Results 11 to 20 of 38
Thread: Adurian Faq
-
02-05-2004, 09:00 PM #11
At 08:54 PM 2/5/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:
> Here`s a possibility for flintlock-era weapons (ROF = Rate of Fire):
> Flintlock Pistol: 1d8 Damage (18-20/x3), 10` Range increment, ROF 1/3
One of the things that several D20 products have done is given powered
weapons (guns, blasters, etc.) two dice of damage rather than one. In the
case of something like a flintlock pistol it might be 2d4 rather than 1d8.
Personally, I like the 18-20/x3 crit, but one should bear in mind that
eventually somebody is going to make a keen version of the thing or take
the IC feat. Just something to consider.
>An alternative system would allow firearms to make ranged touch attacks,
>thus ignoring armor bonuses (but not deflection/ force armor/ cover
>bonuses) to AC. This would be a kind of blanket system that says
>"normal armor is useless against firearms." In such a system,
>I`d get really restrictive with range increments and tone down the
>damage somewhat: perhaps 1d6 (19-20/x3), 5` Range for pistols; 1d8
>(19-20/x3), 10` Range for muskets. Thus, there would be major penalties
>to hit at any significant distance (which is pretty accurate historically).
>
> What do the rest of you think?
What category do you think these weapons would be; simple, martial or
exotic? IMO that`s really the crux of the matter... who can wield these
weapons and why? In several settings they make firearms exotic weapons,
the rationale being that when first introduced they require special
training, and most people are so unfamiliar with them that they don`t
qualify as something one can simply pick up.
Gary
-
02-05-2004, 09:20 PM #12
I would focus on damage reduction as the key here. Firearms within the
first two range increments should ignore damage reduction from armor.
Currently I have armor give a +2, +3, or +4 armor bonus to AC based on being
light, medium, or heavy, and give a dmage reduction of 1/- and 2/- for
medium and heavy armors.
Were I to play in a gunpowder campaign, I would probably have AC bonuses be
+0, +1, and +2, and have the damage reductions be 2/-, 3/-, and 4/- for
light, medium, and heavy.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
02-06-2004, 12:10 AM #13
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- Germany
- Posts
- 883
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Gary schrieb:
> At 08:54 PM 2/5/2004 +0100, Osprey wrote:
> ...
> Personally, I like the 18-20/x3 crit, but one should bear in mind that
> eventually somebody is going to make a keen version of the thing or take
> the IC feat. Just something to consider.
"Keen: ... Only slashing weapons can be enchanted to be keen..." DMG 3.0
p. 187
>What category do you think these weapons would be; simple, martial or
>exotic? IMO that`s really the crux of the matter... who can wield these
>weapons and why? In several settings they make firearms exotic weapons,
>the rationale being that when first introduced they require special
>training, and most people are so unfamiliar with them that they don`t
>qualify as something one can simply pick up.
Improved Critical only improves the critical of a weapon that you are
proficient with. And I would assume that firearms would be exotic
weapons for everyone so you had to spend a second feat to be able to do
that. And don´t forget to add in the chance that the arquebus explodes
in your face ;-)
bye
Michael
-
02-06-2004, 01:05 AM #14"Keen: ... Only slashing weapons can be enchanted to be keen..." DMG 3.0
p. 187
-
02-06-2004, 01:50 AM #15
At 12:48 AM 2/6/2004 +0100, Michael wrote:
>>Personally, I like the 18-20/x3 crit, but one should bear in mind that
>>eventually somebody is going to make a keen version of the thing or take
>>the IC feat. Just something to consider.
>
>"Keen: ... Only slashing weapons can be enchanted to be keen..." DMG 3.0
>p. 187
Good point. I mention it only because generally weapons have either a
lower crit range (other than 20) or a greater crit result (than x2) but not
both, so if one is going to have both it makes the use of Improved Critical
as a feat more dramatic, and that should be taken into consideration. I
think its debatable whether firearms should really have a much better
critical stat than other weapons. That might be better reflected by simply
portraying their damage dice higher or by giving them a penetration value
(or both.) Modern bullets, of course, do all kinds of unpleasant damage,
but a lead ball or simple bullet is going to be a bit more straight forward
in its damage.
Personally, I use a vitality/wound system, so there is no x2 or x3
damage--crits just go to wound points. It`s even more dramatic than doing
additional damage, and the critical range of 19-20 is a big deal for weapon
in such a system. (In Star Wars D20 light sabers and blaster rifles only
have a threat range of 19-20.) Using hit points, however, I`d probably go
with both.
> >What category do you think these weapons would be; simple, martial or
> >exotic? IMO that`s really the crux of the matter... who can wield these
> >weapons and why? In several settings they make firearms exotic weapons,
> >the rationale being that when first introduced they require special
> >training, and most people are so unfamiliar with them that they don`t
> >qualify as something one can simply pick up.
>
>Improved Critical only improves the critical of a weapon that you are
>proficient with. And I would assume that firearms would be exotic
>weapons for everyone so you had to spend a second feat to be able to do
>that.
That`s how they did it in Witchfire IIRC. (It`s been a while.) I think
there`s an argument to be made, however, that the fundamental thing about
firearms is their relative ease of use. Someone who had never touched or
even heard of one, of course, is not going to be able to pick one up and
use it, but after a pretty brief introductory period using a gun is pretty
simple. By comparison, I fiddled round with some of the exotic melee
weapons (I`ve never seen a real double bladed sword before, though I`m sure
somebody`s got one in their basement someplace... but I have used
three-sectioned staffs) and I can see how those would require a
feat. Firing a gun skillfully, of course, requires a lot of practice, but
firing a gun at all (without being "non-proficient" in D20 terms) is pretty
easy.
>And don´t forget to add in the chance that the arquebus explodes in your
>face ;-)
A critical fumble, perhaps?
I`ve never had a gun explode in my face, but I actually did have an arrow
explode in my face once.... True story. This guy talked me into buying
wooden arrows. More real, more authentic, an overall better archery
experience, he said. He made them from hand, and it was a labor of love,
so I bought a dozen. I used them several times and using them is
interesting. They fly differently. It`s hard to explain. There was a
hairline crack laterally across the shaft less than a foot from the
head. Just as I released I saw the crack as I sighted down the arrow. It
opened up as force was applied to it from the string. It opened up just
enough for me to see the crack--and enough for it to catch on the rest as
the arrow passed along it. It was about an 80 lbs. bow so the arrow
snapped and the back end of it (a good two feet of wood) compressed between
the bow and the string, shattered into flinders that flew all around
me. Other than a splinter in my index finger, no damage done to me, but I
think that was pretty lucky. I`ve only bought aluminum shafted arrows
after that.
Another thing that should probably be considered is that if one is
imagining an explosive like black powder then it makes an awful lot of
smoke. I`ve fired muzzle loaders in the past and I can tell you the
shooter literally disappears in a cloud (and sometimes the guys to either
side of him do too.) Most of us are probably used to modern, smokeless
propellants, or seen films that use less smokey (or only a very small
amount of) powder for the sake of visuals, but since the D&D equivalent is
often referred to as "smoke powder" I`m pretty sure its not meant to be
that clean.... The rules on concealment are in order.
BTW, one of the things I ran into the other day in a non-D&D, non-D20 RPG
that I really liked was the way it handled ammunition. It`s always annoyed
me that in D&D with its strangely abstracted system of combat that one
still has to account for every arrow. Melee combat assumes an exchange of
blows, parries, dodges, etc. but missile combat is one missile for one
attack. Aside from the dichotomy of abstract vs particular, its an
annoying thing to keep track of. Character sheets can have little tally
marks all over them or erasures that just look untidy.... The rule that
this RPG used as that you always had ammunition until you rolled a 1. That
1 represented having emptied your clip, meaning you had to reload. One
then keeps track of the amount of reloads one has, not every single
round. There are still tally marks and erasures on the character sheets,
but the time accounting is dramatically reduced. It also has a nice parity
with the otherwise very abstracted D20 combat system. Most importantly,
however, was that it made for a lot more drama during play, so I`m going to
give that a shot (pun intended) for a BR campaign using arrows, bolts,
sling bullets, whatever and see how well it works.
Gary
-
02-06-2004, 04:10 AM #16
Monkey Rogue:
> True, in our own history the original cannon makers were bellsmiths.
> Weird huh? Makes sense though, when you consider the crafting it takes
> to make a bell and a cannon are the same.
Bells have to ring without cracking and so bell-makers were probably the
best "large-scale" metallurgists at the time. Its not that weird to me, maybe I
have been shooting other people`s models with my model bombards for so long it
seems natural? :)
> Until the Colt came around, people were still somewhat unfamiliar with
> firearms. Even the advent of rifles didn`t make that much better. It was
> the industrial age, when we developed interchangable parts that firearms
> became more easy to learn because more people could afford them, easier
> to repair, etc.
What!? Are you implying that Frederick the Great`s men, or even Gustavus
Adolphus` men, were unfamiliar with their weapons?
I`m going to pick on your history here. I think that breechloading and pin-
firing were far more important developments in military firearms than the
revolver, and it came only five years after Colt got his patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(weaponry)#History
> Just adding to the thought here. I recommend not adding anything but
> the most cumbersome and dangerous firearms, if any at all.
There is no point in adding firearms if they are just going to be dangerous
curios. In order for them to have an impact they need to be widely adopted and
thus be actually useful.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
-----------------------------------------------------
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
-
02-06-2004, 05:30 AM #17
Osprey:
If firearms are added, though, I strongly recommend ignoring the DMG
> conversion rules, `cause those rules make firearms (flintlocks et al.)
> about as potent as bows or crossbows, thus ignoring the entire reason
> firearms DID come to dominate warfare. Firearms were so deadly because
> of their ability to practically ignore armor - i.e., vastly superior
> penetration and a great deal of tissue damge compared to an arrow or
> bolt.
Quite right.
> Here`s a possibility for flintlock-era weapons (ROF = Rate of Fire):
> Flintlock Pistol: 1d8 Damage (18-20/x3), 10` Range increment, ROF 1/3
> Flintlock Musket: 2d6 Damage (18-20/x3), 30` Range Increment, ROF 1/4
Another reason for improving the damage of firearms is that firearms do not add
a STR bonus to damage. A critical with a bow is excellent; a critical with a
firearm, (in the DMG version) or a crossbow for that matter, is pretty sad.
I persuaded our GM to alter crossbows in this way:
Light Crossbow: 2d6 Damage (19+/x2) etc...
Heavy Crossbow: 2d8 Damage (19+/x2) etc...
This makes the humble crossbow actually somewhat scary, even in the hands of
average soldiers - which is the point, if I recall history correctly.
Firearms ended up something like this, IIRC:
Pistol: 2d6 Damage (19+/x3) etc...
Arquebus: 2d8 Damage (19+/x3) etc...
> Earlier versions (matchlocks, wheelocks, arquebuses) would have even
> shorter range increments and longer reload times: a matchlock might be
> something like 1 shot per minute (10 rounds, or ROF 1/10, and that`s
> generous, really), a wheelock slightly better at perhaps ROF 1/8, with
> range increments at around 20` or so for musket-size guns. I reckon
> damage would remain more constant, though, as accuracy and reload times
> were the major improvements over the centuries of firearms development.
There were arquebus that -weren`t- matchlocks?
I know there were wheellock semi-rifled hunting pieces and firelock carbines
for garrison troops but I never through that they were described by the folk of
the time as arquebus.
I think the reloading times have more to do with training and preparations (pre-
measuring of powder, or use of cartridges) than with the guns themselves. When
its a choice between 8 rounds and 10 rounds, I`m happy to simplify. The
Swashbuckling Adventures CS presents two systems - a "realistic" one and
a "cinematic" one. I`d quote it but my books are all on a ship. Kenneth has the
book though, I believe, and could. I expect, be persuaded be quote it with
little effort.
> An alternative system would allow firearms to make ranged touch
> attacks, thus ignoring armor bonuses (but not deflection/ force armor/
> cover bonuses) to AC. This would be a kind of blanket system that says
> "normal armor is useless against firearms." In such a system,
> I`d get really restrictive with range increments and tone down
> the damage somewhat: perhaps 1d6 (19-20/x3), 5` Range for pistols; 1d8
> (19-20/x3), 10` Range for muskets. Thus, there would be major penalties
> to hit at any significant distance (which is pretty accurate
> historically).
Well, the thing is, armour could protect against firearms to a certain degree.
The problem was that it was bloody heavy so people gave up wearing full suits
of it, and relied on speed (and the difficulty of aiming at fast targets)
instead. Cavalry gave up on 3/4 armour and used breastplates and helmets, and
in some cases just buffcoats. Perhaps firearms should ignore all armour but
heavy armour, and some new grades of armour should be introduced (a heavy
cavalry breastplate and helmet comes to mind)? This is what we did in our brief
17th Century D&D game.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
-----------------------------------------------------
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
-
02-06-2004, 05:30 AM #18
Gary:
> Personally, I like the 18-20/x3 crit, but one should bear in mind that
> eventually somebody is going to make a keen version of the thing or
> take the IC feat. Just something to consider.
Improved Critical (Firearms)
Prerequisites: BAB 8+; or plays a hell of a lot of Counter-Strike.
> What category do you think these weapons would be; simple, martial or
> exotic? IMO that`s really the crux of the matter... who can wield these
> weapons and why? In several settings they make firearms exotic weapons,
> the rationale being that when first introduced they require special
> training, and most people are so unfamiliar with them that they don`t
> qualify as something one can simply pick up.
Firearms. Fighters get it, along with Martial Weapons. It should be considered
in every other way the Martial Weapon Proficiency.
Possibly some classes should get access to specific firearms, ala Rogue and
Bard lists of weapons.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
-----------------------------------------------------
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
-
02-06-2004, 05:30 AM #19
Michael Romes:
> "Keen: ... Only slashing weapons can be enchanted to be keen..." DMG
> 3.0 p. 187
Even *I* know that was corrected in the errata. Otherwise how the hell do you
make a keen rapier?
> Improved Critical only improves the critical of a weapon that you are
> proficient with. And I would assume that firearms would be exotic
> weapons for everyone so you had to spend a second feat to be able to do
> that. And don´t forget to add in the chance that the arquebus explodes
> in your face ;-)
Arquebus that are well made and maintained didn`t do this -excessively-.
Proficient users should not have their guns explode, unless it is dramatically
appropriate (like the old Star Wars game and power-packs running out..).
--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
-----------------------------------------------------
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
-
02-06-2004, 05:50 AM #20
teloft:
> well a true quote.
A true quote from 3.0e.
>From *pre-errata* 3.0e.
Which edition is being used again?
>From http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MagicItemsII.rtf
> Keen: This ability doubles the threat range of a weapon. Only piercing
> or slashing weapons can be keen. (If you roll this property randomly for
> an inappropriate weapon, reroll.) This benefit doesn’t stack with any
> other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen
> edge spell or the Improved Critical feat).
Honestly, if people are going to use and quote this ruleset, could they do so
consistently? Hey! Why don`t we all just play Ars Magica instead... ;)
--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
-----------------------------------------------------
- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks