My Ranger wanted a gun so I gave him one. Flavor is free so instead of having a Longbow hes got a Long Rifle. It functions no differently mechanically and i have a happy player. The existence of firearms never bothered me and the game already gives you a framework if you wanna go by 5e's existing firearm rules. I preferred the simple reflavor in practice personally.
louder, smokier, slower-loading shortbow with rare ammo
crit fail and it blows up in your face :D
as a balancing thing to give some bonus, you could allow it to intimidate lower level creatues that are unfamiliar with the noise
He actually just described the real DMG mechanics for guns, they're *already* a nightmare to use. Without the Gunslinger subclass and/or some specific feats, it's exactly that: A louder, smokier, slower-loading shortbow with rare ammo that literally breaks on a crit fail and must be repaired, sometimes with a very steep material cost.
Why any player would ever want to use a gun in D&D besides pure flavor is beyond me.
That's not the DMG, that's Mercer's guns. DMG guns don't have any crit fail penalties because a crit fail doesn't exist.
That said, I prefer Mercer's guns.
I'm okay with critical failures tied to specific actions or items. There's implicit player buy in on that kind of stuff. Narratively it helps paint them as a new and unstable technology which is where a lot of people like guns to be if they put them in their campaign
If only there we some kind of site that organized everything and properly tagged all content. Unfortunately since that kind of site would be *way* better than any official tool, it would be against the rules to recommend it to you.
\>Why any player would ever want to use a gun in D&D besides pure flavour is beyond me.
That's the only possible reason, and this is why I don't understand why a lot of people here are so against the gun. As if it would be an AK47 with 31d47 AoE damage instead of a heavy crossbow with flavour looks that can be anything that fits the world, even magic.
But if that's not okay for you, then it's still ok, but don't try to fool the player by making him jump hoops just to give him a gun that's impossible to use and especially do not kill him. Just say that it won't work and maybe you can think of something that would satisfy both of you.
The only difference between a heavy crossbow and a rifle is a second d10 on the damage, which isnt gonna do anything to balance. Even the radiant 3d8 laser rifle wpuldnt really do anything to balance. Its when you get to the antimatter rifle that it gets iffy, but still managable compared to a wizard that halfway knows how to play the class. Its also really easy to call this magnificent crossbow that fires with magic instead of a bowstring, a gun. Odds are that is more likely to be what NPCs think it is even of you tell them exactly how it works
Yeah I get not wanting it for flavor reasons.
But literally every principle of a gun is not only possible, but made easier in world with magic. Dwarven metallurgy creates rifling and repeater technology. Alchemists refine black powder into a perfected form of gunpowder. There isn’t any real reason why a fantasy world doesn’t have at least civil war era firearms while crossbows and regular bows see wide use.
And it’s still outclassed by Angel Summoner.
I like how in Pathfinder it ignores armor and in my campaigns within half of the first range increment, the opponent has to make a dex save or take twice the die in damage. Shotguns shoot in cones with a dex save. I feel like ranged already needed support with longbows so I made the Guncrafting feat trainable. I also let mending remove the broken feature. I also increased the damage die size. Pistol 1d8, musket 1d10, and blunderbuss 1d12, but I took away adding dex to the damage.
I also made a feat that's called Firearm Master which lessens the reload time from a movement to a bonus action and allows you to use your reaction to reload or make an attack of opportunity with a firearm. I'm also in the middle of making a gun-focused ranger that forgoes spells for arcane gun-improvement. Also a monk that can conjure dueling pistols using ki points.
I know I'm going to catch flack for this, but I also have maneuvers for martial characters so this is a viable option for the most part in my campaigns
The dex save is 7+proficiency+character level.
Because they are expecting Colt Revolvers, not flintlocks. In part, it’s Don Kayes’ fault, that guy from Gygax’s original group, the Paladin/Fighter/Wizard with the pai of si shooters.
It can be a fun item to include. A great Image Comic series whose name escapes me right now played with the idea of a fantasy world where one character had the single gun in the world and it had extremely limited ammo so was basically a use as last resort thing.
mostly, yeah - gunpowder should feel high risk, high reward.
if your player is down to have the gun be a rare, delicate piece of equipment, you could push it away from a use-every-turn item towards a "glass cannon", which could feel more rewarding than this.
\> louder, smokier, slower-loading shortbow with rare ammo
drip-feed him limited amounts of bullets with cool effects
\- whistle shell (alarming/intimidating)
\- incendiary shell (adds some degree of explosion or ongoing fire dmg)
\- drill shell (ignores armor)
etc.
go ham powering them up over time, but keep it limited
I ran a campaign where every character had at least one wheel lock pistol. They would use them to attack with before switching to their main weapons and only if they weren't worried about attracting more attention with the noise. Even the mage used one even if he couldn't hit a barn with it.
I think your comment is the best one, everyone jumping on ways to monkey paw their players sound like awful people to be in a game with....
OP needs to either man up and say they arent in their setting or give him a way to get one, even if they have to go on a quest to get what they need... it really isn't that difficult and didn't need a whole thread
Totally agree. For most players it would just be flavour or something cool to have, like a fighter wanting a specific type of sword or armour.
If the rest of the table doesn't object then why not?
Yeah if it's cool flavour that doesnt break the game, \*even if\* they end up doing a few points of extra damage from your decision... it isn't that big of a deal and you now have a player thats having a blast with their fantasy character! The other players know they'll get their moment to shine to, so no one should be upset
And to me at least that's how you get an invested table, they \*\*want\*\* to play those characters
They don't even need to do more damage or literally have anything to differentiate between using a bow or crossbow other than the name. I feel like the need to give guns their own rules, dice and everything else is unnecessary in most cases.
Totally agree about getting players excited and wanting to play the game!
We're all at the table to have fun, they bring me pizza and I'm here to laugh at them when they can't do a puzzle :P Theres no reason to gotcha moment your friends rofl
Seriously, this is the answer. I don’t know why so many DMs just don’t give the player what they want when they can modify the item however they want.
He wants a gun? Sure. The stats? Exactly like a bow. The ammo? Exactly like arrows.
Nothing breaks the game and now the player can role play exactly what they want. You even have some possible story arcs that can involve the gun if it’s the only one in existence or incredibly rare.
Yep exactly how I do it. Had a player who was a pirate and wanted a flintlock. No problem take a hand crossbow and reskin it and now you have a flintlock.
Another player basically sacrificed all their character levels and lost all their powers. They then in character retained themselves as an artificer fighter and wanted to rifle and a pistol. Heavy crossbow or longbow and the rifle and again hand crossbow for pistol and we are good.
I understand some people not wanting guns in their fantasy setting and that is fine. However it really doesn't have to be something overly complicated and in our game other than flavor it's not actually changed anything.
I don't think there is? Maybe I missed it?
There is a pistol that is 1D10, doesn't have the light property and has worse range and a musket which is 1D12 with a worse range than a light crossbow. I offered these as options but my players preffered to have less damage but better everything else.
Edit: Just looked, see it is under "renaissance" weapons so yeah guess these are actually flint locks :)
I’m playing in a game with firearms at the moment, so I’ve nothing against the concept of the players & DM agree; but I do disagree it’s just ‘flavour’. Having a gun implies gunpowder.
Nevermind the possible impacts on the DM’s world building for a moment (invention of gunpowder is a pretty big deal historically) it also means the party can now buy gunpowder, and store it. Having a barrel of gunpowder you can push up to a castle gate and fire an flaming arrow at is completely different, mechanically, to pushing a barrel of arrows up to a castle gate…
Gunpowder is a lot older than a lot of things seen as perfectly normal in a DnD world. Plate armour being the most obvious example.
Cannons and handgonnes predate plate by a good hundred years or so. But greatswords are also a later development than gunpowder.
DnD is based on a fantasy version of European Late Mediaeval or Renaissance periods. It is honestly jarring that there's no guns or cannons in most DnD settings. It's imo worse than the inclusion of leather and studded leather as armour types.
Yes, but we’re not talking exact historical accuracy; as you say most versions of D&D are based on a fantasy version of medieval times people have in their heads, built up from a mishmash of sources. Most of which don’t feature guns.
I mean, how many D&D campaigns since the 70s have had a world that was either actually Middle Earth or a clone of it with the numbers filled off? Thousands and thousands I suspect. It’s perfectly okay for DMs to not allow guns in such worlds, regardless of mechanics, because the flavour is ‘wrong’. That’s all I’m saying, not that this applies to all DMs all the time in all games ever.
But a lot of people act as though introducing gunpowder is to introduce something far more modern than their usual settings. It's that myth I want to dispel. Of course people can run their table and design their world as they wish. I just want to challenge the assumption that gunpowder is any more modern than their armour, their gender roles (which are either mid 20th century or completely modern, I prefer modern), the greatswords or their economic systems (which are typically 18th century at the earliest).
You could say that I want people to exclude firearms for good reasons, not the bad reasons they often cite. Realism is a very bad reason to exclude firearms in most DnD settings.
‘Realism’ doesn’t have to mean strict fidelity to our own world’s timeline. ‘Realism’ can mean adherence to a fantasy world’s internal logic and the sources it’s based on.
They should still think about the question as "what does removing gunpowder from my setting change" rather than "what does including gunpowder change".
I think most people think the second way because they don't know how early gunpowder and gunpowder weapons were introduced in medieval Europe. My goal isn't to force people to include gunpowder, but to encourage them to think better about the question.
You are still trying to come at it from a real world time line perspective with that. Bottom line is guns are generally not considered fantasy. So yes its actually quite fine to come at it as what does it add instead of removing it because most fantasy worlds are built from the starting point of that to begin with.
But it doesn’t have to. As a DM I can alter what “gunpowder” is.
As a DM you can literally alter whatever you want to fit your narrative.
I’ve been playing DND for a lot longer than most, and I’ve learned there is a fine line between player enjoyment and “world building”.
As long as there isn’t abuse, I don’t care how it works. Maybe the PC makes their own gunpowder. Maybe the gun itself is magical and it turns dirt into gunpowder. Admittedly, I’ve not ever had a player want a gun, as I come from the 2e generation and the arquebus is wasn’t very powerful.
But beyond that I kind of don’t care what the PCs want as long as it isn’t abusive and it aids their RPing and doesn’t hurt others. In fact, several other TTRPGS in the past had incredibly open platforms for players to essentially roleplay anything they want.
That’s absolutely fine and sounds a great approach. But it’s not every DM’s approach.
I’ve started playing D&D decades ago too, and it would be absolutely in the spirit of the game for a DM to want to build a pseudo-realistic, plausible world without contradictions. And to say “gunpowder that is freely available as gunpowder but doesn’t behave like gunpowder outside a gun” is not part of that.
Player flavour is great, but the DM is allowed flavour in their world building too. And not all flavours work together to make something tasty.
I'll never understand why so many people think that in a game where you're constantly evoking the divine wrath of gods and dealing with the undead and dragons that somehow a pistol is so wildly powerful you can't balance around it. Oh no, god forbid someone get a fancy crossbow that requires custom ammo, lest the warlock who can drop firebombs after every nap feel threatened.
Firearms do exist in "the usual D&D". There are literally drow gunslingers in Waterdeep.
Additionally if you're concerned about it being OP, just look at the DMG's Adventuring Options section, where there's a table with stats for guns of various eras. The Renaissance firearms section is completely in line with comparable ranged weapons in the PHB.
If you just don't want guns in your game because you dislike the aesthetic, just tell your player those aren't a thing in this setting, assuming they're an adult they shouldn't have any problem accepting this.
This. I definitely agree with a lot of the other comments that it's ok to say no, I personally don't like Gunpowder in my fantasy worlds. But it's also an absolutely fine option to just let him have a gun, there are existing guns in Faerun world, or you can homebrew something more appropriate to your setting. I just wouldn't give them a modern gun.
I think you could very easily design a cool but not OP musket and still make it functionally different from bows/crossbows. For example: higher damage per shot than bow, lower accuracy. If you want an element of realism it could take a full turn to load the next shot, and in this case you could up the damage even higher. I might also add a automatic Intimidation/morale style check for enemies who have never experienced explosives when they're shot at.
I agree with most of your points, but I think people in a world of magic wouldn't actually find a book stick to be any more intimidating to face than a wizard slinging fireballs and lightning.
If you have enemies facing morale checks from musket fire then I'd argue the same rule should apply loud spells and barbarians beating dudes with other dudes rather than being solely a feature of the gun.
Lol
Autocorrect apparently doesn't like "boomstick", but now I think I want to add an NPC to a game who refers to wands exclusively as "book sticks" because, "this stick lets me do the things you need to _read_ your _normal_ books to learn, so obviously someone must have put one of your books in this stick; duh!
I hate gunpowder weapons in my fantasy settings too... most of the time. However I love the laser weapons in the DMG and just giving them a more magical aesthetic, like this.
https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/caitlyn-snow-moon-762x.jpg
>I personally don't like Gunpowder in my fantasy worlds
Never understood this. You're fine with Rapier and Gothic Plate, but you don't want an item from 200 years before these two things?
I could understand if you were doing Vikings or Romans or something...
Let me try to succinctly explain.
"I'm trying to a paint a very particular picture of things, and reality doesn't jive with my creative vision. This is why I'm playing a fantasy game, not a historical skirmish game or science fiction game."
As an aside, science ain't got to science exactly the same in my fantasy realm. Maybe firearms are too dangerous to use because gunpowder just spawns lil baby fire elementals.
I have a faction in my world that has started figuring out fire arms (they specifically hate magic, think its a shackle placed on mortal kind by the gods and other powerful creatures to stunt the progression of mortals under their own power because then you become reliant on something that can be taken away on a whim). In this world, the gods basically decided to fuck with these people, and now if there is too much gunpowder and smoke from shooting new smoke elementals are formed from the ash and smoke and can't be hurt by mundane weapons.
I just don't like it... I never said my fantasy world was a mirror of 17th century Europe, its just a fantasy world that has the things I like, and doesn't have the things I don't like.
When it comes to the aesthetic, it's totally fine to just say "Hey, in this particular world, that's just not gonna be an option." Alternatively, you can just say he can try doing what he's doing, but make it clear that threatening a god is like putting your head into an alligators mouth. Sure you can, and maybe it doesn't bite down. But chances are it's going to bite down, you don't know what to do, and you will probably die. The only difference is the Alligator will just kill you, not the rest of your party. The God will.
Even the Modern Firearms are fine if you just remove Dex mod from damage. (Ie. Pistol does 2d6 for damage instead of 2d6+DexMod). One average they will still do 1-2 more points than their bow counterparts but are a lot more swingy with their damage range and bullets are non recoverable whereas bows are more consistent with their damage and ammo goes a lot further. Make the shotgun crit on 19 to make it different from a revolver and you're good to go.
Also, there is an NPC in Waterdeep area who owns a Colt Revolver, like it literally says right in the module "Colt Revolver" and is hidden in a hollowed out Western novel.
Isn't that NPC a particularly unique kinda guy and the module heavily suggests they've been to Earth like in City Beyond the Gate? Which is where they picked up the revolver rather than there being revolver manufacturers in Waterdeep?
A pistol (they're very old-fashioned flintlock style things btw) is 1d10 piercing, with loading, a 30/90 range, and the proficiency is firearms so almost certainly one your player doesn't have atm. It's far from game breaking. His batshit plan to go to mechanus to get one is hilarious though, and I'd be tempted to allow it to happen at great cost and sacrifice just for said super powerful being to teleport him to a shop in waterdeep or wherever with a selection in a display case
Yeah its the plan that's got me onboard for this
"I want a gun"
No
"I want to go to mechanicus, threaten a god to give me a gun and walk outa there like I own the place"
You know what PC, I'm just going to see how this plays out
Ya I would just say let him buy and use a gun.
In typical DnD they exist they're just uncommon. A flintlock pistol is no different than a crossbow essentially.
My pirate PC used almost exclusively a pistol for our full campaign.
Also, as with every other non-simple weapon type, the PC will need proficiency on firearms to be able to wield them correctly.
Just treat them as a bit of a more cumbersome, but a bit more powerful, crossbow.In general, the official renaissance guns are pretty much their corresponding crossbow (pistol vs hand crossbow, musket vs crossbow) with a bit worse range (because of accuracy) and a raise in damage die.
And, if you want (or need) to make it a bit more cumbersome, or not have it used every single combat, remind them they cannot get bullets on every market or blacksmith they come across in their travels (you might need either a specialized shop or blacksmith in a big city), and do the whole Wizard's "bag of ingredients" for their gunpowder (these are musket type weapons. They need to be manually reloaded with gunpowder and a ball/bullet before they're ready to shoot again).
It actually gets worse if they want a modern gun. They get even more powerful, and need less time for reloading (since you can switch mags)... But now you need to be able to get/conjure/create bullets and mags. And, believe me, a modern weapon will not only not work with a misshapen bullet, it might actually explode on you.
And the gunpowder in a modern gun is not the same they'd have access to in a standard D&D setting. Have I not mentioned cleanup, oils, and such? That's even more specialized materials and knowledge.
In summary: Just give them the gun, but make it clear as how easy (or not) the use, maintenance, and requisition of future ammo will be.
Of course, as DM, you always get the golden rule to stop this if it would just destroy or impoverish the story/fun
"No"
or
"Good luck with that."
Same as if I wanted the USS Enterprise with photon torpedoes. Cool story. Assuming his PC would even know what a "gun" is if it even exists in your setting, learning the metallurgy and chemistry behind even a basic firearm usable in combat would take up all the time he'd instead be using for adventuring.
Not to mention, how is he going to get a god's attention, let alone frighten them? If we can do that for what amounts to a fancy crossbow, why are we worried about the BBEG?
how would you get to it? if you do get it the Klingons will kill you. you don't know how to run it and shoot the torpedoes. spell/star jammer if you really want to do this w/dnd.
If the party is down, a long quest to get a spaceship sounds fun? What if I want an airtight skyship with enchantments so I can launch mana torpedoes at dragons in space?
>Threaten a god to give him a gun
Threaten a literal god.
You don't have to give him anything, his own stupidity will solve it for you.
Or you could talk it out and say no.
> I don't have enough dice for this. Hey, everybody. Would you just roll all of your dice and add them up? Yes, even the ones in your pouch. Size doesn't matter.
I'm not sure death is the appropriate word for what's about to Halen to your character, more like annihilated from space and time. The ripples across reality distribute the hit across your ancestors affecting.... oh no.... some of your party share distant relatives with you...
That is epic. I'm definitely going to use that sometime when my party decides to get cocky with a Dragonmarked house or a Stormlord because it's inevitably going to happen in my Eberron game.
>Threaten a literal god.
You are so insignificant the god doesn't even notice your threat, you would be amazed at how many people curse gods and other shit, and yet they simply don't care. Come back when you kill a bunch of his followers and then he might notice you, assuming you are that suicidal.
See, if I'm that god, I give it to him. But there's a 1 in 10 chance every time he fires it that it blows up horribly, essentially casting fireball on himself.
Actually, yeah. But not 1 in 10 chance to blow up, 1 in 10 chance to fire. As in, he needs Divine intervention for the gun to function. Meaning he needs to take some cleric levels in order to get the gun to function. Maybe his God should be the one who gave him the gun, even.
I like both. Roll d10, on 1 take 8d6 misfire damage, on 2-8 *click*, on 10 do 2d6 +ranged weapon modifier.
Sorry, having a cursed weapon from a pissed off God does more damage to you than your enemies.
For the god being "threatened":
Give him the gun, with exactly six bullets. Each bullet is 1/6th of the character's soul. As he uses the gun, he loses more and more of himself, and the last bullet will kill him with no possibility for resurrection, since his soul is entirely destroyed.
This would be a defining moment for me.
We either never talk about this again and we continue playing dnd like we forgot it ever happened.
Or we stop being friends.
Like, I'm sorry to this player, but the ability to respect someone enough not to pull this shit would literally make or break my relationship with them.
Dude, you and OP are being a little aggressive about this, considering guns are totally a thing in DnD, there are rules for primitive guns in the DMG, and even classes and feats built around it.
It's not unreasonable for a player to want to use one for his character.
Actually, when I opened this thread, I was fully prepared to tell OP that the guns presented in the DMG are fine, and that you can pretty much use them without any worry of balance because they're essentially just crossbows with a different name.
And then I read this wild story about a player that wants to, like, somehow trick his DM into giving him a gun by threatening a god. And while I don't fully understand how we got here, I can only imagine the situation is *now* what it is because the DM already told him there aren't guns in this setting.
Like, it's reasonable for a player to be interested in guns for their character. It is *absofuckinglutely not reasonable* for a player to devise a plan to travel to a different plane and threaten a god to try and get something their DM has already said no to.
The OP didn't once say in his post that he said no. The words, he used tell a lot though. He starts off by saying, "a literal gun." Like he expects that to surprise us.
I think this DM is venting to reddit, and I strongly suspect he hasn't talked to this player at all. In fact, OP even mentioned that he only knows this because another player shared it with him.
I think your original thought is probably correct.
The only red flag I see on players part is that he HASNT shared his plan with the DM yet.
There’s no way this player’s first thought was “I need to go to mechanus and threaten a god to get a gun” when he decided he wanted a gun. That’s not reasonable. You have to already know guns don’t exist in the setting for that to even make sense.
Like, the player either already knew it wasn’t going to happen normally, or the DM told him already.
How do you believably Roleplay this though? Your character lives in a world without firearms but knows what a firearm is, can perceive what it is, and wants one so bad.
You do not, those kinda players are unbelievably boring and they are derailing distracted messes of players.
My answer is always "No, your gun will never shoot bullets in a way that you want. It will do less damage than you think and doesn't fit within the theme of my world. If you want to play a game with guns I suggest you participate in the vote after this campaign that you didn't last time." I'm really just typing out a past conversation at this point.
Oddly enough, a gun flavored wand is more interesting and in-line with what I'd allow, but it will have limits.
Honestly, I might let him do it. Reach level 20, run a whole adventure through Mechanus and successfully intimidate a god on their own turf into giving them a gun.
And the reward for all this trouble is a nonmagical firearm that does 1D10+DEX
I think it's less about the gun thing and more about the player wanting to change the campaign setting and have a social encounter that would cause all sorts of problems for the campaign.
So then that's a conversation the GM needs to have with player, "Hey, I don't think this fits my custom setting."
The player isn't in the wrong, though, for wanting something that is outlined in the rules, and players have negative interactions/go against gods all the time.
This, to me, just seems like another instance of, "My player wants to take the lucky feat, but I don't like it. He's the asshole, right?"
It sounds like based on what op has said in this thread he just kinda gets pushed over by his group. Maybe not to the extreme or even commonly but saying something like "I can't really deny nat 20 rolls" or setting that player with a rogue party member who is easier to deal with. Id think it was made clear they aren't really on the table and now it's being forced.
Though tbf I would also wonder why he says that player "saw it through the portal" if he didn't want it in the game at all.
I would agree, which is evidenced by the fact that OP seems to be complaining about the player wanting a gun on Reddit instead of talking to the player.
I hope they can work it out, but I just don't think the player is wrong here. (To be clear, I think the players idea is dumb, lol, but it doesn't make him a bad player or "wrong")
Are there guns in your campaign? Could there be one gun in your campaign and still be true to your vision for it? If yes, go for it!
If this isn't something you want or want to deal with in your campaign, disallow it and make it clear to the player so they don't get their hopes up. Perhaps there is a mechanical substitute like a crossbow with greek fire bolts, or a magic item that can give the same vibe.
Just as any DM can exclude certain races, classes, spells, rules, even entire books, you can exclude guns if it's not right for your campaign. I will likely never have guns in my D&D campaign; I'd rather play a different genre rpg if I'm going that route.
On another note, if this PC does actually threaten a deity, they are likely to receive a curse instead, one that can only be removed by performing a difficult service for the deity (*remove curse* most certainly would not work).
1. Telling him "no" is an option. Don't just jerk him around.
2. How does his character even know what a gun is?
3. Sure, give him a gun. And no means of getting ammo. Assuming that's what a lawful evil entity would do.
Apparently he's gonna threaten his daughter. I dunno, he's gonna take the rouge with him and because the rouge is a dream D&D player to a DM, he's keeping me up to date on his plan.
The god shows him a gun. The god then shoots him with the gun. The god asks him to repeat himself, must not have heard correctly. Depending on the answer the god might “give him” the gun in that he beats him to death with it.
Honestly, I’d go straight for this. A player with enough hubris to even attempt to ‘threaten a good’ hasn’t played enough D&D to realize that’s a bad idea. Dont let them get off soft with this or they’ll think that’s how you solve everything. Teach this player a hard lesson. Hell, if you don’t want to outright kill them, have the god snap his fingers and have time reset to when the player say the gun in the first place, and give them the choice to make a different decision. If they still fucking try again, then permadeath might be the only way to teach them. Have them roll up an artificer for their next pc!
If you *really* don’t want to do that, then shit, it’s the god of mechanism. The god is amused by this mortal attempting to threatening them, and decides to grant them the powers of an artificer (class change) to let them attain the power by their own hands. Could even do some freaky shit with an artificer/warlock or paladin multiclass as a divinely-inspired crafter.
This gives me ideas, not just for a beatdown.
Imagine the god of Mechanism, standing at his forge, being approached by a mortal who for whatever reason is demanding this mythical weapon. How does he react? Does he lash out in anger and smite this mortal for his hubris? Maybe, but does that reaction really befit a god of invention, creation, and mechanical ingenuity?
No. This god answers quietly but with authority.
*Very well, mortal. Take this.*
And he sets down his hammer, leans towards our hero, and presents him with an ornate wooden box. Inside is not a gun, but a hammer. A pair of goggles. A pile of metal scraps. A vial of gunpowder.
*Here is your gun. Or, at least, it could be. Do you have the skill to earn it?*
*Welcome to Mechanism. Here, your imagination can become reality with patience and talent. You want a gun?* ***Make one.***
I don't know if you're serious or just joking, but honestly going all the way with the plan to allow the players to meet this mechanical god just to decide it was not possible anyway and outright kill them is unfun?
The idea sounds ridiculous, so you can make the god actually amused by the audacity and offer to fulfil the wish if they beat their champion. You get a cool fight, and a cool moment, and everyone is happy.
And why not just give him the gun, if you don't like gunpowder, it can be magical and shoot a fire beam (just like... Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, unless you also banned cantrip magic) or effectively work just like a Heavy Crossbow. Aesthetically it can really be whatever you want it to be. Think of a way that would satisfy your aesthetics and would satisfy player's urge to have something similar to a gun.
I know DnD is not PBtA, but I see nothing wrong with applying it's agenda everywhere like "be a fan of players' characters" and "pay to find out what happens". After all, GM is playing with the players, not against them. I really don't get why some of you propose *punishing* the players for
"I respect your determination in entering my realm and threatening me to get something that you want. For this reason, I will grant you a gun. However, I cannot abide you threatening my daughter. For this reason, the gun will be travelling at Mach 10 when you receive it, having been launched from my much larger gun. You're welcome and get fucked."
So, rogue's player's telling you this on the back channel? Have him get the chucklehead talk to you straight-up. The rogue's player shouldn't be in the middle of this nonsense.
Very bold, I will honor your request, adventurer. However, your insolence in threatening my daughter will not be tolerated. So,
*which of your extremities will you forfeit in exchange for this weapon?*
Take their arm/leg and turn that into the weapon. Acts as a normal prosthetic, costs an Action to remove it and use it as a gun, and costs an Action to put back (rules on donning and doffing armor).
"after you threaten the loved one of a god it gets pissed off and low and behold you are vaporized to death. no there is no roll its a literal fucking god you twat
So…why not just give him a gun?
Like at the end of the day your player wants a gun, the Gunner feat exists in TCOE, and the Renaissance firearms exist in the DMG.
Like sure don’t give him an assault rifle. But have you considered just…letting him have a gun?
Edit: After reading this thread I’m convinced that this sub is full of nightmare DMs who get off on being antagonistic toward their players over the simplest thing
For some reason guns become this ultra resource and micro intensive things but then for other items like armour don't need to be cleaned and oiled everyday to stop rust forming or bow strings getting wet.
Either treat everything in the same way or stop picking on guns specifically and treat them like everything else.
Gun's are older than plate mail. Give him a flintlock (stats are in thr Dmg). He doesn't have proficiency in it until he takes the feat. They're not over powered or anything. He gets what he wants, you get less stress, and he still has to put resources into it.
I'm gonna go against the grain here. The quest is both hilarious and fun.
But what if he gets a gun? What's the issue? You get to stat it out and make sure it's balanced.
This is a world with spells like command and fireball and shatter. But a single gun is gonna cause some major world issues?
This is not somethingnto be solved in game.
Talk.to the player, explain that his plan is not going to work.
Mechanical Guns dont exist in your setting and you as the DM dont want actual guns in it.
As a compromise you can.
1- Give him a magic gocus that looks like a gun and shoots firebolt (the cantrip).
2- alow him to change characters and make a artilerist artificer with magic canon (magic gun).
3- alow him to use handcrossbows reskined as firearms.
Flavor is free.
But i suspect your player wants guns more to powergame, than for any Roleplay or character concept reasons.
Ask him if any of those compromises work.
If he insists to get some overpowered weapon, then "Fuck no" is an absolutely fine answer to that.
How would his character even know what a gun is?
Like fair enough if he wanted to design and make the gun himself, but using meta-knowledge and threatening a god just doesn't work
If you don't want actual firearms in your game, you could just give him a hand crossbow.
If you want to make it fancy or make it feel not like a crossbow
Gun Option 1: Eldrich blast, you give them an item, tell them it's a gun and what ever ammo they have to buy, it just does eldrich blast, you could even maybe there is ammo that gives Agonising blast, Eldrich spear or repelling blast
Gun Option 2: Magic missile, the gun has a number of ~~charges~~ bullets and it casts magic missile. to regain ~~charges~~ bullets they have to buy them and each bullet costs about the same as a common spell scroll (like 25-50gp typically)
He’s going to threaten a god? Ha ha ha ha
Ok… SQUASH
I have a player with a gun currently… it’s fine. Here’s the thing… if he has a gun… so can his enemies.
"and really should be an artificer but isn't cuz we didnt know they existed." let him respec the char or have someone in the tavern talk about a gun in the country/city you want the chars to go to. magic mc gunffin. or you can just ~~give~~ sell them the +1 crossbow that is a pain to reload. if you want to be a bad dm you could make it attract every single monster that can hear it. you know the next 3 encounters at once.
Pardon my ignorance, but what's the big deal with him having a gun? D&D is a gonzo, kitchen sink of a setting. Aren't there literal space ships and whatnot?
> and really should be an artificer but isn't cuz we didnt know they existed.
If you think he should, and he thinks he should, why not allowing him to respec? Is there anything about his current class that is important to the story? Is it something you could somehow retcon?
Give him a hand crossbow and flavor it as a gun. Keep the loading properties and call it a single-shot pistol. It’s balanced and the player can have their fun.
> He is planning on doing this by somehow getting to mechanism (the mechanical realm) and threaten a god to give him a gun.
For what it's worth, this is a terrible plan. He's going to *threaten* a *lawful god* and expects an outcome other than being smited?
If you don't want guns in your setting, you shouldn't be "discouraging" him from having a gun, you should be informing him that guns don't exist in your setting, and telling him that his character wouldn't even know what a gun *is*, so trying to find one is metagaming badly.
"No" is a complete sentence here. If he throws a fit about it, he's probably not someone worth playing with. Anyone who decides to threaten deities for firearms in my game would have a *very* short life expectancy.
For some mechanical context, renaissance guns in the DMG, even with the gunner feat in Tasha's, are pretty comparable to bows and crossbows. It's unlikely a necro will be able to use them effectively.
What do you mean by necromancer/conjurer?
Guns are in the DMG. Just use those rules. Threatening a god gets your character laughed at. Seriously threatening a god creates a situation where get to find out the power of a God, and a gun isn't going to help you there. This is how you end up like Prometheus in the Greek legends; chained to a rock for all eternity, every day having your liver eaten out of you stomach by birds, only to heal completely and have it happen the next day, for eternity. Mythical levels of punishment.
I am wary of the "bro deals" you have cut with your PCs. I urge you to read the sections about rolling natural 20s. You can not say "I want to jump 950 feet in the air" and then just roll a Nat 20 and do it. It just means you do very well considering all of the circumstances around the event.
That being said, you can plan to give your player a gun! It's fine.
But I have two caveats:
1. They should have to quest for it! Drag all the other PCs along on my ridiculous side quest.
2. Ammo should be absurdly difficult to come by. The gun should have 3-5 shots left in it, and to create more you have to go to several Quasi-Elemental and Para-Elemental planes to get the proper ingredients (Plane of Minerals - bullets, Plane of Smoke - Gunpowder part 1, Plane of Salt - Gunpowder part 2, Plane of Lightning - primer and/or flints).
Make sure to give the other PCs interesting items on this quest, if you really want to be a jerk about it, make these items more powerful than the gun.
I've got a player who wants to build a missile to defend a town against an undead dragon. I let him do it... He's captured a phoenix that will be used as fuel, he's using gnomes to build the rocket body, and so on. For those wondering, we play [Divine Contention.](https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/adventures/divine-contention)
If you don't want your player to get a gun, you simply say: "Don't bother trying, I don't want guns in my game".
Despite what a lot of people are saying, being a dick back at the player in game is not a great solution to the issue. Don’t do stuff like that, it only perpetuates player vs dm attitudes. The game is supposed to be collaborative even if it’s challenging. Sooo what to do:
Step 1 - figure out why the player wants it out of game via discussion. This is important cause it will clarify to you possible solutions while also making them admit out loud their intent, which if is a bad intent makes it easier to reject it.
Step 2 - with the answer to step 1 you can either reject the premise or accept it. I’d lean towards accepting it if it’s the least bit rational (including just rule of cool as legit option), albeit with modifications to fit the world/context etc…, ideally you should work this part out with the player out of game.
Step 3 - Assuming we avoided flat out rejection, make the thing. You should keep it balanced and equivalent to something that already exists and is available to the party, you can flavor it however ya want to fit your world, but it probably shouldn’t be an arbitrary power boost unless it’s gonna be a magic item option that is equivalent to magic items they can find and eats up an attunement slot.
Don’t go to Mechanus and threaten a god. That’s not going to work. Just go to Lantan and buy one from the gnomes. Firearms exist in the forgotten realms they’re just hard to come by and not widely adopted because frankly they can’t compete with magic.
You could just say ‘no’… That being said, given the range of time periods everything else in D&D seems to span, some basic black powder muzzle loading firearms aren’t unreasonable.
If guns don't exist in your setting his character wouldn't know what one is. The player would have to come up with a really interesting explanation for how the character would even think to want a gun and how they would manage to threaten a god.
Or you could let them get to mechanus and try it only to get turned into a clock.
If there are guns in your campaign just give him one. An old timey pistol is 1d10 piercing damage, the bullets cost 3gp for 10 and has a 30/90 range.
If there aren’t guns his character would have no clue what they are. Just tell them that
Guns can mechanically exist, there are builds for them, usually based on Pathfinder "Roll low and it misfires and potentially breaks" rules.
Threatening a god is a bad idea (And kinda metagaming - if guns don't exist, how does your character know to want one?) and if he does through with that...consequences. But I don't see any significant harm in making it so that he can find one, and particularly making it so that if he does, he's not proficient with it given it's a rare weapon built on new tech, and he has to specifically be trained to use it or work with it to a not insignificant degree to earn that proficiency.
Early firearms took about 20-30 seconds to reload after a single shot. Give the dude 3-5 rounds of reloading with attacks against him having advantage because he has to focus on this new fangled piece of shit.
Why are people so obsessed with putting guns in D&D?
But yeah you could reskin whatever ranged weapon they’re proficient in and have it make a big noise when they use it I guess.
If you want guns in the setting/game, good give him a gun and make him train to become proficienct
If you don't want guns in the setting/game, good don't and tell him that they're not cannon and his character would have no point of reference or idea on how that works.
If you think about it, a gun is just a wand that shoots a projectile rather than a magical effect. The rulebook gives players the ability to create mundane and magic items. If that's allowed in your game then there really isn't any reason to disallow a player from creating a gun if they can come up with a plausible way it would work and there's no reason for him not to find one on a quest. Just remember that you control the particulars.
My $ .02:
Let him have his gun for the bargain basement price of 50,000 gold or a tough solo quest. Let him make his own ammunition. Give him a weapon that takes a turn to load/reload, an action to fire, has a range of 300', and does 1d4 per 25' with a -1 to hit for every 50'. This would be the D&D equivalent of a sniper rifle and you will make your player the happiest little necromancer to ever necromance. Of course, it wouldn't be worth a damn at short range like in an inn or a dungeon. It would be nigh useless limited visibility like darkness, rain, thick vegetation, morning fog, etc.. See how long he's willing to haul the silly thing around...
I say, just give him one.
Now hear me out. In the Dungeon Masters Guide book, there is a section of firearms weapons that you can implement into your games, if you'd like.
Now, if you're uncomfortable with giving him an overpowered weapon, then stick with the Renaissance weapons.
They have a "Loading" property:
Because the time required to load this weapon, they can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when they use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks they can normally make.
The rule to "Extra Attacks":
If they make an attack using your Attack action with a weapon which has the Loading property then they can make only ONE attack using that action even if they have the Extra Attack feature that would normally allow thrm to make extra attacks.
Not to mention, firearms use up ammunition as well. It might be hard to find merchants that carry gunpowder.
If his plan is to threaten an entirely neutral god who is designed in such a way that even if you killed them then their next in line will immediately become them and there are about 5 billion mechanici in line, I feel kind that plan will simply fail. I don’t know why you’re under the impression that he has any hope of success in that endeavor, unless he’s already so powerful that it shouldn’t matter if he has a gun or not?
Either let him have a gun or tell him "guns don't exist in this campaign, it isn't happening"
Personally, guns would ruin the vision of my campaign right now but if a PC reeeaaaaally wanted one I could work it in later in the campaign or find a way to bring it forward.
TL;DR
Simple guns did exist in midevil times. You could just give him a gun. Considering d&d is based on midevil times (450-1450), there is an overlap at the latter half where single shot guns did exist.
BRIEF HISTORY W/ YEARS
Early guns were made in China in the late 900s or early 1000s. They were by no means modern ones. They started as fire lances (≈1000 ace spears with a gunpowder shotgun shell that exploded on impact) then evolved hand canons (≈1150 ace metal barreled cannons on poles, purposefully fired from hip because of recoil) to blunderbuses, flint locks, and muzzle loaders (≈1300 ace watch the first pirates of the Caribbean to see all of these in action) are not that far fetched in a normal d&d setting. Mind you, they had absolutely no accuracy. Basically, the spears and hand cannons are melee with bonus damage. The hand cannon would be like a dragon's breath weapon attack but deal non-magical piercing damage, and all of the others would have a between a 300ft and 800ft long range and no short range. "Accurate" guns came about much later and well outside of the normal d&d time period. These guns came about after the concept of riffeling which was not invented until the mid 1500s (which would give you a short and long range). Revolvers and repeating riffels were not invented until the mid 1800s which were your first multi-shot gun.
GOOD D&D EXAMPLE/ADAPTATION
If you haven't seen/looked into it, critical role/Mathew Mercer have done a whole subclass and story arc around the creation of a revolver inspired by an evil deity that is looking to control the wielder to gain power (think gods of death from death note).
IDEAS FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN
If you really don't want them to have one (yet or ever), you could:
A - (ever) just tell him "No". You run the table, and ultimately control what is or isn't allowed
B - (yet) make it so the player needs to multiclass artificer and work towards making one himself (could be a boon from the gods of mechanism) and require leveling as well as explain why they didn't start artificer. This would essentially make the PC the first artificer of the mundane realm.
C - (ever) make a long road to a gun that ends in betrayal by the gods that were threatened. Making it so the player ultimately never gets the weapon but drives a story around trying to. (This one is a little mean, but still an option)
D - (yet) make it so a god is giving inspiration but skill challenges/roles are needed to build/refine the weapon to make it functional (see the "good d&d..." section for more detail)
Guns exist in D&D, they aren't common, but they exist. Look up the gunslinger subclass (fighter, I think) for gun options. Shouldn't be a need to travel to another plane for a simple boom stick.
Dude if he's going to fucking mechanism I'd let him have it. The dmg has some stats for guns anyway. Honestly I'd let him have one if he managed to find a particularly skilled artificer, going all the way to mechanism takes some dedication (depending on the level your players are). I'd have whatever god he threatens be amused and send him on a short errand in exchange for the gun
I’m not sure why people are so resistant to putting guns in their campaigns, or insist that it will break immersion. Though DnD is obviously fictional, it is heavily based on the Middle Ages, which roughly span from the 5th century through the 14th century, and the Renaissance, which continues until the 17th century. Gunpowder was first invented in the 9th century, and guns between the 11th and 12th centuries. It is not a stretch to put the two together.
People should arguably have more of an issue with things like full plate Armour or spyglasses, which weren’t around until the 16th and 17th centuries, respectively.
Guns are in the dmg, and Mercer's gun rules are solid, simply put, they're 1 dice higher than their x-bow counterparts and make a ton of noise, ammo is rare or theyd have to make their own, also they'll need martial weapon proficiency to wield it right.
You'll find guns arent that powerful, especially wielded by a wizard, who has literally no reason to use a gun unless his dex is better than his int, in which case hes a shit wizard.
1) If this player would rather have their PC be an artificer, just ex post facto DM handwave it and make it so. Personally I would be pretty stern and tell the player that this is a one- time one-way PC class change. Their levels in the prior classes get translated over to Artificer and that's what they'll be. From. Now. On.
2) once they're an artificer - what everybody else says. But keep in mind, guns are deafening loud - ain't no sneaking around happening after one goes off. Also gunpowder produces a huge amount of smoke, too- gotta consider that. Thirdly, (edit, darnit) homemade firearms might be juuuust a bit dangerous for the wielder, too....
Give him a cursed gun that shoots backwards. When he fires it he takes the full damage and the bullet seeks him out no matter what. Don’t fuck with gods.
Im constantly baffled by people who DONT allow firearms in their games. "historical accuracy" doesn't exist in Dungeons and Dragons, it's fantasy. Sounds like it would be WAAAY easier for you to just say "oh yeah, there's a gun shop in the city if you can afford it"
Talk about a cock player, baby goes “i want i want i want!”
He is going along with this in the worst way possible, if he does threaten a god, make it cast wish “i wish you to end” and hand him a blank character sheet
Well, apart from what everyone else says ("tell them no," "threatening God's will solve the issue on its own," etc)
There is one other thing you can try. Assume there are no guns in your world. Ask your player, "Where did your character hear the word gun, or what it is? Becuase Noone has invented them and your character isn't an inventer."
Or just give him a gun. World history has proven that guns are not superior to bows. Their advantage was never how strong they were. It was that you could give any peasant a gun and they will be able to use it reletivly well without any training.
So just give him a gun. Give it the stats of a hand cross bow. Add a "loud" property where a shot can be heard up to 300ft away.
If you want to be really mean, then also tell him to keep track of that very rare, non-craftable ammo.
"Okay, you have levied your threat at a literal god. You may choose to roll a D100. If you roll a 100, you get a gun and one bullet. If you roll anything else, I'm going to slap you in the face as hard as I can."
My Ranger wanted a gun so I gave him one. Flavor is free so instead of having a Longbow hes got a Long Rifle. It functions no differently mechanically and i have a happy player. The existence of firearms never bothered me and the game already gives you a framework if you wanna go by 5e's existing firearm rules. I preferred the simple reflavor in practice personally.
Yeah, I could just make it a metal shortbow.
louder, smokier, slower-loading shortbow with rare ammo crit fail and it blows up in your face :D as a balancing thing to give some bonus, you could allow it to intimidate lower level creatues that are unfamiliar with the noise
So just make it a nightmare to use?
He actually just described the real DMG mechanics for guns, they're *already* a nightmare to use. Without the Gunslinger subclass and/or some specific feats, it's exactly that: A louder, smokier, slower-loading shortbow with rare ammo that literally breaks on a crit fail and must be repaired, sometimes with a very steep material cost. Why any player would ever want to use a gun in D&D besides pure flavor is beyond me.
That's not the DMG, that's Mercer's guns. DMG guns don't have any crit fail penalties because a crit fail doesn't exist. That said, I prefer Mercer's guns.
Considering that mercers guns have a ride along critical failure, I am not a fan.
I'm okay with critical failures tied to specific actions or items. There's implicit player buy in on that kind of stuff. Narratively it helps paint them as a new and unstable technology which is where a lot of people like guns to be if they put them in their campaign
Ah right, its honestly hard to keep track at this point of what things are Exandria homebrew and what's actual WotC content lol
If only there we some kind of site that organized everything and properly tagged all content. Unfortunately since that kind of site would be *way* better than any official tool, it would be against the rules to recommend it to you.
Rhymes with...?
Wondering this too - newer DM always looking for new tools.
\>Why any player would ever want to use a gun in D&D besides pure flavour is beyond me. That's the only possible reason, and this is why I don't understand why a lot of people here are so against the gun. As if it would be an AK47 with 31d47 AoE damage instead of a heavy crossbow with flavour looks that can be anything that fits the world, even magic. But if that's not okay for you, then it's still ok, but don't try to fool the player by making him jump hoops just to give him a gun that's impossible to use and especially do not kill him. Just say that it won't work and maybe you can think of something that would satisfy both of you.
The only difference between a heavy crossbow and a rifle is a second d10 on the damage, which isnt gonna do anything to balance. Even the radiant 3d8 laser rifle wpuldnt really do anything to balance. Its when you get to the antimatter rifle that it gets iffy, but still managable compared to a wizard that halfway knows how to play the class. Its also really easy to call this magnificent crossbow that fires with magic instead of a bowstring, a gun. Odds are that is more likely to be what NPCs think it is even of you tell them exactly how it works
Yeah I get not wanting it for flavor reasons. But literally every principle of a gun is not only possible, but made easier in world with magic. Dwarven metallurgy creates rifling and repeater technology. Alchemists refine black powder into a perfected form of gunpowder. There isn’t any real reason why a fantasy world doesn’t have at least civil war era firearms while crossbows and regular bows see wide use. And it’s still outclassed by Angel Summoner.
I like how in Pathfinder it ignores armor and in my campaigns within half of the first range increment, the opponent has to make a dex save or take twice the die in damage. Shotguns shoot in cones with a dex save. I feel like ranged already needed support with longbows so I made the Guncrafting feat trainable. I also let mending remove the broken feature. I also increased the damage die size. Pistol 1d8, musket 1d10, and blunderbuss 1d12, but I took away adding dex to the damage. I also made a feat that's called Firearm Master which lessens the reload time from a movement to a bonus action and allows you to use your reaction to reload or make an attack of opportunity with a firearm. I'm also in the middle of making a gun-focused ranger that forgoes spells for arcane gun-improvement. Also a monk that can conjure dueling pistols using ki points. I know I'm going to catch flack for this, but I also have maneuvers for martial characters so this is a viable option for the most part in my campaigns The dex save is 7+proficiency+character level.
Because they are expecting Colt Revolvers, not flintlocks. In part, it’s Don Kayes’ fault, that guy from Gygax’s original group, the Paladin/Fighter/Wizard with the pai of si shooters.
It can be a fun item to include. A great Image Comic series whose name escapes me right now played with the idea of a fantasy world where one character had the single gun in the world and it had extremely limited ammo so was basically a use as last resort thing.
mostly, yeah - gunpowder should feel high risk, high reward. if your player is down to have the gun be a rare, delicate piece of equipment, you could push it away from a use-every-turn item towards a "glass cannon", which could feel more rewarding than this. \> louder, smokier, slower-loading shortbow with rare ammo drip-feed him limited amounts of bullets with cool effects \- whistle shell (alarming/intimidating) \- incendiary shell (adds some degree of explosion or ongoing fire dmg) \- drill shell (ignores armor) etc. go ham powering them up over time, but keep it limited
No guns should not feel “high risk, high reward” they should feel like every other weapon in the damn game
I ran a campaign where every character had at least one wheel lock pistol. They would use them to attack with before switching to their main weapons and only if they weren't worried about attracting more attention with the noise. Even the mage used one even if he couldn't hit a barn with it.
I think your comment is the best one, everyone jumping on ways to monkey paw their players sound like awful people to be in a game with.... OP needs to either man up and say they arent in their setting or give him a way to get one, even if they have to go on a quest to get what they need... it really isn't that difficult and didn't need a whole thread
Totally agree. For most players it would just be flavour or something cool to have, like a fighter wanting a specific type of sword or armour. If the rest of the table doesn't object then why not?
Yeah if it's cool flavour that doesnt break the game, \*even if\* they end up doing a few points of extra damage from your decision... it isn't that big of a deal and you now have a player thats having a blast with their fantasy character! The other players know they'll get their moment to shine to, so no one should be upset And to me at least that's how you get an invested table, they \*\*want\*\* to play those characters
They don't even need to do more damage or literally have anything to differentiate between using a bow or crossbow other than the name. I feel like the need to give guns their own rules, dice and everything else is unnecessary in most cases. Totally agree about getting players excited and wanting to play the game!
Thank you. I hate the “monkey’s paw” style of DMing and frankly I think it’s disgusting
We're all at the table to have fun, they bring me pizza and I'm here to laugh at them when they can't do a puzzle :P Theres no reason to gotcha moment your friends rofl
Seriously, this is the answer. I don’t know why so many DMs just don’t give the player what they want when they can modify the item however they want. He wants a gun? Sure. The stats? Exactly like a bow. The ammo? Exactly like arrows. Nothing breaks the game and now the player can role play exactly what they want. You even have some possible story arcs that can involve the gun if it’s the only one in existence or incredibly rare.
Yep exactly how I do it. Had a player who was a pirate and wanted a flintlock. No problem take a hand crossbow and reskin it and now you have a flintlock. Another player basically sacrificed all their character levels and lost all their powers. They then in character retained themselves as an artificer fighter and wanted to rifle and a pistol. Heavy crossbow or longbow and the rifle and again hand crossbow for pistol and we are good. I understand some people not wanting guns in their fantasy setting and that is fine. However it really doesn't have to be something overly complicated and in our game other than flavor it's not actually changed anything.
There are flintlock pistols in the DMG.
I don't think there is? Maybe I missed it? There is a pistol that is 1D10, doesn't have the light property and has worse range and a musket which is 1D12 with a worse range than a light crossbow. I offered these as options but my players preffered to have less damage but better everything else. Edit: Just looked, see it is under "renaissance" weapons so yeah guess these are actually flint locks :)
I’m playing in a game with firearms at the moment, so I’ve nothing against the concept of the players & DM agree; but I do disagree it’s just ‘flavour’. Having a gun implies gunpowder. Nevermind the possible impacts on the DM’s world building for a moment (invention of gunpowder is a pretty big deal historically) it also means the party can now buy gunpowder, and store it. Having a barrel of gunpowder you can push up to a castle gate and fire an flaming arrow at is completely different, mechanically, to pushing a barrel of arrows up to a castle gate…
Gunpowder is a lot older than a lot of things seen as perfectly normal in a DnD world. Plate armour being the most obvious example. Cannons and handgonnes predate plate by a good hundred years or so. But greatswords are also a later development than gunpowder. DnD is based on a fantasy version of European Late Mediaeval or Renaissance periods. It is honestly jarring that there's no guns or cannons in most DnD settings. It's imo worse than the inclusion of leather and studded leather as armour types.
Yes, but we’re not talking exact historical accuracy; as you say most versions of D&D are based on a fantasy version of medieval times people have in their heads, built up from a mishmash of sources. Most of which don’t feature guns. I mean, how many D&D campaigns since the 70s have had a world that was either actually Middle Earth or a clone of it with the numbers filled off? Thousands and thousands I suspect. It’s perfectly okay for DMs to not allow guns in such worlds, regardless of mechanics, because the flavour is ‘wrong’. That’s all I’m saying, not that this applies to all DMs all the time in all games ever.
But a lot of people act as though introducing gunpowder is to introduce something far more modern than their usual settings. It's that myth I want to dispel. Of course people can run their table and design their world as they wish. I just want to challenge the assumption that gunpowder is any more modern than their armour, their gender roles (which are either mid 20th century or completely modern, I prefer modern), the greatswords or their economic systems (which are typically 18th century at the earliest). You could say that I want people to exclude firearms for good reasons, not the bad reasons they often cite. Realism is a very bad reason to exclude firearms in most DnD settings.
‘Realism’ doesn’t have to mean strict fidelity to our own world’s timeline. ‘Realism’ can mean adherence to a fantasy world’s internal logic and the sources it’s based on.
They should still think about the question as "what does removing gunpowder from my setting change" rather than "what does including gunpowder change". I think most people think the second way because they don't know how early gunpowder and gunpowder weapons were introduced in medieval Europe. My goal isn't to force people to include gunpowder, but to encourage them to think better about the question.
You are still trying to come at it from a real world time line perspective with that. Bottom line is guns are generally not considered fantasy. So yes its actually quite fine to come at it as what does it add instead of removing it because most fantasy worlds are built from the starting point of that to begin with.
But it doesn’t have to. As a DM I can alter what “gunpowder” is. As a DM you can literally alter whatever you want to fit your narrative. I’ve been playing DND for a lot longer than most, and I’ve learned there is a fine line between player enjoyment and “world building”. As long as there isn’t abuse, I don’t care how it works. Maybe the PC makes their own gunpowder. Maybe the gun itself is magical and it turns dirt into gunpowder. Admittedly, I’ve not ever had a player want a gun, as I come from the 2e generation and the arquebus is wasn’t very powerful. But beyond that I kind of don’t care what the PCs want as long as it isn’t abusive and it aids their RPing and doesn’t hurt others. In fact, several other TTRPGS in the past had incredibly open platforms for players to essentially roleplay anything they want.
That’s absolutely fine and sounds a great approach. But it’s not every DM’s approach. I’ve started playing D&D decades ago too, and it would be absolutely in the spirit of the game for a DM to want to build a pseudo-realistic, plausible world without contradictions. And to say “gunpowder that is freely available as gunpowder but doesn’t behave like gunpowder outside a gun” is not part of that. Player flavour is great, but the DM is allowed flavour in their world building too. And not all flavours work together to make something tasty.
This is exactly what a DM did for me when I got attached to the idea of giving my half-orc a gun. Just reskinned it and I was delighted lol
I'll never understand why so many people think that in a game where you're constantly evoking the divine wrath of gods and dealing with the undead and dragons that somehow a pistol is so wildly powerful you can't balance around it. Oh no, god forbid someone get a fancy crossbow that requires custom ammo, lest the warlock who can drop firebombs after every nap feel threatened.
Or if they are a caster, one of their cantrips (fire bolt, eldritch blast) can be flavored as a gun.
Firearms do exist in "the usual D&D". There are literally drow gunslingers in Waterdeep. Additionally if you're concerned about it being OP, just look at the DMG's Adventuring Options section, where there's a table with stats for guns of various eras. The Renaissance firearms section is completely in line with comparable ranged weapons in the PHB. If you just don't want guns in your game because you dislike the aesthetic, just tell your player those aren't a thing in this setting, assuming they're an adult they shouldn't have any problem accepting this.
This. I definitely agree with a lot of the other comments that it's ok to say no, I personally don't like Gunpowder in my fantasy worlds. But it's also an absolutely fine option to just let him have a gun, there are existing guns in Faerun world, or you can homebrew something more appropriate to your setting. I just wouldn't give them a modern gun. I think you could very easily design a cool but not OP musket and still make it functionally different from bows/crossbows. For example: higher damage per shot than bow, lower accuracy. If you want an element of realism it could take a full turn to load the next shot, and in this case you could up the damage even higher. I might also add a automatic Intimidation/morale style check for enemies who have never experienced explosives when they're shot at.
I agree with most of your points, but I think people in a world of magic wouldn't actually find a book stick to be any more intimidating to face than a wizard slinging fireballs and lightning. If you have enemies facing morale checks from musket fire then I'd argue the same rule should apply loud spells and barbarians beating dudes with other dudes rather than being solely a feature of the gun.
"book stick" It's called a wand
Lol Autocorrect apparently doesn't like "boomstick", but now I think I want to add an NPC to a game who refers to wands exclusively as "book sticks" because, "this stick lets me do the things you need to _read_ your _normal_ books to learn, so obviously someone must have put one of your books in this stick; duh!
That's a good point. I'm just spitballing, just an idea to consider for a low magic setting
I hate gunpowder weapons in my fantasy settings too... most of the time. However I love the laser weapons in the DMG and just giving them a more magical aesthetic, like this. https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/caitlyn-snow-moon-762x.jpg
>I personally don't like Gunpowder in my fantasy worlds Never understood this. You're fine with Rapier and Gothic Plate, but you don't want an item from 200 years before these two things? I could understand if you were doing Vikings or Romans or something...
Let me try to succinctly explain. "I'm trying to a paint a very particular picture of things, and reality doesn't jive with my creative vision. This is why I'm playing a fantasy game, not a historical skirmish game or science fiction game." As an aside, science ain't got to science exactly the same in my fantasy realm. Maybe firearms are too dangerous to use because gunpowder just spawns lil baby fire elementals.
I have a faction in my world that has started figuring out fire arms (they specifically hate magic, think its a shackle placed on mortal kind by the gods and other powerful creatures to stunt the progression of mortals under their own power because then you become reliant on something that can be taken away on a whim). In this world, the gods basically decided to fuck with these people, and now if there is too much gunpowder and smoke from shooting new smoke elementals are formed from the ash and smoke and can't be hurt by mundane weapons.
I just don't like it... I never said my fantasy world was a mirror of 17th century Europe, its just a fantasy world that has the things I like, and doesn't have the things I don't like.
When it comes to the aesthetic, it's totally fine to just say "Hey, in this particular world, that's just not gonna be an option." Alternatively, you can just say he can try doing what he's doing, but make it clear that threatening a god is like putting your head into an alligators mouth. Sure you can, and maybe it doesn't bite down. But chances are it's going to bite down, you don't know what to do, and you will probably die. The only difference is the Alligator will just kill you, not the rest of your party. The God will.
Even the Modern Firearms are fine if you just remove Dex mod from damage. (Ie. Pistol does 2d6 for damage instead of 2d6+DexMod). One average they will still do 1-2 more points than their bow counterparts but are a lot more swingy with their damage range and bullets are non recoverable whereas bows are more consistent with their damage and ammo goes a lot further. Make the shotgun crit on 19 to make it different from a revolver and you're good to go.
Also, there is an NPC in Waterdeep area who owns a Colt Revolver, like it literally says right in the module "Colt Revolver" and is hidden in a hollowed out Western novel.
Isn't that NPC a particularly unique kinda guy and the module heavily suggests they've been to Earth like in City Beyond the Gate? Which is where they picked up the revolver rather than there being revolver manufacturers in Waterdeep?
Thanks.
A pistol (they're very old-fashioned flintlock style things btw) is 1d10 piercing, with loading, a 30/90 range, and the proficiency is firearms so almost certainly one your player doesn't have atm. It's far from game breaking. His batshit plan to go to mechanus to get one is hilarious though, and I'd be tempted to allow it to happen at great cost and sacrifice just for said super powerful being to teleport him to a shop in waterdeep or wherever with a selection in a display case
Yeah its the plan that's got me onboard for this "I want a gun" No "I want to go to mechanicus, threaten a god to give me a gun and walk outa there like I own the place" You know what PC, I'm just going to see how this plays out
You can certainly try! (sorry)
i love this
Ya I would just say let him buy and use a gun. In typical DnD they exist they're just uncommon. A flintlock pistol is no different than a crossbow essentially. My pirate PC used almost exclusively a pistol for our full campaign.
Also, as with every other non-simple weapon type, the PC will need proficiency on firearms to be able to wield them correctly. Just treat them as a bit of a more cumbersome, but a bit more powerful, crossbow.In general, the official renaissance guns are pretty much their corresponding crossbow (pistol vs hand crossbow, musket vs crossbow) with a bit worse range (because of accuracy) and a raise in damage die. And, if you want (or need) to make it a bit more cumbersome, or not have it used every single combat, remind them they cannot get bullets on every market or blacksmith they come across in their travels (you might need either a specialized shop or blacksmith in a big city), and do the whole Wizard's "bag of ingredients" for their gunpowder (these are musket type weapons. They need to be manually reloaded with gunpowder and a ball/bullet before they're ready to shoot again). It actually gets worse if they want a modern gun. They get even more powerful, and need less time for reloading (since you can switch mags)... But now you need to be able to get/conjure/create bullets and mags. And, believe me, a modern weapon will not only not work with a misshapen bullet, it might actually explode on you. And the gunpowder in a modern gun is not the same they'd have access to in a standard D&D setting. Have I not mentioned cleanup, oils, and such? That's even more specialized materials and knowledge. In summary: Just give them the gun, but make it clear as how easy (or not) the use, maintenance, and requisition of future ammo will be. Of course, as DM, you always get the golden rule to stop this if it would just destroy or impoverish the story/fun
"No" or "Good luck with that." Same as if I wanted the USS Enterprise with photon torpedoes. Cool story. Assuming his PC would even know what a "gun" is if it even exists in your setting, learning the metallurgy and chemistry behind even a basic firearm usable in combat would take up all the time he'd instead be using for adventuring.
Not to mention, how is he going to get a god's attention, let alone frighten them? If we can do that for what amounts to a fancy crossbow, why are we worried about the BBEG?
Yeah, but if he gets a GUN, then Gods will just do whatever he says. Like give him a gun! … oh I see the problem here
please note the god already owns a gun.
As always, the answer is more guns
AMERICA!!!!!!
But when he holds the gun in his hand he feels a surge of power, like the gods must feel when they're holding a gun.
"guns don't exist in this world. Wands of fireball exist"
Star Trek mentioned
I read about this one way back, where they gave him a gun but it's a flintlock. Shoot once then reload for like a ton of turns lol
how would you get to it? if you do get it the Klingons will kill you. you don't know how to run it and shoot the torpedoes. spell/star jammer if you really want to do this w/dnd.
Yeah, I want modern artillery.
If the party is down, a long quest to get a spaceship sounds fun? What if I want an airtight skyship with enchantments so I can launch mana torpedoes at dragons in space?
"Hey dude, fucking stop. That's not how it works." Dude's being a knob.
>Threaten a god to give him a gun Threaten a literal god. You don't have to give him anything, his own stupidity will solve it for you. Or you could talk it out and say no.
“Why are you rolling all those dice?” “Figured I’d start calculating the damage now for when you piss him off because I have a lot of addition to do.”
> I don't have enough dice for this. Hey, everybody. Would you just roll all of your dice and add them up? Yes, even the ones in your pouch. Size doesn't matter.
“oh k good, that’s a decent number… now should we just multiple this or did you guys wanna roll and count 24 more times?”
I'm not sure death is the appropriate word for what's about to Halen to your character, more like annihilated from space and time. The ripples across reality distribute the hit across your ancestors affecting.... oh no.... some of your party share distant relatives with you...
That is epic. I'm definitely going to use that sometime when my party decides to get cocky with a Dragonmarked house or a Stormlord because it's inevitably going to happen in my Eberron game.
>Threaten a literal god. You are so insignificant the god doesn't even notice your threat, you would be amazed at how many people curse gods and other shit, and yet they simply don't care. Come back when you kill a bunch of his followers and then he might notice you, assuming you are that suicidal.
See, if I'm that god, I give it to him. But there's a 1 in 10 chance every time he fires it that it blows up horribly, essentially casting fireball on himself.
Actually, yeah. But not 1 in 10 chance to blow up, 1 in 10 chance to fire. As in, he needs Divine intervention for the gun to function. Meaning he needs to take some cleric levels in order to get the gun to function. Maybe his God should be the one who gave him the gun, even.
I like both. Roll d10, on 1 take 8d6 misfire damage, on 2-8 *click*, on 10 do 2d6 +ranged weapon modifier. Sorry, having a cursed weapon from a pissed off God does more damage to you than your enemies.
For the god being "threatened": Give him the gun, with exactly six bullets. Each bullet is 1/6th of the character's soul. As he uses the gun, he loses more and more of himself, and the last bullet will kill him with no possibility for resurrection, since his soul is entirely destroyed.
This would be a defining moment for me. We either never talk about this again and we continue playing dnd like we forgot it ever happened. Or we stop being friends. Like, I'm sorry to this player, but the ability to respect someone enough not to pull this shit would literally make or break my relationship with them.
Dude, you and OP are being a little aggressive about this, considering guns are totally a thing in DnD, there are rules for primitive guns in the DMG, and even classes and feats built around it. It's not unreasonable for a player to want to use one for his character.
Actually, when I opened this thread, I was fully prepared to tell OP that the guns presented in the DMG are fine, and that you can pretty much use them without any worry of balance because they're essentially just crossbows with a different name. And then I read this wild story about a player that wants to, like, somehow trick his DM into giving him a gun by threatening a god. And while I don't fully understand how we got here, I can only imagine the situation is *now* what it is because the DM already told him there aren't guns in this setting. Like, it's reasonable for a player to be interested in guns for their character. It is *absofuckinglutely not reasonable* for a player to devise a plan to travel to a different plane and threaten a god to try and get something their DM has already said no to.
The OP didn't once say in his post that he said no. The words, he used tell a lot though. He starts off by saying, "a literal gun." Like he expects that to surprise us. I think this DM is venting to reddit, and I strongly suspect he hasn't talked to this player at all. In fact, OP even mentioned that he only knows this because another player shared it with him. I think your original thought is probably correct. The only red flag I see on players part is that he HASNT shared his plan with the DM yet.
There’s no way this player’s first thought was “I need to go to mechanus and threaten a god to get a gun” when he decided he wanted a gun. That’s not reasonable. You have to already know guns don’t exist in the setting for that to even make sense. Like, the player either already knew it wasn’t going to happen normally, or the DM told him already.
How do you believably Roleplay this though? Your character lives in a world without firearms but knows what a firearm is, can perceive what it is, and wants one so bad.
he had a dream where he was mowing down 30-50 gnolls with an AR and it inspired him to go adventuring
NGL that sounds METAL
You do not, those kinda players are unbelievably boring and they are derailing distracted messes of players. My answer is always "No, your gun will never shoot bullets in a way that you want. It will do less damage than you think and doesn't fit within the theme of my world. If you want to play a game with guns I suggest you participate in the vote after this campaign that you didn't last time." I'm really just typing out a past conversation at this point. Oddly enough, a gun flavored wand is more interesting and in-line with what I'd allow, but it will have limits.
Honestly, I might let him do it. Reach level 20, run a whole adventure through Mechanus and successfully intimidate a god on their own turf into giving them a gun. And the reward for all this trouble is a nonmagical firearm that does 1D10+DEX
I think it's less about the gun thing and more about the player wanting to change the campaign setting and have a social encounter that would cause all sorts of problems for the campaign.
So then that's a conversation the GM needs to have with player, "Hey, I don't think this fits my custom setting." The player isn't in the wrong, though, for wanting something that is outlined in the rules, and players have negative interactions/go against gods all the time. This, to me, just seems like another instance of, "My player wants to take the lucky feat, but I don't like it. He's the asshole, right?"
It sounds like based on what op has said in this thread he just kinda gets pushed over by his group. Maybe not to the extreme or even commonly but saying something like "I can't really deny nat 20 rolls" or setting that player with a rogue party member who is easier to deal with. Id think it was made clear they aren't really on the table and now it's being forced. Though tbf I would also wonder why he says that player "saw it through the portal" if he didn't want it in the game at all.
I would agree, which is evidenced by the fact that OP seems to be complaining about the player wanting a gun on Reddit instead of talking to the player. I hope they can work it out, but I just don't think the player is wrong here. (To be clear, I think the players idea is dumb, lol, but it doesn't make him a bad player or "wrong")
Are there guns in your campaign? Could there be one gun in your campaign and still be true to your vision for it? If yes, go for it! If this isn't something you want or want to deal with in your campaign, disallow it and make it clear to the player so they don't get their hopes up. Perhaps there is a mechanical substitute like a crossbow with greek fire bolts, or a magic item that can give the same vibe. Just as any DM can exclude certain races, classes, spells, rules, even entire books, you can exclude guns if it's not right for your campaign. I will likely never have guns in my D&D campaign; I'd rather play a different genre rpg if I'm going that route. On another note, if this PC does actually threaten a deity, they are likely to receive a curse instead, one that can only be removed by performing a difficult service for the deity (*remove curse* most certainly would not work).
*takes notes*
1. Telling him "no" is an option. Don't just jerk him around. 2. How does his character even know what a gun is? 3. Sure, give him a gun. And no means of getting ammo. Assuming that's what a lawful evil entity would do.
>threaten a god to give him a gun I mean, give him a gun. Nbd, they're in Beyond already. But threatening a god? That is ridiculous.
Apparently he's gonna threaten his daughter. I dunno, he's gonna take the rouge with him and because the rouge is a dream D&D player to a DM, he's keeping me up to date on his plan.
The god shows him a gun. The god then shoots him with the gun.
The god shows him a gun. The god then shoots him with the gun. The god asks him to repeat himself, must not have heard correctly. Depending on the answer the god might “give him” the gun in that he beats him to death with it.
This is just amazing. This is my doomsday option.
Honestly, I’d go straight for this. A player with enough hubris to even attempt to ‘threaten a good’ hasn’t played enough D&D to realize that’s a bad idea. Dont let them get off soft with this or they’ll think that’s how you solve everything. Teach this player a hard lesson. Hell, if you don’t want to outright kill them, have the god snap his fingers and have time reset to when the player say the gun in the first place, and give them the choice to make a different decision. If they still fucking try again, then permadeath might be the only way to teach them. Have them roll up an artificer for their next pc! If you *really* don’t want to do that, then shit, it’s the god of mechanism. The god is amused by this mortal attempting to threatening them, and decides to grant them the powers of an artificer (class change) to let them attain the power by their own hands. Could even do some freaky shit with an artificer/warlock or paladin multiclass as a divinely-inspired crafter.
Oh this kids getting a woopin.
This gives me ideas, not just for a beatdown. Imagine the god of Mechanism, standing at his forge, being approached by a mortal who for whatever reason is demanding this mythical weapon. How does he react? Does he lash out in anger and smite this mortal for his hubris? Maybe, but does that reaction really befit a god of invention, creation, and mechanical ingenuity? No. This god answers quietly but with authority. *Very well, mortal. Take this.* And he sets down his hammer, leans towards our hero, and presents him with an ornate wooden box. Inside is not a gun, but a hammer. A pair of goggles. A pile of metal scraps. A vial of gunpowder. *Here is your gun. Or, at least, it could be. Do you have the skill to earn it?* *Welcome to Mechanism. Here, your imagination can become reality with patience and talent. You want a gun?* ***Make one.***
This is perfect
PLEASE update us
I don't know if you're serious or just joking, but honestly going all the way with the plan to allow the players to meet this mechanical god just to decide it was not possible anyway and outright kill them is unfun? The idea sounds ridiculous, so you can make the god actually amused by the audacity and offer to fulfil the wish if they beat their champion. You get a cool fight, and a cool moment, and everyone is happy. And why not just give him the gun, if you don't like gunpowder, it can be magical and shoot a fire beam (just like... Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, unless you also banned cantrip magic) or effectively work just like a Heavy Crossbow. Aesthetically it can really be whatever you want it to be. Think of a way that would satisfy your aesthetics and would satisfy player's urge to have something similar to a gun. I know DnD is not PBtA, but I see nothing wrong with applying it's agenda everywhere like "be a fan of players' characters" and "pay to find out what happens". After all, GM is playing with the players, not against them. I really don't get why some of you propose *punishing* the players for
"I respect your determination in entering my realm and threatening me to get something that you want. For this reason, I will grant you a gun. However, I cannot abide you threatening my daughter. For this reason, the gun will be travelling at Mach 10 when you receive it, having been launched from my much larger gun. You're welcome and get fucked."
Straight into the emergency lines! Tysm. This is.... Art!
So, rogue's player's telling you this on the back channel? Have him get the chucklehead talk to you straight-up. The rogue's player shouldn't be in the middle of this nonsense.
Very bold, I will honor your request, adventurer. However, your insolence in threatening my daughter will not be tolerated. So, *which of your extremities will you forfeit in exchange for this weapon?* Take their arm/leg and turn that into the weapon. Acts as a normal prosthetic, costs an Action to remove it and use it as a gun, and costs an Action to put back (rules on donning and doffing armor).
Very good. I will make sure that he means when he says "I'll give an arm and a leg"
Sounds like he'd be a great candidate for nanobots that expand after entering... certain orifices
"after you threaten the loved one of a god it gets pissed off and low and behold you are vaporized to death. no there is no roll its a literal fucking god you twat
🎵 You can't always get what you want 🎵
But if you try sometimez....
You just might find…..
So…why not just give him a gun? Like at the end of the day your player wants a gun, the Gunner feat exists in TCOE, and the Renaissance firearms exist in the DMG. Like sure don’t give him an assault rifle. But have you considered just…letting him have a gun? Edit: After reading this thread I’m convinced that this sub is full of nightmare DMs who get off on being antagonistic toward their players over the simplest thing
full agree, feel like I'm going crazy reading some of these comments.
the majority of the comments agreeing with op is just baffling
For real. Like some of these DMs just hate their players seems like. Must suck
you don't understand he's trying to have WRONGFUN
For some reason guns become this ultra resource and micro intensive things but then for other items like armour don't need to be cleaned and oiled everyday to stop rust forming or bow strings getting wet. Either treat everything in the same way or stop picking on guns specifically and treat them like everything else.
Gun's are older than plate mail. Give him a flintlock (stats are in thr Dmg). He doesn't have proficiency in it until he takes the feat. They're not over powered or anything. He gets what he wants, you get less stress, and he still has to put resources into it.
And rapiers. I kinda hate rapiers personally but most fantasy games have them.
I'm gonna go against the grain here. The quest is both hilarious and fun. But what if he gets a gun? What's the issue? You get to stat it out and make sure it's balanced. This is a world with spells like command and fireball and shatter. But a single gun is gonna cause some major world issues?
Give him a hand crossbow and tell him it’s a gun?
This is not somethingnto be solved in game. Talk.to the player, explain that his plan is not going to work. Mechanical Guns dont exist in your setting and you as the DM dont want actual guns in it. As a compromise you can. 1- Give him a magic gocus that looks like a gun and shoots firebolt (the cantrip). 2- alow him to change characters and make a artilerist artificer with magic canon (magic gun). 3- alow him to use handcrossbows reskined as firearms. Flavor is free. But i suspect your player wants guns more to powergame, than for any Roleplay or character concept reasons. Ask him if any of those compromises work. If he insists to get some overpowered weapon, then "Fuck no" is an absolutely fine answer to that.
How would his character even know what a gun is? Like fair enough if he wanted to design and make the gun himself, but using meta-knowledge and threatening a god just doesn't work If you don't want actual firearms in your game, you could just give him a hand crossbow.
Metal crossbow.
If you want to make it fancy or make it feel not like a crossbow Gun Option 1: Eldrich blast, you give them an item, tell them it's a gun and what ever ammo they have to buy, it just does eldrich blast, you could even maybe there is ammo that gives Agonising blast, Eldrich spear or repelling blast Gun Option 2: Magic missile, the gun has a number of ~~charges~~ bullets and it casts magic missile. to regain ~~charges~~ bullets they have to buy them and each bullet costs about the same as a common spell scroll (like 25-50gp typically)
I'm not clear what your objection is? What's wrong with getting a gun?
He’s going to threaten a god? Ha ha ha ha Ok… SQUASH I have a player with a gun currently… it’s fine. Here’s the thing… if he has a gun… so can his enemies.
Oh... That's good.
"and really should be an artificer but isn't cuz we didnt know they existed." let him respec the char or have someone in the tavern talk about a gun in the country/city you want the chars to go to. magic mc gunffin. or you can just ~~give~~ sell them the +1 crossbow that is a pain to reload. if you want to be a bad dm you could make it attract every single monster that can hear it. you know the next 3 encounters at once.
Pardon my ignorance, but what's the big deal with him having a gun? D&D is a gonzo, kitchen sink of a setting. Aren't there literal space ships and whatnot?
> and really should be an artificer but isn't cuz we didnt know they existed. If you think he should, and he thinks he should, why not allowing him to respec? Is there anything about his current class that is important to the story? Is it something you could somehow retcon?
Yeh. Good point.
I wonder if the threatening a god thing is a way to reroll his character into an artificer.
They’re a caster… a gun is literally going to be worse than every single spell they have
Also a good point. Why would they want it?
Give him a hand crossbow and flavor it as a gun. Keep the loading properties and call it a single-shot pistol. It’s balanced and the player can have their fun.
Have him re-spec to artificer. Done and done.
> He is planning on doing this by somehow getting to mechanism (the mechanical realm) and threaten a god to give him a gun. For what it's worth, this is a terrible plan. He's going to *threaten* a *lawful god* and expects an outcome other than being smited?
If you don't want guns in your setting, you shouldn't be "discouraging" him from having a gun, you should be informing him that guns don't exist in your setting, and telling him that his character wouldn't even know what a gun *is*, so trying to find one is metagaming badly. "No" is a complete sentence here. If he throws a fit about it, he's probably not someone worth playing with. Anyone who decides to threaten deities for firearms in my game would have a *very* short life expectancy.
For some mechanical context, renaissance guns in the DMG, even with the gunner feat in Tasha's, are pretty comparable to bows and crossbows. It's unlikely a necro will be able to use them effectively. What do you mean by necromancer/conjurer?
Guns are in the DMG. Just use those rules. Threatening a god gets your character laughed at. Seriously threatening a god creates a situation where get to find out the power of a God, and a gun isn't going to help you there. This is how you end up like Prometheus in the Greek legends; chained to a rock for all eternity, every day having your liver eaten out of you stomach by birds, only to heal completely and have it happen the next day, for eternity. Mythical levels of punishment. I am wary of the "bro deals" you have cut with your PCs. I urge you to read the sections about rolling natural 20s. You can not say "I want to jump 950 feet in the air" and then just roll a Nat 20 and do it. It just means you do very well considering all of the circumstances around the event. That being said, you can plan to give your player a gun! It's fine. But I have two caveats: 1. They should have to quest for it! Drag all the other PCs along on my ridiculous side quest. 2. Ammo should be absurdly difficult to come by. The gun should have 3-5 shots left in it, and to create more you have to go to several Quasi-Elemental and Para-Elemental planes to get the proper ingredients (Plane of Minerals - bullets, Plane of Smoke - Gunpowder part 1, Plane of Salt - Gunpowder part 2, Plane of Lightning - primer and/or flints). Make sure to give the other PCs interesting items on this quest, if you really want to be a jerk about it, make these items more powerful than the gun.
I've got a player who wants to build a missile to defend a town against an undead dragon. I let him do it... He's captured a phoenix that will be used as fuel, he's using gnomes to build the rocket body, and so on. For those wondering, we play [Divine Contention.](https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/adventures/divine-contention) If you don't want your player to get a gun, you simply say: "Don't bother trying, I don't want guns in my game".
that sounds evil to use a phonex as fuel....
Despite what a lot of people are saying, being a dick back at the player in game is not a great solution to the issue. Don’t do stuff like that, it only perpetuates player vs dm attitudes. The game is supposed to be collaborative even if it’s challenging. Sooo what to do: Step 1 - figure out why the player wants it out of game via discussion. This is important cause it will clarify to you possible solutions while also making them admit out loud their intent, which if is a bad intent makes it easier to reject it. Step 2 - with the answer to step 1 you can either reject the premise or accept it. I’d lean towards accepting it if it’s the least bit rational (including just rule of cool as legit option), albeit with modifications to fit the world/context etc…, ideally you should work this part out with the player out of game. Step 3 - Assuming we avoided flat out rejection, make the thing. You should keep it balanced and equivalent to something that already exists and is available to the party, you can flavor it however ya want to fit your world, but it probably shouldn’t be an arbitrary power boost unless it’s gonna be a magic item option that is equivalent to magic items they can find and eats up an attunement slot.
I'd strap a stock and sight onto a wand of magic missiles and call it a day.
Don’t go to Mechanus and threaten a god. That’s not going to work. Just go to Lantan and buy one from the gnomes. Firearms exist in the forgotten realms they’re just hard to come by and not widely adopted because frankly they can’t compete with magic.
You could just say ‘no’… That being said, given the range of time periods everything else in D&D seems to span, some basic black powder muzzle loading firearms aren’t unreasonable.
His reasoning and desire is kind of dumb and shitty, I do see hand crossbows reflavored as guns so it's not game breaking or anything.
If guns don't exist in your setting his character wouldn't know what one is. The player would have to come up with a really interesting explanation for how the character would even think to want a gun and how they would manage to threaten a god. Or you could let them get to mechanus and try it only to get turned into a clock.
Chaotic neutral tiefling necromancer making demands sounds pretty on-brand. And by that I mean it's red flags all the way down.
If there are guns in your campaign just give him one. An old timey pistol is 1d10 piercing damage, the bullets cost 3gp for 10 and has a 30/90 range. If there aren’t guns his character would have no clue what they are. Just tell them that
Give it to him but don't give him any ammo, you both win.
Guns can mechanically exist, there are builds for them, usually based on Pathfinder "Roll low and it misfires and potentially breaks" rules. Threatening a god is a bad idea (And kinda metagaming - if guns don't exist, how does your character know to want one?) and if he does through with that...consequences. But I don't see any significant harm in making it so that he can find one, and particularly making it so that if he does, he's not proficient with it given it's a rare weapon built on new tech, and he has to specifically be trained to use it or work with it to a not insignificant degree to earn that proficiency.
Firearms do 1D10 damage, so does eldritch blast, except you don't reload eldritch blast. And you get to arm YOUR npcs with guns too, It's a non issue.
Hes going to *threaten* a *god* Are the gods in this realm weak little bitches or...? Because that just ends in his immediate and violent demise.
Gnomish technology is usually a thing. You can have muskets that fit well in a premodern setting. Or does this player specifically want an AR15?
Early firearms took about 20-30 seconds to reload after a single shot. Give the dude 3-5 rounds of reloading with attacks against him having advantage because he has to focus on this new fangled piece of shit. Why are people so obsessed with putting guns in D&D? But yeah you could reskin whatever ranged weapon they’re proficient in and have it make a big noise when they use it I guess.
If you want guns in the setting/game, good give him a gun and make him train to become proficienct If you don't want guns in the setting/game, good don't and tell him that they're not cannon and his character would have no point of reference or idea on how that works.
When a mortal threatens a god on their home plane, they normally do not live very long.
If you think about it, a gun is just a wand that shoots a projectile rather than a magical effect. The rulebook gives players the ability to create mundane and magic items. If that's allowed in your game then there really isn't any reason to disallow a player from creating a gun if they can come up with a plausible way it would work and there's no reason for him not to find one on a quest. Just remember that you control the particulars. My $ .02: Let him have his gun for the bargain basement price of 50,000 gold or a tough solo quest. Let him make his own ammunition. Give him a weapon that takes a turn to load/reload, an action to fire, has a range of 300', and does 1d4 per 25' with a -1 to hit for every 50'. This would be the D&D equivalent of a sniper rifle and you will make your player the happiest little necromancer to ever necromance. Of course, it wouldn't be worth a damn at short range like in an inn or a dungeon. It would be nigh useless limited visibility like darkness, rain, thick vegetation, morning fog, etc.. See how long he's willing to haul the silly thing around...
I say, just give him one. Now hear me out. In the Dungeon Masters Guide book, there is a section of firearms weapons that you can implement into your games, if you'd like. Now, if you're uncomfortable with giving him an overpowered weapon, then stick with the Renaissance weapons. They have a "Loading" property: Because the time required to load this weapon, they can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when they use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks they can normally make. The rule to "Extra Attacks": If they make an attack using your Attack action with a weapon which has the Loading property then they can make only ONE attack using that action even if they have the Extra Attack feature that would normally allow thrm to make extra attacks. Not to mention, firearms use up ammunition as well. It might be hard to find merchants that carry gunpowder.
If his plan is to threaten an entirely neutral god who is designed in such a way that even if you killed them then their next in line will immediately become them and there are about 5 billion mechanici in line, I feel kind that plan will simply fail. I don’t know why you’re under the impression that he has any hope of success in that endeavor, unless he’s already so powerful that it shouldn’t matter if he has a gun or not?
Either let him have a gun or tell him "guns don't exist in this campaign, it isn't happening" Personally, guns would ruin the vision of my campaign right now but if a PC reeeaaaaally wanted one I could work it in later in the campaign or find a way to bring it forward.
Guns have been around since 1000 AD and there are rules in the DMG. I don't understand why it's a big deal.
TL;DR Simple guns did exist in midevil times. You could just give him a gun. Considering d&d is based on midevil times (450-1450), there is an overlap at the latter half where single shot guns did exist. BRIEF HISTORY W/ YEARS Early guns were made in China in the late 900s or early 1000s. They were by no means modern ones. They started as fire lances (≈1000 ace spears with a gunpowder shotgun shell that exploded on impact) then evolved hand canons (≈1150 ace metal barreled cannons on poles, purposefully fired from hip because of recoil) to blunderbuses, flint locks, and muzzle loaders (≈1300 ace watch the first pirates of the Caribbean to see all of these in action) are not that far fetched in a normal d&d setting. Mind you, they had absolutely no accuracy. Basically, the spears and hand cannons are melee with bonus damage. The hand cannon would be like a dragon's breath weapon attack but deal non-magical piercing damage, and all of the others would have a between a 300ft and 800ft long range and no short range. "Accurate" guns came about much later and well outside of the normal d&d time period. These guns came about after the concept of riffeling which was not invented until the mid 1500s (which would give you a short and long range). Revolvers and repeating riffels were not invented until the mid 1800s which were your first multi-shot gun. GOOD D&D EXAMPLE/ADAPTATION If you haven't seen/looked into it, critical role/Mathew Mercer have done a whole subclass and story arc around the creation of a revolver inspired by an evil deity that is looking to control the wielder to gain power (think gods of death from death note). IDEAS FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN If you really don't want them to have one (yet or ever), you could: A - (ever) just tell him "No". You run the table, and ultimately control what is or isn't allowed B - (yet) make it so the player needs to multiclass artificer and work towards making one himself (could be a boon from the gods of mechanism) and require leveling as well as explain why they didn't start artificer. This would essentially make the PC the first artificer of the mundane realm. C - (ever) make a long road to a gun that ends in betrayal by the gods that were threatened. Making it so the player ultimately never gets the weapon but drives a story around trying to. (This one is a little mean, but still an option) D - (yet) make it so a god is giving inspiration but skill challenges/roles are needed to build/refine the weapon to make it functional (see the "good d&d..." section for more detail)
There is literally guns in the players guide or DMs guide, they aren't OP at all based on those statblocks.
Guns exist in D&D, they aren't common, but they exist. Look up the gunslinger subclass (fighter, I think) for gun options. Shouldn't be a need to travel to another plane for a simple boom stick.
Dude if he's going to fucking mechanism I'd let him have it. The dmg has some stats for guns anyway. Honestly I'd let him have one if he managed to find a particularly skilled artificer, going all the way to mechanism takes some dedication (depending on the level your players are). I'd have whatever god he threatens be amused and send him on a short errand in exchange for the gun
I’m not sure why people are so resistant to putting guns in their campaigns, or insist that it will break immersion. Though DnD is obviously fictional, it is heavily based on the Middle Ages, which roughly span from the 5th century through the 14th century, and the Renaissance, which continues until the 17th century. Gunpowder was first invented in the 9th century, and guns between the 11th and 12th centuries. It is not a stretch to put the two together. People should arguably have more of an issue with things like full plate Armour or spyglasses, which weren’t around until the 16th and 17th centuries, respectively.
Guns are in the dmg, and Mercer's gun rules are solid, simply put, they're 1 dice higher than their x-bow counterparts and make a ton of noise, ammo is rare or theyd have to make their own, also they'll need martial weapon proficiency to wield it right. You'll find guns arent that powerful, especially wielded by a wizard, who has literally no reason to use a gun unless his dex is better than his int, in which case hes a shit wizard.
I'm guessing by gun you don't just mean a flintlock? Those have some stats already.
1) If this player would rather have their PC be an artificer, just ex post facto DM handwave it and make it so. Personally I would be pretty stern and tell the player that this is a one- time one-way PC class change. Their levels in the prior classes get translated over to Artificer and that's what they'll be. From. Now. On. 2) once they're an artificer - what everybody else says. But keep in mind, guns are deafening loud - ain't no sneaking around happening after one goes off. Also gunpowder produces a huge amount of smoke, too- gotta consider that. Thirdly, (edit, darnit) homemade firearms might be juuuust a bit dangerous for the wielder, too....
Yesss. Thank you.
Give him a cursed gun that shoots backwards. When he fires it he takes the full damage and the bullet seeks him out no matter what. Don’t fuck with gods.
These replies are just the funniest. Thx
Im constantly baffled by people who DONT allow firearms in their games. "historical accuracy" doesn't exist in Dungeons and Dragons, it's fantasy. Sounds like it would be WAAAY easier for you to just say "oh yeah, there's a gun shop in the city if you can afford it"
Talk about a cock player, baby goes “i want i want i want!” He is going along with this in the worst way possible, if he does threaten a god, make it cast wish “i wish you to end” and hand him a blank character sheet
[удалено]
Glad you Got the reference
:D
Well, apart from what everyone else says ("tell them no," "threatening God's will solve the issue on its own," etc) There is one other thing you can try. Assume there are no guns in your world. Ask your player, "Where did your character hear the word gun, or what it is? Becuase Noone has invented them and your character isn't an inventer." Or just give him a gun. World history has proven that guns are not superior to bows. Their advantage was never how strong they were. It was that you could give any peasant a gun and they will be able to use it reletivly well without any training. So just give him a gun. Give it the stats of a hand cross bow. Add a "loud" property where a shot can be heard up to 300ft away. If you want to be really mean, then also tell him to keep track of that very rare, non-craftable ammo.
Give him the gun and no ammo. What the hell is he going to do? Throw the gun at people?
"Okay, you have levied your threat at a literal god. You may choose to roll a D100. If you roll a 100, you get a gun and one bullet. If you roll anything else, I'm going to slap you in the face as hard as I can."