Been reading up on firearms lately and I couldn't help but notice how much more expensive ammunition is for them compared to everything else:
Bullet (sling) = 0.2 cp
Needle = 2 cp
Arrow = 5 cp
Bolt = 5 cp
Bullet (renaissance) = 30 cp
Six times more expensive than arrows and bolts, huh... And on top of that, the ammunition gets destroyed after being used while all the other ranged weapons let you recover half of what you spent after combat. So my question here is: do the firearms' performance justify their ammunition cost when compared to other ranged options?
By the way, does anyone know how much gunpowder is consumed by a single shot? They mention that being a thing, but never actually go into detail.
I'll ask someone else to do the maths, I'm not clever enough to work out the equation for damage-to-cost for weapons and ammunition types, nor do I have enough experience with magical items to say how that could differ. However, I will say that in my experience I'm paying for the novelty of using a firearm in settings where they're a new and experimental technology. Slings, blowguns, bows and crossbows work. Firearms are noisy, high-maintenance, and expensive.
Regarding gunpowder cost, as far as I know there's no official rules on it. My answer is quite simply 'ask your DM' if they want to micromanage to that level, which I like, but appreciate is a headache keeping track of. As one commentor on this Reddit thread says, "consider the price of the ammunition to include the gunpowder."
Sorry I couldn't be of much help, I hope someone can provide more detailed answers!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
The thing about ammunition is that you don't actually pay that cost very often. Whereas the cost to train an archer - vs the cost of training a musketman - is something you always pay. And you can upgrade a lot of arrows to musketballs for the price of training an archer.
Mind: I don't know anything. I'm just a salesguy. But this is how people who do know, explained the logic to me =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Well, a pistol does 1d10 damage and a musket is 1d12.
Bullets cost 3gp for 10, so 30cp each.
Arrows do 1d6 with a hand crossbow and 1d8 damage (with a longbow).
Arrows cost 1gp for 20, 5cp each.
The advantage of firearms is that a pistol does the same damage as a longbow but is one handed. You could, say, have it drawn with a shield, shoot someone, then have it swapped out for a sword in the next round. You can't do that with a bow. It also does on average 2 more damage than a hand crossbow (anyone know the tooltip for that? I tried it but it didn't recognise it) which could be used similarly. A musket works similarly to a longbow, but does on average also extra damage per attack. On the other hand, range is a possibly concern, firearms have substantially shorter range.
So, on average, firearms do +2 damage, which is around 50% (give or take) more damage than their more traditional counterparts.
I think that 6x the cost, especially since you're unlikely to scavenge ammo for your firearm, is eyewateringly high. Later levels and it doesn't matter much at all, but early on...that's a steep price to pay. Level 1 quests would probably end up having a significant chunk of your rewards being spent on replenishing ammo.
I'd definitely include gunpowder for the price. D&D tends to group costs together - the price is per shot rather than just for the bullet. Even if that weren't the case, at 6x the cost, I'd rule that it did anyway. They'd bankrupt you otherwise, at least in early levels.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Linklite has most of this down. And I'm with them that powder cost is included with the ammunition. Revolver bullets work the same way. Just streamline the whole system. Heck, once upon a time before Pressure Caps they had paper cartridges which had ball, powder, and all!
Firearms deal more damage (I disgree with them dealing extra damage instead of adding an additional instance of your proficiency bonus, but that's how I run my table) than anything else. The Pistol is the only one that deals 1dX. All the others deal 2dX. You're paying partly for damage, but mostly for novelty.
I slightly misspoke before. As for the value you get...
Longbow deals 1d8.
Heavy Crossbow and Pistol deals 1d10.
Musket deals 1d12.
The game is balanced so that you hit about 60% of the time, so we can multiply all of our average damage by 0.6.
Arrows and Bolts come in bundles of 20... which returns half at 10. Which returns half at 5. Which returns half, rounded down to 2. Which returns half at 1. So that's 20+10+5+2+1 (38)... or if you're willing to pull out a second weapon ever, you can alter your firing to round up at 20+10+5+3+2+1, (41).
Longbow average damage is 4.5×38=171 × 0.6 = 102.6 damage for 20cp.
Heavy Crossbow average damage is 5.5×38=209 × 0.6 = 125.4
Pistol average damage is 5.5×20=110 × 0.6 = 66
Musket average damage is 6.5×20=130 × 0.6 = 78
So, the amount of damage per bundle of arrows / bolts is nearly double that of bullets, at ⅔ the price. Firearms aren't worth it in coin, but time... and only if your DM counts ammo.
Pure numbers-wise? D&D firearms don't do anything bows can't except be expensive.
I rather like the idea that firearms have power over nightmare to a degree, however. There's a few games/systems out there where gunfire can pierce the protections some monsters have against more ordinary weapons; their defensive wards and eldritch nature doesn't work on guns. If you like the idea of your witch hunters wielding esoteric weapons in furtherance of their hunts, consider having firearms ignore resistance to piercing damage, including resistance to nonmagical piercing damage. Whether it's strange alchemy performed on the powder or simply an artefact of attacking a creature of Nightmare with a weapon forged in science, guns being able to defeat resistances can make them an interesting choice. Especially in a low magic setting where their ability to pierce the resistances of their foes is nearly unique, justifying their expense to esoteric witch hunters that nevertheless must hide their strange, eerie weapons from the suspicions of the common rabble.
I tend to just go with guns dealing more damage, but having drawbacks. They're loud, so firing a gun is more likely to alert nearby enemies than a bow or crossbow is. If your powder gets wet, it has to dry off before you can fire the gun. And bullets generally being more expensive and being a bit harder to find someone who can do it, as in my settings guns are usually newer and less familiar to people.
I don't want to invalidate bows/crossbows as a weapon choice so I wouldn't give guns an inherent ability to bypass resistances. If powder can be treated with alchemy for example to make the bullets bypass resistances then so could arrows.
Guns being able to pierce resistance doesn't invalidate crossbows any more than Ferraris invalidate Ford Escorts. A gun costs several hundred gold, its ammo is drastically more expensive and very difficult to locate, and it doesn't really do enough more damage to targets than a crossbow does. In many cases using firearms against monsters that can be just as easily harmed by arrows is a drastic waste, and in a game where someone plays this up using guns against mundane targets could even be seen as sinful or a breach of the hunter's oaths. I'm more offering a cool idea for worldbuilding, since D&D math pretty much completely invalidates any sort of firearms otherwise.
Powder included: In general with older weapons you placed powder into the weapon and then the shot...then tapped it down. In general most modern weapons have the powder and shot incased in a metal cartridge, which keeps both dry (generally) and is quicker to reload. Again very basic.
There is also difference in gun powder: smokeless powder produces less to no smoke and the other type produces lot of smoke. So in the past if you fired your musket it would/might produce so much smoke you would have trouble seeing and if you were in battle your enemy would have trouble seeing you as well. Again very general description.
Loud sounds: They often scare/distract/interrupt the actions of animals and some people but I have not seen any good rules for this in any RPG I have played.
Again very general.
Cost vs Benefit: Gunpowder often was deadly to make in the early days and at times a closely held secret (depending on area of earth you pick) and just because you had gunpowder and it generated force did not mean you necessarily invented guns that were effective or accurate. So a lot of different technologies had to happen before we have the simplicity and effectiveness of the firearm of today. Also cost's can change with time due to demand, skill and time required to make item and pure hype.
Been reading up on firearms lately and I couldn't help but notice how much more expensive ammunition is for them compared to everything else:
Bullet (sling) = 0.2 cp
Needle = 2 cp
Arrow = 5 cp
Bolt = 5 cp
Bullet (renaissance) = 30 cp
Six times more expensive than arrows and bolts, huh... And on top of that, the ammunition gets destroyed after being used while all the other ranged weapons let you recover half of what you spent after combat. So my question here is: do the firearms' performance justify their ammunition cost when compared to other ranged options?
By the way, does anyone know how much gunpowder is consumed by a single shot? They mention that being a thing, but never actually go into detail.
For Adventure League Smokepowder is 50 GP for 5 shots or 10GP per shot.
Regardless of price I don’t see firearms as unique enough option nor do they feel special. At least In older versions they justified the cost by hitting touch AC where as they now do a +2 to damage isn’t worth the cost just for flavor of rp. This gripe isn’t from wanting to be a “min max power gamer” (they don’t last long at my table as I don’t entertain math battles; I want Role players) I just want firearms to feel special, maybe even scary when a group of say time displaced soldiers appear with firearms but with rules as written they might as well be bandits with loud crossbows
maybe I’m reading the official rules wrong but they come off as an expensive meh option.
Honestly, they are. I believe most people prefer the Critical Role firearms as more practical player options. Granted, for your basic infantry type NPC, they’re definitely an upgrade at typical ranges of engagement. Part of the issue is just the nature of combat in D&D doesn’t allow players to benefit from either of the primary irl paradigm shifts firearms created. Weapon users have already achieved proficiency with their implements, and the strength of early firearms was in massed fire, which is not something a typical party can accomplish.
On the other hand, in some sort of stand-off - say the PC's insulted someone important, and now they're facing a line of competent and well-equipped footmen - it just seems like 12d8 is somewhat less intimidating than 12d12. I mean the difference isn't huge, but it's there, no?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
On the other hand, in some sort of stand-off - say the PC's insulted someone important, and now they're facing a line of competent and well-equipped footmen - it just seems like 12d8 is somewhat less intimidating than 12d12. I mean the difference isn't huge, but it's there, no?
Well, that depends on how tightly they're clustered together and how many spell slots of level 3 or higher the party wizard has remaining.
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.
Yeah. If you can work in a proper firing line, then muskets are definitely more potent than crossbows or longbows and turn up the heat a bit. But that's not something PC's can typically take advantage of on the player-facing end, and even with the NPC firing line there's a couple points that a DM would need to finesse or that could make it less workable in D&D (like every Fireball user seeing a very juicy clump of targets). There is a difference, but PC's really don't benefit from firearms until the technology is up into the Wild West stage (lever-action rifles and revolvers), and implementing a traditional firing line of NPCs would be clunky and time-consuming.
On the other hand, in some sort of stand-off - say the PC's insulted someone important, and now they're facing a line of competent and well-equipped footmen - it just seems like 12d8 is somewhat less intimidating than 12d12. I mean the difference isn't huge, but it's there, no?
Well, that depends on how tightly they're clustered together and how many spell slots of level 3 or higher the party wizard has remaining.
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero," to quote a great elven Wizard.
Yeah. If you can work in a proper firing line, then muskets are definitely more potent than crossbows or longbows and turn up the heat a bit. But that's not something PC's can typically take advantage of on the player-facing end, and even with the NPC firing line there's a couple points that a DM would need to finesse or that could make it less workable in D&D (like every Fireball user seeing a very juicy clump of targets). There is a difference, but PC's really don't benefit from firearms until the technology is up into the Wild West stage (lever-action rifles and revolvers), and implementing a traditional firing line of NPCs would be clunky and time-consuming.
No, agreed. I'm not saying muskets are very interesting weapons for PC, but I do think they could spice up some NPC's. Also, I dunno - I'd approach using large scale fire magics against a line of flintlocks. Gunpowder should be just about the most ignitable thing in there, meaning that as you cast, you also trigger every weapon. Not by RAW, but by common sense, I'd say =)
I'd have an excellent chuckle at that, as the GM: Oh, but have you considered what happens to that little pinch of powder on the flash pan of each weapon - when you cast fireball?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
A bullet cost the same as 3 cows. Also, from Renaissance to modern the damage jumps a bit, I would say the damage between the two would be more similar but the range on the modern would be better
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Been reading up on firearms lately and I couldn't help but notice how much more expensive ammunition is for them compared to everything else:
Six times more expensive than arrows and bolts, huh... And on top of that, the ammunition gets destroyed after being used while all the other ranged weapons let you recover half of what you spent after combat. So my question here is: do the firearms' performance justify their ammunition cost when compared to other ranged options?
By the way, does anyone know how much gunpowder is consumed by a single shot? They mention that being a thing, but never actually go into detail.
I'll ask someone else to do the maths, I'm not clever enough to work out the equation for damage-to-cost for weapons and ammunition types, nor do I have enough experience with magical items to say how that could differ. However, I will say that in my experience I'm paying for the novelty of using a firearm in settings where they're a new and experimental technology. Slings, blowguns, bows and crossbows work. Firearms are noisy, high-maintenance, and expensive.
Regarding gunpowder cost, as far as I know there's no official rules on it. My answer is quite simply 'ask your DM' if they want to micromanage to that level, which I like, but appreciate is a headache keeping track of. As one commentor on this Reddit thread says, "consider the price of the ammunition to include the gunpowder."
Sorry I couldn't be of much help, I hope someone can provide more detailed answers!
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
The thing about ammunition is that you don't actually pay that cost very often. Whereas the cost to train an archer - vs the cost of training a musketman - is something you always pay. And you can upgrade a lot of arrows to musketballs for the price of training an archer.
Mind: I don't know anything. I'm just a salesguy. But this is how people who do know, explained the logic to me =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Well, a pistol does 1d10 damage and a musket is 1d12.
Bullets cost 3gp for 10, so 30cp each.
Arrows do 1d6 with a hand crossbow and 1d8 damage (with a longbow).
Arrows cost 1gp for 20, 5cp each.
The advantage of firearms is that a pistol does the same damage as a longbow but is one handed. You could, say, have it drawn with a shield, shoot someone, then have it swapped out for a sword in the next round. You can't do that with a bow. It also does on average 2 more damage than a hand crossbow (anyone know the tooltip for that? I tried it but it didn't recognise it) which could be used similarly. A musket works similarly to a longbow, but does on average also extra damage per attack. On the other hand, range is a possibly concern, firearms have substantially shorter range.
So, on average, firearms do +2 damage, which is around 50% (give or take) more damage than their more traditional counterparts.
I think that 6x the cost, especially since you're unlikely to scavenge ammo for your firearm, is eyewateringly high. Later levels and it doesn't matter much at all, but early on...that's a steep price to pay. Level 1 quests would probably end up having a significant chunk of your rewards being spent on replenishing ammo.
I'd definitely include gunpowder for the price. D&D tends to group costs together - the price is per shot rather than just for the bullet. Even if that weren't the case, at 6x the cost, I'd rule that it did anyway. They'd bankrupt you otherwise, at least in early levels.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Linklite has most of this down. And I'm with them that powder cost is included with the ammunition. Revolver bullets work the same way. Just streamline the whole system. Heck, once upon a time before Pressure Caps they had paper cartridges which had ball, powder, and all!
Firearms deal more damage (I disgree with them dealing extra damage instead of adding an additional instance of your proficiency bonus, but that's how I run my table) than anything else. The Pistol is the only one that deals 1dX. All the others deal 2dX. You're paying partly for damage, but mostly for novelty.
I slightly misspoke before. As for the value you get...
Longbow deals 1d8.
Heavy Crossbow and Pistol deals 1d10.
Musket deals 1d12.
The game is balanced so that you hit about 60% of the time, so we can multiply all of our average damage by 0.6.
Arrows and Bolts come in bundles of 20... which returns half at 10. Which returns half at 5. Which returns half, rounded down to 2. Which returns half at 1. So that's 20+10+5+2+1 (38)... or if you're willing to pull out a second weapon ever, you can alter your firing to round up at 20+10+5+3+2+1, (41).
Longbow average damage is 4.5×38=171 × 0.6 = 102.6 damage for 20cp.
Heavy Crossbow average damage is 5.5×38=209 × 0.6 = 125.4
Pistol average damage is 5.5×20=110 × 0.6 = 66
Musket average damage is 6.5×20=130 × 0.6 = 78
So, the amount of damage per bundle of arrows / bolts is nearly double that of bullets, at ⅔ the price. Firearms aren't worth it in coin, but time... and only if your DM counts ammo.
Pure numbers-wise? D&D firearms don't do anything bows can't except be expensive.
I rather like the idea that firearms have power over nightmare to a degree, however. There's a few games/systems out there where gunfire can pierce the protections some monsters have against more ordinary weapons; their defensive wards and eldritch nature doesn't work on guns. If you like the idea of your witch hunters wielding esoteric weapons in furtherance of their hunts, consider having firearms ignore resistance to piercing damage, including resistance to nonmagical piercing damage. Whether it's strange alchemy performed on the powder or simply an artefact of attacking a creature of Nightmare with a weapon forged in science, guns being able to defeat resistances can make them an interesting choice. Especially in a low magic setting where their ability to pierce the resistances of their foes is nearly unique, justifying their expense to esoteric witch hunters that nevertheless must hide their strange, eerie weapons from the suspicions of the common rabble.
Please do not contact or message me.
I tend to just go with guns dealing more damage, but having drawbacks. They're loud, so firing a gun is more likely to alert nearby enemies than a bow or crossbow is. If your powder gets wet, it has to dry off before you can fire the gun. And bullets generally being more expensive and being a bit harder to find someone who can do it, as in my settings guns are usually newer and less familiar to people.
I don't want to invalidate bows/crossbows as a weapon choice so I wouldn't give guns an inherent ability to bypass resistances. If powder can be treated with alchemy for example to make the bullets bypass resistances then so could arrows.
Guns being able to pierce resistance doesn't invalidate crossbows any more than Ferraris invalidate Ford Escorts. A gun costs several hundred gold, its ammo is drastically more expensive and very difficult to locate, and it doesn't really do enough more damage to targets than a crossbow does. In many cases using firearms against monsters that can be just as easily harmed by arrows is a drastic waste, and in a game where someone plays this up using guns against mundane targets could even be seen as sinful or a breach of the hunter's oaths. I'm more offering a cool idea for worldbuilding, since D&D math pretty much completely invalidates any sort of firearms otherwise.
Please do not contact or message me.
Powder included: In general with older weapons you placed powder into the weapon and then the shot...then tapped it down. In general most modern weapons have the powder and shot incased in a metal cartridge, which keeps both dry (generally) and is quicker to reload. Again very basic.
There is also difference in gun powder: smokeless powder produces less to no smoke and the other type produces lot of smoke. So in the past if you fired your musket it would/might produce so much smoke you would have trouble seeing and if you were in battle your enemy would have trouble seeing you as well. Again very general description.
Loud sounds: They often scare/distract/interrupt the actions of animals and some people but I have not seen any good rules for this in any RPG I have played.
Again very general.
Cost vs Benefit: Gunpowder often was deadly to make in the early days and at times a closely held secret (depending on area of earth you pick) and just because you had gunpowder and it generated force did not mean you necessarily invented guns that were effective or accurate. So a lot of different technologies had to happen before we have the simplicity and effectiveness of the firearm of today. Also cost's can change with time due to demand, skill and time required to make item and pure hype.
Again in general.
For Adventure League Smokepowder is 50 GP for 5 shots or 10GP per shot.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Smokepowder isn't the same thing as gunpowder. It's explicitly and deliberately less efficient than gunpowder.
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.
Regardless of price I don’t see firearms as unique enough option nor do they feel special. At least In older versions they justified the cost by hitting touch AC where as they now do a +2 to damage isn’t worth the cost just for flavor of rp. This gripe isn’t from wanting to be a “min max power gamer” (they don’t last long at my table as I don’t entertain math battles; I want Role players) I just want firearms to feel special, maybe even scary when a group of say time displaced soldiers appear with firearms but with rules as written they might as well be bandits with loud crossbows
maybe I’m reading the official rules wrong but they come off as an expensive meh option.
Honestly, they are. I believe most people prefer the Critical Role firearms as more practical player options. Granted, for your basic infantry type NPC, they’re definitely an upgrade at typical ranges of engagement. Part of the issue is just the nature of combat in D&D doesn’t allow players to benefit from either of the primary irl paradigm shifts firearms created. Weapon users have already achieved proficiency with their implements, and the strength of early firearms was in massed fire, which is not something a typical party can accomplish.
On the other hand, in some sort of stand-off - say the PC's insulted someone important, and now they're facing a line of competent and well-equipped footmen - it just seems like 12d8 is somewhat less intimidating than 12d12. I mean the difference isn't huge, but it's there, no?
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Well, that depends on how tightly they're clustered together and how many spell slots of level 3 or higher the party wizard has remaining.
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.
Yeah. If you can work in a proper firing line, then muskets are definitely more potent than crossbows or longbows and turn up the heat a bit. But that's not something PC's can typically take advantage of on the player-facing end, and even with the NPC firing line there's a couple points that a DM would need to finesse or that could make it less workable in D&D (like every Fireball user seeing a very juicy clump of targets). There is a difference, but PC's really don't benefit from firearms until the technology is up into the Wild West stage (lever-action rifles and revolvers), and implementing a traditional firing line of NPCs would be clunky and time-consuming.
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero," to quote a great elven Wizard.
No, agreed. I'm not saying muskets are very interesting weapons for PC, but I do think they could spice up some NPC's. Also, I dunno - I'd approach using large scale fire magics against a line of flintlocks. Gunpowder should be just about the most ignitable thing in there, meaning that as you cast, you also trigger every weapon. Not by RAW, but by common sense, I'd say =)
I'd have an excellent chuckle at that, as the GM: Oh, but have you considered what happens to that little pinch of powder on the flash pan of each weapon - when you cast fireball?
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
A bullet cost the same as 3 cows. Also, from Renaissance to modern the damage jumps a bit, I would say the damage between the two would be more similar but the range on the modern would be better