In late-medieval fantasy, there should actually be guns. Cannons and personal guns were already in use in the 15th century. Thus, Lion & Dragon, for example, has guns (as does Dark Albion).
And yet there's a big sort of tradition in most fantasy games not to have them.
I'm okay with period appropriate firearms in a 15th century setting.
I'm less inclined to like firearms in a setting based on earlier time periods.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1022008In late-medieval fantasy, there should actually be guns. Cannons and personal guns were already in use in the 15th century. Thus, Lion & Dragon, for example, has guns (as does Dark Albion).
And yet there's a big sort of tradition in most fantasy games not to have them.
No I don't, and I blame America's fascination with firearms as the god weapon. Also, by the time a usable pistol came into existence, the sword was on its way out as a battlefield weapon, if it ever was, given all the historical aficionados claiming it sucks as a personal weapon.
Usually no, occasionally, I'm fine with them as a change of pace. Either have them and make them useful, or don't bother, is my motto.
We are using them in the current campaign because some of the players had been clamoring for them for some time. When the campaign started, we put it to a vote. The "Yea" votes barely won. The "Nay" advocates argued that I'd have the opposition make good use of gunpowder. I have. :cool:
I enjoy having guns in medieval fantasy (especially if it is late medieval or ancient to early but obviously anachronistic).
Usually no. But an artist friend of mine wayyyyyy back did a really nice conversion that added some firearms for the 2e D&D system for his setting. Gorgeous airbrush art.
Done in moderation it can be ok. Early firearms were not all that great and relatively slow unless the user had practiced well, and even then the early ones are fickle. Theres at least two articles on it in Dragon and I think one in Space Gamer, which also did an article for adding firearms to Melee/Wizard.
Depends on the setting. In Old World, they're integral part of the setting, but would feel really out of place in my current D&D campaign. What I don't like is gunpowder weapons as some super-rare ancient tech, or the Conneticut Yankee -style gonzoness. If there are flintlocks, there should also be orcs with flintlocks.
If the firearms have appropriate expense and reliability, sure.
The reason I have a kneejerk reaction against gunpowder in fantasy is too many years of gamers wanting "firearms in D&D" to mean M16s and M1911A1s.
I'm okay with stuff like flintlocks, wheel lock pistols, cannons and the like particularly if the adventure takes place at sea aboard a ship.
I like them when genre appropriate. For example, there are somewhat advanced firearms in Radiance d20 due to magic. Radiance has a Victorian feel with Electro Tech, Steam Tech, and Magic Tech.
No. Firearms don't fit in with the fantasy medieval settings/stories I like to emulate.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022094If the firearms have appropriate expense and reliability, sure.
The reason I have a kneejerk reaction against gunpowder in fantasy is too many years of gamers wanting "firearms in D&D" to mean M16s and M1911A1s.
If the orcs have AK 47's , it might be worth it. For a short campaign. Once.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2180[/ATTACH]
Quote from: RPGPundit;1022008In late-medieval fantasy, there should actually be guns. Cannons and personal guns were already in use in the 15th century. Thus, Lion & Dragon, for example, has guns (as does Dark Albion).
And yet there's a big sort of tradition in most fantasy games not to have them.
Only if it is well done. Iron Kingdoms and their Gun Mage comes immediately to mind.
The problem for me is that the vast majority of combat systems that are derived from D&D are functional for fantasy Swords and Sorcery, but just don't model the damage done with firearms very well. It gets really bad when you try to use that combat system in a science fiction setting, as I discovered with Traveller20 and d20 Star Wars.
Quote from: jeff37923;1022135Only if it is well done. Iron Kingdoms and their Gun Mage comes immediately to mind.
The problem for me is that the vast majority of combat systems that are derived from D&D are functional for fantasy Swords and Sorcery, but just don't model the damage done with firearms very well. It gets really bad when you try to use that combat system in a science fiction setting, as I discovered with Traveller20 and d20 Star Wars.
I liked d20 Star Wars RCR that used Health and Vitality, where Health was your Constitution score and Vitality worked like Hit Points. A critical hit did damage directly to Health, bypassing Vitality which means one lucky shot from a Stormtrooper could give you a very bad day.
Quote from: Krimson;1022137I liked d20 Star Wars RCR that used Health and Vitality, where Health was your Constitution score and Vitality worked like Hit Points. A critical hit did damage directly to Health, bypassing Vitality which means one lucky shot from a Stormtrooper could give you a very bad day.
See, that is my hang-up. It shouldn't require a critical hit/lucky shot. Guns are more deadly than that. It should be coming directly off the Vitality score to emulate the Star Wars genre, IMHO.
I had an instance where running the RCR d20 Star Wars game where a PC deliberately fell on top of a grenade to save his fellow players because he thought he had enough Health and Vitality to survive the blast. Otherwise, he would not have tried it and got very irate when I told him his character was dead.
Quote from: jeff37923;1022142See, that is my hang-up. It shouldn't require a critical hit/lucky shot. Guns are more deadly than that. It should be coming directly off the Vitality score to emulate the Star Wars genre, IMHO.
I had an instance where running the RCR d20 Star Wars game where a PC deliberately fell on top of a grenade to save his fellow players because he thought he had enough Health and Vitality to survive the blast. Otherwise, he would not have tried it and got very irate when I told him his character was dead.
When I want a higher level of realism from gunfire, I play Phoenix Command. For a game about Space Wizards, I'm not so picky.
Quote from: Krimson;1022147When I want a higher level of realism from gunfire, I play Phoenix Command. For a game about Space Wizards, I'm not so picky.
That's cool. WEG d6 Star Wars hits the sweet spot for me with science fantasy.
Quote from: jeff37923;1022148That's cool. WEG d6 Star Wars hits the sweet spot for me with science fantasy.
A couple of years back I printed up nearly 3000 pages of material from d6 Holocron during a Lulu sale. I don't mind WEG Star Wars, but from personal experience I had the most fun when I ran d20 RCR.
Back to the OP, firearms existed in the medieval period, especially where it crossed over with the Renaissance and Age of Exploration periods. The latter Age of Exploration is probably a good compromise for those who want boom sticks but also like swords. I really have no issues, especially in D&D 5e where there is no Rate of Fire and as such Firearms really don't work much different than bows or crossbows.
I prefer not to have them in my fantasy games. At will cantrips fill the same niche.
Not in the settings that I usually run, which have tech ranging from the age of migrations/viking period to perhaps the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. I have never run an early firearms setting, although I ran an Old West setting with early modern firearms. I would not mind guns in a later setting.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1022184Not in the settings that I usually run, which have tech ranging from the age of migrations/viking period to perhaps the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. I have never run an early firearms setting, although I ran an Old West setting with early modern firearms. I would not mind guns in a later setting.
^This. My game is set pretty much right there. Plate armor is just coming into the picture, but few blacksmiths/armorers can make it, so it's rare and exceedingly expensive. As for guns, I don't like or want them in my fantasy game, so they're simply not there. That doesn't necessarily mean black powder isn't though...
My current setting has a couple of nations/factions with flintlock weapons, and the isolationist dungeon-punk underdwellers have bolt-action rifles. PCs always seem to be more chary of bandits/guards with guns than they do your run-of-the-mill spear-and-shield dudes.
I had them in my first game since I was using The Fantasy Trip: In The Labyrinth, which has the arquebus, blunderbus, grenade and petard on the weapon table. However they're also unreliable (mainly due to a made-up setting detail about the atmosphere) and expensive and were usually pretty rare (gunpowder is made from dragon dung) in our games.
I didn't really mind their limited roles in that setting. They provided variety and were less common, less versatile, and usually less effective than magic.
However, I really dislike the tropes I've seen pop up in some fantasy games where goblins and dwarves and/or gnomes are some sort of fantastic steampunk geniuses and may have guns, bombs, machineguns, vehicles, airships, and other wacky nonsense gadgets.
Er, except in Bungie's Myth setting, where that's about all that dwarves do, is be clumsy explosives maniacs, because I thought they pulled off a good job of it that was charming and chaotic and unreliable, and the care they put into designing an interesting and self-consistent tactical environment didn't just seem like wacky nonsense to me.
I usually do not include gunpowder (or at least not guns, or not very effective guns) in my homebrew fantasy-medieval settings (because overall no, I don't particularly like them).
Quote from: RPGPundit;1022008In late-medieval fantasy, there should actually be guns. Cannons and personal guns were already in use in the 15th century. Thus, Lion & Dragon, for example, has guns (as does Dark Albion).
And yet there's a big sort of tradition in most fantasy games not to have them.
In medieval fantasy, no, thank you. I don't have the patience to explain first that guns work like in real life, and then to explain that guns aren't magic death wands and armour actually does its job:).
In a game based on the late Middle Ages, yes. In fact, they'd be nearly mandatory;).
For early Middle Ages, of course, the question is no longer actual.
I wouldn't mind so much playing in a setting with early firearms but the rules for how well they work in the rain, how often they blow up and maim the shooter and so forth would add more crunch, although I don't mind crunch.
Also I have had very little experience with swords and none with spells, so I find them interesting. I have been shot and I have shot people and, while I can't say the whole thing is boring, I don't need to play it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1022008In late-medieval fantasy, there should actually be guns. Cannons and personal guns were already in use in the 15th century. Thus, Lion & Dragon, for example, has guns (as does Dark Albion).
And yet there's a big sort of tradition in most fantasy games not to have them.
For general fantasy, I don't like them.
For certain historical periods, they are fine.
I prefer earlier periods, anyway.
14th century "hand cannons" are hilarious. You've got an iron tube tied to a stick and you're trying to stick a tiny hot wire in a hole while a band of knights charges you.
Hinchcliffe used to make a "hand cannon" figure. The look of terror on his face was wonderful.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;102228814th century "hand cannons" are hilarious. You've got an iron tube tied to a stick and you're trying to stick a tiny hot wire in a hole while a band of knights charges you.
Hinchcliffe used to make a "hand cannon" figure. The look of terror on his face was wonderful.
As in?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alsd3JBc88U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alsd3JBc88U)
Or like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KTS8PQ06Qo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KTS8PQ06Qo)
Quote from: chirine ba kal;1022295As in?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alsd3JBc88U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alsd3JBc88U)
Exactly!
But they're cheating a) by using a cigar instead of a hot wire and b) by having an assistant.
Didn't either you or I have some of those Hinchcliffe figures?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022305Exactly!
But they're cheating a) by using a cigar instead of a hot wire and b) by having an assistant.
Didn't either you or I have some of those Hinchcliffe figures?
You did. I had the kneeling and praying bombard crew.
Well personally I can go ether way it's more of A setting dependent thing for me.
Though in the setting I am currently working on I keep bouncing back and forth on how advanced the fire arms should get initially I thought of having hand cannons, matchlocks ,flint locks ,percussion and break action shell guns.
I keep adding and subtraction break actions because I keep wondering if I can justify them not being the only firearm in production. You see the world hasn't had an industrial revolution and I keep woundering if that fact alone (and cost) is enough to justify the idea that older tech stays around and reasonably common to be made new.
Two games where guns are well integrated with swords-and-maybe-some-sorcery is The Fantasy Trip and Flashing Blades. I can't think of any others that did it particularly well. For some reason game designers get a bit stuck in their own heads when they confront the issue of getting stats and so forth worked out. If you've ever visited a 16th or 17th century armory you realize they were ubiquitous and effective parts of late medieval armament, but were just part of a mix of battlefield gear. Games tend to either approach them as exactly equivalent to a bow, which seems wrong and pointless, or to give them some sort of severe handicap that makes them unusable in play. I feel like the TFT Arquebus and Blunderbus rules get the balance about right.
I'm not sure what these most games are. But whether I include firearms depends on the setting.
Some fantasy has gunpowder or the equivalent. Some doesn't. Tolkien had Saruman's orcs using an explosive to breach the wall at Helm's Deep. But I don't recall ever seeing gunpowder in an original Conan story. Howard seemed to leave that for other some of his other pulp heroes like Solomon Kane. D&D could include gunpowder or firearms (I think Chainmail included stats for bombards and the Brown Box rules mentioned John Carter of Mars which included a range of cannons and radium rifles and pistols. Dwarfs in Glorantha have firearms and cannon. There's even a Cannon Cult. And games with Cape & Sword settings like Flashing Blades or Honor+Intrigue will include firearms.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;1022310You did. I had the kneeling and praying bombard crew.
Right! Including the guy with the match holder who was turning his face away and shielding it with his hand!
I loved both those sets of figures.
One of the better sets of gun rules I've run across was for 1E AD+D, simply because the weapon vs. armor type table is a perfect way to deal with the fact that the main advantage of guns is that at short range they'll punch through armor no other weapon will easily penetrate. I'm positive I've seen such a table, but for the life of me I can't find it. Maybe it appeared in an issue of The Dragon I'm forgetting?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022395Right! Including the guy with the match holder who was turning his face away and shielding it with his hand!
I loved both those sets of figures.
If it's the set I am thinking of I may have seen it once and they where pretty cool.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022015the sword was on its way out as a battlefield weapon, if it ever was, given all the historical aficionados claiming it sucks as a personal weapon.
I think those claims are nonsense.
Yeah. The notion of thousands of warriors over the centuries carrying an ineffective weapon just to show off makes no sense to me.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022669Yeah. The notion of thousands of warriors over the centuries carrying an ineffective weapon just to show off makes no sense to me.
And yet, there are videos upon essays, proving that swords are useless against chain and then plate harness, or that swords were somehow 'status' weapons.
For the record, I'm not disparaging or disagreeing any of the claims, I simply, honestly, don't know enough about that subject to make any sort of claim. But those who point out that the sword as a sidearm actively being used, simply because it's been so prevalent and was refined when the armour technology changed the dynamic of war have a very good point.
When it comes to war, humans tend to discard everything that isn't efficient at the job of murdering the other person and protecting oneself against being murdered. That's what I believe puts us at the top of the food chain, we are among the efficient killers of this world.
Anyway, that's the end of this derail from me.
I've already stated why I personally do not like firearms in a Fantasy setting.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022682And yet, there are videos upon essays, proving that swords are useless against chain and then plate harness, or that swords were somehow 'status' weapons.
They still work fine on peasants and people who can't afford chainmail. Not to mention you can still stab dinner with them and fend off the local wildlife.
Quote from: Krimson;1022831They still work fine on peasants and people who can't afford chainmail. Not to mention you can still stab dinner with them and fend off the local wildlife.
And yet we have treatises and evidence of them being weapons of skill. Because, frankly, spears are better at both keeping the rabble away and catching dinner, as well as having the added advantage of being relatively easy to use compared to a sword.
Not to mention, a sword is difficult to make and uses a lot of metal, while any decent blacksmith can manage a spear or an axe.
It just doesn't make sense to carry a weapon that's not useful.
Of course, we now have things like cutting tests, where somebody with an arming sword cut a deer carcass in half with one swing, right through the ribcage and spine.
My personal contention has always been that if there was "one perfect weapon," everybody would be using it. Since a wide variety of weapons remained in use, we can assume that they were all useful in some way.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022094If the firearms have appropriate expense and reliability, sure.
The reason I have a kneejerk reaction against gunpowder in fantasy is too many years of gamers wanting "firearms in D&D" to mean M16s and M1911A1s.
Exactly this. I want my fantasy blackpowder weapons to be janky and dangerous to victims, risky to wielders and expensive to purchase and operate.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022094The reason I have a kneejerk reaction against gunpowder in fantasy is too many years of gamers wanting "firearms in D&D" to mean M16s and M1911A1s.
Or in our case, as 13-year-olds, M1928A1 Thompson submachineguns - in the hands of our "Planet of the Apes" gorilla characters raiding the Keep on the Borderland. We did some goofy, random stuff on summer break.
Quote from: tenbones;1022862Exactly this. I want my fantasy blackpowder weapons to be janky and dangerous to victims, risky to wielders and expensive to purchase and operate.
Agreed. I liked WFRP's blackpowder weapons, but otherwise don't tend to include them in my medieval fantasy games.
This thread has made me think about doing so again, though, just for the added danger-fun of "well, it might blow up in your face, but won't it look cool?"
I don't think I've ever played in a fantasy rpg where there were blackpowder weapons, unless you count GW's Warhammer Quest's Witchhunter. I guess it depends on the setting, for some I could be ok with it, but for something like Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance type worlds, probably not.
I had to get my players into Spelljammer before they came to love the smoke-powder.
My inclination would be wildly inaccurate, but hit like a ton of bricks if you hit -- like, 6 or 8 dice of damage in D&D terms. But even in the Napoleonic era, musket fire was inaccurate past 60 yards at formed bodies of troops, never mind individuals. And that was with a weapon held against the shoulder and sighted down the barrel; if you look at the first video Chirine linked, you see what a 14th century hand gonne was like -- a tube tied to a stick that you tucked UNDER your arm and aimed in the general direction of the bad guys. And you had to stick a hot wire into the touchhole yourself.
Also, note what happens in the video to the cigar in the first firing test. You don't want to get your hand, or your face, too close to the touchhole.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022893Also, note what happens in the video to the cigar in the first firing test. You don't want to get your hand, or your face, too close to the touchhole.
And you know what I also saw? A pair of veterans very comfortable with their weapon. Even a touch cavalier. Which in turn is much more realistic than the miniature you guys went on about. Humans get confident and then complacent after doing a task repeatedly.
So personally, as I know of the mini you guys were talking about are only representative of green troopers firing the thing for the first time. After the 10th, they'd be comfortable with it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1022008In late-medieval fantasy, there should actually be guns. Cannons and personal guns were already in use in the 15th century. Thus, Lion & Dragon, for example, has guns (as does Dark Albion).
And yet there's a big sort of tradition in most fantasy games not to have them.
Sure. Why not. Sci-fi has laser swords after all.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022907And you know what I also saw? A pair of veterans very comfortable with their weapon. Even a touch cavalier. Which in turn is much more realistic than the miniature you guys went on about. Humans get confident and then complacent after doing a task repeatedly.
So personally, as I know of the mini you guys were talking about are only representative of green troopers firing the thing for the first time. After the 10th, they'd be comfortable with it.
Yeah, overlooking the fact that it was modern metal, modern fabrication techniques, modern black powder, modern ball... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022893But even in the Napoleonic era, musket fire was inaccurate past 60 yards at formed bodies of troops, never mind individuals.
There is some evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing) that most troops in that period actually aimed away from the enemy.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022910Yeah, overlooking the fact that it was modern metal, modern fabrication techniques, modern black powder, modern ball... :rolleyes:
In an age of chemistry and post-Newtonian physics so the principles are well understood rather than mysterious.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022910Yeah, overlooking the fact that it was modern metal, modern fabrication techniques, modern black powder, modern ball... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bren;1022955There is some evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing) that most troops in that period actually aimed away from the enemy.
In an age of chemistry and post-Newtonian physics so the principles are well understood rather than mysterious.
I'm sorry, are you both saying that experienced soldiers were ALWAYS scared and flinched when using these admittedly rather dangerous weapons? That NOT ONE would swing it around like a giant penis?
Have you ever met real people? I'm sorry, but humans do some REALLY stupid shit once they get into a routine, like say smoke at a gas station while pumping gas into their car. And get away with it for their entire lives (as in live until old age.)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022958I'm sorry, are you both saying that experienced soldiers were ALWAYS scared and flinched when using these admittedly rather dangerous weapons?
No. I am not.
I'm saying the guys in that video have never seen a companion maimed or killed by an exploding hand cannon. And I've talked to plenty of veterans who were ALWAYS VERY careful with live hand grenades.
Nowadays, you can be stupider. I don't know if 14th century gonners were ALWAYS nervous, but I bet more were than not.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022907So personally, as I know of the mini you guys were talking about are only representative of green troopers firing the thing for the first time. After the 10th, they'd be comfortable with it.
The miniature bombard crew was intended as a joke and for comic affect, the sculptor told me. They looked amusing on the table, and that's why I have them. I didn't think they were representative of anything in particular when I painted them up, and still don't; I just get laughs from people who see them.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;1022977The miniature bombard crew was intended as a joke and for comic affect, the sculptor told me. They looked amusing on the table, and that's why I have them. I didn't think they were representative of anything in particular when I painted them up, and still don't; I just get laughs from people who see them.
I will grant that. They were amusing, yes. I just don't think they're representative of Gonne vets. :)
Weeeel, watch videos of Civil War reenactors doing artillery. They aren't cowering in terror, granted, but they are VERY careful. Those things bite.
My whole point is that using a 14th century hand gonne is NOT like loading up a .38 Police Special and blazing away.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023268Weeeel, watch videos of Civil War reenactors doing artillery. They aren't cowering in terror, granted, but they are VERY careful. Those things bite.
My whole point is that using a 14th century hand gonne is NOT like loading up a .38 Police Special and blazing away.
I don't think anyone was arguing that. The issue I've found (again, anecdote) is the American culture of guns being the ultimate super-killer quickly turns most fantasy into shoot outs with massive, unrealistic damage.
But for D&D, no one would use Gonne's when you can get Wands of Damage that don't jam, misfire or otherwise fail. Also, keeping gunpowder 'safe' is a near impossibility when you have people who can heat metal or set fires from a distance.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023274I don't think anyone was arguing that. The issue I've found (again, anecdote) is the American culture of guns being the ultimate super-killer quickly turns most fantasy into shoot outs with massive, unrealistic damage.
But for D&D, no one would use Gonne's when you can get Wands of Damage that don't jam, misfire or otherwise fail. Also, keeping gunpowder 'safe' is a near impossibility when you have people who can heat metal or set fires from a distance.
I dunno. Anecdotally I don't think this is true. I've run a *LOT* of D&D with gunpowder in my games, and it has never happened where any dilution of the fantasy elements happened. Though when I first thought about allowing them I was skeptical for those reason. It simply turned out to not be the case, ever. In fact like the second part of your statement (which directly goes against the first claim) - that's exactly what happened for good reasons.
1) Smokepowder is easily controlled in manufacture, distribution, and care within D&D.
2) Powder-weapons are not easily found or made
3) They're expensive to own and operate
4) Depending on what edition you're using - it might be prohibitive to become skilled at where using a bow, crossbow, etc. isn't simply easier.
And then there's magic items and spells.
At most it's a curio unless you're going to make it big part of your fantasy game. Which as I mentioned, the production is easily controlled. So are the evolutionary modifications that would ultimately always benefit the PC's that put their time/effort into such endeavors. Controlling the scalability of smokepowder weapons should be an assumed conceit before having them in your game. It's not that hard.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023274But for D&D, no one would use Gonne's when you can get Wands of Damage that don't jam, misfire or otherwise fail. Also, keeping gunpowder 'safe' is a near impossibility when you have people who can heat metal or set fires from a distance.
Do you have any arguments against guns that don't also apply to anything else a fighter might carry? "Oh no! Someone might cast fireball and detonate your powder horn! Or the evil priest might cast heat metal on your gun and set it off prematurely!" Well, gosh, I guess I'll just have to use a longbow. It's not like that shit isn't flammable. If I get hit by a fireball, I won't have to worry about snapping a bow string. I guess I won't wear armor though in case I run into that metal heating guy. People would use a gun instead of a Wand of Damage for the same reason they use bows, crossbows, javelins, or fucking pointy rocks on a stick.
In action fiction, a hero with a sword can fight a bunch of nobodies with swords. The hero takes some scratches but the nobodies get cut down or run through with one blow. No problem. The sword does 1d8 damage which is enough to kill the typical goon with d6 hit points but only inconvenience the fighter with 5d10 hit points. That's perfectly fine.
Oh, but when they have guns, it's totally different. The bad guys get taken down instantly with one shot while the hero gets grazed on the shoulder and keeps on going with only a minor stain on his shirt. We need all new mega-damage rules to handle these magic death sticks!
Oh, but guns can shoot really fast! If you had a pistol like a 1911 and proper training, you could get off 2 or 3 good shots in one round for d8 damage EACH! That's the kind of godlike power that only a wizard or an archer should have. That's much more reasonable because archers are limited by the fact that they need to use both hands.
If you don't get carried away with the magic death wand nonsense, a decent pistol in D&D is basically a short-ranged longbow that you can use with one hand and you can carry it through doorways without worrying about which way you're holding it.
Wow, that's a non sequitur.
And anybody who puts an M1911A1 into a D&D game deserves whatever happens.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023343Wow, that's a non sequitur.
And anybody who puts an M1911A1 into a D&D game deserves whatever happens.
What exactly do you think would happen?
Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342Do you have any arguments against guns that don't also apply to anything else a fighter might carry? "Oh no! Someone might cast fireball and detonate your powder horn! Or the evil priest might cast heat metal on your gun and set it off prematurely!" Well, gosh, I guess I'll just have to use a longbow. It's not like that shit isn't flammable. If I get hit by a fireball, I won't have to worry about snapping a bow string. I guess I won't wear armor though in case I run into that metal heating guy. People would use a gun instead of a Wand of Damage for the same reason they use bows, crossbows, javelins, or fucking pointy rocks on a stick.
Longbows don't explode hitting multiple targets when set on fire.
Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342In action fiction, a hero with a sword can fight a bunch of nobodies with swords. The hero takes some scratches but the nobodies get cut down or run through with one blow. No problem. The sword does 1d8 damage which is enough to kill the typical goon with d6 hit points but only inconvenience the fighter with 5d10 hit points. That's perfectly fine.
Very often, the Hero doesn't get visually touched. And if two experts of equal skill go off on each other, it's a lot of cool visual wiffing until one scores that lethal hit, which hit points model terribly in the modern consciousness in my experience, but guns? A random shot and you're out of the fight according to Hollywood, which is where most North American gamers derive their knowledge of weapons from.
Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342Oh, but when they have guns, it's totally different. The bad guys get taken down instantly with one shot while the hero gets grazed on the shoulder and keeps on going with only a minor stain on his shirt. We need all new mega-damage rules to handle these magic death sticks!
Incorrect in my experience, every player wants guns, but refuses to adventure or even play the game when they have to face bad guys with said weapons.
Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342Oh, but guns can shoot really fast! If you had a pistol like a 1911 and proper training, you could get off 2 or 3 good shots in one round for d8 damage EACH! That's the kind of godlike power that only a wizard or an archer should have. That's much more reasonable because archers are limited by the fact that they need to use both hands.
NO one, not even here has limited firearms to single dice of damage, always going on about how they should do 3d6 or some such, per shot. Thing is, real guns aren't that lethal. Yes, they can put down a man in a single shot, often do. But so do swords, axes, maces, sticks can and have. But that's not how they've been portrayed.
Quote from: Xúc xac;1023342If you don't get carried away with the magic death wand nonsense, a decent pistol in D&D is basically a short-ranged longbow that you can use with one hand and you can carry it through doorways without worrying about which way you're holding it.
You're perfectly right. A pistol would be at best, a Crossbow, with no need to reload per shot up to 12 times, depending on the weapon, doing 1d8. But most gamers in my experience flip at the idea that a ultimate KILLA does so 'little' damage.
But Hollywood has people falling over like tenpins in a hurricane whenever a firearm is brandished in the main hero's hand.
What makes Guns in a fantasy game a fantasy killer is how easy they are to use. Point, shoot and most people assume 'dead'. Takes five minutes of training, and makes most other classes moot, why bother with a sword, when a pistol (as per Gronan's fascination with the Colt .45ACP pistol) will do the same job faster?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023354Very often, the Hero doesn't get visually touched. And if two experts of equal skill go off on each other, it's a lot of cool visual wiffing until one scores that lethal hit, which hit points model terribly in the modern consciousness in my experience, but guns? A random shot and you're out of the fight according to Hollywood, which is where most North American gamers derive their knowledge of weapons from.
The best way I saw this dealt with was in d20 Star Wars, where instead of hit points you had Health and Vitality. Health was equal to your Constitution Score, and Vitality worked like the usual hit points. Vitality was deducted first UNLESS a critical hit was scored, in which case damage was applied directly to health. In that game, a heavy blaster did 2-3d8 or something like that and could very well one shot someone. Suddenly, when multiple stormtroopers are shooting at you and they are mathematically likely to roll a 20 in four or less rounds, they seem a lot scarier. That could easily be adapted to modern firearms because it's faster than pulling out Phoenix Command.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023354Incorrect in my experience, every player wants guns, but refuses to adventure or even play the game when they have to face bad guys with said weapons.
A good way to mitigate this is to not only give the bad guy guns, but throw in the odd nice one that the players can salivate over. Greed will overcome fear, it's just a matter of time.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023354NO one, not even here has limited firearms to single dice of damage, always going on about how they should do 3d6 or some such, per shot. Thing is, real guns aren't that lethal. Yes, they can put down a man in a single shot, often do. But so do swords, axes, maces, sticks can and have. But that's not how they've been portrayed.
My solution to this for old school D&D is to pull out the AD&D 1e DMG with the Boot Hill and Gamma World conversions. It's what I've always used. I like 5e. There's no rate of fire rule, so guns work like bows that are easier to carry and fire. Also, katanas are long swords. Players can just suck it up.
Remember hit points are an abstraction. Damage doesn't necessarily have to be from a direct hit. It could be a graze, or a near miss showering wall fragments on the character. Or being hit in a non vital area while pumped full of adrenaline. Or if you want hardcore damage, use Health and Vitality without Vitality. Your Constitution Score is you hit points and that's it forever. It's all math anyway, so you really just need to tweak the numbers until you get a casualty rate that you like.
Quote from: Krimson;1023362The best way I saw this dealt with was in d20 Star Wars, where instead of hit points you had Health and Vitality. Health was equal to your Constitution Score, and Vitality worked like the usual hit points. Vitality was deducted first UNLESS a critical hit was scored, in which case damage was applied directly to health. In that game, a heavy blaster did 2-3d8 or something like that and could very well one shot someone. Suddenly, when multiple stormtroopers are shooting at you and they are mathematically likely to roll a 20 in four or less rounds, they seem a lot scarier. That could easily be adapted to modern firearms because it's faster than pulling out Phoenix Command.
It was a clunky mechanic that confused a lot of people. Vitality should have been called 'Dodge Points', because that's what they do. Allows you to avoid damage, all it does. It's not very health oriented.
Quote from: Krimson;1023362A good way to mitigate this is to not only give the bad guy guns, but throw in the odd nice one that the players can salivate over. Greed will overcome fear, it's just a matter of time.
Not really. If there's ONE TIME people get hurt, they will refuse to do it again, just in case it happens again. Why do you think there's new safety regulations when someone gets hurt? Like how jungle gyms were considered dangerous, when they've been around for decades before.
Quote from: Krimson;1023362My solution to this for old school D&D is to pull out the AD&D 1e DMG with the Boot Hill and Gamma World conversions. It's what I've always used. I like 5e. There's no rate of fire rule, so guns work like bows that are easier to carry and fire. Also, katanas are long swords. Players can just suck it up.
And then you have players no longer invested in the game, and you all play something else together. Because RPGs are cooperative.
Quote from: Krimson;1023362Remember hit points are an abstraction. Damage doesn't necessarily have to be from a direct hit. It could be a graze, or a near miss showering wall fragments on the character. Or being hit in a non vital area while pumped full of adrenaline. Or if you want hardcore damage, use Health and Vitality without Vitality. Your Constitution Score is you hit points and that's it forever. It's all math anyway, so you really just need to tweak the numbers until you get a casualty rate that you like.
People know this intellectually, but in play, it never works out that way. In my experience.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022094If the firearms have appropriate expense and reliability, sure.
The reason I have a kneejerk reaction against gunpowder in fantasy is too many years of gamers wanting "firearms in D&D" to mean M16s and M1911A1s.
Same. I find it too often "The Camel Nose in the Tent." Very similar to Martial Arts fetishists. It's only a matter of time before the arguments begin from unrealistic expectations, and then afterward the wheedling and whinging for power creep.
And it is rarer than hen's teeth to see such fanatical players not metagame modern technological advancements, let alone attitudes, direct into early variants of these weapons. The second they can they ask about researching rifling, bullet casing, mass production, developing high grade steel, or act fearless of blowback, worry about stances, etc. It's sad and laughable at the same time. I usually ask if they'd rather play a kitchen sink game, like RIFTS, Torg, or GURPS w/o restrictions -- and if they say yes, ask them which of 'em is willing to step up and GM it.
It's just easier to say no and reserve it for a reward for players that seem like they can keep their fandom in check.
I think it's more of players wanting to deal out lots of damage at range, which puts players more out of harm's way- and guns do that. If you made guns do the same damage as other ranged weapons, I don't think it'd matter.
I have a flintlock muzzleloader. I enjoy the process of measuring powder, loading a patched ball, priming, firing, not seeing anything but a cloud of smoke- but it'd never be my choice for delving into a dungeon. Mostly because I'm a huge wimp and would stay away from such things.
Well, early firearms actually had worse range than longbows, so I'm not sure that "range" was the real factor.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1022667I think those claims are nonsense.
Swords are bad weapons compared to polearms, they've only been used as primary weapons paired with a shield and sometimes from horseback (or in very specialized roles such as two handed swords mixed into a pike formation). The reason why swords are ubiquitous throughout history is because they are great sidearms. They are light and easy to carry so when your primary weapon (a ranged weapon or a polearm) is broken or you're up too close to make effective use of it the sword is your backup. Swords are to polearms what pistols are to rifles. Rifles do more damage and are easier to use yet pistols are what people carry for self defense most of the time.
Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023728Swords are bad weapons compared to polearms, they've only been used as primary weapons paired with a shield and sometimes from horseback (or in very specialized roles such as two handed swords mixed into a pike formation). The reason why swords are ubiquitous throughout history is because they are great sidearms. They are light and easy to carry so when your primary weapon (a ranged weapon or a polearm) is broken or you're up too close to make effective use of it the sword is your backup. Swords are to polearms what pistols are to rifles. Rifles do more damage and are easier to use yet pistols are what people carry for self defense most of the time.
I get it, well 'got it' technically. It's like how I learned metal armor was not the norm for everyday wear. Basically taking that type of gear out is like a signal how serious something became. Most of the time people didn't walk around as if they were readied-for-war. (It interferes with getting the groceries or chillaxing with your homies. ;) )
Quote from: RPGPundit;1023724Well, early firearms actually had worse range than longbows, so I'm not sure that "range" was the real factor.
I was thinking more in line where players wanted to raid dungeons with Browning Hi Powers (take that Gronan! Your 1911a1..... :) ) and what not.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1023724Well, early firearms actually had worse range than longbows, so I'm not sure that "range" was the real factor.
Yes. Sweet Caroline, yes.
Also, can you imagine a hand gonne down in a dungeon crawl? Between keeping the powder dry and trying to keep the touch wire hot... whee!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023837Yes. Sweet Caroline, yes.
Also, can you imagine a hand gonne down in a dungeon crawl? Between keeping the powder dry and trying to keep the touch wire hot... whee!
I can say the same thing with one guy and polearm in a dungeon crawl. About as effective, and yet, most historical war gamers praise the polearm as the ultimate weapon.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023850I can say the same thing with one guy and polearm in a dungeon crawl. About as effective, and yet, most historical war gamers praise the polearm as the ultimate weapon.
That is also because wargamers look at it through the lens of historic mass warfare, whereas armchair gamers look at it as some fucked-up pseudoscience at the table.
Quote from: Opaopajr;1023735I get it, well 'got it' technically. It's like how I learned metal armor was not the norm for everyday wear. Basically taking that type of gear out is like a signal how serious something became. Most of the time people didn't walk around as if they were readied-for-war. (It interferes with getting the groceries or chillaxing with your homies. ;) )
Not to mention that it was typically illegal to do so, particularly in cities.
So yes, upon investigation it is possible that you could make a good argument that on the battlefield, spears were more useful, particularly for the rank & file.
But that doesn't extend to "swords were useless". In the hands of trained fighter, they were extremely useful. And outside of the battlefield, a sword was supreme. There's good reason why it was the weapon of the nobility and the symbol of a knight.
Quote from: RunningLaser;1023747I was thinking more in line where players wanted to raid dungeons with Browning Hi Powers (take that Gronan! Your 1911a1..... :) ) and what not.
Yeah, you go right ahead and run into a place where there is rock above your head at any given time with firearms. Go right ahead. :D
Quote from: RPGPundit;1024292So yes, upon investigation it is possible that you could make a good argument that on the battlefield, spears were more useful, particularly for the rank & file.
But that doesn't extend to "swords were useless". In the hands of trained fighter, they were extremely useful. And outside of the battlefield, a sword was supreme. There's good reason why it was the weapon of the nobility and the symbol of a knight.
Or long polearms in formation behind a wall of tower shields. Spears are always handy though because they can be thrown. Even if you have that big tower shield, just hand your spear to the guy using you for cover and let him throw it. :D
I really can't imagine swords being useless unless your opponent has a ranged weapon which is cocked and ready. Mind you there is also a reason why knives have never gone out of style. They are better in close quarters and tight places, and easier to conceal. I love my camping machete, and would trust that over a sword any day with the added bonus of being able to chop firewood with it. Fun fact, a sword smith gifted Michael Moorcock with a replica of Stormbringer some years back, and The Man did in fact use it to chop firewood.
The thing about swords outside the battlefield is true, unless your angry farmer happens to have a pitch fork in hand. Still, a long blade will always be useful and armor was expensive. I honestly couldn't see someone carrying something that wasn't useful. Sure some nobles would do it, because idiots exist, but people generally don't carry around tools they don't know how to use.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023837Also, can you imagine a hand gonne down in a dungeon crawl? Between keeping the powder dry and trying to keep the touch wire hot... whee!
Not to mention what happens to your hearing firing a gun in a 10' corridor.
Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024301Not to mention what happens to your hearing firing a gun in a 10' corridor.
I'm starting to think I like you.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022858My personal contention has always been that if there was "one perfect weapon," everybody would be using it. Since a wide variety of weapons remained in use, we can assume that they were all useful in some way.
Experimentation. Look at all the pole arms. People were experimenting like crazy to come up with a batter way to wack knights or pull them off those darn horses. Or the wide range of sword lengths and styles. Or the degree and placement of curvature, if any. Thrusting? Chopping? Both?
Also probably some artistry. Add a few sticky-out-bits to make it look more menacing. China showed just how far people can go with merging art and function.
And of course access or personal preference. Government issue? Custom? etc.
Quote from: Omega;1024309Experimentation. Look at all the pole arms. People were experimenting like crazy to come up with a batter way to wack knights or pull them off those darn horses. Or the wide range of sword lengths and styles. Or the degree and placement of curvature, if any. Thrusting? Chopping? Both?
Also probably some artistry. Add a few sticky-out-bits to make it look more menacing. China showed just how far people can go with merging art and function.
And of course access or personal preference. Government issue? Custom? etc.
St. Gary introduced many of us young'uns Backinnaday to this in the original Players Handbook. Bill Hooks? Partisans? Ranseur? WTF are these? I remember my first library trips and getting a stack of books on medieval weaponry and armor (and just period history books in general) - because of that weapon's list.
Not to mention my personal favorite polearm, the "Bohemian Ear Spoon."
TBH, 'guisarme-voulge' always sounded like an ABBA song to me.
Muskets and flintlocks could be statted out with damage comprable to a crossbow and sling bullet. Adjust range and fire rate accordingly. Maybee add in a chance for a fizzle or jam.
Or just port over the Gamma World musket, 1d6 damage 60 meter range. A GW crossbow is 1d6/1d3 and 120m while a sling is 1d4/2d4 with a 90m range.(you can fire out to twice that for 1/2 damage.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;1023724Well, early firearms actually had worse range than longbows, so I'm not sure that "range" was the real factor.
Didn't the Prussians actually keep a unit of longbows around until the late 18th / early 19th century for just that reason? Longbows had better range & faster fire until somewhere in The Napoleonic Wars. (Not that muskets didn't have many other advantages.)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023837Also, can you imagine a hand gonne down in a dungeon crawl? Between keeping the powder dry and trying to keep the touch wire hot... whee!
Just imagine the effect of a Fireball on the gunpowder barrels
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023850I can say the same thing with one guy and polearm in a dungeon crawl. About as effective,
That brings up the very good point that most TTRPGs aren't modeling the same situation for which most medieval weapons and armors were developed. Pikes (or guns or slings or longbows) not the best items for use in dungeons? Of course not, how many of those exist in the real world?
In my games, I tend to think of guns of that era just like that--things that undoubtedly would work on massed troops, but ones not made for 1-on-1 or dungeon-style combat.
Quoteand yet, most historical war gamers praise the polearm as the ultimate weapon.
I don't know that I know what most historical war gamers think (never got into them, personally), but the trend I've noticed seems to be that there is a consensus that there is an elaborate 4+-way rock-paper-scissors like thing going on between archery/artillery, cavalry, polearms, and infantry, where the worst position to be in is to have the wrong troops going up against the wrong troops in the wrong situation (so don't send cavalry against pikes, but do send them against infantry).
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023837Also, can you imagine a hand gonne down in a dungeon crawl? Between keeping the powder dry and trying to keep the touch wire hot... whee!
Every once in a while we (my groups) spend a diversive 10 minutes and think about just how hard
every part of adventuring would really would be/have been at that technology base. How hard travelling without a wagon train/supply lines would be. How hard fording a river would be when next to nothing was waterproof (and you would probably be wet in who-knows-what-weather for the rest of the day until you might get to sit in front of a fire the coming evening). How easily rations would be spoiled.
Compared to the nearly sight-seeing-like travel of Peter Jackson LotR, where peoples' packs magically disappear for important scenes, etc.--if adventuring in that era were really a thing, it'd be so unbearable that it would again barely be a thing very quickly. (OTOH, 100s of people really did get on 80-90' boats and sail for months, so I guess the risk/rewards of the era were heavily skewed towards the 'put up with hell' model).
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1024547That brings up the very good point that most TTRPGs aren't modeling the same situation for which most medieval weapons and armors were developed. Pikes (or guns or slings or longbows) not the best items for use in dungeons? Of course not, how many of those exist in the real world?
In my games, I tend to think of guns of that era just like that--things that undoubtedly would work on massed troops, but ones not made for 1-on-1 or dungeon-style combat.
I don't know that I know what most historical war gamers think (never got into them, personally), but the trend I've noticed seems to be that there is a consensus that there is an elaborate 4+-way rock-paper-scissors like thing going on between archery/artillery, cavalry, polearms, and infantry, where the worst position to be in is to have the wrong troops going up against the wrong troops in the wrong situation (so don't send cavalry against pikes, but do send them against infantry).
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023837Also, can you imagine a hand gonne down in a dungeon crawl? Between keeping the powder dry and trying to keep the touch wire hot... whee!
Every once in a while we (my groups) spend a diversive 10 minutes and think about just how hard
every part of adventuring would really would be/have been at that technology base. How hard travelling without a wagon train/supply lines would be. How hard fording a river would be when next to nothing was waterproof (and you would probably be wet in who-knows-what-weather for the rest of the day until you might get to sit in front of a fire the coming evening). How easily rations would be spoiled.
Compared to the nearly sight-seeing-like travel of Peter Jackson LotR, where peoples' packs magically disappear for important scenes, etc.--if adventuring in that era were really a thing, it'd be so unbearable that it would again barely be a thing very quickly. (OTOH, 100s of people really did get on 80-90' boats and sail for months, so I guess the risk/rewards of the era were heavily skewed towards the 'put up with hell' model).