Blunderbuss

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Dave Crowell

... Now the optional trivia: ...

I don't think an arquebus stand should give a bonus to shooting. My understanding is that they were used to make shooting the unwieldy and heavy gun practical at all.

Rick's goblin sharpshooter suggests to me that at a minimum we may want to consider whether the "guns" and "missile weapons" talents should be allowed to stack. As it stands it is -4 DEX for a gun without the Guns talent, -1 DEX with the Missile Weapons talent, but not the Guns talent, +4 DEX with the Guns talent, and a massive +7 DEX with both the Guns and Missile Weapons talents. Granted gunpowder is supposed to be rare, expensive and unreliable.

Hi Dave, everyone.
Yes, the primitive Arquebus were so heavy that they needed a stand to simply use them at all. We are used to fire arms with high quality alloys which are light. The Arquebus barrel thick metal to keep the thing from exploding, and it was too heavy to be used like a modern rifle. It had to be braced.

I think that the bonus +4 for the Arquebus should be eliminated, or at least reduced to a +2 DX (the same as resting a crossbow on something). I also think that the gunpowder weapons are so inaccurate that they should not get the bonus for Missile Weapon talent.

If I had to pick a single change, I would say that until TFT introduces a rifled fire arm, that the Missile Weapon's talent does not work with Gun Powder weapons. This will eliminate a +3 DX modifier AND eliminate the Long Range Weapons Fire bonus from page 25 of AM.

Warm regards, Rick.

[pyratejohn]

Spinning this blunderbuss rule around in my head... and thus far, I like it.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Certainly there is spread in any shotgun-type blast, but not more than a hex's worth, right?

I'd say so. As someone who has fired a blunderbuss often, the main plus in my book is that the bell-shaped muzzle really makes the thing easy to load.

Arquebus fired from stand: Hmm. No bonus, really?

I think I'd go in the opposite direction. Designed to be used with a stand, used without it reduces the user's adjDX by... -2?

[Tolenkar]

Steve,
I like the new change to the Blunderbuss rules. The current ones are a bit OP and never felt right to me. I'll have to try them out in a little battle today. I want to see how they would play.

On the general topic of gun powder weapons in TFT:
It can be a point of min/max for those players that do that, and those GMs that allow it to happen. I do think they add flavor and had a character once that had a blunderbuss in a campaign. But, we quickly found that powder weapons disrupted the "flavor" of a medieval style fantasy world. Our GM started to severely limit the existence of gun powder, so my character eventually just threw away the blunderbuss.

The main problem that the GM had, was not necessarily with the guns, it was with the gun powder. When we got our hands on some gun powder, it was much more effective to make petards and grenades, or other explosive contraptions, than to use it in guns. So, to make guns work, you have to severely limit GP, making it frustrating for characters built around them: as I think it should be.

On the topic of the Missile weapons Talent:
I always felt that this was a strange generalized talent. It just seems unrealistic to assume that if a person is good with a bow, that would also be good with a crossbow, or even less realistic, a slingshot! Having used bows, slings, and guns, I have found that mastery for each is separate. Even among bows there is a huge difference. Mastering a longbow is much more complicated than a re-curve bow.

I would like to see the Missile Weapons talent cost a little less (maybe 2 pts), but be specific to one weapon sub-category (sling, horse bow, longbow etc...). I'd be curious about what people thought of that idea?

Respectfuly,
Tolenkar

[meteoricshipyards]

Originally Posted by David L Pulver

I like that better than the original version.

A minor thought this raised: Should it be harder to roll to miss a multi-hex foe like a 7-hex dragon? (Perhaps left to advanced melee, but both "unless one of you is flying, you always hit them" might be a simple tweak.)

For a multi hex figure, you roll to miss every hex in the line of fire. So a 7 hex dragon might need 3-4 "to miss" rolls.

Sorry, Felkor!

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

One thing I have learned over the past decades is that the "blunderbuss" that I was trying to represent was a comic-book version. They don't really fire a hugely spread pattern, and they don't have to kick like two mules.

New Blunderbuss draft:

The blunderbuss is a crude shotgun. It is a missile weapon, with a maximum range of 10 hexes. The roll to hit with the blunderbuss is at DX+2. All “rolls to miss” with the blunderbuss, against figures both in front of and behind the intended target, are at -2.
The blunderbuss does 1d+2 damage to the first figure it hits, and 1d-2 to everyone else it hits.
Even when you hit something with the blunderbuss, continue to make rolls to miss or hit all other figures in a straight line out to 10 hexes.

Actually, I like the Blunderbuss rules as they are. As you say, they have that comic-book feel. I'd rather we didn't get too realistic. I feel the same about the Peculiar Weapons rules.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Tolenkar

...

I would like to see the Missile Weapons talent cost a little less (maybe 2 pts), but be specific to one weapon sub-category (sling, horse bow, longbow etc...). I'd be curious about what people thought of that idea?

I think that would be a fine idea, especially now that Talents are being handled in a radically different way, which permits (in fact, encourages) having LOTS of talents out there...

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

One thing I have learned over the past decades is that the "blunderbuss" that I was trying to represent was a comic-book version. They don't really fire a hugely spread pattern, and they don't have to kick like two mules.

New Blunderbuss draft:

The blunderbuss is a crude shotgun. It is a missile weapon, with a maximum range of 10 hexes. The roll to hit with the blunderbuss is at DX+2. All “rolls to miss” with the blunderbuss, against figures both in front of and behind the intended target, are at -2.
The blunderbuss does 1d+2 damage to the first figure it hits, and 1d-2 to everyone else it hits.
Even when you hit something with the blunderbuss, continue to make rolls to miss or hit all other figures in a straight line out to 10 hexes.

The blunderbuss could possibly hit 10 figures? This is admittedly very unlikely, but still.

For reference, a modern 12 gauge (as I recall) shotgun, with a cylinder choke will typically place its pellets in a 40" diameter circle (more or less) at 25 yards. At the other extreme, a shotgun with a full choke will do the same at 40 yards.

Of course, a blunderbuss is a much cruder weapon. But there are black powder enthusiasts who use them today. One guy that I recall reading, got a 22" pattern at 16 feet.

Assuming this data is solid, I suggest that you give a bonus to hit at close range and be done with it. I *would* allow it to hit multiple targets in a single hex. Suggested rule - double the normal missile weapons penalty, but give it a +2 at 1-2 MH range.

EDIT - From my notes: "The [blunderbuss] tests were ...uniform. At 40 feet each gun produced targets with a lateral spread averaging between 20 and 36 inches. The Oakes...produced one target with a lateral spread of 60 inches. At 60 feet, the Oakes averaged a lateral spread of 50 inches,which was slightly bigger than the ...the other two ...” -- Melvin Flanagan, "Myths of the Blunderbuss".

"At 10 yards, diameter was 34-56 inches with wide flare barrel; 31-53 inches with short flare barrel." From chart in same article.

This suggests that at long enough ranges, you *might* be able to hit 2 figures.

[pyratejohn]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Actually, I like the Blunderbuss rules as they are. As you say, they have that comic-book feel. I'd rather we didn't get too realistic. I feel the same about the Peculiar Weapons rules.

I'm sort of in the middle. I prefer the new over the old, but I'd rather not get into the weeds like we did in the GURPS Low Tech playtest.

Addendum: I am extraordinarily happy with the work we did on the black powder rules in GURPS Low Tech, and I believe they are some of the best out there, but GURPS and TFT are different creatures, and where GURPS can handle 'These go to 11', I think TFT works best with the dial at a lower setting.

[Tolenkar]

Originally Posted by pyratejohn

I think TFT works best with the dial at a lower setting.

Well said! I think it is easy to go overboard on the changes... especially when you have 38 years of ideas brewing in so many heads. The trick will be to strike that balance. Thanks for the reminder.

Respectfully,
Tolenkar

[KevinJ]

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that the 18th century Blunderbuss is not a 20th century shotgun. I have my share of shotgun experience (which includes being shot with a shotgun). While we don't need GURPS level authenticity and complexity in TFT, we do need rules that reflect how they are used and the damage they do to flesh based on the projectiles and overall technology being used to make them.

I think both versions (max range 10 and 4 people take damage) would work overall, but there that really depends on the GM.

And lets face it, people are going to House Rule TFT to better suit their current house ruled version no matter how well written and comprehemsive the rules are.