Heroes against gunslingers.

But Exodus TTRPG doesn't use XPs for level up but it is "milestones".

We know a 5.5 adaptation of each franchise is possible, for example Star Wars, but those players options to be totally compatible with standars 5.5 is a different thing. 

I suppose the solution to my concerns is to add a variety of monsters and enemies that are resistant or immune to ballistic damage but vulnerable to melee damage, so that players will still be interested in the crunch/players options for monks and barbarians.

Or just not use products you don't like and don't try to "fix" other peoples' games.

Quote from LuisCarlos17f >>

But Exodus TTRPG doesn't use XPs for level up but it is "milestones".

We know a 5.5 adaptation of each franchise is possible, for example Star Wars, but those players options to be totally compatible with standars 5.5 is a different thing. 

I suppose the solution to my concerns is to add a variety of monsters and enemies that are resistant or immune to ballistic damage but vulnerable to melee damage, so that players will still be interested in the crunch/players options for monks and barbarians.

 "Exodus doesn't use XP for level up, it uses milestones."

Not sure. Haven't seen or read the book because they sold out before I had a chance with it, and no I will not pay a scalper. I will say as a DM who does Planet of the week D&D, I prefer using milestones over XP. I do track the XP sometimes internally but I like the use of milestones as it allows for other options besides lets be murder hobos for XP. 

Can I just lay face down in the snow and mumble, "you choose what you play" "Expedition to Barrier peaks" and "the whole game is not subject to your personal tastes," and people get what I mean?

I have gone through this convo so many times in the past 30 years. Guns, Sci-fi, and the like have been in D&D longer than i have been alive.

Quote from GnollitAll78450 >>

Can I just lay face down in the snow and mumble, "you choose what you play" "Expedition to Barrier peaks" and "the whole game is not subject to your personal tastes," and people get what I mean?

I have gone through this convo so many times in the past 30 years. Guns, Sci-fi, and the like have been in D&D longer than i have been alive.

 Make sure you roll over at some point, frost bite of the nose can get nasty

“Effective range” is pretty different from “range you can hit a moving target at while you also are running all over the place”, especially in a skirmish context rather than a full scale military engagement. How often do your encounters happen in a context where you’ve got even a football field’s length of distance between either side at the outset?

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

It doesnt work with modern weapons or space ray guns. The ranges break the game. The damage breaks the game. Reskin crossbows, call them firearms, and call it a day. But theres always that push for a little more damage, a little more range, and a little less playability.

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks came out in 1980 (and has been remastered as recently as 2024), and is consistently rated as one of the best adventures of all time. City of the Gods came out in 1987.  Spelljammer came out in 1989 and retained a sufficient cult following it continued to poll as a desired revisit, ultimately getting a 2022 update. I am sure I could find plenty of other official sources spanning multiple editions if I was going to look it up instead of rely on memory (I know 4e had tech weapons, for example, but cannot recall which sourcebook created them).

You can pontificate all you want, but we now have 46 years of data showing that DMs are more than capable of solving all the problems you raise.  That doesn’t mean one has to allow such weapons, and there are certainly going to be some DMs whose skill level renders them incapable of solving the problems that might come up.  But it does mean it is a bit silly to sate as a truth the game “doesn’t work” with their inclusion.  It very much does, as evidenced by decades of data.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589>>

Ww1 trenches were 100 to 300 yards apart. Ww2 germany found most engagements were 200 to 300 yards. Vietnam saw most engagements happening at 25 yo 75 yards. Afghanistan 300 to 600 yards.

If every encounter is in a dungeon, or a jungle, then engagement ranges would track like vietnam and you can handwave the differences away. But get above ground, in open terrain, with clear lines of sight, and your player with the sniper rifle is going to want to use his weapon at a thousand yards, and the dm is going to have to railroad them so they can never do that. 

Don't forget in buildings in general, or in the streets, or in caves, tunnels, etc. So, we've already established that at least half and probably more of typical D&D encounters aren't impacted by the range factor. As for your "thousand yards", how often have you had encounters happen out in plains or other environments where the party could see a threat coming from that far out?

Now as far as my campaign engagements, if someone has a ranged weapon, i try to start at their non-disadvantaged range. If the enemy dashes, the player might get in a couple shots before minis go on the map and we start wargaming. 

But they get their shots. Their targets are usually just off the edge of the grid map. I can do theater of the mind for a couple turns so the player who put all their feats into long range attacks gets something out of it.

But the guy with a rifle? Thats 20 or 30 turns before the melee enemy can dash across no mans land. That changes thr entire encounter. The sniper is the only one doing anything for all that time. I need to add 50 goblins or other canon fodder for the sniper to shoot at so the main force can get in melee range and fight the rest of the party so they have something to do.

It doesnt work with modern weapons or space ray guns. The ranges break the game. The damage breaks the game. Reskin crossbows, call them firearms, and call it a day. But theres always that push for a little more damage, a little more range, and a little less playability.

Honestly, sounds like a bit of a frustrating table to play at if you're a melee character, if you're going to consistently be told you have to sit and wait your turn while the shooters get to work. If it works for your group, well and good, just seems like a good way to make a lot of builds feel marginalized.

To be clear, I'm not saying modern firearms wouldn't be a game-changer on the macro worldbuilding level, but even through a lens of realism a small group wandering through various terrains until they encounter a threat is not going to be able to reliably engage at extended ranges. It works for armies because a) IRL there's a strong reliance on "throw enough lead the enemy has to catch some of it" over everyone making targeted shots the way they do in games, b) several dozen individuals moving together are much easier to pick out at a distance than the relative handful commonly deployed in D&D to keep things moving- seriously, I'm playing in a Tyranny of Dragons campaign and the part where we went to the temple was more than a bit of a slog with how many kobolds got fielded, even with the DM keeping most of them "off stage" until prior ones had been killed- and c) as a corollary to the first two point, armies have to find relatively open spaces to move through, while again those have very much been the minority location for encounters in all of the D&D campaigns I've been in.

ah yes, lets bring real world mechanics into a setting with magic and game mechanics baked into lore. Your M1 Grand  in D&D has the following stat line: 

Rifle, Automatic

Type: Firearms Ranged Weapon Cost: -- Weight: 8 lbs
It’s up to you to decide whether a character has proficiency with a firearm. Characters in most D&D worlds wouldn’t have such proficiency. During their downtime, characters can use the training rules in the Player’s Handbook to acquire proficiency, assuming that they have enough ammunition to keep the weapons working while mastering their use.

This weapon has the following mastery property. To use this property, you must have a feature that lets you use it.

Slow. If you hit a creature with this weapon and deal damage to it, you can reduce its Speed by 10 feet until the start of your next turn. If the creature is hit more than once by weapons that have this property, the Speed reduction doesn’t exceed 10 feet.

Rifle, Automatic -- 2d8 Piercing 8 lbs Ammunition (Firearms), (Range 80/240), Reload, Two-Handed, Burst Fire, Slow

range max of 240 not 1500. Modern weapons are in D&D and have been since the 70s, and they follow D&D rules, not the real world.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

 Modern firearms are orders of magnitude more powerful than any weapon in the Players Hand Book. The only way to bring them into the game and not completely destroy balance is to nerf them until they are some version of a bow. And when the player asks for a firearm and i tell them to reskin a bow, they always ask for increased damage and range because it wouldnt be "realistic" if a firearm did the same damage as a bow.  I suppose i should simply tell them not to expect realism in a world where magic exists.

 
The extra damage is typically 1-2 per shot, an insubstantial amount. Further, both the rules and common sense tactics mitigate this minute extra damage. Weapon malfunctions (baked into multiple iterations of firearm in multiple editions of the game.  Encounters that mitigate their slightly higher range.  Ignoring the actual firearm rules because they are not “realistic” then throwing a fit because your made up imposition of realism causes problems.  Ignoring the fact firearms are very loud, and thus give you an excuse as DM to royally ruin the party’s day with reinforcements.  Actually enforcing ammunition rules, particularly if the ammo is hard to make or find.

Not wanting firearms for aesthetic reasons is a perfectly valid choice - that’s a choice I typically make in my games.  Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and if you were making that point, I think most folks would be accepting of that.  But that is not the point you are making.

Saying they are fundamentally and objectively incomparable with the game, when almost five decades shows otherwise?  Trying to shift the blame onto players by accusing them of “power gaming,” when any halfway decent DM can use the infinite tools available to them to mitigate anything players can throw?  Complaining about made up problems not actually reflected in the rules for the content you are complaining about?

It kind of seems like you’re blaming your incorrect view of the system and players for personal issue. And, so long as you are aggressively insisting on ignoring the real rules and blame shifting, I am not sure there is anything else that can really come of this dialogue.

The big game changer with firearms was armor penetration ability, not range.  And 5E rules don't incorporate that aspect in the first place.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

 

...

Modern firearms are orders of magnitude more powerful than any weapon in the Players Hand Book. ...

D&D is a game, with game mechanics not based in reality. You realize that a house cat in D&D can kill a normal person with scratch attacks fairly easy. 

Commoner AC 10 HP 4 (1d8) Club. Melee Attack Roll: +2, reach 5 ft. Hit: 2 (1d4) Bludgeoning damage.
Cat AC 12 HP 2 Scratch  Scratch. Melee Attack Roll: +4, reach 5 ft. Hit: 1 Slashing damage.

if you have 3 cats vs 1 human the cats win every time. So don't talk to me about how a real world weapon works, this is a fantasy table top game stress game. If I wanted firearms I would have stayed  in the USMC, also as someone who has shot a USMC M1 no random civilian can hit the broad side of a barn with it, without training and practice. Also make sure to wear proper shooting gear, and saftey gear because a real M1 kicks and barks with a sound that can rupture your ear drum. 

Game and reality should not be mixed. The game is inspired by popular media anyway. Guns don't kill heroes  until the end of the film, shot by a missle no problem walk away slowly with a dramatic fireball behind you. Nuclear bomb, find a fridge. 

D&D has always taken film as the inspiration for game mechanics, the Monk class is litterally built because of the popuarity of TV shows like Kung Fu with David Carradine. Guns work like they do in TV shows and Movies. Stop trying to fit reality into fiction. 

D&D in a nutshell perfectly showcased with this anime scene. 

https://youtu.be/iWR7Q5i0JpQ?si=-xI9QCSKygUqNqmp  

If we wanted things to be realistic, firearms are too noisy, and without proper maintenance, they can cause dangerous malfunctions. These malfunctions can be caused relatively easily through magic, even low-level magic.

Even if firearm technology is known, magic wands will be preferred because they are lighter and require no maintenance, in addition to being more resistant to magical sabotage by hostile spellcasters. Right now, what we need are enemies with bulletproof resistance but vulnerable to "old-school" combat, properly justified so that monks and barbarians remain useful.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

"D&D is a game, with game mechanics not based in reality."

Dnd is a game that requires balance to be playable. 

 

 

And as far as "realism" goes in discussions aboit firearms in dnd, it always goes something like this:

Dm: you can reskin any bow/xbow as a firearm.

Firearm enthusiast: but it wouldnt be realistic if firearms did same damage as a bow. An extra couple points is insubstantial.

Dm: ok, if realism is what you want, your muzzleloading firearm  fires once, and then takes 3 rounds to reload.

Firearm enthusiast: dnd is a game, you can expect realism in a game with magic.

Dm: then in a world of magic, firearms do exact same damage as a bow or xbow.

The firearm enthusiast simultaneously demands realism to justify more damage, but dismisses realism to avoid a much slower fire rate. 

Its never about more damage or power creep they say, but it always somehow results in a weapon that does more damage than anything else comparable in the phb.

 

 

 

 Sorry I’m a bit lost: you’re complaining about firearms being in the 2024 rules as standard whilst also talking like any firearms need home brewing whilst negotiating with the player v DM. So which is the problem? Because if if the complaint is they’re there at all then just tell players they aren’t allowed to use them and if the problem is the negotiation then just tell players to use the PHB versions which include things like shorter range than bows (realistic for early guns) and the reload property (also realistic for early guns) as ways to balance power against bows and crossbows 

Quote from LuisCarlos17f >>

If we wanted things to be realistic, firearms are too noisy, and without proper maintenance, they can cause dangerous malfunctions. These malfunctions can be caused relatively easily through magic, even low-level magic.

Even if firearm technology is known, magic wands will be preferred because they are lighter and require no maintenance, in addition to being more resistant to magical sabotage by hostile spellcasters. Right now, what we need are enemies with bulletproof resistance but vulnerable to "old-school" combat, properly justified so that monks and barbarians remain useful.

 
It kind of looks like you solved your own thread’s mechanical problems.  

Imposing maintenance issues on firearms to offset the slight power increase has been a time honored tradition for decades of official rules.  Critical Role’s Fighter Gunslinger has an entire misfire mechanic that could be applied to any firearms, should the DM allow it.

Your point in noise is a common DM way of mitigating the slight power boost of firearms, since they alert enemies and can make situations harder.

Your explanation about wands ensures firearms are not so prevalent you as the DM are forced to use them. This is world specific lore you as DM control - different DMs could make the exact opposite argument.  Goes to show how much control a DM has over their world and ability to shape it.

And, of course, one should be designing encounters that look at the entire party and play on their strengths and weaknesses. That’s DMing 101, and isn’t limited to firearms.  Heck, your own class examples show you do not even need to change all that much to treat firearms differently.  Monk or Barbarian enemies get deflect missiles and rage resistance to piercing - both of which mitigate firearms, ensuring both are pretty good in close quarters encounters against these types of weapons.

There still might be aesthetic reasons one says “no” to firearms - but your post shows exactly how both TSR/Wizards and DMs have been able to solve the firearm problem for decades.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from LuisCarlos17f >>

If we wanted things to be realistic, firearms are too noisy, and without proper maintenance, they can cause dangerous malfunctions. These malfunctions can be caused relatively easily through magic, even low-level magic.

Even if firearm technology is known, magic wands will be preferred because they are lighter and require no maintenance, in addition to being more resistant to magical sabotage by hostile spellcasters. Right now, what we need are enemies with bulletproof resistance but vulnerable to "old-school" combat, properly justified so that monks and barbarians remain useful.

 
Your explanation about wands ensures firearms are not so prevalent you as the DM are forced to use them. This is world specific lore you as DM control - different DMs could make the exact opposite argument.  Goes to show how much control a DM has over their world and ability to shape it

 This is actually the canon reason guns are rare in Eberron despite them being such a steampunk staple. In a world with spells like fireball why would you need them? Instead Eberron’s technological development focused on bigger and more powerful wands, right up to siege wands the size of cannons 

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

"Sorry I’m a bit lost: you’re complaining about firearms being in the 2024 rules as standard"

Because someone claimed firearms have been in the rules for "decades". They were optional for decades, and only made official in 2024 as far as i know.

Optional rules are still official.  They were published in the DMG, not Jim Bob's Big Book Of House Rules.  They were published by TSR and WotC, any claim that they were not "official" is simply incorrect.

Because someone claimed firearms have been in the rules for "decades". They were optional for decades, and only made official in 2024 as far as i know.

"Official" and "optional" aren't antonyms, something can be both.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

...They were optional for decades, and only made official in 2024 as far as i know.

...

Because official rules now embrace the power creep. 

...

Because the arguments here are the same i hear from players wanting firearms.

The argument in favor or firearms in dnd is simultaneously dismissing realism and demanding realism.

If the argument againts firearms are they are not realistic and shouldnt be allowed, then the shifting argument points at magic and says realism isnt there, so realism should be ignored to allow firearms.

If the argument against firearms is to allow them as reskinned bows, then the shifting argument says it wouldnt be realistic that firrarms do thr same damage as bows, and realism is demanded to give firearms more damage.

The gunslingers will slip back and forth between demanding realism and dismissing realism, always going with whatever argument gives them the most damage.

Its impossible to reason with that argument.  

If you want realistic firearms for the genre, you can have a muzzle loader. It does 4d6+dexmod damage, but takes 3 turns to reload. So you swash your buckle with a sword. And when you need a ranged attavk, you pull out the pistol, fire, and go back to your sword 

But magic isnt real, so you shouldnt do realistic firearms.

Ok. Reskin any bow/xbow you want. Same exact specs, but its a firearm.  

But it wouldnt be realistic if firearms did same damage as bow, and you should enforce realism.

Dismiss realism to allow firearms.

Demand realism to allow more firearm damage.

How does anyone respond to that reasonably?

 

 

Optional:

Every weapon, class, species in D&D has been an option. Firearms and Longswords are as old as D&D, they were always in the setting and allowed in the rules offically, the first fire arms also included the dreaded Deathray (the anti-matter riffle) because a UFO crashed into the GreyHawk setting.  Using firearms is the same level  of option as elves. I should point out I've played games where elves were not allowed in the setting, some tables make rules that limit core options. 

Power Creep:

Cllearly you never played 1st, 2nd, or AD&D because the power creep back in the 80s and 90s was legit. The psionic ability Disintigrate could one shot any creature or diety in D&D with a chance of self destruction. Note the spell disintigrate originally was much more powerful and only something a psion could use. Player powercreep has always been a thing in D&D and honestly that's Ok. D&D is a power fantasy game after all. 

Arguments:

No one is arguing except you, we are stating facts and you are, ... I can not say what you are doing.  Firearms have always been in the offical setting, and it's up to the DM and Group to decide in a seesion 0 what gets used or not used in the rules and settings. Some settings fit firearms better than others, if you are doing an age of mythology no tech only magic setting vs a more modern setting like Fearun. (

 )

Reskinned:

A warhammer is just a reskinned long sword, in 5e.  In fact every weapon in D&D follows a build formula which means everything is just a reskin of the most basic version of the weapon type. in D&D there is the Finesse weapon, one hand weapon, versitile weapon, two hand weapon, and ranged weapon. Then they pick a dice for the weapon usually based on the 1st edition dice for the weapon, then they pick damage type and weapon properties. This means if you want a weapon not currently in D&D you can just build it based on this system. Its intended to make DMing easier, and make for an easier balancing of the rules. 

ie meteor hammer, a weapon never included in 5e (was in a supliment for 3rd) It was an Exotic double weapon 1d6 (per) with trip and AC which is why it's not in modern D&D.  It was basically a fail double weapon that also gave a +1 to AC when used. As a DM I would allow a player to homebrew this into D&D as it is a real weapon, and was in D&D. Since every weapon is just a reskin of the most basic of it's type that has never been an issue. 

Realism: 

Should not be allowed in D&D it's a fantasy game based on popular fiction and not real world physics. A cat should not be able to kill a human yet RAW they can easily. A whip in the hands of the greatest whip expert should not be able to kill a person yet they do 1d4 damage. A single blow from any  bladed weapon should be a 50% chance of death, it is not. This is a game, you can survive being nuked in D&D since they would equal to a 9th level spell with a dex save, that did a wide area  blast with force, fire, and radiant damage. Doesn't matter how many dice or how big the area, player characters can survive the blast and save against the DOT as well. So stop thinking real and start thinking fiction, what would Indiana Jones do? What would you see in an Anime? Would Conan do that?? Fiction not real. 

Muzzle loader: 

Old D&D rules have turns to cast a spell, turns to reload all ranged weapon. They did  more damage than melee and were punished for it by having to say "I cast fireball" and then had to wait 3 turns for it to go off, and if you got hit you lost the spell and spell slot. Same for all ranged weapons, which was why the short bow existed, you could fire an arrow every turn but it did low damage. But you only could carry 10 arrows. And you had to track them. A real pain IMO. These rules are gone because they slowed the game down for everyone, they punished people for not being melee, and it was a lot for a DM to track because the DM had to also track ammo, cast times, and reload turns. No thank you I have enough with monsters, maps, and stories that chan react to players thinking outside the box. 

How does anyone respond to that reasonably?

You ask this as if you are a DM having an issue, and I'm replying as if you are genuine. Session 0, set expectations for the table. 

1.  Setting being used: Sci-Fi, Old West, Low Magic, Modern Urban, High Fantasy, Fearun, WarCraft, Deadlands, Warhammer 40,000, doesn't matter you can flavor D&D with anything really. 
2. House rules used: Homebrew, 3rd party, all DnDB, WotC only? 
3. Exculed Rules: No Elves, No Firearms, No Wizards, No Warlocks... No teleports abilities or spells (back in 4th did  that) this needs to be in session 0, any basic rule can be exculed for a game based on settiing. 
4. Taboos: Players and DM need to firmly state what not to do in game, these rules must be followed, no question. Yes this means a religious person can insist on their beliefs being respected if that is not a good fit for you game they should not be there, and both parties need to under stand that is ok not every game is for everyone. My table has a strict no loss of player agency rule, this means no mind control spells, and also no NPCs who were good guys under control by the big bad, as a DM it is limiting but I'm up to that challenege. 
5. Game time and attendance rules: Actaully very important, as a DM I have 3 player minimum rule. Our game is 1pm Pacific time every sunday. I live in Scotland so late night for me, but the game time is set in stone. If we are under 3 players the game is called. We've been going strong as a group since 2021. 

So with firearms, it's simple if you allow them use the offical rules, no arguing. No need to redesign the game for someone who wants a broken character with no effort. If you want to break the game do it like the pros and min-max multiclass a crazy build... and die in the 3rd session because your character doesn't come online until level 16, because minmaxed builds are actually  fairly weak for most things. 

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

"Sorry I’m a bit lost: you’re complaining about firearms being in the 2024 rules as standard"

Because someone claimed firearms have been in the rules for "decades". They were optional for decades, and only made official in 2024 as far as i know.

"whilst also talking like any firearms need home brewing"

Because official rules now embrace the power creep. 

"whilst negotiating with the player v DM."

Because the arguments here are the same i hear from players wanting firearms.

The argument in favor or firearms in dnd is simultaneously dismissing realism and demanding realism.

If the argument againts firearms are they are not realistic and shouldnt be allowed, then the shifting argument points at magic and says realism isnt there, so realism should be ignored to allow firearms.

If the argument against firearms is to allow them as reskinned bows, then the shifting argument says it wouldnt be realistic that firrarms do thr same damage as bows, and realism is demanded to give firearms more damage.

The gunslingers will slip back and forth between demanding realism and dismissing realism, always going with whatever argument gives them the most damage.

Its impossible to reason with that argument.  

If you want realistic firearms for the genre, you can have a muzzle loader. It does 4d6+dexmod damage, but takes 3 turns to reload. So you swash your buckle with a sword. And when you need a ranged attavk, you pull out the pistol, fire, and go back to your sword 

But magic isnt real, so you shouldnt do realistic firearms.

Ok. Reskin any bow/xbow you want. Same exact specs, but its a firearm.  

But it wouldnt be realistic if firearms did same damage as bow, and you should enforce realism.

Dismiss realism to allow firearms.

Demand realism to allow more firearm damage.

How does anyone respond to that reasonably?

 

 

 You’re creating arguments seemingly for the love of having a problem. If players ask for guns the answer is a simple yes or no from the DM. If you don’t want them then just say no. If you’re ok with them then they use the versions in the PHB, same as if they wanted to use a sword or a bow. There’s no need to negotiate, no need to cater to power creep, no need to home brew things to suit their requirements. If they want guns they use the ones available with all the features, including the loading property and reduced range, that are stated in the rules. Would you home brew an axe or a sword because someone thought the basic Longsword wasn’t right? Of course not, you’d just say that’s how longswords are in D&D

Anything else is just you looking for a problem where none exists