>setting takes place in what is the equivalent of the late

Reason 1: Because Tolkien didn't romanticise them.

Reason 2: Modern tabletop players are pussified millennials scared of firearms.

Reason 3: Guns render martial melee classes obsolete.

>>50020593
1 & 2 I agree with, but 3 is a little iffy.
I'm sure you could work with flintlocks with them being too op. They're basically one shot and then 3 min of reloading, and they have a pretty good chance of missing, or misfiring if the conditions aren't right. Heck, they could basically act like a non magical, less powerful but reusable, fighter/ranger equivalent of a scroll.

>>50020684
Without* them being too op. Goddammit fingers

>>50020568
Do you know how shitty early firearms were OP? Your GM is doing you a favor.
Early firearms were horribly innacurate and took forever to reload, even compared to a crossbow. The only reason they caught on is cause they hit hard and if you have like, 500 dudes, all with a gun, firing at 500 dudes in tight formation, accuracy doesn't really matter. But if you have ONE person with ONE gun firing at ONE other person? Not worth it. Not in the slightest

Im okay with firearms in the game as long as we agree on the rules for them.

What I am not okay with is when /k/ shows up to the game and wants to argue for hours on end that the gun his character has should be god's gift to man.

Guns just don't 'feel' fantasy-ish to me. I'm not afraid of them, I just have a hard time fitting them into muh d&d.

Which is odd, since greyhawk has actual fucking rayguns and has since ODnD

>>50020907
>Guns just don't 'feel' fantasy-ish to me.
People like you need to be put in labor camps

File: 326464616416541.jpg (216KB, 804x883px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 804x883px

>>50020857

That just depends on the firearm anon

>>50020907
>Guns just don't 'feel' fantasy-ish to me
Then what do your musketeers carry?

>>50020568
If you keep in mind that "the wild west" and "the renaissance" are fantasy settings, guns can be quite common. It's just the ridiculous focus on a select few definitions of "fantasy setting" that restrict things to low medieval or sword and sandals that means we don't get nearly enough cool gun characters.

>>50020568
The lack of guns has completely sunk my interest in D&D and pushed me entirely into Pathfinder. Their gun rules aren't perfect (weapon diversity isn't well represented) but it's the only system that has gun-based classes and official rules for revolvers, flamethrowers, infantry mortars and maxim guns, which are great helps when I'm writing my Victorian/Dieselpunk Gothic Horror adventures.

>>50021979
I've been working on a steampunk wild west setting for a while, I've invested a lot of time and effort into getting a wide variety of guns. I made proficiency be based on action, and gunsmithing allows multiple barrel lengths or grip types or magazine sizes so as to make all kinds of weapons be possible. One upside is that if you're only proficient in one action, you'll be able to carry a shotgun, a rifle, and a pistol with no worries and get bonuses to all of them from things like weapon focus and rapid reload.

File: doYouEvenHeadWound.png (127KB, 227x215px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 227x215px

>Setting your campaign in late medieval period/renaissance fantasy Europe
>Not setting it in 12th century fantasy Europe with some anachronisms ranging from the ancient era to the 14th century
>Fucking about with powder when a wizard can wipe out a platoon of troops with a well-placed fire ball spell

>>50020907
I'm with this anon, it's a flavor thing for me.

>>50022147
>having magic any more powerful than being able to tell fortunes and maybe cast a fireball with a group of magic users

>>50021979
>it's the only system that has gun-based classes and official rules for revolvers, flamethrowers, infantry mortars and maxim guns
there are a lot of systems like that dude, sans classes

>>50022225
How many systems give rules for guns, bows and crossbows that make them all viable, but different, options ?

>>50020568
modernity dispels mythology

>>50022874
Savage Worlds, Fantasy Craft, and GURPS come to mind. I'm sure there are other systems that do it just as well.

>>50020684
They're basically one shot and then 3 min of
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock
>[soldiers] had to fire as quickly as possible, often firing three to four rounds per minute. Loading and firing at such a pace dramatically increased the risk of an accidental discharge.
This is the worst meme.

>>50020568
>equivalent of the late medieval period
>fantasy settings
I think you're confused on one of these points.

File: k vs tg.png (767KB, 1200x3000px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 1200x3000px

>>50020857

>>50020568
You can have a gun faggot but why would you want one? Early firearms were shit.

>>50022931
So, 15-20 seconds for reload?

If we're generous, that's 2-3 rounds in D&D timing. That's pretty shit.

>>50022894
How do they implement them ?

All I've seen is Ironclaw's implementation:
- Bows: You'll be firing off an arrow every round if you don't have to do anything else.
- Crossbows: More damage per shot, but you're looking at 1 shot every 2-3 rounds (depending on the crossbow) if you're only reloading and shooting.
- Guns: Lots of damage per hit, but take so long to reload that you're not going to be firing a gun a second time in a single combat. Also a chance for the gun to not fire that gets worse every time a gun fails to fire, until the gun breaks or is repaired.

>>50023069
I can give you the best impression for GURPS. It's been years since I played SW/FC.

Basic info: One turn in gurps is one second, and you can perform one action ("Maneuver") per turn, generally.

GURPS Bows basic sequence (four actions):
>Ready, Ready, Aim, Attack
You can chop off two actions by not aiming and making a Fast-Draw (Ammo) roll. It can get even faster with Heroic Archer, an advantage that, among other things, allows faster shooting and automatically grants your bow's Accuracy in certain circumstances, which is what you Aim for to begin with. Damage is good enough to reliably incapacitate with a well-placed shot. Your defense options are hitting the dirt, blocking with a shield, trying to parry the arrow, or tanking it with DR.

GURPS Crossbows basic sequence (six actions):
>Ready, Ready, Ready, Ready, Aim, Attac
You can chop off two actions, same as a bow. Heroic Archer can be used with Crossbows, as well. Generally, though, crossbows won't reload as fast as bows, but that's realistic. You can get windlasses and winches for crossbows, which lets them do more damage in exchange for taking longer to load between shots.

GURPS Guns basic sequence (highly variable):
>Ready [Variable], Aim, Attack
Guns are highly dependent on Tech Level, which is how GURPS defines time periods. Gonnes are TL3, while arquebuses and muskets and such are TL4. They generally take around 30 to 60 Ready maneuvers to reload. The higher the TL, the fewer actions it takes to reload, until it gets down to three actions for modern firearms, and generally stays there. Longarms can be as accurate as crossbows or moreso, have high damage, and usually carry more ammunition, if appropriate.

At low TLs, crossbows are usually the best option for backup ranged, with bows being good for main archers, and at mid- to ultra-high TLs, guns are almost always the superior choice.

>>50023235
Is there a tech level where all three are viable options ?

I just want a yes or no. You don't need to go into specifics unless you want to.

>>50023323
What do you mean by viable? That all of them are useful in combat? They're all useful, although that usefulness depends on the campaign. That they all have roles to fill? They do, although those roles can be sidelined or even made obsolete, depending on the campaign. That they're universally useful in every campaign? Of course not.

>>50023361
Thank you. That answers my question.

>>50020568
i have always allowed some basic firearms but i think its mostly a problem of difficulty to balance them while keeping them interesting.

>>50020568
Because there is high fantasy and dark/realistic fantasy

guns fit well only in the latter, since in the former the presence of magic, druids, demons and gods makes "something better than a crossbow but with much more reload time" pretty useless

>inb4 warhammer fantasy

Warhammer is strictly dark fantasy and there magic makes it more likely to blow your own head off than light a candle

I'm not sure exactly how one would use longarms in an adventuring situation, but pistols could be pretty handy.
Just keep 3-4 of them on your person and reload when you get a minute to breath. Maybe even carry a bandolier of powder apostles to make combat reloading easier (at the risk of them exploding if they catch fire)

>>50024068
i think adventures would not be using longarms much

i could see a bunch of kobolds ready to ambush people that come into a room with them though.

>>put strong, 3d8 flintlocks in my 5e piracy games which take ten actions to reload
>encounters go real quick

>>50020593
>Reason 2: Modern tabletop players are pussified millennials scared of firearms.
What kind of faggots do you play with?

>>50021979
>>50022029
oh hell, why not.

http://cowboys-and-dragons.wikia.com/wiki/Firearms

The biggest problem is that actions are mostly just for flavor. Originally, they were going to be tied to a reliability mechanic, and also have their own cost-per-shot, but both options required a lot more paperwork on my end so I just left them as a way of making the system more granular.

>>50020568
The only thing worse than not having guns in a fantasy setting is having them but the writer/GM nerfs them to shit so hard that they aren't worth using.

>>50026104
>guns take hours to load!
>and the old ones were totally inaccurate! sharpshooters didn't exist until WW2!
>revolvers are made up

uggghhhhh

>>50026115
>Heavy crossbows take one round to reload :^)

File: take cover.webm (243KB, 352x174px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 352x174px

>>50026133
>besides, a gun just shoots a tiny bit of metal out
>it wouldn't really do that much damage
>let alone penetrate any kind of cover or armor

File: 55807c57a8f2ee37d54b0695bcdd85d1.jpg (9KB, 200x240px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x240px

>>50026143
Well, actually, early firearms couldn't penetrate armor. Plate armor anyway.

>>50026174
That's true. But there's more kinds of armor than just plate.

>>50026193
Hey, just saying. If we're gonna be mad, I want our anger to be factually correct and justified.

>>50026174
That armor has a very noticeable dent in it from where the bullet hit. That alone looks like it could easily still break bones even if it didn't penetrate. Poor bastard is gonna feel that in the morning.

>>50020568
Because "realism" dictates that guns instantly kill on any hit what so ever.

>>50022931
You realize that flintlocks aren't even close to being the first type of gun invented, right?

>>50020568
>The lack of guns has completely sunk my interest in D&D and pushed me entirely into Pathfinder.

Thank god. Now please stay there, we don't want you near our games.

>>50026174
I'm willing to accept this, if only because I like early guns and I like knights and by putting firearms right at the point where they're not completely effective against plate armor I get to have guns and knights co-exist even if it's a tiny bit anachronistic.

>>50026518
>anachronistic
They existed at the same time in real life though. It'd be more anachronistic if your knights were in articulated platemail.

>>50026485
But there are rules for guns in 3.5 core.

>>50026597
Does the DMG count as core? I'm pretty sure firearm rules aren't in the SRD.

>>50020568
My games have the opposite problem. My players get sick of firearms existing in so many of my settings. I tend towards late medieval and early modern.

>>50026673
>Does the DMG count as core?
Are you some kind of moron?

>>50020593

>Reason 3: Guns render martial melee classes obsolete.

You know, they wouldn't if it was the martial classes that are wielding the guns. Like, you know, soldiers and stuff would do.

Black powder guns would take a bit of reloading, but we can simplify it to every other round because you can level and be a badass. A martial could, in a ranged fight, sit behind a sturdy shield while he reloads, and either shoulder the blunderbuss or musket or bayonet some fuckers should they close to melee. Rogue classes could favor a brace of pistols for closer-range and more rapid fire without reload, or go for a more accurate rifle and act as a sniper.

>>50026870
>melee
you seem to have missed an important word in that sentence

File: wizards and fighters.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>50026915
Martial melee classes are already obsolete.

>>50026673
>Does the DMG count as core? I'm pretty sure firearm rules aren't in the SRD.
Well, obviously.

>>50020593
>Reason 3: Guns render martial melee classes obsolete.
How?

Wands take the place of firearms in a decent D&D setting.

Eberron, once again, is best.

>>50020593
>Reason 1; Wrong
>Reason 2; Wrong AND edgy
>Reason 3; Also Wrong

First post worst post mate.

>>50026224
That dent is from where the armor's manufacturer shot it after it was finished to prove that it could stop a bullet.
Proof of bullet resistance.
Bulletproof, if you will.

>>50026224
The force of the bullet impact is spread over the entirety of the metal and is only about the force of recoil on a gun (minus the recoil absorbed by the gun itself)

That little dent being absorbed by the armor won't hurt, especially if you wear a gambeson or something underneath it. You can get a video of a manufacturer taking a modern .308 rifle bullet to the chest while wearing a vest with a plate in it. The same bullet would've gone clean in and out the back of a cuirass, yet failed to even push him over while balancing on one leg.