# Firearms Preview



## Morrus (Jun 12, 2011)

This preview contains an extract from the ZEITGEIST_ Player's Guide_, introducing firearms to the game. We hope you enjoy it!

ZEITGEIST will be here very soon, I promise! Hopefully these previews (and the nine character themes in another thread) will help satiate your appetite a little in the meantime.

As with the theme previews, I put these together myself, so they're not as pretty as the stuff done by our layout artist. And, as with the themes, these are previews based on the near-final manuscript, so there may be some minor differences in the final_ Player's Guid_e.

This is the D&D 4E version. There is, of course, a _Pathfinder RPG_ equivalent.


----------



## john112364 (Jun 12, 2011)

I like the preview. There are some definite plusses to having a gun, without overshadowing other weapons. Basically shoot 'em then draw your _real_ weapon. Good job of balancing.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 13, 2011)

I still think these are probably the best firearms rules for D&D (of any edition) that I've seen. They make them worthwhile but not overpowered. 

But load standard wasn't enough. Now they're load 2? 

Mock outrage aside, I don't think there's much of a practical difference between the two. Whether it's load standard or load 2, it still equates to one shot per encounter unless you're carrying more than one weapon.

It has more relevance to NPCs (wink wink) than PCs, unless you don't apply the same reload rules to them.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 13, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> I still think these are probably the best firearms rules for D&D (of any edition) that I've seen. They make them worthwhile but not overpowered.
> 
> But load standard wasn't enough. Now they're load 2?
> 
> ...




Bear in mind the preview doesn't include feats.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 13, 2011)

Morrus said:


> Bear in mind the preview doesn't include feats.




Assuming they're the same as the feats RangerWickett posted about as part of his firearms teaser a few weeks ago, I'm aware of them. And they form part of why I consider this "probably the best firearms rules for D&D (of any edition) that I've seen". 

I wasn't objecting to load 2. It fits well with what is actually involved in loading a firearm of that type. I was getting in first to point out that there is little _practical_ difference between load standard and load 2. Attempting either is a poor use of standard actions, and is unlikely to come up that often for PCs.

It's more of an issue for NPCs, particularly if a firearm is their primary weapon (and I can think of one in particular in the first adventure). 

Unless, of course, they get either a special dispensation from the reloading rules, or a bandolier filled with loaded firearms.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 13, 2011)

actually, I think Russ is using an older file for these previews. I changed it to load standard for Colmarrs reason.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 13, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Unless, of course, they get either a special dispensation from the reloading rules, or a bandolier filled with loaded firearms.




Fire until it's empty, drop it, draw a new one.


----------



## Riastlin (Jun 13, 2011)

Thanks for the preview! As I've mentioned earlier, I've been toying with the idea of bringing firearms into my next D&D campaign, but have been wrestling with the balance issues. These are certainly a very good start and I will be looking forward to seeing the full set. Though I seem to have missed the other firearms preview. 

Edit:  Okay some more thoughts after having had a chance to ruminate on these a little more.  Brutal 2 + High crit does a nice job of making firearms feel powerful (they should, to an extent, be scarier than just a bow and arrow for instance).  The problem I have though is I am not sure that with a reload time of standard that they are powerful enough to justify regular use.  Heck, even reload as a move action seems a bit weak with these numbers.  

The trouble of course is making sure they are balanced though.  More damage is good, but there still needs to be some sort of drawback.  I'm wondering if maybe adding 1 die of damage while keeping the reload as a move and/or standard action would do a good job.  I guess the issue is that ideally, I'd like to see an even distribution between players using bows and firearms, otherwise, why have bows?  So other possibilities for balancing include upping the cost for firearms significantly -- particularly might work given the possibility for "breakage".  Alternatively, proficiency bonus could be dropped to one (deal more damage but hit less often), or maybe even increase the potential for misfires/problems resulting from misfires.  Hmmm, lots to think about . . . 

Of course, none of this takes into account feats (which I have not seen) nor general flavor of the world, etc.  I'm not judging the proposed system yet either since I have not seen it in its entirety (thus it would be premature to do so).  All that being said though, I definitely think its very close to what I would want to do anyway.  When you are able to do so, I would be very interested in reading about how the system was designed (i.e. what discussions did you have, playtest reports, etc.)  Ultimately, I guess what I'm looking for with firearms is making it so that they definitely hurt a bit more, but also giving them some sort of opportunity cost so as not to make them an obvious choice.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 14, 2011)

The conceit of firearms in the setting is that they are not primary weapons. They're like Civil War-era guns, and if you're alone (as opposed to being in a phalanx of guys with tons of other guns) you normally can't rely on a gun. You might fire it off, but before you can reload, your enemy will be on you.

I'm fine with it adding a tiny smidge of spike damage to the game, because combat in 4e can take a bit longer than I'd like. And if you want to specialize in guns, you can, but it's not something you can do at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Riastlin (Jun 14, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> The conceit of firearms in the setting is that they are not primary weapons. They're like Civil War-era guns, and if you're alone (as opposed to being in a phalanx of guys with tons of other guns) you normally can't rely on a gun. You might fire it off, but before you can reload, your enemy will be on you.
> 
> I'm fine with it adding a tiny smidge of spike damage to the game, because combat in 4e can take a bit longer than I'd like. And if you want to specialize in guns, you can, but it's not something you can do at the drop of a hat.




Cool, with that in mind, I think it works well.  Wasn't sure how common you were looking to make firearms in combat.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 14, 2011)

Riastlin said:


> Of course, none of this takes into account feats (which I have not seen)




Here you go. Starting at post #23.

Load minor and load free feature quite prominently in the discussion of feats.

Not sure what happened to that thread. Maybe it dropped off the front page of a board that only displays the front page? Luckily I had earlier emailed it to a friend and still had the email.


----------



## Riastlin (Jun 14, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Here you go.
> 
> Load minor and load free feature quite prominently in the discussion of feats.
> 
> Not sure what happened to that thread. Maybe it dropped off the front page of a board that only displays the front page? Luckily I had earlier emailed it to a friend and still had the email.




Hrm, link brings me back to this thread.  Oh well.  At any rate, load free/load minor makes sense.  That definitely brings guns into a more playable role should you wish to feature them in your build.  You end up dumping feats into them in exchange for making them more usable which is a fair trade off in my opinion.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 14, 2011)

Riastlin said:


> Hrm, link brings me back to this thread. Oh well.




My bad. Link fixed.

Part of the reason why I like these rules so much is that they dovetail so nicely with the rest of 4e's rules. There are no fiddly subsystems or proud nails (except for some of the optional rules, especially Threat of Force).

And designing them in such a way that they can be integrated into the character builder is pure genius.


----------



## JustKim (Jun 14, 2011)

I'll withhold final judgement until I see the feats and whatnot, but everything I see makes me think we will be replacing Zeitgeist's firearm rules with something else. These weapons are not tempting at all, they're a handicap. The reload times are untenable and the benefits are insignificant for one-off weapons. And, given the investment that PCs have in weapon types as time goes on, one-off weapons themselves quickly become a waste. Nobody I have shown these rules to is happy with them, and if the rules cause us to avoid using firearms in a setting designed to showcase them, the rules are not doing their job.

Unless things change significantly, my only request is that you make these rules able to be easily excised and replaced with something my group prefers.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 14, 2011)

JustKim said:


> I'll withhold final judgement until I see the feats and whatnot, but everything I see makes me think we will be replacing Zeitgeist's firearm rules with something else. These weapons are not tempting at all, they're a handicap.




I've linked to a thread with two of the feats mentioned in it. 

You really don't think that three feats (Superior Weapon Prof, Firearms Expertise and Quickloader or equivalent) is not worth it for a ranged weapon that is range 20/40, prof +3 (a total of +4 with expertise), 1d10 damage, brutal 2, high crit, and reload free?

When compared to a longbow with Bow Expertise, you spend two extra feats for +1 prof, -1 per tier damage, brutal 2 and high crit. Seems like a fair swap to me, especially for rangers and other ranged multiattackers. 

Or two feats (Firearms Expertise and Quickloader; one if you don't have much need for your minor action) to go from daggers (+3 prof/1d4 damage) or hand crossbows (+2 prof/1d6 damage) to pistols (+2 prof/1d6 damage, brutal 2 and high crit) for thieves and rogues?* 

Firearms aren't terribly viable as weapons for prolonged use by non-specialists because the feat (or action) investment is too high, but that seems entirely appropriate to me. This isn't revolver-era technology. This is the magitech equivalent of flintlock. I've previously commented on the apparent oddness of having flintlock-era firearms in a setting that has cannons and steam-powered battleships of the like of the RNS Coaltongue, but if it's flintlock-era firearms you want, this system is IMO an excellent way of implementing them.

And the ability to have a pistol or carbine built into your melee weapon is a _massive_ step forward, as it avoids (at least for a turn) the weapon-swap dance that melee characters need to engage in if they're unlucky enough to get immobilised out of reach of an enemy.

*I'm assuming here that 'analagous' means for all intents and purposes (such as for Rogue Weapon Talent).


----------



## Riastlin (Jun 14, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> My bad. Link fixed.
> 
> Part of the reason why I like these rules so much is that they dovetail so nicely with the rest of 4e's rules. There are no fiddly subsystems or proud nails (except for some of the optional rules, especially Threat of Force).
> 
> And designing them in such a way that they can be integrated into the character builder is pure genius.




Excellent!  Thanks for the link, that definitely looks like it may well work for the way they are presenting firearms in the setting.  I get the impression that firearms are relatively new to the world, so they are not going to be real common yet (i.e. this isn't 4ed Modern -- which I assumed already -- but they are becoming common enough that its not a stretch for a PC or NPC to have one).



JustKim said:


> I'll withhold final judgement until I see the feats and whatnot, but everything I see makes me think we will be replacing Zeitgeist's firearm rules with something else. These weapons are not tempting at all, they're a handicap. The reload times are untenable and the benefits are insignificant for one-off weapons. And, given the investment that PCs have in weapon types as time goes on, one-off weapons themselves quickly become a waste. Nobody I have shown these rules to is happy with them, and if the rules cause us to avoid using firearms in a setting designed to showcase them, the rules are not doing their job.
> 
> Unless things change significantly, my only request is that you make these rules able to be easily excised and replaced with something my group prefers.




Personally, I see firearms (as they are currently being previewed) as something that most characters would use with an encounter or daily ranged attack.  The higher damage of the firearm takes advantage of the higher damage expressions of the limited use powers.  The biggest problem would be with powers that presume 2 shots.  Even there though I would think it would be pretty easy to incorporate something like a double barreled shotgun if you wanted to.

Edit to add:  Basically, the way I see it, you have two options when introducing firearms into a more or less traditional fantasy rpg.  A)  You make firearms the default ranged weapon, in which case you can just pretty much eliminate bows and crossbows.  This more or less puts you in Civil War/Revolutionary War era.  Sure, there may have been some use of bows for very specific purposes, but in general, the rank and file were using firearms and then switching to melee when ranks closed.  Option B) is to balance firearms with other ranged weapons so that in theory at least, there is an equal distribution of players choosing each type of weapon.  To do this, you need to make firearms do more damage, but have some sort of heavier opportunity cost -- either extra feats to get on par with bows, or much higher damage but longer reloads, etc.

Personally, I like the idea of shooting for option B, and it seems that these rules are going to be at the very least, close to accomplishing that goal.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 14, 2011)

JustKim said:


> I'll withhold final judgement until I see the feats and whatnot, but everything I see makes me think we will be replacing Zeitgeist's firearm rules with something else. These weapons are not tempting at all, they're a handicap. The reload times are untenable and the benefits are insignificant for one-off weapons. And, given the investment that PCs have in weapon types as time goes on, one-off weapons themselves quickly become a waste. Nobody I have shown these rules to is happy with them, and if the rules cause us to avoid using firearms in a setting designed to showcase them, the rules are not doing their job.
> 
> Unless things change significantly, my only request is that you make these rules able to be easily excised and replaced with something my group prefers.




It's not a setting designed to showcase them; but they're there as an option for those interested.  However, to make them worthwhile you need to invest feats, themes, and the like into them - otherwise yes, you are definitely better off with a bow.

We don't intend to have everyone running round with pistols and rifles - they're new, untrusted technology.  They haven't supplanted bows and swords yet, and not many people know how to use them.

If you'd prefer a feel whereby they're common, you can easily make that change.  Perhaps hand out a couple of free feats, or adjust the stats slightly.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 14, 2011)

I considered having an optional rule to let them target a specific defense, but it didn't work well with all the powers that are only useful because they let the PC target a different defense. Also, considering how terribly inaccurate early guns were, I considered giving them no proficiency bonus, or just +1. Then I realized mixing the two together kinda balanced out.

I mean, if I were trying to make this setting 'realistic,' I'd grab, I dunno, Warhammer rules and give armor a Damage Reduction rating, and weapons an 'armor penetration' rating. Firearms would be 'advanced' weapons that would ignore half an armor's DR. Special armor would likewise be 'advanced' so it could resist firearms.

But in a world where you can be swallowed whole by a giant worm, teleport, and have daggers hurt dragons, I'm fine with saying armorsmiths have figured out ways for plate armor to block bullets.

Then again, it's perfectly easy to house rule guns to be 'better.' We've already got a few optional rules to make them the best weapons in the world. If you want to let them auto-target Fort or Ref, that's easy to do.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 15, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> We've already got a few optional rules to make them the best weapons in the world.




I must admit that the 'extra 2[W]' optional rule did make me "WTF?!" 

For those who want firearms to be more readily available, though, it works nicely to counterract the action problems, because in many cases it - combined with brutal 2 - means your firearm is doing double (at least) the damage that another type of ranged weapon would do. That evens out against having to spend the extra standard action to reload.


----------



## Riastlin (Jun 15, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> I must admit that the 'extra 2[W]' optional rule did make me "WTF?!"
> 
> For those who want firearms to be more readily available, though, it works nicely to counterract the action problems, because in many cases it - combined with brutal 2 - means your firearm is doing double (at least) the damage that another type of ranged weapon would do. That evens out against having to spend the extra standard action to reload.




Yeah, the only problem though is that then they'd definitely be used for those Encounter and Daily powers that deal multi-weapon damage, which would increase the gap even more.  Still though, would definitely keep it so that you'd want regular ranged weapons too -- just makes combats a bit shorter.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 15, 2011)

One thing I try to make a note of is that some scenes really reward you for being stealthy, and firearms ain't.

Optimally, I'd like it if in a five person party there would be one person focused in guns, and the rest just have firearms for utility use. Guns would be a schtick, just like "bows" or "illusions" or whatever.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 16, 2011)

Riastlin said:


> Yeah, the only problem though is that then they'd definitely be used for those Encounter and Daily powers that deal multi-weapon damage, which would increase the gap even more.




Bear in mind that (at least on my reading), it's +2[W] total, not per [W]. 

So a 1[W] power does 3[W] when using a firearm. A 4[W] power does 6[W], not 12[W].


----------



## Walking Dad (Jun 16, 2011)

Is it intentional that the new previews are community supporter only?

I'm asking because they could be a good advertisement for the adventures, regardless if you got them as community supporter or buying them from RPGnow (as it is possible with the other APs).


----------



## Morrus (Jun 16, 2011)

Walking Dad said:


> Is it intentional that the new previews are community supporter only?




They're not. They've been downloaded and commented upon by many non-subscribers in this very thread!


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 16, 2011)

Morrus said:


> They're not. They've been downloaded and commented upon by many non-subscribers in this very thread!




One of my players raised the same issue and it turned out that he was mistaking the "register for the forums to view attachments" as "become a subscriber to see the attachments". 

FWIW, I assume there's something about the registration screen that's conveying that impression.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jun 16, 2011)

I uploaded a screen shot of what happens when I try to access:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attach...98491-firearms-preview-firearms_zeitgeist.pdf

as you can see, I'm registered.


----------



## Riastlin (Jun 16, 2011)

Weird.  Are you just clicking on the "PDF file" that's in his actual post in this thread?  That's all I've had to do and haven't had a problem downloading the previews.  I'm not a supporter (yet) FWIW.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 17, 2011)

You're trying to download the copies in the subscriber content area (I added them there as well in case subscribers hadn't seen these threads).

There are copies in the threads in this forum, too.  Download those ones.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jun 17, 2011)

Ok, thanks. Sorry for the confusion. Once I have some more spare money, I will subscribe for sure!


----------



## Eccles (Jun 25, 2011)

A thought has occurred to me and I don't really know the answer to it.

What skill does technology actually *use* in game terms? 

I'm curious - don't really know whether we're going to the steampunk excesses of giant clockwork city smashing automata or stopping at flintlock muskets; either way if I want to go tinkering with clockwork, do I want to be a thief, or an arcanist?


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 26, 2011)

Eccles said:


> if I want to go tinkering with clockwork, do I want to be a thief, or an arcanist?




Having read the player's guide, I can see you going either route. Technology is independent of magic, but there is mention of artificers combining the two. 

If I were the DM, I'd probably allow a PC with the Technologist theme to use either Thievery (manual dexterity) or History (knowledge of physics and workings). 

For PCs without the Technologist theme I'd either use a straight Intelligence check (without adjusting the DC) or not allow the tinkering at all. Probably the former.


----------

