Responding to your comments on my last video about GUNS IN DND

[@Zedrinbot]

like this post if you think your shortstack goblin gf deserves to wield a great axe twice her size

[@master0fthearts894]

Only problem here is that we live in reality and not in D&D, therefore we can’t have a goblin GF.

[@HeroTheClown]

With a side of extra thick!

[@OGSumo]

As long as by “great axe” you mean *my meat* , then yes.

[@amalgam1210]

not with that attitude.

[@Modtro64]

I believe in shortstack supremacy. Let the Tiny Goblin or Kolbold wield badass weapons.

[@CoolGuyMcgeez]

Adventurer: “Mage cast a spell to defeat the monster” Mage: “i cast glock 17”

[@wyattlohr8199]

Bro you're gonna want more than a Glock.

[@jlokison]

Summon Ma Duece

[@thearchongamer6697]

Eldritch blast with metamagic be like: “I cast burst AR”

[@Funkin_Disher]

I did it like this

[@CoolGuyMcgeez]

@@Funkin_Disher “whoop Dee doo, that’s a joke lads”

[@darienb1127]

Thank you for bringing up the Pathfinder thing. First off, it's really fucking hard to find a Pathfinder group, let alone a good one. Just saying to "try a different system" can feel like looking for a job. Second, I've tried Pathfinder and i'm very iffy about it. I play D&D for the "rule of cool" aspect of it, and Pathfinder is a very rules heavy game. There's pretty much a rule for everything, and it can feel pretty overbearing. I kinda wish there was a system that's smack dab in the middle of 5e and Pathfinder on how heavy the rules are. Besides, making homebrew can be pretty fun and a good creative outlet!

[@Blinky_Dorf]

Pathfinder 2e is pretty close, but you're probably just going to have to homebrew.

[@Zedrinbot]

I like PF, PF2, and 5e for different reasons myself. PF has some really fun abilities and scaling and I love how much is enabled. (You can be a GUN WIZARD.) 5e is just super approachable but I hate how they made some universal options specific class features. (E.g. i hate how metamagic is sorcerers-only, how there are like 12 tables for treasure but only 1 for magic item prices.) If you were referring to original pathfinder, then PF2 might worth trying; though it scales very differently than 5e which throws a lot of people off at first. It's actually designed around characters being lower accuracy which, until you know how to play around that, is a bit frustrating to deal with that. There's also a lot of 'action taxes' as I mentioned, where things you take for granted in other systems (e.g. drawing a weapon, changing grip, just gaining the AC bonus on your shield) take an action to do.

[@darienb1127]

@@Zedrinbot The other issue is finding the right group. Trying to find ANY group feels like a part time job. Trying to find a group I vibe with is even harder on top of that. I'm definitely not opposed to trying either version of Pathfinder some more, but my first impressions of what I played just don't seem like my kind of game.

[@darienb1127]

@@Blinky_Dorf Homebrew Pathfinder or 5e?

[@pavelowjohn9167]

I completely agree with anyone that feels like Pathfinder 1E can get overbearing with rules. I had to GM organized play for years before I felt really solid on all the rules. Having said that, if you have a group that can hold off from mixing all kinds of broken-ass archtypes, you can have some really good games in PF 1E. Another option is just playing Core rules only. That really simplifies some of the bloat in PF1. Of course, that also means no firearms, which is the focus of this video, but that's the price of streamlining.

[@GM_Darius]

The argument of "Just play a different system" always hecking bugged me. So, instead of coming up with a relatively simple system of a point and click based weapon that requires reloading, you want me to learn an entirely different game system?

[@Zedrinbot]

Yeah. I love PF, but the systems definitely are not without flaws, and it's very clear to me that those systems aren't going to be the best ones for all players.

[@Potleafeon]

My group doesn't appreciate that they can't move AND do something in PF1. I didn't realize how dumb it was until I understood the brevity of having Shot on the Run or Spring Attack. Then I learned 5e allows expenditure of movement as per a certain task, like standing up, or in this case, reloading.

[@inkmime]

Yes.

[@BoopernautApAdams]

3:44 The heavy property is bad in general, because a standard longsword is only 2 to 3 pounds. Greatswords, only 4 to 6 pounds. An xbox series s, the smaller of the two, wieghs double actual zweihanders. Greatswords were long, but not heavy. Bows actualy took more strength to use than swords.

[@abyssimus]

I recall having seen (but can't be arsed to find) a HEMA vid where a rather petite woman was swinging around a sword much taller than her as a demonstration of historical streetfighting techniques (straight from manuals of the time). It's mostly core muscle work and knowing how to balance it. Once you've got those two things, it's more of a light gymnastic routine (think oversized baton twirling) because it's the sword's job to cut through your opponents (not yours!). Tangent: The "core muscle" element almost makes me want to say "Heavy weapons (can) use Con for attack modifiers," except that Barbarian would seriously imbalance that. The gymnastic angle raises the idea of allowing Dex but (without serious rule rewrites), I'd have to argue (for my table) there wasn't the sort of pinpoint accuracy you need for fencing. Could still be reasonably balanced if fine motor skills, ranged attacks, and finesse weapons were shuffled off to Wis (on the basis of Perception) -- but then clerics and druids unbalance the game.

[@BoopernautApAdams]

@@abyssimus i was thinking of just swapping the sword's, and bow's stat (dex for swords, strength for bows. Instead of what it actually is) used for attacking because you have to be pretty strong to draw a bowstring all the way back. A compound bow needs (not entirely sure how these measurements work, so i'm just going off of my "interpretation") like 40 something pounds of force to draw it, and that's for a "small" (again not sure how the measurements work) bow. If i recall correctly, a Welsh longbow needed like 100 something pounds of force to draw it. They're also not quiet, the tension of the string is so strong when fully drawn, it snaps, and there's no wobbling in a good bow.

[@abyssimus]

@@BoopernautApAdams Makes sense, and Str based characters honestly have few good ranged options otherwise. Honestly, it'd be kinda neat to have a 5e game with few or no casters and a bunch of classes that use different stats for physical attacks with different rationales (Int? Inaccurate and weak but causes status effects. Cha? Less damage but distracts opponents and draws aggro).

[@BoopernautApAdams]

@@abyssimus that sounds like a fun game to play in

[@Specter_1125]

The length of these weapons would matter as well though. A longsword is usually going to be 3-4 feet long, but a great sword is going to be 5-6 feet long. Halberds and the like would be upwards of 12 feet long. A 3 foot tall creature using a weapon 4x it’s height with the weight all at it’s end would not end well.

[@sgg3586]

I've generally learned that the easiest way to homebrew anything in 5e is to literally just take two items/weapons/spells/etc. of similar level or tier and simply compare them directly. Then look at what the rough parameters guiding their rules/stats are and apply that to whatever you're making. Like off the cuff, if you want to do Fireball by change it to a Ice Spell and call it like "Glacial Burst" all you'd do is look at how a Fireball is 8d6 and requires a Dex save to half the damage. Okay, well now if I want to add that the spell can freeze enemies on a failed save until they succeed on a Strength check to break free, I'd knock the damage down to 6d6 because I just added both 1 affect, and 1 skillcheck requirement, and I'd make the STR check based on the spellslot level used to cast it (like a 10 + spellslot lv, which means at it's base of a level 3 spellslot you have a STR check of 13 you need to beat to break free). So apply this template to firearms and you can basically homebrew a balanced gun in seconds. A Shortbow is 1d6, a Longbow is 1d8, a Heavy Crossbow is 1d10, so a Rifle would probably be 1d12. Then in the same way a Hand-Crossbow is only 1d6 compared to it's 1d10 Heavy variant, a handgun could be a 1d8 (slightly better than the crossbow but not as strong as a rifle). Or you can spice things up by going with more dice, less damage per dice. So a Rifle is 2d6 instead of 1d12, giving it a higher average damage but lower chance of hitting 12. Or even a more wild 3d4 (still a max of 12) but creates a wilder range of rolling to represent maybe early gunpowder vs streamlined bullets. And in regards to people saying "Oh well, that seems low for a gun". Remember, in D&D that a average adult human with no levels as a trained adventurer...only has about 5hp. Even level 1 adventurers start as low as like 10hp. Meaning that a 1d4 dagger on a NAT20 can (just like real life) instantly kill a person if you get that clean strike that pierces their vitals. So keeping that in mind, weapons that get up to 1d12 are actually pretty lethal, and the need to hit harder/faster/repeatedly is not because the weapons themselves are weak stat-wise...it's because high HP pools and higher AC is a reflection of things being tougher overall. Any human that gets to 100HP I would imagine is less (I can survive being stabbed infinitely) and more that when they get attacked they're rolling the attacks off their body and getting cut up rather than actually having the blade plunge into their guts and immediately killing them. With HP reflecting less of your actual lifeforce, and more of your cumulative ability to survive (Endurance, Combat Experience, Pain Mitigation, etc.) all coming together. Which is why you can imagine that even a level 20 warrior can be killed by a 1d4 dagger to the throat the same as a level 0 peasant. Except that the level 20 warrior (until their hitpoints reach zero) are never actually taking that blade to the neck, and are maybe getting cuts/wounds gradually as they know much better how to avoid being stabbed than Bob the apple farmer who happened to get into the first fight of his entire life and unfortunately caught a shiv to the jugular from a crazed Gnome in a bar-brawl before keeling over and dying on the floor as the only thought flowing through his mind as he dies is: "I'd have been more racist to Gnomes if I knew I would die this way..."

[@KanuckStreams]

Fun little trivia in response to ClutchKarma2's comment: The term "bulletproof" came from when making armour, the blacksmith would demonstrate to their client by shooting the armour with a real bullet (this being in the age of matchlock/flintlock muskets, to note), this being the *proof* that the armour was strong.

[@rubinelli7404]

One thing to consider when balancing guns is Resistance. If you don't have magical firearms in your setting, that means they do half or even no damage to a lot of enemies. They could still be very effective against humanoids and beasts, but maybe an adventurer would have to resort to expensive silver ammunition to deal with lycanthropes and switch to a magical crossbow when hunting vampires. This solution begins to break down at higher levels - once the party is equipped with +2 or even +3 weapons - so it may require higher damage, extremely rare and expensive guns for those tiers of play to keep firearms relevant. Still, this would require no new rules and hopefully add interesting choices to combat.

[@sharkwaffle1582]

That’s actually a really good point, and I was just thinking about something similar. It makes sense that some enemies would resist the traditional lead/brass, and that special ammo would exist. And if you were to implement shotgun or airgun style weapons, then that could open up a whole new world of possibilities. For example, Dragon’s Breath shells could deal fire damage, Flower shells shoot seeds (which I can already tell would be super broken with a creative Druid in the party), and air guns could shoot darts with potion effects. The possibilities are endless

[@someguy3861]

make firearms another damage type entirely. "ballistic" seems appropriate. you can now shoot god and he will bleed. add resistances as needed, but most things resistant to arrow-fire just sort of.. aren't, to half-inch cones of lead traveling at 70% the speed of sound.

[@dylanmorris5352]

That's what +1, +2, and +3 ammunition is for.

[@hostiusasinhostilityhostil7853]

So what happens when the wizard casts Magic Weapon on the fighter's rifle?

[@sharkwaffle1582]

@@hostiusasinhostilityhostil7853 the bullets turn into hollow points I guess

[@someguy3861]

if people think guns shouldn't be in dnd because "muh accuracy", they should remove the rapier as well. rapiers were developed while firearms lead to a decrease in armor. and about the reload action: if they're single shot anyway, just carry more. brace of pistols, bby

[@arfived4]

I asked a friend of mine if, in the game he was DMing, if my Warlock pirate could have an arcane focus that looked like a flintlock pistol. When he brought up that it was somewhat anachronistic, my response was 'rapiers and chainmail, at the same time?'

[@Kirk9019]

Can confirm that chainmail actually decreases protection from very thin tipped piercing weapons (a la rapier). They catch in the rings and punch holes straight through it. An arcane flintlock pistol actually makes more sense than chainmail vs rapiers. Magic instead of gunpowder 👀

[@MayHugger]

Plate armour also came after firearms.

[@tiglishnobody8750]

@@MayHugger I mean it been exist back far as Bronze age like Dendra panoply could arguably as grandfather of Plate armor but year it became more frequent at time when firearm became common use

[@BlueDavrial]

Matt's Gunslinger is actually a Fighter subclass, which goes right along with your comment about it making sense for Fighters to be good with guns. Also the guns are available to anyone, that's actually a fairly big overarching subplot of the back half of CR S1 and a sub-subplot of some of S2. The Gunslinger is just someone who specializes in guns and can make them themselves

[@AzureIV]

There is also the Fighter Renegade subclass that creates a specialized gun that they use.

[@cjjackson2650]

If I remember correctly in tashas it says that if there are guns that artificer are proficient with them or something along those lines

[@jackmack4181]

When ever I think of guns in a Fantasy I think of flintlock, old school revolver and possibly some lever actions. I do this because I’m not expecting a building an m16 during the time people still used buckets as toilets.

[@Jeonsaryu]

That's the usual theme for a tabletop setting, yes. But a lot of people also like sci-fi or even modern era rpgs, and thus laser weapons and AK-47s would be thematic to those settings respectively. And, appropriately I hope, the DM would control when players obtain such weapons, so they have equal-ish power to the opposition. Like... you'd probably want an AK-47 against a mafia with tommys, not a flintlock.

[@kevingriffith6011]

I guess I'm strange, because my fantasy of early firearms is "a belt with 4 pistols on it that you would shoot and discard in a pitched battle". Guess it's the pirate in me. (Also, not *literally* discard, of course)

[@lastwymsi]

Remember, Samurai, the Ottomans, Cowboys, and Victorian culture all existed around the same time. The 1800s were a wild time. Like at the same time people were still engaging in ARMORED mounted melee combat, during the 1820s-40s reliable revolvers were in wide use, and by the 60s cased shotgun and rifle cartridges began coming into the world.

[@krinkrin5982]

@@Jeonsaryu Easy rule: lasers deal the same amount of damage than regular guns do, they just do it as fire rather than regular damage. As for the modern guns, you can attack with them as many times as you have attacks, rather than just once before having to reload. For automatic fire, maybe have advantage on attack at the cost of having to reload earlier. Stealing the twin-linked rule from 40k here.

[@Specter_1125]

@@kevingriffith6011standard practice for a 16-17th century cuirassier

[@BrotherVoidBomber]

Not gonna lie when me and my friends all got into dnd about 3 years ago with 3.5 then 5e none of us really paid attention to the heavy property, we just thought it meant it was a weapon you couldn't one hand and therefore couldn't wield a shield. Looking back this actually would have stopped me from playing one of my favorite characters from that time. His name is hard to remember now but I believe it was jack. Jack was the most angry spiteful and fearless kobold fighter I've ever played. He wielded a greatsword and main way of fighting was being picked up by the friend-enemy orc player and launched sonic spin dash style at some wood elves that wouldn't let us pass through their tree house. I became gecko beyblade. Long story short ignore dumb rules that ruin creativity.

[@IrvineTheHunter]

I knew about both art and DnD, Copper Bullies the elderly was great, but I've been around sense, "let's (sanely) talk about mature art" definitely what got me into your content, everything else was a bonus.

[@NightMeteor21]

I barely just got here and I thought oh this is a dnd channel just to be extremely wrong

[@Wolfgang177]

Considering mithral armor lacks strength requirements, I'd say any weapon made of mithral would be shifted one lighter i.e heavy weapons are now standard, and normal weapons are now light. You can silver a weapon for 100gp, I'd say that getting a weapon refitted with mithral would likely run you about 200gp now you can use whatever weapon you want. As for firearms I'd just use the ones in the dmg under 'alien technology', if the setting has cannons then I think its reasonable for someone to want a 'portable cannon' and for that to eventually lead to the idea of flintlocks or muskets. If your game has artificers, then your players have access to their artillerist subclass, so firearms are more than feasible. In a game of teleporting fighters and casters shunting people into different dimensions, someone complaining that Scimbo is breaking their immersion because of his loud crossbow is just absurd.

[@Zedrinbot]

I've liked the idea of rare materials to get around properties like that, just 5e says "Mithral items are magic items" which... kinda sucks. (Yet adamantine weapons aren't magic weapons???) Homebrew that makes alternate materials as mundane options is something I'd like to see more of.

[@azabache6058]

This idea is at the core for a kobold fighter character if I ever got the chance to play. Hopefully convince the DM my kobold could wield a great sword because it was made of mithril so I could walk around like a short dragon cloud strife

[@Wolfgang177]

@@azabache6058 Alternatively if your dm is against the idea just make him a barbarian, reckless offsets your disadvantage. Another option is the 'Rune Knight' subclass for fighters. Specifically its the 'Giants Might' feature, that way you could even wield a weapon made for a large creature (they do twice the weapons normal damage dice).

[@MrSpinachguy]

The only issue with lighter materials being used for large weapons is that it would make bludgeoning weapons about as useful as a wiffle bat. Imagine having a greatclub made out of balsa wood or something. You can enchant it to be durable, but it isn't going to bonk as hard as something heavier.

[@Wolfgang177]

@@MrSpinachguy A greatclub actually isn't heavy, so a small character can wield it no problem.

[@degiguess]

If there's one thing pathfinder players love it's telling everybody how much better pathfinder is than 5e. Pathfinder is like the Canada of tabletop games, no matter how much they tell everybody how much better they are 90% of people will go to America anyways.

[@Funkin_Disher]

PF is basically 3.5 with a fresh coat of paint, and 3.5 had its fair share of flaws. I feel like that gets skipped over a lot when it comes up in conversation regarding 5e

[@zombiemanjosh]

100% with you on the Heavy property. For my tables it's a Strength requirement of 13+, but it's also an issue that can be solved with money, because like Adamantine I made Mithril an option for weapons as well as armor, so you can get normal weapons with the Light property and "Heavy" weapons without the Heavy property if you've put in the time to get the gold it will cost.

[@CounterShift15]

The deagle comment and the appropriate amount of question marks fucking ended me oh my god Also, I appreciate this kind of video, wasn't like, a mockup of comments and telling them how they were wRONG but more of a clarification.

[@timothymclean]

I never gave much thought to weapon sizes when I played 3.5. It just made sense. And I can see what 5e's trying to do. A halfling that wants a halfling-sized greatsword should get a longsword. It's just not a solution I think works very well.

[@Zedrinbot]

So why can't a halfling get a glaive then or any other 2handed reach weapon

[@timothymclean]

@@Zedrinbot Yeah, that's one of the reasons it doesn't work well. I could probably ignore the problem more easily if every two-handed weapon had a smaller version that halflings could use.

[@Zedrinbot]

@@timothymclean Yeah. I've thought about the idea of like, what if pikes (which were just huge spears), were d8's, reach, and lacked heavy, just to make them distinct. Realistically, small races actually would need more reach options to make up for their shorter limbs--which I feel is more immersion breaking than the concepts of leverage or "weapon too big." Still, 5e has moved away from pushing certain races into certain classes, especially after Tasha's, so the concept of weapons being locked out of certain races isn't part of its philosophy anymore. Heavy literally serves no purpose at this point. I think it shouldn't be tied to size, and you're just assumed to (by default) use a weapon that's sized for you.

[@erikschaal4124]

I just realized in 3.5, the size property affects weapon dice, but not the reach property. I think it would be hilarious to see a 3 ft tall halfling striking a target 10 ft away with a pole arm.

[@skunkbrains5656]

I'm going to be perfectly honest: The more I learn about other systems, the less I like 5e, because the more I look at it, the more it feels like it's only balanced most of the time because the rules are so, so simple, that it's impossible to come up with anything creative, or the way you have to exploit it is so obscure, it's not worth the effort.

[@trial_with_an_error9687]

That's because 5e was made for everyone, from veterans to people that have just started. Everyone needs to start somewhere.

[@timbergoat2568]

If you can't find a way to be creative in 5e it means you're not very creative, as someone who started in 4th edition, spent some time in shadowrun, then went over to Pathfinder, 5e is not a perfect system, it has badly worded abilities that are a lot of fun to play with, that is a feeling Pathfinder has never gived me.

[@crookedclown9499]

Agreed. The moment I was introduced to pathfinder 1e and I got my head around the differences; 5th edition became just.... Less impressive.

[@bananajoe113]

@@timbergoat2568 To be fair, as a DM 90% of the time I don't expect your spells, features, or actions to work differently then they do and the outcomes are normally expected. Most encounters are pretty expected. The spells that have the most unexpected outcomes are the ones with the most freedom for the player to decide what it does, like silent image. Magic items create that encounter uncertainty and so do encounters that make things uncertain because the situation is so obtuse. Even then there are a lot of magic items that don't create any uncertainty. A flame tongue is a flame tongue it does fire damage.

[@JoshDurelofIOW]

You get a like, because we feel the same on this matter.

[@FiveTen007]

Mages create enchanted weapons with sofisticated understanding of the universe, and it's too far fetched that a society with magic can discover simple chemical reaction makes explosion to make small metal ball fly fast. In a high fantasy setting mages would use activated arcane runes inside a firearm to propel bullets instead of gunpowder.

[@lovecervere3699]

In a campaign where I ran guns (a post-apocalypse spelljammer type setting leaning heavily on Warhammer 40k), I had mine have more dice but no ability bonus (except for some specific subclasses I made to go with guns, like a sniper rogue or a Rambo barbarian), reload with one of your attacks instead of an action if you had extra attack, jamming on 1s and needing reload, and you needed had to use your bonus action to aim if you wanted to actually use your proficiency bonus, otherwise you fire from the hip (less accurate but quicker). Also very liberal use of special properties for guns to make them stand out.

[@Sorain1]

Oh I like that 'bonus action aim to use your PB' idea.

[@SpiritOfSpite]

The Mercer ruleset allows any one to use a gun, the gunslingger subclass is just better at using them like any fighter subclass that revolves around a particular weapon.

[@twilightgardenspresentatio6384]

It’s funny they’ll accept lightning bolts and flying dragon breath but guns are a no no?

[@timothymclean]

Many people have a very strict idea of what kinds of fantasies should be allowed. No guns, no anime stuff, no combat wheelchairs. It's really frustrating, because their position is both obviously wrong and almost impossible to argue with (because they're arguing with feelings, not facts).

[@elone4567]

@@timothymclean maybe the gun design can be similar to the guns in chaotic?

[@Zedrinbot]

The point I was more talking about is like, if you're a DM who wants guns in your game (NOT a player), it's important to figure out why you want guns first and how they'll affect your story's themes, and what kinda mechanics will embody the aspects you like about them or that further enhance your setting. Also, I tried to call attention to pitfalls or issues that people make default to that might be unfun or clunky to use. It becomes a matter of deciding where you want to use realism, and where you want things to be more abstracted because it's still a game at the end of the day. If a DM is doing a game in say, Ancient Greece, then yeah I probably wouldn't expect to see a gun at all. (Not that you can't make that happen, but that's up to the DM.) But if they wanna do a game set in FFXIV's Eorzea or in Azeroth, then guns adjacent to other ranged weapons would make sense (be them homebrew or just the DMG guns.) And if they wanted to do like an early western, Revolutionary War, or Age of Piracy inspired setting, then guns with longer reload and more potency make sense, where they're only used once a combat (save for NPC firing lines).

[@corphish129]

@@timothymclean if they're arguing about their feelings, they're not wrong. Some people don't think that stuff fits the tone of the game they want to play, and they're not wrong. They just want to play a different game than you do.

[@timothymclean]

@@corphish129 There's saying "I don't want anime characters in my game," and then there's sending death threats to people who post homebrew wheelchairs (to pick an actual example). There's a fucking lot of the latter-and even more who just insist that using things they don't like ruins D&D or something along those lines. (Death threats are obviously way worse, but that's still shitty.)

[@1MoreSonicRobot]

I've had a thought about translating the guns in Ratchet and Clank Going Commando to D&D. One gun from the game, the Mega Rocket Cannon, it can fire four rockets if charged. So I made each rocket give 1d4 of damage and the player would have to choose whether to fire the weapon or charge it skipping their turn.

[@skullsquad900]

Completely agree, even the part about Matt's builds (they need a lot of work). Though I must say, Matt did tell Taliesin that he didn't want Guns in his campaign and the only way he could get them in was by making a character specifically designed to build them into his world, just so that Percy could have a gun...

[@noodsdood6977]

Another straight BANGER from Big Zed, lovin it. Lookin forward to both whatever D&D doodad you do in the future, as well as reading about how those two robot gals are getting along.

[@zokhartclips]

Well, you're absolutely right. I played both systems and I prefer Pf2e, but I understand people preferring Dnd5e AND wanting to incorporate firearms to their games. Kudos to you for trying to help those people.

[@Zulk_RS]

FINALLY someone points out how redundant and unnecessarily restrictive the Heavy property is. So here's the thing, there's what I call a "Hidden Weapon Size table" in 5e. By that I mean in some part of the DMG about creating monsters, it says monsters of large size or bigger that use weapons usually have bigger damage die than what is normal for that weapon (An ogre's javelin deals 2d6+STR damage when the damage of a normal javelin was supposed to be 1d6+STR) because the weapon the monster is using is made for larger size creatures. In the DMG, it says large weapons get x2 damage die, huge get x3 and Gargantuan weapons are x4 the normal sized weapons that PC usually have. It further states that if the weapon is for creatures of a size larger than what the user is (Medium creature using Large weapons or Small creature using Medium weapons), they have disadvantage. If the weapon is for a creature two size larger than you can't use it (Medium creatures can't use weapons for Huge creatures). So far so good. Yeah it is sort of restrictive but if you somehow get over the restrictions either via spells or just eating the Disadvantage, you'll get an massive boost to your damage. Except that's where they fucked it all up with heavy property. They already had a system in place for scaling damage to weapon size. the only thing it was missing was a ruling on how that works for small and tiny weapons. Instead of adding just that one more ruling, they shoved the whole thing at the back of the DMG and added this whole thing with Heavy. Suddenly where using a larger weapon would have been like a trading accuracy for damage, it is now punishing for shorter races for no reason. And now it's also taking away the option of picking up an ogre's large weapons from the PC (because who is going to find that one minor ruling in the DMG?). Also if you go for the "Mah Realisum" argument, explain to me why a Tiny Fairy can wield a Great Sword. They will have advantage, yes, but THEY CAN wield it. Heavy property only serves to limit small races from using normal weapons without giving them any other benefits for being small and also doesn't give smaller races any alternatives to Great Swords. "Can my goblin PC use this Great Sword?" "No. It's too big for you." "I want to use a great sword though. Can I get a great sword that's smaller and more fitting for my Goblin PC's size" "Lol nope! Deal with it!" I have been all over the place. My point is, either have character use weapons that are made for their size and so have options for all size. Or just remove the size restriction entirely and let small characters use the standard weapons. Heavy property on weapons don't add anything that the two-handed property couldn't have done and serves only to limit smaller races for no reason. The Heavy property is the half-assed attempt of trying to both have variable size weapons and not have variable size weapons at the same time. It is dumb, it is stupid.

[@l0stndamned]

I've tried using guns in a post-apoc fantasy d+d game using the old d20 modern damage (normal handguns did 2d6) values as a starting point. I separated gun proficiencies from the normal simple/martial stuff with fighters and artificers getting the most options and druids and sorcerers getting the least. Also made both guns and ammo rather rare as they aren't being made regularly, and this seemed to balance things out. Would make it easier for gunslingers to make bits if a player wanted to play one.

[@Funkin_Disher]

I still remember the UA gunsmith artificer and its thunder cannon. Favourite D&D gun

[@stand1rte]

8:10 i do the maths and my character have -3 seconds to reload, with this rule i reload so fast that reality couldnt track my fingers

[@alphaxtitania5597]

You pretty much summed up the exact reason why I don't like the Gunslinger. Why make an entire subclass just to put guns in your campaign when you could just PUT GUNS IN YOUR CAMPAIGN!

[@JSHADOWM]

8:18 to take it a step further, following this formula as is, lets assume 20th level fighter, 6 Int. 70-(5*20+6) 5*20= 100 70-(100+6) 70-106 the gun reloads instantly (in negative 36 seconds.)

[@mongodroid4842]

this isn't accurate, it explicitly says "70-(5*attack+int)" let's imagine a character with 20 dex and 20 int, proficiency in firearms and archery fighting style 70-(5*13+5) 70-(65+5) 70-70 0 the gun still reloads instantly, huh

[@PandaXs1]

ngl I'm surprised *no one** brought up the fact that 2nd Ed. AD&D actually had rules for an arquebus. in the PHB. that's right, this wasn't some obscure bullshit optional rule squirreled away in the Dungeon Master's Guide for only the DM to see (and subsequently ban), the game was upfront to the players about gun ownership. it also makes it very clear the DM might not allow it, but hey guns in AD&D. I'd say this is a good argument against the older anti-guns-in-D&D people, but reminding them what the good ol' days were actually like usually doesn't go too well. also for those wondering the arquebus costs 500gp, has shitty range, double range penalties, backfires on a 1 or 2 giving the attacker 1d6 damage, but has a 1d10 exploding damage die (that is you keep rolling it whenever you get a 10) *okay I don't know if this was actually the case, but it wasn't brought up in the original video, and I wasn't about to wade through 2000 comments either.

[@MisterJasro]

I liked the history lesson, but the like is for the cheeky addendum. That read made me chuckle.

[@pokefanbro673]

To be honest, with the part about heavy weapons, I think there's an easy solution. Probably not an original one, but I just thunk it up so I'm going with it: If you want to keep the heavy attribute, make it tied to strength. This way, the barbarian with 20 strength can wield something like a giants great axe that's the size of a small barn, but the 4 strength wizard can't handle a regular great axe. This way, with enough strength, anyone can wield a giant axe or sword. So now, the little goblin that's 4' 3" but has 18 strength can pick up a tree and use it as a bludgeoning device.

[@marley7868]

and as for the 1st law problem okay goblin hits guard with buster sword she gets sent flying that was on purpose you can have fun with literaly bouncing of your enemies with your big weapon

[@gabrielrussell5531]

Heavy isn't always aboot weight. It's aboot how cumbersome it is. A longbow is 6' tall, your kobold with 20 strength won't be effective with it.

[@wesleywyndam-pryce5305]

@@gabrielrussell5531 hold it sideways like in the movies

[@Specter_1125]

@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305you can’t draw a bow properly like that.

[@NobodyDungeons]

I have actually added this strength requirement to bow specifically, so you couldn't use long bows without 11 strength with heavy crossbows requiring 13 strength. Additionally I added a warbow which also required 13 strength dealing 2d6 damage, and I replace the bonus action attack from the XBE feat with the ability to fire off a shot as a reaction whenever you roll initiative. I also made crossbows simple weapons to show how easily they could be used.

[@staunchystal]

Yee I have a feat that makes a character count as one size larger for wielding weapons (it also let's u use versatiles larger damage die in one hand and gives u a +1 str) and then I ported over the damage scaling for larger weapons and gave larger weapons the "heavy" property but for medium creatures etc

[@lukevankleef4245]

I feel like one way to do it well is to have guns deal a lot of damage, but have that damage be fixed. So while melee, unarmed and bows gain bonuses from your strength, accuracy and other related stats, the guns rely entirely on their inherent damage value, with no bonuses to speak of. So in the short run its a decent weapon, later on it wont remain as reliable.

[@Cosmic_K13]

Somewhat counter argument: Make guns do flat damage that scales with either dex or Proficiency bonus. I.E. A revolver should do 5 + Dex mod, and they qualify for feats for ranged weapons. Guns, IMO could be the ranged weapon people choose for consistency, rather than completely overshadowing other ranged weapons. Perhaps different ammo could add dice or effects to it.

[@lukevankleef4245]

@@Cosmic_K13 That sounds like good way to do it.

[@ObliviousNaga]

I borrowed the heavy rule in my weapon vanilla expanded homebrew. Thanks for that suggestion

[@haveltherock1169]

A harmonica gun, a revolver, a single shot, and even a Maxim gun for a particularly cool DM could be made by an artificer or anyone with basic machinery expertise. You could make a system where more powder equals increased durability degradation at the exchange of increased power and armor piercing.

[@starbomber]

4:45 ah yes the good ol "I can do this thing but I need a chain of 4 feats to do it" You did get more feats in pathfinder but I really despised feat trees, they felt overly complicated for the bonuses they provided.

[@slydoorkeeper4783]

As someone who much prefers PF1e to DND5e, I agree. Its why I run the Elephant in the Room rules and do a mix of my "Level 0" and have player roll for HP at every level. Level 0 is bonus feat plus bonus HP equal to Con Score. This has given my players more options as well as gave everything a bit more HP in the early levels. Made hirelings and animal companions so much more useful as well.

[@Creepyslandofdreams]

wand of magic missile is basically a gun. Like, 3d4+3 is enough to kill a commoner. And it upcasts. I had an Artificer character who used a Wand of magic missile as his arcane firearm, and scorching ray, a second level spell, could deal 6d6+1d8 cast through it. I mean. Alot of spells are just guns.

[@DragonKnightJin]

My Kobold Rogue got hold of a special Girdle that let him ignore the Heavy Property. It resulted in him wielding a Heavy Crossbow as big as he was with WAY more skill and grace than he really ought to. And it was *GLORIOUS*

[@shreeshfuup7058]

This seems like a fun video to watch without any knowledge of the original video this was based on

[@jinxtheunluckypony]

I’m glad you pointed out how dumb the heavy property is. It basically just says small characters can’t be strength based in any way.

[@Verbose_Mode]

I took much of what you said about guns in 5e in mind when I designed my firearms, but since I was going with old-fashioned blackpowder guns, I was fine with the "three actions to reload one shot" system... because I balanced my guns around being powerful single-use per fight, unless you were going for something unique. Instead, I made them _scale_ differently. Muskets gain damage and range, and are best in the hands of those that don't get Extra Attack. Pistols keep the same base damage, but gain multiple shots. Those focused on gunplay are encouraged to carry multiple weapons, and the "standard" shooty-adventurer loadout is a saber mainhand and a pistol _offhand._ Bows and cantrips maintain their niche as dominant ranged weapons outside of the dangerous burst damage of the first few rounds. I also made the proficient classes in firearms Artificer, Fighter and Wizard. Think of it a bit like the guns in Persona 5, where they are a VERY strong option but once you empty it, you don't get to reload in the same fight.

[@Funkin_Disher]

Guns are basically normal ranged weapons (simple/martial, loading, ammunition, two-handed for rifles), but instead of adding stat to damage they have two damage dice. Oh and theyre loud like when you cast thunderclap or thunderwave

[@liamjensen9156]

One interesting idea I've seen to make crits less reliant on Rng (Ie: no more i got a critical hit but rolled a 1 on damage) by making crits instead add the maximum roll for the weapon dice on top of your normal roll, (as an example a crit with a greatsword would do 2d6+12 instead of 2d6x2)

[@loony2470]

First time dm. Doing a ravenloft campaign and so far, its going well. I gave the bard (who is in college of spirits ) a relover that has holy properties. This went well against vampires and other undead creatures that heal passively. Giving the bard some damage and even supportive aspect to their gun.

[@pavelowjohn9167]

Thanks for the videos on firearms, you should make videos on other aspects of D&D, PF or whatever other cool systems you've played. One aspect of table-top that I've never seen a lot of good videos on is basic tactics for combat using miniatures and flip-maps (ie. how to use movement of your party to get the most out of terrain and cover, when to retreat vs advance, etc.) I wouldn't mind seeing videos on that. Keep up the good work!

[@zombiemanjosh]

5e is a vaguely written skeleton of a hyper-simplified system. But that's WHY I prefer it over other systems. I like making homebrew and building on those bare bones more than I like running the things I make as DM or playing them as PC. 5e is great as a canvas once you get a good grasp on the "rules" and trends in restrictions. I've gotten really good at calculating probability in my head.

[@thelonelypilot]

Aw man, I wanted you to read my comment. My idea about how to balance guns are: Make them hybrid weapons, like the Polish Cavalry shotgun-axe. Remove any stealth property. Deal heavier damage than a bow or crossbow, but lack the ability to be enchanted. Use breachloading tech (like a double barrel shotgun) and struggle against heavy armor.

[@Zedrinbot]

I responded to the idea of your comment at 6:47. There were a LOT of comments like that, talking about what era of guns to pull from rather than how to accomplish a specific theme and the ramifications of that.

[@Artista_Frustrado]

i dig this format honestly, fun interactions with the comments as for ruleset just make guns be a fixed damage & non-rreloadable in battle, which is basically the whole point of Gun, yeah you can get good at shooting but a bullet is still a bullet either you're Towns Guard cletus or John Wick. at least for something as Straight-forward as 5e

[@vanivanov9571]

11:05 Actually, the early handgonnes and arquebusses/hookguns were considered specialist weapons. So making gunslinger a specialist class would make sense for the very early days of firearms. While guns aren't as hard to use, you still do need to learn a lot of mysterious technological details to use them, like keeping your powder dry and learning to aim without decent sights. Likely mixing your own powder, too, which could even be a class secret potentially, if you want that for your setting.

[@IrvineTheHunter]

Well I like the idea, I don't think your argument is as strong as you think, "keeping the powder dry", "aiming without decent sights", crossbows offered massive advantage over bows because they WOULDN'T get wrecked by getting wet [the bow string in particular] and could be aimed without advanced training, SLINGS are even harder to aim than bows, and are even harder to learn to credibly shoot as flinging the stone requires good technique to impart any significant amount of force, similar to you know, spears, knives, and axes. As far as "mixing" gunpowder well its somewhat credible, gunpowder isn't easy to make. [IMO a hand wave magic/alchemist is easier] OG gunpowder is made from saltpeter [distilled from massive amounts of excrement/urine] and charcoal. Rome made extensive use of saltpeter collected from public chamber pots and was often used with food such as for its cooling effect. HOWEVER, in RPG worlds much of this is just simpler done with magic, so the large public works to create the small amounts of said material wouldn't make sense, similarly an individual gunslinger wouldn't have the resources and if they DID have the resources they would be better spent on magic items, because 5e has a strong magic economy. That said mixing black powder isn't that complex, it's just time and resources, if resources are rare, it would be problematic for the player to fight with their class special*, so from a game perspective it kind of shoots itself in the foot ehhhh..... get it.... *artificer gun makes sense it's its own ecosystem but again that's just the Glock spell.

[@vanivanov9571]

​@@IrvineTheHunter ? It seems you heard some bad info. Crossbows were typically more vulnerable to damp than bows, and I have no idea why one would assume they're less vulnerable. Crossbows have a bowstring, you can take the prod off the stock and use it as a regular bow. There's no mysterious secret to aiming a sling, you just practice a lot, and rocks are cheap so no problem. Gunpowder was not cheap, and so only a few people put in the thousands of rounds to learn how to shoot straight. Marksmanship actually got worse by the 18th century, since a lot of poorly trained conscripts with about 10 rounds of practice ammo became the norm. The concept of aiming with a gun seems simple enough, but mysteriously a LOT of people missed BADLY, with guns, giving the impression muskets were inaccurate. Stuff like not flinching, managing your powder charge, proper wadding of the ball, learning to deal with residue, managing your match so you don't ignite the power accidentally... black powder gonnes aren't simple or easy, if one wants to learn to use them well, and be one of the highly valued mercenaries of the 16th century. Mixing gunpowder was complex enough that it took almost a millennium to get the smokeless powder we use today, and the Song made it a trade secret. It may've been a guild-secret in Europe, I don't know its gunpowder history as well. Things like corned powder took a couple of centuries to develop, and for a long time people were having to (re)mix serpentine powder in the field, a little before a battle. The adventurer can collect or buy their own sulphur, saltpeter and charcoal, to make their own powder.

[@IrvineTheHunter]

​ @Van Ivanov I'll totally concede on IRL firearms practice sucking and causing problems in training BUUUUT I kind of addressed that with the whole expense/practicality argument. If guns exist and are SOOO expensive that you can't practice with them a wand of magic missiles is a much better investment. My point ONCE AGAIN* comes down to if guns are expensive it makes sense that guns just terribly suck you can use them once in a combat at great expense [considering a 30+ second load time on black powder being FIVE 5e rounds that's just true] and their damage is middling, you can get powder ingredients except in large cities with alchemist guilds that would probably charge an arm and leg because making saltpeter is hard and the waste is better used in farming, cleaning, and tanning. All the basic things magic doesn't help with. Again a wand of magic missiles is an Uncommon Magical Item valued between 101-500gp DMG 135. *The entire comment past the first paragraph. Saying black powder took till 1900~ to developed is a bit disingenuous, it's like saying no one could figure out large plates of steel would provide good protection until 1500~. It comes back down to the utility/expense argument, it took until 1900 until the infrastructure was created to refine PURE elements of many kind CHEAPLY, instead of low quality elements from a leach field. It's possible someone somewhere created black powder before that point but the massive expense of setting up the saltpeter production and then refining a massive amount of it, that will quickly get used up. It's not practical, until the 1900's. it's like American ammo tends to be lower power than European varieties and a big reason why probably comes down to keeping the cost down for a country that eats through a lot of powder. Experience As for the skill requirement, I've used darts, slings, bows, daggers, slingshots, javelins, shuriken, axes, semi's, revolvers, a bolt-action, and a black powder musket, the last one is among the easiest to use, along with darts, slingshots, and the bolt-action. I've never used a scope or crossbow so those aren't things I can speak on and I'm using a cap lock which make my life marginally easier, buuut, well it's a bunch of steps and is slow it's easy to fire and it's fairly quiet with basically no recoil, plus unlike my modern guns, it's all of 5 pieces and cleaning black powder is supper easy, you can literally rinse it out, none of this, oh no I dropped my gun in a puddle got to field stip it, nope easy peasy. Crossbows My information's on crossbows is based on the idea that for a long time were made of steel and the reason I believe the string was less vulnerable was simply because it was built differently, a bow string only needs to hold 100-150lb pounds of force for a short time and is well known to be vulnerable to wet, a crossbow string is a thick rope designed to hold 500-1500lb, for an extended period of time. References to Battle of Crercy 1364 and others note archers putting away bowstrings, but crossbows don't however it's possible they don't just because they can't.

[@vanivanov9571]

​@@IrvineTheHunter Doesn't a Wand of Magic Missile cost hundreds of gold sovereigns? Looking it up, it's considered an uncommon magic item, and 5E recommends that for a 5th+ level _high-magic_ campaign, you let players start with ~600GP plus one uncommon magical item. It depends on the setting, but if wands of magic missile are honestly so cheap that level one adventurers could buy those instead of spending years learning the bow or gun or sword... well, everyone in the setting should be using them. It's not a bad idea for a setting overall, it'd be fun to see one where just about everyone uses wands of magic missiles, since they're basically better than guns (similar damage, can't miss... that's crazy overpowered at low-levels). You seem to be a bit confused about pricing. Most people never saw a gold coin in their lives, much less hundreds of pieces of it; most never used coins but used a barter economy. 500 pieces of eight or pounds sterling of silver (about the value of a guinea) would be the wages of 25 to 50 years work for a labourer. Using 18th century numbers since I don't have earlier ones, it's about 2 to 4 months wages to afford a thousand cartridges of ammo to practice with, for a day labourer, plus a week or two's work for a musket. That's using your ENTIRE income, mind, so you wouldn't be able to pay for food, rent, or anything else (so realistically, this would take years of saving). You might be able to manage with a bit less, if you can keep finding your shot and remelt it when it gets too misshapen, but the powder was actually more expensive than the shot. So, this was not a light expense even by the 18th century, which is why gunpowder weapons went hand in hand with a strong central government who could afford some of this. The British only gave them 50 rounds to practice with in the best case, which is why the British could sometimes hit what they aimed at). In the 18th century, gunpowder was about a shilling per pound of the stuff. So figure a silver piece for 2 pounds, in DnD terms, presuming any comparison exists in economy (which it used to, the older DnD manuals doing some research into historical pricing). That'd get you a lot of shots, like 150 shots for one silver coin. You seem to be misunderstanding what I write, and are inadvertently twisting the meaning. Smokeless powder was not developed until 1880. That's what I clearly referenced. Europe transitioned to it over the next decade. So the Franco Prussian war did not technically use what we today call "gunpowder," it was still using blackpowder. Corning wasn't developed until about a century after the first metal firelances, was an example of an innovation that took a long time to develop. So I was correcting the impression you gave that powder mixing was simple, since it's been a science that took about a millennium to develop. I'm not sure what you mean about the possibility someone developed black powder before the 1900s. Good job trying out various weapons. But how did you understand, "you have to practice a lot [with a sling]," to mean, "slings are easy"? I said it was straightforward, not easy. What kind of accuracy were you getting with the smoothbore musket? The Japanese were getting hits on human targets at hundreds of yards, in the Imjinwaeran, and the British thought it was nearly impossible to hit a man at 200 yards and nearly so at 150, so "easy," is highly relative. A musket is easier to clean than fieldstripping a Kalashnikov. But what's your point? You can't clean it in the middle of a battle, so you have to learn to expect and deal with powder residue building up. Oiling your patches helps to reduce the powder residue issue, for example. Any time you wash it out (soap works fine) is risky, since you need it to dry properly and oil it, which leaves you vulnerable to attack. Carrying several guns, pistols or muskets, could be wise for that reason. Crossbows: You can make steel bows, too (India had some). People don't normally, because steel performs poorly; it's only an economic compromise for later medieval crossbows (a good composite prod was expensive, and steel can take a high load). Longbows are big, so unstringing them was likely just as much a concern for easier transport. Heavy crossbows with high draw weights tend to be pre-loaded fairly heavy, so you don't want to be stringing and unstringing them more than you have to. And they're just as bulky unstrung; unless you want to actually take the prod out of the crossbow as well, and try to reassemble it at the time (I wouldn't recommend it). That said, I'd be a bit surprised if crossbows were never unstrung. Generally, it's the glue in crossbows that was vulnerable to humidity, not the strings. Strings can be waxed or oiled, and you can replace those quite easily. There's a theory Japan never mass-adopted the crossbow for its infantry, as China did, due to humidity.

[@vanivanov9571]

Addendum: It's actually 60 rounds of practice ammo and 60 rounds of blanks, in the best case with the British; specifically for their riflemen. Line infantry only got 30. Most infantry in Europe got less than 10. They were given this much for practice on an annual basis, mind.

[@Zionguard935]

I did check your channel for more D&D stuff. But it still was worth it in the end.

[@Anaguma79]

Matt Mercer's Gunslinger subclass is far too complicated and limiting for me. The Battlemaster subclass does all the trick shots you want without bringing misfires into your game.

[@aquamarinerose5405]

On the rant about the Heavy property... Yeah, that makes sense. 5e really needs like a 5.5 to help fix some of these half-baked aspects of the game, but we all know that's not going to happen for a LONG time considering they just introduced like 2 whole new campaign settings for regular 5e.

[@rompevuevitos222]

Reminder: a hit does not mean you get impaled or pierced, you figure that out from remaining hp and damage dealt Hp are luck points, stories would suck if protagonists died as easily as the average mook Because you lost 18 hp in one hit does not mean you got obliterated, it just means you survived a big attack and your luck won't last forever

[@themaskedhobo]

Two ways to implement Firearms Die up one size, increased cost of ammunition (if tracked), and give a feat or str requirement. Longbow = d8 => Arquebus (str 13 or firearm feat) = d10. Or just reskin existing ranged weapons with pizzazz to maintain balance 100%

[@leon--osseusii4664]

Hey man if you're gonna do anything like this in a future can you make one about summons? Like for example i always feel like it's hard to manage your bone bois as a necromancer since its kinda like everyone else is playing MMO while youre out here playing RTS so i am interested how you would inplement rts features to mmos...

[@ederjunior18]

Hiro the dense will come back ?

[@Finalblade2007]

I 2nd this.

[@briannunez1950]

It won’t, he said it multiple times, sad but yay I 3rd this.

[@andreasmuller4172]

One simple solution to the problem of not having multiple types of actions in 5e to reload is to borrow a page from the Aim action introdiced in tasha's. How reloading would work is that if you have moved less than half your walking speed this turn, you can reduce your walkin speed to 0 until the beginning of your next turn to reload your gun, that way you emulate the use of a move action pathfinder used for reloading.

[@morriganlynham4964]

5e’s best rule is just that the DM can steal rules from other games

[@Folly_Inds]

Chiming in on the pathfinder comment, I've got a TTRPG group who switches up systems after every arc is done. its been a lot of fun. Sure I don't keep a characters for more than a year or so, but I've seen so many different stories. Our players get to experiment with different characters and we have explored so many lovely systems! I've been everything from a racist speed obsessed Scotsman mech pilot to a softminded goblin fortune teller and has so many great character interactions.

[@Leivve]

Something that should be noted for the people talking about the lethality of guns. Remind them that DnD uses HIT points not HEALTH points. Health points were invented by the British Navy to simulate how much damage a ship could take during wargames. Hit points are an abstract combination of skill, stamina, armor and luck to avoid being hit. If you have 201 health, and take a hit for 200 you don't get a sword through the chest, you get a small slash on your cheek and burned a lot of stamina to avoid the blade. The hit that drops you to 0 is the one that finally "gets you."

[@crowsenpai5625]

Near the end of the part talking about the heavy property, we are obviously on separate wavelengths because on that sentence “if it was really a problem gnomes would have probably invented-“ and then finished that sentence with “an incredibly light Lance or something.” Where as my brain immediately began thinking of Gnomes in Power Armor, or at least exo frames to carry heavy things.

[@Zedrinbot]

LOL iirc Artificer had a UA 'armorer' subclass that sorta fit into that theme. Didn't affect weapon capacity tho.

[@SwordlordRoy]

Thing to keep in mind: historically, guns weren't widely adopted because they were more damaging, or were easier to make, or had longer range, or were more accurate, etc. They came to dominate the battlefield because they were easy to train with. Bows and Crossbows required a lot of training, and good luck armwrestleing one as Archers had to be totally jacked! Guns, well, teach a peasant to reload it, get them all to point the barrel in the right direction, and teach them formations. In essence, Guns took over for much the same reason Spears and Pikes did. So, really this all tracks.

[@Zedrinbot]

"If you want to teach a man to shoot a longbow, start with his grandfather. To teach him to shoot a crossbow (or gun), start Tuesday."

[@skeletor3.041]

I personally like dnd because of its “simplicity” I am new and know jack diddly squat about other systems, I was first introduced to ttrpgs by a friend with the system of no rules DM says what happens, player says what they do, roll d20 to decide how successful it was, I then looked into dnd and started learning, and I quickly got attracted to dungeon mastering because I loved to worldbuild and home brew everything, but when I tried to DM my first game I paniked so bad that I forgot how movement and calculating attack damage worked. I then started learning the rules but haven’t been able to play it since

[@sable2146]

3:32 also some of us DMs prefer the bounded accuracy of 5e because it allows us to use very low CR creatures (like the common kobold) against high level adventurers and still be a threat (or, conversely allow low level PCs a chance against very powerful foes) in a way Pathfinder doesn't allow as easily.

[@Armedus]

Guns are perfectly fine in fantasy. However, besides how to run them in a game, the problem with guns is the diagetic (in-world) ramifications. Put one gun in a setting and you can only use it until it runs out of ammo. To have more, an industry must be installed, which needs artisans and mechanics to develop them as well as foundries to produce the components. There also needs to be a separate economy that sustains these industries, which in turn leeches money, resources, workers, intellectuals, and properties away from other weapons industries. Soon, most forms of weapons become obsolete as guns overtake the setting since they do similar to better damage but at a safe distance. The arms race takes off as the races and nations strive to be the best arms maker: -Dwarfs craft ornate and intricate weapons that hit hard and you'd be proud to mount on your mantle but lack marketvalue due to breakdowns and difficulty in field repair. -Elves invent triggerless guns that require telekinetic spells to fire and can surround their targets like automatic turrets. -Demons invent napalm bombs to inflict pain and torture on a mass scale. -The Aasimar eventually employ nuclear fission powered orbital lasers to cleanse the world of its wickedness. And, so on and so forth. It becomes a cluster fuck after a while and it devolves into the winner being whoever started with the bigger gun. --- My solution is to use magi-guns (think "Gun Del Sol" from Boktai,) which are basically a spell scroll that anyone can use. It's a metal frame with a "Magic Crystal" (TM) loaded into it. Spells shot from the guns follow the rules already found in the game, minus the need for spell slots, materials, or sematic components. (Still need that concentration for some spells, so no cheating by dual wielding, folks. Oh, and ritual casting is instant but has a cooldown between shots so it can't be spammed.) Each crystal can shoot one type of spell from it so long as the crystal is charged and you can swap out crystals to fire different spells. You can even fire higher level spells but at the cost of less charges per crystal to balance out the power. Simply pull the trigger and **POOF** Magic. ✨️ 🔫 🎩 (and no, these are not a Magic wands. Wands suck since some require high INT or sematic commands and only have one spell and are made of splinters,twigs, and gooseberries, so there! 😝) The only people who can recharge a crystal are special Magic user NPC's who are specially trained and require money for their services. This bottle necks the skills, talent, staff, components, and availability of these types of weapons, you have to seek out the right people and components to maintain them. They become special "in case of emergency" items rather than a lifestyle. This item helps eliminates a lot of the problems that real world guns face (reloading, ammo capacity, storage, etc.) while keeping it in line with the fantasy setting. Plus, you can have fun with them, like a healing spell gun that can save a players from across the battlefield. Prank your friend by putting the barrel in their mouth and shooting them full of Goodberry. How about a Teleportation Gun that sends the Tarrasque to the Sun? Hell, here's a Wish gun that will spawn aneurysms in your DM. 🤯

[@kevin29121993]

Premise: I'm Italian and I don't know English very well so I apologize for any incorrect English. In response to the video, as a master, I have a campaign in which my firearms have some particular properties: Long Reload (X): which requires you to reload the weapon with 1/2/5 minutes of work. Obviously this type of weapon does a lot of damage. (I usually use this skill on weapons like cannons or similar) Reload (X): Which basically forces you to use 1 action to fully reload the magazine or a bonus action to reload a single shot. High accuracy: which is a property that gives a kind of super advantage to damage; essentially firearms do less damage than normal crossbows (musket 1d8 damage and pistol 1d6 or 1d4) but the player rolls the damage dice 2 times and chooses the better one. Finally, the High Critical: skill that gives the weapon a critical range of 17-20 but negates the damage bonus of Dexterity. I have managed in this way the firearms not all have the same properties but combinations between these and the classic properties such as two-handed or heavy / light. At my table, players often opt to switch ranged weapons depending on the type of combat in front of them. Which tells me that all in all they should be fairly balanced.

[@archangel4868]

i wasnt around for the how to do it discussion so imma put it here. this homebrew's goal is to make you feel like a flintlock pistol slinging pirate captian. instead of reloading a single flicklock pistol everytime you carry a number of pistols on your person equal to your proficiency. when you attack with a gun and you have extra attack, you can drop your empty gun draw a new gun and shoot it immediately. any guns you drop after battle you can collect. reloading a pistol takes 30sec (5 rounds) which can be done during a short or long rest.

[@AndrewChumKaser]

Make more videos like this or your guns one please. I could listen to you talk about stuff forever.

[@greenscorpeon3]

11:43 Yep thats me. I was totally not expecting that

[@imunoriginalokay4400]

Your cool zedrin for actually reading comments, also I appreciate your work

[@altejoh]

Honestly I don't see Strength being dumped nearly as often as I see INT being dumped. Everyone buffs Str and Cha and goes full himbo, unless you have a wizard/artificer on the team xD

[@Zedrinbot]

You see it more with like, rogues, rangers, and especially monks. With monks, part of the reason is they're so MAD. But I remember in PF2, someone I was playing with who only played 5e tried to make a monk that specialized in Dragon Tail style. He dumped str and was super dexy. He didn't realize that STR was always added to damage, and that Dragon Tail kicks were one of two monk styles that didn't have finesse. :v

[@master0fthearts894]

Yeah true, I think that’s another one of the flaws in 5e: The Attributes in terms of their usefulness are uneven. Dexterity is the ‘omega-stat’ since you can do ranged attacks with it, close range attacks if you wield finesse or other weapons, and it increases your AC. Intelligence gives you a bonus in History & Arcana (Maybe nature? Idk for sure) and is your main stat if you’re a wizard/artificer and then that’s about it. There’s been a lot of thoughtful fixes to that issue from the fan base to make all the skills have an even amount of usefulness, & I’ve incorporated a few into my games.

[@master0fthearts894]

@@Zedrinbot Does MAD stand for something, or do you actually mean mad?

[@TheeOK1]

@@master0fthearts894 lmao, MADs stands for Multiple Ability score Dependent. Basically it's when a class depends on more than 2 abilities scores in order to succeed or function. It took me a while to understand too.

[@master0fthearts894]

@@TheeOK1 Thanks bro.

[@metarmored]

I was super surprised to see you doing a dnd video! Super happy about it. Love your all your content! c:

[@QuartzChrysalis]

My experiences of pathfinder have always been people who munchkin ultra hard and then are disappointed at me for not reading every book in the month between them inviting me and the first session. Which they sent to me in a tarball.

[@ericquiabazza2608]

About Weapones and creatures sizes Animated.Spellbook has a VERY cool video on it and how a homebrew version may works so PC can use Big creatures.

[@kingmasterlord]

thank you for reminding me of Heathen, the tiefling holy gun paladin I never got to play that I made for Pathfinder 1

[@Aranesque]

I was geninuely surprised you didn't do more videos about D&D. I was like "oh, cool! a new D&D channel!", watched all of your video, really enjoyed your points of view and wanted more and.... I had no idea what many videos were about lol. But you seem to have a great understanding of the game, and I would love if you do more D&D stuff!

[@cabellones]

so... early fire weapons were not that strong than people think... they were just cost effective weapons, armor piercing cost effective weapons, but didn't do more damage than arrows.... the reason medieval armies switch to guns was, 1. piercing, 2. training, 3. making ammo was way easier, 4. the terror effect the sound of guns caused on the battlefield. (specially to horses). so... if you want to make early guns in Dnd... just put a equivalent damage to normal projectiles but with a bonus of bypassing some AC.... reloading is more tricky... for me, I will go with the 3 turns reload, but with the option of multiple guns... remembering, in those times, guns were not use to close combat, it was more for shock and first blood...

[@cabellones]

like, the party is surrounded by bandits.. they can shoot the closes ones (giving a bonus for point blank) and then switch to melee...

[@NM-wd7kx]

I really feel that if you can reload a heavy crossbow in a single turn then you could do the same with a musket, just change up the fluff options

[@oddoutdoors]

"Guns do too much damage!" I'm sorry but getting shot in the arm is less damaging than getting your arm cut off.

[@LurkinHandworker]

This and previous videos are an inspiration to me. I am currently homebrewing a system where where guns are viable, and some points from you are applicable to, well, homebrew. Also, yes, other content on the channel was quite surprising.

[@amit-sg8rx]

Guns in dnd, a d8 for a pistol d10 bigger pistol d12 musket 2d8 hand cannon or some, they are martial weapons and you’ll need to reload them with an action bonus action or one of your attacks, I guess all of the martial classes would be able to use them maybe barbarian is kinda weird because of his primitive feel but if a barbarian player would want one I’ll give him the option, as for fighter and rouge (or ranger maybe) it’s great they could be pirates.

[@shaun2566]

Pathfinder is an amazing system it’s just that our investigator alchemist gets a fucking +40 to everything at level 11 trivializing fucking everything

[@KiraSlith]

As someone who fairly recently dove into DnD like a hawk dives after a fish, I feel like I've already figured out exactly why people hate 5e. It's core mechanics don't take advantage of it's tabletop nature, the 3 reference books are a disorganized mess with tables seemingly randomly strewn across the book, it has NO edge or other native entertainment factor, and the box stories are half baked white bread that regularly fail to mention useful environmental resources that appear in other adventures on the same exact map.

[@Funkin_Disher]

Yeah pretty much. The mechanical bones are pretty solid and flexible, but goddamn its a mess of bland disorganization beyond that.

[@arfived4]

I created a magically powered railgun, that fired what was effectively Eldrich Blast, and which generated a certain number of Magic Missiles per day. in order to gain proficiency, you rolled 2d6 each time you fire, and if it is lower or equal to the number of times you've fired the weapon, you gain proficiency with it.

[@elkinvargas6481]

Assuming the technology present is the real world is different from that in dnd you can have guns that deal less damage, simply by making them with different materials. I bullet deals damage based on how fast it goes alongside what it's made out of so just make guns with bad materials. Also anything you can do with a gun can be done with a bow and arrow so yeah

[@eduardopereiradossantosmel7403]

Simple basic guidelines I do for guns on my campaings and settings. Pick the hand, light and heavy crossbow, double their amount of dice (so a flintlock/revolver/etc based on a hand crossbow would do 2d6 on a shot) and REMOVE* the ability bonus on the damage. There might be other variants, such as dice size, range, and even more dice depending on gun model, etc, but that's not the core. Add a nat1 misfire rule (do as you like, but I prefer the unjam as action/bonus action if you're proficient). Have varying loading properties depending on how advanced the guns on your setting are. Usually I stay on the lower end of tech, where the loading works like the crossbow, but I also have 2 settings where the mix of magic and technology advanced things a bit further, so western revolvers and similar are a thing, giving the player a few shots before he has to reload. You can always reload a gun with a bonus action when proficient, and when not, an action would do. Although I dislike the "1 action to reload" normally for the same reasons you do, mainly the fighter being crippled and the action economy on 5e being brutal, I think the distinction between proficient and not is big enough to allow this here. A character focused on using guns (and fighters are almost always proficient, and those who aren't can get a weapon proficiency on downtime activities) will be proficient and thus not worry about this action cost. I like the bonus action use because it is in a very interesting position for martial characters. While casters use a bonus action almost all the time for spells, it is either barely used more than once for martials (the barbarian rages, and that's it, and the fighter might not even have an use for that depending on subclass and weapon choice), or it's used every single turn for extra abilities (rogues are hiding every turn after attacking, monks sometimes disengage a lot, rangers and artificers have pets), so the idea of giving an extra use for bonus to those who barely use it, or making the ones who use it all the time have to pick and choose between it's extra utility or reloading is a nice one for me(do you hide now and get a better shot next turn, or do you open fire now a pray your friends kept the demon busy?). Now your gun has the killing power you so much screams it deserves (as it has been stated several times, it is not needed, as a commoner has 4 hp, so a d4 dagger figther can do a killing spree at lv 3 in 2 rounds, hell a guard, that would the equivalent of basic police, has 11 hp, he still dies by any d8 weapon with a modicum of atribute bonus on the damage): Extra damage on critical with an overall lower damage on normal shots, rewarding accuracy while increasing the chances of bruising shots without having to mess with the bounded accuracy system (a 2 damage shot is still better than missing because of a weird convoluted homebrew). Extra punishment on a nat1, so the world still have reasons to use other ranged weapons (besides the noise, among other reasons that might exist or not depending on the dm). Enough distinction to not just be a "crossbow re-skin" while keeping everything simple enough so you don't have to open the homebrew files every 5 minutes of game session. *= I did a lot of math before getting to this, as well checking other places that get to the same or similar conclusions, but basically a gun wielding character will have a slightly lower average damage than a bow/crossbow character, nothing to make it unplayable or so far bellow the curve it is useless, but it is noticeable for those who like to keep their damage chart tight. This lower average is offset by critical hits, that will make the damage of some shots rival those of some medium tier spells. Although criticals aren't something common, the fighter and rogue, the 2 classes that should arguably be the best gun wielders in the game, have their ways to increase their critical chances (one shoots a lot, the other is an advantage machine sniper).

[@doctorcandymedic0953]

Zedrin your amazing my dude ^^ I'm glad you responded to so many people and you took some time to explain weight and reloading ^^ *pat pat* love ya content mate!!!

[@marcar9marcar972]

6:30 So I agree with you that adventurers should be exceptional (at least to some extent but definitely in D&D) but many people have the exact opposite stance on this. There are many people who think that rolling up an exceptional character with a backstory and stuff is totally unrealistic and in some groups that gets you banned.

[@Zedrinbot]

There's a difference between a backstory where a character's already a hero and done things way above their level-grade and has already gone adventuring, and a backstory where a character is unique among their peers and is the reason _why_ they're becoming an adventurer.

[@Surkk2960]

I don't even play dnd, but the thought processes behind this and the first vid was interesting enough.

[@madmachanicest9955]

Halfling barbarian with monkey gread feat and great weapon master in Pathfinder was alsome. A little cartoon Napoleon hitting the bad guy with a weapon the size of a building was halarius

[@Pepper_Pip]

Okay when you mentioned previous stuff I decided to take a look and I totally didn't realize you were the guy who made Hexblades are scary! Wait, and Hiro the Dense?!?

[@Zedrinbot]

there are many things i do.

[@echocereal6255]

People should check out Middle Finger of Vecnas gunslinger and gun rules, they are very simple but distinct from other weapons, they are weapons with 2 damage dice but you dont add your modifier and reloading takes a bonus action or your action. Also has light cannons dealing 2d12 damage and I think thats cool

[@silverseth7]

Part of how guns function is knowing how bad blackpowder is compared to smokeless, and how HP is being handled. Not every loss in HP needs to draw blood, or even hurt. Rocket-ball ammunitions, like the old Volcanic pistols use are pretty bad but are an important steppingstone for the tech. There were wax-bullet duelling pistols that actually were relatively safe with appropriate padding. Shoddyguns in a fantasy setting doing much less damage than modern machined ones seems right. It's a great equalizer to mages for the common fool on a revenge mission that needs to go toe-to-toe with a lightningbolter. I like using a Lever Action Rifle as my casting focus for a 'Warlock of the West', their eldritch blast levels well with it 1-4 attacks per turn as you get faster at working the action, or scorching ray with a revolver (suggest dualcasting it as a sorcerer to fan the hammer). I think weapons like firearms are best used as 'non-magical' spell-equivalents or flavor-reskins.

[@EvelynNdenial]

i still think guns should be a very powerful touch AC weapon that takes a whole action to reload. they aren't bows that you can just whip out 3 shots in a row with, they're like a per encounter ability. the fighter can be loaded up with pistols like blackbeard and when the time is right start unloading one after another into the biggest enemy in the encounter, using all the extra attacks and fighter features he wants just with one gun after another. and when he's spent its back to basic attacks. it would make pepperbox type guns with multiple shots even more valuable too, rather than just being a reskin if you make reloads only take an attack, the extra shots matter. sooo, pistol 2d8 piercing ranged touch attack 100/400 ft - does not expend your free item interaction to draw or drop rifle 2d10 piercing ranged touch attack. 150/600 ft so a kitted out gun wielding fighter would have a rifle slung over their shoulder and a brace of 6 pistols plus one in a holster on their side. whip out the rifle and fire drop it and start going through 7 pistols dumping your action surge as well. doing 114 average damage before accounting for crits. and targeting touch AC (its a simple concept it doesnt matter 5e does not have it RAW, we're homebrewing) is very powerful basically guaranteeing hits where normally its a coin flip against level appropriate enemies' AC.

[@nickvinsable3798]

About itty-bitty characters, goblins, hobbits, & all that, with the “heavy” thing: 1:Dwarf punches stone column 2:Dwarf holds column over head 3:Dwarf chucks column, misses dragon, hits GM (Game Master), GM is KO (Knocked Out), game ends early… da end… Also, I still remember a specific comment I made about gun in D&D: have guns be a Linear ranged attack & Bows with Arrows have an Arced ranged attack; Bows can strike targets over the walls, guns can’t…

[@Zedrinbot]

Literal DM vs player

[@nickvinsable3798]

Unfortunately, as the son/daughter (take your pick) of Deadpool & Pinkie Pie, it actually did happen, @@Zedrinbot; I broke the 4th wall…

[@burghleyimeanberdly6513]

That video got me into Pathfinder 2e and I'm eternally grateful, just need to find a group...