There are several different levels of fire arms in real life. The real problem was mostly the reload time. It was not until around 1750 or so that you could fire 1 shot in 6 seconds and that took training.. It took another hundred years to get weapons that were 'repeating' rifles. Spencer and Henry were the first two reliable ones, both came out just before the US Civil War, and by that time the Bows of all types were almost useless.
So I see 3 different kinds of games:
Pre 1750, where weapons are one shot per fight. Only worth it if you give them some large benefits like area effect or major damage.
1750-1860, where you guns are basically reskinned crossbows that require a feat or class ability to use. So give them some minor advantage - perhaps 3x dice damage on a crit?
Post Civil War, where guns should be significantly better than a crossbow. More like a long bow than anything else, but easier to use (simple weapon). Basically no one should be using any other ranged weapon, unless they got some feats/special abilities.
My opinion on guns in DnD 5e is that, apart from the futuristic guns, are pretty balanced. Pack Tactics did a video on this comparing Hand Crossbow, Musket, Hunting Rifle and Antimatter Rifle. I won’t go into details but he said it was a pretty simple go at it and going off of strongest DPR output for each category. The only thing that really went nuts was Antimatter Rifle. Musket did worse than hand crossbow by a little bit and the hunting rifle only did a little better than hand crossbow. Overall, the main reason why folks are so against guns in DnD 5e is the fact it doesn’t fit with the Tolkien style of fantasy the stereotypical game of DnD has going for it.
again, it’s more because it’s different and looks bigger, but doesn’t outpace the usual playstyles that much, aside from the futuristic guns.
Personally, I like to treat guns more like a higher level spell slot but for ranged weapons. Attack rate is primarily tied to class, not your weapon, you pick a weapon because of the need it fills, not because it’s OP. They trade range for higher damage (a good trade IMO) and still work in the usual space of combat so they can be useful.
TLDR: mechanically, guns aren’t broken (except the antimatter rifle) and the main reason folks hate on them is because they don’t fit the norm for DnD.
I dislike fire arms in D&D because of three things.
People always ignore the reloading property.just like they do for all crossbows. Bow and arrow were superior to all other ranged weapons because they fired faster, went farther and when in trained hands had far better accuracy than any fire arm until well after 1800. Rifling a musket barrel took special equipment and at least a week extra to make. Only personal weapons of the rich had rifling. Until then they tried to use longer barrels to make up for that fact but that did little because the round musket ball would spin like a baseball and actually drift in any random direction. The minie ball improved this problem but did not make a weapon as accurate as a bow yet.
I pistol would often miss a standing target 8 out of 10 times at 20 feet. This is why dueling was popular. It was a test of courage and rarely caused death. A long arm musket would have about the same chance of hitting at 100 feet. The minie ball and rifling reduced this 3 foot accuracy circle down to a small 6 inch circle or less. Finally better but not faster than a bow and arrow. The mass produced cartridge was not made until about the 1890's Bolt action rifles were made a fer years later, and a few years after that the first semi autos were produced. Though until WW2 bolt action rifles were the norm.
People who play D&D tend to make the guns they have in the game as accurate and fast reloading as modern breach loading( bolt action) rifles. They even skip the fact that you had to keep you powder dry like flour. Even a very humid day could cause it to not go off or just fizzle instead of bang.
In the 1700's Europe was even making bullet proof breastplate armor that actually worked against the lead balls of the day. Are those who let guns into their games willing to let bullet proof armor in also.
They get rid of the reloading property. They make then as accurate as modern weapons. They give them the same range or even better range than bows. They make them deadlier than arrows most of the time. They ignore any material components just like they do with spells. They do not fit in with my idea of the classic medieval adventure.
There's a really good speech from the Netflix version of Shadow and Bone that I think about all the time. Adapting out the setting-specific words it goes like this:
"When I was drafted, my sergeant schooled us about mages. He said we would win this war because one of them was worth 50 of us. Then the revolver pistol came in from the west, and I was told a mage was worth two dozen soldiers. When I lost half my company to an enemy with repeating rifles and one in ten of our casualties was a mage, they said it was an acceptable ratio. How long before they are just as useless as the rest of us?"
This is my general position on firearms in D&D: if you're not thinking about how the introduction of guns - especially accurate, mass-produced guns - changes the entire political and social landscape of a world with magic, you're doing yourself a disservice. Perhaps guns can be balanced in a typical medieval European fantasy setting, but I think that's missing the point of using them in the first place. A world which has just invented rifles is a world on the cusp of upheaval; I feel more games should lean into that and see where it takes them.
There are several different levels of fire arms in real life. The real problem was mostly the reload time. It was not until around 1750 or so that you could fire 1 shot in 6 seconds and that took training.. It took another hundred years to get weapons that were 'repeating' rifles. Spencer and Henry were the first two reliable ones, both came out just before the US Civil War, and by that time the Bows of all types were almost useless.
So I see 3 different kinds of games:
My opinion on guns in DnD 5e is that, apart from the futuristic guns, are pretty balanced. Pack Tactics did a video on this comparing Hand Crossbow, Musket, Hunting Rifle and Antimatter Rifle. I won’t go into details but he said it was a pretty simple go at it and going off of strongest DPR output for each category. The only thing that really went nuts was Antimatter Rifle. Musket did worse than hand crossbow by a little bit and the hunting rifle only did a little better than hand crossbow. Overall, the main reason why folks are so against guns in DnD 5e is the fact it doesn’t fit with the Tolkien style of fantasy the stereotypical game of DnD has going for it.
again, it’s more because it’s different and looks bigger, but doesn’t outpace the usual playstyles that much, aside from the futuristic guns.
Personally, I like to treat guns more like a higher level spell slot but for ranged weapons. Attack rate is primarily tied to class, not your weapon, you pick a weapon because of the need it fills, not because it’s OP. They trade range for higher damage (a good trade IMO) and still work in the usual space of combat so they can be useful.
TLDR: mechanically, guns aren’t broken (except the antimatter rifle) and the main reason folks hate on them is because they don’t fit the norm for DnD.
I dislike fire arms in D&D because of three things.
People always ignore the reloading property.just like they do for all crossbows. Bow and arrow were superior to all other ranged weapons because they fired faster, went farther and when in trained hands had far better accuracy than any fire arm until well after 1800. Rifling a musket barrel took special equipment and at least a week extra to make. Only personal weapons of the rich had rifling. Until then they tried to use longer barrels to make up for that fact but that did little because the round musket ball would spin like a baseball and actually drift in any random direction. The minie ball improved this problem but did not make a weapon as accurate as a bow yet.
I pistol would often miss a standing target 8 out of 10 times at 20 feet. This is why dueling was popular. It was a test of courage and rarely caused death. A long arm musket would have about the same chance of hitting at 100 feet.
The minie ball and rifling reduced this 3 foot accuracy circle down to a small 6 inch circle or less. Finally better but not faster than a bow and arrow.
The mass produced cartridge was not made until about the 1890's Bolt action rifles were made a fer years later, and a few years after that the first semi autos were produced. Though until WW2 bolt action rifles were the norm.
People who play D&D tend to make the guns they have in the game as accurate and fast reloading as modern breach loading( bolt action) rifles.
They even skip the fact that you had to keep you powder dry like flour. Even a very humid day could cause it to not go off or just fizzle instead of bang.
In the 1700's Europe was even making bullet proof breastplate armor that actually worked against the lead balls of the day.
Are those who let guns into their games willing to let bullet proof armor in also.
They get rid of the reloading property.
They make then as accurate as modern weapons.
They give them the same range or even better range than bows.
They make them deadlier than arrows most of the time.
They ignore any material components just like they do with spells.
They do not fit in with my idea of the classic medieval adventure.
There's a really good speech from the Netflix version of Shadow and Bone that I think about all the time. Adapting out the setting-specific words it goes like this:
"When I was drafted, my sergeant schooled us about mages. He said we would win this war because one of them was worth 50 of us. Then the revolver pistol came in from the west, and I was told a mage was worth two dozen soldiers. When I lost half my company to an enemy with repeating rifles and one in ten of our casualties was a mage, they said it was an acceptable ratio. How long before they are just as useless as the rest of us?"
This is my general position on firearms in D&D: if you're not thinking about how the introduction of guns - especially accurate, mass-produced guns - changes the entire political and social landscape of a world with magic, you're doing yourself a disservice. Perhaps guns can be balanced in a typical medieval European fantasy setting, but I think that's missing the point of using them in the first place. A world which has just invented rifles is a world on the cusp of upheaval; I feel more games should lean into that and see where it takes them.