• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Level Up (A5E) Rules about technology

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I just get tired of designers insisting firearms be so much less effective than a bow and arrow, or a crossbow. The reload issue, if anything close to historic black powder levels, is a real killer. And damage tends not to compensate. If you have to reload such that you fire every other round, you would have to do twice as much damage as a comparable weapon just to break even. Also, you run into the multiple attacks issue bow users never seem to have. Why do people hate firearms so much?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Usually we are used the PCs have got the monopoly of the firearms, but this hasn't be like this, and then the power balance may be totally broken. A simple level 1 goblin with an axe and a shield, and now the same nPC but... with a sniper rifle from the top of a tree or a window, with a exosuit, a powered armour or within a mecha. Or the PCs are in the lower-level tech faction (ewoks, na'vii, cimerians) but to survive they have to face alien invaders with magictek, for example goblins and steampunk consctructs and biopunk crossbows what reload themself thanks artificial muscles.

If firearms are allowed most of players will be want to be gunslingers and not melee-warriors. Or a freak arm race between magic vs gunpowder, for example tricks to block canon with pieces of ectoplasm, to water gunpowder avoiding it could exploit, or illusory magic to great effects as smoke grenades, or summoning swarms.

Do you remember any survival horror videogames as Resident Evil or the Evil Within where the PC needs a lot of stealth in the begining but later with enough weapons and ammo he becomes an one-man-army? Or the movie "Cobra" where Bridgitte Nielsen only could hide and run away against the night-slasher but Sylverter Stallone in the final part could kill all the cult of the new dawn.

You haven't to worry about the time to reload if you have got a squire nPC to do it.
 

I just get tired of designers insisting firearms be so much less effective than a bow and arrow, or a crossbow. The reload issue, if anything close to historic black powder levels, is a real killer. And damage tends not to compensate. If you have to reload such that you fire every other round, you would have to do twice as much damage as a comparable weapon just to break even. Also, you run into the multiple attacks issue bow users never seem to have. Why do people hate firearms so much?

In designing the 5e mechanics for ZEITGEIST (a fantasy industrial revolution setting, published by EN Publishing), I ran into the concern of a player carrying six pistols. If the guns do more damage than a bow in exchange for taking longer to reload, well, for a bit of money you can deal a lot of extra damage, and then just have to pick up your guns after you win. And since our tech level was high enough that some craftsmen can make revolvers, the opportunity cost went down even more.

We ended up with a design where guns are a teensy bit better than a bow, but eat up your bonus action to reload. Also, if you roll a natural 1 the gun misfires, which fouls the barrel. You can fix this by spending an action to clean the barrel. If you roll another 1 while the barrel is fouled, the gun explodes and damages you.

The intent is that guns are great to use as a combat opener for people who want to then close to melee. Guns are still a great option for characters who want a backup ranged weapon, and if you build your character to be a gunner (e.g., being a gunsmith so you can make your own revolvers), you can be slightly better than an archer at the expense of making a LOT of noise and occasionally having your gun jam. It felt setting appropriate.

---

Then of course, there's the full-on fantasy gear: arcane fusils. They look sorta like guns, but are filled with crystals from elemental planes. You spend a bonus action to charge them, and then on the next turn you spend an action to fire a bolt of lightning or a tiny fireball. If you don't fire the weapon, it overloads and damages you. They're very expensive, though, and high level folks will sometimes carry them as sidearms, but there's no way to fire more than one shot per round.
 



Personally I wouldn't mind having access to firearms up to and including cap and ball revolvers and rifles (i.e., roughly up to the mid 19th century). I would tend to be disinterested in metallic cartridge weapons, but I don't think D&D is that far removed from the Old West (American West, that is) in a lot of ways. The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly could easily be a D&D adventure.

As far as cannon, mortars, and other large firearms, I'm less interested in that outside of naval combat or siege warfare. However, I think cannon might be important to naval warfare. I think most D&D players think of 18th century naval combat when they think of D&D naval combat. Very few people think about grapple ships and marines.

I don't mind weird science or steampunk trappings (note: I'm not interested in discussing the de jure meaning of those terms, TYVM). However, I prefer that most of the trappings stay as terms like "arcana," "artifice," "alchemy," or "astronomy" (maybe even "astrology"). I don't think D&D worlds should have proper science in them even if they do have things that we would call the products of technology or engineering or science. Simply put, I want the natural world to be mostly inexplicable and mostly the realm of unknowable knowledge. The game is still a fantasy game, and it should not attempt to explain how things work. Like other fantasy stories like LotR or Conan or Star Wars, things work and that's all there is to it. If you're questioning it, you're doing it wrong because that's not what the story or world is about.

In most D&D worlds I've run, I create an equivalent of Martianus Capella's De nuptis. A basic education means schooling in the seven liberal arts: the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic), and then the Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and Music). Music seems out of place, but they used it to study harmonics of vibrating strings, and so it was one of the very few applications of the sparse academic knowledge they had. In European history, this was the basic education at a medieval university. The Trivium taught you how to think and formulate your thoughts and present them to others. The Quadrivium taught you knowledge about the world, how to measure and explore the world, and the way things worked (or, rather, the ways very learned men had guessed things worked). Completing the coursework of these seven liberal arts made you a Bachelor of Arts. After then continuing to a Master of Arts, you were then qualified to study for bachelor's degrees in one of the three "higher faculties": Theology, Medicine, or Law. In most D&D campaigns I run, I typically change that to four higher faculties: Religion, Arcana, Medicine, and Law.

That doesn't mean that these people weren't experimenting, of course. It's this kind of education that allowed Theodoric of Freiberg to correctly explain how the rainbow works in about 1300, and he did it by experimenting with glass spheres and water filled flasks:


(Relevant bit starts at about 2:20.)

So, I tend to favor D&D settings with 18th century weapons, 17th century naval combat, and no more than about 14th century knowledge. It should be explicitly proto-scientific.
 


Derren

Hero
I just get tired of designers insisting firearms be so much less effective than a bow and arrow, or a crossbow. The reload issue, if anything close to historic black powder levels, is a real killer. And damage tends not to compensate. If you have to reload such that you fire every other round, you would have to do twice as much damage as a comparable weapon just to break even. Also, you run into the multiple attacks issue bow users never seem to have. Why do people hate firearms so much?

This is actually historically correct. Firearms were, over large stretches of time, inferior to bows and maybe even crossbows. They were not some special weapons for elite warriors like how many RPGs portrait them, but weapons for the masses which are too weak and too inexperienced to use a bow. Thing is, crossbows already fill the role of the simple ranged weapon which guns would actually occupy.
In history guns had several advantages over crossbows. Ammunition was cheap and easy to create once you knew how to mill powder and crossbows still required strong people to crank them while everyone can load a musket and keep going for hours without really tiring.
But those things are not simulated in D&D.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I just get tired of designers insisting firearms be so much less effective than a bow and arrow, or a crossbow. The reload issue, if anything close to historic black powder levels, is a real killer. And damage tends not to compensate. If you have to reload such that you fire every other round, you would have to do twice as much damage as a comparable weapon just to break even. Also, you run into the multiple attacks issue bow users never seem to have. Why do people hate firearms so much?

carry 4 guns? 1 for each round. Problem solved!
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I don’t mind subsystems on technology, but i would prefer that in its splatbook. A more “mainstream” system like what this one is going for should focus on the core fantasy
I couldn't possibly disagree more.

This isn't a core book, it is inherently an alternate version of 5e. Beyond that, @Morrus has said that they aren't necessarily planning on splat books for this project.

Having rules for different types of gameplay, especially for types of gameplay that 5e already supports, makes sense for the nature of this project. Better to have support for playing in a world like Eberron or Ravnica than not, in a book that wants to add to 5e.
 

Remove ads

Top