Quote from: noisms;584992As far as I'm aware, gunpowder weapons were extremely inaccurate until the invention of the rifle

Look, I don't care if you think gunpowder weapons were extremeley inaccurate or not, nor do I care how you define it.  

But a PC should be able to use a non-rifled musket to shoot an opponent pretty accurately in the types of distances PCs usually fight if you're using a historical basis.  

The problem with a musket tends to be the relatively long loading time.  But even before breech loading or repeating rifles, a well trained soldier could fire between four and six times per minute (between 10 seconds to 15 seconds per round).  

Also from Wikipedia:

Quote"With the heaviest bows [a modern warbow archer] does not like to try for more than six a minute."

There is a whole accepted history about firearms in RPGs that's mostly false.  

Now, I don't make any claim to be an expert - and I don't usually use firearms in RPGs, but when I do, they should usually be a viable weapon choice for PCs.  Because some PCs like the idea of using guns.

Quote from: noisms;585354I 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.

And it's a fairly good assumption:  Arquebus.

Of course, basing an argument about pre-Renaissance firearms on a musket or the M1 Garand or whatever is a special form of unsmart.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585385Now, I don't make any claim to be an expert - and I don't usually use firearms in RPGs, but when I do, they should usually be a viable weapon choice for PCs.  Because some PCs like the idea of using guns.

If that's the basis for your argument, then fine.

Quote from: StormBringer;585421And it's a fairly good assumption:  Arquebus.

Of course, basing an argument about pre-Renaissance firearms on a musket or the M1 Garand or whatever is a special form of unsmart.

Do you even read the things you post links to?  

The Arquebus is a smoothbore longarm firearms, like a musket.  The musket is a heavier version of the arquebus, designed to fire a heavier shot with more powder at higher velocity in order to penetrate thicker armor.  The two weapons existed simultaneously, and initially the distinction between them was pretty vague.  

This is from the musket:

Quote from: WikipediaBy the 16th century the handheld firearm became commonplace, replacing the crossbow and longbow in all advanced armies, and known as the arquebus. Most infantry were pikemen who normally wore some armour, especially the front ranks, and gave protection against cavalry to the arquebusiers. The rise of firearms led to thicker and heavier armour, from 15 kg in the 15th century to 25 kg in the late 16th century.[12] Armour 2 mm thick required 2.9 times as much energy to defeat it as armour 1 mm thick.[13] The need to defeat armour gave rise to the musket proper referring to a heavier weapon, firing a heavier shot, which had to balance on a rest. The initial role of the musket was as a specialist armour piercing weapon; it therefore coexisted with the arquebus over the period c. 1550 – c. 1650.

The Renaissance may be dated to as early as the 13th century in Florence (the writings of Dante), but 1401 is a popularly accepted date.  For myself personally, I like to use the fall of Constantinople as a handy reference point - I think that it is the cornerstone on which the Age of Exploration is built.  That's 1453.  So let's look at firearms in 1453, shall we?  

The first major use of the arquebus in a military formation dates to 1458.  That'd be five years after the Renaissance even using my 'Johnny-come-lately' dating scheme.  

Handcannons - the predecessor of the Arquebus, continued to be the dominant firearm in Europe until the mid 15th century.  

So, basically, pre-Renaissance firearms include the Hand-cannon.  Post-Renaissance firearms include the arquebus and musket - the musket essentially being a larger and more powerful version of the same weapon designed to defeat armor.  

Both weapons were effective at shooting 'small' targets, like you might do while hunting.  If you can use a weapon for hunting deer, you can pretty much trust that you can use it to shoot humans at sufficient range to make it an effective weapon in D&D style combats.

Now, I understand that it doesn't fit in every world, and I don't object to that.  But the 'game version' of early firearms are often much worse than those weapons are in real-life.  Swords and bows compare favorably to pretty much everything else because designers want to encourage their use, and discourage firearms.  

If your campaign supports firearms, there's plenty of ways to do them better than any edition of D&D without being untrue to the historical material.  If you care.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585592Do you even read the things you post links to?

I don't read the things you post anymore, no.  It's almost always you making a hasty mistake to show everyone how smart you are, only to end up flailing around trying to backpedal, move goalposts, and weasel-word your way to 'victory' to protect your fragile ego.  I am guessing you are like this in real life, but a couple of fists to the mouth taught you to keep it on the internet.

Because once again, you assume your amazingly retarded preferences should be some kind of axiom of game design, and the only thing you are arguing is for everyone to agree with you.

You like firearms in your game?  Fine.  Now shut the fuck up about it.

Quote from: StormBringer;585603You like firearms in your game?  Fine.  Now shut the fuck up about it.

No.  I don't like firearms in my game.  I don't think it fits a fantasy setting most of the time.  I pointed that out, earlier.

I also don't think it's 'bad/wrong/unfun' if people choose to include firearms.  But if people do choose to include firearms, I think it's worth discussing how they should be represented in game terms.  

Penalties to attack rolls, unreasonably long loading times, excessive chances of backfiring - these are all common ways used to 'nerf' firearms beyond their historical limitations.  And that's fine if you do it deliberately, but most people do that because they misunderstand those limitations.  

Now, obviously firearms have a pretty extensive history - without specifying exactly what we're talking about it can get murky.  But in general, firearms are pretty accurate - at least at the distances a typical party will use them.  Modern pistols are usually only accurate to within 50 yards (150 feet).  But even when wielding a longbow, most of my D&D fights happen well within that range.  30-50 feet would be pretty generous, and the pistols tend to be pretty accurate within that range (provided that the shooter is skilled).  It doesn't matter how accurate the weapon is if the person wielding it is a bad shot.

I don't have a dog in te firearm fight, and know very little about the accuracy of muskets in different periodsof history, but do we have a better source on this than wikipedia. Not challenging your assertion DeadDM, but I have been burned by wikipedia too many times.

I don't need anyone to believe me.  If they care, they can research the topic on their own.  Simply put, I don't mind if people choose to make firearms less effective than they were historically, but it's easy to be mistaken on the topic.  

Most importantly, when people refer to 'primitive firearms' being 'inaccurate', that is usually compared to 'modern firearms'.  

If people want to accurately reflect the nature of the weapons, it bears some independent research.  I can point you to plenty of different places to look, but if you don't care for firearms, it hardly matters.  

Here's one:
http://www.renaissance-spell.com/Renaissance-Weapons.html

QuoteThe science of artillery and handguns had made considerable progress during the Renaissance. Weapons like the arquebus and the caliver replaced the bow, due to their accuracy and penetrating power, coupled with their rate of fire. However, the change did not come easy, and throughout the 16th Century there was an obstinate struggle between the arrow and the bullet. The advocates of the first had a clear advantage on the side of eloquence and ingenuity; but in the field, the "shot" made a steady advance, and the Bow, that weapon which had decided victories from the beginning of the world, and of late had constantly won them almost single-handed, was driven from the battlefield.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585616And that's fine if you do it deliberately, but most people do that because they misunderstand those limitations.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585625I don't need anyone to believe me.  If they  care, they can research the topic on their own.  Simply put, I don't  mind if people choose to make firearms less effective than they were  historically, but it's easy to be mistaken on the topic.  

No one gives two shits about your OCD, either.

And the best way to win the "I don't always have to be right" discussion isn't pointing out how you always have to be right.

Huh?  

Noism posted something I see commonly that I addressed in the context of the thread at hand.  He essentially asked a clarifying question (why this tactic if the weapons were accurate) so I explained that.  

You then jumped in to claim that the basis of my claim is entirely with late 18th century weapons (ie, Revolutionary War onward) and I pointed out that the weapons I was referring to predate that period significantly.  

I never made a claim that I don't need to be right.  At least, not until now.  But if I happen to be right, of course I'll defend my assertion.  Especially for gamers that are interested in historical accuracy/simulation, having the basis for emulating real things via game rules is important.  

In my games, based off of 3rd edition, it takes 3 rounds to load a firearm.  That's 18 seconds.  They're still best as a single shot before switching to other weapons.  We happen to be using firearms because we're playing a Pirates themed campaign.  They're an important part of the setting (and this is a low-level game) so they're good for the initial salvo and then switching to a melee weapon.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585592Both weapons were effective at shooting 'small' targets, like you might do while hunting.  If you can use a weapon for hunting deer, you can pretty much trust that you can use it to shoot humans at sufficient range to make it an effective weapon in D&D style combats.

I call bullshit on this, I'm afraid. Hunting a deer involves waiting patiently for hours, sneaking around in the undergrowth to get downwind, carefully lining up a shot, and then shooting. Basically, acting as a sniper. This is not the same things as trying to shoot somebody who knows you are trying to shoot them and, by the way, is coming after you with an axe.

I've seen an arquebus. It is long, heavy and unwieldy. You have to carry around a rope to shoot it with, and that rope has to be continuously burning to be used properly. Once fired, you have to fiddle around with the thing while you reload it, during which time you are totally exposed. I don't accept it would be a suitable weapon for adventuring with or fighting with in a D&D skirmish.

If you're so keen on realism, you need to incorporate some pretty heavy modifiers on the usage of the things.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585625I don't need anyone to believe me.  If they care, they can research the topic on their own.  Simply put, I don't mind if people choose to make firearms less effective than they were historically, but it's easy to be mistaken on the topic.  

I am really not trying to argue against you here. What you say sounds quite reasonable. But just for the purpose of forming a conclusion I don't consider poster-on-the-internet+wikipedia a reliable way to go. So I was wondering if you had a better source.

Firearms in a fantasy setting do not have to follow the same technical evolution as they did in our world. This is why I use 'smokepowder' (an alchemical substance) and not gunpowder (a chemical substance) in my games. Gunpowder would not work if brought from our world to the fantasy setting. Though the caps would still function. I also use special quartz crystals that transmit a piezoelectric charge from one end to the other when struck by a metal object. Piezoelectric charges are a real world thing. But the crystals behave in a slightly non-real manner. So you end up with muzzle loading firearms that use hammers which fall onto the special quartz crystals. Not  a type of firearms that has ever nor could ever exist in our world.

But if you don't like firearms, don't use them. I would recommend not saying they can be used and then putting so many convoluted hurdles in the way that they will just frustrate and annoy a player. Just ban the darn things.

Quote from: noisms;585731I call bullshit on this, I'm afraid.

No, it's not.  I was specifically addressing your concerns about the accuracy of the weapon.  Ie, you can use it to hit a specific target.  

As far as the disadvantages of the weapon, they tend to be very similar to the disadvantages of a crossbow.  It takes a long time to load, and while you're loading (and firing), you're vulnerable to people in melee.  

Clearly, it's a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon.  If your opponents are within reach, it would not be a good choice.  

But if your enemies are approaching, you could use it.  If your enemies are engaged with an ally, you could use it.  If you're standing atop a tower and repelling invaders, you could use it.  

Pretty much every situation you could use a bow or crossbow, you could use a firearm.  

I don't want to pretend that firearms were a perfect weapon - they had many disadvantages.  But the way some gamers talk about the superiority of the longbow, you'd think firearms would never have taken hold.  The longbow has a number of disadvantages that aren't well represented in most RPGs - particularly that even skilled warriors often needed special and extensive training to use a longbow effectively.  Making longbows Exotic Weapons (and firearms simple weapons) would address most of the historical advantages and disadvantages.

That said, a arquebus or a musket should be about as effective in your RPG as a crossbow if not moreso.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;585737No, it's not.  I was specifically addressing your concerns about the accuracy of the weapon.  Ie, you can use it to hit a specific target.  

As far as the disadvantages of the weapon, they tend to be very similar to the disadvantages of a crossbow.  It takes a long time to load, and while you're loading (and firing), you're vulnerable to people in melee.  

Clearly, it's a ranged weapon, not a melee weapon.  If your opponents are within reach, it would not be a good choice.  

But if your enemies are approaching, you could use it.  If your enemies are engaged with an ally, you could use it.  If you're standing atop a tower and repelling invaders, you could use it.  

Pretty much every situation you could use a bow or crossbow, you could use a firearm.  

I don't want to pretend that firearms were a perfect weapon - they had many disadvantages.  But the way some gamers talk about the superiority of the longbow, you'd think firearms would never have taken hold.  The longbow has a number of disadvantages that aren't well represented in most RPGs - particularly that even skilled warriors often needed special and extensive training to use a longbow effectively.  Making longbows Exotic Weapons (and firearms simple weapons) would address most of the historical advantages and disadvantages.

That said, a arquebus or a musket should be about as effective in your RPG as a crossbow if not moreso.

There is an old saying, "If you want  a great archer, begin with the grandfather."

The crossbow comparison is valid. I also make firearms Simple weapons. They are no more mechanically complex than a heavy crossbow.