Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
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
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.
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
"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?
"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."
So firearms are overpowered and need a way to bring them back in line. Misfire is one way to do it.
Another way is to simply reduce the rate of fire.
The power gamer is almost always going for nova damage. Because most dms these days will do 1 or 2 combats per long rest, whrn the game is designed more for a dungeon crawl of half a dozen encounters per long rest.
If you build for nova damage, and the dm only does one combat per long rest, your damage output will be leaps and bounds above the sustained damage build
Which is why powergamers love firrarms. It pushes up their damage output. A misfire rule mechanism? Meh. You are guaranteed to at least get that first shot off. And take a chance you dont misfire and keep going nova. But a slow reload means that first shot is all they get. Which is why every person who ever pushed for firearms doesnt want something realistic like 3 turns to reload.
If firearms are overpowered, just reskin a bow.
Or give them more damage, but guaranteed only one shot every 3 rounds.
https://youtu.be/zAwqOrq04Xs?si=PWic2_s0bZjPAJtm
A single shot for extra damage. Reload between encounters.
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.
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.
"Official" and "optional" aren't antonyms, something can be both.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
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. (
don't let the fashion fool you, Forgotten Realms is a modern setting and is concurant with the modern age on Earth offically in the lore.
)
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.
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.
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
"Optional: Every weapon, class, species in D&D has been an option."
in 2014 rules, firearms are never mentioned in the phb. They are only brought up in the dmg where it says : "you can introduce gunpowder weapons to your campaign that are associated with the Renaissance."
2014 firearms are off by default. Enabled only by dm permission.
2024 rules has the 2014 firearms of the dmg put right into the 2024 PHB, no longer optional. ON by default, DM has to homebrew to disable.
If you want to argue that "everything is optional" and just ignore default rule settings, then rules dont mean anything and theres no point in discussing rules with you.
"Cllearly you never played 1st, 2nd, or AD&D because the power creep back in the 80s and 90s was legit."
I was playing when second edition came out.
Also your argument boils down to "everyone is doing it, so why not firearms"
And if you have switched over to 2024 rules, a LOT of the crazy one-shot kill features on the olser editons have been written out of the rules. But power gamers will always push to put something back in.
"No one is arguing except you"
You are the very definition of arguing. But thanks.
"cat should not be able to kill a human yet RAW they can"
This is just more "everyone else is doing it" arguments that you are arguing in this argument.
"So stop thinking real and start thinking fiction,"
Sure. Pirates of caribean. You get a muzzleloading pistol. It takes 3 rounds to load. It does 4d6+dexmod damage. You buckle and swash with your sword, and the moment you need a ranged attack, use your pistol and put it away.
I dont recall any revolvers in pirates of carribean.
There is your fiction.
"what would Indiana Jones do? "
Probably shoot people with his revolver while nazis shoot at him from biplanes using belt fed machine guns, or shoot at him from a tank.
So i should have tanks in dnd?
"What would you see in an Anime? Would Conan do that?? Fiction not real."
What do i see in Lord of the Rings? The literal biggest influence in the creation and desgin of dnd? Fiction of course. Not real. I dont recall Legolas having a browning automatic rifle. The men from the South rode elyphants, not tanks.
"D&D is a power fantasy game after all. "
With 2014 default rules, no firearms, you could still slay dragons and save or destroy kingdoms, smite armies of undead. You already HAVE a power fantasy. The push for firearms is just power creep. Big difference.
If you want a power fantasy, why not let your players have 30 for all their stats? Isnt that satisfying the craving for more power? Why not allow it? Why not allow belt fed machine guns, grenade launcchers? Its a power fantasy and an m60 would be more power, wouldnt it?
If you wont allow 30's for all stats and machine guns for standard issue level 1 weapons, then we agree that power has a point where it breaks the game, we just disagree where that line is.
And if you agree there is a point where too much power breaks the game, then try and imagine where you WOULD draw the line, and then imagine a player coming to you and using the very same arguments you just argued here, but they use your arguments to push for something beyond your limĺit of what you would allow.
All of your arguments are based in what basically boils down to "Ill know it when i see it" and since you dont see it for firearms, you make the arguments you make. But if you have a line, your very same arguments could be used to argue past your line, and suddenly there is nothing in your argument that says this is ok but thay is too far.
And if you do NOT have a power limit, well, thats a whole other can of worms.
I'm not sure anyone really knows what your argument actually is, though...
Is it, "Firearms are too powerful as presented in the PHB"? They really aren't, but even if you felt they were, that's where homebrew and rules overrides come in. This isn't the Rules subforum. Stating "your setting, your rules" as a DMs way to get past any "problems" they perceive with the rules as written is perfectly valid as an argument. If you don't want firearms in your game as a DM, just say so in session 0. If a player has a problem with that, they can find another game.
Or is it, "People who want firearms seem to want something more 'realistic' and somehow have more power in their argument because firearms are in the PHB by default"? Again, they don't. If they are arguing for homebrew rules to make them "more realistic" then that is a simple "no" from the DM. Or, again, just don't allow them at all.
Just say no firearms or say yes firearms. I don’t see a real issue. If your dm wants guns and you don’t, that might be a bit of a problem, but if you can talk to your dm/switch groups, that could work out for you. There isn’t really a huge problem with the mechanics of guns? So the problem is probably with the lore, or the lore not aligning with the mechanics. I don’t see a solution except what I said earlier, switch or talk to your dm. If you’re the dm, then there is no freaking problem with guns because you have control over whether the party has guns or not.
She/her
roargh
It's kind of funny you are arguing something without reading posts, even if you copy paste text into your post.
Because if you had read my posts, even the post you copied, you will know the answer to this without asking.
I am currently the DM for a 5.5 D&D campaign set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe. The player party session before last defeated a Necron Destoryer lord, 10 Necron Warriors, 20 necron scarabs swarms. Sure they had admech help for the fight, but they litterally fought a monster NPC who counts as a Tank with a heavy gauss weapon and phase blade power weapons. The Rogue trader (playing a monk) has a powerfist which does more damage on a crit than if he had 30 strength. Think the disintiigrate spell as melee punch. This week was RP mostly, talkinng to Eldar etc, next week will be a Rathalos fight. Because as a demented DM I let the players go big, and then give them big fights. Because it's fun.
You see I once played an Epic AD&D game (ie max level 30) and I love seeing people have challenging fights against impossible odds and winning. As I design my mpas, monsters and RP I usually ask myself would this be in a good action film? Because thats how I run D&D for my players.
They might ask me, hey is this idea too much, I counter with their idea improved with more "Hockey" and Black jack. I lean into the power creep, and in the 40k setting that's the normal not the exceptional.
"I am currently the DM for a 5.5 D&D campaign set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe. The player party session before last defeated a Necron Destoryer lord, 10 Necron Warriors, 20 necron scarabs swarms. Sure they had admech help for the fight, but they litterally fought a monster NPC who counts as a Tank with a heavy gauss weapon and phase blade power weapons."
So, you're playing Calvinball. That's fine. But pretty much means, there's no point in discussing anything related to standard rules or the mechanics of game balance with you. I'm trying to work within the rules and make for balanced encounters and keep things balanced between players, and I'm looking at it, in part, from a statistical basis. You're really not. Which is fine if thats what you and your players want to play. But I'm looking at the game statistically, and I'm pretty sure you're not, because of this:
" I love seeing people have challenging fights against impossible odds and winning. "
If your players are constantly fighting "against impossible odds", then they will, statistically speaking, die a lot. That's just the way it works. If they're fighting against impossible odds, but not dying every couple sessions, then you're pulling your punches as DM or the encounter isn't as dangerous as you say.
My goal is to try to design my combat encounters with the assumption that I will run the monsters as visciously as possible AND, statistically speaking given the design of the encounter, both a party victory and party death are possible. That way, the players have most agency. I run the monsters on difficult level, and the outcome of the battle will be determined mostly by the choices players make. Dice rolls can push the outcome around. But players have the biggest influence on the outcome.
If i design the encounters so that victory is impossible odds for the party, the players wont have much agency, and that's going to get old, really fast.
last comment on this, as these guys DM the way I do.
https://youtu.be/93NlRlxDTMo?si=YlSDEBQPbqQ3XhO0
if it's a 50% chance of death you are doing it worng. It should be a 10% at most. Only way my players die is by their choice and actions. My monsters are on the extreme deadly side, and the players come close often, death saves even. But they win, mostly because good players. Not a perma death doesn't count as dead. So it's a valid victory. If you are running pure statistics, you are mathing the fun out of the game.
"if it's a 50% chance of death you are doing it worng. It should be a 10% at most."
You can run your game however you want. All im saying is "impossible odds" implies a 99% chance of failure. If youre calling it "impossible odds" but its only 10% chance of failure, youre advertising doesnt match your product.
" If you are running pure statistics, you are mathing the fun out of the game."
My players have told me many times they look forward to my games, and i am definitely having fun as well. So i think we are good. I have repeatedly said you can play however you want, but here you are telling me Im playing wrong.
What i have been trying to point out to you is you think the only way to have fun is home brew everything, throw tanks and mechs and gauss cannons at the players, throw "impossible odds" at them, and see them win.
But if its really only a 10% chance of death, then youre dm'ing like most dm's. Its not "impossible odds". Youre describing your gauss gun campaign as a power fantasy, but in the end, its the same chance of failure as my sword and board game with standard rules.
But with standard rules, one player with modern firearms or a sci fi ray gun breaks the entire game balance. The entire game would need to be realigned, or the dm will have to invoke rule of cool and fudge a lot of dice to be able to challenge the gauss gun player without massacreing the players with swords.
If you have monsters with mechs and drop ships, you have to rebalance the entire game to make it truly an encounter determined only by player choices and no dm dice fudging to keep folks alive.
The original post was asking how do they introduce modern firearms and sci fi ray guns, and my answer is "redesign the entire game". And now, you are implying that that is exactly what you did: reedesigned the entire game. Everything from ac to damage output to proficiency bonus to save dcs would have to be adjusted to bring in modern firearms and sci fi guns. Homebrew everything.
If you introduce a gauss gun to one player, and change nothing else, that player has a nearly zero chance of dying. Youve actually taken away their agency because now they can never lose unless they purposely try to die.
So the only way to keep agency with a gauss gun is redesign everything else in the game. At which point, all the other players will have to use gauss guns too. And the monsters use tanks and thermal detonators. And then everything is homebrew and nothing is really dnd anymore.
Which you confirmed is how you run your campaign.
So, finally, it seems we agree on something.
If you want modern firearms and sci fi ray guns, you have 3 choices: (a) give the modern firearm stats that accurately reflect the guns behavior and redesign the entire game to keep balance. (B) give thr modern firearm accurate stats, keep the rest of the game the same, and fudge a lot of dice rolls so it FEELS to the players like its still somehow balanced, or (c) reskin the modern firearm as a bow or xbow, keep everything elsr the same, and the game is already balanced.
I dont want to redesign the entire game, and i dont want to fudge all my rolls, so (a) and (b) dont work for me.
That leaves (c) for me. Reskin the firearm as a bow and off we go.
The fact you left out “(d) Play firearms under the rules where Wizards already did the balancing” despite many people already pointing this out to you proves beyond any shadow of a doubt you are not engaging with this thread in good faith. You are ignoring reality to set up false choices, then engaging in rambling arguments against your own fictions rather than what others are saying.
Furthermore, the rest of your post betrays an inherent lack of knowledge of game design and narrative terminology. For example, you talk about the term “power fantasy” as if it means “being overpowered.” That is wrong. In RPG design, “power fantasy” means “what set of powers do players want to live in their fantasy?” For some, that may be being overpowered… for most it is having the powerful fantasy of using limited power to overcome great threats.
“Impossible odds” in the terms of basic narrative structure does not mean 99% failure rate. In storytelling, as is the case with D&D, “impossible odds” is a shorthand for “seemingly impossible odds from the perspective of a non-omniscient entity in that situation.” A 10% chance of death can be considered “impossible odds” narratively if the fight is designed such that the party feels the odds of death are 99%, even if the actual odds are lower.
It is okay to admit you are wrong. Okay to say “huh, I guess there are official rules where balance was already factored in.” Okay to say “I guess they are not fundamentally incompatible with the game.” And okay to say “but I still don’t like the aesthetic and implications, so I’ll keep them off my table.”
What is not okay is continuing to derail this thread with “responses” to arguments no one here is making. Not okay to double down on misuse of terminology and rules when you have received corrections. Not okay to dismiss someone else’s game as “Calvinball” or similar such derisive comments.
"What is not okay is continuing to derail this thread with “responses” to arguments no one here is making."
Well, to bring it all back to the original post so as not to derail anything:
Op: "But a right power balance is not so easy if the characters are shooters with modern firearms or sci-fi guns"
I will just say this is absolutely correct.
And I will just say I disagree, given just how many conceits bypassing realism already exist within the D&D damage, AC, and HP systems. Weapon stats have very little to do with rate of attacks, penetrating capability, or how far something can effectively fly. They’re abstracts loosely tied to the weapon name balanced for the purpose of gameplay. There is no reason a laser must be an order of magnitude more powerful than a longbow aside from wanting the laser to feel more special.