[DF] I can haz gunpowderz?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by blacksmith

If you have to worry about weight is it comparable to a couple of crossbows that use a goats foot and the strongest PC to manage. Sure that is likely around 2d+4 imp, but you can carry twice as many crossbows. So it seems fairly balanced, you lose some damage for twice as many shots per encounter.

• The guns can be reloaded by the gunner himself, unlike the crossbows.
• AFAICT neither Heroic Archer or Gunslinger helps with Crossbows.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

• The guns can be reloaded by the gunner himself, unlike the crossbows.
• AFAICT neither Heroic Archer or Gunslinger helps with Crossbows.

About point 1, well there are a lot of ways to screw with a gunners black powder supply that will not effect a crossbowman.

As for 2, this isn't about a primary range fighter, that is the scout. Unless you ignore weight you can not carry enough guns to be a primary range fighter with guns. It is about adding a bit of ranged damage to some other character.

[Godogma]

On the issue of the repeating firearms problem; in the early sixteen hundreds there were already rifled barrels and repeating firearms of both rifle and pistol types.

Kalthoff and Lorenzoni both made repeating pistols of that time although Kalthoff mainly focused on long arms. Lorenzoni pistols had a capacity of six or more shots depending on the caliber ball it fired. (Louis L'amour owned one or perhaps a brace which had a capacity for 12 shots upon which he based the firearms Jubal carried in Jubal Sackett.) These weapons were still being manufactured up until sometime in the 1800s by various manufacturers.

Granted these were said to have a fairly delicate mechanism (with essential steel and/or magical techniques this definitely could be ameliorated) and had a tendency to explode if the user didn't make sure to wind the powder magazine properly into the closed position. (Perhaps a -4 or -6 unfamiliarity penalty or the like in game terms until someone has carefully went over the system and learned its intricacies?).

The mechanism worked as follows; charges of powder and ball were carried in tubular magazines in the butt of the pistol the openings closed by a revolving breechlock into which were cut two chambers. To load one simply pointed the pistol toward the ground and rotated a lever on the side of the gun. This dropped a ball and a measure of powder into one chamber sealing off the chamber and primed and closed the flash pan.

(A much simpler way of handling it would be to simply carry a three or four barreled pistol or rifle, which have been manufactured nearly as long as other firearms to mitigate the very RoF issue we speak of).

For proof to my claims you can check a book entitled "Pistols: An Illustrated History of Their Impact" by Jeff Kinard or a google search will turn up more information.

Here is a link to an auction for a later (1799-1806) nine shot flintlock pistol of the Lorenzoni type:

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/l...jectID=4833569

Here is one for a rifle with far less detail provided dated to 1750:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=189638544

Here is a *28* shot Lorenzoni 17th century magazine long gun:

http://www.antiek.net/bolkantiques/s...6&the_start=45

Of course these weapons would likely be considered TL4+1 or TL5 weapons, they are flintlocks and the earlier versions could well qualify for TL4... Perhaps not technology wise, but date of production wise.

The nine shot Lorenzoni pistol I linked earlier is 16 3/4" long (42.6cm), and likely weighs around 3-4 lbs, with a RoF of 1 shot every two rounds perhaps (1/2), with an estimation of approximately 2d-1 pi+ damage, with a malfunction of around 15/16 perhaps? I'd estimate it costs more than a broadsword, somewhere around 1000-1500 range... But for a gunfighter of TL4+1 or TL4 its an excellent option to actually make firearms in DF useful.

[pyratejohn]

I think we talked about Lorenzoni locks in the LT playtest, but don't quote me on that. And even if we did it may have just been in passing. I'd call that technology cutting edge TL4, and I suspect it was probably on the finicky side.

[Kalzazz]

I think the Lorenzoni lock is like ROF 1/2 perhaps, it seems slower than a single action revolver

[Godogma]

Originally Posted by pyratejohn

I think we talked about Lorenzoni locks in the LT playtest, but don't quote me on that. And even if we did it may have just been in passing. I'd call that technology cutting edge TL4, and I suspect it was probably on the finicky side.

I actually have my doubts that the design was all that finicky, it was probably more along the lines of user error since I've seen Lorenzoni pattern firearms by four to six different makers and all of them were the same in major details spanning a period of over 120+ years (not all the links function anymore and at the time I wasn't savvy enough to save all the websites) so I think the design was likely quite solid since everyone from the Italians to the Turks to the Germans and even a little place in Boston run by a man named Cookson made them up into the 1800s.

The Cookson family in England also made rifles with the pattern, so its likely those two are directly related.

[Son of Dave]

Surely, if powder weapons are introduced, they belong under the auspices of the Artificer? Especially considering the bleeding-edge tech level of such weapons in comparison to standard DF fare.

If we consider it in these terms, it isnt so much about balancing guns and gun users with frontline dps-machines. I think artificers pulling a gun out, as a gizmo, at the last moment and blasting some charging orc brute, has bags of thematic potential.

The sympathy with the artificers role as the tricky inventor and master makeshifteur allow for us to suppose such things as 'trick shot' bullets such as TL3 'musket grenades' (dealing 1-3d cr ex), or fragmenting bullets (-1 per die on basic damage, but 1d-2 to 1d+4 fragmentation) or orichalcum bullets (armour divisor of 2?) or the-already-mentioned 'Essential' gunpowder, (perhaps made from essential earth, charcoled essential wood and a splash of alchemists fire). Another interesting one is Meteroic Iron shot, that might apply a penalty to any magic rolls, equal to the shock penalty caused by the attack, for some period of time (1d+1 seconds?). This could be rendered, for balance, as an advantage, maybe some limited use X modular abilities, or limited use Imbuements, or both. Adding an accessibility (must have X$ worth of materials) and preperation required could round/balance out such treatments.

Another limiting factor, considering the likely-overpowered state which a DF treatment will push black powder weapons, is to demand the purchasing of guns with signature gear or else suffer -4 to all attacks ~and~ any serious maintanance and modification, and to require Gizmos and/or Gadgeteer before such signature gear can be purchased. This neatly provides niche protection, with the unpredictability -of high-ish damage, low acc, and a low malf- combined with the flexibility of an Artificer with gun-imbuements (or some such) we have a niche that fits in some where between mages and scouts, with an interesting twist, and is competitive without running the same old DPS-game.

What do you think?

[Pomphis]

Sounds good.

[Tinman]

So, I'm now GMing a DF campaign. In the party there is a Musketeer (pyramid 3-36) and an Artificer with a Musketeer lens.

I had a few questions for Matt Riggsby / Turan Bay's Co (as he is the author of the Musketeer class) But thoughts & comments from the Hive Mind are also welcome.

TBC, earlier in this thread you said that an artificer should have a UB: Gunsmith [10] in order to make guns & powder.
1) Do you think that's still the right price for the UB?
2) If the Artificer is also a Musketeer (has lense & code of: Musketeer) would you still require the UB?

Thanks for all the help & responces.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Tinman

1) Do you think that's still the right price for the UB?

I think it's a good place to start.

Originally Posted by Tinman

2) If the Artificer is also a Musketeer (has lense & code of: Musketeer) would you still require the UB?

Probably.