So I'm running a campaign that has about early 1700s level technology - gunpowder, steam engines rarely.
I know that DnD has official (albeit optional) rules for firearms now, but what I've always done is reflavor crossbows as firearms. Hand crossbows are flintlock pistols, heavy crossbows are muskets, etc. I've usually left out light crossbows because I agree with the PHB that firearms should be martial weapons.
Is there any problem with doing that? My reasoning is that it allows people who want to use firearms to interact with more feats and magic items and stuff - crossbow master, etc. It also keeps the damage of them more balanced in my opinion, since I think weapon attacks should be generally weaker than cantrips since you can make multiple weapon attacks with a bunch of classes.
There is no problem at all. Personally, it’s what I prefer to do, as it keeps everything within the standard balance of the game. Re-skinning something is a great choice.
To make it simple, basically ban steam engines except on a case by case situation.
As for firearms, you may even want to adjust them a bit more. Accurate to 30 feet, beyond they get a -1 to hit, maybe add in a -2 at longer distances. This is in addition and not ignoring current DnD long range and cover shooting rules. You still use those. You can maybe balance by increasing the damage by +X.
As items were muzzle loaded, the ball was never tight against the barrel, so it "rocked/bounced" as it traveled. Thus if it was bounced off the side, just be edge it would not be a straight trajectory as it leaves, giving you a large miss. It is why the soldiers were shoulder to shoulder when they fired. You aim at person A, but hit person Q.
So I'm running a campaign that has about early 1700s level technology - gunpowder, steam engines rarely.
I know that DnD has official (albeit optional) rules for firearms now, but what I've always done is reflavor crossbows as firearms. Hand crossbows are flintlock pistols, heavy crossbows are muskets, etc. I've usually left out light crossbows because I agree with the PHB that firearms should be martial weapons.
Is there any problem with doing that? My reasoning is that it allows people who want to use firearms to interact with more feats and magic items and stuff - crossbow master, etc. It also keeps the damage of them more balanced in my opinion, since I think weapon attacks should be generally weaker than cantrips since you can make multiple weapon attacks with a bunch of classes.
There is no problem at all.
Personally, it’s what I prefer to do, as it keeps everything within the standard balance of the game. Re-skinning something is a great choice.
To make it simple, basically ban steam engines except on a case by case situation.
As for firearms, you may even want to adjust them a bit more. Accurate to 30 feet, beyond they get a -1 to hit, maybe add in a -2 at longer distances. This is in addition and not ignoring current DnD long range and cover shooting rules. You still use those. You can maybe balance by increasing the damage by +X.
As items were muzzle loaded, the ball was never tight against the barrel, so it "rocked/bounced" as it traveled. Thus if it was bounced off the side, just be edge it would not be a straight trajectory as it leaves, giving you a large miss. It is why the soldiers were shoulder to shoulder when they fired. You aim at person A, but hit person Q.
Attempting to model the actual accuracy of 17th Century firearms just means that no player will bother with them unless you ban bows.
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.
Why not keep bows in your game?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale