Reworked to be less painful, it could still be an applicable compromise.
There are limited uses, fine. There is a chance it can blow up, better than it will. Need for spending resources to maintain and use it, could work. Possible failure with nothing but a missed action, annoying but applicable.
As long as the bow, the sword, the axe, the hammer, etc all have the same chance to fail in the same catastrophic manner... sure.
If you are arbitrarily singling out ONE PLAYER for the honor of dealing with BS nonsense mechanics because YOU don't like his character's choices... then no.
Well its not really. He gets a very cursory amount of knowledge from the Giff and with his knowledge as an alchemist, is able to create an imitation of their weapons. This isn't a perfect weapon though and he needs time to gain more knowledge and refine it.
At this point, it lasts only one or two turns because he lack the knowledge and skills to make anything better.
That seems fair to me. He shouldn't just be able to make these weapons that are going to nerf the game. I mean very few creatures are going to withstand a bullet to the head, so this is like a super weapon and as such it needs to have some serious limitations so that it becomes a weapon of last resort and not something he reaches for automatically
A basic gun does 1d8 damage. Just like a longsword/bow/crossbow does. The best (carry-able) gun in the game does 2d10. Your point is invalid.
If you are arbitrarily singling out ONE PLAYER for the honor of dealing with BS nonsense mechanics because YOU don't like his character's choices... then no.
As long as the bow, the sword, the axe, the hammer, etc all have the same chance to fail in the same catastrophic manner... sure.
You misunderstand me, I do not advocate punishing players for their choices. The following are ideas that could be implemented, not should be.
----
There are limited uses, fine. = consumables like wands
There is a chance it can blow up, better than it will. = rolling a 1 on an attack (mind you I did not include damage dealt to the player, simply the item breaking)
Need for spending resources to maintain and use it, could work. = quiver of arrows/bolts
Possible failure with nothing but a missed action, annoying but applicable. = rolling a 1 on an attack
----
There are ways to give an item something to make it challenging to use without punishing the player. Those are just a few ways to look at what my suggestions could mean, a broken gun is down for a single fight, you fix it for a cost. Ammunition is rare, you learn to craft it. A misfire due to wet black powder. As long as it's approached with fairness, you can have all sorts of fun with this...
2d10 could one shot kill something and 1d8 could could kill a smaller weaker creature with two turns. Though I suppose that is true for other weapons as well, so okay - maybe that would be picking on the player a bit but seriously, if you are making a campaign without guns and then let a player have one because he wants it, there has to be some penalty there.
The reward for good rp is the player getting the gun or the knowledge to make it but once he is back in his own world he is going to be the only one with a gun and no one else is going to be able to get one so I think its only fair for there to be a penalty to being the only one with a gun in a world without guns
The penalty for having a gun in a world without guns is the lack of external expertise to repair one, to obtain ammo, to obtain powder, or to otherwise obtain knowledge about guns and the art if gunslinging. No one can train this character into proficiency either. The character would need to make himself bullet moulds and keep taking downtime to make bullets, since bullets aren’t reusable like arrows are. Same goes for gunpowder. This all requires money and/or access to sulphur and saltpetre and time spent on a mortar and pestle. You’d be tracking ammo and powder very carefully.
I am a firm believer in KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid which is what my first DM back in 1982 always said when I wanted to create the "Unholy Macguffin of Demi-God Smiting" (just as an example). My solution to this is a matter of physics. In our world gunpowder works but (as far as I have experienced) waving your arms around like Doctor Strange just gets you a bit of a stretch and no fireballs. On the astral plane and in the environs of a ship designed to utilize these weapons gunpowder might work just fine. Not everywhere else.
"You point your blunderbus right in his face and pull the trigger. The flint sparks and the ogre-mage grins as the weapon does nothing else! Sadly, that uses your action for this turn and unlike your gun his great axe does not rely on an arcane formula beyond the strength of his arms!"
As long as the bow, the sword, the axe, the hammer, etc all have the same chance to fail in the same catastrophic manner... sure.
If you are arbitrarily singling out ONE PLAYER for the honor of dealing with BS nonsense mechanics because YOU don't like his character's choices... then no.
LET.
HIM.
HAVE.
THE.
GUN.
A basic gun does 1d8 damage. Just like a longsword/bow/crossbow does. The best (carry-able) gun in the game does 2d10. Your point is invalid.
You misunderstand me, I do not advocate punishing players for their choices. The following are ideas that could be implemented, not should be.
----
There are limited uses, fine. = consumables like wands
There is a chance it can blow up, better than it will. = rolling a 1 on an attack (mind you I did not include damage dealt to the player, simply the item breaking)
Need for spending resources to maintain and use it, could work. = quiver of arrows/bolts
Possible failure with nothing but a missed action, annoying but applicable. = rolling a 1 on an attack
----
There are ways to give an item something to make it challenging to use without punishing the player. Those are just a few ways to look at what my suggestions could mean, a broken gun is down for a single fight, you fix it for a cost. Ammunition is rare, you learn to craft it. A misfire due to wet black powder. As long as it's approached with fairness, you can have all sorts of fun with this...
2d10 could one shot kill something and 1d8 could could kill a smaller weaker creature with two turns. Though I suppose that is true for other weapons as well, so okay - maybe that would be picking on the player a bit but seriously, if you are making a campaign without guns and then let a player have one because he wants it, there has to be some penalty there.
The reward for good rp is the player getting the gun or the knowledge to make it but once he is back in his own world he is going to be the only one with a gun and no one else is going to be able to get one so I think its only fair for there to be a penalty to being the only one with a gun in a world without guns
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
The penalty for having a gun in a world without guns is the lack of external expertise to repair one, to obtain ammo, to obtain powder, or to otherwise obtain knowledge about guns and the art if gunslinging. No one can train this character into proficiency either. The character would need to make himself bullet moulds and keep taking downtime to make bullets, since bullets aren’t reusable like arrows are. Same goes for gunpowder. This all requires money and/or access to sulphur and saltpetre and time spent on a mortar and pestle. You’d be tracking ammo and powder very carefully.
I am a firm believer in KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid which is what my first DM back in 1982 always said when I wanted to create the "Unholy Macguffin of Demi-God Smiting" (just as an example). My solution to this is a matter of physics. In our world gunpowder works but (as far as I have experienced) waving your arms around like Doctor Strange just gets you a bit of a stretch and no fireballs. On the astral plane and in the environs of a ship designed to utilize these weapons gunpowder might work just fine. Not everywhere else.
"You point your blunderbus right in his face and pull the trigger. The flint sparks and the ogre-mage grins as the weapon does nothing else! Sadly, that uses your action for this turn and unlike your gun his great axe does not rely on an arcane formula beyond the strength of his arms!"
I do not like the word... prisoner. It implies a helpless state, and I assure you, I am never helpless.
--Artemis Entreri