Simple answers to player questions

>"Hey can I have a gun in your setting?"
>"Sure, they do 2d3 piercing damage for a rifle and 1d4 for a pistol, each taking 1 minute to load and have disadvantage on shots over 20 or 10 feet respectively."
>"But that sucks!"
>"That's why no one uses them."

Attached: 1521222541761.jpg (600x221, 20K)

>"Can my character wear bikini mail?"
>"Sure, you just count as unarmored."

Attached: 1521259627096.jpg (500x667, 45K)

I'd probably bump those numbers up one die, to 2d4 and 1d6, respectively, but otherwise that's about right, yeah. Most players still wouldn't touch them, however.

That's the point I think, that they're a nifty tool for intimidation by untrained people but nowhere near becoming a mainstay in combat.

How does your game handle planned cover in a fight?

Such as firing a crossbow or a gun from a trench, behind a pavise, low wall or a war wagon?

Does terrain ever play in it too? Like if I wanted to shoot my crossbow from atop a hill or in front of a bog, would the enemy take more time to reach me in melee?

Attached: download (4).jpg (191x264, 14K)

>"Why do they do almost no damage?"
>"Well they suck."
>"How do they suck so badly that they do no damage?"
>"Uh......Because I said so! Haha!"
>Player quits before the railroad gets any worse
Just say no guns if you want no guns instead of giving people a middle finger.

This. Don't be a dumb, petty shithead. Just say no, that doesn't really fit, or figure out a way to make everyone happy.

This

They don't do almost no damage. A rifle is better than a scimitar and a pistol is just as good as a dagger.

Thats lame. Give them misfire chances with a small but slight chance to rebound damage back to the user. Give them teired guns with their level, starting with very inaccurate and lesser damage to accurate and devastating damage. Make the damage like instant kill of unarmed human or demi humans, -x damage vs each larger creature size. Make the bullets expensive and or rare, made in certain towns or cities only. Lead bullets so carring a lot effects encumberance, don't forget the black powder, oh and yeah its flamable and dangerous. Make them need to be cleaned and maintained as well. As they go up in level, give them enchanted bullets or guns to help a bit. Eventually they may have a cool ass gun that can drop a young dragon.

>pistol shot does less damage than a shortbow despite being better at penetrating armor
>one minute to reload when most muskets or arquebuses could fire off two or three shots a minute when used by a trained soldier
>while it takes longer to reload, a handgonne is capable of dealing far more damage than either
no need to break internal logic to be a passive-aggressive faggot

>"Why are you such a faggot?"
>"I just am, mate."

>>Player quits before the railroad gets any worse
>the railroading meme again
The nature of the question makes it seem like the game hasn't even started yet. It's not a railroad if the DM is just establishing basic rules for the setting. Unless every rule and guideline is a railroad now.

>Simple answers to player questions.
>"Hey can I have a gun in your setting?"
>"No."

I would add that they completely ignore all armor/natural-armor bonuses to AC, and they count as a simple weapon (to fire... not to reload,) hence why giving a bunch of them to a line of peasants is still a good idea in a line battle.

How acceptable is "guns exist in the setting and are useful, but are deliberately and arbitrarily balanced with melee combat because I want lots of sword fights and stuff."

"Can I take some skills in chargen that will allow me to tinker and increase the effectiveness of these early firearms through the course of the adventure?"

"No."

CHOO CHOO

Sounds fine to me.

Neither a dagger nor a scimitar requires a minute (ten turns) to reload or grant disadvantage if you're shooting from a range beyond that of a humble pike either.

Hell, IIRC, you can THROW a fucking dagger at a much greater range than the goddamned pistol in OP's scenario.

If you're going to go through the effort to fuck over an archtype before you even start the game, and cannot even come up with a decent reason for why this shit makes sense, then it stands to reason that you will also be the type of DM who will hastily come up with as many roadblocks as possible in order to shit on anyone's day the moment they go off the rails.

Think about it, OP went through the trouble of making guns suck even worse than the humble dagger by capping their damage and neutering their range yet he doesn't have the balls to just say "listen, I know you want to be a gunslinger, but I don't feel comfortable adding guns to my setting yet because I'm not sure how they'd fit in with the scenario that I've come up with so far."

>can i have a gun
No
>can i invent one?
No
>why?
Because i say so

Players are so entitled these days. Everyone wants to be a special snowflake who changes the world, why can't they enjoy some simple dungeon exploring?

This is a touchy subject, but if I were to do guns in a setting I would make them have a high "base" damage but a poor scaling, ie no amount of dex or whatever would make it do more damage, just change accuracy. Make them a laymans tool, similar to pikemen in that individual "skill" plays a small part in combat, allowing traditional weapons with abilities which scale with strength to overtake them later into the game.

>"Hey can I have a gun in your setting?"
>"Sure, you'll need to pick up something like Fusileer's Trappings first, since they're considered expensive weapons. They do slaying damage with an additional +2 on top of that, but they require quite a long time to reload. Anything bigger than a pistol will be illegal to brandish unless you're a noble or something."
>"Oh, cool. Thanks."