Show of hands, who actually thinks the reason firearms deal more damage in 5e has anything to do with science, history, or some combination thereof?
And why is this official variant rule seemingly so much more up for debate than other ones?
Well the second part has an obvious for the same reasons as the first, at least once you realize most people declaring themselves "storytellers who hate munchkins" are the biggest munchkins and exact words lawyers at the table/internet gathering.
Official variant rules can't be brushed off as "Secondary or Third party supplement BS I don't have to think about" then flex and pose for the camera saying what a purist you are.
Of course, I am also saying this with the both extremes experience of "Has also played with a GM obsessed with guns who loves 3rd party gun supplements." He is blessed with a party who tells him our pre-spelljammer standard campaign airship does not need homebrew alchemy powered cannons too but thank you for the consideration.
And why is this official variant rule seemingly so much more up for debate than other ones?
Because it is becoming less “optional” due to things like the recent feat from Tasha’s Cauldron and the new Giff race. (Pronounced Giff. 😜)
Supposing that's the case, isn't Spelljammer, like, totally wacky? Why are we obsessing over realism in godsdamned Spelljammer?
Because D&D is a game, and when you put in game breaking items, it tends to remove challenge from the game and players quit. No one wants to play a game without a chance of death and where your decisions really doesn't matter because you have an item or a build that just can't die. Nothing is better in a game than being damn sure you are going to die, but you do one action, one feat, one roll or one spell using your brain that pulled the party out of a TPK.
For real though, I've thought for a while the game needed more variety in equipment, and while I'm glad to see firearms gain traction, I'm kinda disappointed Spelljammer didn't expand on them at least a little...
And why is this official variant rule seemingly so much more up for debate than other ones?
Because it is becoming less “optional” due to things like the recent feat from Tasha’s Cauldron and the new Giff race. (Pronounced Giff. 😜)
Supposing that's the case, isn't Spelljammer, like, totally wacky? Why are we obsessing over realism in godsdamned Spelljammer?
For the people who don’t give a fig about Spelljammer but still want to play a Giff in regular D&D. I don’t care about Spelljammer, but I’ma pro’ly buy the Thri-kreen à la carte (even though I have already homebrewed it) because they’re my favorite race. There’s gotta be some non-spacepirate hippo lovers out there.
Show of hands, who actually thinks the reason firearms deal more damage in 5e has anything to do with science, history, or some combination thereof?
And why is this official variant rule seemingly so much more up for debate than other ones?
I don't expect realism in my D&D but I do expect Short Swords to deal more damage than Daggers, Longswords to deal more damage than Short Swords, and Great Swords to deal more damage than Longswords. That is why I think that Pistols and Muskets should deal more damage than Longbows and Crossbows, it is a progression in damage just like other weapons in the game.
As far as Modern and Futuristic Fire Arms goes, I don't expect those appear in most games and if they are available, that is because the DM made it happen.
If you think guns are overpowered, use the exandria gun rules that Matt Mercer made, where you have to take a whole action to reload it, and there is a bigger chance the gun breaks the more powerful it is, whereas a crossbow reloads as a part of the attack, and doesnt explode in your hands.
If you think guns are overpowered, use the exandria gun rules that Matt Mercer made, where you have to take a whole action to reload it, and there is a bigger chance the gun breaks the more powerful it is, whereas a crossbow reloads as a part of the attack, and doesnt explode in your hands.
AKA the rules that were designed so that Gunslingers are the only characters who can actually use guns.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes. It doesnt make sense that a random person in medieval/pirate times could just find a gun and use it. The artificier and Gunslinger specifically have proficiency in firearms because it either makes sense in eberron, or is the whole point of the class respectively.
Actually, as mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the biggest early advantage of guns was that they were much easier for a random person to learn to use compared to swords or bows.
But I was talking about game mechanics: Matt Mercer's house rules nerf guns so badly that only the Gunslinger class (which gets specific abilities to negate those disadvantages) can actually use them effectively. Which is honestly silly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Show of hands, who actually thinks the reason firearms deal more damage in 5e has anything to do with science, history, or some combination thereof?
And why is this official variant rule seemingly so much more up for debate than other ones?
Well the second part has an obvious for the same reasons as the first, at least once you realize most people declaring themselves "storytellers who hate munchkins" are the biggest munchkins and exact words lawyers at the table/internet gathering.
Official variant rules can't be brushed off as "Secondary or Third party supplement BS I don't have to think about" then flex and pose for the camera saying what a purist you are.
Of course, I am also saying this with the both extremes experience of "Has also played with a GM obsessed with guns who loves 3rd party gun supplements." He is blessed with a party who tells him our pre-spelljammer standard campaign airship does not need homebrew alchemy powered cannons too but thank you for the consideration.
Because it is becoming less “optional” due to things like the recent feat from Tasha’s Cauldron and the new Giff race. (Pronounced Giff. 😜)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Supposing that's the case, isn't Spelljammer, like, totally wacky? Why are we obsessing over realism in godsdamned Spelljammer?
Because D&D is a game, and when you put in game breaking items, it tends to remove challenge from the game and players quit. No one wants to play a game without a chance of death and where your decisions really doesn't matter because you have an item or a build that just can't die. Nothing is better in a game than being damn sure you are going to die, but you do one action, one feat, one roll or one spell using your brain that pulled the party out of a TPK.
Because I want my walking, talking, gunpowder-obsessed British colonialist space hippos to be scientifically accurate, gods-DAMMIT!
For real though, I've thought for a while the game needed more variety in equipment, and while I'm glad to see firearms gain traction, I'm kinda disappointed Spelljammer didn't expand on them at least a little...
For the people who don’t give a fig about Spelljammer but still want to play a Giff in regular D&D. I don’t care about Spelljammer, but I’ma pro’ly buy the Thri-kreen à la carte (even though I have already homebrewed it) because they’re my favorite race. There’s gotta be some non-spacepirate hippo lovers out there.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't expect realism in my D&D but I do expect Short Swords to deal more damage than Daggers, Longswords to deal more damage than Short Swords, and Great Swords to deal more damage than Longswords. That is why I think that Pistols and Muskets should deal more damage than Longbows and Crossbows, it is a progression in damage just like other weapons in the game.
As far as Modern and Futuristic Fire Arms goes, I don't expect those appear in most games and if they are available, that is because the DM made it happen.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If you think guns are overpowered, use the exandria gun rules that Matt Mercer made, where you have to take a whole action to reload it, and there is a bigger chance the gun breaks the more powerful it is, whereas a crossbow reloads as a part of the attack, and doesnt explode in your hands.
AKA the rules that were designed so that Gunslingers are the only characters who can actually use guns.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes. It doesnt make sense that a random person in medieval/pirate times could just find a gun and use it. The artificier and Gunslinger specifically have proficiency in firearms because it either makes sense in eberron, or is the whole point of the class respectively.
Actually, as mentioned repeatedly in this thread, the biggest early advantage of guns was that they were much easier for a random person to learn to use compared to swords or bows.
But I was talking about game mechanics: Matt Mercer's house rules nerf guns so badly that only the Gunslinger class (which gets specific abilities to negate those disadvantages) can actually use them effectively. Which is honestly silly.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.