The world has more than enough anomalies to take outrageous amounts of leeway with fantasy. And history isn't as static with facts as we assume; it's an ongoing dialogue of discovery and interpretation. We rewrite and argue plenty. Besides, give everything a few hundred years and so much of what we know will be considered wrong.

Therefore about fantasy world building, go have fun with it! If it doesn't work for you, fine. All I care about is if the human motivations feel genuine in my setting. But that's still a crazy broad spectrum, and the best answer I can give for fantasy choices ends up being "it feels right... in my gut." The world's crazy, so for your own dream bigger.

And the arquebus is still in my PHB (2e ).

Quote from: noisms;584992As far as I'm aware, gunpowder weapons were extremely inaccurate until the invention of the rifle: they were a battlefield weapon where massed ranks of men would pour masses of shot into massed ranks of other men, and thus score hits by dint of sheer blind luck.

Definitely.  The early arquebusses were little more than smooth-bore man-portable mini-canons.  Regardless, they could punch through steel armour relatively easily, so everyone stopped wearing it.

QuoteIn the kind of skirmishing melee fights that go on in RPGs, with combatants numbering usually less than a dozen or so, gunpowder weapons would be worse than useless - too inaccurate to aim and fire at an individual enemy, and then once you've fired it you have to drop it and pull out a sword because somebody is trying to axe you to death.

I have somewhat fewer problems with immediate combat concerns as much as the overall impact on society.  Even primitive grenades are not reliable enough to stake the outcome of combat on, assuming they don't go off randomly before you even get to fight.

The overall technological improvements that go along with gunpowder (or any explosive, really) are what I like to avoid in my fantasy games.  Just using it to quarry rock will bring about major changes as castles and other such constructions become much cheaper to build and maintain.

I don't think it should be universally banned for any fantasy setting.  As I said earlier replying to Vector: it's your table, go wild.  Part of Pundit's post was asking why there are issues with it, and I think my opinion is somewhat common.

Quote from: Opaopajr;585010The world has more than enough anomalies to take outrageous amounts of leeway with fantasy. And history isn't as static with facts as we assume; it's an ongoing dialogue of discovery and interpretation. We rewrite and argue plenty. Besides, give everything a few hundred years and so much of what we know will be considered wrong.

Therefore about fantasy world building, go have fun with it! If it doesn't work for you, fine. All I care about is if the human motivations feel genuine in my setting. But that's still a crazy broad spectrum, and the best answer I can give for fantasy choices ends up being "it feels right... in my gut." The world's crazy, so for your own dream bigger.

And the arquebus is still in my PHB (2e ).

I can find nothing to disagree with here.  

Except your preference for 2e.  That is a sure sign of mental illness.  

Quote from: noisms;584992As far as I'm aware, gunpowder weapons were extremely inaccurate until the invention of the rifle: they were a battlefield weapon where massed ranks of men would pour masses of shot into massed ranks of other men, and thus score hits by dint of sheer blind luck.

In the kind of skirmishing melee fights that go on in RPGs, with combatants numbering usually less than a dozen or so, gunpowder weapons would be worse than useless - too inaccurate to aim and fire at an individual enemy, and then once you've fired it you have to drop it and pull out a sword because somebody is trying to axe you to death.

This is mostly false.  

Of course, addressing it opens up a whole can of worms.  In short, a 'fair fight' is usually determined by the side with the most powerful military, and fair is whatever lets them use that military to gain victory.  For example, modern militaries consider staying in your own sides uniform as 'fair' and using civilians as shields 'unfair'.  

Muskets can be fairly accurate (not to the same degree as rifles, but surprisingly accurate by most standards within 100 yards).  The problem is that the militaries of the day relied on professional officers and a bunch of people that were expected to be good soldiers, but they were mostly drawn from lower classes and were seen as expendable - while officers, like knights before them, were not.  Shooting accurately and killing officers was considered 'unfair'.  It would be better to take a surrender and ransom them back to their wealthy families - even in a world with gunpowder.  Thus, shooting randomly into massed ranks of 'common soldiers' was preferable - even though some officers died,they made a much smaller portion of the casualties.

American minutemen (not including those using rifles) targeted British Officers, causing outrage.  Even though it was on the field of battle, it was considered tantamount to murder.

Quote from: danbuter;585000Your version of fantasy is not the version that sell millions of copies every year. It's been dead since the 70's.

Perhaps so, but I don't need to sell millions of copies, I only need to please myself and my players, as you know.

What in particular are you referring to in the 70's, btw?  The Tolkien resurgence?  Moorcock?  Or just the general descent of 'fantasy' to mean 'pseudomedieval with wizards and dragons and other things painted on the side of panel-vans'?

In my Eberron I use the firearms from the DMG, they are not really per PCs but they are not a bad choice in a world where the large number of soldiers are 1st or 2nd level warrior, they are sold by the gnomes but they are little more than a novelty, they are quite expensive, and you must specially train your soldiers to use them, with the same money you could buy a wand of fireball, or hire some ogre mercenaries. They are an interesting option but just an option.

(Iwhile gnome have the exclusive on firearms and gunpowder trade they are actually a kobold invention, gnomes appropriate of the idea like they did with elemental binding but outside of the gnomes nobody know that.)

Quote from: StormBringer;585033I can find nothing to disagree with here.  

Except your preference for 2e.  That is a sure sign of mental illness.  

You must be crazier than the world to dream bigger than it. As of late, it's been a tall order. But then I also have 2e.

By the way, I realize I slip into second person a lot. Ends up sounding more aggro and personal than I want. But it's there to drown out the voices in my head that want to use every 2e supplement and setting at once, including PO: Skills & Powers.

Quote from: VectorSigma;585176Or just the general descent of 'fantasy' to mean 'pseudomedieval with wizards and dragons and other things painted on the side of panel-vans'?

Wish I could see that pic, Ronin.  For or against, I bet it's funny.

Link for Vector

I was right to trust my instincts.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585165This is mostly false.  

Of course, addressing it opens up a whole can of worms.  In short, a 'fair fight' is usually determined by the side with the most powerful military, and fair is whatever lets them use that military to gain victory.  For example, modern militaries consider staying in your own sides uniform as 'fair' and using civilians as shields 'unfair'.  

Muskets can be fairly accurate (not to the same degree as rifles, but surprisingly accurate by most standards within 100 yards).  The problem is that the militaries of the day relied on professional officers and a bunch of people that were expected to be good soldiers, but they were mostly drawn from lower classes and were seen as expendable - while officers, like knights before them, were not.  Shooting accurately and killing officers was considered 'unfair'.  It would be better to take a surrender and ransom them back to their wealthy families - even in a world with gunpowder.  Thus, shooting randomly into massed ranks of 'common soldiers' was preferable - even though some officers died,they made a much smaller portion of the casualties.

American minutemen (not including those using rifles) targeted British Officers, causing outrage.  Even though it was on the field of battle, it was considered tantamount to murder.

So the only reason units of infantry in the Napoleonic era targeted each other was because they didn't want to kill the other side's officers? That makes no sense at all. Surely, all considerations about accuracy aside, firing into massed ranks of enemy common soldiers was preferable because there were loads of the fuckers and they were the ones who were were going to do the things you wanted to stop - occupy ground and fire back. Common soldiers are always going to tangle with other common soldiers by definition, because they make up the vast bulk of each other's armies.

The Hussites used early hand-guns to great effect in the early 15th century. Although it's probably fair to say that their Wagenburg tactics coupled with the ineptitude of the opposing commanders in trying to overcome the Wagenburg were factors that magnified the actual effectiveness of the hand-guns.

Quote from: noisms;585291So the only reason units of infantry in the Napoleonic era targeted each other was because they didn't want to kill the other side's officers?

No, that's not the only reason.  Don't be stupid.

Someone pointed out that muskets are not accurate.  Now, that may be true compared to things like modern rifles, but modern rifles aren't very accurate compared to lasers.  Compared to weapons of the day, muskets were fairly accurate.

Quote from: WikipediaA typical smooth bore musket firing at a single target was only accurate to about 100 to 150 yd (91 to 140 m) using the military ammunition of the day, which used a much smaller bullet than the musket bore to compensate for accumulation of ash in the barrel under battlefield conditions. Rifled muskets of the mid-19th century, like the Springfield Model 1861, were significantly more accurate, with the ability to hit a man sized target at a distance of 500 yards (460 m) or more.

Compare that to the Longbow:

Quote from: WikipediaRange and penetrationThe range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with estimates from 165 to 228 m (180 to 249 yds). Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd).[23] A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yds. It is also well known that no practice range was allowed to be less than 220 yds by order of Henry VIII.[24]

The longbow was capable of long range, and was highly accurate at short range. Most of the longer-range shooting mentioned in stories was not marksmanship, but rather thousands of archers launching volleys of arrows at an entire army. Longbowmen armies would shoot a rain of arrows landing indiscriminately in the target area. An archer could hit a person at 165 m (180 yards) "part of the time" and could always hit an army

Now, obviously a longer accurate range is often preferable, but once you close within 100 yards, if both weapons are accurate at that distance, the relative accuracy at longer distances hardly matters.  Both weapons could hit whatever target you aim at.  

As far was whether it is sensible to aim or sensible to volley - that's a totally different question.  

Imagine, for a moment, that you were standing in a line of fellow musketeers.  You all aim for an opposing officer.  You all fire, killing him instantly.  Then the other side releases a volley, killing half of your soldiers.  You probably lost that exchange.  One major advantage of the volley is that, while you didn't know who you were going to hit, you'd probably hit someone, and it'd probably be someone different from the person on your left and the person on your right.  Collectively, you might do more damage than if you each aimed and fired (possibly at the same target).

The fact that volleys were used is not a testament to the poor accuracy of muskets.  They could be used to target individual opponents at ranges of 100-150 yards (ie, they could be used for hunting or sniping), but those tactics were discouraged because of the accepted rules of battle - not because of a deficiency in the weapon.

Saying 'muskets were inaccurate' is easy, but the actual story is more complex.  While the accuracy of the weapons is a concern by modern standards, they could have been used with a number of modern tactics - including sniping.  This was generally considered 'unmanly' and certainly 'ungentlemanly'.  Targeting a specific opposing soldier with a musket was considered tantamount to murder.  That may seem silly and quaint to modern sensibilities, but it's certainly true that attitudes about 'acceptable practices' in war trumps 'effectiveness'.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585328No, that's not the only reason.  Don't be stupid.

Someone pointed out that muskets are not accurate.  Now, that may be true compared to things like modern rifles, but modern rifles aren't very accurate compared to lasers.  Compared to weapons of the day, muskets were fairly accurate.



Compare that to the Longbow:


Now, obviously a longer accurate range is often preferable, but once you close within 100 yards, if both weapons are accurate at that distance, the relative accuracy at longer distances hardly matters.  Both weapons could hit whatever target you aim at.  

As far was whether it is sensible to aim or sensible to volley - that's a totally different question.  

Imagine, for a moment, that you were standing in a line of fellow musketeers.  You all aim for an opposing officer.  You all fire, killing him instantly.  Then the other side releases a volley, killing half of your soldiers.  You probably lost that exchange.  One major advantage of the volley is that, while you didn't know who you were going to hit, you'd probably hit someone, and it'd probably be someone different from the person on your left and the person on your right.  Collectively, you might do more damage than if you each aimed and fired (possibly at the same target).

The fact that volleys were used is not a testament to the poor accuracy of muskets.  They could be used to target individual opponents at ranges of 100-150 yards (ie, they could be used for hunting or sniping), but those tactics were discouraged because of the accepted rules of battle - not because of a deficiency in the weapon.

Saying 'muskets were inaccurate' is easy, but the actual story is more complex.  While the accuracy of the weapons is a concern by modern standards, they could have been used with a number of modern tactics - including sniping.  This was generally considered 'unmanly' and certainly 'ungentlemanly'.  Targeting a specific opposing soldier with a musket was considered tantamount to murder.  That may seem silly and quaint to modern sensibilities, but it's certainly true that attitudes about 'acceptable practices' in war trumps 'effectiveness'.

You've clearly latched on to muskets for some reason, perhaps to show off amateur historical knowledge - in which case, fair play. But nobody said "muskets were inaccurate" - or at least, I didn't. I said gunpowder weapons were not generally accurate until the invention of the rifle.

I think it was fairly obvious from context that I wasn't talking about what was going on in 1815 or the revolutionary war, but much earlier than that. If it makes you feel better, you win the "I know more about muskets" pissing contest, but I'll stick with the assumption that 15th-17th century style hand guns in small D&D-type melee skirmish affairs are slow, unwieldy, inaccurate and mostly useless.