a much higher velocity than a crossbow.
The range is actually not that ridiculous for muskets; muskets were effective up to about 100 feet when fired in ranks, because you essentially couldn't miss a massed target. When firing at a specific target rather than a mass, 40-50 feet is about right as the accuracy of your typical musket was not great. You could hit something further away, but to do-so reliably it'd probably need to be the first shot after thoroughly cleaning a good quality musket, and using a musket ball that's been made to a good standard to remove impurities, get it as spherical as possible etc., real sharpshooting was done with rifles, but early rifles were expensive to make, harder to maintain and slower to fire.
You can be fairly accurate even with a musket (which, by the way, is not an early firearm by any standard) but that doesn't change the fact that 40 feet is incredibly close (it's just over halfway from the pitcher's mound to the home plate on a baseball field) when we talk about warfare and that all ranges given for ranged weapons in D&D are absurdly short except for maybe the blowgun. And even so it still doesn't change that you are wrong in your statement amount bullet velocity of early firearms.
Most importantly, you are getting completely off topic and there's really no reason for you to keep going of on this tangent. If you don't want to believe me that's fine but this is cerainly not the right forum for this discussion.
I know I'm extremely late but me and my DM decided to Use King fu Panda 2 rules for it. Also working on deflecting cannon balls like po if it can work.
Are early musket type bullets essentially miniature cannonballs? And guns handheld cannons?
Here is the thing, a person in real life with access to ONE CANTRIP would be considered a superhero. As well as many of the other at-will abilities of classes and races, including resistance to certain damage types, a changeling’s ability to shape shift, and many others.
Saying that a monk shouldn’t be able to catch and even redirect a bullet due to the fact that one of us couldn’t do so is simply irrational.
I think there is this idea with the monk class that in the beggining you are essentially the same as a person in real life that took a karate course, but this in untrue. Ki points are a form of magic, a monk’s spell slots in a sense. This also means that they would have other magical abilities that would not cost ki points, a monk’s cantrips.
A level one-10 character is essentially a superhero. Level 11-20 is essentially a demi-god or higher.
Why wouldn’t a superhero be able to catch bullets? Especially a ninja superhero.
Firearms don't exist in fantasy worlds like D&D, so it's a moot question to answer. My understanding is that most of the offensive and defensive powers used in fantasy world, would not hold up against modern world armament.
A force field or globe of invulnerability might work against hand gun or even a hunter's rifle, but maybe not against an RPG or tank shell.
A fireball probably wouldn't do much against Kevlar protected tank or reinforced concrete bunker
Firearms don't exist in fantasy worlds like D&D, so it's a moot question to answer. My understanding is that most of the offensive and defensive powers used in fantasy world, would not hold up against modern world armament.
A force field or globe of invulnerability might work against hand gun or even a hunter's rifle, but maybe not against an RPG or tank shell.
A fireball probably wouldn't do much against Kevlar protected tank or reinforced concrete bunker
Firearms have been in fantasy worlds like D&D (which isn't just one world) since at least AD&D 2nd edition.
Really? What (A)D&D adventure module showcased firearms being used? I have most of the modules from the 70s and 80s. Maybe I missed one where bullets were being fired at PC. Kindly point me to the module? Thanks.
Really? What (A)D&D adventure module showcased firearms being used? I have most of the modules from the 70s and 80s. Maybe I missed one where bullets were being fired at PC. Kindly point me to the module? Thanks.
First of all, they're a very common homebrew-type-thing. I remember an article from an early Dragon about how some GM set up an encounter between a D&D party and a modern-era military unit, played (IIRC) by who separate groups of players who had no idea what they were getting into. There were high-tech weapons in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (I think; some module of the era, anyway). And while those may have been ray guns (Never read or played it, so I don't know many details), it's the same kind of thing.
Spelljammer introduced the Giff, who are literally gun-toting hippo people.
I'm sure there were others; this is just what I heard of, from a bunch of stuff I never read or played.
They're certainly in 5e. There are firearm rules in the DMG. Artificers have proficiency if they're in use. The aforementioned Giff are back.
Really? What (A)D&D adventure module showcased firearms being used? I have most of the modules from the 70s and 80s. Maybe I missed one where bullets were being fired at PC. Kindly point me to the module? Thanks.
As I said, firearms have been a part of the game since at least AD&D 2nd edition. That began in 1989, so your frame of reference may be outdated.
Specifically, the arquebus is on page 94 of my Player's Handbook from 1995. Happy New Year.
You attempted to steer the discussion specifically towards modules predating an already established boundary, presumably to disingenuously reframe the argument in your favor. And then you have the audacity to only address homebrew while ignoring both setting-specific material (Spelljammer) and the gosh darn Player's Handbook.
I can see what you're doing, and so can everyone else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can a monk use his deflect missile ability on bullets from a pistol or musket?
In RAW, yes.....??!!
I won't be surprised if the DM rules "no". Or require monk wear some sort of magic glove for protection.
In terms of rules as written, Monks absolutely can catch bullets (and throw them back).
In terms of realism, if we're talking the earlier (Renaissance) firearms then the speed of a musket ball was actually pretty similar to the speed of a crossbow bolt from a good quality crossbow, which means the main difference is the size (a musket ball is a lot smaller than a crossbow bolt).
In terms of balance I don't think there's any issue, as a Monk's ability to catch a projectile is random and damage based, and firearms generally do more damage, so it's already harder to catch a musket ball than an arrow or crossbow bolt.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I can believe a monk can catch a bullet about as much as a person throwing a fireball or granting a wish. This game is all about suspending reality to create a fantasy. The rules as written say yes, this works. I would even bet this is an intended feature. There is absolutely no reason to take this ability away from a monk. If someone argued they should not be able to do that based on some argument about not being realistic, laugh in their face. That's a really dumb argument in a game like this. It's far from a game breaking ability and saying a monk can't do this kills some of the fantasy that makes the monk cool.
No, that is simple not true. A bullet from an early firearms could easily reach about a 1000fps whereas the velocity of a corssbow bolt is measured in the hundreds.
That said, if I ever would allow firearms in a D&D game I would allow monks to catch and throw back bullets just because it is cool, ridiculous and very funny.
So were most early to renaisance firearms; you're thinking of the speed at which a musket ball travelled down the barrel, but renaissance firearms used balls of lead which deformed in the air (and the barrel) and slowed down extremely quickly. You'd be talking rifled barrels and shaped bullets (Minié ball onwards) for a firearm that can maintain velocity out to a much longer range, but that's definitely not what the DMG musket is intended to represent with its 40' short range.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No, no I'm not. Firearms used unjacketed lead bullets up to the 1800s (and there are still calibers today that are usually unjacketed) and they weren't "deformed in the air". That's pretty much physically impossible even with modern ammunition.
Forty feet of range is ridiculously short for any firearm (then again, the ranges for all ranged weapons in D&D is very short) but that doesn't change the fact that even early firearms fired shots at a much higher velocity than a crossbow.
Even well into the 1800's they were still using basic lead balls in muskets; these were cheaply made (as were the muskets) and riddled with impurities, and deformed in the barrel by the explosion of the gunpowder as they weren't designed to catch the force as later shaped bullets were. The deformation doesn't magically end once the ball is out of the barrel; you're literally exploding a little ball of soft metal at your target. Without rifling (which became widespread relatively late due to the deforming issue and residue build up) the shot also ends up spinning in a near random direction as it leaves the barrel, which doesn't improve its aerodynamic properties either.
The advantage of early firearms wasn't the speed, piercing or accuracy, but that they required very little training to be effective with in a ranked mass of soldiers; hell, half of the actual wounds inflicted by early firearms were flesh wounds, and it was an infection that would kill you.
The range is actually not that ridiculous for muskets; muskets were effective up to about 100 feet when fired in ranks, because you essentially couldn't miss a massed target. When firing at a specific target rather than a mass, 40-50 feet is about right as the accuracy of your typical musket was not great. You could hit something further away, but to do-so reliably it'd probably need to be the first shot after thoroughly cleaning a good quality musket, and using a musket ball that's been made to a good standard to remove impurities, get it as spherical as possible etc., real sharpshooting was done with rifles, but early rifles were expensive to make, harder to maintain and slower to fire.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Like I said, there are still ammunition that uses pure lead bullets, that is not the important bit.
That's not what you said though. You claimed that they were "deformed in the air". It is by laws of physics impossible for a lead bullet fired from a musket or similar firearm to recieve enough air resistance for it to deform. Even so, that has nothing to do with the fact that you are still completely wrong when it comes to the velocity of early firearms.
You can be fairly accurate even with a musket (which, by the way, is not an early firearm by any standard) but that doesn't change the fact that 40 feet is incredibly close (it's just over halfway from the pitcher's mound to the home plate on a baseball field) when we talk about warfare and that all ranges given for ranged weapons in D&D are absurdly short except for maybe the blowgun. And even so it still doesn't change that you are wrong in your statement amount bullet velocity of early firearms.
Most importantly, you are getting completely off topic and there's really no reason for you to keep going of on this tangent. If you don't want to believe me that's fine but this is cerainly not the right forum for this discussion.
A monk can catch a dwarven thrower. A dwarf monk can even keep it and attune to it later.
They can absolutely catch a bullet.
I know I'm extremely late but me and my DM decided to Use King fu Panda 2 rules for it. Also working on deflecting cannon balls like po if it can work.
Are early musket type bullets essentially miniature cannonballs? And guns handheld cannons?
Here is the thing, a person in real life with access to ONE CANTRIP would be considered a superhero. As well as many of the other at-will abilities of classes and races, including resistance to certain damage types, a changeling’s ability to shape shift, and many others.
Saying that a monk shouldn’t be able to catch and even redirect a bullet due to the fact that one of us couldn’t do so is simply irrational.
I think there is this idea with the monk class that in the beggining you are essentially the same as a person in real life that took a karate course, but this in untrue. Ki points are a form of magic, a monk’s spell slots in a sense. This also means that they would have other magical abilities that would not cost ki points, a monk’s cantrips.
A level one-10 character is essentially a superhero. Level 11-20 is essentially a demi-god or higher.
Why wouldn’t a superhero be able to catch bullets? Especially a ninja superhero.
Firearms don't exist in fantasy worlds like D&D, so it's a moot question to answer. My understanding is that most of the offensive and defensive powers used in fantasy world, would not hold up against modern world armament.
A force field or globe of invulnerability might work against hand gun or even a hunter's rifle, but maybe not against an RPG or tank shell.
A fireball probably wouldn't do much against Kevlar protected tank or reinforced concrete bunker
Firearms have been in fantasy worlds like D&D (which isn't just one world) since at least AD&D 2nd edition.
Really? What (A)D&D adventure module showcased firearms being used? I have most of the modules from the 70s and 80s. Maybe I missed one where bullets were being fired at PC. Kindly point me to the module? Thanks.
First of all, they're a very common homebrew-type-thing. I remember an article from an early Dragon about how some GM set up an encounter between a D&D party and a modern-era military unit, played (IIRC) by who separate groups of players who had no idea what they were getting into. There were high-tech weapons in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (I think; some module of the era, anyway). And while those may have been ray guns (Never read or played it, so I don't know many details), it's the same kind of thing.
Spelljammer introduced the Giff, who are literally gun-toting hippo people.
I'm sure there were others; this is just what I heard of, from a bunch of stuff I never read or played.
They're certainly in 5e. There are firearm rules in the DMG. Artificers have proficiency if they're in use. The aforementioned Giff are back.
As I said, firearms have been a part of the game since at least AD&D 2nd edition. That began in 1989, so your frame of reference may be outdated.
Specifically, the arquebus is on page 94 of my Player's Handbook from 1995. Happy New Year.
Hi apparently you jumped in the conversation and probably didn't see that I was referring to modules, not Homebrew.
I'm not sure what you mean. I mentioned as being part of a module adventure. But it's fine. Happy New Year to you too.
You attempted to steer the discussion specifically towards modules predating an already established boundary, presumably to disingenuously reframe the argument in your favor. And then you have the audacity to only address homebrew while ignoring both setting-specific material (Spelljammer) and the gosh darn Player's Handbook.
I can see what you're doing, and so can everyone else.