Tags
-C, Advanced Player's Guide, anthonymohr, Dungeons & Dragons, ElCrabofAnger, Gunslinger, Hack & Slash, Paizo, Pathfinder Core Rulebook
The Black Powder Dilemma is something I have thought about extensively; perhaps even I bit more than I should have (I gave it a cool name and everything), and it all boiled down into a single terrifying word – escalation. At the heart of the problem there is a runaway hunger, inherent in the gamer mentality, which goes beyond mere strategy into a nightmare realm where creativity is fostered by a need for ultimate and unquestionable dominance. It takes one mistake, one underestimation of a commonality to bring to bear an untenable situation. That is the Black Powder Dilemma. Now, join me as I explain what it is I’m talking about.
It all started some months back when the Gunslinger was first
introduced to the Pathfinder Role-Playing Game. The usual arguments commenced – whether the Gunslinger class was a broken class, whether the addition of guns to the game was outside the spirit of Dungeons and Dragons, whether certain class abilities made this particular character type more or less dangerous than its brethren. At the end there seemed to be a grudging consensus on the topic: no, the Gunslinger was not a broken class (though some of the builds discussed to that affect made it a difficult decision), yes, guns seemed to be outside the general spirit of the game (more for setting reasons than having any real aversion to guns being present), and no, the Gunslinger was no more or less dangerous than some of the other character classes. We all agreed that the Gunslinger was, all and all, acceptable, and then, without second thought, banned them from our various campaigns.
As a DM myself, I continued to ask what it was about the Gunslinger that ruffled my feathers. I didn’t think they were broken – far more interesting builds are down that particular path, and as far as setting was concerned, I feel that any game that allows multidimensional travel has plenty of room for guns to be present and accounted for. So, what the hell was my problem? What was it about the Gunslinger that placed it outside of my character creation standards? The answer came to me in the middle of writing another article, which has been temporarily abandoned for this topic. The problem, it turns out, isn’t guns, or setting, or anything vague and unmanageable. No, my problem with the Gunslinger was what they brought into the Pathfinder multiverse: black powder!
Now, many probably think I’m exaggerating. Surely black powder isn’t something so deadly dangerous that it warrants the gravity of such provocative language. For you naysayers out there, I’ve made a chart that some of you hardcore D&D fans will appreciate, while the rest will just have to wait for the explanation:
With information taken directly from the Pathfinder Role-Playing Game Core Rulebook and Advanced Player’s Guide this chart is based on the maximum damage output, sans feats or other modifying abilities (that’s right, maximum, as in the best possible result – no matter how statistically ridiculous), that your most powerful evocation spell can produce at any given level. Why the evocation school? Well, it’s the school that contains the most direct damage spells. These spells and their effects (especially the fireball spell) are analogous with the rules for how black powder functions in the game.
Now, a single dose of black powder costs 10 gold; however, the Gunslinger can make it at 10% of the cost, thanks to the Gunsmithing Feat (anyone can take this feat, but the Gunslinger gets it for free), effectively turning each dose into a 1 gold purchase. The rules state that you can make up to 1000 gold worth of black powder in a single day. It also states that 100 doses of black powder, if exposed to fire, electricity, or some other equivalent catalyst, will produce a 5d6 explosion of fire damage with a DC 15 Reflex save for half damage…do you see where I’m going with this? A Gunslinger, or any PC with the Gunsmithing Feat, in a single days work, with 100 gold, can produce 5d6 worth of black powder. If taken in the same vein as the graph above, the maximum damage output is 30. That means that at first level a Gunslinger can produce something equivalent to a 5th level Sorcerer/Wizard.
This, in and of itself, is not that impressive. While it’s possible to turn this ability to the advantage of the PCs, there are obstacles 
to overcome if they actually want to do this. Black powder, while lightweight, is still 5 lbs for every 100 doses and, most importantly, takes time to create – though it’s worth noting that given a 1000 gold and 10 days time a single PC can create 50d6 worth of damaging power, which equates to a possible 300 damage…that’s 36% more powerful than a 20th level Sorcerer/Wizards most powerful evocation spell.
But, these are just trivialities. Most DMs will keep their players busy enough that they’ll never have time to reach that kind of damage potential. So why the sinking feeling in my stomach? It was then I realized I was asking the wrong question. It wasn’t about how I was going to deal with Gunslingers having black powder; no, it was a different question, a question I wanted answered as soon as I looked at the problem from a PC perspective: if black powder is in the world…what else can I create? This led me to the question I should have been asking myself from the beginning as a DM: if black powder is present in the world, how does the world react to its presence?
The answer is somewhat problematic for the type of medieval/renaissance fantasy I want to run. You see, Dungeons and Dragons exists in its own time bubble, a place both removed and informed by the history of the world. Most campaigns, both home grown and otherwise, are often placed in a medieval setting, best reflected by the late middle ages where war, plague, and famine were commonplace. This setting lends itself well to a certain amount of heroism and a certain amount of mysticism, making it ideal for a complex role-playing experience. However, there is one key difference between the setting of D&D and the objective reality of the world we live in, that being, the D&D multiverse is based on the influence and continued existence of…wait for it…magic. That’s the true heart of the Black Powder Dilemma. It comes down to the conflict between magic and science.
Now, that may seem like a silly and overly intellectual conclusion, but allow me to explain by pointing to the two areas in which the Black Powder Dilemma arises:
- Power Dynamics – Basically, with the Pathfinder RPG, you need a reliable formula for determining the power capacity for your basic group of players. This allows the DM to actively create situations and encounters that are both level appropriate and entertaining for their players. Bringing advanced scientific knowledge into the world can quickly unbalance the amount of damage the PCs can accomplish. This problem, as I explained above, is easily circumvented by simply keeping your PCs busy.*
- Magic – Magic in D&D is the substitute for science. It replaces guns, explosives, certain non-reputable biological agents and many of the other interesting nuances of chemistry that find themselves useful in a combat or military fashion. Magic, unlike science, is far easier to regulate, because it is based on a set of rules that prevent access (in most cases) to power inappropriate for a character of a certain level.
The true problem, as I see it, is that black powder, and its creation, falls under the purview of science, which does not work in a regulative fashion. Science is collective, and easily passed on (that’s why your mom can use a microwave without needing to understand radio wave frequencies). Most scientific discoveries can be accessed with only a base understanding of the underlying properties. I think the creators behind the Gunslinger understood this, at least subconsciously, which is why you don’t need to make any type of roll when making black powder in the game, you just need the Gunsmithing Feat. Once something is discovered, it is accessible to a large portion of the general population.
So, with this in mind, I ask the DMs out there who may be reading this right now…how do you justify telling a player they can’t make something as simple as black powder when they possess an intelligence that is astronomically superior to just about anybody in the world? How do you stop them from wanting to create things even more destructive? Greek fire, nitroglycerin, dynamite, gelignite, all easily manufactured if you know what you are doing, and the weakest among them has at least twice the destructive power of black powder. In a word…escalation really is the problem.
In summation, it’s not black powder itself that’s the problem, it’s what its mere existence implies that’s the problem. -C over at Hack and Slash did a little piece called “On What You Dread to Hear.” It’s a list of quotes about things you never want to hear at the gaming table. Well, I think this should absolutely be one of them:
“I want to make black powder.”
*Yeah, we’re aware of the OSR, and we believe, in fact, that Gygaxian Naturalism is a completely appropriate way to run your game. We’re talking about Pathfinder, here, and the assumptions it makes. (ed. by ECOA)
Mr. Sharp's Gaming Emporium 
Just because someone has craft(cooking) doesn’t necessarily mean they know how to make poison. They might know how to make gunpowder, but they might not understand the chemistry behind it. It took over a thousand years before they stopped having to use urine soaked compost and bogs (this would largely depend on the area and availability of course. In some areas, you can get ingredients from caves. Plus, I think it might be a magical component, so I would assume there would be an industry for magically producing it).
Those potential escalating explosives listed are only 150 years old at the most, and black powder is over 1200 years old. Essentially, it is extremely easy to have the entire Middle Ages before people start seriously looking at better methods for explosives.
And with magic, it would be easier to find a spell to improve them rather than chemistry. Just look at the alchemist bomb ability. A large amount of the alterations to it are for magic effect. However, considering, they are the real threat to this scenario. They are the only ones willing to look at the typically disgusting process of black powder production and crazy enough to store that much black powder in one place to challenge max damage. Why does no one question their bombs? I would think a lot of bombs use black powder too.
To Lemeres:
“Just because someone has craft(cooking) doesn’t necessarily mean they know how to make poison. They might know how to make gunpowder, but they might not understand the chemistry behind it.”
1. Correct; however, this is not what is being discussed since making black powder in the game requires no roll, but only the requisite feat. Also, the example you use is fallacious. This is not the way that craft works in Pathfinder and their would be no reason for someone who wants to make poison to take craft(cooking)…they’d take craft(poison), much like anyone who wanted to make explosives would take craft(explosives). It’s also true that one does not need to understand the chemistry to know how to make black powder, but again, there’s only so far you can justify that when dealing with hyper intelligent characters.
“Those potential escalating explosives listed are only 150 years old at the most, and black powder is over 1200 years old. Essentially, it is extremely easy to have the entire Middle Ages before people start seriously looking at better methods for explosives.”
2. True, this is how it happened historically, but players are not NPCs and are just as informed by history as DMs. They already know the routes of inquiry that necessitate the advancement explosives. People took so long to develop more powerful explosives because they were asking the wrong questions. Players already know what questions to ask.
“They [Alchemists] are the only ones willing to look at the typically disgusting process of black powder production and crazy enough to store that much black powder in one place to challenge max damage.”
3. I have a couple of problems with this, but let me start in agreement: Yes, it is indeed likely that in a campaign alchemists would be the major generators of damage escalation in relation to explosives. They meet all the requirements: they’re geniuses, often with an intelligence score of 18 or better. They are already well versed in chemistry and, this is the kicker, it is recommended that you play them as forward-thinking ambitious rebels. However, if you think they’re the only ones crazy enough to store that much black powder…you haven’t met a lot of gamers. Also, storing that much black powder safely isn’t difficult in a world of magic. There’s bags of holding, extradimensional spaces; hell, even just teleportation to a hidden location can mitigate most of the danger problem and while I agree that players will use black powder almost exclusively for death and destruction, I still find it pejorative to call the process of creating black powder “typically disgusting.”
As for the answers to your last two questions: People would either question there bombs, or, more likely, think of them as a strange kind of magic (which they are). As for alchemist bombs using black powder…that’s kind of a DM call, but typically, no.
Games can only really be broken by douche-bag players, if your players are playing within the spirit of the game they won’t attempt to do such ridiculous things. When I get a player that starts heading down the road of munchkinism, min-maxing, and just plain power gaming, I try to ask how they are able to accomplish these things through the story. If they aren’t thinking of their character as anything more than numbers on paper and don’t have any real “Story” then they don’t belong in my game. The last time a character attempted to build a powerhouse I announced “congratulations, you accomplished all of your goals and you are now a GOD, you won at D&D, the campaign is over” Your fears of escalation are solely based on what the players MIGHT do. If you have players that are likely to break the game then I suggest you find new players. ROLE-playing is exactly what it is. You are supposed to be playing a role in a story. If the story is bogged down by rules then it essentially becomes a war game, which is fine if that’s what you like, but don’t call it role-playing at that point. I’ll allow anything a responsible gamer wants as long as it fits the story and general flavor of the campaign. Gaming shouldn’t be GM vs players, it should be communal storytelling with the GM guiding the players. The GM and the players should be working together towards creating a great story. To sum everything up and prevent any problems a game master might have live by one simple rule… “DON’T GAME WITH DOUCHE-BAGS”
Joe:
There are so many ways I disagree with you I don’t know where to begin…
I guess I should start by saying that games can be broken because there is something inherently wrong with the rules. The players you’re describing as “douche-bags” sound like they’re utilizing the rules to, how can I say this, beat you. I don’t think it should be thought of in that way, but it sounds like that might be the way you’re thinking about D&D. It also sounds like you take being beaten poorly, so poorly in fact that you’ve stopped your players from finding direct and intelligent solutions to their in-game problems. I expect my players to use every rule available…every dirty trick…every subversive plot…every skill, feat, spell, ability, weapon, or good in the world to solve the problems I put before them.
I could say more, but feel like what I’ve already said is sufficient.
I leave you with a suggestion:
Just for one or two game nights let your players build the most “broken” thing they can each personally think of, and then, let them play them.
We apparently have entirely different concepts of how games are played so no amount of discussion will make a difference. You focus on the “Game” aspect my group focuses on the “role-playing” aspect. The fact of the matter is as long as everyone is having fun you are doing it right. You also apparently didn’t read my words clearly enough, in my last post I stated that the game should NOT be GM vs players. I fail to see how it seems like I’m worried about being beaten or think of the game “In that way” as you said if we treat it as communal storytelling. If a player is trying to “BEAT” me then he isn’t focused on the story he’s trying to play a war-game. Different strokes for different folks, but if a player’s “Optimized Build” makes absolutely no sense within the story then he’s not focusing on Role-Playing. If a player doesn’t like my groups style of play they are more then welcome to run their own game or find a different group. Reading through twenty books to multiclass and pick feats that were never meant to go together isn’t finding intelligent solutions its exploiting rules that were only meant to be a loose guide in the first place. The rest of the players usually end up having to powergame themselves to keep the one guy in check, and then we have intra-party conflict. Which isn’t fun for anyone other than the person deliberately trying to break the game. I’d say that is a bit of douchebaggery. The player I made the comment to about Winning thought it was very funny and designed a character more in flavor with the game and great fun was had by all. Players that deliberately make stupid actions to mess with the party or deliberately do actions to make it harder for the DM to tell his story by killing important NPC’s for no reason, find concepts within the rules that break combat, or just plain refuse to follow any of the GM’s story hooks are in fact douche bags and don’t get invited back to my groups games.
K
LOL
I don’t really see a problem here though. I mean. The escalation could be applied to any form of technology within DnD (and hell, alchemy is way worse in that regard than black powder)… or simply skipping the technology altogether and substituting it for magic (replace gunpowder
The end result here isn’t very frightening either: Essentially we’re terrified that, with an extreme amount of effort, a feat, and probably a great deal of planning to set it all up a gunslinger might be almost as terrifying as a moderately optimized wizard would… except the wizard does it a couple times every day.
Greek fire – 2nd edition introduced the concept that anything that was highly flammable could be considered “Greek fire” alchemical fire fulfils the exact same use.
nitro-glycerine, dynamite & gelignite simply don’t exist you stop them in the same way you stop a player that wants to make a level 1 spell that will destroy a city with fire, you don’t let it happen.
Just because a player has skill or ability to know how TNT does not mean that there character has any idea on how to make it. Player knowledge does not equal character knowledge.
From this chart http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment—final/goods-and-services/ue-more-gear-4#TOC-Spirits
“A cask contains 2 gallons of liquid. Full weight: 16 lbs.”
We know that lamp oil costs 1SP per pint and there are 8 pints in each gallon and the oil does 1D3 damage per pint. A cask of lamp oil should be 16lbs and do 16D3 for 2 rounds giving a potential damage of 96 damage for a cheap 1.6 gold.
If we increase the oil to 50 pints (50lbs) of oil for a mere 5GP the damage goes up to 50D3 for 2 rounds giving a maximum damage of 300 that a level 1 character can afford a few times over.
At just 10 lbs a level 1 character could get a 10 lb of lamp oil and throw it causing as much as 30 damage X 2 rounds and a stronger character could carry a number of them far out striping the damage of level 5 wizard could do at level 1 for 1 GP.
But really that’s all silly. Characters are not carrying around flasks of oil or gunpowder to throw around. If you are having that problem then you should consider increasing the damage radius and not damage.
As it stands 100 units of powder do 5D6 to a 20 foot radius. You could rule that 10 times that amount does twice the damage 10D6 to twice the radius and less then that would not be unreasonable considering the volumes:
20’ radius = 33,493 cubic feet,
30’ radius = 113040 cubic feet (3 times the volume of the base.)
40’ radius = 267946 cubic feet (8 times the volume of the base.)
Of note some games don’t make use of magic at all and that alchemy is already the study of chemistry.
An alchemist can make alchemical fire for 1/3 listed cost so 5 alchemical fire that does 5D6 damage for 2 rounds costs 33 Gold Pieces and has a mass of 5lbs just like the gun powder not to mention acid that has the same damage but 1/2 the cost. At a base cost of 10gp per pint the base cost of acid is as cheep as the gunslinger reduced price for gunpowder.
If you have not banned acid then you permit “escalation” into 50D6 acid bombs that cost 167 Gold but not permit the 1000 gold bomb that does the same damage.
I’m going to type out a scenario detailing what I would do if a PC tried to discover Nitro-Glycerin (or some other relatively modern explosive,) in one of my games:
PC: My character will attempt to discover Nitro-Glycerin.
Me: Okay. Make a Craft (Alchemy) roll.
PC: *rolls* Whoa, a nat 20! That adds up to 37.
Me: Too bad, the target DC was 140. The base was 10, and I added a point for every five years early you’d be discovering it. Nitro-Glycerin won’t be discovered for another 650 years. But I’ll tell you what; I’ll divide the DC by the number of in-game years your character spends doing nothing but trying to discover Nitro-Glycerin.
You have to remember that if you’re the GM, you make the rules (literally!) Although you can just tell the players no, I find that that leads to grumpy gamers. Instead, I prefer to make it a very bad idea to do those things. That way, if they still choose to do whatever it was they were trying to do, their character will probably be taken out of the game and they’ll have no one but themselves to blame.
You must’ve had a heart attack when the Technology Guide came out.
I think the real problem here is the kind of play-style…
Personally i preferr a kind of play-style where anything can happen, a kinda real-world-play-style with the typical consequence that would/ will happen if you do something, for example standing on the Market-Place pointing a gun at somebody will likely cause people to flee screaming.
Because of that i don’t fear science/ technology/ black powder or what else in my games, cause players simply have to live with the consequences of there actions. That simply means that the player in the example above is likely to be killed by the townsguard…
What does this have to do with the black-powder-dilemma? Well the same consequences a player has to suffer/ live with, the (game-)world has to live with it too.
Black-Powder or other technology in the game means that if one state gets it the other wants it too. Think it to the end…
Real-World-consequences…that simple it is.