weapons questions

[well-dressed gentleman]

WEAPON QUESTIONS

Thank you for writing such clear rules.
White Wolf should've hired you.
I still have a handful of questions, though.

1. Should there be a firearms skill?

2. If there is, can "appropriate weapon" skill include firearms & bows?

3. What weapons can be employed from horseback?
the heavy crossbow? The arquebus? the zweihander?

4. What's the relationship between lance, spear & mounted combat training?
Does lance = spear?
Do you need lance if you have spear & mounted combat?

Thanks,

[Kublai]

Should there be a firearms skill?

If there are stats for firearms in the book, then yes there should be a skill for it. It's probably one of dem dar errata thingies. Call it "Firearms." Note that this is a setting specific skill, I imagine. It's up to the GM's to allow its use. For specific settings that use Firearms and blackpowder in general, I'd encourage the creation of a setting-specific lifepath that includes this skill be it Grenadier, Cannoneer, or whatever. Inserting the skill into any lifepath such as Pirate or even Footsoldier is fine, too, as long as it's appropriate to the game. (sorry for being redundant! :oops: )


If there is, can "appropriate weapon" skill include firearms & bows?

Allowing this is certainly fine as long as its appropriate to your character concept and the GM allows it.


What weapons can be employed from horseback? the heavy crossbow? The arquebus? the zweihander?

With mounted-combat training and a culture that encourages such, I wouldn't see why these wouldn't be allowed. The heavy x-bow is sort of loopy though, since you couldn't reload the thing from the top of a mount. Same can be said for the arquebus probably, but I imagine it's easier to load than the x-bow. And, even with training, I'd still give an obstacle modifier (prob a +1) for using the Zweihander while mounted.


What's the relationship between lance, spear & mounted combat training? Does lance = spear? Do you need lance if you have spear & mounted combat?

The lance is the evolution of the mounted spear. It's heavier and packs more of a punch, thus it gets better stats in BW. The spear can be used of course, but it won't be as effective.

[luke]

Welcome, you Well-Dressed Gentleman!
You might check out the Mount Burner for clarifications on the Mounted Combat rules. It's in this section of the Downloads:
http://www.burningwheel.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=7

But to answer your question in short: Yes, a lance is a heavy spear -- specially constructed and adapted to a specific use. It has its own skill.

Gunpowder weapons should use specific skills, which are especially useful for cleaning and maintaining the piece. Agility (at double obstacle penalties) can be used to fire them, but a specific, relevant skill is better.

I recommend the following skills for firearms: Arquebus (Ag), Musket (Ag), Pistol (Ag), Rifle (Ag), and Munitions (Per/Ag).

Firearms skills are dependent on the technology chosen for your game. Early fireams -- 12th-15th century -- would use Arquebus and Munitions.

Renaissance to Napoleonic firearms would use Musket, Pistol and Munitions.

Munitions is, of course, the skill of creating powder, charges and explosives. Shot is probably another specialized skill, but if you're not into historical accuracy, lump it with the Munitions skill.

hope that helps,
-Luke

PS Use Throwing to actually hurl bombs and grenades.

[Kublai]

I recommend the following skills for firearms: Arquebus (Ag), Musket (Ag), Pistol (Ag), Rifle (Ag), and Munitions (Per/Ag).

Why have such specific weapon skills when you haven't done that anywhere else in the game? I don't see a different skill for each kind of sword out there, nor one for each type of bow. Isn't it "A sword is a sword" and so "a gun is a gun?"

[Verrain]

Well you wouldn't lump long bow and crossbow under the skill projectile weapon. Each has a different method of use and thus each gets a seperate skill. By similar logic, pistol and arquebus/musket/rifle definitely deserve their separate skills. As you can see, I would probably lump those three under one simple "two handed gun skill" with differences in firing rate and such for the different weapons of course.

[luke]

unfortunately, for us, technology demands separate skills.

perhaps I do the art of the sword no justice, but from my conversations with my ninja martial artist friend I discovered that anyone trained in the use of a short-handled, bladed, cutting/slashing/thrusting weapon could pick up any of the various types and use it to good effect.

whereas in my research about firearms I found differently. The Arquebus/Musket distinction is really just for flavor. Use one or the other depending on the period you want to play in.

But pistol vs long weapon -- that's as different as sword and knife. Definitely worthy of seperate skils.

And as for the rifle -- during the time of its introduction circa late 1700s -- it required a specialist to use. This is a tough one to call, because it looks the same and almost acts the same. But there are some elements that we modern readers take for granted in the realm of firearms. Namely, aiming. For the musketman to aim, in the way necessary to sight a rifle, was unheard of. It was a skill that had to be taught. It that skill was necessary to be able to maximize the use of the weapon -- to use its superior range to advantage. Hence a different skill in my book.

It was a vastly different weapon from the musket, but it soon overtook its predecessor. Inside of a 100 years its technology had completely replaced the smoothbore muskets.

-L

[Thor]

And as for the rifle -- during the time of its introduction circa late 1700s -- it required a specialist to use. This is a tough one to call, because it looks the same and almost acts the same. But there are some elements that we modern readers take for granted in the realm of firearms. Namely, aiming. For the musketman to aim, in the way necessary to sight a rifle, was unheard of. It was a skill that had to be taught. It that skill was necessary to be able to maximize the use of the weapon -- to use its superior range to advantage. Hence a different skill in my book.


Definitely. Riflemen were considered elite, similar to special forces today. The weapon was very different, with a different loading process. It was much slower to load than a smoothbore musket too. And whereas musketry was focused entirely on firing three rounds a minute (four or five for veterans), with no thought of aiming at all, Rifles were expected to choose their targets and aim carefully.

At a range in excess of 50 feet, it is doubtful that many muskets would hit a single target in an enemy battalion (i.e., they couldn't hit the broadside of a barn). Usually, whichever side managed to hold its nerve longer would be the victor. In fact, after the first battalion volley, there would be so much smoke in the air, you wouldn't be able to see the enemy anyway.

A rifle could reliably pluck an officer off his horse at a range of 200 feet, and an expert marksman could kill at a much longer range.

[well-dressed gentleman]

Thank you all for the clarification.

Maybe firearm quality should affect the misfire probability,
as opposed to those other properties mentioned under
"superior quality bows", a couple threads down?