now that we had yet another thread of "why are guns unpopular

>>53945738
Balance melee weapons and bows against them.

For example, a bullet flies a long way and does some damage. However, if you can get up close, a sword does a shitton of damage. Being shot is not the same as a guy with a sword six feet long slicing you in two.
Or an arrow hitting you without warning, followed by five more.

>>53945738
If we're talking about low-tech guns, they'd be powerful, sure, but also slow and unreliable. All sorts of malfunctions keep happening and each shot takes even longer to get through than with a crossbow.

You'll be lucky to get two shots out in a fight.

>>53945738
in real life, their powerful damage was offset by their poor accuracy and rate of fire, making them a one-time use weapon when not in the security of a formation
and several soft factors, like keeping your powder dry, mixing your powder so it doesnt settle, the possibility of exploding, and the mechanical components of your arquebus needing a lot more maintenance

>>53945738
Don't use systems originally designed as wargames with roleplaying rules bolted on over the decades if you want actual balance.

I don't mean "le fanneh tried not playing D&D meem", I mean, "don't use systems originally designed as wargames with roleplaying rules bolted on over the decades if you want actual balance".

Look at Dogs in the Vineyard for an example of a system that abstracts equipment and allies at the same level yet still manages to be fairly lethal.

The biggest advantage of early firearms was that any old moron could use them. During the Warring States period in Japan for example, a skilled bowman was considered far superior to a rifleman because they could fire more quickly and accurately in volleys and they didn't make those smokescreen plumes after a few rounds. The early rifles didn't even necessarily penetrate farther than a solid longbow. The balance is already there.

File: huo_long_jian.png (51KB, 505x746px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 505x746px

>>53945738
I allowed rocket launchers. Of course, I researched 15-17th century weapons and had to send a few videos for the players because they gawked at the stats, suffering from "super-weapons syndrome"

I have yet to make costs for it though. Welcome any suggestons.

http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com.br/2015/09/rocket-weaponry-of-ming-dynasty-p1.html
Huo-Long-Jian (rocket-launcher basket)
D: 2d6 piercing + 1d6 fire
W: 26 pounds
Burst fire, two-handed, ammo (150/460*), reload (20 shots)
*This may be skewed because I use meters (brazilian here)

In my experience, this has benefitted the NPCs more than the PCs, because a GM is more able to keep murderhoboing in check when he can summon a 100 militiamen with arquebuses, firing in volleys. I treat those as 10 enemies, each representing 10 arquebusiers.

No realistic reloading times here, though. D&D 5E isn't about that, as one can see in the trebuchet stats. Anyone telling me to not play D&D are welcome to send me money to pay for new games.

>>53945738
Pretty much >>53947154

Have them be simple weapons on par with crossbows, possibly giving them a slight bit of extra damage in exchange for lower accuracy or the other general downsides of being really really loud and impossible to use for stealthy operations.

>>53947154
how could we do this in non-formation combat?

just add a penalty to accuracy and insane relaod-times?

>>53951042

Exactly.

Look at Dark Heresy. They have stats for black-powder weapons.

>>53945738
make combat as much about where and when to fight, as about actual weapons or class abilities.
add to that various tricks and things at hand that anyone can use that are as important as weapons are

if you carry a firearm - and its a loud smoky weapon - enemies will know they'll be facing one. so next time they face you it'll be in the rain. or they'll surprise with thrown waterskin full of water first thing in combat. and then your gunpowder gets wet and firearm becomes useless.

>>53945738
Fantasy doesn't just mean generic low-tech.

>>53946093
The "Don't play D&D" part is good advice in general though.

>>53952809
Oh definitely.

>>53952809
Why do people hate on D&D so much?

>>53953362
'cos its popular
popular = instabad, dontchaknow?

Gurps seems to do okay with this.

I was involved in a magical weeb setting where black powder weapons were available. The guns initially seemed retardedly overpowered and their was some concern over party balance since the rest of us were more generic swordsman type characters.

But it turns out that needing like 10 turns to reload your single-shot weapons is pretty damn limiting. Our Gunner carried like 3 pistols a shotgun and a rifle to mitigate this somewhat but in any fight that lasted longer then four turns he was basically useless.

So that's one way to balance them. Make them a strong pick against heavy targets but highly vulnerable to hordes and battles of attrition.