Running a game looking at firearms as they stand. Looking in the DMG and PHB (I DM some other games as well) for info it struck me how wizards made fires did not make sense. Example, the DMG has bullets for ren firearm as 3gp and 2lb per 10 bullets that would make the bore diameter for the gun 0.97in, i know guns that big they existed but they were rail mounted swivel guns on ships not hand carried. More accurate would be 50-60 ish cal which would give ~30 bullets/lb. Then you should get about 70 shots per lb of powder as well. Cost of bullets based on using lead sling bullets (historic) at 4cp/1.5lb (phb) and a 62cal round ball you would get ~11bullets 62cal/cp since they are cast in a mold making them is not expensive or technical. based on prices of magic ingredients the components of black powder should be 1gp/lb, plus manufacturing process cost.
Then lest get to the performance of the firearms, having a range less than a crossbow is, just poor design. So I looked into the PHB and DMG, for bows i saw the game is fairly constant a long bow pushing 989gr war arrow at 150fps giving 100fpe so a 1d8 (4.5 ave ) would give 0.05 damage/fpe. average of all "bow" weapons gives a 0.06 dam/fpe, and range for long-bow 150/600ft is the distance the arrow goes in 1 sec of game, and max range is 4 sec of round time (6s/ round). So a smooth bore of 50ish cal range would fire at about 1200-1600 (1500) ft/s even ren era ones with a 180 grain ball using the 5e dam/fpe would be hitting with 57damage on average (23d6) or using only long-bow data 40 damage (15d6). the range, assuming arrow method, would be closer to 1500/6000ft ( 500/2000yd). An hand guns (870fps, 180gr ball ) would have 19 average (6d6) range 850/3000. The 5e cannon DMG is 600/1200 and 44 (8d10) doing the same math the dam/fpe would be 0.0001 and applying to firearms would give 0.1 dam on average, so obviously not self constant in game, and appling the longbow math would give 12# 1400fps cannon 4000d12 avg damage.
If we use modern firearms the 22lr 40gr 1080fps, it would have ~6ave (1d12/2d6) range 1000/4000. 357(rifle 125gr) : 34 dam ave (9d6 / 5d12 ), 357(rifle 180gr) : 50 dam ave (14d6 / 7d12 ), 357 (pistol 125gr): 11 dam ave (~3d6/2d12).
I understand for game balance, things cant work out like this. Also, the issue with muzzle loading one in under 6s is terrible (same with crossbows of power used in game, spanning a multi-hundred (lt crossbow) to over 1000 lb (h crossbow) would take multiple rounds) . In game "realistic" probably for both one shot or bolt per 3 round with 2 spanning / loading (guns) and last round putting the bolt or priming and aiming.
SO with long rant, I would suggest putting firearms for the ren era smooth-bore musket at 5d6 or 3d12, and a pistol 2d6. Range I would think be limited to max sight not the weapon it self like a bow is, i would think musket 300-400/1800 and pistols 150/600. I would say rate of fire would every 2 rounds with one not moving or only moving 1/2 speed using your action to reload (i would do all crossbows the same loading rules)(and would let repeating shot or the like fire every round, crossbow expert say could fire a hand crossbow every round, but not load and fire as a BA with another weapon [unpopular opinion] ) . This would also facilitate the having multiple on hand (realistic) to use in a combat. With 30 bullets/lb @ about 3-10sp, powder should be about 1gp/lb to make in game and you should get 70 shots/lb of powder. Keep the store bough at 15gp/lb is fine (good way to make a quick coin with the right tools) .
Okay, I only see one major problem with this: where am I going to keep 4000d12 for the 12# cannon on my players' ship? If my math is right (big if), you should be able to reduce the number of dice by almost 75% with the same expected yield by going to 515d100 (actually 1030d10). It'll make the damage swingier, but drastically improve cleanup time after each roll.
Are you accounting for the gunpowder when tracking how many shots you get per pound?
Firearms rule in D&D have always been twitchy. They should do more damage but they should also have worse accuracy and much longer reload times. In the American Civil War, the average soldier could fire about three shots per minute using a rifle that was 200-400 years more advanced that the Renaissance Era musket the DMG is supposed to have.
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.
yes i think that is how it is presented in the DMG the bullets are listed as separate items from the powder, but even if they were together as "bullets" it really would not change the math that much 54cal ball is 220gr the powder change is something like 50-80gr. using the civil war a reference about 4 shots per min was the common trained soldiers rate of fire, which would be similar rate to using a hand or light crossbow (longer reload for heavy) if using realistic spanning and loading times. The thing is with the technology of smoothbore firearms from the renaissance to the civil war ear, they were more or less the same save the actual firing mechanism (match lock/ wheel lock vs flint lock). To accuracy with the 54 cal brown bess and like the accuracy of the redcoats from their training was hitting a man sized target at 100yd as standard , and was evident in the kill rates in the Napoleonic wars. On the american side that training was not as formalized also common for both sides was using under sized ammo in smooth-bores for easier loading in formation (like using a 50cal ball in a 54cal gun ) which suffers accuracy.
that was an example to show how in constant the game designers are. Then for any dice roll over about 10d12 the avg is all you need to know since statistically you will not deviate more than one or 2 numbers off the mean ether way if you rolled them all less likely the more dice you have.
I think it's also worth noting that some of the legendary inaccuracy of smoothbore firearms came down to tactics. 18th and 19th century officers were generally taught to maneuver their troops in large groups, the general idea being to capture advantageous positions and flood the enemy formation with lead. Individual marksmanship was deprioritized in favour of the ability to fire and reload quickly. This worked well as long as powder, shot, and human lives were viewed as relatively expendible.
However, other groups with less access to troops and materiel used the same weapons very differently. Indigenous fighters were dramatically more accurate shooters than their colonial counterparts, because they had to be. There were fewer of them, and their access to weapons and ammunition was inconsistent. US expansionary history is littered with instances of western-trained commanders embarassingly underestimating their indigenous opponents. Any analysis of firearms technology that ignores the impact of these strategic factors is incomplete, in my opinion.
(same with crossbows of power used in game, spanning a multi-hundred (lt crossbow) to over 1000 lb (h crossbow) would take multiple rounds)
Sorry, please explain? Why would a crossbow that deals 1d8 damage require multiple rounds to fire, when a bow that deals 1d8 damage doesn't? A crossbow that deals the same damage as a longbow must require a similar amount of force to draw back the string, which means you shouldn't need a crank to load it, it should be possible to design as a lever-operated reloading mechanism, which are pretty fast to reload.
I think it's also worth noting that some of the legendary inaccuracy of smoothbore firearms came down to tactics. 18th and 19th century officers were generally taught to maneuver their troops in large groups, the general idea being to capture advantageous positions and flood the enemy formation with lead. Individual marksmanship was deprioritized in favour of the ability to fire and reload quickly. This worked well as long as powder, shot, and human lives were viewed as relatively expendible.
However, other groups with less access to troops and materiel used the same weapons very differently. Indigenous fighters were dramatically more accurate shooters than their colonial counterparts, because they had to be. There were fewer of them, and their access to weapons and ammunition was inconsistent. US expansionary history is littered with instances of western-trained commanders embarassingly underestimating their indigenous opponents. Any analysis of firearms technology that ignores the impact of these strategic factors is incomplete, in my opinion.
I suspect that is more an issue of training rather than tactics, troops sent to the colonies weren't exactly the top notch troops in the empire, and they were often poorly equipped to deal with the terrain & weather of the new world. It's far easier to shoot straight when you aren't shivering from cold, sick with scurvy or sinking into a swamp.
The developers are not inconsistent about firearms, they are just using different criteria. They want to be consistent between player options rather than prioritizing historical accuracy. So guns are balanced to be roughly equivalent to other options and work in a way that everyone can understand without reading two paragraphs about bore sizes and powder loading.
As others have said, the realistic versions you have floated do not sound fun to play with. Using an entire round to load and then missing on your second round would essentially be equivalent to sitting out the entire fight, since the majority of fighting is done in 3 rounds. In general, big slow attacks are very vulnerable to RNG and can easily tip over into the realm of feeling too random and disconnected from player choices. They would also require many people to stop play and reread the rules to figure out how their weapon works.
D&D is not a historical sim. For me, trying to make it one kills all the actual fun. That being said, if it makes you happy and your group happy then I fully support that. But if your goal is to design a system that others would use, you're going to have to limit the complexity you introduce.
(same with crossbows of power used in game, spanning a multi-hundred (lt crossbow) to over 1000 lb (h crossbow) would take multiple rounds)
Sorry, please explain? Why would a crossbow that deals 1d8 damage require multiple rounds to fire, when a bow that deals 1d8 damage doesn't? A crossbow that deals the same damage as a longbow must require a similar amount of force to draw back the string, which means you shouldn't need a crank to load it, it should be possible to design as a lever-operated reloading mechanism, which are pretty fast to reload.
A cross bow that makes similar power to a long/ short bow is significantly higher draw weight due to the shot power stroke of the cross bow. A traditional bow draw is over 26in where as a crossbow maybe 6in in the power stroke and use similar weight bolts to traditional arrows ( if not heavier). To span a crossbow of the era effectively they used, for lighter weight ones in the 200-500lb, mechanical levers like a goats foot and heavy war crossbows used windless block and tackle hing to load. Using such thing takes more than 6s to span the x bow, remove/ reset spanning tool , load bolt, aim and fire.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Running a game looking at firearms as they stand. Looking in the DMG and PHB (I DM some other games as well) for info it struck me how wizards made fires did not make sense. Example, the DMG has bullets for ren firearm as 3gp and 2lb per 10 bullets that would make the bore diameter for the gun 0.97in, i know guns that big they existed but they were rail mounted swivel guns on ships not hand carried. More accurate would be 50-60 ish cal which would give ~30 bullets/lb. Then you should get about 70 shots per lb of powder as well. Cost of bullets based on using lead sling bullets (historic) at 4cp/1.5lb (phb) and a 62cal round ball you would get ~11bullets 62cal/cp since they are cast in a mold making them is not expensive or technical. based on prices of magic ingredients the components of black powder should be 1gp/lb, plus manufacturing process cost.
Then lest get to the performance of the firearms, having a range less than a crossbow is, just poor design. So I looked into the PHB and DMG, for bows i saw the game is fairly constant a long bow pushing 989gr war arrow at 150fps giving 100fpe so a 1d8 (4.5 ave ) would give 0.05 damage/fpe. average of all "bow" weapons gives a 0.06 dam/fpe, and range for long-bow 150/600ft is the distance the arrow goes in 1 sec of game, and max range is 4 sec of round time (6s/ round). So a smooth bore of 50ish cal range would fire at about 1200-1600 (1500) ft/s even ren era ones with a 180 grain ball using the 5e dam/fpe would be hitting with 57damage on average (23d6) or using only long-bow data 40 damage (15d6). the range, assuming arrow method, would be closer to 1500/6000ft ( 500/2000yd). An hand guns (870fps, 180gr ball ) would have 19 average (6d6) range 850/3000. The 5e cannon DMG is 600/1200 and 44 (8d10) doing the same math the dam/fpe would be 0.0001 and applying to firearms would give 0.1 dam on average, so obviously not self constant in game, and appling the longbow math would give 12# 1400fps cannon 4000d12 avg damage.
If we use modern firearms the 22lr 40gr 1080fps, it would have ~6ave (1d12/2d6) range 1000/4000. 357(rifle 125gr) : 34 dam ave (9d6 / 5d12 ), 357(rifle 180gr) : 50 dam ave (14d6 / 7d12 ), 357 (pistol 125gr): 11 dam ave (~3d6/2d12).
I understand for game balance, things cant work out like this. Also, the issue with muzzle loading one in under 6s is terrible (same with crossbows of power used in game, spanning a multi-hundred (lt crossbow) to over 1000 lb (h crossbow) would take multiple rounds) . In game "realistic" probably for both one shot or bolt per 3 round with 2 spanning / loading (guns) and last round putting the bolt or priming and aiming.
SO with long rant, I would suggest putting firearms for the ren era smooth-bore musket at 5d6 or 3d12, and a pistol 2d6. Range I would think be limited to max sight not the weapon it self like a bow is, i would think musket 300-400/1800 and pistols 150/600. I would say rate of fire would every 2 rounds with one not moving or only moving 1/2 speed using your action to reload (i would do all crossbows the same loading rules)(and would let repeating shot or the like fire every round, crossbow expert say could fire a hand crossbow every round, but not load and fire as a BA with another weapon [unpopular opinion] ) . This would also facilitate the having multiple on hand (realistic) to use in a combat. With 30 bullets/lb @ about 3-10sp, powder should be about 1gp/lb to make in game and you should get 70 shots/lb of powder. Keep the store bough at 15gp/lb is fine (good way to make a quick coin with the right tools) .
Okay, I only see one major problem with this: where am I going to keep 4000d12 for the 12# cannon on my players' ship? If my math is right (big if), you should be able to reduce the number of dice by almost 75% with the same expected yield by going to 515d100 (actually 1030d10). It'll make the damage swingier, but drastically improve cleanup time after each roll.
Are you accounting for the gunpowder when tracking how many shots you get per pound?
Firearms rule in D&D have always been twitchy. They should do more damage but they should also have worse accuracy and much longer reload times. In the American Civil War, the average soldier could fire about three shots per minute using a rifle that was 200-400 years more advanced that the Renaissance Era musket the DMG is supposed to have.
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.
yes i think that is how it is presented in the DMG the bullets are listed as separate items from the powder, but even if they were together as "bullets" it really would not change the math that much 54cal ball is 220gr the powder change is something like 50-80gr. using the civil war a reference about 4 shots per min was the common trained soldiers rate of fire, which would be similar rate to using a hand or light crossbow (longer reload for heavy) if using realistic spanning and loading times. The thing is with the technology of smoothbore firearms from the renaissance to the civil war ear, they were more or less the same save the actual firing mechanism (match lock/ wheel lock vs flint lock). To accuracy with the 54 cal brown bess and like the accuracy of the redcoats from their training was hitting a man sized target at 100yd as standard , and was evident in the kill rates in the Napoleonic wars. On the american side that training was not as formalized also common for both sides was using under sized ammo in smooth-bores for easier loading in formation (like using a 50cal ball in a 54cal gun ) which suffers accuracy.
that was an example to show how in constant the game designers are. Then for any dice roll over about 10d12 the avg is all you need to know since statistically you will not deviate more than one or 2 numbers off the mean ether way if you rolled them all less likely the more dice you have.
I think it's also worth noting that some of the legendary inaccuracy of smoothbore firearms came down to tactics. 18th and 19th century officers were generally taught to maneuver their troops in large groups, the general idea being to capture advantageous positions and flood the enemy formation with lead. Individual marksmanship was deprioritized in favour of the ability to fire and reload quickly. This worked well as long as powder, shot, and human lives were viewed as relatively expendible.
However, other groups with less access to troops and materiel used the same weapons very differently. Indigenous fighters were dramatically more accurate shooters than their colonial counterparts, because they had to be. There were fewer of them, and their access to weapons and ammunition was inconsistent. US expansionary history is littered with instances of western-trained commanders embarassingly underestimating their indigenous opponents. Any analysis of firearms technology that ignores the impact of these strategic factors is incomplete, in my opinion.
Eh... I would 100% never touch a firearm in 5e if it used those rules. Absolutely not worth the headache.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Definitely. D&D is a game, so when there's a choice between being fun to play and accurately modeling reality it should go with the former.
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.
Sorry, please explain? Why would a crossbow that deals 1d8 damage require multiple rounds to fire, when a bow that deals 1d8 damage doesn't? A crossbow that deals the same damage as a longbow must require a similar amount of force to draw back the string, which means you shouldn't need a crank to load it, it should be possible to design as a lever-operated reloading mechanism, which are pretty fast to reload.
I suspect that is more an issue of training rather than tactics, troops sent to the colonies weren't exactly the top notch troops in the empire, and they were often poorly equipped to deal with the terrain & weather of the new world. It's far easier to shoot straight when you aren't shivering from cold, sick with scurvy or sinking into a swamp.
The developers are not inconsistent about firearms, they are just using different criteria. They want to be consistent between player options rather than prioritizing historical accuracy. So guns are balanced to be roughly equivalent to other options and work in a way that everyone can understand without reading two paragraphs about bore sizes and powder loading.
As others have said, the realistic versions you have floated do not sound fun to play with. Using an entire round to load and then missing on your second round would essentially be equivalent to sitting out the entire fight, since the majority of fighting is done in 3 rounds. In general, big slow attacks are very vulnerable to RNG and can easily tip over into the realm of feeling too random and disconnected from player choices. They would also require many people to stop play and reread the rules to figure out how their weapon works.
D&D is not a historical sim. For me, trying to make it one kills all the actual fun. That being said, if it makes you happy and your group happy then I fully support that. But if your goal is to design a system that others would use, you're going to have to limit the complexity you introduce.
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
A cross bow that makes similar power to a long/ short bow is significantly higher draw weight due to the shot power stroke of the cross bow. A traditional bow draw is over 26in where as a crossbow maybe 6in in the power stroke and use similar weight bolts to traditional arrows ( if not heavier). To span a crossbow of the era effectively they used, for lighter weight ones in the 200-500lb, mechanical levers like a goats foot and heavy war crossbows used windless block and tackle hing to load. Using such thing takes more than 6s to span the x bow, remove/ reset spanning tool , load bolt, aim and fire.