Guns vs Fantasy

>>53425272
Guns are expensive. Peasants won't have them.

>>53425272
How you justify the existence of special forces in our world? Why not just have peasants with guns instead?

Wizards have guns too. Stronger ones with magic attachments

>>53425272
>where barely trained peasand could instakill them from beyond their field of view?
That's not how guns work.

>>53425296
So is steel, and presumably wizard wands.

Levee armies make sense, cost wise.

The answer is - you can't, if you go full modern. Sadly most DM's I know just cart Blanche remove firearms and limit themselves to black powder kegs.

>>53425272
Depends on the level of fantasy, high-level Wizards in D&D or the like can basically have permanent magic shields that put modern counter-ballistic armour to shame, things like elementals would give absolutely no shits, and fighters would use guns.

>>53425272
Replace every instance of Missiles/Arrows with bullets. Congratulations, we found a way.

>>53425272
Protection from Arrows.

>>53425272
The wizards and magical monsters disguised themselves and infiltrated and took over the government and banned gun ownership (probably control mass media as well so further this goal).
They only started acting more openly after most of the population had been successfully disarmed.

>>53425272

Catapult for all intents and purpose turns things into bullets.

It's not an instakill unless your system allows it or they have zip for hitpoints.

File: Stacked rocks.jpg (83KB, 498x750px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 498x750px

Guns can't actually instakill magical monsters. Impenetrable hides (e.g. Nemean Lion), or similar extraordinary protective measures, protect them. Or they're just really, really tough.

Fighters and Wizards also use guns. (I've played this campaign, in Pathfinder, using the "modern firearms" rules). A Fighter is a well-trained soldier who knows how to handle his gun, while a Wizard has long since upgraded his staff to a rifle and uses magic like invisibility and enchantments to make killing with a gun more effective.

>>53425272
Magical armor/shields/guns not being of modern standard.

>>53425272
And what a peasant with a gun could do against a wizard with a magical gun?

>>53425322
>So is steel, and presumably wizard wands.
I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Peasants tend to not have those things either.
>Levee armies make sense, cost wise.
No, they absolutely don't. Especially not in a fantasy setting.

I justify the peasants ability to oneshot my players. Just like they can miraculously their insta-gib a boss, or higher level enemy.

If you make a fair system in which both the players and npc's have equal opportunity to one shot each other, then just give the npc less health, It works well. (Note: bosses HP maximum is greater than the normal players, but it's still reduced, I like 50%, but you can do whatever)

>>53425272
I just don't agree at all with your premise, OP. Anything a fighter or wizard or a magical monster could do, they can do even better with a gun in hand.

>>53425272
This is the third time we're having this thread in the last eight hours. Fuck off already.

>>53425272

This is actually canon in Harry Potter.

>>53425272
>How do you justify the existence of fighters, wizards and magical monsters in a setting where barely trained peasand could instakill them from beyond their field of view?
Is this a joke? it's pretty easy
Wizards have shields and supernatural senses that alert them of danger
Your Fighter that fights monsters isn't your average dude, he's John Mclain up to 11
Monsters don't die because you shoot them with a pistol the same way a tank doesn't explode because you shoot them with a pistol

If by wizard you meant David Copperfield, yeah, he dies
If by fighter you mean a dude with a sword, yeah, he dies
If by Monster you mean just a weird looking animal, yeah, it dies

>>53425445
Because JK Rowling is a hack, since wizards have access to magical gloves and hats that automatically use a shield spell when you're targeted by a spell.
Doing the exact same for bullets would be child's play

>>53425558
>Doing the exact same for bullets would be child's play
99.99% of Wizards in Harry Potter setting have no idea of what muggles can do, it's pretty hard to create stuff for what you can't predict.

>>53425272

Blessing of the Lady: The knight is immune to ranged fire because their elf Goddess says "nuh uh I have an anti bullet force field."

>>53425630
Which is even more stupid. Are they like Amish?

>>53425272
this shit only flies when
>everyone taking up a gun becomes retardedly bad at aiming and has the reaction time of a sloth
>you can dodge bullets more easily than a swordstrike
>superhuman capabilities that scale up your defense and physical power without doing anything for bullets
>magic shield
>no damage / speed advantage over meelee, magic or archaic ranged weapons

here is what i did, since i wanted firearms to be a part of the setting:
>a bit less overall damage than melee, but amazing armor-piercing capabilities
>good for initiative strikes, but horribly long reloading time
>we have a "defense points" mechanic that acts as a damage buffer before taking HP-damage. if you wear some reasonable armor, the first hit wont do a serious wound, but getting hit by a surprise attack by a musketeer is almost always certain death.

if i were to implement fully automatic arsenal, i'd equip every meelee-focused character with magic abilities, such as a deflective shield that prevents any shot from doing enough damage to pierce armor, but can still be canceled by other magic. same goes for mages

>>53425630
I mean, that's only the case because Rowling is a hack.

>>53425630
>>53425678

In the UK there are sufficiently few guns that wizard can not know what "firelegs" are because they are no threat to them.

I'm fairly sure that MACUSA in america will have access to charms with permenant shielding against fast-moving small metal objects or something. This whole thing is a meme

>>53425272

With games not set in the US, that way you dont need to shot people just cause you have a weapon.

>>53425678
Pretty much, on top of living in their own world and barely interact with muggles but for some odd cases they tend to be super arrogant and think that muggles can't do shit

Also >>53425694, yeah, Rowling is a hack, her books are full of plot holes, plot armor and plot contrivances, really she doesnt' differ much from Kubo Tite or Masashi Kishimoto.

>>53425272
>field of view
>wizards have scrying spells
>in some stories they can create wide-ranging magical effects that harm armies from far away
OP, I don't think you really thought this through at all. Even Harry Potter wizards, whose magic is relatively limited to immediate casting in range can just put up a simple shield spell to block bullets.

You're overestimating the effectiveness of primitive firearms.

>>53425272
you dont. firearms break any "balance" in a fantasy setting, if magic didnt do it in the first place.
even if superhuman capability is common, they'd do better using a gun. or a big gun, depending on how superhuman we're talking.
shielding via magic is the only solution. maybe the shield can only be broken with the help of your own shield or other magic, so guns become a thing of magic-less subhumans

>>53425713
Except there are wizards all over the world and they regularly travel to each other?

Also, even though there are people from half-wizard and full on muggle families, everyone decides to ignore technology? Especially thins like guns that have been around for more than 200 years?

They are just magical Amish.

>>53425272
Guns and swords coexisted for centuries, and for the majority of that time guns simply weren't viable in anything other than sieges due to being slow and unreliable. Just keep firearms to this tech level and you'll be fine.

File: What Eurocucks Actually Believe.webm (3MB, 490x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 490x266px

>>53425678
>>53425713
No, they're just retarded and british, like the author and these fags
>>53425718
>>53425713

>>53425735
They're all supposed to be for kids.

It just so happens older teens end up liking them a lot more in the long run

>>53425770
>firearms break any "balance" in a fantasy setting
Like fuck it does. That's claiming that a particular type of weapon suddenly changes everything completely about the setting, which just isn't plain true. You're basically saying that bows make swords obsolete.

>>53425344
Guns can't even instakill a lot of real-life, normal animals.

>>53425770
dafuq? That's like saying pole-arms break balance because Wall of Spears > Calvary Charge.

>>53425272
>instakill them from beyond their field of view
Haha, not with late-medieval guns. Lines of gunners might be the ultimate evolution in mass warfare, but most players don't end up in mass warfare.

In a modern setting, with instant-death-ray guns (ignoring that that's not how guns work):
>fighters
Watch any modern action movie.
>wizards
Take cover and avoid being a target (you know, like a sensible person), up until the point that some magical solution to bullets is available to them, at which point things continue as normal.
>magical monsters
Most of the ones that would be bothering people would be immaterial and just form a body for the purpose of bothering people. "Killing" them isn't a matter of just shooting them. As for the ones that actually are physical, >>53425344, as well as generally avoiding people.

>>53425272
Eat a bag of dicks

>>53425272
Crossbows can already do that.

Shadowrun has a pretty good idea of it, guns are sweet and definitely good at killing things, but magic can kill things from across the city and make it look like an accident. With the proper preparations of course.

>>53425272

Because all guns do is deal damage. Sure, if you're presenting it as any given isolated combat scenario in an empty field, the person with the gun has an advantage, but you're ignoring the wider context that will surround any given battle in reality (or fantasy reality).

Fighters have skills and training, they can spot ambushes, set up ambushes, think tactically, know what to look for, run further and faster, carry more equipment, apply their physical strength. And if the setting has guns then fighters will have guns too, and will have better aim and reflexes than a "barely trained peasant".

Wizards can use all sorts of utility spells, for transportation, sensing danger, summoning cover and reinforcements, supplying food, repairing objects, and manipulating terrain. They can summon a dense fog to make ranged weapons ineffective, cast a spell to turn a field or road to mud so vehicles can't pass, et cetera.

And monsters could be plain immune to bullets. A dragon with iron-hard scales that you need to kill by hitting a very specific small weak point directly under its chin or in the space between its upper foreleg and ribcage is going to be hard to deal with by shooting it. Other monsters exist which can teleport, displace where they appear to be, tunnel through the earth, et cetera et cetera.

And if you're dealing with forests, dungeons, cities, or any other dense terrain, the range of your gun is only as far as you can see. Considering that a "barely trained peasant" is likely to freeze up, run, fire wildly or just have shitty aim in the moment of seeing some slavering hellhound suddenly charge at them from across the room, the gun isn't going to be an instant "I win" button.

Training is important. In any scenario where they're in real danger, a person's ability to fight (including shooting) drops massively.

>>53425344
>Guns can't actually instakill magical monsters. Impenetrable hides (e.g. Nemean Lion), or similar extraordinary protective measures, protect them. Or they're just really, really tough.
Pretty much this is always a good way to justify fantasy classes when firearms exist. Evangelion sorta does it with AT-Fields. Attack on Titan gives its Titans regeneration.

The real world actually does this a little bit too, though in a nuanced manner. Fighting in urban areas necessitated the development of firearms effective at shorter ranges during WW2; indoor fighting with short corridors and small rooms could also justify melee fighters. Modern soldiers still train in hand to hand as well. in the world of espionage and spygames, I'd bet that Rogues at least make some amount of sense.

File: wizards art.jpg (330KB, 614x504px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 614x504px

>>53425272
there are plenty of ways
guns might be primitive musket-like affairs that take a minute to reload and not reliably accurate
maybe fighters are some anime bullshit at higher levels
and why imply wizards and fighters wouldn't also adopt guns if they're so effective that any peasant can use them?

>>53426024
It's like you don't know what history is, how how weapon's tech and advancement changes and entire conflict.

Even muskets could punch through armor, meaning armor was becoming a liability, which is why once arrows were completely supplanted by bullets you don't see body armor until humans figured out how to protect themselves from bullets.

Tech changes war. Better artillery and guns begat trench warfare, better combat planes begat the rise of carriers and the fall of battleships, better technology begat automated drones and intercontinental missiles.

Likewise, iron and steel, in combination with centuries of testing and experience, lead to more efficient swords and armor that outclassed the copper blades and shotels.

Particular types of weapons most certainly change everything, especially something as anachronistic as a modern firearm.

File: download (5).jpg (24KB, 250x298px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 250x298px

>>53425311
>Why not just have peasants with guns instead?
Yes, herro?

>>53425272
>How do you justify the existence of fighters, wizards and magical monsters in a setting where [guns exist]?
I dunno, there's not a lot that changes.
Fighters are better than peasants at shooting guns and avoiding being shot at.
Wizards can enchant their guns.
Magical monsters can eat bullets for breakfast.

The whole dichotomy of "guns vs. fantasy" is false, just as the notion that the guns somehow kill the fantastical element.
Guns are nothing more than weapons, and believe me, humanity had a lot of those in its history.

If I have a tank or a "recreational" nuke, then the fact that you have a gun means little to me.

>>53425272
Depends on the system, but there's usually a trivial way to negate projectiles. A pair of examples follows.

>D&D
>implying guns can stop wizards
Wind Wall
Evocation [Air]
Level: Air 2, Clr 3, Drd 3, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Wall up to 10 ft./level long and 5 ft./level high (S)
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

An invisible vertical curtain of wind appears. It is 2 feet thick and of considerable strength. It is a roaring blast sufficient to blow away any bird smaller than an eagle, or tear papers and similar materials from unsuspecting hands. (A Reflex save allows a creature to maintain its grasp on an object.) Tiny and Small flying creatures cannot pass through the barrier. Loose materials and cloth garments fly upward when caught in a wind wall. Arrows and bolts are deflected upward and miss, while any other normal ranged weapon passing through the wall has a 30% miss chance. (A giant-thrown boulder, a siege engine projectile, and other massive ranged weapons are not affected.) Gases, most gaseous breath weapons, and creatures in gaseous form cannot pass through the wall (although it is no barrier to incorporeal creatures).

While the wall must be vertical, you can shape it in any continuous path along the ground that you like. It is possible to create cylindrical or square wind walls to enclose specific points.
Arcane Material Component

A tiny fan and a feather of exotic origin.

>GURPS
Deflect Missile
Blocking
Deflects one missile about to hit the
subject – including any Missile spell.
Counts as a parry for combat purpos-
es. If the caster is not the subject,
apply distance modifiers as for a
Regular spell. Deflected attacks may
still hit a target beyond the subject.
Cost: 1.
Prerequisite: Apportation.

>>53429044
>windwall
By this description it wouldn't stop bullets or cannon fire, just give a 30% chance to miss

>deflect missle
Works on ONE missle

Thus, volley fire remains the tactically supreme strategy.

>>53425272
Monsters and PC-tier warriors can absorb bullets the same way they take axe blows to the torso: that is, either they can take lots of them or they are so agile/skilled/lucky they can generally avoid them. Wizards focus their efforts on things other than the mostly-obsoleted lightning bolts and fireballs.

>>53425272
Spells that allow you to do something like "make this person my puppet" or "summon some minions" will still be useful in a world of guns, especially if the person is too courageous for you to be able to point a gun at and say "do what I say or get shot" or if you can give said minions guns so you can gun whilst you gun.

>>53426897
>Attack on Titan
Note that titans are absolutely powerless against WWI and later cannons and missiles.
It's actually a major plot point.

>>53425272
>Guns are either inaccurate or take forever to load
You know like they were up until the mid 1800s
>PCs are superhuman, a wizard can maintain a powerful forcefield at all times, a fighter can shrug off an armour piercing .50 BMG to the head
>PCs integrate guns into their abilities
Wizard is a gun wizard, he uses a gun to increase the range and power of his spells. Fighters might carry an automatic anti-tank rifle or grenade launcher while wearing 80 lbs of body armour, paladins can use divine smite on bullets, rogues can use smoke grenades, camo, and flashband grenades, etc.

So using DnD 5e as an example for the third option. A fighter might be armed with an anti-tank rifle that does 2d12+dex damage on a hit, he wears heavy body armour that gives him an AC of 22. A wizard with a spell gun might have the range of all of his spells doubled and gets to reroll up to two dice when he rolls for damage with spells but must use two hands to use it and must use his bonus action to aim.

>>53425558
IIRC rowling only meant a duel between a wizard and someone with a gun, with nothing else.

Note that even in settings where combat magic is inferior to guns (and no magical shields or so exist or are easy to learn), magic can usually do things no plausible mechanical technology can:
create armies of undead, heal the sick instantly, levitation, teleportation etc.
of course there are also really low level settings where not even that is possible
Whenever there's a magic vs technology setting that favours technology it's almost always retard wizards throwing fireballs at tanks.
The absolute winner would be the side that embraces both.

Guns in the hand of peasants in sufficient numbers are effective.
Yes, this is a good thing. It explains how civilization manages to exist in a world of monsters.
But just because a dozens of peasants can fight off a wyvern doesn't mean those doesn't of peasants can go dungeon diving to stop a dark ritual that would summon countless demons those peasants don't have enough firepower to resist.

Strength in numbers does work in trpgs so long as you don't force that aspect on the players too. It also reigns in murderhoboing. Try looting and pillaging when the militia eventually gets tired of your shit and can actually threaten you.

Wuxia has it right. Martial Artists ( In this situation, player characters ) can kill generals and kings. But they are not a substitute for armies. You can kill 1 man, 3 men, or maybe even 10 men if you're very very good but you're still not a match for an army no matter how skilled you are. This is where D&D fucks up.

>>53426915
>Wizards
It does have the orc/mutant armies of the evil wizard using WWII technology, I really liked that.

>>53425445
>This is actually canon in Harry Potter.
Sure, since "Someone on the Internet said that Rowling said a muggle with a shotgun could kill a wizard" is basically the same thing as "Rowling said a muggle with a shotgun could kill a wizard".

Weird how everybody "knows" that she said it in "an interview" but nobody can post a sauce.

>>53425272
Take this to the WoD thread. The magefags will take care of you.

>>53425272
Guns dont ruin fantasy but /k/faggotry tends to. If you ever come up with balance reasons for why not every person runs around with .50 cal revolvers they'll complain that its just unrealistic and talk about how much impact tanks can do against real life animals. The point is finding a balance, like say a volatile nature, easily jammed, or long reload times.

But theres plenty of justifications you can give go go against guns everywhere. Its that usually this infuriates the airsoft nut at the table. Speaking from tons of experience with that happening.

>>53429044

Displacement's better vs guns, they only have a 50% chance to hit you then.

>>53425272
What's stopping some alchemist from turning leather vests into kevlar with some exotic potion or whatever?

>>53425272
PC fighters can afford plate armor, so the bullets bounce off. Why do you think knights used it in the first place?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCFMFeZ0JvQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_(armour)

Not only that, but they can afford plate armor made out of fictional super-metals and enhanced through magic, while the peasants can't afford magic guns or bullets.

If anything it makes them more justified than normal.

File: 1492886932130.gif (1MB, 400x375px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x375px

>>53425272
making them immune to traditional weapons
only silver bullets or special blessed ammo can damage them

>The church does a service of dealing with large scale threats for places that pay regularly but pushes the bill for private services and time spent blessing or soliciting ammo.
>The church is choosy and will run their nose to the sky if the creatures or events are caused by sinners of their own definition.

>Mages remain loyal only to coin and usually ask no questions but skill can't be measured and most practiced users follow the example of the church and leave small threats to grow until they can once again be called for service

>Trained witches and wizards aren't much like the church but are invested in counteracting such threats from the root and act discretely and if possible with much more ferocity.

>lastly and probably the most used of the rest are mercenaries or brigands will lay claim to enchanted blades or firearms and stage enough that the populace is satisfied with their prices before the others

>>53425272
Yes a wizard who can bend the rules of reality to teleport, slow down time , shield himself and shoot fireballs is scared of a pistol.

>>53425272
In any setting? Determining the power level you want. I could say a mid level fighter is capable of catching a rifle bullet between their index finger and thumb.

>>53425272
Why have trained soldiers when we could just give the homeless weapons to fight out wars?
Why have tanks when we could just give barely trained teenagers anti tank weapons?
Why have special forces when we could just use peasents?

Because
A) guns are not just "point at person and they die" the fact that you think they are ahows how little experience you have with weapons
B) not all guns are made equal. Sure, most modern weaponry would make low level monsters a breeze, but shit like dragons, hydras, trolls, giants etc. can easily tank most everything short of dedicated anti-armor/monster weaponry. And for stuff like orks, goblins, skeletons and what not, strength is in numbers. Sure, you can take one or two down with ease, but a 1000? Fat fucking chance, you aren't doomguy.
C) most non-gun classes would have to adapt. In periods like right now, when armor is generally less powerful than guns, fighters and the like are pretty fucked. But if armor has the advantage, like it has at certian times and undisputablely will again at some point, then it's time to rip and tear. As for wizards, they have magic. It offers a whole lot more than just damage output, and is generally going to be able to do a much wider variety of tasks than your favorite raifu.

>DM doesn't let me magdump
Why can I only shoot once or twice per turn but a NY cop who has to deal with a 50 lbs trigger pull can do 12 shots in 3 seconds.

>>53425354
Draw first

File: guyver_gravity_cannon.gif (343KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 250x188px

>>53425272
Because wizards and magical monsters are basically living guns.

On the subject of armour.

If wizards are real, they can enchant things - probably.

Which means you can wear triple-stacked Type 4 plates and have feather weight spells cast on them, and it'll feel like you're wearing nothing at all.

>>53435357
>undisputablely will again at some point

Prove it.

If it really is beyond dispute, prove it.

Also lol at Orcs and Goblins being a threat. What good are numbers going to do when every solder is packing a full-auto rifle? Do you remember WW1? Human wave attacks do not fucking work when two defenders with a machine-gun can kill 550 men a minute.

>>53425272
>where barely trained peasand could instakill them from beyond their field of view
true but not in the way you think it was

the arquebus, gun of choice for late medieval to early renaissance, was only useful in volleys from large squads of men and only with a suitably large force of pikes to support them
heavily armored knights co-existed alongside guns for a very long time, only going out of style with the invention of the musket
this is mostly true for large scale battles, scaling it down, and the arquebus is nowhere near as deadly
in small scale combat, you dont have the accuracy to make your shot count nor the numbers to make an effective volley, and you may not count on being protected while you load
in this situation, the most common situation for most RPGs, sword and bow would rule, as you could feasibly charge a small group of musketeers and make into close range or fire 3 or 4 arrows to each of their one shot

also, untrained peasants wouldnt always be the best use of muskets, their effectiveness relied on discipline to hold your ground and training to maximize rate of fire, so the peasants would be better as the pikemen, while you use army regulars or well paid mercenaries for the actual musketeers

untraiined peasants would fare extremely poorly against your average PC fighter, as their poorer discipline would make them far more likely ro break to a sudden charge

>>53427927
None of that is even remotely true. If you introduce guns to fantasy setting it just leads to a situation where everyone has a gun instead of a sword. It doesn't change the balance at all.

>>53425272
Obviously in that kind of setting it would be inexcusable, so it needs some adjustments that most of the time wouldn't be excused but mechanically

Guns are, for a reason, less deadly than melee weapons (Dark heresy, for example)
Classes and monsters are adapted to these guns, armor against bullets, fighters are proficient with guns, magic is, well, magical... (a lot of moderm settings)
Guns are extremely expensive, what anon here >>53425296 said (D&D I think)

If anything fails to convince look at warhammer fantasy rpg, shitty hobbos being able to insta kill the highest level character with a backstab or a good shot.

>>53438807

>Also lol at Orcs and Goblins being a threat. What good are numbers going to do when every solder is packing a full-auto rifle? Do you remember WW1? Human wave attacks do not fucking work when two defenders with a machine-gun can kill 550 men a minute.

God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal. Goblins being tiny, weak and cowardly matters a lot less when guns exist. Heck, being a smaller target is often a good thing.

>>53438732
Honestly, you wouldn't even need level IV plates, as they're made of ceramic (which is known for having little multishot protection, assuming the wizard can't magic that out) and instead substitute it with enchanted level III plates, which nets you with weightless multishot protection against full sized rifle ball cartridges (in theory at least).

It's like everyone forgets that there were guns in Europe since the 1200s, and in fact, knights in plate armor actually postdate guns by about a century, as does the archetypical longsword. (not swords in general, of course, but that particular type) There was literally never any point in time where there were knights in shining armor, but not guns.

Joan of arc, for instance had a bunch of hand cannoneers on her side, including one famous sniper, Jehan de Montesiler.

>>53438732
I've got a set of plates, and even if they were weightless, you'd still feel like a goddamn ninja turtle. They're like an inch thick, rigid, and strapped to your back and front.

What's up with the near constant "guns in fantasy" threads lately?

Is this a new meme? Some elaborate troll campaign? It's never been a problem before but now there's always a "guns in fantasy" thread up.

>>53438927

Sam made *men* equal.

Goblin firearms would be a hoot to see.

>>53439038

people just think it's clever

>>53425339
>Protection from Arrows.

This. Protection from Arrows covers musket fire.

>>53425272
Shields that block any object coming at you over a certain velocity.

>>53438707
>The wizard's hand is already outstreched and teleports the gun into his hand, thus shooting before the peasant who has to point the weapon up first.

>>53425321

I can train anyone with 200 rounds and 4 hours (on an AR) to be a decent shot.

I can train that same person with 30 rounds and 45min (on an ak) to lay lead at something.

Another 8 hours of basic movement and stances and I have a soldier who can negate years of martial training at a distance of 50 meters.

Guns in a fantasy setting opens a can of worms if they can fire more than 3-5 rpm.

>>53439045
>implying that the notJews of the setting wouldn't sell human firearms to goblins for profit

>>53440258
So why do we have professional soldiers then if anyone can be trained in 8 hours, smart guy?

>>53427927
>Even muskets could punch through armor

Not for a while, they couldn't. Knights in plate armour co-existed with guns for a long time. The word "bulletproof" was invented in that era, to describe whether or not a suit of plate armour could withstand a direct hit from a bullet.

>>53425272
It is an incredibly poor magician which can't use indirect methods of spellcraft to nullify something as simple as guns. Illusions, Barriers, outright reality warping.. you name it.

Fighters would just adapt and start using the better weapon.

Magical monsters.. many times have enough tricks, speed, or outright sturdiness to handle commonly accessible firearms. They aren't random deer, they are monsters, they are called that for a reason.

>>53440278
I think he's comparing to fantasy fighters, wizards, and monsters. It's not that hard to sit at something that isn't sitting back. But put that guy up against an actual soldier and good luck.

But that's also the scary thing about firearms, and what gives so many modern militaries such trouble in various insurgency scenarios. Those trained soldiers die just as fast when they get shot. The gun doesn't care who's holding it.

>>53440278

Because trained/motivated gunmen are much better than poorly trained/conscripted gunmen probably?

I'm showing how firearms negate swords you tard.

>>53440359
Shoot, not sit

>>53440258
>>53440258
You don't even need to do all that.

>give peasant a gun
>let him shoot tin cans for a few hours with some minor pointers
>stick him in a tree in the middle of a dense forest
>repeat a few times, if you run out of guns, literally use the remaining people as fodder and bait
>create a few pit-related traps
>strategically use your equipment
Boom, you now have a formidable army capable of murdering many wizards/swordsmen unless they simply burn down the entire forest.

>>53425272
How do you justify continually making this thread? Easily: It's easy replies

>>53425272
Gun control. Why do you think Voldemort was trying to take over Britain and not the US.

>>53440362
so all the fighters will be using firearms instead of swords then, retard. gee was that so hard?

>>53440427
>Level 1 peasant
>Ever hitting a PC
>Ever beating the PC's Perception
>etc

>>53440482
Nat 20 auto hits pham, plus a lot of systems give some firearms area attacks that still do half damage on a miss

>>53440482
You don't have to?
>peasants shoot at the PC and immediately runs into the forest
>PC murderhobos sprint in to kill them
>lure them to a killing field and crossfire the fuck out of them
>make the only way to retreat filled with traps and gunmen
>PC calls you a railroading bastard and cries for 900 hours

>>53440427

As someone whose had to teach third worlders how to fight, lemme tell you, it ain't that simple.

Just not teaching someone how to fix malfunctions will see them go down right quick.

>>53440476

So then it's no longer a fantasy setting? Youre outta your league son

>>53440511
Yes, but against guys with swords your going to be very successful with that minimal strategy.

>>53440501
>PC makes Perception check and notices army well in advance

Besides, there's no reason a gun should do more damage than a two-handed sword. If you can survive being smashed in the head by an ogre's club or chewed on by a dragon, you can survive a bullet.

>>53440553
Not necessarily. A sword is retard-proof, a gun isn't. Getting untrained randos to reliably hit the broad side of a barn is harder than you think. Getting them to successfully clear a jam, or even just fucking reload, when they inevitably miss a bunch against moving targets is even harder.

>>53440533
>So then it's no longer a fantasy setting?
Why not?

>>53440553

Well, that much is true. Cant argue that. Guns always gonna beat swords.

>>53440600

Go read the OP maybe?

>>53440599
>A sword is retard-proof
I have hit myself in the back with a throwing axe. No weapon is retard proof.

>>53440647
>fighters, wizards and magical monsters
Nothing about swords in there, chief.

>>53440696
>I have hit myself in the back with a throwing axe.
Not only is that not a sword, it's a conceptually different type of weapon because you fucking throw it.

A sword is nearly as close to retard-proof as it's possible to get. It's only one step removed from a club, which itself is only one step removed from "beat the fucker to death with your bare hands" which is something that humans know how to do on an instinctive level.

>>53440715
>It's only one step removed from a club
Confirmed for knowing fuck all about swords.

>>53425272
In one of my main setting I justify it with "Wizards are so bullshit strong guns won't do shit." The average magic user could take a couple canon balls to the face and walk it off with their basic magic defenses.

If you want to kill a wizard you need to use divinely/Ancient technology created anti-magic talismans combined with specially trained superhumans and gang up on him before he kills your army. Or have supernatural creatures on your side.

On the other hand natural wizards are stupidly rare the vast majority will be spirit pacted wizards. Which tend to have their own obligations and tend to have little to no free will. Along with a ton of spiritual foes you can ally with given the average spirit.

As for magical monster unless you enchant your bullets guns won't do anything to a living manifestation of the wind or fire or death taken material form and even when enchanted and teamed up with mages it takes a fucking lot of cannonballs to the face to kill a lesser spirit. Meaning it isn't something kingdoms do lightly.

>>53440715
>>53440727
And fuck all about human instinct, for that matter. A human with no training has no fucking clue how to fight barehanded. Even most martial arts are better than nothing.

>>53425272
>bullet touching your body = instakill
No.
>headshoot = instakill
Yes on 20 rolls only

>>53440727
It is exactly one step removed. The only conceptual difference in use is that a sword adds a wedge to the striking surface. The mechanical use of a sword and a club are near-identical, the only added complexity is that you need the sword to strike at a relatively straight angle, which isn't hard unless you've replaced the grip with a greased dildo.

>>53440739
An untrained human absolutely knows how to bludgeon something with his fists. Just because he would lose to a trained combatant doesn't mean that he's incapable of inflicting serious harm.

File: 1461951982175.jpg (639KB, 1540x900px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 1540x900px

>>53425272

ITT: non martials talk out of their ass about martial arts

20ft rule

Guns aren't instakill

Guns are hard to use

Pre modern guns sucked

Firearm instructor from before, also the bowfag.

Please read.

>>53435035
>>53435204
>>53435724
>>53440319
>>53440406

Guns, pikes, bows, and swords all coexisted on the battlefield well into the 19th century.

Sorry you lost your last fucking bullshit thread. But your bullshit has to end.

>>53440796
In fact the entire REASON people specifically train to git gud at unarmed self defense is because an untrained asshole with any degree of upper body strength swinging for the fences can be a real threat.

>>53440739
Dude what? All animals have an instinctive grasp of how to fuck shit up, even purely herbivore prey species like rabbits know how to bite the shit out of something as a last resort. Humans are no exception.

>>53440715

>An axe is not a sword, hurr durr

>>53440766

>Conceptually

Not him, but working at ren-fairs and even trying to keep people from hurting themselves with replica weapons *DESIGNED NOT TO DO MUCH HARM* is such a chore. You'd be surprised at how bad people are at handling weapons the first time.

Most people wouldn't be, but apparently (You) would.

Martial weapons are martial weapons. Most people won't really know what to do with a proper weapon if you give it to them. In fact, they're *more likely* to hurt themselves trying something they saw in media, or underestimating how a weapon actually feels when it swings.

You want a (mostly) idiot-proof weapon? Give someone a dagger. Almost everyone has held a cooking knife at least once in their lives.

>>53440810
Guns aren't hard to use and you're a fucking blowhard. What you don't get is that even if they suck at aiming, when you add massed fire into the equation you're still likely have an errant bullet hit the target. They don't require "any semblance of skill", even if you only land one shot in ten your target will usually take a crippling blow. Nobody is talking about pre-modern guns, either.
Talking about range issues is cherrypicking as nobody has dictated what range people will be fighting at as well.

File: 1480711876096.png (185KB, 641x616px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 641x616px

>>53425272
>His PCs can't dodge bullets, or deflect them with their bare hands

>>53440427
>unless they simply burn down the entire forest.

My players have burnt down forests for far less than "trying to kill me"

>>53425272
It's how the world works. By taking on the mantle of a peasant you give up your good looks, your intellect and your name and you legally bind yourself to working the land for a lord, but in return you get a free guided missile launcher. Some people don't like free missile launchers, so they don't become peasants.

>>53440497
Depends on game and edition.

>>53440739
A 22 year old dude who keeps himself mildly in shape who just got a shot of adrenaline from combat. Is a nightmare for anyone one on one. While a trained fighter would probably win it only takes a lucky shot. Untrained people can certainly kill.

>>53425272
>beyond their field of view
the average musket or arquebus could barely hit anything past 50m
combined with a rate of 3 rounds a minute, less if you were the untrained peasant described in the OP, and you have a recipe for a weapon that is only useful when sufficiently massed

certainly they dominated the battlefield, but it was a different story altogether in the skirmish side, a lone musketeer would be better off ditching his gun after the first shot and using his sword, the "3 musketeers" of legend used their blades way more than their musket after all

and of course, a fighter would crumple if he was charging a formation head on, but a proper fighter, the kind with class levels, would , in grand tradition of pen and paper games, seek to circumvent such a large cumbersome foe and take it on in more favorable terrain

a large formation of musketeers would be less effective in a dimly lit forest, where they cannot bring sufficient weapons to bear, and the roles would reverse, with the nimble agile fighter, with bow or sword, having the advantage over the musketeers

>>53440887
Sure, I'll take your word for it over someone who actually know what he's talking about.

Also
>massed fire
even if you only land one shot in ten
You need to fire about a man's weight in shot for each kill. Gun lines are not a reality hack that Napoleon doesn't want you to know about, it was a solution to trained men with guns not being able to hit anything before running out of ammo.

File: mt-stupid.png (43KB, 613x481px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 613x481px

>>53440887

>I don't know what I'm talking about so I'm going to talk out of my ass

Dude, even with modern guns, even trained people miss. You should watch modern combat videos. Videos with police firearm discharge.

Police and military miss.

A lot.

Target shooting is a whole other game, mate. Don't even. I have over 2 decades of real life experience in the field. I can guarentee I know significantly more than you.

Pic related: it's this thread.

>>53440999
>>53441007
>because misses exist, guns are ultra complex divine techniques that only those who study the firearm for decades can use
Here's a secret
people who miss can reload

File: 1384090059137.jpg (18KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x500px

>>53425296
Weren't the common people more liable to use guns?
Wasn't Joan d'Arc's victories attribute to her wide knowledge of gunpowder due to her low upbringing?
Wasn't Full-plate not developed in times when "reliable" guns/muskets existed?
Weren't guns discarded by nobles and such as "dishonourable", so as to have the lower classes get their hands on them?

Still, JK Rowling herself confirmed Hogwarts could be captured by SWAT guys, so modern day wizard/magical stuff would not fly.

IF THEY HAVE DEVELOPED GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT IS.

>>53441007
>Police and military miss.
>A lot.
I'm reminded of a story where a pair of officers, one with pistol and one with shotgun, engaged a dog outside a crim's house. Said officers Said officers fired something like 20 rounds in total, and hit the dog with exactly none of them.

>>53441007
I can confirm that. The truth is, in real combat situations, it's not crazy to think 90% of bullets fire, likely more, don't hit the target.

Any real life footage of a firefight in Iraq or Afghanistan will show a single group of 5 or 6 rebels pinning down a dozen marines for five minutes. Both sides exchange hundreds of bullets, and there's less than 20 individuals in the conflict. Yet, for most of it, there's no wounded people.

Have you always wondered why most FPS, doesn't matter how they are constructed, never feel like real combat? Because they miss rates of actual combat don't make for good gameplay. Half the time you aren't even trying to hit the target, just the general vicinity to keep them pinned down, when providing cover fire for your squad, or when you simply need to provide relief for an element that's under intense fire.

>>53440988

>People who get adrenaline always roid out and become amazing fighters
>This cliche *ever* being real outside of fiction and the extremely rare case IRL

So, you just took a shot of adrenaline. Your hands start shaking, your heart rate is through the roof, your instincts are most likely telling you to get the fuck out of there unless you have a massive advantage already, and unless you're used to that *specific* form of stress, you're probably not going to be as effective as when you started.

Have you actually ever SEEN an amateur fight IRL, OP? Yeah, someone will probably eventually get their snot beaten in, but it'll mostly be on accident.

>>53441021
In my day trolling meant something.

>>53441047
That is nothing bro. I know of some gangsters that one time got mildly high. Jumped out of their car and start shooting bare two yards away from some cops. Three guys one with a shotgun, One with a pistol and another with a hunting rifle went to down and unloaded all the have. None of them hit.

>>53440988
>a nightmare for anyone one on one
Laughable.

>>53441007
And people who are blind drunk sometimes hit moving targets because bullets are phenomenally deadly and one lucky hit matters. What point are you trying to make? That novices do not have supreme accuracy? Who cares that people miss more often than not? What only matters is they miss every single shot they carry, and how probable that is.

File: Shitposting from the base.jpg (124KB, 850x464px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 850x464px

>>53441021

Ever try to reload under pressure? How about under life and death where everything is whirring, you can't hear shit, and your hands have gone slightly numb from adrenaline? You know how many police officers and soldiers (namely police officers nowadays, sandies can't hit shit) die during a reload because they can't figure out how to close the bolt due to fear of mortal peril?

It's not a videogame, kid.

Please. Get off mount stupid.

>>53441100
The circumstances you are describing are a firefight where opponents have guns as well, though, which is not what OP is suggesting. You're not moving the goalposts so much as in a completely different field.

>>53441034
>JK Rowling herself confirmed Hogwarts could be captured by SWAT guys
She said something to that effect, but what I don't get is how SWAT guys defend themselves against invisible, mind-controlling wizards. Grenading every room ahead of time is all well and good, but wizards can make themselves immune to fire, so why not gas and/or bullets?

A gun might be better in a quick draw duel, but magic has endless uses.

>>53441034
the gun itself was rather expensive, it required a whole lot of industries working together to get a finished product


you also needed tons of musket balls, gunpowder, and other ancillary things to practice with and to use when in combat

so while it was relatively easy to learn, and therefore equip a large army on short notice, peasant ownership would have been low, there is a reason why rip van winkle was so sullen when he woke and found his prized musket was rusted apart, it was a prized item a lot like a nice car

indeed, a musket was worth 8 pigs in the 1800s, and would have been worth comparatively more in earlier times

the musket in your average militiamans hands most likely represents a significant investment by the government, and you would have to return it after battle

>>53441093
>bullets are phenomenally deadly
If this were true, how come so many people survive being shot?

>>53441143
The modern gunshot fatality rate is 27%. I would rank 1-in-4 as "phenomenally deadly" for anything.

File: MagicDontHaveToExplainTits.jpg (163KB, 1024x883px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1024x883px

>>53441075

Oh god, yes. Thank you!

Holy shit. My main problem with "tactical" videogames is that there is no real fear. You aren't afraid of death. Things happen way too fast.

Most of these idiots here will never know what it's like to stare down a barrel of a man intending to kill them. That panic. The fight to remain calm. I kinda don't miss it.

>>53441093
>>53441124

Blind luck is kinda combat in general, dude. What the fuck do you think Fog of War is?

It isn't moving the goal posts. It's you thinking firearms are this magical tool that are 100% effective. I'm telling you, they are not. Magic is better suited for asymmetrical warfare.

>>53441131
Would grenades even work in Hogwarts' anti-technology field?

>>53441143
Being shot is like being thrust-stabbed; in comparison to being slashed or bludgeoned, it is infinitely more lethal, because it can easily reach the hidden-away arteries inside your limbs leading to very rapid death through blood loss. This means a shot to your upper arm or upper thigh can easily kill you.
If you get hit in the torso, unless you immediately receive seriously advanced medical assistance, chances of survival are negligible.

>>53441162
I'm willing to bet that if I cut you open with a longsword, you will die 100% of the times.

>>53441077
It's not that they become amazing fighters. It's that they don't notice how fucked up they are and if they are fearing for their lives or are out to kill you then it can easily become a pyrrhic victory.

I know plenty of people who has gotten into a fight only to get someone knifing their chest leading to shock and a bleed out within a few minutes. Just because you are trained doesn't mean you are a superhuman able to avoid a surprise or lucky shot and once someone really starts the fight or flight response it is hard to notice just how screwed you are until you calm down.

>>53441186
I'm willing to bet that if I shoot you in the head you will die 101% of the times.
How fucking stupid are you?

>>53440810

We all know about the crossover time when firearms were still in their infancy. If anyone wanted that in their setting they'd use it.

Unfortunately for you, "beyond field of view" implies high-powered firearms since we know that 'musket'-type firearms were inaccurate as shit and generally worse than modern firearms.

So no, firearms that can effectively engage that far with limited training kill all your sword bearers. Every. Single. Time.

>>53441202
I've met people who've survived being shot in the head.

>>53441214
I've met people who survived being cut with a longsword. And? You're fucking dumb.

>>53441186
Depends on where you cut, obviously, but probably not. Treating a blade wound is relatively simple in comparison, with modern medical techniques. A tremendous gash only really causes blood loss. Bullet impacts wreak havoc internally because most of the damage is from the force of the impact causing a gargantuan bruise, which leads to shock, which leads to death.

Obviously, severing a major artery would lead to death by blood loss, and puncturing major organs would suck too, but reaching those with a sword are pretty difficult. The most major of organs are protected by the ribcage and mighty skull, which are pretty hard to penetrate with human strength. (You could find a gap in the ribs, but that's either exceptional aim or luck, same as any other weapon.)

>>53441205

You're arguing something entirely different. And agreed. Never was arguing that.

We were still using swords as late as WWII, by the way

>>53441187
>>53441162
>>53440887

>If I land a lucky crit, I can do anything.

If your 'strategy' revolves around beating the insurmountable odds, you've lost already.

>>53441034
>Still, JK Rowling herself confirmed Hogwarts could be captured by SWAT guys, so modern day wizard/magical stuff would not fly.

Source pls.

>>53441236
>We were still using swords as late as WWII, by the way
Mad Jack Churchill wasn't a fucking exemplar of the period and you know it.

>>53441236
mythbusters once tried to settle guns vs blades
both weapons at your side, 1v1, no surprise

the result was that blade usually won at distances below 20ft, but further away, it was possible to draw and fire at your attacker

of course this assumes cylinders in a vacuum

>>53441236

I took a bayonet downrange, I guess that's also a viable standard of warfare I guess.

File: Cossack Shashka Soldier.jpg (69KB, 736x531px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 736x531px

>>53441280

Actually, the russians fielded sabres en mass along side a *very* modern army. Japan issued sabres along side a very modern army.

Yes, this photo is real. That man was killed. They often used them against the rear line as fear tactics.

Try again.

>>53425272

So, is no one going to point out that guns literally cannot kill Voldemort?

He's basically a lich. He survived having his soul blasted out of his body by a reflected killing curse. A small hole in his head is a lot easier to come back from.

File: Darkest Dungeous Courageous Highwayman.png (222KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 400x400px

>>53426730
This is probably the most succinct post in this thread. Bravo. Include guns in your setting, sure, but don't expect them to be auto-wins. They're likely to equate to just powerful crossbows or something.

>>53441323
>red army
>"very modern" when their entire strategy was pre WWI tier
>Japan
>not having officers with katanas exclusively for the nippon banzai factor

>>53441338
if your only intent is to avoid dying right now, then shooting him is a viable solution

it will buy you about 11 years, before he finds a schmuck to find him a new body

>>53441280
The Chinese would like to speak with you.

>>53441341

WWII Soviet military was on par with the US. Sorry that they just happened to be fighting over 80% of the german military AND the japanese military at the same time. The US saw less than 10% of the action in europe.

Please, do your research. Get off mount stupid. Stop thinking CoD is real life.

>>53441340
also, a fighter carrying 6 flintlocks with him for some mad alpha damage, before drawing his sword to finish off the others
such a tactic worked well on ships

its a false dichotomy

>>53441379
>literally just "throw more men and tanks at them"
>on par with the US
Found the russkie

File: wizard rebellion in the ukraine.jpg (244KB, 700x434px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 700x434px

>>53441380
Agreed. If peasants have access to firearms, what's stopping these traditional fantasy roles from adopting firearms as well? What's to stop spellcasters from developing spells to defend against bullets?

I think OP is right in the sense that if guns suddenly appeared in a typical fantasy setting, they would be pretty dangerous because they're something new and powerful and typical fantasy archetypes don't seem equipped to deal with it. But this advantage would only be momentary, fighters and wizards would eventually adapt to guns, either taking them up themselves or developing counter-measures or both, and thus re-leveling the playing field.

>>53441424

That's literally not what happened. Please, do your research. This is why europe can never win a war in asia.

>>53441354

Really, Voldemorts only screwup there was failing to prepare his cult to bring him back if he lost a fight.

If the Death Eaters knew the score, Voldemort would be dead for maybe a week before coming back to finish the job.

>>53441470
If any russians were fielded wielding swords it is likely because they were too poor and inept to be fielded with guns
go find your vodka bottle

>>53441513

Actually, it was because they were raiding support troops well behind the main "lines" (there kinda were no lines on the eastern front) who were not expecting them as a fear tactic. Close quarters combat also still had sword usage to limited degrees from both russians and germans. Bayonets were still heavily used, if you remember.

But swords became more a weapon of fear. And it worked. The germans who survived were terrified and told their friends.

>>53441341
>I've been shown wrong and I have no arguement

>>53425272
In a theoretical setting where conventional weaponry has advanced to a similar stage to modern day weaponry and magic also existed, wizards would still have an advantage because there would be an inevitable fusion between firearms and magic. Sure, that peasant might have a gun, but that wizard might be a 200 year old crackshot whose bullets become supercharged with arcing lightning and can be manually guided by the Wizard's mind.

Magical monsters wouldn't necessarily be weak to conventional weaponry either. I dare that peasant to try and shoot an air elemental.

This.

https://youtu.be/guVAeFs5XwE

If we use Gandalf as an example, his main powers were knowing exactly what was going on and what needed to be done, and showing up in the right place at the right time. When it was time to fight, he used a sword, albeit a really nice one.

>>53425272
>How do you justify the existence of fighters, wizards and magical monsters in a setting where barely trained peasand could instakill them from beyond their field of view?
Make it so a peasant can't instakill them from beyond their field of view? Why the everloving fuck would I make a gun semi-realistic in a game where magic exists and guys with swords can take on towering mythological creatures? And secondly, why are peasants such proficient snipers?

>>53425272
Now that I think about it, in a series where one of the main themes is how you can't defy death, Voldy had a relatively fantastic track record of doing exactly that. He had to be killed what, four times not including killing the Horcruxes specifically?

>>53442536

Yep. And like half of those were the result of the same bullshit ancient magic spell that gave Potter literal plot armor, and the last time was because of yet more ancient magic bullshit that refused to work at the most crucial moment because he was lied to by someone he trusted.

It took a loooot of bullshit to bring Voldy down.

>>53440475
The former would be far easier, I'm sure.

>>53440696
Ha HAHAHAHA ha, nice going anon. You rolled a 1 to end all 1's. With critical failure homebrew rules IN effect, I might add.
Lol, you take 1d6 nonlethal damage and 1d2 bleed.

>>53440739
2 year olds know how to ball a fist and strike something anon. Is this news to you? Or did you awkwardly slap-punch until age 15?

>>53425272
If you want to have OP firearms and still justify Mages, why dont you let them do noncombat Stuff?
Take shadowrun - Yes a Decker can be easily killed by a fighter, but he can get info and scout and overwrite cameras. Just let your Mage take a supportive role.


>>53426730
this (if you just want normal firearms)

>>53426730
Best post in the thread.

All others besides 2-3 people who actually shot guns in their lives should be really ashamed of themselves for spewing idiotic opinions that were disproved both by modern science and military history. Not even going to start explaining, you retards will never learn.

>>53425272
Fighters make plans of attack, and are trained in combat, so they have more chance to "instakill them from beyond their field of view" than peasants who will shit themselves when they see bullets flying.

Guns win battles. Invisibility and teleport and literal "contact a motherfucking god" spell can win wars. Wizards win wars.

Magical monsters are magical. They are resistant or immune to mundane weapons, have only a certain specific way to kill them, or have something else at their disposal. Medusa will turn you to stone even if you look at her through the sniper scope (depending on the level of sadism of your DM, of course), a fucking dragon will annihilate entire settlements even if it's not invincible to bullets. Let's not even talk about supernatural creatures from other planes unless you want people to justify the entire Cthulhu mythos to you.

We had this thread 9999 times already.

OP is a fag.

>>53441174
At the end of the day grenades are just highly engineered chemical explosives, so I don't see why not.

Potions work, so would a grenade and most guns. It's all just chemical reactions.

>>53441224
Who do you know that was cut by a longsword? Not that anon, but I'm legitimately curious how in this day and age that shit happened.

>>53426609
It's why the number one rule in any encounter in SR is...

~!!!ALWAYS GEEK THE MAGE FIRST!!!~
~!!!ALWAYS GEEK THE MAGE FIRST!!!~
~!!!ALWAYS GEEK THE MAGE FIRST!!!~

Seriously, fuck those guys...

File: 606ab6618858649498edb7bd8978bc14.jpg (156KB, 1024x737px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1024x737px

>>53425321
That is how guns work.

File: MqESAyB.jpg (91KB, 592x572px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 592x572px

>>53441131
JK Rowling is British, and probably accords firearms officers with a mythical status thanks to being the only ones worthy of ever handling those terrible death machines in her worldview. It wouldn't be that easy.

>>53425272
>image completely ignores the wizard fight between Voldemort and Dumbledore where neither used wands or cast spells verbally for more than half the battle and did things like animate and infuse statues with invulnerability, possessed people with flaming snakes, and literally destroyed an entire room with nary a spell case or wand waved.

Holding a handful of explosives when someone can cause the ones not in the barrel to explode by lookign at you is pretty much the definition of suicidally stupid.

>>53441131
>JK Rowling herself confirmed Hogwarts could be captured by SWAT guys
>She said something to that effect

Proofs?

"I saw someone on the Internet say this" doesn't count.

>>53441143
1. most people are shot with handguns
2. hospitals and ambulances exist

>>53445617
>I cast heal

>>53440258
And here you are, shitposting on /g/. Crazy, right?

>>53425678
A recurring theme in Harry Potter is that the Wizard World is largely head up its ass with regards to the muggle world. People born and bred in the wizard world can barely fathom that people exist without magic, and they rarely go to places where muggles gather.

Its a running theme that wizards reject and ignore things they do not understand. Even when its is really important and they shouldn't.

>>53425272
Spells that protect from arrows also protect from bullets.
The fighters are the ones using the guns.

>>53447479
Yep.

It is pretty much hammered into the reader, in retrospect, that most HP-verse wizards are myopic racists who lack common sense.

Even the first book had Hermione point out that plenty of mighty wizards don't have an ounce of logic in them.

File: Warhammer.jpg (54KB, 283x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 283x400px

>>53425272

>>53447408

It's like people have interests

>>53447479

The wizard world, as of the 90s, largely remains ignorant of the fact that humans have been on the moon.

A lot of people say that the reason what Potterverse stuff is set in the 90s and in prequels, rather than continuing the timeline with any seriousness, is that after the year 2000 it just becomes more and more likely that the wizarding world will get exposed by modern technology, what with the rise of cameras fucking EVERYWHERE and youtube being a thing.

They have spells for cleaning up evidence, but they only need to fuck up one time for the word to get out and for people to start asking questions. The moment that muggles have some kind of data recording that the wizards didn't invent a counter to yet, because we advance way faster than they do, the show is over.

>>53425272
On the note of the comic. That was pretty much what JK Rowling said would happen, and if you read the books you'd know Voldemort's plan was basically to further distance the wizard and non-wizard worlds which would both play into his magical wizard Hitler fantasy and make him extra safe from mundane fuckery.

File: 1428867739394.gif (296KB, 300x180px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 300x180px

>>53425272
>Fighters
Sword AND Gun. We /swashbuckling/ now.

>Wizards
Guns don't make Wizards obsolete or ineffective. If anything, Wizards dicking around with alchemy is how gunpowder gets invented in-setting.

After all, literal (Chinese) alchemists are who figured the stuff out in reality.

>Magical Monsters
a: Can only be killed under certain circumstances or with certain materials
b: Exist in isolated and dangerous regions not often traveled
c: Would still be dangerous and feared the same way large animals are today, but killed in much the same way

>>53447928
Technically the wizarding world has some foresight on this, and there is a reason the governing body of wizards in England has a naming convention as "The Ministry of Magic" like they had a spot next door to the "Ministry of Defense". Because they do and the Minister of Magic has meetings with the Prime Minister. What level of Masquerade and whether or not they meet with a current Prime Minister varies, but when the jig is finally up and it becomes impossible to hide they already have inside deals maintained just in case and everything runs smoothly, since it's already running from a 'what if all muggles knew' standpoint, since it's already running from a 'some muggles know' standpoint.

The masquerade ending will be a shock, but not anywhere near as bad as it could be if they had remained too separate.

>>53425678
Long story short, a magical plague rolled through a few centuries back, and they're still recovering.

>>53448023
I would watch this if it was structured exactly like true blood