Why are so many fantasy fans afraid of guns?

>>53430751
Hard to meaningfully balance.

>>53430751
Guns directly led to decline of such thing as knighthood and monarchies. Can't have fantasy without that.
>inb4 you're unimaginative faggot
I don't care what you call fantasy. When I say fantasy, I mean mighty knights and wise kings.

>>53430751
Tough to balance meaningfully.

>>53430838
Knights were killed by polearms, not by guns.

>>53430838
>Monarchies
Powerful monarchies lived centuries after the age of guns began. Quasi-monarchies still exist today. WW1 killed most of the world's big monarchies.

File: As I was saying.gif (990KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 480x360px

>>53430751
>So, we're running a typical medieval swords and sorcery epic heroic fantasy game and-
>CAN I HAZ A GUN!?!

File: 29FA811300000578-0-image-m-10_1435273209894.jpg (88KB, 634x892px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 634x892px

>player throws huge fit about wanting a gun
>decide to give him a shitty musket
>But now enemies will have guns too
>wanders into bandit camp like he owns the joint
>gets brained by jittery bandit
>bitches endlessly about dying

>>53431057
im going to be running a pirate campaign soon and enemies are just as likely to have a gun as the players and this is what im afraid a player will do

>>53430751
Pretty much a matter of what >>53430999 and >>53431057 were hinting at.

A player will beg for a gun assuming he'll get something that works like a modern one and he'll be mowing down orcs like it's an action movie. He'll complain if you make guns as deadly as crossbows, and he'll complain if enemies also get to use the super deadly guns to kill him.

You can make an interesting fantasy setting and involve guns, but modern perceptions of them means giving players a history lesson, and I would just as soon not bother.

File: gun_elf (1).jpg (245KB, 1024x1401px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1024x1401px

As you can see from the thread responses, fanasy nerds are mostly retarded when it comes to understanding firearms functioning and capabilities.

RL wasn't.
But most splatbooks is so badly designed that default ranged party could finally fight flying beasts.

>>53431057
>wanders into bandit camp like he owns the joint
Why wouldn't he get his head bashed in, peppered with arrows or fireballed in the fantasy equivalent?

>>53430751
>Why are so many fantasy fans afraid of guns?
Why is anybody afraid of guns? They can hurt you... like, a lot.

File: a fear of weapons.jpg (127KB, 435x600px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 435x600px

>>53431433
That's also true of swords and axes, but those are acceptable, so that's not the reason.

>>53430751
I don't want to get shot

>>53430751
Fantasy is often medieval Europe based.

File: responsible gun ownership.webm (3MB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x480px

>>53431540
>be american

>>53431704
Fake as hell and stupid
Probably fake
Fake
Real and hilarious
Real and hilarious
Fake
Real and hilarious

>>53430751
Because they weren't in Lord of the Rings.

File: I don't think that's historically accurate.png (141KB, 647x262px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 647x262px

>>53430779
>>53430846
Really.

File: winter.jpg (80KB, 563x800px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 563x800px

>>53430751
They can pierce armor very well and you basically end up having a spear that can also shoot superior versions of arrows 3 times a minute.

File: black powder knight.jpg (301KB, 700x933px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 700x933px

>>53430838
>implying

>>53430751

Because they don't like the thought of spending every other turn reloading their musket instead of doing something interesting.

File: Gun lance.jpg (469KB, 641x1024px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 641x1024px

>>53430838

File: revolver knight.jpg (403KB, 760x900px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 760x900px

>>53431994
>implying

>>53432045
If you get to the revolver I'd say you're well past the point of generic fantasy and entering the world of magitek, or at the very least steampunk with wizards in it

>>53430751
>Muskets, Blunderbuss, Powder Pistols

Because >>53431994

>Sidewinders, Shotguns, Revolvers, Wild West shit in general

Sign me the fuck up!

>>53431994
They don't have to do it with heavy crossbows though.

I know nothing about gun ranges, reloading, 'damage caused', ammo, costs, time, construction, etc.
Nothing.
It's also why I don't run modern games.

File: Pistols Galore.jpg (100KB, 559x756px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 559x756px

>>53432070
I personally don't see it that cut and dried, but I concede I've got a later sense of "generic fantasy" than others. In that case,

>implying

By the time guns are good enough to surpass bows as an elite ranged character's primary weapon, they've surpassed melee weapons as well.

It's sort of hard to have medieval fantasy at that point.

Renaissance fantasy, on the other hand.

>>53432126
You likely know nothing about swords and bows and genuine historical warfare as well. I found it very easy to adapt to not knowing one more thing.

>>53431308
jittery bandit had a flintlock i assume, so bang, pop goes the pc's head

>>53431433
so can a spoon, or a bar of butter in a sock

>>53432126
>I know nothing about gun ranges, reloading, 'damage caused', ammo, costs, time, construction, etc.
You know slightly less than /k/, don't worry.

>>53432208
>a bar of butter in a sock
No bruises. The perfect weapon.

>>53432175
Pretty much true. I only know about axes and trees, but I guess that ain't much help.

>>53432045
that man is about to lose a lung, a heart and probably an arm. there's a reason revolver rifles never caught on.

In the setting I am running now there is a kingdom where guns are real and they led to a Revolution since before that you had to be a great warrior and have at least some magical capabilities/objects to kill a somewhat skilled wizard. A huge wizard purge happens and now everyone uses guns to fight magical people.

>>53430779
>>53430846
This.
It can be difficult to adjust for a weapon that essential ignores armor, and was mass produced. It's one thing to have a single sword, arrow, axe, etc. that ignores armor due to some inherent magic property, is quite another when every magic sword does it, its the same with guns, how do you meaningfully balance something like that?

>>53432232
If it forms a gas seal as he pulls the trigger like the Nagant, then he'd be fine. And the main problem with the revolving rifles, chain fires, was solved by the adoption of metal cartridges. But by that point, lever actions had already made the scene so there wasn't any interest in the revolving rifle anymore.

File: 1475178459562.png (1MB, 736x981px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 736x981px

People can't accept gun damage being abstracted
A sword hitting you does 1d8+str in game but would horibly maim or kill you in real life, you accept the abstraction of damage because it lends itself to a game. People can't do that with guns because they know from all the movies and tv they've seen that when you shoot someone if kills them instantly unless you are the hero in which case it's only a flesh wound.

The only time guns worked for me in a fantasy game was when I used Mutants&Masterminds to run Green Ronins Freeport setting and the only reason they worked there is because the group wasn't treating it like a fantasy game they were treating it like a street level supers game in a fantasy setting

My setting has them, but they're brand new, and most of them don't really work properly yet. When I say new, I mean the first few didn't show up until we'd played in this setting for several months, and one of the players characters was an inventor who had made a few firearm designs. There's also a recurring villain/mercenary guy who has been a sellsword his whole life, and has recently taken to firearms. He's an old man now, and captain of a sellsword company who uses the most advanced ones we've seen in the setting yet, and has a very Revolver Ocelot feel to him.

>>53432252
This is another issue, once "geek the mage first" becomes relevant advice outside of Shadowrun wizards are in for a much harder time of things as everyone will try and shoot them first before the fireballs start landing
Of course there is an argument to be made this is only right and fair as it lets martial classes get some degree of catharsis
>>53432254
Mass manufacture of firearms is actually a relatively modern invention, before then guns were quite expensive and where mostly used in support of melee troops rather than outright replacing them
That and "essentially ignores armour" isn't strictly true either, there was a period where 'bulletproof' armour was capable of being built. The problem was guns were only getting more powerful as gunpowder was refined and the guns themselves built better, whereas armour design simply couldn't put enough metal between the wearer and the bullet.
I think that's another issue in and of itself, the gun represents a huge advancement and shift in a setting, and your average fantasy RPG is pretty heavy on medieval stasis

>>53431480
I mean it depends on how modern the firearm is but guns raise the possibility of just getting shot out of nowhere.

Guns cut into the notion of heroic fantasy. They are equalizers on the battlefield, making common soldiers dangerous. Or, they're kinda shitty and only worth using in armies, which gives them little use in your campaign. So it's easy to toss them aside as a theme you don't want.

I allow guns in D&D though. They hit a little harder than crossbows, and can pop off (expensive) magical shells, but they lack range and are sensitive to moisture and misfire.

>>53430751
Holy shit is this what? The fourth thread in a row about guns in fantasy? Don't you guys EVER have enough?
Look, I'm sorry your GM is not letting you play a gunslinger in his bronze age setting, but please stop pestering the rest of the world with your issues. Some settings have guns. Others do not. Period.

I've never really understood the aversion to at least simple guns when crossbows are so widely accepted.

When it comes to game rules an early firearm isn't going to be all that different from a decently powered crossbow.

>>53432296
That seems more like a general issue with systems where you don't roll for what location you hit.

A dagger to the face is probably going to fuck you up more than a bullet to the foot even if both holes in you are the same size.

>>53430979
And what was WW1 fought with? GUNS! So there you have it.

File: 1653535_622411881164755_2062630143_n.jpg (14KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x400px

>>53430751
Because most RPGs are balanced around swords, spells, etc. Making guns into the game is an extremely difficult thing to do because you'd have to rework most everything to make the guns balanced.

The only RPG I know to make guns work is the WH40K RPGs by Fantasy Flight Games, and they built their RPGs from the ground up to have guns in them.

>>53432472
And it should be noted that everything can and will one-shot a guy without armor in WH40K RPGs. Two shot if you actually have armor.

>>53432510

Mh, carapace armor is pretty good at making a person immune to lasguns and autoweapons not using AP rounds.

>>53432296
This, desu. Most people jump from "No accuracy at all" straight to "Musket" and like >>53432254
assume that all guns pierce armor.

The main attraction of the arquebus is that it's a simple, cheap design that's just as easy to train some shmuck to use as a crossbow and does nearly the same amount of damage. The thing is the PC's presumably already have loads of training - So they probably would want to use longbows since they're more powerful and accurate. They do make a decent NPC weapon though, and if a melee specialist PC wants to steal one it's not too much of a loss.

I usually try to put my homebrews circa 1530-1560's tech, so arquebusses are uncommon off the battlefield but everyone has an idea of what they are. This is also about the time full plate became popular, IIRC.

>>53432412
So do bows, though. In fact, with a bow there's no smoke, so it's better to get ambushed by people with guns because then you know where they are!

>>53432548
By the time you get carapace armor in dark heresy, meltaguns become a thing. Seriously, I forgot the last time we hit a combat and no one got in the criticals.

>>53432589
But there's literally an arrow pointing to the direction of the bowman.

>>53432599

It's pointing the wrong way though.

>>53432599
>implying the target will stand perfectly still once hit.

>>53430751
I hate guns in fantasy settings because the moment they're introduced it means that setting is "modernized" and the GM is going to start introducing robots, helicopters, assault rifles, science laboratories with computers, and a bunch of highly organized governments that are too fucking well put together for adventuring parties to be a thing which grants the looming unspoken implication that the party is a group of retarded suicidal manbabies who don't know what they're doing instead of a group of heroes.

Just leave out guns and use golems, wyverns, wands, wizard studies with crystal balls, and have the world be a collection of fiefdoms covered in goblins and zombies. I would say it's not hard but running a setting like that apparently takes a lot of self-restraint going by how many games I've played in that started with flintlock pistols and turned into Mass Effect by the end.

>>53431994
A musket is way quicker to load than a heavy crossbow

>>53430751

Because Gunpowder rewrote the rules of warfare in a way that hasn't been surpassed since. However, there is a new wave of gunpowder fantasy such as the Powder Mage Trilogy, which deserves an HBO series (Jeremy Irons as Tamas)

>>53432627
literally the only shit I introduce ahead of time when I do guns is, sometimes, rarely, airships.

In general though I just want to have this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g4H2Ivstn8

>>53432208
>bar of butter in a sock
if it was frozen I can believe it
also a "bar" of butter, seriously?

>>53430751
Judging from the circle jerk going on in this thread, the reason seems to be a fundamental lack of any kind of understanding of the history of firearms, how early firearms functioned, and just medieval warfare in general.

>>53430779
>>53430846
>>53432472
What are some games where guns are balanced?

>>53432472
>it's extremely difficult to balance this one type of ranged weapon where all the damage numbers are completely arbitrary
>bow and arrow though is a-ok
do you even play /tg? what kind of fucking retard thinks that it's difficult to balance one barely-realistic weapon against another when you have total control over their stats?

File: Martial Classes going home.gif (3MB, 519x291px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 519x291px

>>53432599
No, because of ballistics. And the target moving. And the wind. Plus, you're being shot at while you try to do the math in your head, which is hard because you made the questionable class decision of being a martial.

>>53432429
>cut into the notion of heroic fantasy

See, that's funny because I see concepts like spellslingers as the rebirth of heroic fantasy in the modern era.

>>53432657
They're sold in bars in america. We also keep them in the fridge so they stay firm and hard and ruin our bread when we spread them.

File: 1464376270722.jpg (577KB, 1080x1440px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 1080x1440px

>>53432554
Rifled muskets are a thing and could be very accurate in the hands of an skilled shooter.

File: 1453958666772.jpg (128KB, 1000x1300px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1000x1300px

>>53432674
So the average fantasy nerd?

>>53432657
nobody questions the spoon?

>>53432635
>hasn't been surpassed since.

Nukes.

>>53430751
Because LOTR didn't have them
Ever since LOTR half of the pop culture definition of fantasy is "is set in the medival period"
Hence we have shit like ASOIAF where civilisation has been stuck in the late middle ages (a period that lasted 2-300 years IRL) for thousands of years.

File: 1447847572714.jpg (91KB, 545x1000px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 545x1000px

>>53432635
Gunpowder is older than plate armor and it took centuries for gunpowder based weapons to dominate the battlefield.

File: 0034500151350_CF_version_type_large.jpg (46KB, 600x351px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x351px

>>53432731
they're sold in sticks your weirdo

>>53432744
They were... in the 1800's.

/Those/ would be the knight killers. But we were assuming a fantasy universe which included knights with swords and people still using longbows and other things which were rather out of fashion by the time rifled muskets showed face.

So rifled muskets are not relevant here. Assuming the universe follows a similar tech curve to Earth.

>>53432674
Ye early firearms in reality; what about fantasy where you got the best craftsmen in the world like dwarves? Or magic that essentially lets you make the perfect material, or weapon that is blessed by a god?

The point of fantasy is that you take a normal item and ratchet it up to 11 on a scale of 1-5. If you take a gun and do that, you get a ICBM.

>>53432744

A thing which didn't exist till the mid-19th century.

Once you are putting mid-19th century stuff in your fantasy it's only a short hop over to magazine fed rifles.

>>53432826
>>53432878

No they are older than that, they weren't used much because it was very hard to produce and reload, but that is within the capabilites of a PC.

>>53432851

I'd have no problem with an amazing dwarf made musket or rifle being a rare, powerful and expensive weapon.

If it's the kind of setting where things like a wand of magic missile is allowed then why not.

>>53432878
I suspect he meant muzzle-loading rifled weapons, which did exist in parallel with true muskets before the introduction of minie ball ammunition.

>>53432900

Maybe you are mixing up the terms rifle and rifled musket?

Rifles certainly existed earlier, though while having accuracy advantages could be very tempermental.

Rifled muskets are mid-19th century smooth bores converted to have rifing to make use of new ammunition.

>>53432974

I thought you coudl call these early rifled weapons muskets as well.

>>53432802
This. Black powder tech existed for a long time without fully supplanting swords, bows, or horse cavalry. High explosives and massive army/battlefield sizes (too big for line-of-sight command) had more to do with eliminating those things.

Magic can make this weird, though. It competes with firearms, and may make early black powder weapons kind of pointless, depending on commonality and power in the setting. If it can be combined with firearms (magic exploding bullets, magic repeating guns, hammerspaced caches of pre-loaded guns), it's almost like introducing modern weapons.

Magic defenses can make a big difference, though. A lot of modern warfare works the way it does because it's so difficult to make anything sturdy enough to resist likely threats.

Magical long-range communication adds another issue - it basically puts you directly into WWII-style manuever warfare territory.

>>53433023
"Musket" normally means a smoothbore weapon, as opposed to a rifled one. The term "Rifled musket" is sort of oxymoronic, but was used to refer to designs that were originally muskets, but got updated with rifled barrels after the invention of the minie ball in the mid nineteenth century. These were transitional weapons and didn't last too long - metallic cartridges became common soon afterward.

>>53430751
Autism.

>>53432907
I'm saying this as a GM with some experience over the years with a pretty large pool of players.

But guns being present change the mindset of people when they know they are in the game. Most people see a gun in the game and they go "oh, that is gonna be so strong" then they see the damage values and go, "wtf why does it only do 4D3? If I hit someone in the head they should be dead" to which I point out the fucking longsword does 1D8 and if I slashed correctly at them with it irl I would kill them.

People, even the experienced Rper's have a hard time getting around the idea of a gun being balanced in abstract. If there is a sniper who gets only headshots from a concealed position obviously they target should be dead. That also applies to the Bow and Crossbow, but most people don't see it that way.

So then they get around it and start looking more at the stats. They see the bows reload faster, the gun reloads the slowest; but the dps is same. Why would you take a gun? More shots means higher chance of hitting for SOME damage. Then the party composition, an archer in theory in just as vulnerable in melee as a gunner, but they don't have to stand still to reload.

A gun works in fantasy, it 's just a pain in the ass for GM's to deal with it and the kind of people who want to make it or game it to Opness. So we just say no because if you want to play a fucking RPG with guns in it come back Sunday morning for the Mecha campaign.

>>53433256
I mean, that's the answer to like 99% of the questions posed by /tg but we can at least preted to have an argument about it

>>53432296
Because guns ARE instant death weapons in the context of an rpg
In real life even if you don't instantly die from a gunshot wound you're still incapacitated from pain/bloodloss/wounds.
In an rpg, if you're unable to fight back it's treated the same as if you were effectively dead.
It's why when the wizard casts Sleep and puts every enemy to sleep no DM makes the party continue to go through combat. You've incapacitated the enemy, you already won.

>>53432454
How could I have been so blind

>>53432809
Pretty sure those are Butter Ingots bro. From the Butterforges.

>>53430779
>>53430846
This, basically.

In a d20 system guns do d8 damage. With a handful of exceptions (extremely large caliber rounds might do as much as 2d6). But people think it's boring when 9/10 of firearms do d8 damage.

Then you get into armor and how they interact. Which is to say they do piercing damage, but don't bypass DR.

The end result is people paying EWP for a weapon that is meaningfully worse than a bastard sword in all but a handful of situations.

>>53431285
Pfft no, not the problem at all. Can you detail the differences in cavitation from a .38 110 grain and a .45 180 grain? Didn't think so.

The problem is in game terms, they both do d8 damage. There's no meaningful differentiation until we're talking about things like .338 Lapua Magnum and .458 Winchester Magnum. Even those would be d10. Your truly absurd caliber munitions would be 2d6: .577 Tyrannosaur, .600 Overkill, .700 Nitro Express.

So no, the issue isn't that we don't know our firearms. It's that we know them better than you.

>>53433433
>Because swords ARE instant death weapons in the context of an rpg
>In real life even if you don't instantly die from a sword wound you're still incapacitated from pain/bloodloss/wounds.
>In an rpg, if you're unable to fight back it's treated the same as if you were effectively dead.
>It's why when the fighter full attacks and puts every enemy to -6 no DM makes the party continue to go through combat. You've incapacitated the enemy, you already won.

>>53433792
How about you a play a non-retarded system?

>>53431912
>>53430751
I think it's got less to do with being hard to balance and more to do with it letting players try to do WAAC shit.

>My wizard has an 22 int, and muskets are a thing, are you seriously saying he can't build a Gatling gun?
>Alright, I summon 2d6 celestial monkeys and hand them the grenades.

>>53433824
Except it's not the same because guns have the same stopping power regardless of the shooters physical ability or training, while the same can't be said for swords.
Which is why swords are okay because it still relies on individual skill and is heroic while guns are seen as "overpowered" and not heroic.

>>53433825
d20 is the most granular system damage-wise; weapons are arbitrarily assigned values across a broad range for the purpose of being different from each other.

In something like Gumshoe, guns just do 1d6 damage. All of them. So do fists and swords. (It's relatively high lethality -- most characters have between 5 and 10 hit points.)

In Fate they...do exactly the same amount of damage as every other weapon.

In Shadowrun they're retarded because that entire system is about arbitrarily assigning numbers to things without thinking it through. (They often, amusingly, assign incorrect values to weapon calibers.)

I don't recall GURPS doing firearms well except in the sense that any GURPS game with firearms was automatically high lethality.

I know D6 has some substantial granularity to weapons, but most firearms are somewhere between 3D and 5D, while most people resist damage with somewhere between 2D and 4D, so, uh, yeah. High lethality.

I don't normally play D&D, my man. But if I put firearms into it, they'd basically all do d8 damage.

>>53433841
That sounds fucking lit though.

File: 04EuropeanWheellockPistol17thCentury.jpg (44KB, 700x254px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 700x254px

Because there's a strong idea that fantasy is strictly medieval, or that adding guns to it will change the sort of setting being created irrevocably. It's arguably similar to why some GMs prefer low fantasy, since magic could be similarly game-changing (literally and figuratively). Guns and magic could be worked well into a setting without 'ruining it,' or even be a good central part of a 'industrializing' setting, but most people only see a black and white distinction of guns and no guns.

Moreover, how do you include guns in a setting with magic? What could gunpowder do that magic couldn't, would one develop with the other around, etc.

Because guns can be difficult to stat well.

Imagine how bad armchair medieval weapons experts can be, and imagine that with gunpowder weapons. Players will drop whatever magic item they're using for a chance to get at the rare shiny dwarfguns, even if they're crappy, because guns are kings, right?

Because so many people don't know that much about guns before muskets and line infantry, and players and GMs won't want to deal with the hassle of caring for a rather finicky and unwieldy weapon.

>>53433850
>Except it's not the same because guns have the same stopping power regardless of the shooters physical ability or training
a firearm, even a primitive one is vastly more complex than a sword and requires training to use without damaging the equipment or yourself, multiple those chances by 3 to 5 times if we're talking black powder firearms. Anyone can pick up a sword and stab somebody on instinct. Not many people could operate a firearm the same way.
>Which is why swords are okay because it still relies on individual skill and is heroic while guns are seen as "overpowered" and not heroic.
you literally have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, try watching any action movie ever.

>>53430751
There's nothing like a hand-crafted weel lock pistol or rifle. I loved how in Fable 3 you handled them in a gun-fu style combat when fighting multiple enemies.

The main reason for the gun aversion is that it clashes with the romantic image of a knight with a shiny blade and shield facing his enemies in honourable duelcombat. It could be argued that less-honourable classes like rogues and maybe rangers could use it, but then again those have their own romantic stereotypes which don't leave room for a blackpowder weapon.

Apart from that, if you try to implement medieval guns realistically, I doubt they'd make good adventuring weapons. Lots of tiny parts that could rust and drastically impede its functionality, one heavy rainshower and your blackpowder is fucked, and don't even get started on the tremendous noise and stench it makes. Trying to fight inside a dungeon would virtually kill your group with the echo.

If I DMd a game I'd allow guns as crossbow-countsas and just leave it at that.

File: Vilebloods vs Executioners.jpg (1MB, 3780x1713px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3780x1713px

>>53430838

What does being a knight mean to you? Is it just a guy in armor or is it a title of a warrior? You make it sound like I couldn't have a kingdom where the nobility have such titles because they are bound to be given military positions that the title implies or that every modern army has to follow the set up that the US has.

So yes, you are an unimaginative faggot because you're trying to dictate that having knights and kingdoms can only be this or that and that's the only correct way of doing it.

>>53433879
>>53433792
Both d20 modern's archaic firearms material and 3.5's early firearms material have a much wider variety of damage outputs.

>>53432554
>This, desu. Most people jump from "No accuracy at all" straight to "Musket" and like >>53432254
assume that all guns pierce armor.

I jumped straight to musket for that reason, and made the assumption that all guns pierce armor for a reason. Very rarely have I come across someone who has an understanding of black powder, early fire arms and their limitations, and benefits. Nearly everyone I have met in two and a half decades of playing, who says I want guns in a fantasy game, has the view of a weapon that trumps any armor, and is superior to any other weapon. At this stage, when someone says gun in fantasy game, I just automatically assume that this is the view they take, and no longer try to explain the details of how a gun would really work, hence it is easier to say it is difficult to reconcile such a weapon.

>>53433946
Action movies where they literally can't fail.

Whereas a player has a chance to fail, given the nature of a fucking GAME.

File: 7987645981.jpg (396KB, 1130x900px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1130x900px

So any good tabletop RPG that essentially is Fantasy Napoleonic Warfare?

File: powder knight.jpg (486KB, 636x900px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 636x900px

>>53433993
Damn straight.

>>53434057
literally, LITERALLY no bearing on what I posted

File: Welcome to Tuesday.jpg (270KB, 724x1000px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 724x1000px

>>53434124

I know right? It's like people don't want to have velcro patches with their house's heraldtry sown onto it or receive military training from your father, grandfather and any close family retainers before being sent to the imperial military academy to show off how better at fielding you are then that sissy brat elsworth who never went hunting with your family or having a special ceremonial armor commissioned by a renowned armor smith and carrying pieces of your grandparent's armor into combat with you.

>>53431966
>3 times a minute

yeah, but that means they can fire it once every three rounds of combat. Sure it's a better ammo, but being out of the fight for 2 rounds during combat (more if they have to dodge) after shooting seems fairly balanced compared to what some wizards can do.

>>53433993
Not the other guy but in if he wants to dictate that knights and kingdoms have to be that way in his games why should that matter to you? You can run your knights and kingdoms as lands of black powder, assault weapon paradises, cyber punk kingdoms, or some futuristic techno knight utopia. Otherwise who the fuck cares about his opinion, yours. or even mine. There is a correct way for each group and maybe that's his group's correct way.

>>53433841
>Alright, I summon 2d6 celestial monkeys and hand them the grenades.

That sounds amazing though. And could be accomplished with blast globes for precisely the same effect.

>>53432826
>>53432878
>>53432900
>>53432912
>Ferguson rifle.
>Breach loading flintlock used by some British troops during American War of Independence.
>Kentucky/Pennsylvania/"Dutch" long rifle used by American marksmen during same war.
18th century / mid 1700's technology.

>>53433946
>a firearm, even a primitive one is vastly more complex than a sword and requires training to use without damaging the equipment or yourself, multiple those chances by 3 to 5 times if we're talking black powder firearms. Anyone can pick up a sword and stab somebody on instinct. Not many people could operate a firearm the same way.

U wot m8?

Firearms are way easier to use then melee weapons. With a sword you have to worry about blade alignment, you're opponents blade, parrying and blocking, footwork, and potentially the surrounding environment.

With a gun, you need to worry about aiming, the gun jamming, misfire, and potentially the surrounding environment.

>>53430846
The armor most associated with Knighthood was designed to stop bullets. The era ended because of economics and politics, not guns.

Had a player going I'M GOING FOR A HEADSHOT, when there wasn't a rule to go for a headshot.

Being a DM is hard.

>>53434006
Yes, but they're wrong.

>>53434207
or you know what? take it even further. knights swearing fealty to a king or baron and having their steeds lances and armor made as one by one of the royal houses of Raytheon or Boeing while the serfs fight it out on the ground

File: 1349969251798.jpg (213KB, 635x863px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 635x863px

>>53432682
The BRP-games. Doesn't matter whether youre hit by a sword or a bullet, you're likely gonna get fucked up either way.
Main difference is that you can't parry bullets.

File: 1431290545363.jpg (137KB, 745x1173px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 745x1173px

>>53430751
Because people are stupid about guns. I'm not talking about ignorance to the physics behind them, it's more that people refuse to expand their notion of "fantasy" to incorporate them. A fantasy gun does not have to be as powerful as a gun in real life, nor does it need the same limitations. There's also the people who pretend they know shit about the physics behind projectile weapons and about history in general who use it as a shitty excuse to not include them.

>Well of course we can't allow guns because they'd be overpowered
>"Why not make them balanced?"
>Then why have guns?

>Longbows would be invalidated!
>"You have crossbows in your setting"
>Yeah but historically longbows were better than crossbows, they just took WAY more skill
This one particularly fries my asshole

>Yeah the setting has guns but they're super expensive and have a chance to explode in your face
>but if you hit something it does huge damage!
>Then you have to drop it and switch to a different combat style because that's more realistic
>"That doesn't sound very fun"
>Why not just use a longbow

tl;dr fuck longbows and their unwarranted idolatry. Fucking katana-tier levels of misinformation and dicksucking. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M MAD ABOUT ANY MORE

WHY CAN'T I HAVE FEMALE SPACE MARINES!!!!!??!?!?!??

>>53434498
Idk maybe GW just hates you and all the people who want female space marines.

>>53430838

Tolkien didn't use knighthood.

I bet he did sci-fi, in your view.

>>53434358
You can pick up a blade and stab somebody with it without training. Obviously if you're facing someone who knows how to wield a sword you will be incapable of hurting them.

There are tons of people who wouldn't understand how to use a gun if they picked one up off the ground.

>>53434483
In my experience ranged (martial) options in general are always underpowered. in DnD they require extra feat to use effectively and you get penalties attacking in melee and into melee along with absurd range penalties AND you need to track ammo.

>>53434542
Dude, three-year-olds shoot people all the time. Mostly 2nd amendtards who figure giving their deagle to the baby is a brilliant fucking idea.

Point and pull is not more complex than point and thrust. The difference is that guns are just way, way easier to train. To the point where most of my firearm training in basic (like, 90% of it) was gun safety and not actually using the gun. It was just assumed that after 60 rounds and an explaination of how to use the iron-sights people would be accurate.

/AND THEY WERE/.

>>53434542

Effectiveness, anon. Effectiveness.

File: 1441839722229.jpg (144KB, 1280x956px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1280x956px

>>53434483
>I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M MAD ABOUT ANY MORE
Neither do I
At this point in my life I just tell players how shit works in my game and if they have a problem with they can all go get fucked

>>53432682
Mythras (RuneQuest 6) specifically has some of the best firearms rules there are. It's BRO based.

>>53434583
>2nd amendtards

What do we call you? A first amendtard?

>>53434607
*BRP not BRO

>>53433879
>I don't recall GURPS doing firearms well except in the sense that any GURPS game with firearms was automatically high lethality.
GURPS does firearms very well, but by Basic Set they do too much damage and achieve Hollywood lethality. Use the optional wounding rules from High-Tech where injury is capped at HP and the rest is lost except for determining bleeding penalties. Or use Survivable Guns, halving rifle damage and giving them AD(2). Both have about the same effect, although the latter doesn't require bleeding.

>>53434583
>Mostly 2nd amendtards
Do you really think not giving everyone a gun wouldn't solve everything?
It would just devolve from threats with guns into shoot first

File: Snow.png (2MB, 1690x708px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1690x708px

>>53434233
>but being out of the fight for 2 rounds during combat
You're not really out of the fight though, assuming the gun has a bayonet then you essentially have a spear/club combo that you can melee with.

>Have long discussions/arguments with my players about guns in fantasy settings
>Have Kobolds invent and use guns in my campaign
>Players shit terrified that they'll be instagibbed
>End up getting shot for 2d6+Dex
>Don't care about guns in the campaign anymore once the monsters that do 3d10+Str show up with giant swords

Guns don't ruin fantasy, idiots who think that guns are the power of god ruin fantasy settings.

>>53434583
There's a huge difference between shoting paper targets, accidentally discharging on an unaware person and actually participating in a firefight, otherwise green soldiers would be just as effective as veterans.

>>53433879
>I don't recall GURPS doing firearms well except in the sense that any GURPS game with firearms was automatically high lethality.

It depends on the firearm. You can survive a 9mm round to the chest and do pretty well, but a 7.62x54r round to the chest will probably require a death save. The rest of the rules, for bulk, reloading, ect, are extremely good.

File: 1417142334801.png (19KB, 512x323px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 512x323px

>>53434696
>idiots who think that guns are the power of god ruin fantasy settings

Reminds me of this.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO48mtNd4jo

>>53434708
Most of that difference is not in ability to handle a gun, but willingness to kill.

>>53432429
And are best used by well-dressed folks in hats.

>>53434696
To add to that, my players were more interested/fascinated by the fact that the kobolds made Smoked Goggles to deal with the sun than the idea of firearms.

File: tfw He says you're not a lolicon but you are.jpg (61KB, 405x412px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 405x412px

>>53434614
Filthy Communist, generally.

And I was referring more to the folk who vehemently support their right to buy guns they can't use with the 2nd Amendtards bit.

>>53434708
And there's a huge difference between one guy with a knife stabbing a mannequin and two guys having a swordfight.

My argument was that guns could be trained to a professional level, even in green soldiers, in the span of 8 weeks or less. The only fantasy weapons with similar training times are spears and cudgels, certainly nothing ranged besides the crossbow, which was horribly expensive.

>>53430751
I think it's actually just symbolism, guns is the symbol of modern warfare and a symbol of modernity in general. Guns bring with them a lot of cultural baggage that change the way people will perceive a setting.
Introducing guns in a fantasy will tend to introduce more modern themes into it, just like introducing swords in a SciFi setting tend to introduce other themes into it.
I'm not saying this is right, but it is.

>>53431994
I actually asked specifically for that, strangely enough.

File: 3_Dwarf_hunter.jpg (573KB, 604x500px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 604x500px

>>53434739
Situational awareness, coolness underfire, terrain knowledge (if applicable), understanding of tactics and maneuvers.

>>53434763
Considering a professional level today is one death per 250,000 bullets fired, I think stabbing someone to death is a bit easier.

>>53434628
I really like GURPS method for dealing with firearms with high rates of fire.
>get a bonus to your skill check based on the rate of fire
>for every X (where the value of X depends on the weapon) by which you beat the check, deal 1 extra hit, to a maximum equal to the number of shots fired
Shotguns firing buckshot count as having a high rate of fire. Birdshot counts as having an extremely high rate of fire, but each pellet does a tiny amount of damage.

>>53430751
I honestly like guns in fantasy.
The grim determination and gunpowder vs monsters is/was my favorite part of WHFB

>>53430751
Because they do not understand that early guns were a thing and that they were not that great. For pre 1420s firearms use the stats of a light crossbow.

>>53434872
Yeah I suppose that stuff too, the point is still that knowing how to gun isn't the big difference.

>>53434909
I'm surprised Guns vs Monsters isn't more popular in fantasy.
It's weird how people like superhero power fantasies more than mundane powerfantasies of regular people overcoming supernatural forces through ingenuity and grit rather than talent and special snowflake magic.

File: necromicer.gif (746KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 500x269px

>>53434958
There are more lazy people than people who want to work for what they got.

>>53434958
You know what was great? The first couple seasons of Supernatural. You know what wasn't great? When they started using literally biblical powers to kill angels and shit. It's so frustrating

File: kobold_gun (2).jpg (239KB, 855x1200px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 855x1200px

>>53434937
The end result is the same, a random schmuck is as likely to be able to kill a experienced soldier with a sword as he is with a rifle.

>>53430751
Jokes on you. Most of my group is K and all techies/mechanical engineers.

Shadowrun is perfect for us.

File: 1354372731598.png (5KB, 191x234px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 191x234px

>>53434901
>finding that rule to just do slug damage when at really close ranges
>flip over to high-tech to check out slugs
>mfw

File: eurasian_horsegirl.jpg (365KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1280x720px

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

China used war bows well after muskets began to dominate the european battlefield due to the fact that bows were still objectively superior for the type of warfare the chinese faced.


Bows could be fired significantly faster

Bows were far more accurate at range

Heavy war arrows out of high poundage long ear war bows were just as incapacitating against armor they were most likely to encounter as their match lock firearms (manchu and qing war arrows were significantly heavier than their european counterparts and flew faster)

Bows, even composite bows, were far less succeptable to moisture and rain compared to early, pre cartridge firearms and were essentially all weather weapons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxFY917UH8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B756AYVvoo8&index=11&list=PLIGg3pcPWcaKHHQj_qUOTwppuiAYR2k4P

You can see that period match and wheel locks often didn't penetrate lamellar armor. While the trailer video never finished, it appeared to do similar amounts of damage to a few of the early fire arms.

Have some more fun videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_5FgRoltzI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zfyVDkAYkc (yes, those arrow heads ended up reaching the hand when drawn)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K763dwaoa0U (yes, that is the correct draw length)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxQNsYnH4Q

>>53434958

Special snowflakeness such as superpowers tends to imply their whole world and possibilities got bigger

Determination, grit and ingenuity are great but in general they give the feeling that you just about made something good by the skin of your teeth and you're still bound by the laws of reality

I really can understand that. A man Will always be a man and no matter how badass you are, If you get shot or wounded badly or sick it's GG. Superpowers? Magic? That's changing the rules. Sky's the limit.

Tl;dr people don't think reality is fun as just human even when you stretch It to its limits

I never really liked mixing magic and more modern weapons, because to me, guns are kind of a superpower already. You squeeze a trigger and some guy is gushing blood. Magic!

>>53434958
Because fictions tend to be character driven, elaborating on only a few characters.
Formations, strategies and group coordination is hard to do interestingly on screen or even in books, you rarely pull out a Waterloo. It can easily feel impersonal.
So the best you could hope is some sort of big game hunting with monsters by a cast of heroes, anything above the size of a RPG group is going to be quite rare.

>>53432809
That shit is harder than granite cold.

>>53434994
Eh, I'd argue that unless this experienced soldier does not have swordfights included in his experience, he's got reasonable odds of managing a disarm before swordschmuck manages anything particularly fatal. He won't be coming out unharmed unless he's got some decent armor on, but he's got a solid chance of coming out the other side alive.

Rifle depends a lot on ranges involved, and also on the rate of fire/magazine. A dipshit with a nugget is gonna be notably less likely to manage a kill than a dipshit with an ak

>>53435093
>A dipshit with a nugget is gonna be notably less likely to manage a kill than a dipshit with an ak.

How about many dipshits, each of them armed with their own nugget?

>>53435119
depends on if any of the /k/ommandos are dressed like a commissar to point them in the same direction.

>>53435093
He won't be able to control the recoil and will waste all his ammo shooting at the air.

>>53435134
More than one bullet is still better odds than the one he's gonna get out of the nugget before being faced with trying to work a bolt action.

>>53435035

There was a significant advantage guns had though, they just kept making and equipping more and more of them. The reason the balance of power changed was because the west went from having 5% of their army using missile weaponry, to like 80%. A horse archer given a gun is not really much different than he is with a bow, if anything he's slightly worse than he was with a bow. A swordsman/pikeman given a gun now suddenly can attack his enemies at range, and more importantly it takes way less training and muscle to efficiently use guns than bows.

The guns may be inaccurate as fuck, but if you get about 300 guys with guns in a formation, put some pikemen in front to protect them from cavalry charges, they can put a lot of lead into the air at one time.

>>53430751
I don't mind guns in fantasy games, but I keep them just as lethal as swords and bows
which means they're not all that lethal because high level means lots of HP

File: sniper3-545.jpg (121KB, 871x546px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 871x546px

>>53434583

>It was just assumed that after 60 rounds and an explaination of how to use the iron-sights people would be accurate.
>/AND THEY WERE/

Firearm instructor here. No. And no.

You can quickly train someone to shoot a firearm at a piece of paper at slow pace relatively easily. But firing rapidly with any semblance of skill, rapid target acquisition, followup, that is something that isn't immediately picked up unless you have a lot of talent, or the shooter you are training is a girl.

A large part of BASIC firearm training is safety. But actual effectiveness on a firearm is a very different thing, and that can take months, if not years to master. When I had to quality for my state conceal carry permit, I was required to take a pistol course. My peers struggled to hit the target after several classes. I spooked the instructors who didn't know me and my background when I instinctively knew when my barrel was on target at close range, using occluded eye techniques, quickly jumping to reloading drills, etc.

Please keep in mind, the requirements to pass a military qualification course is significantly easier than passing a civilian one. We actually have to worry about what happens when we miss in the civilian world as to collateral damage. Fog of war is unacceptable here.

I honestly don't see myself as a very good rifleman, but compared to most people I see on public ranges, I'm HSLD as fuck. Maybe I underestimate myself.

>>53435165
But guns requires more logistics, right?
That's an important factor for how guns spread.

>>53435165

Yes. But this didn't work in asia. Warfare was too fast, and at extreme ranges a lot of times. Asia didn't start converting over to firearms until cartridges appeared on the scene, when the final advantages of the bow finally fell to the wayside... unless you were japanese. Then you went fucking nuts with the things and used them along side bows.

>>53435205

Yes but it also meant that those Steppe assholes could no longer pepper your troops with arrows while you have to just stand there and take it because you can't catch their horses.

If guns ended anything, it was the age of the Steppe peoples being a threat. The Russians could never make much headway in going south or east for centuries, but once they got guns they fucking steamrolled the entire region in a single generation. If the Mongols got to Europe later when they had even the most primitive guns, they would've been slaughtered.

>>53435205
>But guns requires more logistics, right?

Not really, they piggy-back on existing supply chains, which is probably why they spread so quickly in the West.

>>53435204

Exactly, It amazes me that people think if you give a punch of peasents some guns and a days worth of training they can suddenly kill dragons or mow down entire armies neverminding the peasent isn't some battle hardened fuck who's actually been shot at or had someone try to shank them.

I mean fuck. If you look at the bare minimum requirement to stand watch in the Navy you're not going to take a a navy dude and have him dominate the battlefield just because you got some time on the range with an M16 and a shitty 9mil

Personally, I think it's a mixture of the over-glorification of guns in action media, and the protag's invincibility, as well as most anons/fantasy nerds not knowing how Medieval guns worked.

And the anti-industrialization themes in Tolkien's fantasy. That might play a part of it.

>>53433993
Good idea anon you pic related suggests that I make a rapier gun next session.

>>53435232

>The Russians could never make much headway in going south or east for centuries, but once they got guns they fucking steamrolled the entire region in a single generation

Uhh, no. The Russians won by using politics. Massaging various political and clan rivalries, making them fight amongst themselves, and then moving in using the same tactics and techniques as the ones who subsumed them.

It wasn't guns, but clever political and logistical maneuvering that made Russia. And skis. Lots of skis.

>>53435247

I've had to baby sit marines who've only gone through basic on the range. Holy shit. They think they know what they are doing, but 9 times out of 10, they're the biggest danger on the range because they can't hit shit and are fucking dumb. I've seen them load incorrect ammo into guns, fortunately only causing a jams because the geometry of the round won't allow the bolt to close fully.

Total nightmare.

File: 2007NYfirearmsdischargereport.jpg~original.jpg (45KB, 749x361px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 749x361px

>>53434874
>comparing "stabbing someone to death" with suppressive fire in loss-averse counterinsurgency operations
Disingenuous as fuck m8, you probably couldn't hack it fighting in formation with gladius and scutum either. The average number of shots fired in a self-defense shooting can be counted on one hand and the average number in a police shooting can be counted on two.

>>53435242
That's basically what I was going for, you need to know your shit in logistics for guns to be even usable in warfare.
You can't make black powder the way archers could make new arrows, can you?

>>53435345
>incorrect ammo
What the fuck else is there to load on a military range?

>>53435351

And the number of shots fired by military in panic oh shit situations can be counted on ten... and some of them end up where there shouldn't be.

I know way too many marines who have bad knees because of friendly fire.

Remember: FRIENDLY FIRE ISN'T!

>>53435423
>counted on ten
naw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8sa8QFNEGI&t=4m35s

>>53435407

Non-standard arms training. US military isn't just trained with their own weapons, but sometimes with common enemy weapons. You know. Just in case.

But this shit goes on a civilian range. Nothing is more fun than talking to a marine and trying to figure out how he stuffed that huge thing into that small chamber and trying to remove it. Then insulting him.

Also, fun fact, quantico has some wonky rules to what firearms are allowed on their range due to several accidents of this nature, not all of them ending as nicely.

Fun fact number two: the MAS49 will feed carrots and attempt to feed your fingers with some degree of success into its chamber!
Fun fact number two is unrelated to fun fact number one.

File: 1451990334751.jpg (151KB, 780x410px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 780x410px

I'm not sure if it was /tg/ or someone else that came up with the idea of a commoner game, basically you had to manage an small village of D&D commoners and had to survive against all the dangers of the world (like household cats) without acess to PC classes and powers, guns could be an interesting addition to that, a group of commoners could plausibly hold their own against an orc raid by using gunpowder weapons and traps.

>>53435512
That sounds fucking dope.

Also, yeah, gunpowder/black powder would equalize it.

File: read nigga read.jpg (41KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x281px

>>53430751
Early modern guns aren't as big a game-changer on the personal level as people think. At most you got the players toting a brace of pistols, which on top of being cool, NPCs can do too.
The effects are felt more on the macro/political scale. States can become more centralised, but not as much as real life if you don't have a black-death-esque event

I feel like people should just follow the advice in pic related. Read a decent pop-history book about the time-period you're basing your setting off

Qualifier, I dig either classical antiquity based settings (no guns) or 16th-17th century based settings, so there's that one.

>>53435464

>goes through ~50 rounds in the first 30 seconds

That seems normal.

>goes through remainder of the box in blind fire near the end

Uuuggghhhh. Well, I guess someone has to be that guy.

>>53433908
>guns were responsible for industrialization

>>53435564
>Early modern guns aren't as big a game-changer on the personal level as people think.

Plus when it came to the Spaniards fighting the Aztecs, the tech gap was actually much smaller than you'd think. Yes the Spanish had guns and horses and that works as a shock and awe tactic, but that kind of surprise works once, maybe twice if you're lucky. And 2 instances is not enough to conquer an empire.

>>53433979
>crossbows were the last step before guns
Why do mouthbreathers think this?

>>53435599
Oh shit, they weren't? I'm genuinely curious about this, I didn't know that they weren't.

>>53435599

Because mouth breathers see modern crossbows and then assume ancient crossbows were like this only older. Joke on them, medieval crossbows were no more accurate than their long and composite bow counterparts, not to mention their shorter range and power.

Modern crossbows are legit scary, though.

>>53435512

What about NPC classes?

>>53435626
I know there was airguns, but they may have been there alongside gunpowder guns, not before.

>>53435587
Plus actual metal working.
But yeah, the fact they played the natives off against each other was probably more important. Though to be fair, my knowledge of that area is pretty limited

>>53435626

Crossbows aren't much older than regular bows. To make a bow, one must "tiller" a bow, which is ensuring both limbs are flexing correctly and evenly. To tiller a bow, you attach the bow at its handle to a board with a grove for the handle, and several anchor points to anchor the string to to check the limb flex.

A tiller is literally a crossbow.

Medieval crossbows were weaker than self (single piece) long bows, and significantly weaker than composite short bows, despite their high poundage. This is due to short draw length. Crossbows have such a short impulse, that they are unnable to efficiently transfer their draw energy to the projectile.

A longbow has 22 inches of room to apply its 80~120 pounds of force to the arrow, assuming a brace height of 6 inches.

A composite short bow has 30 inches of room to apply 80~120 pounds of force to the arrow (assuming 6" brace height).

A crossbow, assuming the most common goats foot design used in warfare, only has approximately 6 inches to apply 300 pounds to a quarrel (which is significantly lighter than the arrows in the other two bows).

All three bows return to brace height at approximately the same amount of time.

The longbow and composite short bow throw a much heavier projectile much faster than the crossbow. They ended up having to make extremely heavy crossbows, but even those were less powerful than the more powerful longbows and composite short bows.

File: Girandoni_Air_Rifle.jpg (92KB, 1398x806px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1398x806px

>>53435656
There's the Girandoni Air Rifle, used by the Austrians as a standard infantry weapon for a bit, and as a skirmisher's rifle for longer.

They had a decent ammo capacity in an age of one-shot weapons, but the reservoirs(the weird shaped stock) took *ages* to pump. Even if soldiers carried two it wasn't great. They did prove pretty good skirmisher weapons though, seeing as they're near silent and give off no smoke.
Allegedly Napoleon got so butt-blasted by them that he ordered every soldier caught with one executed.

Also the Lewis and Clarke expedition used them too.

>>53435724
Huh, interesting. The more you know.

>>53435724

>short impulse

I meant to say low impulse. Sorry!

Longbows and short composite bows have hella recoil. They push into your hand and shake your body. Improper grip can cause bruising in the bow hand.

Guns are dangerous and loud. It's perfectly natural to be afraid of them.

File: 1459629326855.gif (35KB, 266x220px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 266x220px

>>53435748

And knowing is half the battle!

>>53435247

The thing is more that through arming peasants wth guns, you can create a VERY large army very quickly.

Look at Alexander the Great. He conquered almost all of the known world and a good chunk of the unknown world, with 80,000 soldiers. That isn't much, but it's a big deal because until the French Revolution, armies didn't get big. It's why wars that had that one big battle was generally THE battle that decided the whole war. Nations in the old days could dish out a punch, but they couldn't really take a punch (ie lose all their men in a big battle). There were exceptions. The mongols could take a punch, the russians could take a punch, the british and roman empires could take a punch, and that's generally why they were as famous in history as they were.

The Revolution changed everything because when France had its coup, the rest of europe tried to pounce on it, and France did the unthinkable and turned their people into an army, a massive army. Kings wouldn't arm their people, they used mercenary armies that a lot of the time were putting down rebellions made by the people. The idea of giving your peasants guns and teaching them how to use them well in a war was scary to them, but France was now a republic so the people were the nation. This is why Napoleon was so dangerous, because he had this gigantic massive army that could fight across Europe unhindered. As he once famously said, "You cannot stop me, I spend 30,000 lives a month", which showed how many lives he was able to throw away and keep fighting. Any other country at the time, 30,000 dead in a month means you are DONE, the war is over.

So every other country got scared and generals said "I need a national army, give me what Napoleon has so I can fight back!" And suddenly everyone had giant armies, and now life on the battlefield had become cheap.

>>53435797
Also I shold note that the reason the Romans were so powerful back in the day was because they had national conscription instead of relying purely on private armies.

>>53435797

Funny. Asia basically assumed everyone knew how to use a bow. Because most of them did. They could rouse up large numbers of auxiliary conscript forces in short notice who were reasonably competent on everything but draw weight due to culture.

And, failing that, well, there was always crossbows.

Life has always been cheap on the battlefields of asia. And it's even more so now. This is why you'll never win. Muh rising storm.

>>53435852
Never get involved in a land war in asia.

The only way to conquer Russia is from the east.

>>53435731
Huh, interesting. I thought they were mostly used for noblemen hunting stuff as they were quiet, but that makes sense that they were used as skirmisher weapons. Thanks!

File: bullet in block of ballistic gel.gif (2MB, 500x307px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x307px

This is what bullet does. Does it look like 1d6 (vs touch AC) to you? No, it looks like ALL YOUR ORGANS ARE FUCKING RUPTURED, GAME OVER, MAN, GAME OVER

>>53435852
>you'll

We get it, Asia strong, big red dragon, ect.

>>53435867
But doesn't ballistic gel not count for armor, muscle, and bone?

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

243KB, 352x174px

>>53435867
That would kill any commoner, and grievously harm any adventurer below level 3. And past that point, it doesn't matter, they're objectively supernatural at that point.

>>53435864

Because Russia has always been and always will be Asia. You can't fool me, you sneaky horse jews.

>>53435888
>>53435864
>>53435797
>tfw your setting analogue to Napoleon was too wary to follow the trail of no-breadcrumbs into the jaws of general winter and instead went south through desert, jungle, and mountains and attacked from the southeast
>and still lost

File: 13083373_10209513799751244_7445452444345900771_n.jpg (177KB, 692x814px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 692x814px

>>53435852

Yeah how well did that work out for you last time? From what I remember, the Chinese had a numerical advantage of like 50 to 1.

>>53435907

So, Hitler? Hitler was so paranoid about what Napoleon did wrong that he did everything in his power to not repeat the same steps, even when it would've been advantageous to do so (like capture Moscow when the party leaders still hung out there)

>>53435867
This is what battle axe does https://youtu.be/NEQ41xTUBMI?t=81 Does it look like 1d10 (vs AC) to you? No, it looks like ALL YOUR ORGANS ARE FUCKING RUPTURED, GAME OVER, MAN, GAME OVER

https://youtu.be/NEQ41xTUBMI?t=81

>>53435883
>And past that point, it doesn't matter, they're objectively supernatural at that point.
This is bullshit. You can't just "lolmagic" things away, and every setting having anti-gun magic automatically cast on characters only proves my point.

>>53435920
Hard to fight a war when you're all doped up on opium

>>53435920

Have you looked at a geopolitical map recently? Say, in the past 100 years?

>>53435931
>>53435867
D&D HP isn't meat points. It's a gamist abstraction, like video game HP. Don't try to bring reality into it, because it isn't realistic.

>>53435931
This is a fantasy game, so fighter can block or dodge an axe strike. And he is tougher than gel dummy.

You can't block or dodge a bullet and you sure as hell ain't gonna survive one once it's inside.

>>53435939

I always go off of the idea that HP loss isn't exactly being hit with critical blows, but rather consecutive glancing blows that are painful but non-life threatening. Eventually, they add up to where fatigue is too great and the PC collapses.

>>53435970
And a human is tougher than ballistic gel as well. Point?

>>53435945

China would gain nothing and lose everything from war. It NEEDS foreign debt to them in order to keep ther economy functioning. Meanwhile the US (since that's what I assume is who we're going for) is the world monetary standard. You can't even sanction it without tanking the world economy.

>>53435844
The Romans where so powerful back in the day because they took things to the next level. They destroyed their greatest enemies, comparatively, before the Marian reforms gave them a large standing army.

File: 1284976331853.jpg (625KB, 826x723px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 826x723px

>>53435636
Commoner only.

>>53435929
An army marches on its stomach. The advantage of hardened russian soldiers (especially in a fantasy setting where you can make insane declarations and players will believe them) is that they've got no problem marching on their comrade's stomachs too. Napoleon and Hitler both marched through endless frozen salted empty fields and found nothing, and as they were the attacking force they had to build and maintain supply lines as they went. In the setting's version of the encounter, basically the Czar made it clear that by spring, the Marshal would have a half million starving and insane troops and the Czar would have a half million well fed and utterly hard troops, so he was welcome to come get some if he wanted.

The loss the Marshal suffered was more due to political and supernatural forces than anything to do with his actual strategies. If the war had continued as planned, he would have won.

>>53435982
>>53435970
>>53435952
>he doesn't use Massive Damage rules

>>53435995
Yeah but my point was when you have required military service for pretty much all non-slaves (and unlike nowadays, their politicians were basically generals and considered fighting in war an honor), you have a military mulititudes larger than your neighbors.

>>53435989

The US will start to balkanize within my lifetime. So what. Fiat economy doesn't make sense anyways.

>>53435970
If the fighter is tougher then the gel dummy, why is what a bullet does to a gel dummy going to look like what it does to a fighter also has the bullet having to go through armor?

>>53436024
>Napoleon and Hitler both marched through endless frozen salted empty fields and found nothing,

Well in Hitler's case, it was because the Soviets were ordered to slash and burn everything just to deprive them. And then there was the order from Stalin of Not One Step Back, where if you tried to retreat they had rear machinegunners shoot you on sight.

>>53435985
Actually they aren't, that's the whole point of ballistic gel.

>>53436027
>So what.

Gonna be a real shitty time if and when it happens. I don't want to find out who will become the world hegemon when they're gone.

>>53436024
Why would I use massive damage in a game for power fantasies?

File: que1[1].jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

>>53436061
>why is what a bullet does to a gel dummy going to look like what it does to a fighter also has the bullet having to go through armor?

>>53435045
I love some quote or whatever someone told me:
>A gun is just a sword with infinity reach

>>53436087
The potential of a one hit kill is too thrilling. Allow players the chance to swipe a villain's head off in a single blow and they'll gladly trade the possibility of instant death.

You can also temper it by making it more of a save-or-disabled thing instead of death. I use a variant where massive damage equal to the con score risks putting you at 0hp, and if you run out of hit points you can bargain for your life to automatically stabilize but at the cost of 1 con point. Maintain party cohesion and character drama, but combat can still have life-or-death stakes with lasting consequences, death is a danger and not necessarily cheapened, and a player can still decide to let their character die if the con damage becomes too much.

>>53436112
If you say that what a ax does to a gel dummy isn't representative of what it'll do to a fighter since he's tougher then said dummy, then is not using a video of what a bullet does to a block of gel here >>53435867 any more representative then the axe test?

Then factor in armor messing with the shot as well.

>>53435970
This is a fantasy game, so a fighter can block or dodge a bullet. And he is tougher than an ogre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzhs1Z8Rwnk

>>53436064
And now we're discussing the german invasion of russia, and in particular the problems the germans faced in their march, meaning we must all watch this video one more time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImnpErdDzA

File: 1404014571494.jpg (41KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x500px

>>53436027
>The US will start to balkanize within my lifetime

Down with the Eagle, up with the Cross and all that. But if you think we will have it bad soon, Asia has it too. Rising Islamic extremism and their growing conflicts with entrenched eastern religions, China's economy being on a bubble so large that when it pops it will be felt by African tribals, the almost guaranteed Water Conflict brewing between India and China, and North Korea is essentially listening to an 80's action playlist while sharpening a stick.

Things are going to get really fucky everywhere soon enough. Honestly, as long as Russia gets the shaft too it will all work out.

>>53436171
Hell yeah.

>>53436148
that gel dummy has the same density as human flesh, minus bones that's exactly what it does to a human being.

>>53436148
No, it IS representative. When a bullet comes into you, your armor or toughness isn't gonna save you, your squishy innards basically liquify.

Can't fight with liquified innards.

>>53435982
This is some unrealistic shitty "i block it with my flask" action movie bullshit.

>>53436135
That doesn't sound good for power fantasy to me. I have better systems for gritty games that benefit from instant death. D&D is what we play when we just want to zonk out and vidya through some dungeons, killing everything.

>>53436171

I hate this argument because every army in history has used skulls in its iconography somewhere, with the exception of cultures that had superstitions about showing the bones of the dead.

File: Cao_Cao_over_and_out.gif (2MB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x200px

>>53436027
>The US will start to balkanize within my lifetime.
Sure it will.

>>53430979
guns have made the lower futle lords unimportant

as cannons took to the fields the defenses such as castles were no longer small or fordable by lower nobility

guns just like cross bows took warfare out of the hands of skilled warriors. guns were more powerful and could pears all the levels of armor in a single shot which made wars more about attrition than skilled warriors to another level.

in order to fight meaningful armies had to be large instead of merely skilled. larger more expensive armies fighting under a more unified army (for many logistical reasons not mentioned).

most kingdoms turned into empires which usually striped the powers of lower lords. eventually too small a governing body would be ruling over too large a territory. lower levels of governance were done by elected officials.

WWI is important because it was caused by the ruling classes political and family treaties and feuds. in WWI all participating governments were throwing all there resources all the growing war and when they ran out they borrowed what they could. by the end of WWI the monarchies were little more than husks of the power they once held.

>>53436193
So then the axe video is representative of what'll happen to fighter and thus just as deadly as a bullet wound?
>>53436221
Regular people without armor have survived being shot, let alone a super-human warrior wearing armor potentially from a time period where "bullet proof" originated from.

>>53436281
Plate armor was made to counter bullets though.

>>53436293
Guns are only considered more deadly because you can't see the projectile coming, and that Axe can be stopped by armor but it's still going to hurt, whereas only a specialized variant of armor is stopping a modern bullet and it'll do it only a few times before it becomes useless.

>>53436360
Different anon. Aren't we mostly talking about flintlocks and shit? If so, the biggest reason people died to guns back then was from infections and poor medical handling, which is moot in a setting with healing magic.

>>53436307
plate armor was designed to stop spear and lances however they did offer some protection against pistils and on rare occasion carbines but by then you have Cuirassier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuirassier

>>53436307

Round bullets. They couldn't do shit once rifling was invented since that made bullets both like 10x deadlier and now super accurate.

>>53436419
spears and blunt weapons that wouldn't be stopped by mele or Gambian

>>53436415
I don't fucking know, I just wanted that idjit to know that Ballistic gel is the same density as his flesh, so any damage it takes is equivalent to what human flesh will take in the same circumstance, thats all.

>>53436360
>Guns are only considered more deadly because you can't see the projectile coming
So all you need to do is see it coming, in a fantasy game, where guys throw fireballs and 100+ton reptiles fly and breath fire
>whereas only a specialized variant of armor is stopping a modern bullet and it'll do it only a few times before it becomes useless.
Mythril, Adamantine, Orichalcum, any enchanted armor really could be said to stand up to bullets


Really the argument not to have guns, to have them be overpowered, to have them immediately alter the setting, and lead to the extinction and genocide of all non-human creatures is raging unbridled autism

If you want guns put them in. If you want them to do 1d8 piercing then do it. If anyone complains punch them in their dumb fucking sperg face

>>53436448
early rifling still wouldn't do much due to the fact that they were still firing round shot most of the time. it wasn't till late 1700s that rifles became the powerful gun that it is now. that's about when they figured out that they could have a bullet that was hallow in the back to hold the powder to make it faster to load and doing so would also cause the back of the bullet to expand making a seal with the gun barrel which gave them there extra range. with out it they were only more accurate

>>53436495
>If anyone complains punch them in their dumb fucking sperg face

I'm pretty sure assault makes you the sperg.

>>53435384
Sort of. Basic black powder is a mixture of sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter. You can make saltpeter (potassium nitrate) from urine or a mixture of manure and urine, but it requires time for the dirt under your latrine or stables to be ready for leaching to get at the potassium nitrate in the soil. You can make a slightly less effective gunpowder by not using sulfur (which requires mass scale mining and logistics to supply) and just mixing saltpeter and charcoal, and it will still shoot well enough. Then for your ammunition, if you ran out of lead ball, there are many cases of people using rocks and other hard debris for projectiles. Rarely with militaries though, because every Western military of note that adopted any kind of gun had the logistics system to back it up.

>>53436515
They knew what they were getting into when they voiced their dumbass opinion

>>53436533
Fair point.

>>53436495
Do fireballs travel at just under or above the speed of sound? No they don't, Dragons can and sometimes do, however, and if they aren't letting their ego override their sense, you never see them coming.

Mythril, Adamantine, and Orichalcum, do not exist, and thus we do not know if they could actually stop a bullet.

I was talking real world only and just took issue with one Anon not understanding how ballistic gel works, I have no part in this argument but it's interesting to see you idiots argue over something that ultimately comes down to personal taste.

File: 1489205733248.gif (451KB, 392x410px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 392x410px

>>53436221
>This is some unrealistic shitty "i block it with my flask" action movie bullshit.


THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT YOU ABSOLUTE FESTERING CUNT

D&D AND OTHER HEROIC FANTASY GAMES -ARE- ACTION MOVIES, JUST IN SETTING WITH DRAGONS AND MAGIC. THE HITS WILL GLANCE, THE FIGHTER WOULD TAKE A WOUND THAT WOULD HAVE INCAPACITATED HIM IRL AND LIVE, THINGS WOULDN'T FOLLOW YOUR NARROW, AUTISTIC CONSTRAINTS FOR REALISM, YOU UNIMAGINATIVE, ANAL, GUN-OBSESSED, RETARDED NUGGETHUMPER.


GUNS WON'T LIQUIFY INNARDS BECAUSE THEY WOULD FOLLOW ACTION MOVIE TROPES TOO.

HERE, HAVE SOME MORE (YOU)S AND FUCK OFF. MY PRESENT TO YOU, FOR MAKING ME ONCE AGAIN LAMENT YOU CAN'T PUNCH PEOPLE OVER THE INTERNET.
>>53436221
>>53436221
>>53436221
>>53436221
>>53436221

>>53436566
>something that ultimately comes down to personal taste.
That was my point, idiots can come up with a thousand reasons to justify guns being one hit kill armor destroying death rays and just as many as to why they aren't.
If you want guns in fantasy put them in and stat them however you want, like you said it all comes down to taste.

>>53436591
Chill, dude, it's just a game. No need to get so worked up over it.

>>53436591
you mad
and so am I
anons on this board piss me off so much sometimes

>>53430751
/k/fags will snivel at you if they aren't 100% accurate
'muh Tolkien' idiots will snivel at you for not being muh medieval fantasy
The idiot that asked for one will snivel because it's not an AK or a death ray, but a flintlock instead

Basically, it's sniveling all round.

File: 1495328979770.gif (3MB, 1530x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1530x1080px

>>53436591
>>53436660

Guys, guys, calm down, is just a game

have animu to calm yerself

>>53436673
The only one sniveling seems to be you.

>>53435578
No, they aren't, true. If we're talking real history, the industrial revolution itself came a lot later. But it can be considered a symptom of a setting moving beyond the 'stagnant' medieval, of the beginnings of what would become more recognizably modern industry, especially if guns are being produced in any serious numbers - that requires more than what individual craftsmen could produce, and a lot of resources that will probably not all be conveniently next to each other.

File: 1366756397384.jpg (78KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 550x550px

>>53430751
Because people want to use swords and bows and lances and shit? By the time guns are worth using, those weapons are not.

>Sword vs. Gun
Shot dead.
>Bow vs. Gun
Shot first.
>Gun vs. Spear
Shot dead.

There's no room for other styles of play.

>>53437054
Is it fun playing on featureless planes, anon?

>>53437063
Sarcasm doesn't have any value if the other party can't understand your intent. You just look like you're up your own ass.

>>53437054
>>Bow vs. Gun
>Shot first.
Ask Custer how that worked out.

>>53437107
Don't use a fool as your example when we're talking weapon vs. weapon.

File: 1488317843159.png (338KB, 546x1510px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 546x1510px

>>53437054
>There's no room for other styles of play.
fuck it's coming back


THERE'S NO ROOM FOR YOUR SORRY UNIMAGINATIVE ASS ON THIS BOARD, YOU ASSGOBBLING KNUCKLEMUNCHER

>>53437125
>Use a sword against a gun
>Get shot and killed before you can close
>Dude you're just unimaginative

File: HomecarbineWP.jpg (86KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x532px

>>53435867
>hurr
That's a 9mm hollow point, people survive those every fuckin day. Temporary cavitation doesn't mean all your organs rupture instantly or reliably and it's really only going to be relevant in modern high-velocity rifle rounds designed to yaw or fragment in the target. Slow and heavy as was more common the further back you go doesn't do much more than stab holes.

File: Tome of Battle - The Book of Nine Swords.gif (3MB, 323x252px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 323x252px

>>53437132
>swords are strictly realistic weapons
>you can't slice a bullet in half in mid-air

File: greek fire thrower.jpg (72KB, 1010x758px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1010x758px

Would you allow the medieval equivalent to a flamethrower in your games? Would you allow medieval-style grenades? Rockets, perhaps? The Chinese 'fire lance?'

>>53437146
Not in a game like DnD, no. Also.

>Guns are s strictly realistic weapon
>Can't apply all the anime bullshit to the gun too so it instantly beats everything

>>53437146
>>53437132
You both have valid points. It ultimately comes down to the level of power in the player characters, and how realistic a game is aiming for. Realistically, yes, gun beats melee weapon. But in the world of fantastic fiction, the PCs can essentially be superheroes and do whatever they want; there are plenty of superheroes and anime characters that use swords against guns. Even in Star Wars, lightsabers vs. blasters is nothing but swords vs. guns. But again, those are particularly fantastic settings. It comes down to the tone being established.

>>53437180
"In a game like DnD" even a squishy wizard can survive being shot 5-6 times.

Also anime bullshit helps swords more than guns.

>>53437200
Lightsabers vs. blasters only works because the people using the lightsabers are psychic while the people with the blasters are not. If a Jedi who was a master blaster was against a jedi of equal skill with a lightsaber, it's likely the former will win. It's just that none of them do that for religious reasons, and evne most Sith are still bound by religious principles.

>>53437208
>Also anime bullshit helps swords more than guns.
Equally applied, no it doesn't.

>>53430751
Guns will eventually replace other weapons.

>>53437200
>It comes down to the tone being established.
No, guns should be one-hit-kill and always hit regardless of tone.

Tone is one thing, inserting blatantly untrue things ("you can reliably survive a gunshot") is another.

>>53432628
Lol confirmed for retard whose never touched a musket before.

File: GUNNM Last Order 0049-003.jpg (268KB, 820x1200px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 820x1200px

>>53437180
>>53437146
Why not have both "anime" superhuman swordsmen and gunmen instead of one or the other

>>53437251
All you really need is ability to dodge or parry bullets. This instantly levels the playing field and balances the "expectaions" aspect.

>>53437278
Because guns are innately superior to swords in every way, so an gunman with anime powers is superior to a swordsman with anime powers. Thus there's no reason to play the later unless you want your character to die.

File: GUNNM Last Order 0049-004.jpg (410KB, 820x1200px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 820x1200px

>>53437278
Having both options be equally viable is probably the most fun option

File: you.png (942KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 800x800px

>>53437294
okay, you're being intentionally obtuse at this point.

File: GUNNM Last Order 0049-005.jpg (457KB, 820x1200px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 820x1200px

>>53437307
But is any of you faggots cared about fun this pointless arguing wouldn't have gone on for almost 300 posts

>>53437310
You're implying a setting where swordsmen are somehow better than gunmen for no reason.

>>53437290
Gunman has super fast fingers too, and can fire faster than you can dodge.

File: GUNNM Last Order 0029-007.jpg (226KB, 825x1200px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 825x1200px

>>53437321
Oh and by the way the swordsman still won

File: GUNNM Last Order 0049-006.jpg (479KB, 820x1200px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 820x1200px

>>53437344
oops my bad wrong pic

>>53434371
And because that armor stopped being able to stop bullets.

>>53437323
Alternity has this as an explicit feature. The hytherion blade can split atoms with its blows, and intervening space and matter are of no consequence to its blows.

>>53437366
And that begs the question of why you included guns at all.

File: DnD vs Anima.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>53437294
And in D&D so is magic
Play another system and get you head out of your ass

File: 18622423_704171136439986_4954457949629206824_n.jpg (13KB, 216x380px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 216x380px

>>53434483
>Yeah but historically longbows were better than crossbows, they just took WAY more skill
>This one particularly fries my asshole

It fucking should, crossbows are meant to be cheap fast ways to train people in ranged combat, longbows packed more training and muscle in some cases to pull the string back HOLD AND AIM. vs crossbows that had the convenience of a foothold for drawing the string... which then brings into question crossbow expert and how that makes any fucking sense...
But in the end here is a question, in medieval fantasy, do ships have cannons? how do they defend on the seas? Are all sailors mages that just lob fireballs and shit?
Personally I feel that guns and gunpowder SHOULD exist in the world because of how much wacky stuff exists... (sentient constructs: warforged) but if a player asks for a gun, ask him why you would want one when a hand crossbow is literally what it would be, 1 shot-reload. If you really want ranged combat, bow/crossbow, or dip magic initiate feat or multiclass... ffs

>>53437384
We're talking about guns, not why you'd include melee when magic exists.

>>53437323
Nope.

Really what "Anime powers" boils down to is "Regardless of weapons, more skilled/adaptable/plot armored fighter will win". So if setting has explicitly superhuman heroes with theme of weapon being merely an extension of the warrior, guns' superiority will matter less because they would be just another weapon.

>>53437373
I believe in Alternity, guns are capable of firing projectiles through time. It's hard to remember anything specific or coherent about that setting.

>>53437396
Yes. Again, that sort of inconsistent application of logic is idiotic. Either both are just as magically skilled, or one is superior and there's no point to the other.

>>53437399
Then it's not of much use in this argument.

>>53437391
You either have archers on your deck or you ram and board, which is a lot more fun than firing cannons.

>>53437337
And i have a forcefield impenetrable to bullets.


Really, this is a pointless thing to discuss, because, as i said in >>53437396 and as you unwittingly confirmed in >>53437337, the only thing that matters in this scenario is individual skill.

File: Alternity Megatron character sheet.jpg (206KB, 700x667px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 700x667px

>>53437399
>>53437366
I just remembered there's an RPG called Alternity. I'm not talking about that.

>>53437449
Okay, then there's no point to guns in your setting. It's like Dune. Everyone uses melee weapons now, especially swords and knives. Guns are a relic, outside of one weapon that's actually more like a platform for launching a poisonous assassination drone.

>>53437403
Both are magically skilled is the most fun scenario, so let's go with that.

>>53430751
Realistic guns don't go so well in a fantasy setting because it would make everything else irrelevant.
You either nerf them to the ground or make them really hard to find/get or your setting would have every random john using them, making melee combat, armor and even spells useless, reducing combat to fast and randomly deadly encounters.

>>53431308
A band of random thugs probably wouldn't be able to throw fireballs. He obviously though they would engage in a lengthy one-sided combat and not just be instagibbed by a bandit that is also using a firearm.

>>53437467
If both are equally magically skilled, then the gun always wins, because guns are innately superior to swords in every single way.

This is also an answer to >>53437449 .

>>53437464
Not really.

In the hands of unskilled rabble, guns will still be pretty effective because they're easy to use and ranged. Good for hunters, town guards and the like.

Of course there are supernaturally gifted gunslingers, just like there are supernaturally gifted swordsmen or spear-wielders. However, when it comes to PCs, the actual power gap will depend less on weapons they use and more on how well they can use it.

>>53434090
Only War could work for the system. Setting would need to be homebrew.

>>53437539
It doesn't matter if they're supernaturally skilled if you have a shield that instantly blocks their bullets.

>>53436673
For a gritty combat/survival based D&D campaign, I allowed my brother to have a firearm as they were existent per the previous DM who created said world.

I gave him a Matchlock smoothbore musket.
He is a /k/ommando.

Ain't no bitchin' coming from him.

>>53437489
You're assuming everyone is equally skilled in every single way, instead of being skilled at different things.

>>53430911
And what brought them down from their horses?

Guns.

GURPS does it really well for medieval and late medieval guns, it's got the stats already. Guns (Gonnes) existed way back, they just SUCKED. That's what people don't get. They think the worst guns are muskets (which were still pretty good), but of course not, guns existed for ages, they just took minute(s) to reload, so you could get a volley off and then enemies would run up to you and stab you because you still couldn't use it at range, and as people have already stated plate armour stops it.

>>53437489
>every single way
Modern guns are, but we're talking fantasy, which usually means medieval fantasy, where guns are certainly not superior in every single way. They're more expensive, scarier, and harder hitting crossbows that are a bit more complex to use and can blow up if you do it wrong.

>>53437586
And yet not reliably enough, because cavalry existed for a long time alongside guns.

>>53437586
No

>>53434668
but either way, you can't reload while you're defending yourself.

>>53430999
>>53431057
>>53431155
>working on a campaign
>Pitching it to one of my interested prospective players
>Bring up early firearms are in the setting and it would be theoretically possible for him to get them at some point
>He calmly shakes his head and says 'no, my guy needs better sustained damage than one shot every other round at best, plus, he's be more familiar with a crossbow and prefer their relative silence over a loud handcannon'
>My other player played Iron Kingdoms d20 with me way back when and knows how firearms translate into tabletop RPGs pretty well.

Nice to have some decent players.

>>53437577
You're assuming that we're not making an absolute comparison. Evenly matched skill levels, not someone facing weaker opponents.

Everything about this thread is cancer
actually so is most this board
why do I keep coming here
it's all the same shit every other day

>>53432232
>>53432274
If I remember correctly, revolver rifles didn't become popular because of the hot gasses that were released by the sides of the drum when firing and how you need to approximate your face to the back of the gun to take aim with a rifle.

>>53437589
Remember that I am talking about guns once they got to the point where they're worth using. I'm not ignorant of how old guns are or how useless early guns are. It's just that obviously people would include guns with an eye for them being effective combat weapons, and by that point, melee weapons and other ranged options no longer are effective.