Why are GMs so against Gunslingers? Do firearms really destroy

>>52188440
Because if you have a class for it, it's either gonna be shit or reload at absurd speeds compared to an archer.
Assuming early firearms of course. More modern guns wouln't post a problem with that but would make anyone question why even use fantasy weapons.
The best usage is to make them not that rare but to make the reload actually cumbersome. Then you got utility as people carry one or two pistols.
No heavy gatekeeping behing feat taxes so anyone can use it. Players love it, get inventive with experimental loads. Guards use them with bayonets because as a bunch they got a way to reload while other are shooting and still can stab stuff.

>>52188440
Firearms don't destroy fantasy settings, people do.

>>52188440

Firearms themselves? Not really.

But gunpowder in any format? Yes. God yes.

I have never, ever had a groups whose first reaction to learning that a gunpowder analog exists in-setting WASN'T to stockpile as much of it as they could get their grubby hands on and try to use it to build massive bombs for the dumbest reasons.

>>52188440
No, they don't, as long as the setting is right. Main problem is that people try to balance them in shit ways for "muh realism!!!" Just stat them similarly to other ranged weapons and give them a few caveats like better range, more expensive, or bonuses to attack at certain ranges. I think pathfinder did it's base gun rules okay but the gunslinger class is pretty poorly designed in some regards.

>>52188440
Guns are as bad as Psionics :^)

>>52188440
Gunslingers usually play with revolvers. Never seen a gunslinger with a matchlock pistol.

At this level of technology, trying to uphold a coherent medieval setting becomes difficult, unless you got a group of historians and you precisely say your setting is late medieval period going into early renaissance.

I miss Warhammer Fantasy prior Age of Sigmar

>>52188440
They break the game and can do ungodly damage.

Touch AC to damage is really freaking good.

>>52188626
>Never seen a gunslinger with a matchlock pistol.
That's because nobody fucking used matchlock pistols outside Japan. Wheellock pistols were invented in the 1530s already, which is when pistols were invented period.

>>52188637
>touch AC
In 2E they ignored everything besides leather, studded and hide.

I feel like they shouldn't have ignored the plate/full plate armors either (or at a penalty rather than nothing at all) but this seemed like a better compromise, and given the prevalence of buff coats, not entirely unrealistic.

>>52188626
What about muskets? Even with all the feats piled on and archetype you need a move action to reload.

It's because GM's are too chicken shit to overrule the books
>but GM, the book says I can have a six shooter exploding sixes and fast reloads at level 1
>who gives a fuck. My setting has black powder. Better get good at measuring powder by feel while dodging blades.

It takes far too long for other classes to catch up to guns power, and once they surpass it, the guns damage is static, meaning they won't even use it.

So I generally bypass it, make it a one hit wonder with alot of miss fires. Also: take into the account that if guns are widely used, then those level one commoners will be turned to meat chunks unless they themselves are also gun slingers. At that point, we arnt running a fantasy game, we are running a magi-tech game.

>>52188817
>a lot of misfires
You are cancer

>>52188817
At 1d10 damage (no bonuses) with a -4 penalty unless you're proficient in it (exotic weapon) that's less than what you could get with many 2-handed martial weapons. Besides, the fighter doesn't get a -4 penalty to his next attack if he rolls a 1-2 on swinging his sword.

>>52188440
I don't care as I allow it in more modern fantasy settings. It's simply as good as other ranged options.
In settings with more ancient setting, I disallow its usage since it isn't thematic to the feel of the campaign and the setting.

In a game of pretends, who give a shit about realism and physics?
Maybe some retards, but thank God I don't play with those types. Its about the challenges, the antagonists and how my players tackle and handle them. Not paying taxes, taking a dump or operating a gun shop.

>>52188440

Reliable firearms changed the world.

As magic/alchemy can easily act as a force multiplier tor them as much as regular weapons it takes a ton of very specific ruling to not era-skip the moment they become anything but crazy novelties.

I mean for one, knights in armor logically stops being a thing when rifles enter the stage.

>tfw people add hand crossbows and repeating crossbows because muh tolkien and muh agincourt, but throw in some proper muskets and they get triggered even though it's the same fucking thing they're trying to emulate with crossbow types that would realistically be useless

>>52188887
>I don't care as I allow it in more modern fantasy settings. It's simply as good as other ranged options.

Yeah, in a D&D 4e game I played an Artificer with a rifle once. We literally just went 'Counts as Superior Crossbow' and moved on. Yes, the people with swords were doing more damage. I was still doing fine and didn't care about damage.

>>52188903
Knights in armor really, really loved pistols. Feudalism survived the appearance of guns for centuries, and while armor got lighter, it was still worn both as long range protection, status symbol, and more importantly melee protection

Also breechloading rifles were not a fucking gamechanger. The british rifle corps is seriously the most fucking overrated unit of the napoleonic wars and it was barely any better than everyone else's smoothbore-using skirmishers.

>>52188440
As a DM, I am not against guns or gunslingers.
But it does complicate things as far as tech-level in the setting goes.

Should I make:
>Realistic medieval guns that take 2-3 rds to reload, have shit range compared to a bow or crossbow, but deal massive damage?
That isn't fun to play
>Unrealistically advanced guns, in terms of firing-rate, which for some reason do no more damage than a crossbow or bow?
That breaks immersion / common sense.
>Unrealistically advanced guns in terms of setting tech-level, that ignore armor, deal mroe damage than bows or crossbows, have similar range, and a higher firing rate?
That breaks balance.

So, there it is. It presents a big fucking hurdle, because what people want from a gunslinger-character is a "cowboy" - but a cowboy transported to medieval times would rule the world. So it leaves it to the GM to balance combat mechanics, immersion in the setting and fun/feel of playing the character.

>>52188928
>breechloading
Meant muzzleloading. That said the first breechloaders were also in no way gamechangers. It took until the apparition of the bolt and lever actions for napoleonic sword & gun warfare to well and truly die.

>>52188928

>Also breechloading rifles were not a fucking gamechanger. The british rifle corps is seriously the most fucking overrated unit of the napoleonic wars and it was barely any better than everyone else's smoothbore-using skirmishers.

You lying fucker. How else could they have Sean Bean go multiple movies without dying if they were not that good?

Guns don't destroy a fantasy setting as much as most GMs are too lazy and/or stupid to do the work necessary to make guns work in a fantasy setting.

And I say that as a GM.

>>52188928
Note; The Napoleonic Wars - at which point medieval-style armour had been done away with, more than a century ago, for anything but ceremonial purposes.

>>52188903
People in full armor still existed though in modern times if you want to talk about realism. Knights they may not be, but they still fight and kill dressed out in full "plating".
And body armor is still a thing even with the invention of gunpowder.
The only thing that change is that most armor is concerned about negating piercing damage than slashing, that's all.

>>52188936
Early modern guns had the same range and reload time as a crossbow (practice ranges up to the 18th century were often 200 yards, the bullets were made to fit tighter which slowed down reload time but allowed significantly better accuracy, it's only the appearance of volley fire in the 17th century that led to armies pushing for 3-5 shots a minute).

If your autism can tolerate a heavy cranequin arbalest reloading in 6 seconds, it can tolerate a musket doing the same.

>>52188961
And at which points guns have been a mainstay of european warfare for 300 years, 400 if you count field artillery.

Also while cuirassier armor was annoying, heavy and expensive as fuck, it was anything but ceremonial and considered a lifesaver at 50 yards.

>>52188528
This. If a wheel-lock sporting character wants to play that, then they also better understand the kinematica of actually using one of those. Will it punch through the armor of a well equipped bad guy? Yes. Do you basically have your one shot? Yep.

Most people get too nerdy about their character and imagine all kinds of improbable shit their character could do that would basically be impossible or so improbable as to be a once in a campaign kinda thing.

>>52188936
Since when does ancient crossbow and bows fire a arrow in 6 second?
You already forgo common sense.

File: 343910-armour-worn-by-ned-kelly.jpg (9KB, 316x421px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 316x421px

>>52188903
>I mean for one, knights in armor logically stops being a thing when rifles enter the stage.

hardly. Thick plates can still realistically stop a bullet unless they're modern rifle bullets. Ned Kelley from the 1880s even had to be shot in the legs since the guns can't penetrate his protection of what it appears to be a suit of makeshift plate armour

>>52189008
>inb4 someone posts a youtube of a 20 pound bow being loosed weakly 10 times in a minute
Reminder that english military manuals considered it unlikely that a full contingent of archers could keep up the beating up of long term campaigning with remotely anywhere near the effectiveness of an equally sized troop of musketeers. This is the nation that desperately clung to the warbow even past the point where it could pierce harness when horse archer nomads were already taking to firearms like pigs in shit.

>>52188928
The major problem is that what people want from a "Gunslinger" is 19th-Century guns. Accurate riflers, repeating revolvers, an occasional blunderbuss/shotgun.

What a "gunslinger" should be in a medieval setting is a dude with 2-3 single shot pistols, that take too long to reload during a fight, and one musket or similar, that ought to be high-dmaage, but slower to reload than a crossbow.

But then again, going for realism, Any plate armour should practically ignore regular arrows and bolts.

>>52188440
Because when firearms became something a single person could effectively use in battle only retards continued using swords and armour.

If they're good then they make bows and crossbows useless, and that's bad.
If they're bad then nobody will want to use them and people will be mad, and that's bad.
I am yet to see them done well. I don't even know what I'd consider "done well".
Also people who want to use them tend to be super edgy types who'd be using a katana otherwise.

>>52189033
>slower to reload than a crossbow.
That was literally never the case.

A crossbow that was anywhere nearly as powerful or long ranged as a musket took a full minute to reload, even the most annoying muzzle loader to reload ever, the long rifle, took half that long.

>>52188598
> Having explosives available
> Not wanting to explode shit

Do you even PC?

>>52189043
>If they're good then they make bows and crossbows useless, and that's bad.
>better have a hand crossbow because I get triggered otherwise
I bet you also believe knights didn't use crossbows or guns.

>>52188973
Im not sure what you mean by "early modern" - early pistols were certainly highly inaccurate, as both the burn-rate of black powder and the machining of barrels was highly unreliable before the industrial revolution.
But again, the most modern gun-examples that you could really defend in terms of "d&d"-tech level is maybe 17th-centure early rifles and muskets. That could be fun, but it won't include precision sniping, or repeating revolvers, which is what players want.

>>52189071
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not talking about accuracy or realism or whatever, I don't care for it.
I just mean that if you add guns to D&D, they will either be better or worse than the existing ranged options.
Although I suppose they could be identical, but then what's the point?

>>52189083
Early modern is 1500-1800

And crossbows were no more accurate than blackpowder guns, which could easily manage "minute of man" sniping. Although the best assassination method was to get up close and personal with a pistol.

>>52189109
>but then what's the point?
Having thematically appropriate gear for your musketeer and swashbuckler type characters without reskinning them as fucking crossbows because the thought of black powder triggers the muh Tolkien autists.

The kind of ships, dress and attitude a lot of the vanilla D&D settings use is already 1500s at the earliest.

>>52189122
If one of my players wanted to do that then I'd just let them use hand crossbow stats for it.
Also,
>worrying about historical accuracy in D&D now that the official setting and content has present day attitudes towards race, gender and sexuality

>>52188440
Because they destroy the mage's tyranny on the setting and introduce a mage>martial>gunslinger rock>paper>scissors dynamic.
Guns and swords co-existed for a very long time. And magic missile casting motherfuckers have insecurity issues when casting "headshot" takes a fraction of a second and looks much cooler.

>>52188440
>Why are GMs so against Gunslingers?
Having a class based around a single weapon/technique is usually bad. See the PF Gunslinger which is a one-trick pony, or the Cavalier of the same school.

>Do firearms really destroy fantasy settings?
Only if the GM is uneducated or the players think that gunpowder = instant mass pike&shot formations.

Early gunpowder was best used as a siege weapon, bombards and gunpowder charges being able to reduce castle walls to rubble better than a trebuchet. It took a while though before they developed wheeled carriages to give cannons proper move-ability though.

Early handguns were a bit rubbish until the arquebus. People meme that these guns were some sort of knight-killing armor-piercing magic weapon, but the arquebus existed alongside crossbows which were similar in power, similar in range, better in accuracy, and easier to reload. The downside was that these crossbows were more expensive, while matchlock guns were cheaper to make and easier to train with. So they took off because it was easier for Europeans to field mass forces with projectile weapons in a short amount of time. It wasn't until the flintlock musket, around the 17th century, which is three centuries after the first cannons were used in Europe during the 14th century.

>>52189210
Derp. Meant to add *It wasn't until the flintlock musket that gunpowder weapons actually became far better than any other ranged weapon that could be fielded.

File: 1486388927582.jpg (107KB, 588x393px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 588x393px

>>52188620
Pathfinders Psionic ranger, the Marksman, has a gun archetype.

I got volley combat style banned. Theortical damage at Level 13 was somewhere in the 1300's. Thats assuming I crit every shot. But I did do +22 per shot anyways. I had 7 shots a round.

>>52189271
I'm not super familiar with the marksmen, but.
>Theortical damage at Level 13 was somewhere in the 1300's. That's assuming I crit every shot
That's a rather large assumption, even if you use the power that expands your crit range.

How are you even getting seven attacks
3 from a Level 1 full attack
+1 Rapid Shot
+1 Expend Psi Focus for an extra shot.

Two Weapon fighting?

>>52189154
It's kinda funny since 2e ravenloft had Pistoleer as an all-classes-allowed kit.

The sample pistoleers in that book? A couple of mages who wanted a way to cast headshot without blowing their spell slots on MM.

File: IMG_2861.jpg (51KB, 625x442px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 625x442px

Thing is, most creatures past level 3 have so much HP that 1d10+(between 1-9) per attack is fuck all compared to other classes.

>>52188440
>>52189534

People are just pissed at their /k/ommando friends chimping out like monkeys when anything related to guns are bought out at the table due to the popularity of quick shot fps.

So, they removed them as a middle finger to them.
As usual, it just take one asshole to ruin things for everyone. Admittedly in this case, there are a lot of those assholes.

>>52189534
>2e ravenloft had Pistoleer as an all-classes-allowed kit.
What book's that in? It's not Domains of Dread

I just want to play in a setting where guns and fantasy to co-exist.

>tfw you will never play a Dark Tower game

>>52189610
Champions of the Mist, it's a small softcover splat with a couple cool ideas for kit (including a potion-specialist caster that works well for NPC witches, kits for some of the secret societies mentioned in DoD, and a couple of universal kits like survivor, accursed, pistoleer and spiritualist)

>>52189534
Ravenloft is also generally higher tech level than normal AD&D.

>>52189637
Than AD&D, sure. But C&T still had a full slate of guns from match to flintlocks.

3e is higher tech than AD&D across the board and the guns in WotC editions still took huge nerfs while the devs suddenly started trying to shove in crossbows for everything that would have been a firearm (Hand Crossbows in 2e were completely fucking useless except as a poison delivery mechanism).

>>52189470
Dual revolvers. Level 13. Augment Bolt as hard as you can. Augment Prescience Offensive as hard as you can. Use combat style abilty to expend psionic focus for an additional attack.

They don't, really.

Fantasy settings can use whatever time period as a reference point, not just early medieval age. My setting's civilisations are all either in Renaissance or very late medieval age transitioning into it. One nations does exactly what >>52188516 said and uses them extensively; others have followed suit, at least in siege and naval warfare.

>>52189210
The matchlock musket dominated crossbows entirely. The arquebus was also not significantly less expensive, was fielded predominantly in the 16th century already, and the crossbow was not a sniper weapon.

>>52188440
knights co-existed alongside guns for hundreds of years
and even if guns dominate setpiece battles, the small scale at which most RPGS have (5v5, 3v3, rarely more than a dozen goons at any moment) would make swords and bows far more effective

>>52188440
You know, I let my players once try that. It quickly escalated into an arms race. BETWEEN THE PCs. Firearms are a terrible place because no one wants a gun that does maybe crossbow damage, or they don't want to accept that yes, reloading will take 6 seconds. It simply wasn't worth the headache.

>>52188903
This is your answer OP, it's because the average /tg player goes armchair historian and thinks guns are point and click murder tools

>>52189857
Speaking of crossbows - how viable is the idea of a nation;s elite military using heavy crossbows as their main weapon? Assuming the nation was a shitland for decades before its not!English Civil War that saw a new dynasty come to power and with it - systemic reform and not!New Model Army? It still uses cannons on ships and is beginning to use them for siege warfare.

At the same time, a rival nation (although it does not escalate to war just yet, just the usual tension between two strong forces) is exclusively using gunpowder weaponry.

>>52189968
as far as the napoleonic wars, people complained that it "took a mans weight in musket balls" to kill your target

i don't get why there has to be some sort of special snowflake class for gun users when the Fighter fits that very well since they're designed to be proficient in all weapons, even bows can be used by them.

>>52189978
>how viable is the idea of a nation;s elite military using heavy crossbows as their main weapon?

Extremely if you base your game on Dominions late era.

>>52188903
>>52189040
It's O.K. /tg/, I still love you even if you are retarded.

Firearm options:
1) A feat gives +1 Dex, makes you proficient in all firearms, proficient in making your own black powder, and prevents guns you use from exploding on a natural 1
2) A fighting style available to fighters and rangers makes them proficient in firearms and prevents explosions on a natural 1
3) An invocation warlocks can learn replicates the effects of the fighting style in #2
4) A rogue archetype grants proficiency in firearms, prevents explosions on a natural 1, allows the rogue to use their Cunning Action to reload a firearm, and gives them various trick shots as class abilities.
5) The madman Jesse Eight-Fingers has combined knowledge of The Way, alchemy, and even stranger sciences. He might be willing to part with a magic firearm--attuning with it prevents it from exploding on a natural 1.

Firearms come in two major types: sidearms and longarms. Both require an action to load, both require an attack to fire, both will explode in the user's hands, dealing 2d10 damage, on a natural 1.

The sidearm is one-handed and deals 1d10+Dex, the longarm is two-handed, heavy, and deals 2d10+Dex. If you have the Extra Attack class feature you may draw as many sidearms in a turn as you have attacks.

>>52190023
This is also generally true of arrows but RPGs still stat them as point and shoot murder tools.

>>52189978
If gunpowder doesn't exist sure. If it does it starts getting iffy.

Like, England was always desperately short in saltpeter, gunpowder reached a truly absurd 18d per musket shot during some phases of the civil war and they still never switched back to either bows or crossbows as a mainstay. Longbow units were considered unfit for anything but the most backwater of militia units.

>>52190103
>misfires are explosions
literally retarded

>>52190104
in DnD, arrows are about as deadly as swords

>>52190104
>>52190076
The main argument I present when worldbuilding is that cutting edge gun technology and early rifling is a know-how of the other rival nation which is very protective of it - whatever "authentic" firearms the Crossbow nation got, it was salvaged from proxies. So they have to R&D it themselves in a highly federalised empire with the new empress maintaining support of local nobility by further federalisation - not the best environment for mass replacement of old weaponry with guns. Especially considering that the nation is not industrialised and is just now entering Renaissance.

The issue I have with gunslingers is that their class is based around one weapon that you can't really find anywhere else. No ancient temple has a flaming revolver in it. And they break really easily and if the gunslinger doesn't have a gun he is fucked until he can fix it.

>>52190157
>R&D
This isn't how early modern research works (and debatably this isn't even how modern research works outside of cliches like the Manhattan project, fundamental research is almost always ultimately independent of what the brass expects). There is no R&D, there is no central research, there is no federal budget. These conceptions of war are mid-late 19th century at the earliest.

>>52188440
Have any of you guys in this thread played Mount and Blade? Specifically With Fire and Sword.

I found the way firearms were done in that to be fantastic, even if the game lacked polish overall.
Sure, for infantry, pike and shot inevitably ended up ruling the battlefield. But the thing is, pike and shot blobs are not that hard to pick apart with pistol cavalry using good timing or a dense enough wave of shitty infantry followed closely by heavy swordsmen.

But the thing I liked most about firearms wasn't how they played out in a full scale battle. What I liked was playing a character with two pistols and a sabre and fighting in the swirling melee, doing most of the work with the sabre, but always taking the chance to pull out a pistol and put a lead ball through a dangerous looking opponent's face at point-blank range. There really is nothing better than blocking the guy's blow, finishing him with the sabre, pulling out your pistol, shooting the guy behind him, then spinning on the spot, pulling out the second pistol, and shooting the guy who was about to bring a massive greatsword down on your head. But the thing is, there is absolutely no way whatsoever that you can reload those pistols in a proper melee. You're far too vulnerable and it takes far too long. So while guns are pretty much a guaranteed 1-shot-kill at very close range, you really only have one shot per pistol per fight. And they're pretty damn inaccurate too, so they're pretty useless against individual enemies at anything but close range.

They also up the stakes of combat dramatically and I like that. In the medieval Mount and Blade Warband, you, alone, in plate, with a good shield, on an armoured horse, can easily wipe out an entire squad of archers without really taking damage, and the entirety of your tactics will be pretty much just
>charge
>slash
>repeat
Whereas in WFaS with the threat of firearms you have to very carefully time your incursions into effective musket range.

>>52190235
Interesting point - I will be honest, I've never quite went into too much detail about it, although I do understand that in an early modern kingdom there won't be a centre-directed research programme (also note that I mention heavy federalisation).

How would it happen then? Down to top? Independent inventors presenting their ideas to the leaders?

>>52190136
First, these are primitive firearms that mostly pop up in the hands of desperate or foolhardy NPCs. Second, any Variant Human, or anyone in one of four different classes can ignore that drawback by level 3 at the latest without having to skip an ASI.

File: 800px-Bila_hora_rekonstrukce_4.jpg (130KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 800x600px

While we're on the subject, I'm working on a setting based on the Thirty Year's War and the greater world at the time. What system would work well for it?

>>52190052
>i don't get why there has to be some sort of special snowflake class for [insert weapon] users when the Fighter fits that very well since they're designed to be proficient in all weapons, even bows can be used by them.

File: Carlos.jpg (34KB, 700x514px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 700x514px

>>52190260
>even if the game lacked polish overall

What are you talking about, it had a lot of polish?

>>52190265
Most of the time it would be down to top. You'd probably have a smattering or troops belonging to various nobles and warlords mixed in with the actual royal or imperial army, sometimes not particularly officially.

A lot of new developments would be fielded as a pet project of a particular unit commander; a lot of soldiers in particularly wealthy units (especially cavalry) actually brought their own gear so long as it fit some expectations (e.g. a swedish cavalryman was expected to show up with a brace of pistols and a rapier). The first bayonets were originally a hunting tool to be able to spear boars and bears after shooting them; the socket was probably a state-directed development in the 18th century (which is when these start to be a thing in Europe mostly, with things like artillery standardization and shit), the first flintlock was an independent development that caught the eye of a unit commander.

The first pistol cavalry troops were german mercenaries in the early 16th century, it then caught on and even royal units starting fielding them.

Colonels had a lot of leeway in how to kit their men, especially the ones who actually owned their regiment.

>>52190336
Lamentations of the Flame Princess has a bunch of modules set in the 1600s, a few against the backdrop of the thirty years war, so maybe look at that?

It's pretty much just cleaned up basic tho, so keep that in mind

>>52190336
I wouldn't say it's absolutely amazing but I was fond of A Mighty Fortress, which was the AD&D supplement for the period.

>>52190361
>You'd probably have a smattering or troops belonging to various nobles and warlords mixed in with the actual royal or imperial army
Yes, this is how it works in the kingdom. The Imperial army - The Firestarters - are there only to impose the capital's will and maintain stability since even years later the old dynasty's loyalists still cling to power. Local lords meanwhile have their own armies, levied by the capital in times of war +not!Magdeburg Law levies from Free Cities.

This is extremely useful information anon, you have my thanks.

Would you care to share more common pitfalls/advice about building a Renaissance setting?

>>52189857
>sniper weapon
wtf does that even mean?

For me it's a simple reason but not the usual "gunpowder ruined it!"

Any game I've ever ran that had an Archer was the same sort of character. He had trick arrows or arrows for the occassion. One might have a little container full of slippery slidey grease that could trip the enemy up, one shattered like glass and made a lot of noise to distract guards, some were pitch soaked and burst into flame. It's always cool seeing the character adapt his items to suit a purpose. The two times we had a Gunslinger, he wanted to do sort of the same thing but instead of different arrows, it was different guns. A gun for shooting Undead! A gun for shooting people! This gun shoots dinosaurs better! It ended up with him having a dozen or so pistols hanging from him because it was super duper important that he use quick draw talents to change guns on the fly instead of changing types of ammunition so he could cover himself and the party in a thick cloud of smoke that nobody could see into or out of.

It probably could work, maybe my player is just a wally.

>>52190345
kek
go away Carlos
Fucking Polish Hussars honestly broke how well-done firearms were in that game. They take like 3-4 shots to kill.

>>52188528
/thread

>>52190445
Mostly avoid laying on the whig history too thick
Witch hunts were mostly common in border areas and protestant areas.
If you have a !not-Catholic church, making it too monolithic isn't the best idea, there were actually a lot of internal disagreements during the period and it holding together was a mix of political miracles. The upper ranks being corrupt and heavily tilted towards the nobility though? Mostly true, but also largely true in protestant churches (moreso even in some cases).
Not everything is misery and desolation, but you're still at the tail end of the existence of public baths in western Europe. Mentalities are also incredibly all over the place, renaissance humanism covers a surprisingly broad swathe of mentalities, some of which would seem incredibly modern when looked at closely.
Not every peasant is a superstitious illiterate or a poor dirt farmer, serfdom in western europe is mostly becoming vestigial at this point.

Also it's very easy to over-idealize your favorite country. Poland was still a serfdom-happy shithole with an inflated noble class, England was still a third rate backwater, France was still largely a feudal mess with increasingly absolutist kings whose means of keeping control gradually crippled the country, Spain, Russia and Turkey were not necessarily the great Satan (depending on who you favor) but were pretty bad too. Pick your poison when designing shit.

>>52189032
Can someone explain this to me? Because it seems to me that a unit of longbow men could fuck up a bunch of unarmoured line infantry, but I am not a clever man.

>>52189857
Muskets were superior to crossbows, but the matchlock arquebus could be outmatched by the very best late-period crossbows. These crossbows though were, as pointed out, much more expensive than an arquebus because it had more complicated mechanisms and parts. The musket would develop shortly after which would put the need for crossbows to rest.

>>52188903
Inb4 people try and argue that cuiriassers wore armour for protection from guns

>>52190481
>different guns
Just tell the player to prepare different ammo pouches ffs. Normal lead apostles, silver apostles, cold iron apostles.

>>52190614
Real life wasn't like shogun total war where archers can out range rifles

>>52190614
>unarmored
They still wore heavy leather and padded jacks at the minimum, with heavy troops still in breastplate and half-plate that longbows would struggle with.

The warbow requires a person at always peak condition to function at peak. The gun requires a person in mediocre condition to shoot. A warbow can also not be shot like these youtubers who shoot 12 times a minute using dinky ass 20 pounder bows, and their range isn't significantly better.

An arrow also has way, way less kinetic energy than an early musket and is mostly only useful if incredibly accurate (not that much of a given) or as massed indirect fire (which is entirely countered by cannon).

>>52189002
Isn't that true for all FANTASY characters? Like wizards whole deal is fucking up the very fabric of reality.

Also for people who want guns in 5e without committing suicide trying to figure out rules and who think the DMG stats are retarded: just reskin crossbows, there, voila. Crossbows should also not fucking reload in 6 seconds, and bows shooting at full power every six seconds is equally debatable.

>>52190260
What triggered me about that game is that bows and arrows are so vastly superior to firearms. Shields too - just get a handful of the best Polish mercenaries with shields and swords, and plow through the enemy like paper.

>>52190532
>Fucking Polish Hussars honestly broke how well-done firearms were in that game. They take like 3-4 shots to kill.
Or one arrow.

>>52190234
>No ancient temple has a flaming revolver in it.
Why not?

>>52189009
Yeah. There's a reason why modern soldiers wear "plate carriers" where either a ceramic or a steel plate is used (often the preference of the soldier) offering similar levels of protection.

Because it always goes from "I'm okay with a musket" to "I want a revolver" to "You are shit GM unless you accept my AK-47 homebrew!!!"

>>52191423
>Because it always goes from "I'm okay with a short sword" to "I want a claymore" to "You are shit GM unless you accept my chainsaw homebrew!!!"

>>52191423

I can't honestly think of it going past revolving rifle too often. Automatic weapons almost never turn up.

>>52188590
guilty as charged

I will always remember blowing up my dms favourite port with all the gunpowder id been stealing and buying. I killed probably half of his pet npcs and completely derailed the plot. I-it was in character though because i was playing a warlock devoted to causing chaos. He killed my pet npc so i reciprocated

>>52188440
Because there is no good way to do Swords and Sorcery style fantasy and include guns. No matter what you do, you either piss of the autists who romanticize guns to absurd levels, piss off people who are perfectly fine with the genre as is, piss off the spergs who have to make everything "realistic" in fantasy, or just completely change the make-up of the genre to the point that you aren't playing swords and sorcery, so why not just play a different game?
It's oil and water, my friend.

>>52188936
realism =/= better game
I wish people would get over that meme

>>52191960
It can to a point, reality can be, and often is, far more absurd than fiction is, just look at Audie Murphy's life story and the movies based on it, it was more cinematic and extreme, in which version exactly?

>>52191960
immersive game = better game though
You can have a high fantasy crazy world where people fly around on magical olives and use frogs which rapidly spit olive stones as weapons and still be immersed. As long as your world feels internally consistent and you can suspend your disbelief to make it immersive its fine. The problem arises when you have elements which render others redundant or contradict one another and yet this is never addressed.

>>52192011
>immersive
Guns that are somehow slower, weaker, shorter ranged and less accurate than the crossbows they killed by 1530 as a battlefield weapon are the 21st century nerd version of "yeah these knights totally wore 120 pounds armor, wielded 10 pound swords, and needed a crane to get up from their seats"

Quick reminder: Cornell's bullshit about Wellington and longbows is an unsubstantiated urban legend.

>>52192076
Im not sure what your point is here.

Personally, i do occasionally include guns as a 1 shot weapon which is reloaded outside of combat. Otherwise they overlap with crossbows too much in my opinion.

As for knights wearing a ton of armour, this is something you can suspend your disbelief for and is done for balancing reasons. I often just give strength requirements for wearing armour without penalty because getting bogged down in weight numbers isnt fun in my opinion.

Gunslingers tend to attract "that guy" more then any other class.

File: image.png (1MB, 900x952px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x952px

>>52188620
This but unironically.

File: gun-mage-2.jpg (188KB, 773x1000px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 773x1000px

My issue with guns is that the widespread use of guns changes the setting from what I want.
I danced around various prohibitive measures, and landed on "ignite gunpowder" spell being a basic cantrip available everywhere.
Basically, a gun without protective wards could be blown up by even the most inexperienced wizard.
The wards make widespread use of guns much less cost-effective.
But the occasional gunslinger could exist.

>>52192498
>changes the setting from what I want.
You mean a setting ruled by a wizard aristocracy?

What exactly is incompatible with individual heroics in the world of the Three Musketeers, Don Quixote, and Cyrano de Bergerac again?

File: 1489116082665.png (41KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 200x200px

>>52188590
>>52191607

Way back in the day I was searching through Google trying to find artwork of my favorite anime character. Searching for her name I stumbled upon this RP group's hall of fame page where they catalogued dead characters with their last words and cause of death.

>76)Name: So and so
> Cause of Death: Caught in explosion
> Last Words: "How much of the gunpowder should I use?"
> 77) Name: Whatever
> Cause of Death: Caught in explosion
> Last Words: "All of it!"

>Do firearms really destroy fantasy settings?
https://youtu.be/Dp0cNZopl_U

>>52192537
Close, but nothing so organized or universal.
Basically, with widespread gun use comes changes in how defenses are made and battles are fought.

File: bourtange.jpg (69KB, 460x249px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 460x249px

>>52192712
What's so bad about the most aesthetically pleasing castle design ever conceived?

>>52190633
Not as cool Anon. He needs to sling the guns about and stuff.

>>52192498
That's stupid. If you're going to nerf guns and gunpowder into uselessness, then you might as well just not have it around at all.

Got a buddy who's playing the UA Gunslinger. It's pretty awesome honestly, doesn't ruin the fantasy, can dump some serious damage with action surge. We've had some interesting situations with misfires and explosives.
All in all I dig it.

Actual guns are shit in fantasy setting. Magical gun consructs can fit the world, can use the magic as an excuse on how they work, people won't bitch about "muh realism" when they don't one shot someone in a plate because magical power waries etc.

>>52188817
how to be a shit dm: the post

>>52188440
Terminal case of forgetting the face of your father.

Allow me to summarize thread in one sentence:

Guns can be done good if have good rules, otherwise all autism lel minmaxers.

>>52190717
But the wizard can do 8d6 damage to everyone in a large area at 3x my range with no roll. How is that realistic?

>>52190717
>Expecting realism
>In a game where it is impossible for a legendary barbarian to kill a bandit chief in one hit.

>>52194688
If you wanted remotely realistic ranged weapons, even a bow would do multiple die of damage every other round instead of turning you into a machine gun.

And full plate would be almost entirely immune to bow fire.

>>52194007
Best answer.

>>52194919
But if you did that would anyone play the class if it could only do 1d8 damage every other round?

>>52192498
>make guns so frustrating to use, that nobody wants to use them
Fucking cancerous. Why not do everyone a favor and just say guns don't exist, rather than pretending to be accommodating for various tastes?

Here's the problem I have with guns: nothing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with guns that cannot be said about every other fucking concept under the sun.
>Too modern for muh totally not medieval fantasy
Bet you have plate armor though motherfucker
>Too overpowered
Bet you have longbows motherfucker
>Don't like what it does to the setting
Bet every major city in your setting has a goddamn magic academy, motherfucker.

>>52188440
Guns are fucking lame

>>52189058
"No"

>>52195072
> t. Noguns

>>52188440
>Why are GMs so against Gunslingers?
Ignorance and fear.
>Do firearms really destroy fantasy settings?
No. Several fantasy novels have guns.

>>52188440
I would be okay with them if they were just a ranger archetype and guns were just fluffed up crossbows.

>>52192743
we have a star fort like an hour away from where I live. It's pretty cool

>>52192498
I have to assume you're baiting and not this much of a shit.

>>52195072
You're like those cunts that autistically screech about feathered dinosaurs because B-B-BUT IT'S NOT AS COOOOOLL ABLOOBLOOBLOO because of how childishly shallow your appreciation of how things work is.

>>52191364
Good point -maybe gunpowder weapons are ancient technology in your campaign. Ancient long gone civilisations don't always have to be magic based. Would be interesting to do a campaign to seek a god slaying weapon, only to find it is an MG42.

File: 1429073524546.gif (4MB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 360x270px

>his setting has full plate armour
>but has no guns

>>52188440
Brace of wheel lock pistols works fine.

Because most GMs think about how OP guns are in the REAL WORLD instead of fantasy land and get paranoid. No, a non-magic class attacking touch AC while spending every round between shots reloading is not OP when most low level casters can do 1dx/level elemental damage against touch AC every round anyways. This is a world where Regenerating Trolls, Dragons, Bullettes, and a million things with DR/- are running around. The setting is not going to flip over might because someone figured out gunpowder just like how it took hundreds of years for guns to take over swords because swords and arrows were still as effective at killing. And that's in Real Life where we couldn't train people to make explosions using nothing but interpretive dance and bat shit.

>>52188903
knights often used wheellocks
its a dumb old myth that guns beat knights

>>52195486
Depends on the game, and mechanically, that has never been the case in D&D.

I don't think I would mind them in D&D if it wasn't two fucking feats to add your shield to touch AC.
I mean come on.

>>52196359
You forgot that it costs the Gunslinger player 1 Gp per bullet when the Ranger player gets 20 arrows per gp. It also takes 300 gold to un-fuck their starting gear.

>>52190275
what is a primitive firearm in your mind and when were they used? Because I'm willing to bet you have no idea what you're talking about

>>52188440
First, the way many games (like dnd/Pathfinder) handle guns make them ridiculously effective against most "traditional" hard enemies.
Second, since a gunslinger is a very money focused character, as a DM your job managing wealth just got harder. This applies double when the gunslinger whines that he doesn't have a +3 weapon when everyone else does because he shot all his money at people.
Third, Gunslingers breed "Bow-guy" personalities in players and characters, which while not always completely shit, are frequently annoying to deal with
Fourth, as a DM, you now have to come up with bullshit reasons why everyone in your campaign still uses crossbows and swords when guns are everywhere, which can make your setting less cohesive.
Fifth, if you just make guns crossbows, inevitably some faggot throws an autistic tantrum.

On a certain level, I also disallow Gunslingers for similar reasons that I disallow Samurai. 9/10 players that pick a gunslinger/samurai are caught up in a retarded weaboo/guns'braster fantasy and wants to show the entire world what they can do with their epic katanas/guns of destruction. The remaining 1/10 player is fine with just making a fighter/ranger and fluffing their gear and backstory so there's no issue with them.

>>52195414
I want this badly now, like a post-post-apocalyptic setting where the world has long since recovered and only occasionally are ruins of an ancient civilization far more advanced discovered, usually with great stores of magical devices, sometimes sparking conflict.

>>52188440
>Do firearms really destroy fantasy settings?
No, the gunslinger is just a bad class used by bad people. If you make a ranger who fluffs their longbow/crossbow as a gun, and leaves it at that, I don't mind it one bit.

>>52196608
>you now have to come up with bullshit reasons why everyone in your campaign still uses crossbows and swords when guns are everywhere

Opinion discarded, like most ignorant DnD playing trash

>>52196673
A better question is why you're allowed to have anything more dangerous than a pointed stick or a knife in a medieval setting? Oh right its because we handwave away realism when it gets in the way of fun

>>52196608
>Third, Gunslingers breed "Bow-guy" personalities in players and characters, which while not always completely shit, are frequently annoying to deal with

What?

>>52196641
But how can I fire a single-barrel rifle 4 times in sex seconds?

>>52196719

The same way to you can do it with a crossbow.

>>52196608
What is a "Bow Guy" personality?

We can see the bullshit pulling-out-of-your-ass nonsense clearly. I mean seriously, swords can kill dragons yet guns magically make swords stop working?

>>52196719
how the hell do you do it with a longbow while being even remotely accurate?

Rounds were better when they were a minute long.

>Magic powers beyond any myths or legends as a class
Perfectly fine
>Melee characters that can eventually 1-shot elephants
Great
>Characters that can fall at terminal velocity on their head and get immediately back up.
Super.
>Character has a gun
NOOO MY IMMERSION REEEEEE TOO OP BANNED GET OUT

>>52189058
>A crossbow that was anywhere nearly as powerful or long ranged as a musket took a full minute to reload
Citation needed. Toddstuff can fire and reload a 1300 lbs war crossbow several times per minute.

>>52196769
Because I have a +16/+11/+6/+1 to hit and my feats/gear/magic adds +21 to all of those and +19 to all damage and it bypasses all damage reduction.

>>52196834
No with an actual longbow how does one loose an arrow at full strength, accurately in 1.5 seconds four times in a row?

>>52196877
How does a man, as someone in this thread put it, cause ranged explosions via interpretive dance and bat shit?

>>52196892
Exactly, the realism arguments against guns are bullshit. That's my point.

>>52190260
Firearms are terrible in M&B. There's no defense against them. You just have to pray you don't get shot. Against bows and thrown weapons, you can choose to take a shield. That's a choice you can make. Against guns there is no choice. It's just hope you don't get hit. That's terrible.

>>52192800
>That's stupid. If you're going to nerf guns and gunpowder into uselessness, then you might as well just not have it around at all.
A gun is far from useless.
Equipping an army with guns is prohibitively expensive.

>>52195036
>>make guns so frustrating to use, that nobody wants to use them
>Fucking cancerous.
They're not frustrating to use, they're expensive to make and permanently ward so *most* people don't use them.

>>Don't like what it does to the setting
>Bet every major city in your setting has a goddamn magic academy, motherfucker.
Not at all.
Serious magic is mostly taught by those that know to those they trust, apprentice style.

>>52195349
>I have to assume you're baiting and not this much of a shit.
No such luck friend.

Although, I feel like I might not have explained myself as well as I could have.
I fail to see how, when a player asks if they can play a gunslinger, telling them "Fuck you. Fuck no, for no fucking reason." is a better response than, "Okay, but they're rare and the gun is damn expensive will cost x and y."

>>52190103
>1 in 20 chance to cause the user damage that would be lethal to an ordinary human
If I wanted to destroy a country I'd force them to only use your bullshit firearms

>>52188440
I've always wondered what that big thing in the corner is. A mortar, a cannon, what?

>>52196914

They ignore shields/armour?

>>52188516
>reload at absurd speeds compared to an archer.
Normal archers can't fire an arrow, move 40ft, and use a magical ability all in six seconds. Stop trying to apply realism to fantasy roleplaying games.

>>52197123
Which is retarded considering riot police use shield and armor precisely because they protect against bullets as well.

>>52196638
It's strange how these sort of settings are common in homebrew campaigns, videogames, comics and so on, but I can't name any commercial TTRPG aside Numenara that does it.

>>52197281
But do they protect against swords and arrows?

>>52196973
Mortar.

>>52197301
Let's wait until Germany knighthood orders riot against the government to see that in video.

>>52197301
Riot stuff does because it's reinforced with things like steel plates and hard plastics for melee combat. Generally modern body armor (unless it has ceramic or steel plates) is ineffective against swords and bows though.

>>52197420

Yeah, riot armour is honestly the modern child of actual medieval armour. Mostly because it's more concerned with 'Will protect against home made firebombs and heavy flung blunt objects'. Things the military doesn't tend to focus on too much (And then the former started fucking up APCs and they needed to quickly get new models out with better protection against that)

People who can suspend disbelief enough to be ok with a heavy crossbow firing every round, but who think firearms need separate reloading mechanic make me so shitting mad

>>52197281
>Riot police use shields and armor that protect against bullets

Riot police have armor meant for stopping 2x4s and baseball bats, and heft sheets of mild steel or lexane.

You're thinking of ballistic shields, which are thick and heavy enough that you want both arms to move them more than a few inches at a time. If not mounting them on their own little wheelbase which you then only have to push.

Riot cops might get level II or IIIA kevlar but that's their top end and the absolute best

But then, you're probably trolling because treating modern bullets and armor as comparable to late medival/early renaissance era bullets and armor is retardation of the highest degree

>>52197156

>magic and dragons exist
>so let's throw versimilitude out the window and let anything be possible because it's fantasy :^)

That's an old meme but I'll give you it, it's one of my favorites

>>52197592

He didn't bring up dragons.

He brought up stuff that someone with another mundane ranged weapon can do in said games.

Bows and Crossbows already don't act realistically in said games, why should guns?

>>52197592
>Magic and dragons exist yet swords and bows can still kill them
>Because of these alternative options that are very effective against magical creatures this thing that is not as effective is immersion breaking because everyone would use this innefective weapon.
Please tell me why everyone in your settings aren't Wizards/Clerics/Druids/Witches/etc since obviously people will always choose the more effective option.

>>52189043
My solution was to use d20 modern's 2dX method of damage for guns, so they're fantastically powerful, but give all bows a strength bonus, so dexterous people use guns and strong people use bows.

And nobody gives a shit about crossbows.

>>52189611
I've been developing my Cowboys and Dragons setting for a while now, haven't run that many sessions of it yet.

>>52196747
The "Bow-guy", is generally the guy who gives zero fucks about his allies, refuses to do anything he won't succeed at, regularly attention-whores and does solo stuff, and gets butthurt when anyone outdamages him. And usually uses a bow.
It's not a sure thing, similar to the "Mystic guy" who plays shit like monks and druids, but it's particularly frustrating to deal with because the Bow Guy is a much more sensitive asshole than the Mystic Guy.
At least, I think that's what he means.

>>52198074
That's a problem with your players, not the class. Like if a cleric charges his party for healing it's a That Guy problem not a class problem.

>>52188440
I think since "medival fantasy" is rooted in an inaccurate perception of the middle ages most people see guns as not befitting the setting. Never mind that the middle ages span a long time and guns and a lot of generic fantasy elements that borrow from history co-existed with firearms. Hell, the Norman knight clad in mail is a lot more distant to the knight clad in Gothic plate armor than the modern soldier is to a Napoleonic soldier.
The knight in shining armor, a knight in full plate harness, is pretty much a thing of the renaissance. A lot of fantasy games try to capture a pseudo early middle ages but also mix in a lot of renaissance and some Victorian elements.
But most people perceive it has "medieval" and see guns as a more modern thing since we still use guns to this day. Not so much swords and bows.
A lot of inaccuracies about early firearms come into play as well. The tired old "early guns had shit accuracy" and that they took too long to load. Nevermind that a crossbow with the same power and range as an arquebus would take much longer to load. Of course the guns themselves aren't to blame for the perception. Battlefield conditions and the training of the individual soldier mattered a lot. Some fresh recruit fighting for hours is going to lose battlefield efficiency but that applies to archers and melee troops as well.
It also matters what type of gun we're talking about. Early handgonnes weren't all that great but arqubuses and muskets were a game changer, especially muskets but those were too heavy to operate without a fork and couldn't be used on horseback.

>>52197592
Musket reload times were anywhere from 12 to 30 seconds depending on the era and method, frankly it's not like "reload every six seconds" is that much of a fucking stretch if a cranequin arbalest does the same.

Eh. I have the opposite problem, actually. I wouldn't mind at all an tech uplift from 1300 to the 1600s, but the players don't like it.

>>52198413
>Player wants to be a musketeer
>Armed only with a rapier and dagger

Fucking hell.

>>52196939
It's condescending and smug.
>Sure, you CAN have a gun, but they're super expensive and hard to maintain and take 12 rounds to reload and don't do damage against anyone wearing armor and any chucklefuck can waltz up and blow your shit up and you have to suck my dick every time you want to reload but you can still TOTALLY do it.

Just say no fucker.

>>52198989
>any chucklefuck can waltz up and blow your shit up
The spark cantrip specifically states that the object has to be unattended.

>>52199066
please follow the reply chain

We seem to have three sides.
>If guns exist then the magic of a setting is gone because people with be using guns instead of magic and swords
>>I'll allow it because I don't really care and it's not like guns will destroy any setting cohesion anymore than wizards do on a daily basis.
>>I'll allow it but nerf it into oblivion because of "realism" even though the game system explicitly, on hundreds of occasions, gang rapes the concept of realism to death.

>>52199260
>>>I'll allow it but nerf it into oblivion because of "realism" even though the game system explicitly, on hundreds of occasions, gang rapes the concept of realism to death.
I'd like a source on those.

>>52199295
See: Every spell, every magic class, the action economy, HP, Levels, experience points, skill points (don't require IG excuse for suddenly getting better at knowledge (Architecture) for killing goblins in the woods), feats, etc. etc.

>>52198074
I've never seen, heard or encountered either of these things ever

>>52190339
Correct. That's what the man said.

>>52188440
I love GMs who don't allow Gunslingers "because they're OP".

It means I get to play a pure wizard to prove a point.

>>52199437
there's no way those sorts would ever see the point you were making, as this thread has proven several times already

>>52199448
That just means I get to play a pure wizard without worrying about annoying the GM, which is also a win because pure wizards are fun to play.

>>52199448
>>52199458
I also consider it a win if the GM ends up banning wizards, because anybody who bitches about base class balance had better do that before they do anything else.

>>52199490
I mean that they wouldn't see the problem with wizards at all because they expect magic users to be overpowered in a fantasy RPG

>>52199506
See >>52199458

>>52199525
I suppose that would be an upside then, though I'd just feel bad for the rest of the party the whole time. Well, unless they saw the writing on the wall and went a similar route

>>52199554
There are ways a wizard can end encounters without overshadowing the party. Glitterdust is a favourite. Create Pit is another (but only works if the other party members have ranged attacks).

The trick is to use your OP full casting as a force multiplier, rather than simply an I Win button.

>>52198989
>and hard to maintain and take 12 rounds to reload and don't do damage against anyone wearing armor and any chucklefuck can waltz up and blow your shit up and you have to suck my dick every time you want to reload but you can still TOTALLY do it.
A Scooby-Doo ghost has less projection.

>Just say no fucker.
Still not better, sorry.

>every time you want to reload
I figured just a bit of clever engineering would address that, to the point of not being overly concerned about it.

>>52199066
>The spark cantrip specifically states that the object has to be unattended.
The "Ignite Gunpowder" cantrip does not.

>>52198989
Fun Fact: Anything can sound condescending and smug if you work that hard at presenting it that way.
>Sure, you CAN play an intelligent undead, but they're super powerful with all these positive advantages so you have to take all these negative advantages and since undead are feared and hated in the setting you’ll have to account for that or you have to suck my dick every time you want to be seen but you can still TOTALLY do it.
Just say “use standard races” fucker.

Even something much more basic:
>Sure, you CAN have maximum Strength, Dexterity and Constitution, but that’s super unbalanced unless you dump the other three ability scores, everybody gets to point buy, and you have to account for the low ability scores or you have to suck my dick every time you want to avoid the consequences but you can still TOTALLY do it.
Just say “use rolled stats” fucker.

Or even something not /tg/ related:
>Sure, you CAN drive a car, but they're super expensive and hard to maintain and you have to use your hands and feet to control it, keep your eyes on the road at every moment and any chucklefuck can waltz up and smash your shit up and you have to suck fate’s dick every time you want to multitask but you can still TOTALLY do it.
Just say “walk” fucker.

>>52200125
So how would you balance firearms that wouldn't make it a useless class, considering that people almost universally multiclass out of it after level 5.

>>52200125
>>The spark cantrip specifically states that the object has to be unattended.
>The "Ignite Gunpowder" cantrip does not.
Read the spell retard.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/spark/
>You can make an unattended Fine flammable object catch on fire.
>unattended

>>52202986
>So how would you balance firearms that wouldn't make it a useless class, considering that people almost universally multiclass out of it after level 5.
In what way does the class need balancing?
That is an actual question.
As I originally was going to ban guns altogether, I have not spent a lot of time on it.

>>52203089
>>>The spark cantrip specifically states that the object has to be unattended.
>>The "Ignite Gunpowder" cantrip does not.
>Read the spell retard
Ah yes. I believed you that the "Spark" cantrip specifically states that the object has to be unattended.
I was saying that a different spell, the "Ignite Gunpowder" cantrip does not have that requirement.

>>52203158
What "ignite gunpowder" cantrip are you talking about? Google is giving me nothing.

>>52203240
Did you read the thread before posting?

File: Causey-WeirdAdventures.pdf (5MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 1x1px

>>52188516
>More modern guns wouln't post a problem with that but would make anyone question why even use fantasy weapons
my go to solution is that for a bunch of reasons it's a lot easier to make say a magical sword than a magical gun(magical ammunition is fairly easy to make in comparison, but it's also really expensive, and obviously not reusable)

>>52188626
gunpowder weapons have been around since at least the 10th century AD*, so they aren't actually all that ill fitting in a medieval context, but I will admit that for a dedicated Gunslinger class/archetype the earliest you can get with it making a lot of sense is in a period equivalent to that of the 30 Years War(which is probably one of many reasons that Lamentations of The Flame Princess's default setting assumptions are for 30 Years War era Europe)

honestly until we start seeing automatic weaponry in the 19th century the main advantages of firearms* is that they're easier to use than any other ranged weapon


*would love to see an OSR game include stats for all the crazy early Chinese gunpowder and fire weapons like the Hwacha

**discounting stuff like cannon or mortars obviously


>>52189611
here's one that I really like

>>52196638
that's basically describing Eternia from the He-Man & The Masters of The Universe franchise

>>52196914
No, that's fun. I don't like playing an indestructible metal monster all the time. Taking a shield is not a choice in Warband, you have to or you lose. Avoiding being shot in WFaS is not a matter of luck, it's a matter of skill and tactics. And staying away from the front rank. And a little bit if luck to be fair, but the point is you can stack the odds in your own favour. I mean I love Warband too and I love galloping around on a fuckoff heavily armoured charger in my fuckoff heavy armour with my fuckoff hueg sword and my fuckoff hueg shield stabbing people with my fuckoff long lance. But sometimes it's fun to play a game where your tactics are actually more important than your gear and your stats.
But then again I don't think I'm the typical player and I love "gritty" gameplay so take that with a pinch of salt.

>>52197123
No they don't, this guy is just mad that he can't tank a musket volley in starting gear. Basically firearms just do fucktons of damage and high quality armour will let you take a handful of hits at most. Also most shields break after a hit or two.

>>52188440
here's the solution

Treat the guns as a wizard spell, you prepare 4 flintlocks that you keep on yourself throughout the day, when shit hits the fan you unleash one as a move action.

Just play a wizard that only picks Blast spells and fluff it as magical ammunition and your spells/Wands are guns.

>>52188440
Let's tl;dr the whole thread.
>Why are GMs so against Gunslingers?
Experienced DMs have a tacit understanding that any character built completely around a single gimmick will be a millstone around everyone's necks most of the time. DMs looking for a particular faux-medieval flavor don't want to see adventurers running around with muskets instead of crossbows. DMs with too much experience with shitty players outright ban anything that could be turned into a modern-ish weapon system that their setting has no direct answer for.
>Do firearms really destroy fantasy settings?
No. A musket is just a particularly mighty crossbow that uses cheap garbage for ammo. The worst 'damage' it can do is become a common sense sidearm for normal archetypes.

>>52188903
Armoured cavalry lasted until the First World War and unarmoured to the Second.

>>52189032
>>52189032
The only place that still used bows in Britain by 1600 were reiver clans on the Scottish borders and the Irish as mercenaries.

>>52192498
So much salt generated by this post but I agree with the idea of it. While igniting gunpowder as a cantrip is a bit much, I'd rather have something along the lines a level one spell like gunpowder to sand.
>>52195036
Did you read anything he wrote. It allows guns in the setting without needing fustrating drawbacks for PCs. If you want to use guns as player get a cheap (but not mass producable) item that safeguards your gunpowder.
Also i don't see your point on setting. A DM can want their setting however they want it. Whats wrong with magic academies?

>>52188440
If I recall, gun rules are often overly complex?

otherwise it's just autism

Guns are pretty good if you just make them reskinned crossbows with Force damage instead of Pierce.

File: 1412342803-sk20141003.jpg (474KB, 802x1221px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 802x1221px

>>52188516
>The best usage is to make them not that rare but to make the reload actually cumbersome.

File: 1412706691-sk20141006.jpg (438KB, 802x1221px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 802x1221px

>>52209676

File: 1412778081-sk20141007.jpg (422KB, 802x1221px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 802x1221px

>>52209759

File: 1412788040-sk20141008.jpg (385KB, 802x1221px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 802x1221px

>>52209773

File: 1412788092-sk20141009.jpg (365KB, 802x1221px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 802x1221px

>>52209790

>>52188440
they work well when done right, although thats pretty hard.

my favourite way to use fire arms is with an enemy called the cannon giant. its a giant that carries a cannon and a massive sack of cannon balls on its back. the enemy is coupled with a couple smaller weaker enemies to keep them occupied while the giant fire off his cannon ominously in the distance. he then uses the cannon as a club once you reach him

File: 1412788142-sk20141010.jpg (380KB, 802x1221px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 802x1221px

>>52209822

A major problem is that there very few decent gun rules. The ones that are good tend to be terribly complex and usually offer a chance of a one shot kill, something many heroic fantasy games avoid.
Another problem is when they do add it they use blackpowder and PCs invariably blow up dragons and castles with barrels of the stuff.

>>52209676
This illustrates another point very nicely. Thanks.

>>52188908
Jesus, I hate this. I don't remember which it was, but I swear, there a fantasy book which took itself completely seriously and featured a ship which was clearly supposed to be a galleon firing another ship A BROADSIDE OF BALLISTAS.

>>52188936
>>Unrealistically advanced guns, in terms of firing-rate, which for some reason do no more damage than a crossbow or bow?

This one works perfectly, just remember that HP are not meat points and a bullet whizzing by someone's head or dinging off armor can still do as much damage as an arrow that ends up dramatically sticking out of fighter's shoulder while they slice through an enemy horde.

>>52192498
Sure. Also Dispel magic is a cantrip any class can know and it dispels ANY and all magic regardless of CL.

>>52209898
Don't barrels of gunpowder cost like 1000gp each?

File: 119wjdw.jpg (41KB, 569x428px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 569x428px

>>52191960
>realism =/= better game
Yep

>>52192011
>immersive game = better game though
Yeah, but it's not the only important thing, and it's not the most important thing.

Here's your game design pecking order:
Fun > balance > realism/immersion
All are important, but somethings are more important than others.

>>52188440
Some GMs just can't handle the power of awesome
I'm using a double barrel shotgun in 3.PF and dealing 12d8 + something with a full round attack at level 7
Problem is range is fucking shit but that's balance I guess

>>52210194
Very possibly, depending on the game.
PCs tend to have more cash than the country they are traveling through. Besides, they usually just steal it or murder a bunch of innocent pirates and take it.

Firearms don't ruin campaigns, that's the players' job.

>>52210194
Yeah but killing merchants that sell it is cheap

>>52209676
I use a hand matchlock once per encounter who the fuck thinks about reloading when you have a sword for backup

>>52210313
>>52210331
Spelljammer did 2 things right with firearms
Smokepowder is a magical substance that you can't duplicate, and they made the gun merchants unkillable 'gods' that you can't steal from.

>>52210397
Why are the PCs there when the merchants can do everything?

>>52210397
Exactly. Most gun stuff in heroic fantasy is poorly thought out when they do toss it in.

I think they got their jollies out of selling war materials to everyone just to watch them kill each other.

>>52188667
>firearms shouldn't have ignored plate armor
That's what actual people in actual suits of plate armor actually thought, until a bullet tore through it like paper and ended up in their insides. Guns are a huge reason why heavy metal armor became obsolete, what was the point in wearing it if any shmuck with a pistol was just gonna blast you anyway.

>>52210704
No, guns caused an arms race with thicker armor and bigger-caliber shots ending in the 1600s when velocities had finally gotten to the point that it wasn't practical to make armor heavy enough to protect against them.

>>52210778
But in fantasy land you could just get the armor enchanted to be resistant against Bullets.

>>52191960
Most of it isn't even realism, it's just the stupid misinterpretations of laymen in a topic who autistically defend their mistakes.

File: 478px-Jan_Vilímek_-_Jan_Žižka_z_Trocnova.jpg (42KB, 478x600px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 478x600px

Did I just hear someone shit-talking firearms?

>>52210704

You know plate armour was invented AFTER firearms right? Or the concept of 'Bulletproofing'?

>>52210331
Setting I ran had firearms be highly regulated, and the creator of the "rifle" and "gunpowder" was the one that fought claw and fang to make sure they were locked down as hard as possible. People have a general idea of the ingredients of gunpowder, but very few know the optimal ratios and coarseness of the resulting mixture. Though she didn't invent it, she did perfect it.

>>52188440
I would imagine people (by which I mean players and DM) going "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! GUNS!!!" destroys fantasy settings more than guns do. At least early/middling era firearms. No more advanced than anything you see in Pirates of the Caribbean (which, coincidentally, is what I'd like to rip off for an age of sail ACKS setting).
If you don't act like a fucking moron and give them obscene damage or abilities, they're really just more advanced crossbows (with, in my mind, the exception that anyone can fire them untrained - although with a hefty reload time and possible range penalty). Although they might use the melee weapon damage progression for hands/encumbrance. IE a pistol does 1d6 and a rifle 1d8 (mirroring swords and 2-handed swords).
I mean, if a level 7 ACKS fighter decked out in magic items can laugh off a level 0 soldier's crossbow bolts at point blank, doubtlessly he can do the same to the man's bullets.
A hero is a hero in a heroic fantasy setting. It's gonna take more than just a few level 0 assholes with [insert personal weapon here] to take him down.
Although speaking of ACKS, due to the cleave limits ranged weaponry has, you'd be better off with a bow against numerous-but-shitty foes than a crossbow or gods forbid a gun.

>>52195414
Even better if the MG42 really CAN kill gods.

>>52196638
That describes, at least in part, a lot of early DnD and DnD-likes where sci-fi and fantasy were blended together.
For example the Might and Magic CRPGs which took place (at least a few of them, anyway) inside a generation ship.

>>52204265
I don't have the mass combat rules for ACKS, so this is the best I can do (change stuff as needed):
Hwacha (300lb/30 stone) 90gp damage 1d6 (Five attacks that attack everything in a 10' radius)
Hwacha volley (ammo) 10gp
The Hwacha uses the attack throw of its operator(s) when attacking, like all other siege weapons. A Hwacha can be moved by a man, although encumbered. A horse may move a Hwacha unencumbered.

>>52211322
oh and I forgot the most important thing.
Range: 250 yards (750') in normal conditions. Doubled if the Hwacha is on a hill or has range advantage. The Hwacha's range (after bonuses for being on a hill) is halved in inclement weather.

>>52188879

1d10 with no bonuses is the same average damage as a d4 with a +3 damage modifier

File: 1370626294385.jpg (167KB, 800x889px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 800x889px

D&D armor makes you harder to hit.
In other games armor makes you easier to hit but reduces damage.
Bullets often have a penetration value that you would compare with the armor's damage resistance.

>>52211483
Both make sense

File: 1370583098440.jpg (292KB, 945x1280px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 945x1280px

>>52211550
Agreed.
I have been working on a 'Guns&Goblins' setting trying to resolve the issues that have been raised in this thread. I want to keep it simple and usable by my D&D5e group.
I am using 'The d20 Firearms The Definitive d20 Guide to Guns OWC3100'
and GURPS High Tech for the descriptive stuff.
So far so good. There are other game systems that work better with firearms, but I am avoiding teaching everyone a new system.

>>52211395
Why are you comparing two-handed firearms with a strength character using an improvised weapon/dagger? That's like comparing the damage of a hand crossbow versus a large warhammer wielded by a STR 26 raging barbarian.

>>52209924
Stormwrack does this.
I'm sorry, DMs everywhere, but you literally can't have the golden age of piracy without gunpowder. A pirate ship needs cannons, and if you can't allow that, then you're not allowed to have pirates.

>>52190481
How is that really a problem?
Like I could imagine some sperg being really annoying about it, obsessing about their special guns and mentioning them at length at any opportunity, but that sort of player could make anything shitty.

For what it's worth, having multiple pistols is actually pretty realistic since reloading in close combat is dangerous even with more modern quick reloading times. It has even become a thematic staple for some characters in media like pirates.
As for the specialised guns it's not really that different from having any specialised weapons for certain resistances/vulnerabilities.

File: 1473044320277.jpg (58KB, 400x539px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 400x539px

>>52212043
Anon is generally correct, the Ancient Greeks would probably disagree.
Shiver me Timbers!

>>52212031

the guy said 1d10 with no bonuses is slightly worse than a 2h melee weapon; my point is it's considerably worse

>>52212155
Golden Age of Piracy isn't the same as all pirates. Pirates were probably a thing in one form or another since a human put together sticks on a river and called it a boat, but pirates with triangular hats, parrots, and triple-decked ships making captives walk the plank are a trope of themselves.

>>52212197
Now factor in that you're only going to be firing every other round and every other round you're going to be provoking ALL the AoO with reloading actions. And now factor in that each bullet costs the same as a full quiver of 20 arrows, the base weapon costs 300gp to repair, and your ability to make multiple attacks during a full attack action is limited by what weapon you're using.
Now please tell me how a peasant is going to be able to afford a 1,500gp musket, 1gp per bullet, maintenance, and all the other costs and training required to fire it efficiently.

>>52212398
>And now factor in that each bullet costs the same as a full quiver of 20 arrows
This bit annoys me more than any other kind of firearms bullshit in RPGs. Arrows are work-intensive and expensive, while powder and shot are literally mass produced from lead and agricultural garbage.

>>52188440
Gunaboos are a thing in my setting.
They're seen as weirdos.
>Fucking gunaboos, fight with a bow like everyone else
>Point and shoot = no skill, get a crossbow fag
>Magic does it better
>Reload time lol
>Bows shoot twice as fast = deal twice as much damage

>>52212398

...I don't know what you're trying to argue with here. I said it's way worse than a 2h melee weapon in damage alone and you're continuing to give me more and more reasons it's worse

File: 1200px-Quibcardinaux2[1].jpg (111KB, 1200x742px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1200x742px

>>52188440
To be honest, gun enthusiasts are a lot more off-putting than actual guns.

Really, I don't mind them if they're balanced, but they rarely add that much to a setting, so I can take them or leave them. Cannons, though? Fucking LOVE me some cannons.

>>52212515
Pointing out that firearms, according to D&D, would not get mass produced since training and equipping a dozen archers is more effective than doing the same with a single musketman. Like how you could buy and train a whole chapter of space marines or train and equip a single Custode.

>>52212773
Most folks don't understand that the cost of iron before the industrial revolution was mindbogglingly expensive. In the 1200's the price of a suit of chain was equivalent to a Lear jet. Only the extremely rich had metal armor. Fantasy games usually gloss this over, or make PCs insanely rich.

>>52211293
>medieval government has the ability to regulate a weapon out of existence
>medieval government respecting the wishes of an inventor
>this invention is as simple as the mixture ratio of 3 ingredients
This is just too unrealistic, sorry.

>>52213106
You forget. Magic.

>>52213021
Yeah. Gambeson was pretty much the most common armor in the battlefield, right?

File: brown-jasper.jpg (3KB, 108x120px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 108x120px

>>52213279
If you are patching every plothole with magic, there may be an easier way.

"Y'see, Dwarven smiths make the finest firearms. Other folk can make adequate ones. The real problem is the stinkin' bullets. Dwarves carve them outa stratified stones from some secret mine somewhere. Mebbe they start out magical, mebbe they enchant them when they make em.
Dwarves sell guns to anyone with money, but bullets stay scarce and expensive."

>>52213471
If guns stay as rare as platemail, you don't have as much disruption of the classic fantasy campaign. No peasants storming the Bastille, reducing the numbers of princesses to rescue.
No town militia blowing the head off of the barbarian PC assaulting the Mayor's daughter, etc.

>>52212398
>1 GP per bullet
>a full gold piece for a small molded lead ball

I use a matchlock once per encounter and then use a sword or any other weapons for the rest of the fight, is that wrong? why would anyone endure the entire reloading cicle?

>>52213835
what makes the ball move?

>>52188440
>Why are GMs so against Gunslingers?
>Do firearms really destroy fantasy settings?
>Why are GMs so against Gunslingers?
>Do firearms really destroy fantasy settings?
>Why are GMs so against Gunslingers?
>Do firearms really destroy fantasy settings?
FUCKING MURLYND YOU 5E PLEBS
MURLYND

WHO IS MEEPO?

WHAT WAS THE TRIP TO BARRIER PEAKS ALL ABOUT

KILL YO SELF

>>52213929
This is the way to do it. Classic Blackbeard style.
2 braces of pistols is acceptable (4 total).

>>52213471
You can add magic into the game pretty easily. Like a magical super enchantment on currency to prevent people from replicating it.

>>52188440
Nothing wrong with fantasy in an age of guns, but that has to be the setting, like in pirates of the Caribbean. Why should there be a collection of medieval fantasy archetypes, and then "Oh yeah, here's a cowboy with 'grit points' in the setting too" It makes no sense.

>>52214086
What really makes no sense is why every setting isn't like Tippyverse.

>>52214086
oh my god you fucking fool, you don't realize what you've done

you've summoned the people who are autistic about monks

>>52196892
> How does a man, as someone in this thread put it, cause ranged explosions via interpretive dance and bat shit?

This needs to become a banner or something.

>>52188528
Kek

>>52210704
STOP FUCKING SPOUTING IGNORANT BULLSHIT WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU'RE JUST A FAT PATHETIC NECKBEARDED NERD

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>52212704
>gun enthusiasts are a lot more off-putting than actual guns.

You're why I don't allow liberals in my group

>>52189154
> Because they destroy the mage's tyranny on the setting and introduce a mage>martial>gunslinger rock>paper>scissors dynamic.

You know that spellcaster supremacy is not really linked to being able to dispose of a threat on the battlefield or facing each other.

Furthermore, firearms are good because they aim the Touch AC of a target. The wizard's weakness is having to prepare spells, having to plan ahead. Therefore the rock-paper-scissor would be wizard > fighter > rogue.

Gunslingers are just another class better at being a fighter than the fighter. It just costs more money to do so, but you can basically hit anything CR-related and bigger than you on a 2-4+.

File: murlynd bio.pdf (147KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1x1px

>>52213977
Your position was really strong until that last sentence.
>>52214342
Which system are you talking about?

>>52214342
Because Gunslinger gets full BAB and can pump DEX to 20+ They'll have an average of +11 to hit minimum at level 5. At that level they hit on a 3 or higher for 65% (average plus 1 standard deviation) of all CR 5 monsters. Heck, touch AC is under 20 with 65% of all monsters until around level 15.
Useless rant over. Here's a source for my useless rant. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E2-s8weiulPoBQjdI05LBzOUToyoZIdSsLKxHAvf8F8/htmlview#gid=3
For pathfinder BTW

>>52188440
what about magic enhanced guns/rifles?
like this one
>>52207653

File: 2017-01-30 17_22_01-Dragon Magazine #306.pdf - [Dragon Mag306] - SumatraPDF.png (2MB, 819x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 819x1080px

>>52214445
>Doesn't know about the items from that quest being redistribured post it's completion.

The canon characters from that quest were established, discredited by the monarch who sent them to do it, and the items given to retard ass sages that don't know dick.

Lord bless Murlynd for his use of buckshot and super smite by bullet action, and awesome paladins

>>52214564
I'm unsure of your position, sir.
I was merely offended by the ghetto talk that negated a valid argument.

>>52214338
circlejerk often ?

>>52214954
We do it daily while synchronize chanting "Kill Trump" and video and proudly share the experience on my tumblr.

>>52213021
firearms don't have to be metal. the first firearms were bambootubes strapped to spears. they had a blackpowder charger and some shrapnel or an arrow. Maybe you could drill out a piece of oak as a single shot/a few reloads bangstick? it could fuction as a mace or spear aferwards depending on attachments.

>>52188440
Firearms, no; semiautomatic or quickloading firearms yes.

Pirates are good. Cowboys can GTFO.

>>52214954
Yes, onto the captive liberals tied underneath the table.

File: AR22407.jpg (17KB, 500x260px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x260px

>>52212269
These characters, and tallships, and napoleonic sea battles, and all sorts of other things appear in Stormwrack.

You know what doesn't?

>>52214338
That's okay anon, you can have your safe space.

>>52213835
>>52213962
Actually, it's worse than that. In PF, the cost of bullets raises dramatically because it doesn't actually include the cost of the cartridge (metal or paper) or the gunpowder.

I've played a few gunslingers, and in every case I basically had to blow the DM to get them to give me cheaper prices on ammo. There's a lot of variant rules that basically come down to tech level advancement, and if you can get all of those in your favor, you could field a single full cartridge for a total of 1.76 per shot if crafted, or 2.01 if purchased.

When I made my own campaign setting, one of the two most important rules for ammo I made is that each kind of ammo comes with one price. Pay that price and you get 5 fully loaded metal cartridges, or 10 lead balls and wadding, and have to pay for black powder separate.

The other important rule was that, since people already think that damage = caliber, that I would just make all calibers deal the same damages, therefore a rifle that does 2d6 and a pistol that does 2d6 use the same ammunition. It's a cheat, but it's one the players seem happy to use as a compromise.

>>52214445
Pathfinder

>>52215707
Shit. I just remembered. It's actually 17gp per bullet. That means the gunslingeenplayer is essentially firing 240 arrows worth of consumables every single shot. Fucking hell

The only problem I have with guns in a fantasy setting is it seems like they always want to make a bunch of pointless extra rules for them. It's like someone always has to make them have some weird reloading or a shit ton of damage detail tagged on, when it's just easier to have them work similar to other ranged weapons in the same setting even if that means guns fall outside of the technological level you'd expect.
The existence of some sort of "gunslinger" or "engineer" class really only magnifies this.
To use 5e as an example they could work perfectly fine just as slightly tweaked crossbows
>>52188903
They changed the world, but that doesn't mean the same has to be true for people who wander into crypts to kill skeletons

>>52215821
You can squeeze that down to 10% of cost if ~DM's choice~, and you can get it even lower by crafting it personally (and you get that free basically for being a gunslinger).