Why is it that when firearms or other forms of advanced weapons

File: thats a lot of buffalo burgers.jpg (381KB, 1600x1251px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1600x1251px

>>53137953
Can't imagine why.

>>53137953
Im going to guess you have not used alot of guns in your life

>>53137953
Because, as everyone knows, bullets are capable of affecting targets that are incorporeal or immune to metal, and prevent beings capable of regenerating from doing so. Additionally, there is absolutely no way that any such being would be capable of operating a gun to its own advantage, or simply convincing a group of humans to do so for them. Really, OP, it's common knowledge.

>>53138055

>Oh no! My immunities only apply to swords! What ever will I do?

>>53138055
>he doesn't cast silver balls blessed with holy prayers and engraved with intricate runes of exorcism

>>53137953

Because bullets cemented mankinds supremacy IRL over beasts, by letting us engage them easily from a distance.

This applies much less effectively against fantasy monsters, given that a number of monsters either can only be harmed by specific things (werewolves might be killed by a silver bullet, but good fucking luck if you have literally anything else) or have ranged attacks of their own.

Like, modern firearms might be great dragonhunting tools. But bringing black powder weapons against a dragon just says to me "hey, there is a group of dudes that are going to EXPLODE when they get hit with dragonfire".

>>53138080

Recognize that bullets are, metaphysically, tiny swords and thus maintain your immunity.

File: this.jpg (20KB, 385x196px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 385x196px

>>53137969

>Orcs get guns and undergo a massive social revolution
>Prussian Orcs

aaaaaaaaaaaaa

File: 5978634+_213e203a54bf97fb54a962eda09e421a[1].png (189KB, 500x343px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 500x343px

>>53137969
That was during the age of backloaded cartridge rifles and the Maxim gun, which effectively allowed for the colonization of Africa by ensuring that 1000 Europeans could take on literally hundreds of thousands of tribesmen. In such a world monsters would be extinct. 16th century handguns that use a standard and a fuse and fire about a shot a minute? Not so much. Even when we get Napoleonic muskets that utterly supplant melee weapons for anyone not on horseback (and some people on horseback, see chasseur à cheval) we don't have the guarantee that monsters will be exterminated. That's still 3-5 shots a minute. And all that is before we get into such things as magic and thick scales and whatnot.

>>53138293
>Destructive to the point of being self-sabotaging
>Somehow manage to survive to fuck things up for everyone yet again
Yeah, Prussian Orcs does fit a lot.

>>53140786
>That was during the age of backloaded cartridge rifles and the Maxim gun, which effectively allowed for the colonization of Africa by ensuring that 1000 Europeans could take on literally hundreds of thousands of tribesmen. In such a world monsters would be extinct.

But, there are still African Tribesmen.

>>53140985
inb4 WE WUZ FANTASY MONSTERS AN' SHEEEIT

But really. What would monster races do if they got their hands on gunpowder?
>Goblins with small firearms and ambush teams
>Kobolds using them in their traps like it's Vietcong Smissmas
>Gnolls going full African Warlord

This is implying that any goblin is smart enough to manufacture it for use in combat or that they would be able to ever begin repairing or creating firearms. >>53141276
>but what if they steal the weapon?
Then they have stolen weapons which is the same as goblins wielding magical +2 shortbows.

In a gunpowder setting races like kobalds or goblins could steal a pseudo-cannon that they wheel around on a cart and fire ball bearings out of, it makes little sense that they would have a large number of complicated firearms, whereas if they've stolen a single cannon as a shock - ambush tactic it is more realistic.

>>53137953
To not die to a firearm monster should have one of the following qualities:

-Incorporeal
-No vitals
-Armor
-Stealth

-Incorporeality assumes magic. But say in TES world could be easily overcome with silver bullets.
-No vitals is effective. Demons, magically powered zombies and other automatons that don't care about heads are more or less immune to firearms and piercing damage. You need either siege or slashing weapons to cut them into pieces.
-Armor that can stop firearms means that, unless we are in a really high fantasy, all other weapons are ineffective against them too. Such juggernauts should be stopped with traps and not weapons.
-Stealth probably needs some kind of intelligence to back it up or incredibly powerful physical body. Or it won't carry the monster far enough.

Vampire is a good example of a monster that is hard to kill with firearms. It has stealth, a number of abilities supplementing it and its vitals have certain limitations on what can affect them.

On the other hand giants, ogres, even trolls and say manticores will die really fast to firearms. Being big and having a physical body becomes a disadvantage.

>>53137953
Because of insecure macho idiots, who hate the idea that their precious guns might not actually be all-powerful in every possible situation. They will cry foul of any scenario in which guns are useless, calling it contrived bullshit and the like, while praising to high heaven any scenario that presents guns as godlike, allowing the user to slaughter any and all fantasy creatures with ridiculous ease.

This despite both scenarios being equally contrived, because that's how fiction works.

>>53141797
Actually in a setting with D&D races I could see goblins rising up. They don't have penalties to intelligence and like to sneak around. Due to their tribal nature they may have some trouble at the start but one of the tribes will get their paws on firearms and subjugate their neighbours.

In fact the relationship between orcs and goblins will probably be reversed. With goblins ruling over orcs and using them as dumb meatshields and shock troops.

We'll call it something like "Rise of the goblin Genghis Khan"

>>53141893
Or just, y'know, being immune to firearms specifically.

I mean, if you're allowing incorporeal entities and robots, why not allow magic that is symbolically opposed to firearms? You're already way outside the realms of realism.

>>53141953
If we go with sympathetic and symbolic magic firearms will probably never even exist. Such world will be too different even from D&D type fantasy.

>>53137953
Because the average /tg/ goer only thinks in pseudo(read pretend) realist D&D rules setting.

Guns in whfb did jackshit to chaos and monsters.
Guns and even fucking deathrays do little to monsters in anima.
Guns do little to monsters in coc/delta green.
Guns in hunter the vigil arent enough to kill high level monsters.
Etc... Etc...


Read up more systems and settings familia.

>>53141970
What are you talking about?

Magic is fiction. Fiction can be whatever its creator wants. Creators are under no obligation to make fiction that is any way realistic, or which adheres to existing ideas.

if a creator says that their setting has guns, but they don't work against monsters for a specifically magical reason, then that's just how their fictional world works, "realism" be damned.

File: 1442805047507.jpg (202KB, 651x500px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 651x500px

>>53137953
Because this
>Because bullets cemented mankinds supremacy IRL over beasts, by letting us engage them easily from a distance.
And this
>>53141932

People expect guns to work like a super death ray in any setting regardless of if it makes sense in that setting, they do it because people know guns or at least think they know guns and know that is you shoot something you have a better than 50/50 chance of killing it. People also know that guns IRL meant a hell of a lot of animals went fucking extinct or were brought damn close to it so they assume that would mean that once black powder was invented dragons would be wiped off the face of the earth regardless of the power of said dragons or the basic tone and metaphysics of the setting.

>>53142062
If you are okay with worlds crafted like this I can only pity you.

It's not about realism it's about verisimilitude and internal consistency.

>>53142087
Not the anon you are responding to but I can only assume that you are either trying to bait an argument because you have nothing better to do or you actually are just that autistic and can't accept that people don't subscribe to your narrow ass definition of what is and is not acceptable in an RPG setting
This being /tg/ I'm gonna hedge my bets and say both

>>53142121
Probably.

I just really dislike when authors put things labelled "just because".

>>53138115
arrows

>>53142070
>gee bill, how come your mom lets you have two hammers?

>>53142139
>"just because".
>>53142062
>a specifically magical reason
Hmm.

>>53142139
>I just really dislike when authors put things labelled "just because".

my problem with this too. If you handwave shit with "magic" at least handwave it properly.

File: weaponsystem_study_by_darkpalette-d7lf6dd.jpg (2MB, 2133x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2133x1200px

>>53137953
>advanced weapons
This is the operative word. Once you get into breech loading rifles and automatic weapons (even something as simple as a Maxim or Gatling), the power of firearms skyrockets into absurdity. You can just do a crazy amount of damage with bullets; WWII machine guns were knocking limbs off of people.

That said, firearms as we know them today probably wouldn't develop, or at least develop nearly as quickly, with mages and sorcerers running around because someone who can throw fire or lightning from his fingertips is suddenly insanely dangerous to any black powder line. Or at least moreso than normal.

I actually found a mediocre LN series that dealt with something like this. Instead of deploying large amounts of riflemen or whatever, black powder was pretty much limited to rarely deployed mortars. They'd get one or two volleys off while the enemy was unaware of them and then ditch the weapons before the enemy mages could mount a counter attack and blow them to hell and back. Since no one could figure out a reliable way to guard the powder from magical attacks, firearms never made it into mainstream use.

Of course in lower magic settings this doesn't usually hold up as well, but something to consider anyway.

>>53142010
/thread.

>>53142087
A world contrived story-first usually has a lot more interesting stuff going on in it than a world contrived setting-first. There's usually a lot more odd errata and strange things in the margins, because in building their world around the contrivances of their plot, writers are forced to use a good deal of innovative thinking to justify their narrative.

Letting your plot dictate your worldbuilding is the best, because it will often lead you to interesting and unique ideas that you never would have come up with otherwise.

>>53142139
Here's a thought for you: everything in fiction is there "just because". It's all contrived. All of it. Stories are not windows into other worlds; they are artifacts of creative endeavour. "Why is there something here instead of nothing?" The answer is, "because the author decided there should be". It is absurd to expect any other answer.

File: i don't have an appropriate image response so here's an eagle holding a rifle.jpg (68KB, 480x622px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 480x622px

The root of "death ray guns" problem is basic RPG assumption of "Hit points = meat points".

Swords are a thing of the past, so we have no problem thinking that they remove relatively small number of "meat points" because we aren't really exposed to how damaging they were historically (and heroic fantasy/swashbuckling media only reinforces the erroneous belief).

Guns, however, are much more recent, much more dangerous and to see how damaging they are we just need a cursory look at the internet (or news if you are murrican). Therefore, in games, they are treated as in real life, while swords don't have such courtesy.

So, the solution to instant death guns is actually simple:

1. Get rid of meat points and DESCRIBE YOUR COMBAT BETTER. There's many ways to explain away loss of HP - exhaustion, being stuck in unsafe position, even glancing injuries and scratches. Move away from "let's hack at it till it dies combat.
2. Action movie combat. Usually our games aren't accurate simulations, so why guns should follow the real life rules? Remember cheesy-ass 80s-90s action movies and employ everything from them - the near-misses, the magazines emptied around action hero, the action hero being shot and removing the bullet from the wound, the whisky flask of shielding... you have a huge library of tricks to make guns narratively cool and not overpowered, do not default to boring "instant death to meat points" bullshit.

>>53142239
It really should've been
Every time this topic is brought up it is always because guys are either jacking themselves off over their precious guns, assuming that a Hill Giant would essentially work like a bipedal elephant and therefore be killed in the same ways, or defaulting to a specific system usually D&D or specific setting usually Forgotten Realms or their own dumbass aspie homebrew

>>53141797
>any goblin is smart enough to manufacture it for use in combat or that they would be able to ever begin repairing or creating firearms
If Africans could do it why not goblins. They've had a burgeoning firearms industry since the 17th century.

>>53142248
>just because
Well for starters it had to mesh well with the FUN of the group in question. I would kick my DM in the nuts if he'd make effeminate traps the main race in a setting just because.

>>53142291
>basic RPG assumption of "Hit points = meat points".
Because 90% of the time they are. Yes even in D&D we all know D&D is the default system for any fucking argument on this board dick head because let's face it D&D past 5th level isn't anything more than a superhero setting draped in a "medieval" fantasy veneer

>>53142336
Yes, and?

I don't see how that contradicts my argument. A world contrived for the sake of an RPG group's enjoyment is no less contrived than a world contrived for the sake of its creator's fetishes. It's all contrivance, all the way down.

The sooner you stop complaining and just accept the unreality of it all, the happier you'll be for it.

>>53142412
Well why don't you concede the point, just because? Because I mean why not?

>>53142360
that's cool and all, but this seems like an easily fixable problem. There's nothing in the rules preventing you from not treating hit points as meat points.

>>53142301
>aspie hmebrew
You mean
>its all /tg/ troupes but supper dark and gritty
>we still use MY FIXED I PROMISE version of d&d

>>53142360
>Yes even in D&D

It's outright stated in the book that they aren't meat points.

>>53137953
It didn't take too long to wipe out some monsters in the americas.

>>53142010
Are you high? Guns in WHFB were very much pretty effective at wiping out big monsters that would tear apart battleline with ease.

I don't even like guns, but their proponents do have a point - make monsters dangerous enough to not fear them and you don't fucking have a setting because they wipe out civilization long before guns can be invented. Why would a dragon immune to guns simply not eat humans (who compete for food with him, so win-win) until there are none left? It's the drooling morons who contrive whatever reasons the guns don't work who have the burden of proof the setting would still work on them.

As for black powder weapons being useless, please. As if dragon breath or fireball isn't vastly more effective against a pike square than it is against loose skirmish line full of cheap guns (that are by the way vastly cheaper than good sword or bow and require fraction of training). Does your dragon have eyes and/or throat? Then eating 20 mm lead ball to either with a force strong enough to knock a knight off his saddle will make it not a problem very quickly. Lack of vital organs is not a problem, mummy or zombie hit with musket ball would be torn to shreds.

Does your mage needs a line of sight? Then good luck surviving being pelted with hundreds of bullets from outside typical spell range. Even if medieval guns are not that accurate, the numbers do add up and someone will eventually hit. Congratulations, your wizened old spellcasterwho spent 50 years learning the arcane ways was just killed by 18 year old peasant #2356 after two weeks of drill. And that's why, muh-technolgy-iz-bad crowd, is why guns would fucking dominate magical battlefields very quickly. Because if you contrive enough reasons why guns don't work, nothing else will and there will be no civilization in that setting at all, just groups of cavemen hiding away in dark corners.

>>53142730
>battleline
>formation
>hundreds of bullets

I want all people who confuse single/small party combat and formation combat to painfully die of explosive diarrhea.

>>53142730
>I don't even like guns
I don't believe you.

Here are some simple ways of fucking over guns without raping the setting:
>Protection from normal missiles
It's a third-level spell, if your wizard can cast fireball, he can probably make himself immune to arrows and bullets too.
>monsters are immune to damage from lead
Doesn't stop you using steel, iron, or copper shot, but those are all worse for the barrel than lead. The next one does, though.
>monsters are immune to non-edged metal weaponry
So you can't hit them with metal clubs. What a world-shattering tragedy.

>>53142248
My problems is mostly with the fact that 90% authors who put plot first never bother with implications of things that they introduce for it to work. They use plot device number X and then drop it. And it never again resurfaces in any other circumstances even if even most retarded of characters could see how it would have benefited them in such situation.

Plot first is also bad for tabletop RPG games due to the fact that players have tendency to drift or suddenly become obsessed with some seemingly miniscule detail. When you have at least basic guidelines for your setting it's much easier to improvise when players inevitably come up with something new and unpredictable.

>>53142730
Oh yes! They are great at FIGHTING them not genociding them.
Chaos demons still exists.
Orcs and gobos still exists.
Ogres still exists.
Giants still exists.
Lizardmen still exist.
Skaven still exists.


I can go on fuccboi. Go get bleach.

>>53144315
Chaos demons - don't have real vitals and more or less immortal.
Orcs and goblins - have inhuman physiology and breed faster than rabbits.
Ogres - use their own bigger guns
Lizardmen - Slanns are more or less best magic users in the world and they live on another continent
Skaven - have their own guns

>>53142815

This is another thing to consider. It seems like when the topic of how fighting is done in a setting is it done from the perspective of two military forces in setting fighting each other or a group of random individuals with even more random skill sets and no obligation to adhere to or use military tactics fighting together against, usually, single targets?

I feel like the question of practicallity hits a wall here because what may work for an individual obviously isn't going to work very well on a large scale (maybe) So while an army of Guts isn't reasonable or even desireable one guy who is Guts in a mixed group certainly would be

>>53142730
>Mobilizing a battalion to kill a single wizard
wew

>>53148274
In D&D I would gladly trade a division of soldiers vs one level 20 wizard.

It all depends on the setting.

>>53137953

Because guns represent human advancement.

In Princess Mononoke, the guns were just too strong for the beasts. They literally couldn't handle bombs and guns and cannons, they couldn't understand what was happening. Humans are too smart and 'guns' is the point where that intelligence gives them an unbeatable edge over simple creatures.

File: Operation Starfish Prime.png (1MB, 717x883px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 717x883px

>>53137953
No idea, it is the first time I heard of this assumption myself. And it doesn't seem believable.

Seems the kind of thinking of people that think a single factor can be so decisive that nothing else matters, really.

>>53142291
>Action movie combat. Usually our games aren't accurate simulations, so why guns should follow the real life rules? Remember cheesy-ass 80s-90s action movies and employ everything from them - the near-misses, the magazines emptied around action hero, the action hero being shot and removing the bullet from the wound, the whisky flask of shielding... you have a huge library of tricks to make guns narratively cool and not overpowered, do not default to boring "instant death to meat points" bullshit.
So like GURPS with the action and gun-fu splatbooks?

>>53148274
I mean, the church IRL mobilized entire hit squads to kill peasants/suspected witches.

If you have a dangerous enough threat why not bring backup?

>>53137953
Because people are dumb.

Seriously, in a world where MAGIC already exists why would black powder firearms be what wipes out the owlbear?

>but muh access to the common man

Give a normal man a musket to hunt with and see how well he does. Even people good with muskets have to take into account that misfires WILL happen, much less how to land a distance shot.

Meanwhile, depending on the setting a single wizard could tear apart a company of armed soldiers by manipulating weather, launching fireballs from hundreds of feet away while sneaking around or just fucking unmake them.

There is only ONE argument to make when it comes to firearms wiping out monsters; Magic Guns, and good ones. Even then, in a high magic world in particular I don't see it wiping out every single monster.

>>53138115
And regular dudes just burn to death when cooked by dragonfire. But with gunpowder, you can knock that bitch out the sky with a cannonball (or shell, depending on advances) and possibly panic and definitely hurt them with a volley of musketry

>>53154698

That said, I feel people mix things up when you talk from a narrative perspective versus a game mechanics perspective.

I mean, how do you accept the fact that a bow and arrow or a sword can miss it's mark every now and again but a gun always has to hit?

I mean, speaking purely from D&D I suppose you could fluff your AC as just tanking the bullets and them plinking off your armor (or your skin) or you could have dodge a shot that wasn't well aimed.

>>53148640
In order to even reach a level 20 Wizard's pinky toe in relative power scale, you'd need to have a planet's worth of soldiers at your disposal, each outfitted with their own anti-magic gear, and you'd have to mobilize them without alerting the wizard to your plan.

The logistics just aren't going to be in your favor.

Depends on how advanced your talking. An anti-tank rocket would fuck a dragon.

>>53142010
>guns in whfb do shit

Laughingdawi.rune

>>53137953
Because most monsters tend not to be sapient outside of d&d style kitchen sink settings. Guns provide a terrifyingly loud power advantage to whomever has them.

Any sapient monster isn't going to have the production to have their own guns. Hence why they're being refereed to as monsters and not just non-humans. I'd expect them to get on as well as the savages of old.

>>53154763
>I mean, how do you accept the fact that a bow and arrow or a sword can miss it's mark every now and again but a gun always has to hit?

I mean Pathfinder has sort of the opposite problem. Bows are almost superior in every way besides a firearm's almost guaranteed chance to hit...with 20-40 ft. of their target.

Other than that, firearms balance themselves. Black powder is good against heavily armored opponents, specifically at close range. However, they are not pinpoint accurate. Fast and agile opponents have no problem getting around them.

Furthermore, a gun's usefellness REALLY comes into question when magic and magical healing comes into play. Most people died from musket-fire due to fever and disease, not just vital shots. In worlds where more competent healers are available guns lose this lethal advantage over other ranged weapons.

>>53155024
>Furthermore, a gun's usefellness REALLY comes into question when magic and magical healing comes into play. Most people died from musket-fire due to fever and disease, not just vital shots. In worlds where more competent healers are available guns lose this lethal advantage over other ranged weapons.

Be that as it may, when has this ever became a thing in game? Never mind it entirely depends on what your fighting. Undead and Trolls arn't going to be terrible bothered or hindered by that sort of thing anyways.

>>53141276
That sounds awesome...

>>53155162
True, you only really have realistic wound systems in low or no magic settings anyways. I guess I was just talking from a world concept, not a game concept.

>>53137953
Because people are covinced that guns are ungodly death-rays that can kill literally anything with one shot.
Basically it's fucking pussies' faults for spreading this "one-hit-you-die" meme about anything remotely dangerous with their failure to acknowledge that life is a lot sturdier than they think.
I've had actual people ask me why anyone would play in a low-fantasy setting with just swords and shit "because your character would just die immediately."

>>53141276
>whut of we taek a homhom cooltur
>AND MAEK IT BOKOLDS!!!!11!ONE1
Never heard that one before!

>>53142433
Except for the fact that every attack that deals damage takes away a quantifiable amount of HP from your current total. You can give an okay description that tells you what you need to know, but at the end of the day, how it actually plays out is
>"Okay, roll an attack roll."
>"Okay...I rolled a 22."
>"Awesome, you hit, roll damage."
>"Okay...I rolled 12 damage, wait...I forgot to add my modifier(s) from X so...it's actually 19."
>"Okay cool, you [cut/bludgeon/stab] his [body part] in a gruesome fashion. Now, who's next on the initiative track?"
In any system where you track damage using numerical values, you're going to end up with meat points if the damage that you can take before dying easily eclipses that amount of damage that a single attack can perform.

No reason to feel frightened over 1d4+STR damage when you have over 50HP and a fuck-huge fort/CON save prevent death.

>>53142654
Y'mean like how it's outright stated in the book that a wizard and a fighter of equal level are equal in power?

Prose doesn't mean shit if the mechanics don't line up with the fluff.

>>53137953
Yeah but heres the problem with guns: They're the great equalizer.

Soon as the monster races gets their hand on them its over for humans.

>>53154249
I can't tell if this post is deliberately ironic or not.

>>53137953

Because idiots don't know what their talking about anon

>>53155371
>you're going to end up with meat points if the damage that you can take before dying easily eclipses that amount of damage that a single attack can perform.
Not if you realise that the amount of physical damage dealt by an attack is actually meant to be related to the fraction of your total HP done by said attack. 5 HP out of 90? A scratch or bruise. 5 HP out of 6? A wound so grievous you're barely conscious.

>>53155371
>In any system where you track damage using numerical values, you're going to end up with meat points if the damage that you can take before dying easily eclipses that amount of damage that a single attack can perform.

not if you have/are a halfway decent GM.

>>53154375
Pretty much.

For all the flak GURPS gets here, it's really far better and easier to learn system than D&D.

>>53142211
>That said, firearms as we know them today probably wouldn't develop, or at least develop nearly as quickly, with mages and sorcerers running around because someone who can throw fire or lightning from his fingertips is suddenly insanely dangerous to any black powder line. Or at least moreso than normal.
I'm so tired of this bullshit.
Gun wizard would totally be a thing
You're a fucking wizard. You know shit. You know all sorts of alchemical shit. You know physics shit. You know metaphysics shit. You know that magic takes time to cast.
Once the nonmages invent rudimentary firearms, wizards are going to be ALL OVER THAT SHIT.
Don't have enough time to cast a spell? Didn't prepare any combat spells? Or simply don't want to waste the spell slot. bang. Bang. BANG.
Wizards already spend a lot of time preparing spells, might as well prepare some ammo as well.
You can't counterspell a bullet.

Saying "wizards won't bother with guns because they have spells" is like saying "armies won't bother with infantry because they have artillery".

File: outlawstar.jpg (183KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1680x1050px

>>53158054
>gun wizard

>>53137953
>Firearms
>being required to extinct animal species

There used to be lions in Europe and rhiozeros in China.

>>53158507

Not to mention elephants, who were exterminated as a centralised government policy because they kept getting in the way of farming.

>>53154835
Gun the slann moving the mountains away.

>>53144765
>all those exist still

Woah. So much for firearms killing all monsters you fucking retard.

Also
Tomb kings
Beast men
Elves
Chos warriors/barbarians
Vamp cunts

Seriously go get the bleach retard.

Also
>gobos
>inhuman anything but idiocy

>>53137953
Because you know what happens when a horde of dudes with short range or melee weapons charges a position held by men with guns?

The Somme.

>>53157757
>Level 1 characters are more fragile than a level 10 character.
Stop the presses senpai!

Also, if HP wasn't meat points and didn't eclipse the amount of damage that a single attack can perform, then wouldn't it mean that 5 damage would always deal the same level of injury no matter what?

>>53157866
Even the best GM isn't going to get around the fact that they need to tell you "okay, what happens is [flowery description] and you lose X damage."

It's just the way the game is designed.

>>53159791
And that's okay. I'm just saying that damage can be expressed in ways different that just slicing slabs of meat off the barbarian.

>>53159785
Compare:
>The skeleton swings its club at your Level 1 fighter. You barely manage to block it with your buckler, the aftershock of the hit surging through your forearm. You lose 5 HP.

>The skeleton swings its club at your Level 20 fighter. You barely register the threat, swatting it away with your shield. It still takes a token effort, however - lose 5 HP.

And i'm not even a good GM. Yet i can think of combat in terms other than "two guys stab each other until one falls.

File: Musket Cartridge American 1775-1780.jpg (34KB, 432x279px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 432x279px

>>53138111
>Silver bullet with runes/sigils scratched in
>The paper cartage is holy script or spell tags
>Blackpowder made-for-purpose
-Charcoal made from wooden relics, magic woods etc
-Sulfur from magically or demonically active locations
-Saltpeter made from the waste of magical creatures or holy people.

>>53154698
>but muh access to the common man
>Give a normal man a musket to hunt with and see how well he does.

...Pretty damn good actually, when it becomes cheap enough to part of modern culture. Hell, we get both nogunz and "high-speed-low-drag tacticool" chumps at my museum's musket range, and after a shot or two, they will regularly hit paper.

>Even people good with muskets have to take into account that misfires WILL happen, much less how to land a distance shot.

I literally shoot muskets every day for a living. Basic maintenance mitigates this problem to a near nonissue. Regular practice makes a 120-140 yard shot with about a nine-inch drift the norm. Aiming for center of mass means that missing isn't a huge problem.

>>53158135
Iron Kingdom's/Warmahordes gunmages are also a good example.

>>53160205
>my museum's musket range
>I literally shoot muskets every day for a living
Where the fuck do you work and what do you do? I call bullshit.

File: shrapnel.gif (105KB, 271x466px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 271x466px

>>53159301
Crap is supposed to come out of one of the lower holes.

>>53140985
>But, there are still African Tribesmen.
Yeah, but don't think the Europeans couldn't have exterminated them if they really wanted to. It's just that they're more profitable alive. On the flipside, the only ones who don't get shit for genocide are the ones who succesfully complete it. There'd be less whining about 'muh reparationz' if there was nobody left to whine about it. Just something to get your noggin joggin.

>>53137953
they were all shot dummy

File: elevator.jpg (35KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x480px

>>53137953
Because we have weapons so powerful that their only practical use is as a mutual deterrent to war, so in a world where monsters attack us what chance would they stand if they were unable to invent and create these weapons themselves?

>>53166446
>monsters attacking?
>nuke ourselves out of existence!
>that'll show 'em.

File: hair.jpg (4KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 200x200px

>>53166480
>implying we don't have smaller weapons

>Why is it that when firearms or other forms of advanced weapons are brought up or introduced there is a sudden assumption that all monsters are instantly up for being wiped out of existence?

Most monsters are balanced against primitive weapons, and guns > spears, so if spears = monsters, guns > monsters.

This isn't rocket science senpai.

>>53166578
Not to mention that if monsters are powerful enough to face evenly against guns, it's unlikely humanity would have survived long enough to invent guns in the first place.

>>53167121
Depends on how common those monsters are, and how much of their territory overlaps with humanity.

File: 1443673770137.png (109KB, 285x305px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 285x305px

>>53155343
wew kid, calm down

>>53166578
>Most monsters are balanced against primitive weapons
"Primitive weapons" and literal magic including fireballs, disintegration, lightning and magical weapons not to mention superhuman ability to wield those weapons.
Especially considering the classic dungeon crawl setup close range weapons could be competitive with guns, have you never heard of the 21 foot rule?
>spears = monsters
A commoner with a spear isn't going to take down a dragon and they probably wouldn't do much better with a gun.

It's not rocket science but you're apparently too stupid to use logic properly.

>>53141893
>-No vitals is effective. Demons, magically powered zombies and other automatons that don't care about heads are more or less immune to firearms and piercing damage. You need either siege or slashing weapons to cut them into pieces.
You run into an issue almost as big as the armor one with this since it would make them immune to arrows, spears, rapiers... hell a lot of things as well.

>>53168035
For things like golems guns aren't going to be more effective than just hammering at it until modern high-power armour piercing technology.
I mean an iron golem is basically a more resistant tank.

Of course you're still ignoring that such high-level threats are usually fought with extraordinary/supernatural skill and strength beyond real-world humans along with literal magic.

>>53168035
Yep. Cut and only cut.

Even bludgeoning won't work. At least not fully. but it is good for really scary monsters. Which don't actually die even after you cut them into pieces. You still need to burn them and they will be twitching until they transform into ashes.

>>53137953
Because modern media has conditioned people into thinking guns are deathrays. If a bullet touches you, you're either dead or unconscious and bleeding out

>>53168446
>tfw a major cause of death from duels and shootings was infection from bits of dirty cloth getting in the wound
Yeah, people just really expect the action-movie interpretation of modern guns. The only place I see talk of historical guns is in the weapon picture threads.

>>53137953
Any movie where they want to make the monster a threat will ignore bullets without even as much as an explanation.

See the new Jurassic World for example. We have a scene with around 15 men with assault rifles firing constantly for at least 8 seconds agaisnt a creature almost the size of the broad side of a barn, from something like 20 meters. And yet the beast just walks off. In no moment they explain why it's hide can perform better than Kevlar or give it any particular reason to be bullet resistance. It just is.

Most werewolves movies, even when they are not impervious to non-silver bullets, people simply seem to miss all shots against them. Same thing for almost all monster movies. Sometimes they provided a in-world reason for this bullet resistance, sometimes not even that. It's either 'all miss' or just no effect.

My point being, not all settings with firearms assume monster would be extinct. Only human-wank. When it's monster wank, they assume they don't make a difference.

>>53140985
Because that other anon is a retard.

The colonization of Africa didn't happen because of machine guns allowing Europeans to gun down tribesmen. It was because new advances in medicine, transportation, and other technologies allowed people to travel to places that had been literally inpossible to get to before and thus were isolated even from their neighbors (see the Congo where it was not unheard of for a tribe to have no contact outside of a hundred miles)

Once they got there, a mox of protection rackets, kingmaking, agressive trade policies, coups, and general meddling with local politics enabled them to set up protectorates which is what most of the colonization was.

>>53170439
Which is sort of what would happen to fantasy land as tech advances. New technology allows people to go places they couldn't before and allows easy transportation of goods and soldiers over vast distances. The monsters die because people encroach on their territory and are able to easily get more people to help them kill any that resist.

>>53141934

Hobgoblins... They have bonuses to intelligence, regularly subjugate goblins and bugbears for manpower, are already very warlike and tactical, and they are fuckin ruthless.

File: sword.jpg (233KB, 650x858px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 650x858px

>>53167730
>A commoner with a spear isn't going to take down a dragon and they probably wouldn't do much better with a gun.
If a commoner with a gun couldn't take down a dragon then the mightiest heroes (within our real human limits) wouldn't stand a chance.

>>53171331
>mightiest heroes
>(within our real human limits)
pick one

File: kj.jpg (64KB, 634x900px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 634x900px

>>53171400
Well when it comes to Hercules levels of strength and power, sure, anything is possible. In fact a gun would actually be a detriment in that situation, because it wouldn't be reliant on your personal strength.

As for magic, it depends on how easy and powerful it is. It would need to be easy enough to teach en mass to the commoners, and more powerful than firearms to justify guns not being helpful. Remember, guns were actually inferior to bows and arrows for a time, however they were still used because you could train a good musketeer in weeks instead of decades like a good bowman would require. And of course that's not taking into account the enchantments and magical enhancements that guns might be improved with.

>>53171499
Nah thats a myth.aside from the very earliest pieces like handgonnes guns were straight up superior, being easier to aim and having massive killing power compared to a bow. Even handgonnes were a big step up from bows in a lot of areas.

>>53137953

Because if you can shoot a tiny metalic thing (A) a long distance (B) with some small ammount of powder (C), and where (A) is directly proportionate to (C); then,

More (A), more (C) for same (B).

Want more distance? Increase (C).

This allows to penetrate more, so hit more.

Killing dragon gods becomes a matter of international affairs by that point.

>>53168942
Even if it's not resistant to bullet spray, what exactly would rounds designed to take out human sized targets do against a creature of that size?

Not to mention, the I-Rex was a freak show that was intentionally designed to be an apex predator so for all we know its scales are about as hard (if not harder) than a T-Rex or something against relatively small firearms.

>>53171912
>what exactly would rounds designed to take out human sized targets do against a creature of that size?
Bullet hits brain/heart. Creature goes down.

Now, I understand that bigger creatures might need a bigger gun to take them down, hence the existence of elephant guns. But keep in mind that even an elephant can be taken down with a 5.56, it's just a matter of hitting the right spot.

You are right about the I-Rex though. That thing might have very well been bulletproof (which begs the question on why they sent guys with TASERS to bring it down)

>>53172063
>which begs the question on why they sent guys with TASERS to bring it down
Because they didn't want to a) kill off their upcoming attraction and b) shut down the park.

The only reason they even decided to go on the offensive was when the I-Rex became too much of a problem to safely contain, especially since an unknown amount of persons died when it smash the Pteridactyl enclosure.

File: 1423985693722.gif (982KB, 320x287px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 320x287px

>>53171741
>gods
>can be killed by inert crap going fast

>>53159834
>The skeleton swings its club at your Level 1 fighter. You barely manage to block it with your buckler, the aftershock of the hit surging through your forearm. You lose 5 HP.
>The skeleton swings its club at your Level 20 fighter. You barely register the threat, swatting it away with your shield. It still takes a token effort, however - lose 5 HP.
You're only proving my point about meat points easily eclipsing the amount of damage a single attack can perform chief.

5 damage shouldn't become less threatening to a player just because they gained levels, if anything 5 damage should consistently be threatening, but you gain more powers and abilities to either avoid the damage outright or mitigate damage so you take less overall.

Instead, you just soak up more damage and even if you narrate the damage as being a certain way, all the player is going to see is "oh, this monster only deals X damage, we're safe" or "oh shit, this monster deals X damage, we're going to die!"

>>53163241
>>"consider the positives of genocide"

What did he mean by this?

>>53137953
Pretty simple really, despite all the autistic spurging.

Guns are the best hand held tools to date for killing. If the gun you have right now isn't good enough, a bigger gun will usually do the trick.

Though I will say it's a bit dumb to assume all monsters are instantly wiped out. Iron Kingdoms does a decent job of balancing firearms in my opinion. You can also look at Shadowrun. Ended up taking the equivalent of a highly advanced nations military to kill dragons in both settings. Settings where dragons aren't some loot box but instead are some of the most intelligent and powerful, magically and otherwise, beings in the world. To the point that PC's couldn't realistically win against them, ever.

>>53162219
One of the largest living history museums in the world, actually.

>>53172063
>>53172132
Also consider tasers wouldn't care about bullet resistance. If I hold a nice big metal plate to stop bullets and then you electrify it, unless I have gear to prevent that I'll get a shock too.

>>53172447
He's just pointing out how the "successful" genocides, where a population was completely wiped out, usually aren't talked about. Mostly due to the people who would care, the ones being killed, are all dead.

>>53172622
Sounds dope af famalam.
Also, firearms are really easy to learn to use. You can literally teach children how to use them safely.

>>53172793
>Also consider tasers wouldn't care about bullet resistance. If I hold a nice big metal plate to stop bullets and then you electrify it, unless I have gear to prevent that I'll get a shock too.
Thing is, your body's natural resistance to electricity also depends on whether or not it penetrates the skin.

If we're looking at human sized tazers, it probably just wouldn't carry enough charge to affect the creature's body, especially if its scales are thick enough to stop small arms fire.

File: Jamestown 2007.jpg (51KB, 600x385px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x385px

>>53172793
>Also, firearms are really easy to learn to use. You can literally teach children how to use them safely.

There is a reason they came to take over the battlefield. Once the cost of production became equal and then cheaper than armour, it became more cost effective to take a bunch of men, train them for a week, and rape face.. Its a point-and-click application and does the work easier than any other weapon.

>>53172824
True. I meant in a general sense that if you needed something to stop it but you couldn't penetrate the skin, a taser would still work. To my understanding, depending on design, a taser ( which I would say is any tool that uses electricity to incapacitate someone) doesn't need to penetrate the skin. The tasers cops use often do, mostly so when someone hits the ground they can keep electrocuting them if the person continues to resist.

>>53172956
Exactly.

>>53173526
Again, there's a huge difference between tazing a fleshy human body and a scaly body over 20 meters long.

It'd be like attaching wires to a AAA battery and licking the contacts, it'll shock you but it's certainly not going to incapacitate you in any major capacity.

Now, if you hooked up contacts to a generator that was proportionate, maybe then you'd be able to deal some serious damage but the logistics alone will make it impossible and impractical to use out in the field.

>>53173578
>hook it up to a generator that was proportionate
That's what I was trying to get at, sorry.

>>53173578
>attaching wires to a AAA battery and licking the contacts, it'll shock you
Wait, that actually shocks you? I thought licking batteries giving you a sour taste was a myth.

>>53142010
desu /thread here.
Adding iron kingdoms to this.
>>53142730
>>53154835
Thread is about guns killing all monsters, in none of those settings they have accomplished that. His point is still fucking valid

>>53172793

It is difficult to classify a 'complete' genocide. Overwhelmingly they are resolved by devastating a target population until it simply accepts what amounts to a cultural terms of surrender, and is integrated fully into the role the society destroying them will tolerate, usually informally and over generations, because actual total genocide is incredibly difficult. Even formal, society-wide attempts to racially and genetically subsume a people are extremely difficult.

The only historic example I know of that was an actual total genocide were the actions of British/Australian colonists in Tasmania against the Palawa people.

>>53174931
>I thought licking batteries giving you a sour taste was a myth.
That's how you find out if a D cell is still good, just apply to tongue.
If it has a strong sour taste, then it's good or still has a bit of charge in it.

>>53175719
Is it even safe to do that?

Armyfags and HFYfags are really anal about wanting to take wizards from 1000 yards away with sniper rifles and dragons with nukes

Why the fuck is it that whenever we talk about guns and monsters suddenly everyone assumes ultra-realism where the strongest adventurer is barely better than a regular joe?

>if monster string enough to tank bullets humanity would be extint
That fucking assumes a mysterious kack of magic, magic items, superhumans and all the other shit that humans usually have on a high magic setting.

>>53172217
>5 damage shouldn't become less threatening to a player just because they gained levels, if anything 5 damage should consistently be threatening, but you gain more powers and abilities to either avoid the damage outright or mitigate damage so you take less overall.

Instead, you just soak up more damage and even if you narrate the damage as being a certain way, all the player is going to see is "oh, this monster only deals X damage, we're safe" or "oh shit, this monster deals X damage, we're going to die!"

which is why i don't play D&D anymore, but that's beside the point. It was just the example /tg/ would be most familliar with.

My example was about describing damage narratively because i honest-to-god saw GMs describing damage as "You stab X dude in the Y bodypart. He takes Z damage." THAT'S what i meant by meat points - assumption that PC's body is a meat sponge. HP are contributing to that, but they are not the root of the problem.

>>53177656
>HP are contributing to that, but they are not the root of the problem.
Yes they are, because if a) the location of the hit doesn't matter, b) there's no quantifiable difference between being at full health vs. 1 HP, and c) the amount of damage that you deal succumbs to inflation, then what's there in the rules that actually makes the fluff in the description anymore than fluff?

If I say "you get shot in the gut for 5 damage" in a game like ShadowRun, it means the same thing whether or not you have armor, you're not at a -1 penalty and are one damage away from a -2 penalty.

If I say "you take 5 fire damage" in nWoD, that's 5 lethal damage for most humans and 5 aggravated damage for vampires, and that five damage is still pretty fucking devastating regardless of the severity.

5 damage in WotC era D&D is just whatever, because either you have enough to survive another blow or you don't.

>>53137969
Buffalo can't use guns. Orcs can.

>>53179052
> you're not at a -1 penalty
Should be "you're now at a -1 penalty."

>>53179820
Actual *human* cultures hold handguns sideways and believe the range dial on their sights is the power dial. I wouldn't be too worried about orcs.

>>53177495
Because they only play 3/5ED&PF m8, once you step outside ebin D&D "Muh weawiiism!" world, it means jack shit. But they won't because that'd imply DM'ing a system instead of playing 1-session stands off.


See anima where it doesn't mater Joe McShitTurner shoots a gun or a canon at a ghost, it deals jackshit to him, but if Awesome McCanHitEnergy punches his genitals it will actually do damage because he has the special rule to be able to do so, and it'd pass to Joe if he had a magical gun. See how this also happens in Iron Kingdoms although magical weapons are rarer there.

Add that this settings are pretty HFY,
specially anima and IK is at least very human+supernatural being (in IK case, dragons in anima's gods/supergods/wizards) centrist and you see monsters are still pretty well because a blunderbuss doesn't do much to a fucking 3 meter tall iron scaled behemoth of an intelligent alligator or pain enhanced not!hobgoblins or do much to stop something with damage resistance superior to your piddly arrow and bow, so you instead become a bad ass motherfucker and go around weapon mastering people into mince meat or ki/magic/mentalism/artifact enhancing yourself into an ubermensch that makes nazi's wet dreams not seem enough.

>>53170890
Caste system.

Ruling elite of hobgoblins, subservient to them goblins who run errands and act as secondary to them, and after that all the dumb meatshields.

File: rick_and_morty_my_man.gif (3MB, 459x409px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 459x409px

>>53179820
This right here.