Guns in Fantasy

I feel like magitek is the only real solution if you want to avoid escalating into "hurp let's solve every solution with dynamite".

It also means that you can use a lot of systems that weren't already made with guns in mind, since you could always explain them as magic implements/wands/enchanted crossbows.

>>50322651
I have them in my setting, but I specifically made them mass-produced crap that's mainly good for mooks, since they don't scale with your heroicness.

Depends on the setting. Everyone bitches about clumsy and inaccurated Arquebuses and handcannons. Yet, nobody seems to mind cannons. Cannons are also almost mandatory for fun naval combat because naval combat without those is not fun unless your setting takes place in Rome.

>>50322792
This, despite the fact that Artillery was the end of castles and can break and infantry or cavalry charge like nothing else. See the US Civil War for details.
>Northern Artillery and Southern Infantry

File: Stresli4.jpg (58KB, 476x695px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 476x695px

>>50322651

I like my fantasy set in a pastiche of the late medieval/renaissance era, which was the era of the earliest guns. Matchlock arquebus and bombard cannons, primitive grenades, that sort of thing.

My current campaign is set in Not-Russia around the late 1400s. Guns are there in the background, but don't dominate combat.

Cannons, and firearms, can explode in your face. Even fireworks are a bitch.

>>50322651
Warhammer fantasy was doing perfectly fine with guns and shit.

>>50322651
Why not?

I don't even see anything wrong with modern guns as long as setting accounts for the fact that magic is here. You can actually do many concepts with this.

For example power armor and melee weapons. Normally you'll ask why won't you use energy source in other tech but if the power source is the human in armor it becomes understandable. It's still possible to use them for some other magitech but they are not easily scaled up and may produce interferences while working in groups.

Melee weapons works the same way - channelling spells through the weapon. Ranged weapons including firearms could do it in theory but due to small size of projectiles and distance to the target it is hard to place enough energy and complex spellwork into them. A shield or a hammer on the other hand can have all the runes and matrices you may want even with some redundancies.

Does full plate armor makes sense without guns?

File: 1412582134975.jpg (343KB, 1634x1307px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1634x1307px

>>50322651
>>50322748
Just limit it to black powder circa 1500-1600s. Matchlock arquebus and unwieldy bronze or iron cannons are the name of the game. Flintlocks, wheel locks and other advanced firing mechanisms are both rare and incredibly expensive, and repeating firearms are limited to volley guns with multiple barrels and a whole host of issues namely: being fucking heavy.

Guns are a touch unreliable, but hit like the heaviest of crossbows, at longer ranges, but also reload as slowly as the heaviest of crossbows.

I have an unyielding boner for Napoleonic fantasy, so it's preferred.

File: 1474917323680.jpg (91KB, 545x1000px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 545x1000px

>>50322651
>I feel like they kind of take away the "mystique" of most fantasy settings
You better get some better fantasy settings then dawg. Like one with them written in already.

>>50322651
Guns work well if you don't make them game-enders for the setting; usually meaning they should be balanced against your magic system or have something to them to make them impractical.

I really like IKRPG use of guns; keeping paper cartridges dry is important for the low cost arms and the cash you can end up pissing away makes iron casings and making your own ammo important.

File: Hand-cannon_14263_lg.gif (94KB, 700x575px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 700x575px

Handcannons as dragonslayer weapon?

File: 41UYlJ5eYYL._SX355_.jpg (19KB, 355x293px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 355x293px

Would it work?

What killed the knights was the humble pike, not the gun.

>>50322651

What's the mechanical difference between "thing that propels 9 mm pellets at a semi-automatic rate via magical force" and a conventional pistol? The only think stopping a Wand of Magic Missile from replacing the bow and pike as the standard weapon is the fact that it's a pain in the arse to recharge them.

>>50322806

Civil War Cannon=/=Medieval Bombards. What allows modern artillery to destroy fortifications in the first place are explosive shells which were pioneered around the point the Civil War began to pick up. In fact, what caused castles to decline was not their lack of ability to defend against modern artillery; castles were used heavily in the closing stages of World War II as readily available fortifications by all sides who could afford them and have done their jobs defending against occupiers beyond expectation - it's the fact that it is no longer economical to build castles versus the amount of protection they bring and the effort it takes to destroy them.

>>50323016
It was also not being retarded when it comes to infantry. You had spears when cavalry dominated in europe.

File: gunslinger1.jpg (284KB, 1155x794px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1155x794px

>>50322651
>guns in fantasy
Aww yeah. Gimme that.

Armour did not lose the arm race until pretty much the 18th century. Besides that, it became uneconomical to arm everybody with armour as armies grow bigger and bigger.

>>50322792
>unless your setting takes place in Rome

Ah yes, the old "throw a basket of snakes at em" corollary.

File: 1421796679876.jpg (67KB, 900x454px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 900x454px

>>50323124

>tfw gunslinger in pathfinder is presented as "hella ep1c wild west cowboy who don't need no man :^)" and not just rugged frontiersmen/adventurer/mercenary.

>>50322962
Realistically? No.

Do I care? No, now bring on the cannon gauntlets!!!

>>50322651
I prefer guns in my fantasy.
If you're running DnD style pseudo-medieval fantasy, you can easily have your PCs using better guns than the matchlock muskets the infantry are humping around. Wheellocks and early flintlocks were around pretty early, even primitive breechloaders, they were just made to order and hella expensive.

If you get up around the industrial revolution, that's even better. Everyone and their grandma is running about with guns by now.

Westerns? Why not throw some shamans and demons in there to spice it up?

Modern times? Go Harry Potter all up in this bitch. And then give Harry a gun.

>especially since guns can easily snowball into more modern-day rapid firing beasts

Not unless you let it. There's a reason rapid-firing guns didn't come around for a long time. It wasn't until the advent of metallic cartridges that anyone could make a gun which could fire quickly reliably. If you're limiting it to matchlocks, wheellocks and snaplocks, no one is going to be making an AK-47.

Now the question is, in a fantasy setting, how do you make firearms scale with the PC? What kind of enchantments and such can one slap on a musket to make it a musket +2?

>>50324282

Since many people made their own bullets, I say the ability to improve making and handling bullets should be a factor. Bullets with less tolerance would be more precise but more difficult to load and more prone to jam the gun. Also, you have to get the right amount of gunpowder etc. After that it is becoming quicker with reloading and aiming.

I'm running a fantasy game with approximately Revolutionary War-era tech, so most armies feature troops with firearms. The forge-god of the setting lays a curse on anyone who attempts to advance the tech past that point.

>>50322651
In all honesty, I've got a very high fantasy post-apocalyptic game-world, which is sort of Faerun's Age of Magic meets Eberron meets Fallout. I'm still trying to work out if it makes sense that the pre-apocalypse world might have magitek equivalents of laser cannons and heat rays and shit, since they created warforged as soldier-slaves.

File: 1456709721952 (1).jpg (272KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1920x1080px

>>50322651
>Low-fantasy
Heck no. Low-fantasy should say low-fantasy for a reason. Get your dumb ass out of here.

>High-fantasy
Still don't really like it. I mean, are we talking Final Fantasy stuff here, in which case, I don't like or play those style settings at all? Or are we talking WoW and Magic: The Gathering? At which point, they're just giant, unconcentrated messes that pile on whatever trinket they need to appeal to as much of a fanbase as humanly possible?

Guns belong in settings where they actually matter. Late-medieval era fantasies where magic dragons and beasts of old are quickly vanishing midst an onslaught of human armies who've discovered terrible weapons that spit thunder and shatter stone, or early-renaissance to late-newworld settings where men march in formation of pike and shot, or when the rangers of old are transformed into frontiersmen of the new, replacing their legendary bows and arrows with the tremendously powerful pistol and musket.

Guns should not be some exotic oddity in a setting where magical swords cut trees in half and people with wands make mincemeat of giants. Guns should be a very real and dangerous thing. People should whisper about "weapons from the East that'd a hole through a knigh in full, shining armor", and in a couple hundred years, the most powerful nations would have a dozen or two cannons, and a hundred or so muskets. And in a hundred or so years from then? Muskets and rifles should replace the old analogues of the pas warrior. Fighters should be analogous with duelists and cowboy mercenaries, knights should be soldiers and trained guardsmen, rangers should be sharpshooters, or mountainmen of the land, wizards should be those who experiment with explosives and dynamite and the sort, and rogues should be quick-witted pickpockets, with a spring-loaded derringer hiding up their sleeves and launching themselves into his left hand.

THAT'S how you run a gun game.

File: 1458400397225.jpg (830KB, 950x1131px) Image search: [Google]

830KB, 950x1131px

>>50323983
Except that's not her backstory at all, what the fuck are you on about nigga

>>50324683
>should
>should
>should
>should
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man

>>50322806
Castles were king in an era where feudalism was the system of government. You built castles as a means to control the surrounding land - you could man it with men, and mass armies there if outright war was needed.

In more modern times, there was less need for castles to control land, since professional armies became more common. If you did need fortifications, those changed as well - instead of the square-shapes with high walls of castles, there was a more star-like pattern - for overlapping fields of fire - and the walls were shorter and thicker to stand up to bombardment, since height was no longer really an issue.

File: death what.jpg (49KB, 455x224px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 455x224px

>>50324683
>Low-fantasy should say low-fantasy for a reason.

Aside from that, what's all this bullshit about guns being new, feared, exotic weapons that are instantly phasing everything else out? It's like you haven't looked at how guns became widespread at all or what social changes made them more viable and valuable, and are thinking a bad analog for real history makes for a great setting.

>>50322651
>I feel like they kind of take away the "mystique" of most fantasy settings and much prefer magic take the place of anything requiring gunpowder, especially since guns can easily snowball into more modern-day rapid firing beasts.
I audibly groaned.

Tell me OP, of all the anachronistic technologies that exist and have existed for centuries in your typical stagnant tech level medieval fantasy setting, why is it suddenly guns that change everything?

>>50324741
The key art conflicts with the lore, then.

>>50324683
In low fantasy? Hell no. IRL guns existed beside plate for centuries.

I think guns are grossly under-represented. Warhammer Fantasy is one that I can recall with gunpowder weapons.
I feel that they get a bad rep and that people tend to look at them by comparing them to their contemporary parts and not looking at them through the context of their time. People tend to make a big deal of the flaws but wave away any disadvantages other ranged weapons at the time had.

Anyways it irks me to see full gothic plate, Maximilien armor, halberds, etc in a setting but not gunpowder weapons which at the time period those things came about warfare had evolved into pike & shot and guns were a big part of that. The iconic full plate armor is a younger invention than guns, that's how distorted the middle ages are for most people.

>>50322651
My setting is semi-low fantasy where guns basically fill the roll that magic users would fill. It can work if you're clever with their implementation.

>>50324282
>If you're limiting it to matchlocks, wheellocks and snaplocks, no one is going to be making an AK-47


Mind you, there are such a thing as a semi-sorta bolt action muskets, using a fancy system with multiple pre-loaded chamber, which your players could eventually get, but those were hellishly expensive.

Also, you very well could allow them to make massive leaps to get an AK-47, but they then have to figure out where to get high-grade steel en mass, how to figure out the cartridge production, how to find financing for the factory, etc. and eventually they will just give up.

>>50325267
They didn't just exist alongside each other, advancements in plate armor happened SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of guns.

We wouldn't have what D&D and PF call "full plate" without firearms.

>>50325175
Don't lecture me on history, you rancid swine. I KNOW about guns and how they came to be. I also know, for a FACT, guns actually were "feared" weapons on the battlefield and that though they did not "phase" everything out, they DID present new dynamics to a largely evolving era of warfare. Also, realize that I never once mentioned that guns "phased" anything out in the way that you implied me to say. I DID mention cannons that "spit thunder and shatter stone" and how that lead to the unstoppable march of human progress or some shit, because, "yes", when an army had their hands on a cannon, castles tended to get BTFO, which meant the army could then go unimpeded to conquer large swaths of land with a smaller force that could not usually do what they had just done.

I ALSO understand that as armies found the need for more and more riflemen (to combat the pike-length arms race), people began to commission for rifles on their own accord, leading to the "normalization" of rifles in the modern sense of it.

As for rogues and knights and wizards suddenly transforming into gunslingers and grenadiers and whatevs? So what? It's not "realistic" by any standard, but it fits a narrative we're all familiar with.

>>50325267
I meant Low-fantasy as in "pre-gunpowder grittiness" ala Game of Thrones, not "historically accurate, 14th century through 21st century analogue"

>>50325342
At that point they'll have an arsenal of magic equipment that'll outclass any firearm short of a tank cannon, so it's a fucking non-issue.

>>50325342
Yeah, I was thinking about those weird bolt-action muskets when I wrote that. They're expensive, sure, but PCs typically make money and then dump it right back into adventuring things, so I could see a PC commissioning something like that.

Would you happen to know exactly how expensive one of those would be? I'm kind of curious.

And yeah, there is just too much tech between musket and AK-47. High-grade steel, cartridges and primers, clean smokeless powder, etc.

File: 3456435.jpg (442KB, 2000x1517px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 2000x1517px

>>50325300
A lot of the problem comes from the trend among renaissance-era artists to depict historical scenes with the people dressed in contemporary clothing and armor. Like, here's Jesus getting tortured by a fucking Conquistador.

While examples with such dramatic anachronism are obvious to the viewer, when you're looking at only a couple hundred years difference between the historical events and the style of the people's armor, the anachronism often goes undetected and leads to an erroneous view of what the Middle Ages looked like.

>>50322651
I usually portray guns as just a flavor choice over a crossbow. I use pathfinder and make them hit against regular AC but with a bonus depending on the firearm.

I also usually limit it to things like flintlock pistols and very rarely muskets. Also ammo has to be crafted and can never be bought.

File: Trireme.jpg (85KB, 518x648px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 518x648px

>>50323201
I'll have you know plowing my Trireme into another is great fun. Not to mention fire pots, Greek fire, onagers, and ballista. So many options aside from snakes.

>>50325540
This.

Given all the other equipment abstraction that goes on in D&D/PF, there is zero reason what so ever that early guns can't just be crossbows that go bang instead of twang.

>>50324683
Eh.

>>50325374
>>50325300

I think you're misremembering some small things. While plate armor may have evolved to combat the newer introduction of guns such as the arquebus and the rifle, full plate simply existed as it did before then as well. There are great many reports of fully plated knights who commissioned such an armor for either ceremonial purposes (which are the "full" plate suits you often see in museums and stuff), and ones which were used for war, in which case a cavalry charge was an excellent opportunity to wear a fully-covering suit of armor.

Armor DID advance in stride due to the introduction of firearms, but for much of the majority of the armor's existence, their design often catered to the use of field jousting, battle on the field, and of course, knight-on-knight combat, which necessitated closed, hard-to-hit joints, reliable metal working, and deep pockets.

>>50322651
It is a period of great, technological wonder in the world of Landnameia. A new object, two or three entire lengths long, shaped straight on the outside with a hollow passage inside, closed out at the end. Mysterious powder provides for a loud, powerful explosion, and a swift strike which destroys its target surely.

We had procured these intriguing devices from the shrewd traders that had offered them to us. The most common intruders to our lands, however, are still the numerous orcs and their mighty, towering, grey beasts. How could one such "gun" prevail against such a vast horde? Hakpipi, the greatest archer among us, had counted twenty-three greenskins and their demonic mounts until the vile vermin had routed, and nine more as he pelted them with arrows on horseback.

>>50325801
Yes, but I've heard rumor Hakpipi sucks the long weewee

>>50325801
And then there's the cyclopi. Those fearsome beasts, human in all but amount of musculature and eyes, have mastered the crossbow. Their massive strength makes them naturals at drawing these powerful beasts. A human needs numerous tools to draw a cyclopian crossbow from the Odysai period; today, cyclops draw regular human ballistas for use in their warfare. Their bolts go far, and surely destroy whichever target they choose. The cyclops, each trained in the art of war since birth, have the complex mechanisms ingrained in their minds; they were bred to draw crossbows, just as we are born with a foot in the stirrup.

But Corak the Wise says not to discard guns. He mentions something about great wars ahead and threats that none of us have ever suspected. Tales exist of a wise man, who, not content with the design, is now seeking an improvement that will change the ways forever. Locals mentioned murmurs of something called a "repeater". It is said he now travels with a number of odd folk from all parts of human civilization, all of them eager to funnel their ill-gained gold into the project and, promised new, better guns, attempt to carve out a new era of domination.

>>50322748
Make gunpowder more common but worse than magic. Like in real life you can train a bunch of random people to shoot a gun but a wizard can blow them all up pretty easy

>>50325906
>Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
>roll gunsmith
>painstakingly learn new recipes and face constant threat of guns jamming and having shitty damage
>finally get your best gun schematic and it's a mediocre end-game weapon
>tech leaning characters can't use any magic so you miss out on good boosts
>at least you have grenades
meanwhile magicians
>level 1 spell Harm wins everything
>shitloads of utility

>>50322651
guns have no place in high fantasy

>>50325971
You have no place among rational thinking people.

>>50322651
Thematically, I like guns and more modern technology in fantasy as a sort of sign that the days of magic and mysticism are coming to an end. They're the tools of the rising, increasingly industrial powers of the world to fight against the more ancient and magical kingdoms.

Mechanically, I don't think anyone has done them right yet (aside from just as reskinned bows or crossbows) but then again they haven't done crossbows right either (they should be slower, more powerful bows but for some reason aren't) so I'm not really surprised.

>Runelock pistol instead of flintlock
>The lock just has a rune printed on it that triggers a magical explosion
>Upkeep involves less involved cleaning but a consistent re-drawing of the rune

I always preferred gunslinging to be an alchemist's forte.

File: sam_first_encounter[1].jpg (64KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x338px

Just run this.

>>50322651

Simple. There is no medieval stasis. The humans are happily living in enlightenment times, just discovering the wonders of liberalism, nationalism and separatism quickly putting their whole armories full of toys to good use.

I mean, whats so boring about it? Pike&shot armies are still thre, swords are still used, cavalry is still a huge thing and so on. It snot like there was nothing fun or interesting happening during the IRL timeframe between the fall of Constantinople and the Crimean War that could be stolen for modern-ish settings. There is more to fantasy games than endless tolkien rehashing. I'm fucking SICK of the constant medieval themes full of modern conveniences but autists blowing a gasket if some arquebus barely able to hit something 20 yards away appears.

>>50325906
Thats the reason guns should be nothing special in magical fantasy settings. Its just alchemy.

Bows and Crossbows are more reliable tho. And they are just as killy.

File: I_Don't_Care_If_It's_a_WWII_Setting_I'm_Playing_Fighter.jpg (115KB, 685x517px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 685x517px

>>50326208

I think what most people forget is that swords remained in serious use for as late as WORLD WAR II. Poland, while not so brash as to actually charge tanks with lancers, markedly still had such men in active service - as did China, Mongolia and Thailand. Guns can exist in a setting for over half a millennia, long enough that artifact guns could be made and forgotten, and there would still be ample room for knights, fighters, barbarians, and wizards; political climate permitting, of course.

>>50325971
Why? Because of magic? I see no reason why not. Depending on how common magic is there is no reason why an alchemist couldn't develop gunpowder and see its potential. You still have people who aren't proficient in magic.
And if magic is common enough than what is the points of weapons? Why not just be naked and hurl fireballs at each other.

>>50326405
Didn't a Gurkha get a sword kill in Afghanistan as recently as a few years ago?

>>50325999
For me, the End / obsolescence of magic is the thing that turns me off of guns in fantasy. Guns can have their place, but not to the extent that no one would ever consider becoming a mage because real life tech gives better rewards for much less effort.

Its the same thing that makes me not want to really consider the military in super hero settings, because if the purpose of the campaign is playing heroes stoping the invasion of not-Darkseid, its not entertaining that there is nothing we can do that the US military could not do much better and nothing not-Darkseid's powers could do to let him personally stand against the modern military machine.

>>50326588
I don't understand - I thought that magic, for a lot of people, was a problem in RPGs. Being able to limit it or make it less effective with a level of technology seems like a good solution.

>>50326588
>For me, the End / obsolescence of magic is the thing that turns me off of guns in fantasy. Guns can have their place, but not to the extent that no one would ever consider becoming a mage because real life tech gives better rewards for much less effort.
What makes you think this is in any way a thing?

>>50326627
Those that tend to dislike guns, love magic.

>>50326434
makes archer characters pointless

>>50326588

The super hero vs. military you speak of underscores the conflict between martials and casters; it becomes clear really quickly that your average fighter is as hopelessly obsolete in a conventional D&D setting as he would be in a contemporary setting, and the only reason he's still around is due to cultural intertia-in universe and setting conventions out of it.

Replace "super hero" with wizard, and "military" with fighter (which is more or less what the two are archtypes of going as far back as chainmail), and you can see why people want to throw the military/martials a bone, because fuck you I want to play Captain America, and for Captain America to be a thing there needs to be a super soldier program coming from: you guessed it, the military.

One thing to readily note is that one thing that super heroes have that militaries don't is a lack of red tape; bureaucracy always makes a readily available excuse to neuter the military from making offensive actions, and it's Marvel's goto descriptor for why their force of flying aircraft carriers and thousands of Iron Man suits aren't necessarily as effective as just Iron Man, and why they can't help him, or the other heroes too often.

>>50326588

Magic is not the be all, end all thing of fantasy.

>>50326769
No it doesn't.

You'll find the two existed alongside eachother for a very, very long time.

Seriously why does everyone think guns just appeared one day as and everything suddenly switched to napoleonic tactics over night, then suddenly machineguns the next day?

>>50326887

Cause thats what american schools teach about history.

It goes Rome-Knights-independence war-(maybe)Napoleon-WW2 there

File: 2857503e09f55254558252abc59b78d1.jpg (60KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 400x600px

>>50326769

Yes. Archers completely vanished off the face of the Earth the moment the Chinese invented the first boomstick.

File: crossbow_1439901c.jpg (28KB, 460x288px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 460x288px

>>50327047

In fact, it would be especially foolish to think that crossbows would still exist in China itself!

>>50322748
well there is an alternate last step, where you solve everything with magic
bullets? magic shield
bombs? see above
disease? magical medicine

>>50323983
Magic muskets make me moist.

>>50327120

Magical medicine is bog standard in virtually every setting, which is why you need magical plagues in order for disease to even be a threat.

Still no cure for cancer, tho.

>>50322651
crossbows and catapults already provide strong ranged attacks, as long as you don't go full modern guns shouldn't be very different other than different resource requirements

>>50327120

Overuse of magic as handwaving is the 100% sure hallmark of shitty writing. A DM should be hyped as fuck about making this world work, eager to tell about small details and minutae about how things interconnect in the setting. "i dunno lol magic" is just a sign youre playing video game on paper.

I think 30 Years War tech is perfect for fantasy. You get guns, but pikes are still in regular use and most everyone has a sword. Allows for swashbuckling swordplay and a bit of gun-fighting fun times.

>>50328385
Pretty much the entirety of the 1600s. But I have a raging nerd-on for pirates, so I'm super biased in that regard.

The best medieval setting is the one where cannons have just started seeing use in war and the personal firearm is still in the development stages. It even gives you time for a generation of characters after that as whatever firearms have been developed can still have difficulty getting through plate.

>>50322651
My main gripe with blackpowder or gunpowder is once players get their hands on a barrel of it, it becomes the tool to solve everything no matter how bad of an idea it is. Though I have noticed players skip over firearms because they are expensive and generally have bad stats or tend to explode.

Guns improved because of discoveries in material and chemical sciences, along with Europeans wanting to kill eachother faster. Semi and automatic firearms only really became a thing after smokeless powder was able to kept from exploding itself. Blackpowder would gum up the internals of any semi or auto firearm real quick. Really just make sure an industrial revolution never happens or have fractious continentals in a setting and you should be fine.

File: W1273A.jpg (21KB, 908x500px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 908x500px

Swordmans, pikeman and the like weren't made obsolete by muskets. What made them obsolete what a much simpler invention that made them redundant...

>>50322651
I liked how it was in Emperor of Thorns. There's only one gun in it, the main character finds it in an old world ruin, and it has Colt lettered into the side. He doesn't know why, it's not like it looks like a horse, and sometimes it jams, but it can drop an armoured knight in one shot.

I have them but my setting is Wuxia as fuck so dodging and deflecting bullets is absolutely possible. Usually guns are for mooks or incredibly specialized fighters. Many consider them a cowards weapon.

Warhammer fantasy roleplay handles it well, most people would go with a bow or crossbow over a firearm unless they were dedicated to using it.

File: 1445225811746.png (14KB, 894x263px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 894x263px

Guns are neat. Guns + Magic is awesome. Usually OP as hell but awesome.

>>50329499
That screecap makes me fucking annoyed.
What a worthless goddamn GM.

File: Toadslingers.png (25KB, 1215x188px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1215x188px

>>50329499
Why use guns when you can use TOADS?

File: 1277347045135.jpg (41KB, 531x403px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 531x403px

>>50329671
Why?

I mean, both the original item and the use of it seem sensible. Can't help the GM being a touch angry - it takes effort to rebalance all encounters for sporadic cannon fire.

File: Oddworld-Strangers-Wrath.jpg (258KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1600x1200px

>>50329682

>living ammunition

I like it.

>>50329698
>48-shooter
>Goddamn 48-shot percussion cap double-revolver
I'm gonna blow my hand off when I missfire, but goddamn this is gonna be fun. Stupid as shit, but fun.

>>50329499
This would be even better if the "clever" player was thwarted by the GM knowing conservation of momentum

File: 12325442377ST9WkY.jpg (49KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 900x675px

>>50329727
Not ammo. The weapons themselves. Breed them, care for them, feed them specialized foods, seek out rare varieties or extremely slutty dragons...

>>50329698
Yeah because we all know for sure what happens to momentum conservation if we violate mass conservation, right?
Also, IRL breech-loading weapons became actually viable and mass-produced only in XIX century. Now I don't know on what time period that fantasy was based, but loading might have been a wee bit difficult. Oh, and if the ring projeted a radial area of effect, the bullet would revert to normal size before passing through it, so the first cannonball would take gun and ring with itself.
Fuck smartass munchkins

File: Lancaster%204%20barreled%20pistol.jpg (158KB, 740x535px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 740x535px

>>50329768
Yeah, but what would that acomplish? Telling your player "you're smart and you came up with a cunning idea but I refuse to reward you" isn't very sensible.

And if you want to complain about conservation of momentum in a setting with anti-magic rings, just have the missing momentum come from the cancelled shrinking spell.

>>50329698
Not him, but
1) Flintlocks are typically muzzle loaders, he wouldn't have been able to load the gun with the magic ammo unless he took the ring off it every time he reloaded.

2) The cannon balls would expand while still in the end of the barrel, destroying the gun and probably the ring.

3) They'd likely lose all momentum after expanding anyway.

>>50329806
Are you okay?
Why do you have such a hatred for interesting things?

>>50323983
Sounds like an equivalent of the monk class.

>>50329835
>Why do you have such a hatred for interesting things?
There's nothing "interesting" about it.

If you want a musket that shoots magic cannon balls, just enchant a musket with some kind of ammo enlarging effect, don't make it convoluted and stupid, trying to use shitty "logic" that's completely wrong anyway to justify it.

File: 1288914404020.jpg (32KB, 640x338px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x338px

>>50329806
I don't know. Why don't you ask the flying wizard with his immovable rod, or the guy who transforms from a hundred-and-forty pound elf into a ten-ton dinosaur.

In a setting with magic, you've got to suspend physics /just a little bit/ or spend all your time and effort doing vector diagrams.
> Oh, and if the ring projeted a radial area of effect, the bullet would revert to normal size before passing through it, so the first cannonball would take gun and ring with itself.

IDK, maybe there's a sort of tenth-of-a-second delay as the spell "fizzles", with the traditional blue sparks and smoke, as tradition demands. In that time, the cannonball expands.

>>50329813
>just have the missing momentum come from the cancelled shrinking spell.
That's still super useful too.
You could fire your gun from atop a roof and use it to rain down cannonballs from above.
They probably wouldn't explode but it's still a pretty neat idea.

>>50329854
>If you want a musket that shoots magic cannon balls, just enchant a musket with some kind of ammo enlarging effect
Well... aren't I? The ring is pretty enchanted, and it's attached to my musket now.

>don't make it convoluted and stupid, trying to use shitty "logic" that's completely wrong anyway to justify it.
What makes it wrong? Magic can do fantastic things, and sometimes it even gets to ignore logic.

File: 1297461375818.jpg (803KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 1000x669px

>>50329820
>he wouldn't have been able to load the gun with the magic ammo unless he took the ring off it every time he reloaded.
Could be worse. Plus, it's not like this is some real-world firearm we're debating here.

>2)
See: >>50329856

>3)
See:>>50329813


>>50329854
You must be really fun to game with.

Got a lot of games on the go? A lot of people eager to invite you to them, or to run them?

>>50322651
Firearms are as much a political force as they are a combat one. They always gum up the works in ways I appreciate, and it' a joy to work with them in fantasy.

>>50329882
>You must be really fun to game with.
>Got a lot of games on the go? A lot of people eager to invite you to them, or to run them?
I'm not sure which is a more pathetic non-argument. That, "you hate fun," or "MAGIC AIN'T GOTTA EXPLAIN SHIT."

Either way, that's a really pathetic argument anon.

>>50329856
>I don't know. Why don't you ask the flying wizard with his immovable rod, or the guy who transforms from a hundred-and-forty pound elf into a ten-ton dinosaur.
>One system allows for stupid, physics-defying spells and feats
>Therefore we should disregard physics at all. Now the Dwarf can fly flapping his beard angrily.

>In a setting with magic, you've got to suspend physics /just a little bit/ or spend all your time and effort doing vector diagrams.
Why do I have to 'suspend physics' to reward a munchkin for his 'smart thinking' if said thinking isn't smart at all and only designed to exploit a nifty little item and turn it into a weapon of plot disruption?
Have you ever GM'd or should I explain to you why having a PC walk around with a cannon in their pocket is fucking wrong?

>>50329768
>Literally fucking magic
>"But conservation!"

Go fuck yourself.

>>50329879
It depends on the cost of the ring vs the cost of the musket enchantment.

If the ring is a cheap trinket, you're a fucking munchkin. If the musket enchantment is cheaper, you're just dumb and making your life harder.

Either way, you lose.

>>50329922
>A cannon
>Weapon of plot destruction

If your story can't hold up to a guy with a cannon, your story is fucking shit.

>>50329922
>Have you ever GM'd or should I explain to you why having a PC walk around with a cannon in their pocket is fucking wrong?
So do your job as a GM and make it so that a cannon doesn't solve every problem.

>>50329941
Or you can do your job as a GM and say "no, that ring doesn't work like that."

Oh but apparently being told "no" that's hurts your fragile little fee fees.

File: mOnbTBG.jpg (67KB, 811x771px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 811x771px

>>50329900
I'm not saying you hate fun. I'm just saying that you seem like a confrontational, nit-picking, close-minded son of a gun.

So that's better, I guess. You might actually love fun. But I still bet you're not getting a lot of games.

But here's the thing. One of the most satisfying feelings in a game is coming up with something clever and unexpected. It's a great feeling, and it's worth supporting. The alternative - coming up with reasons why the idea /won't/ work - doesn't lead to enjoyable games.

And yeah, do you have an explanation for how a fireball works, or how a Fly spell works?

>>50329947
"Hey GM, I thought of this cool idea for a weapon-"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEE FUCKING MOMENTUM FUCK YOU MAGICFAG MY GAME MY RULES"

That's how you sound right now.

>>50329947
So, no fun allowed, then. You keep winging that a player isn't being "clever" enough but refuse to out-think said player because you can't be bothered. Congrats, you're That GM.

>>50329967
"Hey GM, I thought of this cool idea for a weapon, blahblahblah ring cannonballs blah."

"What? No, that's silly."

"REEEEEEEEEEEEE FUCKING YOU HATE FUN FUCK YOU NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY WITH YOU"

That's how you sound right now.

>>50329956
>I'm not saying you hate fun. I'm just saying that you seem like a confrontational, nit-picking, close-minded son of a gun.
>So that's better, I guess. You might actually love fun. But I still bet you're not getting a lot of games.
It's even more pathetic that you're desperately clinging to that non-argument.
>But here's the thing. One of the most satisfying feelings in a game is coming up with something clever and unexpected. It's a great feeling, and it's worth supporting.
You're right, but there's nothing clever about this instance.

>The alternative - coming up with reasons why the idea /won't/ work - doesn't lead to enjoyable games.
See above.

>And yeah, do you have an explanation for how a fireball works, or how a Fly spell works?
I'm the one saying just use a simpler magic enchantment. Don't give me that shit. That's fucking pathetic.

>>50329939
>>50329941
Your lack of coherent arguments aside from personal insinuations is quite amusing.
Aside from that, my story holds pretty well. But let me tell you, the party rogue wouldn't be happy with all the skills and feats he invested into lockpicking if I let the Ranger blow away any door with something he can carry in his pocket. And the party as a whole would be pretty fucked if I had to rebalance encounter to account for that addition of firepower, and they would be consequently butchered for not being on his same level.

Most importantly, why would I have to do all that to reward a munchkin for his 'smart thinking' if said thinking isn't smart at all? Why do I have to break not only physics and game balancement, but also logic? It's only logic that bigger projectiles would require more propulsion and that they don't pass through barrels or rings.

>>50329988
>I'm not a nitpicker
>But unless a player uses MY IDEA for how this will work, I won't let them do it

>>50329972
And you know what whining when someone says "no" to a stupid idea makes you?

That Guy.

>>50330012
Stop. That's not an argument.

>>50329993
>Your lack of coherent arguments aside from personal insinuations is quite amusing.
You're projecting pretty hard there. You still haven't come up with a solution, you just keep saying "no, that's dumb" without backing up why. Present your argument, if you have one, otherwise just shut up.

Also holy shit you are coming across like the the most euphoric fedora-tipping asshat this side of /r/atheism.

>>50330021
>Stop. That's not an argument.
Why isn't it?
Did you decide it isn't like you decided magic rings stop momentum?

Fuck you cannonfags. As a DM I reward actual clever thinking. Even without accounting for the conservation of momentum that's triggering all your ridiculous tantrums, "realizing a cannonball won't fit through the ring when exiting the gun" is clever thinking, which would be rewarded by the ranger not having the gun explode in his hand at the first attempt.

>>50322651
Realistically speaking guns were really bad compared to bows, crossbows and even slings up untill the very recen past with the only two benefits being ease of training and armour-piercing. I have no problem with guns in fanasy settings in the same way i have no problem with pikes - they have no place in hands on PCs, an the only time players could see them is in the hands of a standing army.

>>50330026
>You still haven't come up with a solution, you just keep saying "no, that's dumb" without backing up why. Present your argument, if you have one, otherwise just shut up.
Are you fucking serious? Are you even reading this thread? Holy shit just go away. You've got nothing.

>>50330027
You have nothing either, and you can't even keep different anons straight.

File: image.jpg (353KB, 1242x1145px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1242x1145px

>>50326448
Probably a knife kill with a kukri, i know there was a gurkha that decapitated a Taliban target and brought his head back for ID, another gurkha killed a Taliban with the bipod or tripod from his machinegun. A Puerto Rican stabbed some Taliban todeath when they tried to drag his wounded buddy away and he was out of ammo, lastly, a bunch of brits fought off some 100+ Taliban with a bayonet charge.

Some officers and NCOs also made a habbit of bringing their dress swords on patrol because the Afghanis thought it was so bad ass that it helped increase their air of authority, because sword = decapitations = decapitating people = being in charge. Any bitch can carry a gun.

>>50329993
>I blow open the door
>It's made of iron and can't be blown up that easily

>Ranger blows through an army's big brute monster in one blow
>Subsequent encounters with that army deploy ambushes that target the Ranger first
OR
>Spy finds out how the mechanism for the gun works
>Wizard in the enemy ambush casts anti-magic on the rounds
>Ranger's gun is now an iron balloon at best, exploded at worst

If your PCs do something you didn't expect, shutting them down is the worst possible thing you can do. But arguing this point is just going to be cyclical. You seem to be of the opinion that this is an inherently stupid idea, while we think it's a clever use of a magical item. We're really not going to get anywhere with this unless we just resort to calling each other retarded faggots for not thinking exactly like the other.

File: clichesmcs.jpg (31KB, 500x212px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x212px

>>50329922
>weapon of plot disruption

Have you tried writing?

Seriously, if you're not willing to tolerate disruption, interactive group-based storytelling is not for you. And a fancy gun is hardly the worst you'll have to deal with.

>Have you ever GM'd or should I explain to you why having a PC walk around with a cannon in their pocket is fucking wrong?

I have GMed games, with no more than a month's break, since 2007.

I've run games where the PCs had star-forges and sorcery that unmade the very concepts of reality. I've run games where a rusty knife and a slingshot were the most powerful weapons available. I even ran a time travel game - god help me - and managed to convince the players that yes, I'd planned it that way all along.

But let me tell you about the first game I ever ran.

We were playing "The Dreadful Secrets of Candlewick Manor". Think Lemony Snicket crossed with the X-Men. Weird, mutant children living in a creepy victorian home, run by an insane but kindly doctor. The game's tone is "gothic twee". The PCs are supposed to deal with normal childhood events, like bullies and comical mysteries and sneaking out past curfew.

After a few adventures in this vein, the PCs got their hands on a rusty flintlock pistol. I'd ruled that if they ever failed a roll by more than 2 points, the pistol would explode and probably cause all kinds of problems that required more than a bandage to fix.

This pistol was deemed a weapon of last resort... until one of the players pointed out that their pet monster, a swarm of sentient bats, had the [Use Human Devices] skill rated so high that they couldn't /possibly/ fail. In fact, due to the simplified nature of the system, the bats couldn't fail to hit.

And thus began the great murder spree of Candlewick, for the players, being new to the genre, had discovered that the setting guide had a list of named NPCs, around thirty in total. With glee, they began to plot the demise of each and every character on the list.

>>50330045
>You've got nothing.
Apparently that makes two of us. "Because I say so" isn't an argument, that's just being lazy. If you get outsmarted by a player you have to be able to respond as well if not better, otherwise you might as well just read them a book and skip the part where they interact with your story.

>>50330026
My arguments:
>Conservation of momentum
>You can't load a muzzle-loading flintlock rifle without having the bullet pass through the ring and being disenchanted
>When fired the bullet will disenchant before exiting the barrel, destroying gun and ring

Your arguments:
>But it's FUN and CLEVER!

My counterarguments:
>It's not fun if it disrupts game balancement for everyone
>It's not clever if it doesn't account for the problem I listed before

Your counter-counterarguments:
>If you don't let me have an overpowered weapon you're a bad GM!
>If you can't rebalance things to accomodate my overpowered weapon you're a bad GM!

And yet you say
>You still haven't come up with a solution, you just keep saying "no, that's dumb" without backing up why.

File: Gurkha.jpg (111KB, 679x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 679x720px

>>50330046

They are pretty rad.

>>50330069
>Apparently that makes two of us.
There are indeed at least two of you.

>"Because I say so" isn't an argument, that's just being lazy.
Then stop trying to use it? Your whole argument this whole time has been "it's clever because I say so," backed up with "you hate fun."

Come on, anon.

>If you get outsmarted by a player you have to be able to respond as well if not better,
We did, and yet you keep saying "nu uh" or we "hate fun" for being more clever than you.

>otherwise you might as well just read them a book and skip the part where they interact with your story.
Aaaaaand you're done.

>>50326588

I have no idea how you got this out of what I typed out. I don't think a character with a gun should be superior to a magic user character. They should mechanically be on equal footing in a game like all the other player characters in any halfway balanced game.

I just meant that I liked the symbol of the gun in a medieval fantasy setting as something emblematic of a changing of eras. Sorta like how railroads and the US army are sometimes used in western movies to symbolize the closing of the frontier as civilization starts to creep into it.

I've never played a modern setting so far but this topic got me wondering: If you play in a modern setting, how do you handle guns? A swordstrike can be blocked or even dodged in some cases but if you have a group of thugs firing at you, you'll die.

File: 1287507699955.jpg (62KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 500x333px

>>50330066
So what's a GM to do. /I'd/ intended on running a game about twee gothic horror. The setting guide didn't say a damn thing about "a streak of vicious, nigh-untraceable murders."

So what do I do about this debacle?

Well, here's the thing. The players are having a good time. Fundamentally, I'm not running this game to tell a story. I'm running it for fun.

So I give them what they want.

Oh sure, there are challenges, pitfalls, traps, and horrors. The general tone of the game takes a hard turn towards horror, leaving twee way the hell behind. We do a few time skips.

The PCs end up as the "Special Operations" arm of the Candlewick Organization, run by their eccentric (immortal) adoptive father. When Innsmouth needed to be burned, the PCs lit the fuse. When a certain reanimator let his creations loose, the PCs brought them to heel.

Then the Second World War broke out. More "superhumans" appeared - the PCs had thought they were unique. But the eldrich rituals that had created them were tearing the world apart, feeding the power of the gods into mortal frames. One of them sunk the Battleship Bismarck with a folding chair.

And all because of a flintlock pistol.

>>50326887

Because the average poster here is American and our history education is fucking trash. Basically have to go into AP or College level history classes to learn anything which most people don't do.

>>50330056
>>50330066
Your guys are being so stupidly, stubbornly defensive over this.
You insist that a GM should allow a weapon that brings balancement issue, when said weapon doesn't logically work as intended. So I should intentionally break logic AND account for unbalancement just to give a smartass his toy? Fuck that noise.

File: tianhua-xu-16.jpg (317KB, 1920x1127px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1920x1127px

>>50329988
>It's even more pathetic that you're desperately clinging to that non-argument.

I mean, I have other arguments.

This one happens to be right, is all.

When was the last time you were invited to a game, anon?

>>50330145
Depending on the intended style of campaign ("gritty realism" and "shoot-em-up action movie" styles might want to treat them in completely different ways from one another) it's better to err on the side of game balance, treat them like hitting/missing with any other projectile weapon in your system of choice.

File: 1420776378216.jpg (173KB, 644x1209px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 644x1209px

>>50330163
>Balancement and unbalancement

You're trying to sound smart. It's... not working.

>>50330171
Anon, some people just don't think your idea is as clever as you think it is, and that doesn't make them fun hating autists. Differing tastes is just something you have to accept.

That being said, I can't help but to agree with the conservation of momentum argument. The entire point of the ring is that it *removes* magic, and at that makes the cannonball behave along the laws of physics. It would be much more believable if the ring worked the other way round, and Enlarged bullets as they exit the gun. That way you could handwave the issue away with magic.

Of course a couple months afterwards the ring would become standard issue for militias across the campaign world, because it's a clever idea that works, everybody would copy it.

>>50330096
When something throws a pebble into your plans, it doesn't help anyone to just ctrl+z like it never happened. That's you telling your players that their creativity is ignored and telling yourself not to improve your GM skills. If you don't want your players to blow shit up, don't give them the tools to make TNT.

>>50330163
It doesn't seem like anyone is upset about balance all that much, that's easy enough to sort out on its own, just the feasibility of an anti-magic field vs magically shrunk cannonballs at firing velocity.

>>50330185
You're trying to argue without an argument and to sound intelligent in the process. It's ... definitely not working.

File: main_12002.jpg (190KB, 1200x784px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1200x784px

>>50330163
So here's the thing. In a setting with magic... a cannonball's not that scary.

I mean, there are lightning spells and fireballs and all that jazz. A cannonball won't be ludicrous damage - it's not a supernova raygun, for pete's sake. You can't blow up a city with it. You can't one-shot a dragon.

It has a built-in cost. You still have to roll to hit. You have to get someone to enchant your ammo. Good luck if those enchantments fail - try running away with a dozen cannonballs in your shorts.

So yeah. It's not unbalanced. It's not even unworkable. It's a clever idea, with a suitable reward for having a clever idea.

People don't like being "outsmarted", that's all.

>>50330193
See my post just above yours (>>50330192)
Player creativity isn't ignored, it just does not pass the test of basic logic which is why it does not work. The way I solved the problem is how the *actual* clever way to do it, because the magic of the Enlarge spell carries the projectile.

>>50330193
>When something throws a pebble into your plans, it doesn't help anyone to just ctrl+z like it never happened. That's you telling your players that their creativity is ignored and telling yourself not to improve your GM skills.
When someone points out massive, gaping flaws in your "clever" ideas don't whine and kick your feet because they're "squashing your creativity," take into consideration your idea might not be as clever as you think it is and go back to the drawing board. Otherwise you're telling your GM that THEIR creativity is ignored and telling yourself not to improve your player and creative thinking skills.

>If you don't want your players to blow shit up, don't give them the tools to make TNT.
If your GM gives you the tools to make a fire cracker, don't cry if they tell you trying to make TNT won't work as well as you think it does.

File: s32_20266765.jpg (373KB, 990x681px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 990x681px

>>50330228
>>50330185
Not trying to argue. That was straight-out rudeness with no point.

File: CasterAndShells.jpg (155KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 640x480px

>>50330235
Honestly? It all comes down to >>50329937

But if you're going to go through all the trouble to make a cannonball shooting musket, why not go whole hog and make a full on Caster Gun? It's way more awesome anyway.

>>50322651
The history of firearms development is long enough that I don't think it's fair to refer to them in such broad terms.

A hand-gonne was a terribly inaccurate weapon. Like, you couldn't even really aim it because it didn't have a stock, had to be lit with a wire or a match held in the opposite hand, had no sights, etc. Is this weapon really a gamechanger? I'd say no.

Contrast to a kentucky rifle. Those things would've instantly outmoded warfare as it had been understood in the 12th century.

So when you're talking about the effect guns would have on a setting, I think it pays to first consider what sort of effect they already had on the historical period the setting is closest to.

>>50323016
Neither killed the knight. Economics did.

>>50330235
You still have to explain me the clever part though. Ignoring conservation of momentum? Yeah, I could do that 'for fun's sake'. But still, the bullet won't pass through the ring. It doesn't work because of the same gimmick it is based on.

File: tyrannosaurus_rekt_by_lonefirewarrior-d90oywr.jpg (129KB, 1191x670px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1191x670px

>>50322651
I embrace guns wholeheartedly. Nothing like the look on a players face when his optimized, game-breaking, deliberately-rendering-half-the-party-obsolete wizard gets dropped. Even better when the one playing a class that can stop fucking time with a single action bitches about firearms being OP.

>>50330290
You could maybe have the antimagic field operate in a small directional cone, like it was meant to be used by touching the tip of your finger on something. Then the bullet won't enter the field until after it passes through the ring.

I think a key and interesting part of guns in both high and low fantasy is how the day to day use of them would work for an adventurer, before we even get into things like how much damage & range they have. How intense is their maintenance in the field? How much ammunition can you carry, how much does it weigh you down, and how easy or hard is it to procure more? Does every little podunk village smithy do firearms work or is gunsmithing a rarer specialization? How much of it can you do yourself?

Some of the things that are fascinating to me in firearms history are the things like when a cartridge is sized not so much purely for it's ballistics but so that yon average soldier can easy carry X amount of it, based on how many rounds he needs to have on hand to be effective.

>>50330290
What if the ring is being used as a front sight-ring rather than a barrel clamp so that it's field of effect is just in range of the muzzle?

>>50330312
>What if the ring is being used as a front sight-ring rather than a barrel clamp so that it's field of effect is just in range of the muzzle?
That was always the idea, the problem is if the ring creates a "field" then the bullet will enter said field before clearing the barrel, expanding inside of the end of the barrel and/or before even passing the ring.

>>50330312
>>50330328

You people should have dropped the fucking conversation as soon as you realized the implications of loading a MUZZLELOADING FIREARM through the magic ring.

>>50330358
See >>50329806

>>50325940
You forgot that game starts you off with a free wizard who can FUCKING RESURRECT YOU FROM THE DEAD, unless you're a tech character, of course.

Magic is so much better than tech in that game.

File: 1389503769148.jpg (73KB, 700x462px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 700x462px

>>50330328
I suppose if they're the cheaply mass-produced type of ring for merchants and the like to sniff out magically counterfeited coins or bills, it could be seen as part of the ammunition rather than the gun, mounted forward of the muzzle on a wooden dowel so that the shrunk ball's momentum carries it to the ring, it expands and takes the ring with it. It is effectively a ship-cannon, so it's not like you're going to be firing that function of it 100 times a day. Unless you really fucked up. You'd also have to come up with why entire armies don't use this method Or not, because that's the least bit of batshit insanity in the setting

If it's an expensive or otherwise rare ring that will destroy the gun when used as described, then it would have to be weighed against the worth of the gun to have a shot of ship-artillery literally at your fingertips. Maybe today is the day that you're really not in the mood for a protracted fight with the dragon.

Also...what happens if it misfires?

>>50330447
It just makes infinitely more sense to just make a magic gun.

>>50329237
How does he get more bullets for it, and how is it not rusting to shit?

>>50329768
He would have been even fucking smarter if he'd realized that anti-magic fields don't dispel ongoing spells, just suppress them. The cannonballs would have just destroyed the barrel as they instantly grew within it, then shrunk again as they left the barrel.

>>50329813
It wasn't smart. It's been done a million times, and odds are the player read it on the internet. "You used a cheap trick and now I will let you rule the world" isn't very sensible either.

>>50330305
If you're actually using the gun rules in DnD, the wizard wouldn't get dropped by one, so I'd argue he's in the right, arguing about your most likely retarded and imbalanced house rules.

So glad i don't have a rulefag autist in my game group.

>>50329682
isn't this basically just Slugterra?

>>50330527
In chronological order:
>how is it not rusting to shit
He found it in a stasis chamber, the occupant of which had blown his head off some 1000 years before.

>How does he get more bullets for it
It's been a while since I read it, but he only fires six or seven shots out of it throughout the course of the story.
Once was to get out of a duel, and the others were to kill the people trying to kill him for getting out of the duel.

>>50329900
Not him but you do sound like youre using a fedora.

File: S217b.jpg (30KB, 900x332px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 900x332px

Yes I am taking commissions

>>50330684
>Not him
sure you're not

>>50330685
If the field is directional you could just put it on the end of the gun pointing away from the gun...

>>50330685
Still, the ring projects a radial antimagic field. The story told it was meant for lockpicking and shit like that, so it has to be at least a few inches. Projectile fires, it enters antimagic field, grows back to normal size, destroys the ring (and maybe the gun, depending on range).

>>50330543
>He would have been even fucking smarter if he'd realized that anti-magic fields don't dispel ongoing spells, just suppress them.
This.

>>50330748
Whether or not it does anything to the ring itself, the cannonballs will immediately shrink again after exiting the anti-magic field.

I think that firearms werent all that less accurate than bows. Remember that people did not train for precise arrow fire but for penetrating armor. Later on, I think that precision took a hit as quantity of shots >quality outside of Sharpshooters like Jagers before rifling became a general use think. More precision means slower reload and higher maintance.

File: 1311948176636.jpg (13KB, 320x350px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 320x350px

>>50330748
>>50330775
Never mind the whole gun-mounted idea. Stick the ring on the door and fire the gun at it, the projectile should revert to normal size just in time to impact the door. I guess that's one way to pick a lock.

File: S217b.jpg (51KB, 900x332px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 900x332px

>>50330748
Use smaller cannonballs.

>>50327066
Is that a modern military crossbow? I can't tell if I'm more confused or curious

>>50331008
Battlefield 2 taught me that it's for ziplines

>>50330956
See >>50330775
And >>50330543

Either way the weapon is effectively useless as regardless of any physics or lack thereof, anti-magic fields don't work the way the idiot who came up with the concept thinks they do.

>>50331085
Pardon, "useless for it's intended effect."

>>50322651
>Treat guns as phy dmg wands recharged using alchemy
There, solved.
That's what I do every time and I never had a problem.

>>50331129
Why not just treat them like crossbows that go "bang" instead of "twang?"

>>50331085
Depends on the setting

>>50330843
Smoothbore guns were 100% less accurate than bows. Shit, soldiers back in civil war days used to complain that it takes a man's weight in lead to kill him with gunfire, because you can't hit the fucker.

>>50331268
Not, it depends on the rules system, and in all forms of DnD, which is the #1 games that breeds brain donors like these, anti-magic doesn't work like that.

>>50331377

Thas's because the priority was rate of fire and penetration. You accomplish that by reducing the size of the bullet vs the size of the cannon. The result is less precision but higher reload rate and less chance of misfire.

>>50330956
Good idea! How about bullets for example?

>>50322651

All of my recent settings DnD played almost to the limit of crazy shit allowed by the system. Guns are allowed because they don't fucking matter. For the same reason people within the settings don't bother much with developing them. Magic does everything they can do better, and stronger monsters shit on them, so they are only useful for minor nations, located low on the totem pole.

>>50331441
Sure, but what the guy was asserting was that guns weren't less accurate than bows.

>>50324683
>Guns should not be some exotic oddity in a setting where magical swords cut trees in half and people with wands make mincemeat of giants. Guns should be a very real and dangerous thing. People should whisper about "weapons from the East that'd a hole through a knigh in full, shining armor", and in a couple hundred years,

And why the fuck should they, if there are magical swords that cut trees in half (and better yet, magical people that cut trees in half with a random dinner knife, possibly while standing 50 meters from those trees) and people with wands who make mincemeat of giants (and consider this little more than target practice)?

I'm rather tired of guns suddenly being a big deal in settings full of magic that can (and more than once did in the story) annihilate thousands and tens of thousands of crack soldiers in minutes without allowing any chance to fight back.

>>50331602

In reality, muskets and bowmen would never shot beyond 200-100 metres. Yes, you can kill someone and harass him over that distance but it will never be decesive. That's why you see line infantry holding fire until they are about 50 metres for maximum damage.

File: 1479491939670m.jpg (88KB, 1024x568px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1024x568px

>>50324683
No fuck you, literally everything you said is fucking wrong

>>50330285
SJWs KILLED THE KNIGHT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

>>50322792
>>50323201
>>50325567
In all honesty the Late Republic/Imperial Rome period was one of the few era's we actually had wacky and impractical battlefield technology being used on the field mixed with ancient secrets and traditions. Prototype steam engines, siege weapons, the corvus, all of Archimedes' non existent bullshit

File: storymaker-most-famous-pirates-caribbean-1105201[1].jpg (153KB, 825x430px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 825x430px

>>50322651
I like early age guns
They pack a punch, but don't have the range and fire rate of a bow.
also
>fantasy + gunpowder = pirates

>>50326448
>>50330046
>>50330095
>counting Ghurka's

OP 3rd party splat sub races don't count anon, you may as well start counting half Dragons

>>50329768

What gives you the impression that conventional physics work in any form in DnD?
Also shrink item specifies a reduction in mass for the object. Would you propose that the cannon ball just stop?

>>50330095
>2nd highest

WHY IS HE ONLY GETTING THE 2ND HIGHEST?

IS IT BECAUSE THEY ALREADY GAVE HIM THE HIGHEST?

>>50324683
I could not disagree more

>>50331797
>>50329499

>shrink item magic

this is going to lead to us creating D&D mass effect fields isn't it

>>50331800

I might be talking out of my ass but isn't highest given out afterwards if the person died during the event?

>>50331800
I'd assume because he survived

>>50330235
This. I'd probably rule the bullets go from those fired out of a medium weapon to those fired out of a colossal weapon, giving him a gun that does 8d6 per shot at the cost of one third level spell slot per shot. So... If they're level 5, then they just did a reasonable boost to damage against a single target. If they're level 6+, they just put their actions together to be less effective than they would if the mage cast fireball and the thief shot someone with a normal rifle.

>>50331008
Chinese police use crossbows to minimize damage, civilian deaths, noise and because guns are ebul.

>>50331942
Except the cannon balls shrink back down once they exit the anti-magic field.

Now you could just make a Musket of Enlarge Weapon that enlarges its ammunition once fired (and doesn't kick in until after the bullet clears the barrel, because magic), which will give you the advantage of not being so remarkably stupid.

>>50332059
My point was that even if it worked it's a giant waste of time. It's a novel idea that's ultimately worse than having the wizard cast a direct damage spell and the thief shoot someone with a normal musket. There's no reason to even pull a "well actually," because it's such a dumb idea.

>>50331793
don't you diss the miniature dire human, it is by far the best choice for meele classes

>>50330044
They weren't bad. Depending on the era anyways. Handgonnes were more of a novelty but arquebus and calibers and their heavier variant, the musket, were pretty good weapons for the time. They were faster to load than an arbelist, packed more punch and had longer range. Bows weren't killing machines, their usage in battle was to disrupt formation and cohesion. Bows lacked the stopping power of the gun.

They replaced bows and crossbows because they were better weapons, period. England, one of the last European nations to hold on to the longbow, phased it out by the end of the 15th century. Military veterans who fought against Spain in the low countries pretty much favored the gun over the longbow despite many of them having trained to use a longbow from childhood. By the late 1400s men showing up with longbows to muster were listed as unarmed.

>>50332143
>4 racial hit dice at 3/4 BAB
>best anything

File: dean28.jpg (29KB, 581x320px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 581x320px

>>50324741
What the fuck are those pants?

>>50331169
crossbows / bows don't have the built in mechanic for handling charges if the gun has a mag.
Along with the recharging rules too

>>50322651
It's good as a "one shot per battle" kind of item.

>>50332212
They're her wadin' pants. Her paw made them for her, and if you talk shit about them she'll be real upset.

>>50322651
>How do you guys feel about guns in fantasy, high, low, or anything in between?
They're okay for contemporary fantasy and colonial-era fantasy. But in more exotic fantasy, I usually only like a magical version thereof (common or not).

>guns can easily snowball into more modern-day rapid firing beasts
Magic tends to escalate, too. It's fine.

>>50332251
Why would a gun in a medieval fantasy campaign have a magazine?

>>50332150
Fuck I meant arblast. Heavy crossbows were even slower to load than early guns.

>just play a better setting :)
>does not mention any
Could you give me good examples of fantasy games which implement guns? I am interested in running some age of discovery campaign

File: 1474237512989.png (136KB, 400x266px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 400x266px

>>50332251
>firearms with magazines
>in a setting where crossbows are still viewed as useful as a military asset

Repeating firearms didn't become popular until some 500 years after the invention of the gun. While repeating firearms did exist well before that, they were expensive as shit to make and own. If you weren't absolutely rolling in the dough then you didn't have one, and even the rich assholes probably only had one or two.

>>50333099
and that totally fit the bill for late game characters who could probably turn the campaign into a monopoly crossover.

unless you belong to the if PCs get rich GM's doing something wrong type of guy.
it's a perfectly fine idea

>>50332150

Not to mention the cost efficency, a longbowman needs literaly DECADES of training, an extremely skilled bowyer, and a huge chunk of rare wood of fitting size like yew.

Guns(atleast the very first ones) on the other hand just needed an iron tube any village blacksmith could make, some powder and pointing the boom-y end to the enemy. Any peasant levy could be equipped with guns and deliver a half-decent volley

>>50334246
Well, cost was certainly was NOT part of reason for a transition. A caliver(Light gun) in England was twice the cost of a quality longbow. A musket(Heavy gun that required a fork) three times the cost.

Guns weren't cheap. These are the prices from 16th century England
A good quality longbow: 6 shillings and 8 pence
Quality yew bow: 3 shillings and 4 pence
Bow of English Yew: 2 shillings

For guns:
Caliver: 12 to 30 shillings
Musket:18 shillings to 2 pounds

According to this site:
http://www.alderneywreck.com/index.php/artefacts/firearms/from-lngbow-to-matchlock

A big reason there was reluctance to switch over to guns in England was due to the cost of the weapons. Equipping a company with guns was an expensive endeavor.

>>50334816

Well that was england with a huge longbowmen tradition. I can imagine some classic british conservative reluctance about switching over to guns.

Also, even just mentioning "guns" is a huge oversimplification of a huge geographical area, time and wildly differing doctrines and equipment. Lumping together tercios, caracole cavalry, dragoons, fusilliers, gustavian infantry, streltsy etc as "gun users" Almost everyone is guilty of this in every "guns in fantasy" thread

>>50335363
>I can imagine some classic british conservative reluctance about switching over to guns.

No it was basically cost.

Source: The defence industry of Britain is a joke.

Is the gun witch for Spellburst Savant any good?

>>50324683
>>50325398
kill yourself at your earliest convenience

>>50322651
>Pirate guns are good.
>Cowboy guns or more modern are bad.

>>50339568
shut up, nerd

File: 090315-72.jpg (242KB, 907x680px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 907x680px

>>50322792
True

File: OOOCCELLLOOOOOTTE.jpg (60KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 480x480px

>>50322651
no no no NON NONON NO!!!!!! KEEP GUNS AWAY FROM ME. THEY RUIN EVERYTHING GOOD ABOUT FANTASY.

>>50322828
>Russian bardiche-musket combo

Some damn fine taste you have

>>50341660
I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not, because I've met people who honestly react that way.

File: 1280218054983.jpg (444KB, 1600x1235px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1600x1235px

>>50341660
You are aware that other people can run games that don't affect you, right?

Oh wait, this is /tg/. Something is either objectively shit and should never be used or... well, that's it really.

>>50324170
It's a prosthetic, if I remember right.

why don't i just enchant the gun to make the bullet fly faster?

>>50343982
Couldn't that be what a +# enhancement bonus represents?

>>50343982

What if the bullet flies too fast and tumbles/disintegrates upon reaching the sound barrier? Also, friction.

That would be the exact kind of ironic punishment I would give for a munchkin. Here, have your super OP magic railgun but have fun trying to hit the broad side of the barn.

The English keep using longbows as late as the Thirty Years' War, causing enough deforestation that one of the reasons they finally switched to guns was because there was hardly a yew tree (used for making longbows) left in Europe anymore.

I like setting where guns and industry are slowly phasing out magic in terms of usefulness and that being the main conflict of the setting. Why train an apprentice from childhood to cast a fireball when you can just give him and all his friends a gun?

File: image.jpg (39KB, 321x458px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 321x458px

>>50322651
Fantasy is whatever you want to be.

> am I setting disputes are resolved by honourable footise battle between noble woman. The Victor is the woman by who can successfully remove the stocking gather off the other. A champion can be spotted by her finally manicured feet and silky cut dress that proudly show her garterbelt to all.

There you go, I just made that up and hey now it's Fantasy, but I'm a actually not leg man so I maybe I'll change it to just stripping down into a pillow fights instead.

That's the beauty of fantasy.

>>50328806
Dude, bayonets are super fucking unwieldy, you might as well say that swords were made redundant because you could club a fucker with the butt of the musket.

>>50347458
>Dude, bayonets are super fucking unwieldy
That's true, but irrelevant. Quality of weapon is not the only factor that goes into weapon design. The firearm didn't become popular because it was of better quality than a bow... in fact, early firearms were also unwieldy as shit; it became popular because training a musket lineman was far more cost-effective than training an archer.

Bayonets were cheaper to design than a spear, and could be carried in an infantryman's arsenal far easier than a backup spear could. It had better reach than the sword once affixed, but slightly smaller than even that when stored. It's efficiency wasn't a factor, since most foot-soldiers weren't very educated at the time and couldn't tell you the nuances of weaponry in the first place.

Sorry /k/ommando, but you're wrong about this.

>>50349722

Not to mention having the ability to mount bayonet charges on the moments notice and form squares to repel cavalry eventually obsoleted every smalls arms and types of infanty except line infantry.

>>50329698
I always wondered what would happen if you use a proper long barel and a stock with it. Histories first assault rifle?