So, in D&D, firearms are a very controversial topic. Some people think they should only exist as reskinned crossbows, others think they should ignore armor, and others ban them from their games entirely. I currently am mostly undecided on this topic, but I occasionally use Firearms in some games. What are your thoughts on firearms in D&D in general, and in 5e, and how do you think they should be executed?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't think firearms are controversial, I just don't like them since they really don't add anything and because they detract from the kind of feeling that I want to invoke by playing an epic fantasy game.
My main "problem" (I use the term lightly) is that they're often not implimented well and they often cause inconsistensies. Most often because they really don't fill any useful role compared to other available options (this becomes extra obvious when dealing with naval combat). Why have a wizard if cannon are so much better and cheaper? ANd if they're not better and cheaper, why have cannon? If firearms are better than crossbows, why doesn't everyone use them (as happened in real life) and if they're worse, why have them at all?
Another problem is that the technology levels often doesn't match. If you are going to have reliable and effective gunpowder weapons you need a certain infrastructure and level of general technology that is often missing from how the setting is described. This can be annoying since it breaks the inernal logic of the game.
That said, there are situations when firearms can be a fun part of the story if the setting is right. For simplicity's sake I just reskin the different crossbows with the added noice factor. If the players don't accept that they aren't forced to use firearms. It has worked so far. :)
I like firearms as an option. You don't need them in every game, but for worlds like Ebberon it would be nice to have a good ruleset for them. Another problem is the lack of cohesive mechanics for guns. The DMG, Critical Roll, and Runeterra guns are all different. I would more fleshed out, definitive rules for guns.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Firearms can have a use in game even if only for rounding out a character concept. If they are rare and expensive not everyone will have one, and in the case of cannon vs. spell caster the very expensive cannon still wins as the fireball throwing wizard is also rare and/or expensive. How many spell casters can an army or navy have that are capable of just casting 3rd level spells, in comparison how many cannons can that same army or navy have at its disposal both have a place in the game. All the way back at the end of 1st edition when they officially put firearms in the Forgotten Realms folks freaked out, but if you want to see the rules look at the hardcover 1st edition book (had a compatible with 2nd edition blurb on the cover) Forgotten Realms Adventures.
The greatest advantage real firearms initially had over other weapons is the amount of training required. To this end, I would stick with the stats in the DMG and either give everyone proficiency or make firearm training take 50 days or so. This would mean that PCs would probably not bother, but armies could train conscripts relatively quickly.
When I watched a few episodes of Critical Role and one guy has a couple of pistols and proceeded to call shots and shoot the elbow off the main big bad guy.
I thought thats not my D&D. Like why use a bow and arrow anymore.
Okay, to the people saying "why use a bow/crossbow/any other weapon anymore" I agree. In the DMG, they're too powerful, especially with the new feat that allows you to ignore the loading property. They take less hands and space, are easier to use, and are better. This is why we don't use any other weapon in the real world, really.
If you want to avoid this, I agree with the others. They need some restriction, like backfiring.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I see them as setting-specific content along with Eberron's dragonmarks or Theros's piety system. You can incorporate them in your own setting if you want, but people don't really expect them to be there by default.
I have not used them, but if I did I would probably homebrew things quite a bit. I agree some of the guns are too strong (at least to be used just every round like a sword), but I'm not sure they need to be on the level of bows/crossbows. With the exception of the hand crossbow in conjunction with crossbow expert, crossbows are just bad weapons in 5e. Bows aren't great either unless you're constantly leveraging their range which is not a viable tactic in a game with other players that don't have your range.
Both bow and crossbow feel very much to me like they were primarily designed as a "Plan B" for your melee characters when they need a ranged option. Guns need to have an advantage over them if they are going to be a meaningful addition to a world.
Treat the firearms like their original inception into the RL world. A few places have them and capitalize on them, but everywhere else they're a big deal and flashy and like, "I'll trade you ten slaves for that weapon and ammunition!"
I have allowed them in my D&D games for decades without issue. They are just another weapon choice like a Long Sword, Short Bow or Glaive. People get to hung up on "realism" in a fantasy game with wizards and dragons.
Okay, to the people saying "why use a bow/crossbow/any other weapon anymore" I agree. In the DMG, they're too powerful, especially with the new feat that allows you to ignore the loading property. They take less hands and space, are easier to use, and are better. This is why we don't use any other weapon in the real world, really.
If you want to avoid this, I agree with the others. They need some restriction, like backfiring.
How is a pistol that deals the same damage as a heavy crossbow with a considerably worse range too powerful?
Even though the musket does a 1d12, it is not that much better than the heavy crossbow and still has less than half the range.
Heavy crossbow even has a Feat that makes it an even better option (admittedly if the new Gunner Feat goes live that will negate this part)
Very rare to even get a hold of and it depends on the setting that you're playing in. If someone is having to get trained in using a firearm in the first place via a feat, that's like getting the exotic proficiency from 3rd edition to upgrade from a longsword to a bastard sword. Extra DPS! Sounds pretty balanced to me.
If characters START with a proficiency in firearms it means the enemy will do too. Can't be that OP if the enemy is gonna be popping right back at you with them too from three quarter cover.
Firearms can have a use in game even if only for rounding out a character concept. If they are rare and expensive not everyone will have one, and in the case of cannon vs. spell caster the very expensive cannon still wins as the fireball throwing wizard is also rare and/or expensive. How many spell casters can an army or navy have that are capable of just casting 3rd level spells, in comparison how many cannons can that same army or navy have at its disposal both have a place in the game.
That's the whole point. If cannon are cheaper than wizards, wizards are pointless. If wizards are cheaper than cannon, cannon are pointless. It's similar to why most modern armies only have one main battle tank. Sure, there are other tanks that work better is certain ways but the amount of extra costs in the forms of logistics and so on means that it's not really worth it.
Ultimately the issue comes down to how haphazardly the gunpowder weapons are designed. The issue is, inherently, the Reloading property, since most of the martial characters scale via Extra Attack, but the Reloading property pretty much says "have X feat or be an Artificer or you're gunna suck". There is a place for them in DnD, but they need refinement to fit into that place.
One big difference between archery and gunpowder weapons is volume. Gunpowder weapons are, categorically, very loud. Where as a bow is almost silent. A skilled bowman could assassinate a target quietly. While any random person could use a gun and shoot a bloke, there's no way to do it quietly, and prior to "smokeless" powder, a great big puffy cloud of white smoke would give away your position. For this reason, only a Swashbuckler Rogue, a subclass that intends to hold the spotlight, would ever have interest in a gunpowder weapon. Rangers and other types of Rogue value discretion.
Why use a gun, bow, or crossbow when you can just Eldritch blast with agonizing and spear upgrades? Because it's the flavor of character you want to play. All weapons are useless when compared to spells so why bother comparing them to closely to eachother.
I use firearms frequently in my world but it's heavy on pirate themes and it didn't feel right not to use them. I started with xbow reskins and as my players leveled up they found more advanced firearms using the actual stats.
Firearms can have a use in game even if only for rounding out a character concept. If they are rare and expensive not everyone will have one, and in the case of cannon vs. spell caster the very expensive cannon still wins as the fireball throwing wizard is also rare and/or expensive. How many spell casters can an army or navy have that are capable of just casting 3rd level spells, in comparison how many cannons can that same army or navy have at its disposal both have a place in the game.
That's the whole point. If cannon are cheaper than wizards, wizards are pointless. If wizards are cheaper than cannon, cannon are pointless. It's similar to why most modern armies only have one main battle tank. Sure, there are other tanks that work better is certain ways but the amount of extra costs in the forms of logistics and so on means that it's not really worth it.
A cannon might be cheaper for a technologically advanced kingdom, but for a less advanced one they might still use wizards as artillery. Still, wizards would have enormous versatility on the battlefield. Sure, a cannon might blast better but Fog Cloud, Suggestion, pretty any summon spell, and Meteor Swarm would all have uses on the battlefield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Firearms can have a use in game even if only for rounding out a character concept. If they are rare and expensive not everyone will have one, and in the case of cannon vs. spell caster the very expensive cannon still wins as the fireball throwing wizard is also rare and/or expensive. How many spell casters can an army or navy have that are capable of just casting 3rd level spells, in comparison how many cannons can that same army or navy have at its disposal both have a place in the game.
That's the whole point. If cannon are cheaper than wizards, wizards are pointless. If wizards are cheaper than cannon, cannon are pointless. It's similar to why most modern armies only have one main battle tank. Sure, there are other tanks that work better is certain ways but the amount of extra costs in the forms of logistics and so on means that it's not really worth it.
A cannon might be cheaper for a technologically advanced kingdom, but for a less advanced one they might still use wizards as artillery. Still, wizards would have enormous versatility on the battlefield. Sure, a cannon might blast better but Fog Cloud, Suggestion, pretty any summon spell, and Meteor Swarm would all have uses on the battlefield.
Exactly a cannon just shots a cannonball no variance there really, while a wizard has choices. Where you get real uses out of a cannon are ship battles and siege warfare, cannons beat Wizards at demolishing a castle or ship.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, in D&D, firearms are a very controversial topic. Some people think they should only exist as reskinned crossbows, others think they should ignore armor, and others ban them from their games entirely. I currently am mostly undecided on this topic, but I occasionally use Firearms in some games. What are your thoughts on firearms in D&D in general, and in 5e, and how do you think they should be executed?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think they're just another weapon and if people want to use them let them.
I don't think firearms are controversial, I just don't like them since they really don't add anything and because they detract from the kind of feeling that I want to invoke by playing an epic fantasy game.
My main "problem" (I use the term lightly) is that they're often not implimented well and they often cause inconsistensies. Most often because they really don't fill any useful role compared to other available options (this becomes extra obvious when dealing with naval combat). Why have a wizard if cannon are so much better and cheaper? ANd if they're not better and cheaper, why have cannon? If firearms are better than crossbows, why doesn't everyone use them (as happened in real life) and if they're worse, why have them at all?
Another problem is that the technology levels often doesn't match. If you are going to have reliable and effective gunpowder weapons you need a certain infrastructure and level of general technology that is often missing from how the setting is described. This can be annoying since it breaks the inernal logic of the game.
That said, there are situations when firearms can be a fun part of the story if the setting is right. For simplicity's sake I just reskin the different crossbows with the added noice factor. If the players don't accept that they aren't forced to use firearms. It has worked so far. :)
I like firearms as an option. You don't need them in every game, but for worlds like Ebberon it would be nice to have a good ruleset for them. Another problem is the lack of cohesive mechanics for guns. The DMG, Critical Roll, and Runeterra guns are all different. I would more fleshed out, definitive rules for guns.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Firearms can have a use in game even if only for rounding out a character concept. If they are rare and expensive not everyone will have one, and in the case of cannon vs. spell caster the very expensive cannon still wins as the fireball throwing wizard is also rare and/or expensive. How many spell casters can an army or navy have that are capable of just casting 3rd level spells, in comparison how many cannons can that same army or navy have at its disposal both have a place in the game. All the way back at the end of 1st edition when they officially put firearms in the Forgotten Realms folks freaked out, but if you want to see the rules look at the hardcover 1st edition book (had a compatible with 2nd edition blurb on the cover) Forgotten Realms Adventures.
The greatest advantage real firearms initially had over other weapons is the amount of training required. To this end, I would stick with the stats in the DMG and either give everyone proficiency or make firearm training take 50 days or so. This would mean that PCs would probably not bother, but armies could train conscripts relatively quickly.
When I watched a few episodes of Critical Role and one guy has a couple of pistols and proceeded to call shots and shoot the elbow off the main big bad guy.
I thought thats not my D&D. Like why use a bow and arrow anymore.
Okay, to the people saying "why use a bow/crossbow/any other weapon anymore" I agree. In the DMG, they're too powerful, especially with the new feat that allows you to ignore the loading property. They take less hands and space, are easier to use, and are better. This is why we don't use any other weapon in the real world, really.
If you want to avoid this, I agree with the others. They need some restriction, like backfiring.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I see them as setting-specific content along with Eberron's dragonmarks or Theros's piety system. You can incorporate them in your own setting if you want, but people don't really expect them to be there by default.
I have not used them, but if I did I would probably homebrew things quite a bit. I agree some of the guns are too strong (at least to be used just every round like a sword), but I'm not sure they need to be on the level of bows/crossbows. With the exception of the hand crossbow in conjunction with crossbow expert, crossbows are just bad weapons in 5e. Bows aren't great either unless you're constantly leveraging their range which is not a viable tactic in a game with other players that don't have your range.
Both bow and crossbow feel very much to me like they were primarily designed as a "Plan B" for your melee characters when they need a ranged option. Guns need to have an advantage over them if they are going to be a meaningful addition to a world.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Treat the firearms like their original inception into the RL world. A few places have them and capitalize on them, but everywhere else they're a big deal and flashy and like, "I'll trade you ten slaves for that weapon and ammunition!"
I only use them for PvP, arenas and such, if im 1v1ing gimme a greatsword and a rifle and i'll win every time.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
I have allowed them in my D&D games for decades without issue. They are just another weapon choice like a Long Sword, Short Bow or Glaive. People get to hung up on "realism" in a fantasy game with wizards and dragons.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
How is a pistol that deals the same damage as a heavy crossbow with a considerably worse range too powerful?
Even though the musket does a 1d12, it is not that much better than the heavy crossbow and still has less than half the range.
Heavy crossbow even has a Feat that makes it an even better option (admittedly if the new Gunner Feat goes live that will negate this part)
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
They are? Dakael said it best. Just a weapon. An option or "suggestion" as everything in D&D. If it fits the table, have at it. If not, don't.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Very rare to even get a hold of and it depends on the setting that you're playing in. If someone is having to get trained in using a firearm in the first place via a feat, that's like getting the exotic proficiency from 3rd edition to upgrade from a longsword to a bastard sword. Extra DPS! Sounds pretty balanced to me.
If characters START with a proficiency in firearms it means the enemy will do too. Can't be that OP if the enemy is gonna be popping right back at you with them too from three quarter cover.
That's the whole point. If cannon are cheaper than wizards, wizards are pointless. If wizards are cheaper than cannon, cannon are pointless. It's similar to why most modern armies only have one main battle tank. Sure, there are other tanks that work better is certain ways but the amount of extra costs in the forms of logistics and so on means that it's not really worth it.
Ultimately the issue comes down to how haphazardly the gunpowder weapons are designed. The issue is, inherently, the Reloading property, since most of the martial characters scale via Extra Attack, but the Reloading property pretty much says "have X feat or be an Artificer or you're gunna suck". There is a place for them in DnD, but they need refinement to fit into that place.
One big difference between archery and gunpowder weapons is volume. Gunpowder weapons are, categorically, very loud. Where as a bow is almost silent. A skilled bowman could assassinate a target quietly. While any random person could use a gun and shoot a bloke, there's no way to do it quietly, and prior to "smokeless" powder, a great big puffy cloud of white smoke would give away your position. For this reason, only a Swashbuckler Rogue, a subclass that intends to hold the spotlight, would ever have interest in a gunpowder weapon. Rangers and other types of Rogue value discretion.
Why use a gun, bow, or crossbow when you can just Eldritch blast with agonizing and spear upgrades? Because it's the flavor of character you want to play. All weapons are useless when compared to spells so why bother comparing them to closely to eachother.
I use firearms frequently in my world but it's heavy on pirate themes and it didn't feel right not to use them. I started with xbow reskins and as my players leveled up they found more advanced firearms using the actual stats.
A cannon might be cheaper for a technologically advanced kingdom, but for a less advanced one they might still use wizards as artillery. Still, wizards would have enormous versatility on the battlefield. Sure, a cannon might blast better but Fog Cloud, Suggestion, pretty any summon spell, and Meteor Swarm would all have uses on the battlefield.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Exactly a cannon just shots a cannonball no variance there really, while a wizard has choices. Where you get real uses out of a cannon are ship battles and siege warfare, cannons beat Wizards at demolishing a castle or ship.