Im a little tired of players wanting semiautomatic pistols in a sword and sorcery game.
I blame percy from vox machina for this.
A level 20 fighter with 2 light pistols can do 4 attacks as their action and 1 bonus action attack for being light.
Im waiting for someone to suggest that if they mount a bayonet/dagger to their pistols, they qualify for "nick" weapon mastery and get 6 attacks per turn.
One shot per second.
Black powder weapons used by anyone weilding a sword were single shot muzzle loading wespons. 3 to 4 shots a minute, not 60.
It's also not remotely realistic that someone with a maul could strike 40-50 blows in a minute (the latter being potentially possible with Great Weapon Mastery), either, yet somehow no one ever complains about that. If you don't like firearms in your game, you're free to ban them.
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.
It's also not remotely realistic that someone with a maul could strike 40-50 blows in a minute (the latter being potentially possible with Great Weapon Mastery), either, yet somehow no one ever complains about that. If you don't like firearms in your game, you're free to ban them.
Maybe. But firearms shooting 60 rounds a second historically changed warfare. Once you have high rates of bullets going down field, worn armor is meaningless and you end up with trench warfare.
60 blows a minute with a maul might be unrealistic in a John Henry kind of way, but it doesnt really change the means of warfare. You still wear plate armor. You still ride horses. Archers still make sense. Castles still make sense.
Historicslly speaking, high rate of fire firearms changed the direction of war on a fundamental level.
Use a light crossbow and at least it doesnt render everything obsolete.
I'm with 6thLyranGuard on this. The issue you are having is with the core system, not firearms. Firearms are just expensive, heavier crossbows with different masteries, an effective +1 damage.
How are your players getting around the Loading property of firearms to attack more than once per Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction? Do they have the Gunner feat? They should not be able to reach more than 2 attacks per turn without it. Would banning the Gunner feat solve your problem? Or changing that bonus from ignoring loading to ignoring something else, like Bypass Cover (overlaps with Sharpshooter) or increased range (doesn't overlap with Sharpshooter)?
Swap out firearms and Gunner with Crossbows and Crossbow Expert, is your game really any different other than the players have more money? D&D firearms aren't rendering anything obsolete. For the price of a Musket Dealing 1D12 damage, you could get a Heavy Crossbow that deals 1D10 damage and a silvered magic weapon that deals extra damage versus shape-shifted targets. Only the DMG Firearms are bonkers. The PHB ones are mediocre reskins of crossbows.
If it's your table, everything is as optional as you want it to be. I think you can find a middle ground where you and your players can be happy though.
It's also not remotely realistic that someone with a maul could strike 40-50 blows in a minute (the latter being potentially possible with Great Weapon Mastery), either, yet somehow no one ever complains about that. If you don't like firearms in your game, you're free to ban them.
Maybe. But firearms shooting 60 rounds a second historically changed warfare. Once you have high rates of bullets going down field, worn armor is meaningless and you end up with trench warfare.
60 blows a minute with a maul might be unrealistic in a John Henry kind of way, but it doesnt really change the means of warfare. You still wear plate armor. You still ride horses. Archers still make sense. Castles still make sense.
Historicslly speaking, high rate of fire firearms changed the direction of war on a fundamental level.
Use a light crossbow and at least it doesnt render everything obsolete.
Firearms changed warfare centuries before 60 rounds/minute was possible (which didn't happen until the Gatling Gun was invented in 1961). When firearms became powerful enough that there was no amount of armor that a human could reasonably wear that was able to stop a bullet from penetrating was when things shifted. But that's in a world without magic. In a D&D setting, wizards crafting wands of fireball is a much bigger game changer on a battlefield than firearms. And a 10th level fighter is superhuman in terms of capabilities: armies do not have hundreds or thousands of 20th level characters in them, at most they'd have one, most of the time they wouldn't have many above 5th level.
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.
Adding onto that, the reason for firearms gaining popularity wasn’t because it could kill anything (a large enough crossbow could do that). It was because although expensive, it was extremely easy to train people with it compared to a bow, which allowed kingdoms with strong economies to take advantage of having way more units capable of taking down a person in armour than their rivals.
It's also not remotely realistic that someone with a maul could strike 40-50 blows in a minute (the latter being potentially possible with Great Weapon Mastery), either, yet somehow no one ever complains about that. If you don't like firearms in your game, you're free to ban them.
Maybe. But firearms shooting 60 rounds a second historically changed warfare. Once you have high rates of bullets going down field, worn armor is meaningless and you end up with trench warfare.
60 blows a minute with a maul might be unrealistic in a John Henry kind of way, but it doesnt really change the means of warfare. You still wear plate armor. You still ride horses. Archers still make sense. Castles still make sense.
Historicslly speaking, high rate of fire firearms changed the direction of war on a fundamental level.
Use a light crossbow and at least it doesnt render everything obsolete.
Firearms changed warfare centuries before 60 rounds/minute was possible (which didn't happen until the Gatling Gun was invented in 1961). When firearms became powerful enough that there was no amount of armor that a human could reasonably wear that was able to stop a bullet from penetrating was when things shifted. But that's in a world without magic. In a D&D setting, wizards crafting wands of fireball is a much bigger game changer on a battlefield than firearms. And a 10th level fighter is superhuman in terms of capabilities: armies do not have hundreds or thousands of 20th level characters in them, at most they'd have one, most of the time they wouldn't have many above 5th level.
Interestingly this is the canon reason Eberron never really invented guns, they're pointless when you've got wizards so instead the setting invested heavily in building longer range wands.
I also agree with your above point about crossbows. In the real world they could fire maybe two shots a minute but in D&D you're firing off a bolt every 6 seconds. Considering that firearms have the same load property restrictions and almost the same damage with usually a lower range I'm not seeing why one is a problem and not the other besides aesthetic reasons
If guns were optional, that would not solve the problem. If you are the DM, ban them. If you are a player, either leave the game or just live with it.
How does a maul get 8-10 attacks in a round?
Guns changed the fundamental rules and tactics of warfare when they were slow firing. High rates of fire did not make any fundamental changes, just tactical and defensive changes.
WWI did not invent trench warfare, it was just the epitome of trench warfare. 130 years earlier, the American Revolution had trench warfare in some battles.
I personally am acting like guns don’t exist in my forgotten realms setting because I feel like it ruins the feel of the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out! Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'"
Remember that the rules are abstractions, there isn't really "hit points" or "attack rolls" and characters might not actually be attacking that many times per round.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
I think you might just not fully understand the rules regarding firearms, OP. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that none of the firearms - in 2014 or 2024 - have the Light property, and all of the "non-optional" ones have the Loading property. Only the optional firearms found in the DMG that have Reload instead of Loading can possibly be fired more than once per action, and those are - as you ask for in your post's title - totally optional. Otherwise, it is not possible to make more than one attack per action with firearms due to the Loading property, and since none of them are Light you can't attack with one as an action and another as a Bonus Action. The Gunslinger feat from Tasha's can allow you to ignore the Loading property, but that's a non-core book even for 2014, let alone 2024.
I think you might just not fully understand the rules regarding firearms, OP. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that none of the firearms - in 2014 or 2024 - have the Light property, and all of the "non-optional" ones have the Loading property. Only the optional firearms found in the DMG that have Reload instead of Loading can possibly be fired more than once per action, and those are - as you ask for in your post's title - totally optional. Otherwise, it is not possible to make more than one attack per action with firearms due to the Loading property, and since none of them are Light you can't attack with one as an action and another as a Bonus Action. The Gunslinger feat from Tasha's can allow you to ignore the Loading property, but that's a non-core book even for 2014, let alone 2024.
You are correct, there is no Light Pistol. You can make multiple attacks per attack action by using multiple pistols, using the Gunner feat (allows you to ignore the Loading property), or being a Thri-kreen with multiple pistols. There is debate as to whether Dual Wielder can allow you to unequip one weapon and equip another weapon before or after the same attack. Some rule that it only allows you to do one or the other but with two weapons. If OP allows the characters to unequip a discharged pistol and equip a new one before a follow up attack, that is a contributing factor.
Sure, and a DM can allow that if they are so inclined, but that is very much spitting in the face of what the intention of the Loading property is. The intent of the property is to prevent more than one attack with a type of weapon per action. If a DM wants to allow a character to juggle multiple of the same type of weapon in order to abuse/get around the property, they can, but that is silly.
Sure, and a DM can allow that if they are so inclined, but that is very much spitting in the face of what the intention of the Loading property is. The intent of the property is to prevent more than one attack with a type of weapon per action. If a DM wants to allow a character to juggle multiple of the same type of weapon in order to abuse/get around the property, they can, but that is silly.
It's how pistols were used in the early days. That highwayman robbing your coach would have a bunch of already-loaded pistols, and if you can get around the ammunition property's requirements, you can do it in 5e.
IDK if its in a book I allow it - if a player gets annoying - either hard counter for a few sessions or keep him unconcious for a while they will get the message. All in all i dont see how pistols are any more obnoxious than a bard with illusionists bracers casting 8 eldritch blasts +5 then casting meteor swarm next round or idk invunerability or whatever.
Sure, and a DM can allow that if they are so inclined, but that is very much spitting in the face of what the intention of the Loading property is. The intent of the property is to prevent more than one attack with a type of weapon per action. If a DM wants to allow a character to juggle multiple of the same type of weapon in order to abuse/get around the property, they can, but that is silly.
It's how pistols were used in the early days. That highwayman robbing your coach would have a bunch of already-loaded pistols, and if you can get around the ammunition property's requirements, you can do it in 5e.
Having a few flintlock pistols that are then useless for several minutes after being fired is not the same as juggling pistols in D&D 5e. If a DM allows juggling like that, then the character CAN make multiple attacks every single turn, as they can reload each pistol on their next turn when firing them again, which would not be possible in real life.
Rules in D&D are designed with the intent of creating functional gameplay, not creating a realistic simulation. And in this case, even if they were, it would work very differently. The Loading property exists for a reason, and abusing it with loopholes is antithetical to the point of the game.
Sure, and a DM can allow that if they are so inclined, but that is very much spitting in the face of what the intention of the Loading property is. The intent of the property is to prevent more than one attack with a type of weapon per action. If a DM wants to allow a character to juggle multiple of the same type of weapon in order to abuse/get around the property, they can, but that is silly.
It's how pistols were used in the early days. That highwayman robbing your coach would have a bunch of already-loaded pistols, and if you can get around the ammunition property's requirements, you can do it in 5e.
Having a few flintlock pistols that are then useless for several minutes after being fired is not the same as juggling pistols in D&D 5e. If a DM allows juggling like that, then the character CAN make multiple attacks every single turn, as they can reload each pistol on their next turn when firing them again, which would not be possible in real life.
Rules in D&D are designed with the intent of creating functional gameplay, not creating a realistic simulation. And in this case, even if they were, it would work very differently. The Loading property exists for a reason, and abusing it with loopholes is antithetical to the point of the game.
"I can only attack with this weapon once every 6 seconds so I will use 2 and fire twice as often" isn't actually a loophole. This is like carrying two melee weapons so you can attack more often. This is like using two daggers or scimitars so that you only have to use one Weapon Mastery slot while maximizing your attacks per round.
The reason that "Having a few flintlock pistols that are then useless for several minutes after being fired is not the same as juggling pistols in D&D 5e" is precisely because the rules of D&D aren't creating a simulation. This is the same as carrying multiple crossbows but worse because of the cost of firearms and because Gunner doesn't explicitly address the ammunition property like Crossbow Expert does.
You are making attacks with different weapons, so everything is fine. The only complaint is a simulationist one which isn't the point of the rules.
It is a loophole, though. It is completely bypassing the intent of the Loading property, and in a way the Ammunition property as well.
You can use two melee weapons to attack because the rules give credence to: The Light property allows you to attack with a weapon using your offhand, and the lack of the Ammunition property with such weapons means you don't need a free hand to attack with them at all. The Nick mastery in turn allows you to attack with an off-hand melee weapon as part of your Attack action without needing to use your Bonus Action to do so. This is what these weapons, properties, and masteries are designed and intended for. The Loading property, on the other hand, is designed and intended to prevent you from being able to make multiple attacks with the weapon types that have it. Allowing weapon juggling to get around it is unequivocally a loophole that - while possible - is clearly not design intent.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying it isn't possible, RAW, to do. It obviously is. I'm saying it's not the intent, the RAI. It's possible through the rules, but as a technicality. If a DM wants balanced firearms in their games, they shouldn't allow this type of weapon juggling. Indeed, this type of weapon juggling shouldn't be allowed at all, as there are also other broken combos that - while possible - are also clearly against the intent and the pursuit of functional, balanced gameplay.
I agree that guns can ruin the vibe of a fantasy game and seem unrealistic, but you are free to remove whatever you want from your games. You can simply say to your players "This world doesn't widely have the technologies to make these and therefore it isn't an option for you to have". Your game is your game, you can change whatever you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He doesn't have much besides the skin on his bones. Me: I'll take the skin on his bones, then.
"You see a gigantic, monstrous praying mantis burst from out of the ground. It sprays a stream of acid from it's mouth at one soldier, dissolving him instantly, then it turns and chomps another soldier in half with it's- "
"When are we gonna take a snack break?"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Im a little tired of players wanting semiautomatic pistols in a sword and sorcery game.
I blame percy from vox machina for this.
A level 20 fighter with 2 light pistols can do 4 attacks as their action and 1 bonus action attack for being light.
Im waiting for someone to suggest that if they mount a bayonet/dagger to their pistols, they qualify for "nick" weapon mastery and get 6 attacks per turn.
One shot per second.
Black powder weapons used by anyone weilding a sword were single shot muzzle loading wespons. 3 to 4 shots a minute, not 60.
It's also not remotely realistic that someone with a maul could strike 40-50 blows in a minute (the latter being potentially possible with Great Weapon Mastery), either, yet somehow no one ever complains about that. If you don't like firearms in your game, you're free to ban them.
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.
Maybe. But firearms shooting 60 rounds a second historically changed warfare. Once you have high rates of bullets going down field, worn armor is meaningless and you end up with trench warfare.
60 blows a minute with a maul might be unrealistic in a John Henry kind of way, but it doesnt really change the means of warfare. You still wear plate armor. You still ride horses. Archers still make sense. Castles still make sense.
Historicslly speaking, high rate of fire firearms changed the direction of war on a fundamental level.
Use a light crossbow and at least it doesnt render everything obsolete.
I'm with 6thLyranGuard on this. The issue you are having is with the core system, not firearms. Firearms are just expensive, heavier crossbows with different masteries, an effective +1 damage.
How are your players getting around the Loading property of firearms to attack more than once per Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction? Do they have the Gunner feat? They should not be able to reach more than 2 attacks per turn without it. Would banning the Gunner feat solve your problem? Or changing that bonus from ignoring loading to ignoring something else, like Bypass Cover (overlaps with Sharpshooter) or increased range (doesn't overlap with Sharpshooter)?
Swap out firearms and Gunner with Crossbows and Crossbow Expert, is your game really any different other than the players have more money? D&D firearms aren't rendering anything obsolete. For the price of a Musket Dealing 1D12 damage, you could get a Heavy Crossbow that deals 1D10 damage and a silvered magic weapon that deals extra damage versus shape-shifted targets. Only the DMG Firearms are bonkers. The PHB ones are mediocre reskins of crossbows.
If it's your table, everything is as optional as you want it to be. I think you can find a middle ground where you and your players can be happy though.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Firearms changed warfare centuries before 60 rounds/minute was possible (which didn't happen until the Gatling Gun was invented in 1961). When firearms became powerful enough that there was no amount of armor that a human could reasonably wear that was able to stop a bullet from penetrating was when things shifted. But that's in a world without magic. In a D&D setting, wizards crafting wands of fireball is a much bigger game changer on a battlefield than firearms. And a 10th level fighter is superhuman in terms of capabilities: armies do not have hundreds or thousands of 20th level characters in them, at most they'd have one, most of the time they wouldn't have many above 5th level.
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.
Adding onto that, the reason for firearms gaining popularity wasn’t because it could kill anything (a large enough crossbow could do that). It was because although expensive, it was extremely easy to train people with it compared to a bow, which allowed kingdoms with strong economies to take advantage of having way more units capable of taking down a person in armour than their rivals.
I just change crossbows to guns as there are more magic items available officially of course
Interestingly this is the canon reason Eberron never really invented guns, they're pointless when you've got wizards so instead the setting invested heavily in building longer range wands.
I also agree with your above point about crossbows. In the real world they could fire maybe two shots a minute but in D&D you're firing off a bolt every 6 seconds. Considering that firearms have the same load property restrictions and almost the same damage with usually a lower range I'm not seeing why one is a problem and not the other besides aesthetic reasons
If guns were optional, that would not solve the problem. If you are the DM, ban them. If you are a player, either leave the game or just live with it.
How does a maul get 8-10 attacks in a round?
Guns changed the fundamental rules and tactics of warfare when they were slow firing. High rates of fire did not make any fundamental changes, just tactical and defensive changes.
WWI did not invent trench warfare, it was just the epitome of trench warfare. 130 years earlier, the American Revolution had trench warfare in some battles.
I personally am acting like guns don’t exist in my forgotten realms setting because I feel like it ruins the feel of the game.
“And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out! Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.'"
Remember that the rules are abstractions, there isn't really "hit points" or "attack rolls" and characters might not actually be attacking that many times per round.
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Try your hand at the Ultimate Skill Build Challenge!
I think you might just not fully understand the rules regarding firearms, OP. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that none of the firearms - in 2014 or 2024 - have the Light property, and all of the "non-optional" ones have the Loading property. Only the optional firearms found in the DMG that have Reload instead of Loading can possibly be fired more than once per action, and those are - as you ask for in your post's title - totally optional.
Otherwise, it is not possible to make more than one attack per action with firearms due to the Loading property, and since none of them are Light you can't attack with one as an action and another as a Bonus Action. The Gunslinger feat from Tasha's can allow you to ignore the Loading property, but that's a non-core book even for 2014, let alone 2024.
You are correct, there is no Light Pistol. You can make multiple attacks per attack action by using multiple pistols, using the Gunner feat (allows you to ignore the Loading property), or being a Thri-kreen with multiple pistols. There is debate as to whether Dual Wielder can allow you to unequip one weapon and equip another weapon before or after the same attack. Some rule that it only allows you to do one or the other but with two weapons. If OP allows the characters to unequip a discharged pistol and equip a new one before a follow up attack, that is a contributing factor.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Sure, and a DM can allow that if they are so inclined, but that is very much spitting in the face of what the intention of the Loading property is. The intent of the property is to prevent more than one attack with a type of weapon per action. If a DM wants to allow a character to juggle multiple of the same type of weapon in order to abuse/get around the property, they can, but that is silly.
It's how pistols were used in the early days. That highwayman robbing your coach would have a bunch of already-loaded pistols, and if you can get around the ammunition property's requirements, you can do it in 5e.
IDK if its in a book I allow it - if a player gets annoying - either hard counter for a few sessions or keep him unconcious for a while they will get the message. All in all i dont see how pistols are any more obnoxious than a bard with illusionists bracers casting 8 eldritch blasts +5 then casting meteor swarm next round or idk invunerability or whatever.
Having a few flintlock pistols that are then useless for several minutes after being fired is not the same as juggling pistols in D&D 5e. If a DM allows juggling like that, then the character CAN make multiple attacks every single turn, as they can reload each pistol on their next turn when firing them again, which would not be possible in real life.
Rules in D&D are designed with the intent of creating functional gameplay, not creating a realistic simulation. And in this case, even if they were, it would work very differently.
The Loading property exists for a reason, and abusing it with loopholes is antithetical to the point of the game.
"I can only attack with this weapon once every 6 seconds so I will use 2 and fire twice as often" isn't actually a loophole. This is like carrying two melee weapons so you can attack more often. This is like using two daggers or scimitars so that you only have to use one Weapon Mastery slot while maximizing your attacks per round.
The reason that "Having a few flintlock pistols that are then useless for several minutes after being fired is not the same as juggling pistols in D&D 5e" is precisely because the rules of D&D aren't creating a simulation. This is the same as carrying multiple crossbows but worse because of the cost of firearms and because Gunner doesn't explicitly address the ammunition property like Crossbow Expert does.
You are making attacks with different weapons, so everything is fine. The only complaint is a simulationist one which isn't the point of the rules.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It is a loophole, though. It is completely bypassing the intent of the Loading property, and in a way the Ammunition property as well.
You can use two melee weapons to attack because the rules give credence to: The Light property allows you to attack with a weapon using your offhand, and the lack of the Ammunition property with such weapons means you don't need a free hand to attack with them at all. The Nick mastery in turn allows you to attack with an off-hand melee weapon as part of your Attack action without needing to use your Bonus Action to do so.
This is what these weapons, properties, and masteries are designed and intended for.
The Loading property, on the other hand, is designed and intended to prevent you from being able to make multiple attacks with the weapon types that have it. Allowing weapon juggling to get around it is unequivocally a loophole that - while possible - is clearly not design intent.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying it isn't possible, RAW, to do. It obviously is. I'm saying it's not the intent, the RAI. It's possible through the rules, but as a technicality. If a DM wants balanced firearms in their games, they shouldn't allow this type of weapon juggling. Indeed, this type of weapon juggling shouldn't be allowed at all, as there are also other broken combos that - while possible - are also clearly against the intent and the pursuit of functional, balanced gameplay.
I agree that guns can ruin the vibe of a fantasy game and seem unrealistic, but you are free to remove whatever you want from your games. You can simply say to your players "This world doesn't widely have the technologies to make these and therefore it isn't an option for you to have". Your game is your game, you can change whatever you want.
He doesn't have much besides the skin on his bones. Me: I'll take the skin on his bones, then.
"You see a gigantic, monstrous praying mantis burst from out of the ground. It sprays a stream of acid from it's mouth at one soldier, dissolving him instantly, then it turns and chomps another soldier in half with it's- "
"When are we gonna take a snack break?"