Why are guns so unpopular in fantasy? Is there a logical reason

Guns evoke the feelings of contemporary individualism that weren't present in medieval Europe.

At the very least medieval world's feel timeless and sustainable, and improvements to technology seem minimal at best With improvements to existing technology like swords and steel. Guns are a new technology that becomes more commonplace in the 16th and 17th century that turns the universe into a world that isn't so timeless. Instead of feeling like it could be anywhere, it feels colonial at best or already industrialized at worst.

Despite the fact that it's wrong, we have this conception that guns don't require skill to function, which takes away the feelings of heroism.

Also, Tolkien.

>>53928375
An answer you commonly get in threads like this is "because guns are too deadly and break the systems". People saying this tend to forget that an axe in our skull also tends to be no less lethal

>>53928375
Ib4 "FurFag" but Iron claw manages to balance guns and fantasy together quite well.

That being said I dislike them most of the time because it makes combat boring more times than not. Just two people in cover shooting at each other instead of radical melee fights.

I'm of the opinion that matchlocks and the like would only improve settings.

The 30 years war is the perfect setting.

>>53928669

I guess this is the real problem. 5 gobos with muskets could kill your heroic knight in plate with no effort. It makes combat very deadly.

>>53928375
Theyre not good on an individual scale in the timeframe which most fantasy fits in. This means to an adventurer/hero/whatever the players are its basically a clumsy noisy device that does jack shit comparred to a good ole' sword or spell.

>>53928375

Short answer is muh high fantasy

>>53928588

Yeah, it is kinda silly. People seem to treat guns and swords in RPGs as Death Rays and Wiffle Bats respectively.

>>53928778

That's just bullshit. There is a reason why they replaced bows and crossbows even for hunters. Or why Indian tribes that got firearms were able to wipe out ones that didn't.

>>53928809
Yes because over time they improved enough to be useful on an individual level.

>>53928375
Because of people like

>>53928669
>>53928742
>>53928778

>>53928742
The brits wore plate until WWI, it must have had some effect against primitive small arms fire.

File: Dur.jpg (7KB, 98x152px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 98x152px

>>53928375
Because all pop fantasy is at least partially borrowing from LOTR and Arthurian legend, and they didn't have guns.
Fantasy is a very unoriginal genre. Look into anything slightly outside of the traditional box and you'll find plenty of guns eg. Warhammer.

Pic unrelated it was my Captcha

File: 0BD7436C00000578-4208672-image-a-9_1486675160170.jpg (239KB, 962x697px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 962x697px

>>53928903
>until WW1

>>53928912
>Pic unrelated it was my Captcha
>"please select all cars"

>>53928929
>parade plate

>>53928903
Plate was only became commonplace in the late renaissance, and at that point gunpowder was commonplace. Shitty inaccurate guns didn't come close to hardcountering a pike wall or a heavily armoured man on horseback

They weren't in LotR

>>53928375
Because most fantasy takes place at a tech level before gunpowder was used to make guns. You're welcome to include guns in your fantasy game however.

>>53928375
The easy answer is that most people are mouthbreathing incompetents when it comes to history, let alone something like firearms in history. Your average normie doesn't know anything more about historic combat other than "pointy end goes in other person". Get to your dumb normie, and they can't even tell you when WWI started.

As such Fantasy gets a lot of shit wrong a lot of the time. And not just stuff that can be handwaived away with magic, or a different world, or whatever. Right now GRR Martin is the big darling of "muh realism" shouting normies, and even the most cursory glance reveals that he's still operating under D&D logic.

Most people simply can not conceive of fire-arms in Fantasy settings because they assume there weren't any in history, either. The popular image of Medieval times, let alone Fantasy, is still that of swords & sorcery.

>>53928723
>30 years war

You mean the 80 Year War?

>>53928854

The entire myth of useless early firearms comes from mass produced ones without rifling.

When in reality rifled firearms existed since the early days of gunpowder weapons. It was just too expensive to produce them for every soldier.

File: Word of Warcraft 47.jpg (2MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1200px

>Why are guns so unpopular in fantasy?

they're not. i don't know why we keep having these threads. it is by no means difficult to find fantasy settings with guns.

>>53929074

Rate of fire was honestly a bigger reason. It's why the British stuck with muskets for Redcoats even though they could afford rifles. Rifled guns took longer to reload for muzzleloading guns and the rate of fire and discipline of units was more important than having an accuracy advantage when massed fire was involved.

Rifles didn't really see a major gain until the beginning of small unit tactics becoming common in warfare, where each shot mattered more.

>>53928588
>>53928786

That is because they are. Guns require next to no skill and kill even an armored and trained warrior effortlessly. A sword has difficulty bludgeoning to death a man in full mail, even when wielded by a man trained since late childhood in the arts of war.

As far as OP's question,
>>53928548
this is pretty accurate. Nothing more need be said.

>>53928375
"Medieval" fantasy is absurdly specific about what technology is and isn't appropriate for the humble of anachronisms it's made up of, a tradition that was started in Victorian times.

That and people have a very poor understanding of early firearms and the history of guns in general. To fantasy players guns are either hunting rifles+blunderbuss or glocks+automatic rifles. There are no other guns.

>>53928982
The problem with guns has never been inaccuracy. Volley fire solved that problem just as well as it did for archers. And I suppose that's a common misconception about guns vs. archery. But on the battlefield, both were used by large bodies of men shooting at other large bodies of men. Individual accuracy means fuck all.

But the plate of the day was made by people who were actually aware of their environment, and thus made to counter firearms. Lots of plate was tested simply by shooting at it with a gun.

File: img_matchlock.jpg (119KB, 1600x540px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1600x540px

>>53929074
Not the entire myth, matchlocks had a whole pile of issues unique to the fact you have a burning fuse stuck to the side of your gun and a shitload of loose powder all over the place.

>>53929167
>Lots of plate was tested simply by shooting at it with a gun

That's a myth. Yes, good plate could stop a bullet. But that bullet would still damage it. You don't want to damage your freshly made product.

>>53929136
>and kill even an armored and trained warrior effortlessly

lol okay

look up what proofing armor meant

>>53929212
Less scrupulous merchants sold shoddy plates with dented forms, to make it look like it was bullet-proofed.>>53929137

>>53928548
But guns existed just fine in the 15th century.

>>53928375
There are reasons of varying merit
>it advances the feel of setting such that knights, kings, etc. seem out of place
>it opens up the door to the age of sail, which opens the door to colonization, which opens the door to conquest of natives and slave trades
>devalues the archer concept
>early firearms are superfluous and fights will still be a matter of melee
>later firearms are essential and melee becomes a desperation strategy
>firearms open the door to science, which many nerds see as incompatible with magic

>>53928375
people see them used today, so having guns in fantasy games ruins escapism

Just play in bronze/iron age, goddammit, they are stylish

File: 252873_3865921.jpg (33KB, 799x271px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 799x271px

>>53929136
Early riles were expensive pieces of art that required skill to use and maintain.
Also, good plate would stop a ball, just good plate tends to be on the expensive side. It came down to deciding to give muskets to everyone or plate for some.

>>53929212
>a myth
>with tons of historical proof

Sure.

>>53929327
Fantasy is mostly based on legends originating in germanic heroic age and generally, happenings that took place prior to 10th century, not 15th century. that means that plate armor and much more things are as much anachronisms but most people seem not to care really

Plate could stop bullets form pistols. But stopping bullets from rifles at short distance is bullshit.

>>53930167
I bet you think arrows penetrate plate too.

>>53929060
>Right now GRR Martin is the big darling of "muh realism" shouting normies, and even the most cursory glance reveals that he's still operating under D&D logic.

Explain? It is not perfect, but i think westeros is ok.

>>53929765

Post some historic proof that isn't digital (and therefore faked) then.

File: Epic_Mid_Level_DnD_campaign.jpg (185KB, 900x1273px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 900x1273px

>>53929483
I just think the entire idea is a gigantic strawman.
Renaissance is fuck all. It really is. City states and permanent warfare was still the norm.

Age of sail by itself is fucking nothing. 90% of the sheenigans that happened during Age of Sail, happened before. The only news is that landbound nations suddenly used their ports to fuel a navy.
Even something like unsettled land becoming colonies, is basically Feudalism 2.0

Colonization itself is just Feudalism on Steroids. What did happen historically, is that Mercantilism penetrated more than just the fringed of society. So suddenly coins could start being traded for goods, even if it was only true for lower nobility and the ports.

And again: The conquest phase is again Feudalism on steroids. What differentiates it from earlier Feudalism is again: Trade economy due massive export/import.

The pattern repeats once early modern times hit: Suddenly, trade economy, but this time commoners can suddenly trade and earn money.
Suddenly this is important enough to warrant a patent system, courts that enforce that, even more diplomats than before, and even more trade. Suddenly foreigners of no importance is traveling around without guards, and information is important enough that spies become a bigger profession.
There are still wars everywhere, but its getting further and further way from the main areas of civilization.
The improvements to lifespan, mortality and money also means there is a unprecedented increase in technology, which is further fueled by a tool called SCIENCE.
Things like information trading and printing press further improve technology, and when paired with patents: This kills trade secrets, which again gives unprecedented technological growth

Modern modern times is just marked by more of the same.
Meanwhile D&D is anachronism up the ass, marked by superhumans everywhere, and gigantic doom monsters. Also trade economy everywhere

>>53930301
>armies can be raised at a moments notice
>again and again
>iron bank keeps on lending to the westerosi who have no intention of ever paying it back
>continent is the size of south america yet has fewer towns and cities than rural new zealand
>civilian population can somehow survive decades of winter, unable to farm
>continents are squares
>Average peasant spends roughly half their life begin muderraped apparently
>next to no real relations to the free cities that are less than an english channel away
>entire continent the size of south america united somehow
>tracts of land the size of europe ruled by single family houses in a single city

ASOIAF operates 100% under grimdark dnd logic. It takes a few presuppositions about the middle ages (classism, shit for peasants, knights were horrible people, etc.) and logically extrapolates them far beyond logic and reason to the point of pure comedy.
I still like it, but not for realism.

File: Cirnos_Fairy_Wholegrain_Icecold.jpg (537KB, 1125x1600px) Image search: [Google]

537KB, 1125x1600px

>>53929060
For everything wrong with A Song of Ice and Fire, its still one of those rare works that portray eternal war, no trade economy for civilians, a hardcore class society, no real centralization of power, and loyalty in serfdom.

That JRRM has a gigantic murderboner & magicboner, is just a bonus at this point.

>>53928903
Plate was invented after gunpowder was common on the battlefield, plate armor could easily stop a glancing shot, a shot from a carbine, or a shot at range.

if you were to stick the barrel of the gun right up on the guy it would go through like butter, but at that point he had a lance in you.

also muskets are much more accurate than people think, you can make an accurate shot out to about 70 meters if you were good.

>>53930620
>If you were good

Man sized, yeah. if your barrel was clean, your ball wasn't undersized and you had something approaching sights you could -probably- double that.

>>53930197

If you think arrows or bolts are even close in penetration to bullets you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>53928375
Alright then folks, to avoid things going around in circles all day what are some fantasy settings that make good use of firearms?

>>53931361

Warhammer does it fine.

>>53931761

Warhammer isn't fantasy. It's just grimdark. If you can't have flying, teleporting wizards replacing science with magic and making non-mages obsolete, it's not actually fantasy.

>>53930334
Not him, but you did the extraordinary argument, so you are the one which has to provide the extraordinary proof.

>>53928375
Because nobody tries to balance guns as reasonable weapons, and if you did people would complain they're unrealistic.
See Pathfinder, their guns are expensive as fuck, have less range than bows, deal less damage, but can hit things easier. Even muskets had a respectable range and would really fuck up someone's day even on a bad shot, and targetting touch is stupid since you can't ninja flip out the way of a bullet. But they also penetrate armor (See skallagrim on youtube, he did this) so it shouldn't even factor in armor.

File: slideshows_auto_2014_best-american-muscle-cars-of-all-time_1-intro.jpg (77KB, 573x300px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 573x300px

Why are cars so unpopular in fantasy?

Is there a logical reason why existence of combustion engines would make a fantasy setting worse?

>>53928375
>your party decides to cross the plane to get to the dark wizard's castle
>BOOM
>the dark wizard's magical antimaterial rifle blows your character apart from several kilometers away
Wow, fun

>>53932085

More importantly, if digital proof = fake, and we're on a fucking internet image board, how in the fuck is someone supposed to provide proof?

>>53931975

Except that's not how Warhammer works. Your average Empire citizen never has access to any of that shit.

>>53932475
>XIV century tech vs XX century tech

You tried to sound smart and failed hard.

>>53932634

How about pointing to actual work done by historians not some youtube videos with pseudo experiments?

>>53928375
"No gunpowder" is a nice clean distinction that everybody understands. Even if you draw a line with firearm technology, you'll still end up with a mouthbreather who doesn't understand why he can't have a revolver or sniper rifle in a setting with only matchlocks.

And that's before you have to implement firearms in a system not made to handle firearms.

>>53932737
>you have to implement firearms in a system not made to handle firearms

What RPG systems are like that? Except D&D but that shit is terrible at everything.

>>53932475
what >>53932667 said but in addition I don't think a horseless carriage would ruin a fantasy setting if it were something made by like, dwarves or gnomes or whatever.

>>53928375
why must you make this thread every day?
You already got every single possible answer in the last 100 threads about this exact same topic.

>>53933533
Make it a tank and most people wouldn't even give it a second thought

>>53929136
>That is because they are. Guns require next to no skill and kill even an armored and trained warrior effortlessly. A sword has difficulty bludgeoning to death a man in full mail, even when wielded by a man trained since late childhood in the arts of war.

Sigh... Another victim of the myth of firearm super lethality (which is one of the answers to the Op's question). All it takes in many cases to kill with any weapon is one solid hit. The "Super Lethality" myth is based around how stark the difference between that one solid hit is for firearms versus all the failed attacks made with them compared to the much more granular difference in failed attacks with weapons such as swords.

Firearms are not any more lethal than any other weapon. In many cases they are less lethal than many weapons that are considered bad. What makes firearms so good is their ratio of lethality to training needed to access that lethality.

>>53930301
The other Anon already did it pretty well. Some minor stuff also struck me, like the way he describes weapons, which seems to communicate a rather minimalist knowledge. He's also been accused of being "obsessed" with heraldry and food, but he's nothing of the sort. His heraldry resembles no real life system, and is too simplistic to function. Especially in a setting as huge as Westeros is supposed to be. Personally, my head canon is that the setting is a lot smaller. Ten times smaller, at least. Dude really fucked up his map. And the food he just plucks from the pages of history without putting any real thought in. A particular example was someone drinking hippocras, which is named after Hippocrates, a person who never existed in Westeros. And it's just a type of spiced wine, so the use of the name is not needed. He might as well have called wildfire napalm, or Greek fire. He also commits the typical mistake of describing his setting as completely stagnant, though that might simply be attributed to the characters' limited viewpoints. But real life Medieval times were a time of rapid technological and social development.

Essentially he just picks and chooses from Medieval stereotypes without taking their underlying causes with them. It's kind of like all those authors who describe wild and gruesome gladiator fights in Roman settings. It's history sensationalized to fit this modern viewpoint that historical people were complete barbarians.

>>53934191
Honestly, the only thing keeping any high magic setting from having what is essentially modern technology is the general unspoken assumption that magic does not get cheaper and easier as technology does through development.

Even then, a lot of people forget that something like a tank or fighter jet represents a mindboggling sum of money both to develop, purchase, and operate. Any kingdom worth its salt might use its wealth to buy itself such an advantage. Even if they'd have less of this stuff than we do, it would still be a necessary expenditure if neighbouring kingdoms also pursue these items. The moment your setting has flying ships, it will also have mages on the decks of those flying ships.

Might be fun to throw players expecting a typical Fantasy campaign into its equivalent of WWI, with idiot commanders not knowing how to handle new magical items, and seeing how quickly they catch on.

Because I don't like them.

>>53932546

Why doesn't he do the same with bows and the sword?

Just make them work like a fancy and noisy crossbow, you idiots.

>>53934993
>What makes firearms so good is their ratio of lethality to training needed to access that lethality.
Basically the point he was making, even if the hyperbole was unwarranted.

File: 220px-Holzspindelkelter_von_1702 (1).jpg (26KB, 220x293px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 220x293px

You should fear someone with this thing more. Imagine a wizard mass-producing magical scrolls with this thing.

File: 1484489808085.jpg (87KB, 315x565px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 315x565px

>>53928903
Russians still wear plate to the present day.

>>53928375
In my fantasy settings, gunpowder and any weaponry using it are illegal on most human kingdoms, but sometimes smuggled by dirty dwarves.

I think it will be a nice surprise when my players run into someone badass thug with a shotgun.

>>53935733
Every military wears 'plate'. They just wear far less and the plates go in a vest called a plate carrier.

File: 805391942d723f66ab70aeac699ae460.jpg (84KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 650x488px

>>53935879
But Russian special forces wear titanium and go for more extended coverage while Americans generally roll with ceramic plates and issue lighter, less-coverage rigs for SOF.

File: korra_5 (1).jpg (272KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1920x1080px

Water magic would fuck firearms. Actually, it would also ruin bows, and most forms of armours, even swords, now that I think of.

>>53929136
>Guns require next to no skill and kill even an armored and trained warrior effortlessly.
Depends on what you mean by that. Because operating a firearm requires knowledge on mixing your own powder and not blowing yourself up.
According to some sources arqubusiers received more training than pikemen.
Humphey Barwick claimed that training to use an arquebus required a lot of training and that men in England had a distrust for it because they were unfamiliar with how it worked.

File: 1495182567441.jpg (23KB, 336x330px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 336x330px

>>53928375
Personal opinion time: guns take away the core of what, to me, is fantasy.

I grew up playing knights and whatever in my backyard with sticks and to me that involved two things
A: A princess
and
B: Swashbuckling

I grew up, realized what I imagined was basically a mishmash of tropes that never existed in real life and moved on. Started to get interested in Samurai and shit, figured out that the time period I was interested in basically happened next to the embrace of gunpowder in the west, got dissapointed and moved on.

Nothing scratched that particular it.

Nothing had the same feel.

Then I found D&D, then Pathfinder, then a bunch of other shit, and all those things let me live out those fantasy's that I could never really have in real life.

Basically I want things to be like they were in my head when I was six, and those things never involved muzzle loaders, and even though they basically did in real life I can just pretend they don't in a P&P.

Ya feel me?

Guns = Crossbows.

>>53936008
I feel you man. It kinda sucks when you find out for the first time that swords were always kinda shit.

>>53936008

What could be more cooler that knights armed with guns?

File: 1495423253836.jpg (17KB, 255x198px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 255x198px

>>53936082
This is going to sound weird, but my childhood basically died when I learned halfhanding a sword was a thing.

But I can pretend it doesn't exist on the tabletop, so there we go.

>>53936101
If that does it for you don't let me stand in your way. I can see the appeal, I just don't personally like it, I prefer things my way. Doesn't mean it's better or anything, just preference.

>>53928375
Four losers with guns can kill any hero.
Four losers with blades may not.

>>53936118
>halfhanding
That just makes it cooler.

>>53928375

More fantasy writers are hacks who just copy Tolkien. Tolkien's world is meant to be in decay. It's even possible that the Numenor were straight steampunk. They also have the tendency to clumsily treat the early/mid/late middle ages like one single thing with full plate armour (which didn't appear until gunpowder was around), and leather armour which never existed at least as it is often portrait. And for some reason they also have a tendency to hate feudalism and knights, and their settings are filled with powerful kings, standing armies, sprawling urban cities which didn't become a thing until the renaissance/early modern.

File: 8991.jpg (17KB, 500x327px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x327px

>>53936158
To some people sure, and that's cool, but not really for me.

>>53936118

Who does a riposte to a child?

>>53928375
Guns and gunpowder aren't really effective except in large numbers in the late medieval era that many fantasy RPGs try to emulate. You might have a few finely-crafted pistols that adventurers might use, but they'd be rare, hard to maintain, expensive to operate, and not all that much better against most enemies than a crossbow.

When you start getting into military formations using large numbers of firearms, you start killing off the medieval fantasy and advancing into "modern" fantasy. Plate armor and such is no longer as important, warfare changes to be focused more on range and artillery, and most RPGs don't handle gunfights well in that they get boring.

>>53936208

Plate armor only exist because guns.

I'm playing a rogue in a 4e game where matchlocks are the new hotness (equipvalent stat-wise to superior crossbows) in her citystate, been around about 20 years or so. She's in a party with a winged hussar, a priest of the god of dragons, a scimitar-wielding persian wannabe immortal slash scholar, a surface drow chasing after a purple-eyed elf, a creepy necromantic englishwoman wiht her granddad's skull in her pocket and two swords, and a minotaur who summons nature spirits to fuck shit up.

No one's complained about the matchlock.

File: hb_2002.130a-p.jpg (229KB, 1040x1500px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1040x1500px

>>53936208
>Plate armor and such is no longer as important
Why do people think this is a thing?

Guns on the battlefield predates plate as D&D knows it, the D&D "knight in shining armor" vision of armor only came into existence BECAUSE of guns.

>>53928375
Virtually no fantasy has been or is being written that has guns. Breaking the mold is hard and few are even aware of ERB.

There is none, other than rules problems. The Arms Law rules from I.C.E. were able to do both because they built it from the start to do so. I played in a magic using 'Three Musketeer'esque game that worked quite well.

>>53936349
Assuming you're talking tabletops, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and, IIRC, first and second edition D&D both had firearms.

>>53936208
>not all that much better against most enemies than a crossbow.
Except having longer effective range, better penetration and strike power, and being faster to load than a heavy crossbow.

>>53936470
TO be fair, even though the first edition of WFRP and D&D2nd came out three years apart, there is a pretty wide gulf between those two and the next thing that included firearms. So far as I can remember.

Plus WFRP isn't really that big of a game, is it?

Settings with medieval stasis are funny. They are often not even all that medieval.

>>53936506
The next major thing would be D&D 3rd edition, which had rules in the DMG, then WFRP 2nd, then Pathfinder. Also when talking tabletops as far as "big" games go you've got D&D and that's about it as far as kitchen sink fantasy goes until Pathfinder.

>>53932475
Not at all. FFXV had a great setting.

A lot of fantasy is about aesthetics more than it is about history or realism. You cannot make an argument against aesthetics in that manner, it simply doesn't work. You can only try to introduce a new aesthetic to rival it.

>>53936132
>ishiggydiggy

>>53936506
>WFRP
As far as I know it is THE game in east Europe, rivaling or surpassing dnd

>>53928375
I need more fantasy-based gun art

File: fPMmHgA.jpg (22KB, 545x245px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 545x245px

>>53936770
Really? I never knew that, neato.

>>53928375
>Is there a logical reason why existence of gunpowder weapons would make a fantasy setting worse?
Armor.
Plate was created to neutralize guns, and it did help but ultimatedly it hurt swords more than guns.
Swords didn't make a military comeback until the Age of Discovery when a breastplate and helmet were as much as you could carry without suffocating in India, South-America or Africa. And full plate was less meaningful since most of your opponents weren't wearing advanced armor.

Replace armor with healers and you'll be able to have swords and guns co-exist in a medieval setting since a gunshot should be easier to heal than a decapitation.
Otherwise just move your setting to the renaissance when armor, swords and guns were all already of great quality and some civilians actually had the chance to become adventureres.

>>53928785
Best post ever written in the history of the fucking multiverse.

File: gun wizard.jpg (242KB, 733x947px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 733x947px

>>53932546
I'm sorry Anon, but that sounds fucking rad.

>>53936132
I know it's bait but goddamn it got a rise outta me

>>53936335
>Why do people think this is a thing?
Because it fucking is.

>>53932737
a million times this. Whenever I run numenera some mouth breather creates a character who is a stalker with his ak.
Most people dont actually understand how granular mil tech was and think that guns appeared overnight and everyone abanoned their bows and swords

>>53936260

Falchion, infidel. Avenger needs her 2 handed weapons.

>>53936208
>You might have a few finely-crafted pistols that adventurers might use, but they'd be rare, hard to maintain, expensive to operate
do you think swords are indestructible and slice through armor and flesh like lightsabers? What kind of hypocritical bullshit do you operate on where traditional games almost universally omit equipment degradation rules but somehow guns can't be included in fantasy because they require maintenance?
>and not all that much better against most enemies than a crossbow.
so in other words there's no reason NOT to include guns in a fantasy setting other than that you don't want to? You could have said that without making yourself look retarded.

>>53936335
>Why do people think this is a thing?
The anachronistic depiction of armor in Renaissance and Baroque era art has a lot to do with it.

Artists depicting medieval scenes tended to show soldiers using present-day gear, creating the illusion that full plate was common centuries before it became a thing.

>>53937033
>Because it fucking is.
No, it fucking isn't.

Read a book.

>>53928375
guns are constantly improvable. if you add a flintlock pistol, it's quite possible that someone will soon turn it into a repeater, then a revolver, and then an assault rifle
a bow doesn't really have this problem

>>53935718
>printing magical scrolls
You mean like the bible?

>>53936118
wtf is halfhanding?

>>53936794

Presumably WHF feels like an optimistic world to them without being unrealistically happy like Dark Sun or too realistic like Paranoia. It's all about balance.

>>53930143

Yeah, it's kind of weird to think that there was never a time where there were knights in plate armor with longswords but not also guns, since guns (in Europe even) predate both those things.

File: bronze age reenactor.jpg (101KB, 530x800px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 530x800px

Reminder that Antiquity-esque and Early Modern-esque are the best time periods to base a fantasy setting on.
Honourable mention to the early middle ages

>>53936349
>Virtually no fantasy has been or is being written that has guns.
Urban fantasy, weird fantasy, and space fantasy all exist and are popular and have guns.

>>53937033
You have no idea what you're talking about.

File: image014.jpg (25KB, 409x267px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 409x267px

>>53937171
I think he means half-swording? (nigga on the left)

Guns require no skill to use. Any mook should be able to kill an elite warrior with a gun.

>>53937291
i dont get it

>>53937325
Crossbows require no skill to use. Any mook should be able to kill an elite warrior with a crossbow.

>>53937343
What don't you get?

>>53929024
LotR isn't, nor has it ever been, the standard for all of the fantasy genre. Fuck you right in your butt.

>>53937343
It's for getting better control of the point, or for some varieties of parrying. Basically it's for levering the point of your sword into a guy's armpit so you don't need to deal with his armor. I think the guy is so disenchanted by it because it means that knights aren't bashing each other with swords for extended periods, they're using them more like spears.

>>53936008
Have you ever looked into Classics? Shit like the Iliad or the Aeneid?
It is a wee bit alien, but not that much, especially the Aeneid. Roman morals are closer to modern Western morals than Homeric Greek morals are.

>>53928375
What I want to know is why guns in vaugely european fantasy are such a controversial thing, but every fucking setting has orders of shaolin monks punching people with their chi energy hands and nobody cares

>>53930197
Bolts do/did.

>>53932546
**plain
FTFY

>>53937508
because DnD
you know how there's all these fags saying "because LotR"? They're really saying "because DnD"

>>53932546
>your party decides to cross the plain to get to the dark wizard's castle
>BOOM
>the dark wizard's magic blows your character apart from several kilometers away
Wow, not any different.

>>53933719
Only good post in this entire thread. Everyone else is a faggot for supporting this nonsense.

They outclass bows, weapons which are heavily dependent upon the operator's personal strength and familiarity with the weapon, compared to a gun, which by comparison requires minimal training to use and can be used by a weakling yet vastly outclasses bows.

Of course, firearms before the 19th century were actually about on-par with bows, being generally worse but with the advantage that they could punch through steel plate where arrows generally couldn't. Still, pretty sure invalidating bows (regardless of whether they actually would) and the misconception that guns didn't exist until the last few centuries are the reasons people avoid them.

An alternate, and imo more reasonable, rationale is the same rationale most settings that span centuries use for having minimal technological advancement, which is that in a world with magic that is dangerous to experiment with but extremely effective in ritual (well-recorded, traditional) usage has no niche for technology to fill that wouldn't require a sudden huge leap forward, skipping several component technologies, eg, automobiles may be faster than horses and more accessible than magic carpets or teleporters or whatever sorcerers are using these days, but nobody has invented the internal combustion engine, and nobody is going to because energy can just be generated directly with magical fire. Powder was used after its discovery because of its explosive properties, and magic precludes the need for that, so why would its use remain widespread enough for someone to get the idea to shove it down a barrel with a chunk of lead?

Granted, that brings up the really sick and cool idea of wizards that use shaped magical explosions in their firearms, literally channeling their spirits into their guns instead of powder.

>>53937723
>but with the advantage that they could punch through steel plate where arrows generally couldn't
Stop.

>>53937508
What I want to know is why people have zero issue at all abstracting every single possible weapon in an RPG, but when it comes you guns you can't just have crossbows that go bang, you have to go FULL AUTISTIC DETAIL with every possible property.

Just let your players have their crossbows that go BANG, it changes literally nothing.

>>53937723
>They outclass bows, weapons which are heavily dependent upon the operator's personal strength and familiarity with the weapon, compared to a gun, which by comparison requires minimal training to use and can be used by a weakling yet vastly outclasses bows.

Anything short of ww1 era technology is probably going to lose to archers on horseback that even sort of know what they're doing

guns were used because of mass production/ease of training, not effectiveness

File: Augsburg_Cod.I.6.4º.2_(Codex_Wallerstein)_107v.jpg (208KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1024x683px

>>53937171
Half-Handing, or more commonly Half-Swording (from the German manuals, Halbschwert), is gripping the sword with one hand on the blade and using it as a club, prybar, and spearpoint to leverage a weakness or gap in an opponents armor. Basically if your enemy is wearing full plate armor, he's not ever going to be hurt by you slashing or stabbing at him with standard fencing moves, so you need to muscle him around or knock him down to get at the weaknesses and joints of his armor to kill him.

Another common way of fencing an armored opponent was to grip the sword with both hands on the blade and bash at the other guy's head and neck (bevor, gorget) with the pommel as a warhammer, incapacitating him with blunt trauma for long enough to stick him with the pointy end.

That dude is probably just salty that real life was more interesting than his boring ass expectations.

>>53937797
In anima, crossbows differ from bows and throwing weapons in that instead of scaling with strength in damage/range, they have a set score at the risk of taking longer to reload. Guns have a higher effective strength but take even longer to reload.

I dunno why settings can't just follow this model and instead have to get all autistic about it in either direction. granted this kinda falls apart because you can do stuff like have a gunslinger that makes guns out of his spiritual energy that reload as fast as a bow and in general have none of the drawbacks and the balance is all fucked up again, but that's besides the point

>>53937757
What part of the truth hurts exactly, the fact that arrows from a longbow are stopped dead by a thin steel plate and will only puncture it after hitting the same spot several times or the fact that a musket isn't?

>>53937809
Incorrect. Apart from the fact that they were the reason armoured cavalry ceased to be the tanks of their day, the most distinct advantage the arquebus had was range. Accuracy doesn't matter as much in volleys, and an arquebus could hit targets a kilometer or more away, making them to archers what archers were to spearmen.

>>53928375
Because of two warring factions of autists.

You have the people demanding that a gun deal 6d6 damage and negate armor bonuses to defense in a game that also has a greataxe hacking into you dealing 1d12 + Strenth mod damage.

You have the people saying that guns don't fit in a fantasy setting because they don't suit the tone, which while appropriate for certain settings is not a blanket reason to disallow them.

>>53937884
Read a book.

>>53937897
Take your own advice.

If your players approach you with plans to make gunpowder and early firearms, with the possibility to upgrade to modern firearms as the game continues, you have NO right to refuse them. Now, I know what you're going to say:

>B-b-b-but muh balance
>B-b-b-but mud medieval fantasy
>B-b-b-but mommy, loud noises make me scared

Shut up. You shouldn't be DMing. Your players are trying to make something interesting out of your generic, elf-loving fantasy, and you're throwing it back in their faces. You have NO right to be DMing - just give your notes to one of your players, they can do a better job than you can.

TL/DR, if you can't handle guns in fantasy settings, you shouldn't be a DM.

>>53937809
>guns were used because of mass production/ease of training
Guns were used because they were better weapons than any of those preceding it. Early on they weren't cheap to produce. In 16th century England the cost of an arquebus was two times the cost of a quality longbow and a musket was 3 times that.
As for the training aspect Humphrey Barwick, English mercenary who used both longbow and arquebus, claimed that it was a weapon that required extensive training. It was a weapon also used by the elite of various societies such as the Samurai and Janissaries.

>>53937906
Stop posting and go to the library.

>>53928548
>medieval Europe
And kung fu monks, wizards making the rules of time and space their bitches, and spider-centaurs and tentacle-headed mind rapists feel right at home in Medieval Europe?

>>53937723
>They outclass bows, weapons which are heavily dependent upon the operator's personal strength and familiarity with the weapon,
aside from being untrue, especially in an RPG where damage and all other weapon stats is 100% at the whims of the desingers/players, your argument holds no water considering ranged weapons are abstracted to dexterity stats regardless of what skills are required to wield them in reality
>compared to a gun, which by comparison requires minimal training to use and can be used by a weakling
any jackass can pick up a sword/mace/dagger/any bladed weapon and bludgeon another jackass' brains. You could give a modern day gun, which is far less skill intensive than black powder firearms, to someone on the street and have a 50% chance they wouldn't be able to fire it.
You've probably never held a gun, I'd be willing to bet you've never actually tried to swing a sword and yet you think you're smart enough to tell which one is more effective.

>>53937884
>arquebus
>1km range
muskeeters had to wait until the enemy was only 50m away before they could fire, they were theoretically deadly much further, but you arent hitting an elephant at such long range, hence the term "white of their eyes"

nobody knows how far historical longbows could hit, but medieval shooting ranges were about 200m, and people firing replica longbows could hit about 250m

>>53937920
Here, these might help you.
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17669/22312
https://books.google.com/books/about/Firearms.html?id=esnWJkYRCJ4C

>>53937956
You should read more than the first paragraph of a post. If you did, it would quickly become apparent that the first paragraph was simply a statement of why people exclude guns from fantasy settings, not what I personally believe. for instance, you would see phrases like these
>firearms before the 19th century were actually about on-par with bows, being generally worse but with the advantage that
>pretty sure invalidating bows (regardless of whether they actually would)

I've played an elven 4e Artificer with a carbine before. Just used Superior crossbow stats and it worked out fine.

>>53937915
>Janissaries
>Elite of Society
Anon, you know Jannissaries were literally slave-soldiers, right?
The Ottoman decided that in order to build a modern army capable of defeating Europeans in the field, he would have to field a European Army. So he has his troops capture and enslave Christain children whom where then trained up and turned on their former countrymen.
They're the basis of GRRM's Unsullied.

>>53938041
They were slave soldiers aye, but they had it pretty good comparatively

>>53938063
>aye
Stop that, it makes you sound like a faggot.

>>53938063
I'm reasonably sure they were mostly castrated to keep them from being rebellious. The Ottoman stole peoples children and turned them into killing machines.

>>53937920
He's right, though I'd ammend it to say that guns CAN punch through plate, assuming the right plate, the right guns, and being close enough. Arrows cannot punch through plate armor, however.

>>53938099
That isn't true. The Ottomans had a large number of eunuchs in court positions, many holdovers from the Byzantine empire, but they didn't castrate Janissaries. They did forbid them to marry, however.

>>53938079
you'll_never_beat_the_irish.mp3
but seriously, I always type like I speak

>>53938099

Circumcised, not castrated. Big difference.

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

94KB, 700x575px

So why does everyone assume firearms just appeared one day as full blown muskets and then overnight became modern semi-automatics and machine guns, with nothing before or in between?

Do they legitimately not know what medieval firearms were a thing?

>>53938164
Not according to /b/.

>>53937978
What your talking about only applies to firing at a single person and the range is 70m for a formation its about 150 to 200m which is what your enemy was normally in, and you volley every 50ish meters until bayonets are usable.

>>53938164
Not really both are meant to decrease sexuality just one more than the other.

>>53938216
Speak of the devil
>>53938274

>>53938188
>Do they legitimately not know what medieval firearms were a thing?
essentially this with 320 replies omitted

>>53937291
What a shit tier medieval artist. The two dueling in the picture lool like they are prancing about aimlessly like seizing marionettes

>>53937978

In reality both archers and handgunners fired moslty at close range and in volley fires. It's the most effective way to do it and most likely to cause a morale shock.

>>53937352
Well, duh. That goes without being said. Common sense would save you a lot of typing, dipshit.

>>53937291
>>53938386
>no snails
0/10

>>53938041

What? They were the first standing army since Roman times.

>>53938252
>bayonets
>talking about medieval firearms
I'm not that anon, but go read up. Arquebuses are noted in contemporary sources as having an effective killing range between 400 and 600 paces, and up to 400 paces against an armored foe, and modern (well, in the 80's) tests have shown that a shot from 16th century muskets can be fired up to and beyond 1000 metres.

Bayonets are an early modern invention, not showing up in any real capacity until the mid/late 17th century, and even then as the archaic "plug" type bayonet, wherein a knife is literally jammed into the barrel of the musket, with the socket bayonet model being developed around the turn of the 18th century.

>>53938490
Sorry pikes that where in the same formation.

File: 3Vv2G6v.png (10KB, 1336x556px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 1336x556px

>>53938418

>>53938535
This. It's literally called "Pike and Shot Warfare."

Another one of those things nogunz fags didn't know existed.

>>53938430
sure, but they were only able to be a standing army instead of a levy because they were literally kidnapped Christian child slaves. They weren't the "elites of society" like Samurai or Knights, they were slaves. Worse than that, they were foreigners and Christians made into slaves, and trained to become killers in isolation from the rest of Ottoman society. Great pains were made by the Ottoman to create a European army to fight in their Invasion, but also to keep that army separate from their Muslim Turkish society.

>>53938710
Then the Jannisaries did what the Mamluks did and took over, despite the great pains the Ottomans took to keep them isolated.

Technology is not why guns are disliked for fantasy.

I will explain with two words; "legendary shotgun." The lack of capitalization is important here.

I was playing Phantasy Star Online, back for the gamecube, and I looted a gun that said it was a legendary shotgun. Not a Legendary Shotgun as in a treasure table, but the item description said it was a legendary as in there were legends about the weapon.

This was fucking weird.

Sure there are FAMOUS guns, but we don't think of them as legendary or special themselves. The firearm that filled a stovepipe hat with Abe Lincoln's brain doesn't resonate for generations with the power that ended one of the most cherished Presidents. The gun that killed Kennedy, despite having quite a Wikipedia article, has no presence in the public consciousness.

These guns neither do so in our cultural perception, and not in our visual ideas either. We love GUNS, but we don't love THAT GUN or THIS GUN. Guns are interchangeable tools, one Model 1910 Browning semiautomatic pistol is the same as the next Model 1910 Browning semiautomatic pistol, even if one of them killed Archduke Ferdinand.

We do not say this gun is Jerry-Hammer, Slayer of Krauts, that killed Captain Fritz, and belonged to Sgt. Kowalzski, Son of Theodore. We say its Kowalski's gun, and Kowalski killed a bunch of Nazis. Nobody knows who killed Fritz, because everyone was throwing a wall of lead that day. There was no clear way to track killer to killed, unless you're using shit tons of tracers rounds, which is another key factor. You do not feel your target go down, you do not have the tension and climax. You aim, you fire, and you watch your target fold up dead.

Reasons why guns are not big in fantasy:
Guns are interchangeable tools, not individually crafted parts of anyone's legacy.
Guns are not items with which you have an intimate exchange with.

>>539379
Found the Gunfaggot.

>>53939254
A lot of that also goes for bows, cross bows, siege weapons, and pikes and other formation weapons.

>>53938079
Stop calling people a faggot, it makes you sound like a uncreative and terribly plain sheep person. Faggot is literally the flavor-of-the-decade insult. It has become meaningless from being thrown around where it is uncalled for.

>>53939335
>>53939254
At last, a satisfactory answer for why there are a billion and one legendary swords but I've never heard of a legendary Lucerne Hammer

Well, tabletop fantasy largely springs from fantasy fiction, and from a writing standpoint it's quite a bit trickier to make a gunfight play out as climactically and cinematically as a swordfight or the like. It absolutely can be done, but it's quite a bit harder to make it as exciting. And since it isnt too common in fantasy fiction writing, it naturally won't be common in fantasy tabletop.

>>53938560
How is me telling you that you're stating things that don't need to be said because they are terribly elementary miss the point?
It hits every possible point because it is all inclusive.
Get bent.

>>53930549
>>armies can be raised at a moments notice
>>again and again
This doesn't happen though. There are several times in the story where characters are literally just waiting around for armies to muster and Stannis has to buy a mercenary army because his got btfo.

>>iron bank keeps on lending to the westerosi who have no intention of ever paying it back
The Lannisters so far have paid back the interest but towards the end of the series, the bank stops lending to the crown and instead lends to Stannis because they want stability

>>continent is the size of south america yet has fewer towns and cities than rural new zealand
>>civilian population can somehow survive decades of winter, unable to farm
>>continents are squares
These are valid criticisms which mostly just boil down to laziness.

>>Average peasant spends roughly half their life begin muderraped apparently
This is only particualry true in times of conflict which is where the stories take place. Nobody gives a fuck about the 300 years of peace where nothing happened.

>>next to no real relations to the free cities that are less than an english channel away
Characters from those cities roam around all the time and represent those cities interests in court. Thoros of Myr and Jalabahar Xho are examples of this.

>ASOIAF operates 100% under grimdark dnd logic. It takes a few presuppositions about the middle ages (classism, shit for peasants, knights were horrible people, etc.) and logically extrapolates them far beyond logic and reason to the point of pure comedy.
>I still like it, but not for realism.


I agree with your end statement but your criticisms a shit

>>53939424
wew, lad

Follow the original thing you quoted, think about the context to the thread. Use your god given cognitive capabilities.

>>53936005
Modern firearms operate on a close system. Water wouldn't do shit, even if the gun was totally submerged.

>>53939595
Unless its an AR15 they explode if the gas tube is flooded when fired.

>>53931361
I'm gonna get shit for this but I like the iron kingdoms approach to firearms. They are commonly available mostly reliable have a decent rate of fire but integrated into society without invalidating armor or replacing melee, or magic. Archery is a little replaced but mostly at the military level.

>>53928375
Early firearms are notoriously finicky for adventurers. Water gets on your powder? Ruined. Need more ammo? Hope you have lead.

Arrows are easy to make. Bows are easy to maintain and fucking quiet.

>>53928375
People don't really understand guns. Or history. Or the history of guns.

>>53929136
>Guns require next to no skill and kill even an armored and trained warrior effortlessly.
see what I mean?

>>53939961
You shouldn't get shit for it anon. There is legitimately no reason fantasy RPGs that want to include guns can't or shouldn't do it similarly.

>>53928375
Let's say you're playing age of empires, right?

Castle Age rolls around and holy fuck, it's time to amass castles, fortify yourself, and watch the enemy destroy themselves on your walls, while you watch arrows rain down and cackle to yourself like an idiot.

But then someone goes Imperial age, and suddenly, trebuchet volleys start falling from the castles. Bombards, janissaries, hand cannoneers; all wrecking the shit out of your formerly invincible base. Now you have to adapt your shit to the new technology, or die horribly.

That's what guns do to a fantasy campaign.

>>53940190
>That's what guns do to a fantasy campaign.
No it doesn't.

>>53932737
>Even if you draw a line with firearm technology, you'll still end up with a mouthbreather who doesn't understand why he can't have a revolver or sniper rifle in a setting with only matchlocks.
This.
>Cannons are a thing why can't my 20 int (or setting equivalent) build an assault rifle? It's not that complicated and mithril is better than steel!

>>53935718
I always figured that the printing press wasn't applicable to magic. The whole requiring a high level wizard to scribe scrolls instead of a level 0 npc scribe.

>>53940329
I actually hate the common nogunz retarded "arguments" and fully support any DM who wishes to add them to their setting, but I can't deny that's actually a legitimate point. I've met players exactly like that.

>>53936132
Four losers with swords certainly can. If you've ever tried to right off more then a handful of even poorly skilled opponents is hard, if they can surround you.

>>53940374
This.

Though we get into some crazy hypotheticals when you enchant the printing presses.

>>53940448
Unseen servant + Printing press puts you on a whole new level of production.

The limiting factor would be paper production.

For the same reason the pike and shot era isn't a popular setting. Giving inaccurate smooth bore black powder weapons to armies turns battles to long shooting matches where any melee advance is suicidal, and takes fighting power from heroic characters that you can play as and empathize with and gives it to large faceless masses of mercenaries or levies.
For this reason, fantasy settings prefer to depict guns as rare or arcane tech, and make them overpowered weapons for heroes or elite units to keep the balance of power from shifting in favor of mass formations, artillery and slow ranged combat.

>>53940374
>>53940448
My usual assumption was that money and magic go into preparing special incs (including adding ground up spell components into the mixture or the paper), and time is spent 50/50 on that and on writing down the spell using some kind of magical script that wasn't unique to the caster, but was universally understood.
So, if a workshop of 1st-level apprentices batch-prepared inks and filled up the printing press's reservoirs with it we could probably mass-produce 1st-level scrolls.
Damn, Imma use it as a plot hook in my campaign. The setting is already close to early Age of Enlightenment, it has guns (as remnants of the fallen empire though), what the hell.

>>53940489
In D&D at least you have to be a certain level in order to scribe scrolls at all and there's implied to be a whole process involved in the inscribing and imbuing of the scroll.

You can easily make the argument you can't just print scrolls, because just putting words on paper is literally not how it works.

Now some kind of enchanted press that can imbue that magic? That's a different story.

>>53940536
>Now some kind of enchanted press that can imbue that magic? That's a different story.
Now I want a magic printing press that makes magic scrolls, but you've got to feed it ground up magic users.

>>53939867
There is nothing unique to the AR-15 that would prevent that even if what you were saying was true, which it isn't.

>A firebreathing dragon appears

Boom, shot through the skull and dead in half a minute.

> Beholder

Shot through its massive eye and is dead.

>Scary Barbarian with an axe

Killed in mid charge with a shot to the gut.

> Maneating chimera

Blown the fuck out through the mouth.

>>53928375
Guns use gunpowder, gunpowder is flammable, fireball

>>53940876
Trying to remember the name of the books, but in it wizards use magic to try an replicate the effects of gunpowder.

They make a weird, powdered version of steam, that turns back into steam when you add water. It works for muskets and such, but is even more volatile since you have to keep all the water out of it, instead of just avoiding setting it on fire.

>>53941084
2nd level spell Heat Metal. It makes metal glow red hot, so propbably close to 800-900 degrees f...probably be a troll to make enemy munitions cook off unexpectedly, like when their rifle lines are still forming up

>>53941129
I assume they just keep riflemen handy to shoot wizards who try to fuck up the musketeers.

>>53941187
The success rate of that can't possibly compensate for having an entire formation go up in a chain reaction of explosions

>>53941187
I'd assume the wizards aren't advertising their presence by probably dressing similarly to the rest of the regiment and not going over the top with light displays. Besides, they can always hide behind a line of peasant levees, who sole purpose in this or any other world was to blunt enemy attacks

>>53941129
That actually would work, modern cartridges cook off anywhere between 200-400 degrees. Combine that with the weakened barrel and you have a rather small bomb right next to the enemies face, roll 2d8 damage?

>>53928375
No guns in Tolkien.
And D&D people have no imagination.

>>53941215
Depends on how "expensive" a single wizard capable of a level 2 spell is.

>>53941227
I don't think the wizard has a choice, in DnD and a lot of other settings spells require loud chanting and elaborate arm gestures.

You can also just solve the problem by having "Heat metal" be short range enough that by the time the wizard closes the regiment will have time to form up and shoot him.

There are any number of reasons you could have in setting.

>>53941303
It isn't loud chanting its some form of speech and it isn't elaborate arm gestures it's like a hand wave or something hence why you can use sleight of hand to conceal it

>>53941303
Range of Heat Metal is 60 feet, least in 5th edition. Pretty sure there is range extending metamagic somwhere in there.

Far as chanting and gesturing goes, the corporals, sergeants and so forth with probably be being a bit noisy as well, and if the wizard is embedded in a unit that has any kind of pre-battle slogan shouting or other posturing it would probably be hard to pick them out.

Far as reasons to have guns in setting, I like the idea of it, just not as a pitched battle concept. Spellcasting obviates most of the need for it.

Now, for hunting,m or personal defense that would be called on in a small melee or duel situation, it makes a lot more sense.

>>53941336
Nope. Everyone knows that it's Incantations Required throughout(-1/2) and Complex Gestures, Requires both hands (-3/4) and Concentration, 1/2 DCV (-1) for a cumulative -2 1/4 limitation modifier on all spells.

And that's before the ones that require OAF, OIF, charges, activation rolls and burnout, and requires a skill role.

Depends on the setting and or system. Personally I don't let players do sneaky things in DnD without coughing up for still spell and or silent spell

>>53941419
>Increased range meta magic feet
>Still spell and Silent Spell to avoid enemy snipers
>Heat metal is now a level 5 spell requiring a 9th level wizard
>Can't even happen in e6

I'm okay with that.

>>53941480
But this isn't incredibly sneaky this is being quiet enough to not be heard on a battlefield with gunpowder weapons and people who can throw fireballs in the middle of a large crowd

>>53941516
If you want the benefits of casting spells silently, you gotta pay for it.

Default is shouting at the top of you lungs.

Same for still spell, no tiny hand gestures. Sweeping arm movements if not entire dance routines.

>>53941557
>Default is shouting at the top of you lungs.
>Same for still spell, no tiny hand gestures. Sweeping arm movements if not entire dance routines.

No.

>>53941565
Yes.

That's why somatic and verbal components are a drawback. And why it takes precious feats to mitigate the effects.

Same goes with material components and eschew materials.

Shit like this is why people think wizards are overpowered. Because they are if you remove any of the built in limitations.

>>53941591
No.

>>53941602
Yes.

If you don't like it. Don't play dnd.

>>53941615
No.

>>53928375
I mean, this isn't a "logical reason" like you asked for, but for me it just makes it seem less fantasy-ish. IMO, fantasy should have a timeless feel to it, and firearms, even things like cannons which have been since late medieval times, just make the whole thing seem... I don't know, more real and less fantasy. Even if the firearms are wielded by dwarves who look like Yosemite Sam as they fight Orc hordes and giant flamethrower-wielding rats

>>53941738
I'm willing to bet a good number of the things you deem "acceptably fantasy-ish" are newer and more contemporary than firearms.

>>53936335
>Why do people think this is a thing?

Because most people that get triggered by guns are stupid niggers that think that armor development in Europe went lorica segmentata -> dark ages viking mail -> plate armor -> no armor because muh gunz.

>>53935940
The point really is to not get shot in the first place

Kinda like with melee weapons, I'm sure the philosophy behind most of them is to avoid being hit.

>>53939587
That's not what he means, Anon. Medieval people didn't just sit around doing nothing all the time. They did that for half the year. During which they could fight. And then they had to get back to sow. In ASOIAF, with its weird seasons, that means all these wars are happening during a time when these people should be farming 24/7. This is exactly why there were so many mercenaries and (semi)professional armies in history. Martin does not mention any of this. And especially because the world is so huge, a traditional levy army should not exist in ASOIAF.

Also, the problem with murdering the peasants of the area you're taking over is that you're taking a worthless patch of land that doesn't produce anything. Unless you introduce your own peasants. The sort of warfare that happens in ASOIAF is what you'd see with foreign conquerers and ideological conflicts, not with internal infighting over land gains.

Thoros of Myr and Jalabahar Xho barely get mentioned. I'm not completely up to speed, but in the multiple books I've read, the free cities only get cursory mentions. This Anon is right in this regard.

Your criticisms of his criticisms are shit.

>>53928669
>That being said I dislike them most of the time because it makes combat boring more times than not. Just two people in cover shooting at each other instead of radical melee fights.

Hell, I, as a general urban fantasy/urban/WoD GM/ST consider them to be this for even modern times settings too. I got guns, I win, that's all many characters players ammount to.

>>53940606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkHktkTxU
Video proof that they do.

>>53928588
This. If a high level fighter can catch a sword in his abs with only a minor scar he can catch a bullet with just a tiny hole.

>>53942343
At what time in the video?

>>53942493
I'm guessing the "competitive model" at around 1:20 is the AR-15 in question.

>>53942493
>>53942514
yes

>>53942343
I laughed at the part where it said they couldn't do test B with the AR-15 because the fucking gun already blew up.

>>53941084
>They make a weird, powdered version of steam, that turns back into steam when you add water
A powdered version of water vapor, which is water, that turns into water when you add water.

I don't even want to know.

>>53942514
Its not a hard issue to fix you just need to tilt the rifle for a few seconds to let the gas system drain, but if fired when still full all the water gets pushed into the bolt at very high speed.

>>53942540
>Its not a hard issue to fix you just need to tilt the rifle for a few seconds to let the gas system drain
Meanwhile, you're being shot at.

And now you're dead.

File: yt1fxtr.gif (218KB, 588x269px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 588x269px

>>53939867
You got it backwards.
Standard AR design is internal piston (people call it DI but it isn't really), expanding gas pipes straight back through the gas tube into an expansion chamber in the bolt. There's a lot of gas coming back since you're relying on gas pressure from start to finish. Not a concern most of the time. Problem is that water is super difficult to compress so it explodes the gun instead.
The HK416 uses a short stroke piston, the gas pushes on a piston which pushes on the bolt, so the gas expands in a small chamber near the gas port where not a lot of water can gather and whatever little that does just gets vented out where the gas usually does; meanwhile the piston and bolt are just moving mechanical parts that might get hindered by water but won't blow up the gun. A long stroke piston is the same thing but it's attached to the bolt and strokes back all the way while a short stroke piston imparts momentum to the bolt with a quick impulse.
Most rifles that aren't ARs use short stroke or long stroke pistons and they're plenty safe(r) to fire waterlogged.

>>53942580
You read what I meant backwards considering I posted
>>53942343
and already knew ar15 will kaboom if filled with water.

>>53930620
>Plate was invented after gunpowder was common on the battlefield

Just because early guns were cast from bronze doesn't mean that they were already around during bronze age, bro.

>>53942598
You posted
>Unless its an AR15 they explode if the gas tube is flooded when fired.
Shit dude that's some ambiguous syntax, I read it as "they explode if the gas tube is flooded unless it's an AR15" and so did the other guy.

>>53942606
You know what he meant you cheeky little dick.

>>53942606
It's very obvious we're talking about the kind of plate harness that people envision when D&D talks about "platemail" and the like, you fucking pedantic mong.

File: 2b433319343db78887ae65f4cdedea5b1400104776_large.jpg (16KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 200x200px

>>53932546
SHOCKING

>>53942614
His post was that water wont do anything to guns.
My response was meant that was true unless its an ar15, ar15s explode if filled with water.

>>53942614
And that's why punctuation matters.

>>53942649
go help your uncle jack off a horse

Add punctuation and capitalization as you believe is needed.

>>53942630
>>53942638
>plate armour is not plate armour because REASONS

>>53942674
>non articulate plate armor is the same as 1500s plate.

>>53942565
Nigger how tactical do you think you are? Most likely the guy shooting at you is 300 metres away, if you're close enough you don't have time to drain your damn rifle after emerging from water then you probably also have a pistol and pistols don't care about being wet.

>>53942693
Or considering that your frogmen probably an MP5.

>>53942673
>Go help your uncle, jack off! A horse!
This one made me giggle the most, as it implies that the person speaking is angry at you for not rescuing your uncle from some sort of horse related danger.

This is a fun game, it's like the meaning of a sentence can change entirely from its original intention depending on how punctuation is used, or lack thereof!

>>53942674
You knew damn well coming into this thread exactly what was being talked about.

>>53942693
Or you can just use a gun that still fully functions in a worst case scenario.

>>53942713
Go back to the 80s grandpa, SEALs haven't used MP5 for ages.

>>53942737
Get to work on that time machine then, I would love to go back.

>>53942736
Or you could keep your gun out of water in the first place.

>>53942753
But then I would look like some GI crossing a river in Vietnam.

>>53928669
>>53928778
>>53928742
Jesus fucking christ, realismfags in my fantasy?

File: Haselrig's Helm.jpg (48KB, 662x479px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 662x479px

>>53929136
See the guy getting shot? He survived the battle unscathed though suffering multiple close range pistol shots.

>>53929136
>A sword has difficulty bludgeoning to death a man in full mail, even when wielded by a man trained since late childhood in the arts of war.
>bludgeoning
A man trained since childhood would probably thrust against mail.

>>53942777

To be fair only people I know who play fantasy and hate realism are D&D fags.

>>53942812

Pistols have serious problems piercing good armor.

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

The problem were always rifles.

>>53928375
Because Tolkien wrote for an early middle ages sort of time period, when adding plate armor over your chain mail was a brand new idea that the knights of Dol Amroth had just barely figured out. 1200s-ish. Even then, Saruman had invented gunpowder, just not muskets or arquebuses or anything.

Similarly, King Arthur is primarily a 13th or 14th century setting if not earlier and Conan is set mainly in the Iron Age, both well before the invention of gunpowder.

Everyone is copying these early inspirations (especially Tolkien) super hard, so anything that isn't present in them gets a bad reaction by default.

>>53928982
>Shitty inaccurate guns didn't come close to hardcountering a pike wall or a heavily armoured man on horseback

Musket volleys were in fact exactly the hard counter to pike formations used in pike and shot warfare.

>>53929167
>Lots of plate was tested simply by shooting at it with a gun.
There are also Katana who were supposedly tested by cutting through 5+ stacked bodies with a single cut despite this being impossible since a Katana would break if it hits a bone.

>>53932714
So on the one hand we have people making replica works and testing them on each other, and then on the other we have you stamping your foot and saying "nuh-uh!" Replica testing isn't the most solid historical evidence, but it is in fact better than nothing.

File: matchlock revolver.jpg (2MB, 3648x2052px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3648x2052px

>>53932737
Ahem.

>>53942921

Go ahead and show me well done youtube armor tests.

>>53936470
Every edition of D&D has had firearms (except maybe 4e?). Later editions just tuck the rules for them into the DMG. They're still core, though.

>>53942946
how about I show you my dick and you shut the fuck up?

File: proof house.jpg (785KB, 1581x2600px) Image search: [Google]

785KB, 1581x2600px

>>53929212
Dude, you don't proof every single product. They would proof a cuirass with a hammer too, no cuirass will survive a muscley man with a large hammer striking it flat dead center, it's just a good test to see if the average quality of product fails in the right way. (you want your armor to DENT and CRUMPLE, rather than SHATTER or NOT BUDGE AND DISPLACE THE ENTIRE FORCE TO THE WEARER.)

You proof a percentage of your product to see if your average product is worthy and you employ the right techniques with the right material.

on the scale of most adventurers, about 5-10 people vs another 5-10 people, muskets are not going to be much use, you get one shot, and its accuracy is useless beyond 50m-100m
the gun itself required tons of maintenance to ensure it didnt rust, or get clogged with fouling
even with the advent of rifling, you will need to carry a mallet with you to ensure the bullet goes down the shaft
until the invention of breech-loaded weapons, muskets were mostly used for massed setpiece battles, hunters usually preferred bows and arrows simply because they could fire faster and were simpler to maintain
guns have their place, but there is a reason pirates carried both a gun and a sword, in the brutal close range fights most adventurers get into, and its the only range acceptable if you want to hit someone with a smoothbore, you might as well just stab them

also worth noting that a musket IS a prime peasant weapon in 5e, lack of multiattack means loading doesnt matter and d12 is equivalent to being hit with a greataxe, with a high chance of causing great wounding

>>53928929
See how they have walk of shame, guarded by superior riflemen?

>>53942971

So you have shit? Okay. Glad you admit defeat.

>>53938041
A slave is someone who can be bought and sold. While we typically associate this with brutal chattel slaves who are the lowest of the low on the social totem pole, there are in fact other kinds of slavery, especially in medieval or Renaissance times when doing whatever someone else told you to was incredibly common. Even dukes had a king. Being a highly-trained murder machine who could, in theory, be sold to another guy is not significantly less elite than being a highly trained murder machine bound to serve a specific guy for life, even if that specific guy would like to sell you. There were a couple of other rights and privileges that knights had which janissaries did not, and janissaries definitely got shat on as children a whole lot more than knights did, but they're definitely batting in the same league so far as social status is concerned.

>>53938430
You could argue that the various knightly orders would fit that bill, as well as the various other types of middle eastern slave soldier, ie Mamelukes and Ghilman.

>>53928375
>>53928548
I suppose it's also the question of 'Why do guns exist in a world where you can make a magic wand shoot fireballs that anyone can use'

>>53935420

Fun fact: Expressed in silver the price of equipping a knight in Norman England was almost identical to the price of building a Sherman tank in WWII.

>>53928375
In most of my experiences it's because there's too much bickering over the rules applied to guns. Take too long to reload in combat. Do too much damage at too great of range. Material costs. Overshadows other ranged weaponry too much. You get the idea.
I don't particularly care, from an aesthetic standpoint, including early firearms and artillery. It can be kinda neat.

Because they make melee specialization an increasingly poor option

File: 1377367256601.jpg (76KB, 831x445px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 831x445px

>>53928375
I know it's late, but here is the obligatory reaction

>>53932277
Targetting touch is just saying "if it hits armor, it hits."
>>53932737
Probably plays in a lot more than we give it credit for. Everyone understands "no gunpowder."

>>53930301
>>53935262
>>53930549
These are all pretty good. Also, if you have winter for twenty years, how the fuck do people eat after TWO without fridges?
If peasants keep getting murder raped, how does any work get done ever?
Why does no one ever punish a murder rapist in the nobility, even though it's not economically fucking feasible to let that shit fly whenever anyone feels like it?
Why is the whole slave economy such a big fucking deal in that one city when every ex-slave owner clearly has enough money to just EMPLOY people and are clearly EMPLOYING DOZENS of ASSASSINS? (or killing people themselves, but these foppish nobles seem to be capable of killing soldiers, yes the element of surprise means much, but eventually people just sleep with a locked door and a knife under their pillow you know.)
Why can't there be an arena without slaves? There were plenty professional gladiators in ancient Rome.
>>53939587
A time of conflict that lasts generations and even when there's years of peace, there's still the Boltons murder raping routinely and the pirate people and big Clegane fucker.

Also, somehow Bronn strips a knight in full armor with his longsword?

Anyway, to get to the question: Heroism is hard to do when kobolds would group up and do fire-by-rank shit to any "heroic" individual they encounter.
>>53936132
>>53936739
Well, normal people can't do that anyway, but I guess if you're quick and strong and have some element of surprise then killing 4 people is doable before they surround and kill you, but to be honest something similar can probably be said about guns. An open field in the middle of the day is a place no lone warrior wants to inhabit..

>>53942363
>implying a high level fighter can do that

File: 1437621786702.jpg (55KB, 850x629px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 850x629px

>>53928375
Because neither Hyborea nor Middle-Earth heavily featured guns, and fantasy, especially fantasy-as-seen-by-people-on-/tg/ is heaily defined by those two settings. Everything else is a rationalization.

>>53942343
2:50
My fucking sides.

>>53943272
>y no guns in fantasy
>have you tried not playing a game that has guns in it?
Sure you showed those pesky dnd fans.

>>53943273
>Why can't there be an arena without slaves? There were plenty professional gladiators in ancient Rome.

Fantasy typically has an understanding of slavery that's wholly based on the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the stereotypes of ancient Rome (which are probably based on same). Slavery in Fantasy is always, 100% chattel slavery with draconian punishments. In fact, a lot of Fantasy doesn't seem to consider serfdom to be a form of slavery. You get shit in aSoIaF where people claim Westeros abolished slavery, despite everything taking place in a world who's idiosyncracies hint massively at the existence of specifically that form of slavery. And one could argue that they're never mentioned as slaves, and are therefore free, but it's not like GRR Martin goes out of his way to clear this shit up in his thick pills of books, while he'd rather describe the nth rape. I mean, there's more rape than consensual sex in his stuff. So either he likes rape a whole lot, or he's being edgy. Either way, when a huge part of the world's image is based on the assumed existence of slavery, and then you don't make an effort to show why there is no slavery, I call that lazy writing.

As for Rome, slavery ran the gamut from being worked to death in the mines or being tortured by professional slave torturers for not working hard enough in the chain gang to being allowed to run your own business relatively freely, with laws in place to liquidate the business in case it failed, and getting to be among the absolute top of athletes of the day, revered by the crowds and wealthy beyond dreams. In fact, the world's highest paid athlete was still a Roman charioteer by the name of Gaius Appuleius Diocles.

He started his career as a slave.

>>53937910
Shut up,dildo.

>>53930549
Wait what, Westeros is that big? Fuck me, I never realised, I thought it was way smaller than that what the fuck.

>>53943622
I honestly thought Westeros was supposed to be the UK, too. You have the barbarians in the North, raiders on some islands off the coast, the capital waaaaay over south. It's got the general shape of it. And you've got some big fuck off unmapped "mainland" to the south and east of it.

>>53943622
It's easy to do the math. The Wall is built across a narrow, defined point, and we know it's 300 miles long. This makes Westeros absolutely massive. Essos, too, but that's kind of less of a point, given its Mongol-ripoff inhabitants, who in reality DID range over a massive territory.

But even the smallest land of Westeros is more than twice the size of my country, and we had a burgeoning Medieval culture with castles, fiefdoms, kings, wars of unification, our own system of heraldry, you name it. In aSoIaF, an area the size of my country has maybe one small town in it on the map. A village, if you're really unlucky. Or nothing. The North is legit Russia levels of immeasurable forest.

I genuinely think Martin just pulled that 300 mile wall out of his ass without considering the ramifications, and just ran with it, shrugging all the way.

>>53943817
When you're worldbuilding, a sense of scale is difficult to maintain because humans just don't think that way.
At a certain point distance and size is just abstract and you don't really think about the difference between 3000 or 30000 you just think "huge"

>whole thread doesnt use imagination
>muh realism
Why not make an arcane-based gun?
FOR FUCK SAKES WHY NOT MAKE GUNS MAGIC TOO?
>get a shotgun with elements of ice and shoots small helix ice Dragon projectiles
>inb4 wands
Think more human than wizard or any other magical being. Normies would have access to magical firearms but gettin the ammunition is another story

>>53943980
You didn't actually read the thread at all.

>>53943980
I too have seen Outlaw Star.

>>53943993
Okay so i didnt read all of it but i read at least half. I'll admit to that.
>>53944014
What is that

File: Outlaw_Star_Grappler_arms_(1).jpg (49KB, 655x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 655x480px

>>53944068
pretty awesome is what it is

>>53943884
I know, I've done worldbuilding. But the point is that people call his world realistic. It isn't.

>>53943273
>Why can't there be an arena without slaves? There were plenty professional gladiators in ancient Rome.

...you mean the people who had to renounce their rights as free citizens and swear an oath that they weren't going to bitch about being treated EXACTLY like any other slave?

>>53928588
Axes weren't ever effective weapons in war, and even had they been, firearms would have made them obsolete like they did almost everything else.

>>53928375
Fuck you I love powder fantasy. Magic guns are hit and miss I switch back and forth there. But matchlocks are a great gun related time period to set it in. Matchlocks have tons of disadvantages to offset the ass crunching damage (or rather slightly more than a crossbow but with a penalty to heal any wounds caused by it).

File: Dane_Axe.jpg (42KB, 625x623px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 625x623px

>>53944196
[citation needed]
Rich Roman boys wanted to be gladiators too. Fuck hot chicks, kill people, get cheered on.
>>53944231
>What are tomahawks, franciscas and Danish bearded axes?
If it saw historical use, it was probably pretty good at the time. The Franks were a pretty successful people and so were the Danes. I don't know much about native american history, but people sure liked those small axes anyway.

>>53944437
More to the point, modern tomahawks have found a niche as melee weapons for modern soldiers in room-to-room fighting. They're much more versatile than your standard knife. And conking a jihadi over the head with a piece of metal will bring them down faster than a stab wound. And like tomahawks of old, they're also proper tools that can be used for anything from bashing down doors to opening crates of your state-issued normie porn.

File: 3ad5e79f4a60a349cee6710e7a5eee65.jpg (244KB, 498x728px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 498x728px

>>53936101
Japanese history is hell of fun

>>53929483
>it opens up the door to the age of sail, which opens the door to colonization, which opens the door to conquest of natives and slave trades
>devalues the archer concept
All you have to do is look at japan and their various dutch fueled firearm conflicts to know that you absolutely can combine archers and firearms. The short of it is the guy who has trained for literally most of their life is generally a better shot.

>>53944437
Rome was Afghanistan with more marble, not American Gladiators without spandex, bub.

>Status: Gladiators (...) were mostly unfree individuals (condemned criminals, prisoners of war, slaves). Some gladiators were volunteers (mostly freedmen or very low classes of freeborn men) who chose to take on the status of a slave for the monetary rewards or the fame and excitement. Anyone who became a gladiator was automatically infamis, beneath the law and by definition not a respectable citizen. A small number of upper-class men did compete in the arena (though this was explicitly prohibited by law), but they did not live with the other gladiators and constituted a special, esoteric form of entertainment (as did the extremely rare women who competed in the arena; see some Latin passages referring to female gladiators). All gladiators swore a solemn oath (sacramentum gladiatorium), similar to that sworn by the legionary but much more dire: “I will endure to be burned, to be bound, to be beaten, and to be killed by the sword” (uri, vinciri, verberari, ferroque necari, Petronius Satyricon 117).

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentum_(oath)

Petronius, Satyricon 117; Seneca, Epistulae 71.32

>>53928375
because people get upset if you nerf them down to being equal to more archaic means of combat (Bows, melee)

Ok So I'm late to the party for sure, but here is how I "balance guns and their nearest competitors bows even those of the crossed variety.

Bows get variety and reload speed (duh on that last point). By variety I mean heavy cumbersome alchemical arrows (cast a simple spell with the range of BOW), or the less than 1 weight unit of the trick arrow. Trick arrows vary I add and take away from the list based on setting, but they generally include everything from a grappling hook, whistle, cliche fantasy fire arrows, and anything inbetween. If the green arrow has used it, you probably can too.

Crossbows being the middle ground still get the option of customized bolts, but generally receive not quite gun damage and pen. Their main downside in regards to guns is that they suffer greater range penalties and also have a lesser range. From what I've seen crossbows tended to suffer from fall off pretty quickly due to the size and weight of quarrels so I figured that'd be thematic enough.

So in other words unless I'm going full powder, guns can't be used in conjunction with magic (maybe bullets aren't big enough to etch a spell into, or maybe a full liter of potion is necessary to work. I won't pretend this all isn't arbitrary for game feel), crossbows are the middle ground with many disadvantages of the gun but many advantages of the bow. Finally bows are pure high octane theme.

>>53928375

Tolkien dind't have them, Howard (in Conan) dind't. Which actualy stems from Morris, Dunsany, Eddison and whatever not having them.
More recent fantasy tries, but it doesn't stick.

It has no particular meaning. A flintlock isn't any less timeless than a zweihander. At the very most you could make the argument that guns deny the "muh personl strenght" epic feeling, but we don't have problems with crossbows, so..

Personally I really do think elves would be better with guns, at least it would explain why a race of slender marksmen.

>a more interesting question might be why we think of fantasy as not!MiddleAges while in fact most of these early examples aren't really "medieval", and even why we feel JRRT is "medieval" while he has basically nothing of that time, but I digress

>>53932546
It is legit possible to do that with a bow with an unoptimized but prestiged ranger in 3.5.

So I kind of want to know what your point is.

File: 11990178_10207393409454571_1095896281_o.jpg (96KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1366x768px

>>53944847
Oh, like that. Not chattel/ plantation slavery either though, which is what the quote: "being treated EXACTLY like any other slave" seemed to imply. Gladiators could be celebrities and live pretty luxurious lives. Sure you weren't a citizen, but actual Roman citizens were few and far between in ancient Rome.

Also Rome was a hell of a fertile area. Less Age of Decadence and more you know Mediterranean climate with stretches of road an civilisation and plantations.

Being a gladiator was also a hell of a lot less lethal than films seem to imply (90% survival rate in your first three bouts, that is 9 out of 10 gladiators still lived after the third show. Source: Teacher was reading from a book in 2006, I was 17 and the class was specifically Latin studies, it was my fifth year.) People were generally forgiving of people who lost their first few bouts or so.

>>53928375
I like guns in my fantasy, but people flip the fuck out if I make them not more powerful than pretty much everything.
Mechanicly speaking, they have a bonus on bypassing 50% of the armor value and make tons of noise. A crossbow or any other bow has a significant advantage on dealing a critical hit istead. Raw damage output is pretty similar.
Sounds stupid, but now guns do not destroy muh fantasy, even if they still destroy everyone that forgot any kind of ranged option.

>>53945025
Makes perfect sense. Watching the new guys get butchered would be boring as shit from their perspective.

>>53928375
besides, at the average fantasy timeline, best you'd have are highly inaccurate smoothbore, single-shot weapons. so they'd be great at making a lot of noise, but will barely hit anything medium-sized. Might work against bigger creatures like dragons.

>>53944847
>Rome was Afghanistan with more marble

I take it you mean Hellenistic Afghanistan? Or is this just a retarded, edgy comment?

>>53937195
Plate armour was allready there in 1250. Full plate wasnt but breastplates were.