Primitive and early weapons, Kinda T2K......

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by The Dark

Since the OP mentioned wanting black powder weapons and I was wandering in weird portions of the internet, here's one from a video I saw:

Black Powder Colt M1911A1

Originally done just as a curiosity, some regions began converting Colt M1911 pistols to fire black powder rounds as more modern powders ran short. One early problem was that the lower pressures would often fail to cycle the action, which was resolved by salvaging springs from the models chambered for 9mm Para and using those springs on the .45 Colts. The lighter spring allowed the black powder rounds to cycle normally. While still as capable of causing injury as the smokeless powder, the black powder rounds had a shorter accurate range due to the lower muzzle velocity. As smokeless powder production resumed, these guns became hazards when salvaged. Most of them were not visually distinct from unconverted M1911s, leaving them with a dangerously light spring.

M1911A1BP: RoF SA, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, SS 2, Burst Nil, Rng 9

Cool!

[The Dark]

I did up some historical black powder weapons.

Model 1795 Musket: Based on the French Charleville musket, this was produced by Springfield and Harpers Ferry armories to the tune of 20,000 weapons.
Weight 4.55 kg, Ammunition 17.5x43mm ball, Ammo weight 31 grams
RoF SS, Rld 3, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Bulk 10, SS 2, Burst Nil, Rng 39

Model 1812 Musket: An improved M1795, produced only at Springfield, it was just too late to see service in the War of 1812.
Weight 4.55 kg, Ammunition 17.4x30mm ball, Ammo weight 22 grams
RoF SS, Rld 3, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Bulk 9, SS 2, Burst Nil, Rng 47

Model 1803 Rifle: The first American-made armory rifle, produced at Harpers Ferry.
Weight 4.08 kg, Ammunition 13.7x45mm ball, Ammo weight 20 grams
RoF SS, Rld 4, Dam 3, Pen Nil, Bulk 8, SS 2, Burst Nil, Rng 235

Model 1819 Hall Rifle: The first breech-loading rifle to see service with the military. As the sealing gasket wore, it had a tendency to vent hot gas into the shooter's face.
Weight 4.66 kg, Ammunition 13.7x45mm ball, Ammo weight 20 grams
RoF SS, Rld 2, Dam 3, Pen Nil, Bulk 8, SS 2, Burst Nil, Rng 230

Model 1806 Pistol: An early flintlock pistol made at Harpers Ferry.
Weight 1.16 kg, Ammunition 13.7x13.5mm ball, Ammo weight 6 grams
RoF SS, Rld 2, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 2, SS 1, Burst Nil, Rng 3
(no, seriously, the range is only 3, it's seriously underpowered)

[Vespers War]

More thoughts on bows and crossbows.

So, there's a YouTube channel (isn't there always) for an English fellow who makes crossbows. In one of his videos, he compared a modern crossbow and compound bow to a 95-lb longbow and 850-lb crossbow. The longbow produced only 39 joules of energy (which was noted as being low and possibly an indicator that the bow was tired from disuse), the modern bow 71 joules, the steel crossbow 101 joules and the modern crossbow 129 joules.

Under original WTH rules, the longbow would be Dam 0.4, the modern bow 0.6, the 850-lb crossbow 0.7, and the modern crossbow 0.8. With my revision to divide by 5 instead of 15, they're 1.2, 1.7, 2.0, and 2.3 respectively. Dam 2 for an 850-pound draw crossbow still feels a little light to me, but if I use the size of the crossbow (0.7 meters) and the tables from WTH rather than its calculated energy from actual shooting, it calculates to Dam 2.51 with a required STR of 11 and Rng 38.

Also note that a windlass isn't required until 500 joules of shaft energy, and another video of a ~1000 pound draw crossbow only generated 110 joules of shaft energy, so someone made a major error somewhere in their calculation; even just looking at the energy table in the book, you'd need a 3.3 meter long steel bow to require a windlass! For a minor revision, I would drop the windlass requirement by a factor of 10, to 50 joules. For a more major revision, base it on STR rather than energy. A character can span a bow with a STR requirement equal to or less than their STR with no mechanical advantage. With a cocking lever, they can span a bow up to double their STR, and a windlass lets them span any bow. Reload is 2/3/5 respectively based on the spanning equipment needed.

Likewise, the Penetration calculation is that a projectile of 600 joules or more has Pen 1-Nil and anything less is Pen Nil, which would require a 4 meter steel bow. I would drop that by the same factor of 10, to 60 joules.

(honestly, the more I look at the bow rules the more they're a hot mess, but they at least give a starting point to tweak into a reasonable facsimile of plausibility)

[Vespers War]

A year later, some more thoughts on bows.

I'm trying to keep my modifications as simple and easy to drop into existing rules as possible; swaghauler's got the extensive modifications down, so my niche is minor modifications that amend rules rather than replace them.

Here's where my thinking is these days:

1. Change the divisor for damage from 15 to 5, so that the formula for damage is the square root of energy (in joules) divided by 5. Most bows will be 1d6 or 2d6 for damage. This is the base damage for bodkin arrows.

2. Ignore the firearm style Pen. Instead, bows deal damage like melee weapons, and armor subtracts either its parenthetical (for ancient armor) or double its AV (for modern armor) from the damage rolled. This holds for flexible armor (maille or Kevlar). Solid armor (plate or SAPI) doubles its damage reduction against arrows (so 4x AV for modern rigid armor). This is still for bodkin arrows.

3. Broadheads add 1d6 damage to whatever bow they're used with, but all armor is doubled (so flexible modern armor subtracts 4x AV and rigid modern armor 8x AV from the damage roll).

This gives us bows that are fairly useful, and gives a reason for different arrowheads. It gets rid of that pesky Pen problem. Rigid armor has done much better than flexible armor in the tests I've seen, which is why it gets doubled in protective value against arrows. I'm sure it could be tweaked a bit more, but this should give relatively simple drop-in rules that don't require changing anything else in the existing rules.

[Legbreaker]

That makes a lot of sense to me. You're considering crossbows in the same manner I presume?

[Vespers War]

Yes, since from a game perspective it's just a bow turned on its side with a stock. There are some real-world differences (European crossbows tend to have a very short power stroke and heavy draw, while Chinese crossbows tend to have a longer stroke and lighter draw), but for the majority of games, that won't be enough of a factor to justify additional game mechanics.

The one advantage a crossbow would have over a bow is that it can be carried at full draw with a bolt on the string. A bow can be carried with arrow on string, but not held at full draw for long periods of time. Reloading is much slower for a crossbow, but that first shot can be gotten off quicker. I'd keep the STR-based reloading from my post last June for crossbows:
"A character can span a bow with a STR requirement equal to or less than their STR with no mechanical advantage. With a cocking lever, they can span a bow up to double their STR, and a windlass lets them span any bow. Reload is 2/3/5 respectively based on the spanning equipment needed."

[Legbreaker]

Thrown weapons such as spears, axes, knives and hammers could be handled the same too I would think. Anything relatively slow moving (compared to a bullet or shrapnel).

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by The Dark

I did up some historical black powder weapons.

Model 1795 Musket: Based on the French Charleville musket, this was produced by Springfield and Harpers Ferry armories to the tune of 20,000 weapons.
Weight 4.55 kg, Ammunition 17.5x43mm ball, Ammo weight 31 grams
RoF SS, Rld 3, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Bulk 10, SS 2, Burst Nil, Rng 39

Model 1812 Musket: An improved M1795, produced only at Springfield, it was just too late to see service in the War of 1812.
Weight 4.55 kg, Ammunition 17.4x30mm ball, Ammo weight 22 grams
RoF SS, Rld 3, Dam 2, Pen Nil, Bulk 9, SS 2, Burst Nil, Rng 47

Model 1803 Rifle: The first American-made armory rifle, produced at Harpers Ferry.
Weight 4.08 kg, Ammunition 13.7x45mm ball, Ammo weight 20 grams
RoF SS, Rld 4, Dam 3, Pen Nil, Bulk 8, SS 2, Burst Nil, Rng 235

Model 1819 Hall Rifle: The first breech-loading rifle to see service with the military. As the sealing gasket wore, it had a tendency to vent hot gas into the shooter's face.
Weight 4.66 kg, Ammunition 13.7x45mm ball, Ammo weight 20 grams
RoF SS, Rld 2, Dam 3, Pen Nil, Bulk 8, SS 2, Burst Nil, Rng 230

Model 1806 Pistol: An early flintlock pistol made at Harpers Ferry.
Weight 1.16 kg, Ammunition 13.7x13.5mm ball, Ammo weight 6 grams
RoF SS, Rld 2, Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 2, SS 1, Burst Nil, Rng 3
(no, seriously, the range is only 3, it's seriously underpowered)

The one issue I see in these stats are the ranges. While I appreciate the difference between rifles and muskets, there is NO WAY that a rifle firing a ball round with a "flange" around it (to fit into the rifling of the weapon) is as aerodynamically efficient, and therefore as accurate, as a Spitzer bullet. Despite this, you have a short range of 235m for the 1803 Rifle and a short range of 230m for the Hall Rifle in a game that gives a Remington 700 with a 26" barrel a short range of 75 to 80 meters.
Also, most smoothbore muskets are able to hit a man at 50m but this does require a bit of familiarity with the weapon. Hitting anything beyond 100m is truly a display of superior skill. I think that the World Tamer's system is far too generous with the ranges its giving you. A smoothbore musket shooting ball should have a short range of between 20m and 30m to represent a more realistic set of range bands for an unrifled musket.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

The one issue I see in these stats are the ranges. While I appreciate the difference between rifles and muskets, there is NO WAY that a rifle firing a ball round with a "flange" around it (to fit into the rifling of the weapon) is as aerodynamically efficient, and therefore as accurate, as a Spitzer bullet. Despite this, you have a short range of 235m for the 1803 Rifle and a short range of 230m for the Hall Rifle in a game that gives a Remington 700 with a 26" barrel a short range of 75 to 80 meters.
Also, most smoothbore muskets are able to hit a man at 50m but this does require a bit of familiarity with the weapon. Hitting anything beyond 100m is truly a display of superior skill. I think that the World Tamer's system is far too generous with the ranges its giving you. A smoothbore musket shooting ball should have a short range of between 20m and 30m to represent a more realistic set of range bands for an unrifled musket.

I suspect from the age that this was done with my first firearms spreadsheet, which didn't properly limit how much barrel length could add to range. Running the existing stats through my current spreadsheet, I get a range of 81m for both of the rifles (which have barrel lengths of 33" and 32.7"). The Model 1812 drops to 42 meters and the Model 1795 to 37 meters.

However, the powder charge for the Hall is high and the caliber is slightly overstated. Instead of 13.7x45mm, it should be 13.3x34mm (33.61mm to hold a 70-grain charge, but rounded up for simplicity). This changes it to Dam 2, SS 1, and Rng 68, and a round of ammunition is only 14 grams.

[pmulcahy11b]

How about busting a chair over someone's head? Seems like it would do more damage than a simple club, if more difficult to swing (or recover afterward).

Etc...

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

How about busting a chair over someone's head? Seems like it would do more damage than a simple club, if more difficult to swing (or recover afterward).

Etc...

Paul I like how you think! And did exactly that in a D&D session - i.e. no blunt weapon available - well lookee here a chair

[Jason Weiser]

I am partial to beer steins or bottles myself. Bit easier to maneuver.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

I am partial to beer steins or bottles myself. Bit easier to maneuver.

just drink the beer first - wasting beer is a sin

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by Olefin

just drink the beer first - wasting beer is a sin

Goes without saying?

Trivia point of the day: There is no 2.2 career that grants Early Firearm skill in the 2.2 book. It's only available as a secondary activity. The skill isn't included on the default character sheet. Early Firearms skill covers not only black powder weapons, but also crossbows - archery only covers bows in the RAW.

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

Trivia point of the day: There is no 2.2 career that grants Early Firearm skill in the 2.2 book. It's only available as a secondary activity. The skill isn't included on the default character sheet. Early Firearms skill covers not only black powder weapons, but also crossbows - archery only covers bows in the RAW.

To be fair, in many parts of the world, it is a hobby. I can't think off of the top of my head where black powder firearms are a day to day use sort of thing. Not saying it doesn't happen. I suppose if pre-war, you were employed by say, the NPS as a living history guide (those things do exist)? You'd pick up some skill, but as a matter of course? Just cannot see it?

[Olefin]

Actually it depends where you live - there are states where it is legal to hunt with black powder guns - so my grandfather had a black powder rifle and showed me how to properly load and fire it and take care of it - thus a character that came from one of those states could have that as a early firearm skill if you talked to the GM about it.

Alternatively there are a lot of Civil War re-creators in the US - who 100 percent know how to properly load, fire and take care of a black powder rifle

So again if you create a character that has a background as either a Civil War re-enactor or hunted in states that have black powder rifle seasons then you could give him or her the Early Firearm skill as one of their initial skills.

again its not really a career - its more of a specialized skill due to the characters background versus a career skill - and you would need to decide to add it as part of their initial skills as the GM - we had an American Indian player in my initial college group and he made a very persuasive argument to the GM that the bow and tomahawk (i.e. thrown axe) were weapons he grew up with and his character would be very proficient with - and thus he carried a bow and tomahawk

FYI it would be the same with people who were members of the Society of Creative Anachronism or other re-creators with weapons like swords or halberds and the like - but again you arent talking about day to day people - i.e. good luck with Joe Blow who tries to actually use a sword or halberd

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I agree, there's no real reason to have black powder weapons in the realm of career skills. I can't think of any sort of career aside from what Jason mentioned (employment as a living history guide) or perhaps as a movie armourer, where early firearms would be anything except a secondary skill.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I agree, there's no real reason to have black powder weapons in the realm of career skills. I can't think of any sort of career aside from what Jason mentioned (employment as a living history guide) or perhaps as a movie armourer, where early firearms would be anything except a secondary skill.

Somewhat tangential but hopefully interesting is that I've heard Kevin Dockery talk about being the last US Army soldier trained in flint-knapping. The Old Guard had Brown Besses for the bicentennial when he was their armorer.

I pretty much agree, though, that most pre-war careers won't have any reason to have black powder firearms proficiency. Even the living history guides and TV/film guys won't necessarily have any experience firing anything other than blanks from the black powder guns. Some folks might have live fire experience from NSSA or SASS events, but those work better as secondary rather than career skills.

I also suspect Early Firearms was a last-minute addition or otherwise overlooked, because it's not in the skill list on pages 48-49 or the skill descriptions on pages 136-138 of the v2.2 rulebook. Archery covers making ammunition for either bows or crossbows and making staves for either (but not stocks for a crossbow), so a crossbow user needs Early Firearms for shooting and Archery for making ammunition, which makes it an odd double-skill weapon compared to a bow.

I wouldn't fixate on the black powder element of Early Firearms. Its use as the skill for crossbow is much more interesting. I think the case could be made to put Early Firearms on the Subsequent terms list for the Special Forces career...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossb...ramilitary_use

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/aug/09/balkans

https://web.archive.org/web/20090305....com/Besta.jpg

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l189/KORNET-E/162.jpg

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l1...-E/crosbow.jpg

https://web.archive.org/web/20140202...ent_403376.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20071025...Y/Marines.html

https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/ne...photo/79788140

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Jason Weiser

I am partial to beer steins or bottles myself. Bit easier to maneuver.

I knew a cadet in our favorite haunt when I was in ROTC who got busted in the face with a beer mug (full!). He suffered a broken nose, but no one called the police, and Griffee did not leave early. He didn't even go to the hospital until after the morning classes, when CPT Thorson ordered him to go.

[Olefin]

Early firearms really needs to be rewritten to include a lot more than just historical re-enactment

Early Firearms (STR): Early Firearms is totally new, and enables the use of archaic firearms such as the black powder pistol and the crossbow (the use of which has more in common with firearms than with archery).

First off as I said muzzle loading rifle hunting is allowed in almost every state - and there are a lot of people who do it - and it has no relationship at all with historical re-enactment - its just another way to hunt.

As for the bow - didnt any of the authors ever get the archery badge in the Boy Scouts? Or do bow hunting? There are a ton of people in the US who hunt with bows and crossbows - and again absolutely nothing to do with re-enactments.

Again its not really a career issue - but depending on the country there could be a lot more people who can use bows of all sorts or archaic firearms

Great example is the UK - you can possess a black powder pistol without a license where good luck getting a license for a real one - so the chances of someone with a pistol in the UK being a muzzle loading black powder pistol is pretty high.

[Olefin]

course given the timeline of the game the regulations that changed gun ownership in the UK may have never gone into effect at all

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Great example is the UK - you can possess a black powder pistol without a license.

You can, but not if you have any intention of using the thing.

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/guns/am...licences-72074

http://www.marplerifleandpistolclub....er_information

To legally possess a muzzle loading firearm which is to be actually used, rather than kept solely as an ornament or curio, a Firearm Certificate (FAC) is necessary irrespective of the age of the firearm. All the same restrictions apply as they do to a modern breech-loading firearm.

To legally possess blackpowder for use in a firearm it is necessary to hold a, "Certificate to Acquire and Keep Explosives".

You can possess a black powder pistol without a licence if you have no intention of using it. If you want to actually use one you need a Firearms certificate and a certificate to keep explosives.

[Olefin]

FYI I used to be a camp counselor who taught archery - and take it from me I spent most of my time hunting for arrows that went everywhere except the target. So its not that easy to get to be good with a bow. (But we always had the one kid who showed up with the expensive bow and showed that at least some kids were getting properly trained as archers).

Around where I live now there a lot of bow hunters who are damn good at it - including two of my neighbors who are out there regularly with their kids perforating their deer target.

Thus I would hate to be a marauder group in my area thinking all they have to worry about is guys with shotguns or hunting rifles who start getting picked off by guys with bows from out of the trees or windows without giving away their position.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Early firearms really needs to be rewritten to include a lot more than just historical re-enactment

I always assumed the parentheticals were just examples rather than the only way to get the skill. Otherwise, we'd also have to consider rewriting +1 CON to be more than just jogging, Survival to be more than just camping, and Observation to be more than just bird watching. I grew up with a guy who does bow hunting. I learned from a competition target shooter as part of therapy for an arm injury. We have different techniques from our different bases of learning, but hunting and target shooting are both a valid basis for Archery skill (which has no parenthetical).

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

I always assumed the parentheticals were just examples rather than the only way to get the skill. Otherwise, we'd also have to consider rewriting +1 CON to be more than just jogging, Survival to be more than just camping, and Observation to be more than just bird watching. I grew up with a guy who does bow hunting. I learned from a competition target shooter as part of therapy for an arm injury. We have different techniques from our different bases of learning, but hunting and target shooting are both a valid basis for Archery skill (which has no parenthetical).

Oh and I agree with re-enactment for some weapons - not many people are going hunting with a long sword.

And black powder hunting is a very challenging way to hunt - I know people who do it just for that reason. Not because they want to act like Daniel Boone or a Civil War soldier. Hope the new version is more open to black powder arms and the like as weapons that would be encountered with some details.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

None of which alters the fact that Early Firearms is not a skill you are going to pick up as a career skill in the overwhelming majority of cases.

There are probably 95-99% of jobs in the modern setting, where there is no chance what-so-ever, to acquire Early Firearms as a career skill.
Leaving Early Firearms off the list of skills in careers is pretty easy to understand for any modern setting - after the apocalypse it's a different matter entirely because such skills become closely related to survival.
But other than that, there is no practical reason to have Early Firearms as a career skill for 95-99% of jobs in the modern world.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

None of which alters the fact that Early Firearms is not a skill you are going to pick up as a career skill in the overwhelming majority of cases.

This.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

There are probably 95-99% of jobs in the modern setting, where there is no chance what-so-ever, to acquire Early Firearms as a career skill.

For that matter, how many are likely to use, or even have the most basic of training in ANY sort of firearm in a modern setting? Pretty much the only ones it could be justified for outside the military are law enforcement, security and some farming roles. Black powder weapons (aka early firearms) are exceptionally rare in comparison with many gunsmiths and dealers only seeing a handful in their entire careers. They are very much a niche item the use of which squarely fits into background or secondary activities. Even for those VERY few jobs which MIGHT involve some knowledge of them secondary skills should cover it nicely - much like most stone age archaeologists are well aware of the theory of flint knapping, but only a tiny percentage actually have any measurable skill at it.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

None of which alters the fact that Early Firearms is not a skill you are going to pick up as a career skill in the overwhelming majority of cases.

There are probably 95-99% of jobs in the modern setting, where there is no chance what-so-ever, to acquire Early Firearms as a career skill.
Leaving Early Firearms off the list of skills in careers is pretty easy to understand for any modern setting - after the apocalypse it's a different matter entirely because such skills become closely related to survival.
But other than that, there is no practical reason to have Early Firearms as a career skill for 95-99% of jobs in the modern world.

I don't disagree that it's not applicable to a population at large. I do think it's a slippery slope to try to delineate careers/career skill selection based on % population. RPGs, by their nature, focus on those small percentages at the extremes. The % of people who have served in the military is extremely low in most large population countries that do not have conscription. Then there's a fraction of that small percentage that enter any kind of special warfare community training pipeline - a fraction of those who go on to serve in those roles. Yet Twilight 2.2 breaks out Rangers, Special Forces, Scout Snipers, Force Recon, SEALs... the authors were clearly not writing to the 95th or 99th percentile. They were writing to the 99.999th percentile.

If one of my players wanted to select it as subsequent term skill for a Spec Ops or Engineer Branch with some justification, I'd allow it. I mean, it's a lot more believable than 100% of all farmers in the world knowing Computer: 1.

Come in from the fields farmers!! We need a Linux SAMBA server built!