# Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?



## Herobizkit (Feb 2, 2010)

Title says it all.  I've heard scores of arguments FOR guns in D&D... now I'd like to hear from the other side of the fence.  What is it about guns that just screams "NO!" in your campaign worlds?


----------



## darjr (Feb 2, 2010)

Guns never seem to be done quite correctly.

Also it's the beginning of modern technology out of the medieval.

Though I do like early gun tech in D&D, and the occasional plasma and laser gun.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 2, 2010)

I actually found that the Fantasy Gun Control entry on TV Tropes summarizes both sides of the issue quite well.  Also provides a boatload of examples for either side, including some really good ones.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2010)

For me, there are two issues...

1) I haven't seen guns done well, and I think that's because they aren't a really good fit for the system, mechanically.  

2) More importantly - guns are out of genre, in terms of the fiction.  They simply aren't a classic fantasy trope, so they break the general feel I'm normally trying for when I play or run D&D.  If I want guns in my fantasy, I'll pick up Deadlands or Shadowrun, and run a game in a world where guns fit into the milieu.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 2, 2010)

For me:

D&D is a fantasy game

Guns are not fantasy.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 2, 2010)

Umbran said:


> 2) More importantly - guns are out of genre, in terms of the fiction.  They simply aren't a classic fantasy trope, so they break the general feel I'm normally trying for when I play or run D&D.  If I want guns in my fantasy, I'll pick up Deadlands or Shadowrun, and run a game in a world where guns fit into the milieu.



This was pretty much me, up until Freeport.  (I resisted for a while, even while running in Freeport, but eventually gave in.)

When I was (much) younger, D&D was (or at least seemed to me to be) more strongly rooted in medieval fantasy.  Nowadays, D&D is arguably it's own brand of fantasy, mixing medieval, renaissance, and other influences.  Guns seem to fit better now than they did then.

Basically, if pirates fit D&D, then why not guns?

Also, when I was (much) younger, I was (selectively) hung up on realism.  I'm not sure how the blindspot developed, but while it was okay with me that someone could get "hit" by a four pound sword and only lose a few hit points, it bugged me inordinately if a bullet only cost a few hit points.

I got over it.

IMO, the only good argument against guns in D&D is the same as any argument of "tone," and similarly only valid for that particular game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 2, 2010)

Umbran said:


> For me, there are two issues...
> 
> 1) I haven't seen guns done well, and I think that's because they aren't a really good fit for the system, mechanically.
> 
> 2) More importantly - guns are out of genre, in terms of the fiction.  They simply aren't a classic fantasy trope, so they break the general feel I'm normally trying for when I play or run D&D.  If I want guns in my fantasy, I'll pick up Deadlands or Shadowrun, and run a game in a world where guns fit into the milieu.




Two words:  Solomon.  Kane.


RC


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 2, 2010)

Like many, they just scream "Not Fantasy" to me. However, back before AD&D came out our group fooled around with black powder guns and had no problem with them. (In our efforts to turn Melee and Wizard into a roleplaying game.) But I've just never been comfortable with them in D&D.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 2, 2010)

For the same reason the Complete Book of Elves in 2e sold and crossbows continue to be mechanically terrible compared to bows.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 2, 2010)

I like guns in D&D, specifically faux renaissance-style quasi muskets with ludicrously short relaod times.  Also lasers.

That said, D&D doesn't necessarily work well with guns.

1)  Take a look through the Monster Manual.  Any monster manual will do.  A great many, if not most, monsters are built to be most effective in hand to hand combat.  Many monsters, perhaps a majority, lack any ranged attack at all.  PC's with guns vs. claw/claw/bite = dead monster.

2)  The archetypical game of D&D takes place indoors, where lines of sight are short and fields of fire are limited.  A sort of counterweight to point #1, above, this makes firearms somewhat less effective.

3)  D&D's "armor makes you harder to hit/damage" paradigm makes some sense when applied to hand to hand combat, where the armor presumably absorbs some of the blow.  For me at least, it makes less sense when dealing with firearms.


----------



## Tale (Feb 2, 2010)

How can anyone say Army of Darkness wasn't fantasy? It was bitching fantasy. So is Dark Tower, actually.

@Stoat:
Your points seem to revolve around ranged (#s 1 and 2). What about the numerous ranged classes/builds in D&D? Ranger, Wizard, Warlock, etc.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Two words:  Solomon.  Kane.




Solomon Kane is set in the 16th century - post-Columbus.  While to a historian the Medieval period carries just into the 16th century, in terms of genre and style, I'd call that well past the pseudo-Medieval period that's D&D's forte. 

You do what you want, of course.  But if I wanted to do 16th century, age of Cortés, Shakespearean-times kind of stuff, D&D would not be the system I'd choose.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 2, 2010)

Tale said:


> @Stoat:
> Your points seem to revolve around ranged (#s 1 and 2). What about the numerous ranged classes/builds in D&D? Ranger, Wizard, Warlock, etc.




Generally speaking, ranged classes depend on having someone in melee to block for them.  My 4E group is very ranged focused (wizard, feylock, laser cleric, ranger, paladin -- the ranger splits his time between ranged and melee combat).  In a typical fight, the Paladin gets the hell beaten out of him holding the line, the ranger ducks in and out of melee, and everybody else stands back.  

So yeah, if you have a melee tank, you're golden.  But the idea of a melee tank seems strange to me when mixed with firearms.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 2, 2010)

I think really it comes down to the rules for them always being stupid. For some reason, game designers always feel the need to make them different.

Really, they should probably just be treated the same as a crossbow.


----------



## Tewligan (Feb 2, 2010)

I like my AD&D games to hew pretty closely to sword and sorcery-style fantasy, and guns just don't fit in.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Feb 2, 2010)

Herobizkit said:


> Title says it all.  I've heard scores of arguments FOR guns in D&D... now I'd like to hear from the other side of the fence.  What is it about guns that just screams "NO!" in your campaign worlds?



D&D is about taking names and changing the world by sheer force of your personal mojo. The more tech you use, the more mojo you're borrowing from some nameless inventor, the less fantastically heroic you are. IMO, naturally.

If it were up to me, I probably wouldn't even include xbows in D&D for that reason. Although Final Fantasy has guns and all kinds of wacky magitech stuff, and it only bothers me a little. Probably because it's a video game.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 2, 2010)

While I'm less of a grognard about it, as I get older - I never cared for Modern, Future, near-Modern, near-Future games. I did play some Traveller and Space Opera, as well as a short campaign with Twilight 2000, back in the 80's just to give them a try - but I didn't really care for it.

And though I'm more open-minded regarding later history, my primary historical interests, let alone gaming interests stops at the Rennaissance. Truth tell, I don't really even care for the Middle Ages, much preferring the Dark Ages (fall of Roman Empire up to the Norman Invasion) and earlier.

So guns? Too modern for my gaming interests.

I'll also agree with others that gun game mechanics, IME, never really worked well with D&D. I'm sure someone could figure out one that did work, but even still - I even cringe thinking of full plate armor as being too modern for my tastes, that's high middle ages too modern for me!

GP


----------



## Afrodyte (Feb 2, 2010)

Umbran said:


> But if I wanted to do 16th century, age of Cortés, Shakespearean-times kind of stuff, D&D would not be the system I'd choose.




For my own selfish reasons, what system would you choose?


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 2, 2010)

I want open ended damage for guns.




Afrodyte said:


> For my own selfish reasons, what system would you choose?



I'd recommend 2E WFRP for that era myself.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 2, 2010)

afrodyte said:


> for my own selfish reasons, what system would you choose?




See my .sig.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 2, 2010)

For me, it depends on the campaign, but I'm pretty open to guns in D&D.  Especially if its something like a John Carter sword-n-planet campaign, or a Freeport style pirate campaign.  I'm not as keen on it for a Conan or Nehwon style swords-n-sorcery game, or for traditional D&D fantasy like Greyhawk.  But even Greyhawk had the stuff from _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks_, and I like that just fine.  

Also the original D&D rules include explicit mention of things like robots, androids, and Barsoom monsters.  I don't think an argument against guns/tech due to tradition holds up.  At the time D&D was written, "fantasy" often included a healthy dose of sci-fi or modern elements; the lines weren't as crisp and clean as they tend to be drawn, today.  I think the earliest D&D campaigns reflected that, to some degree.  Certainly Blackmoor didn't shy away from mixing tech and fantasy.  And in addition to the Barsoom and robot references in OD&D and things like "Barrier Peaks," Gygax mixed modern tech into swords-n-sorcery in things like the "Sturmgeshutz and Sorcery" article, which was very early (either in _Strategic Review_ or an early _Dragon_, although I don't remember which, offhand).


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 2, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> And though I'm more open-minded regarding later history, my primary historical interests, let alone gaming interests stops at the Rennaissance.
> 
> So guns? Too modern for my gaming interests.




...There...were guns in the Renaissance :|

Again, it's the same reason crossbows are always mechanically worse for bows.  Because D&D has established itself into several tropes, and one of them is Bows Are Always Better.

I'm sorry, but saying it's an argument with tech levels is rediculous.  D&D is all over the damn place historically.  Plate armor made in the Renaissance next to medieval longbows next to caveman clubs, and they all use modern morality.  And a fighter that uses _all of those_.  Hell, D&D has the monk class, and it's not based on western monks, or eastern monks, but _bad 70's kung fu_.  You have an entire class based on _bad 70's kung fu._  This is the game that confuses slings with sling_shots_.

The realism argument is equal bunk, because it, too, inevitable lands into Bows Are Always Better.  A monk can punch through a wall, a fighter can wrestle with a dragon, and a ranger can string several arrows on a single bowstring and tag a target with pinpoint accuracy hundreds of yards away, but a crossbow or gun that doesn't take three turns to reload?  _Unrealistic!_

Unfortunately, cliches such as Bows Are Always Better are incredibly hard to dislodge, because they're not just ingrained into the game, but into the minds of those that play it.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 2, 2010)

It's largely a thematic issue, and I will freely admit that it has as much to do with the associations of the weapons in question as with their actual historical status.

IMO, the reason fantasy appeals to people is that it emphasizes individual empowerment. (Yes, there is wish-fulfillment going on too, but there's wish-fulfillment in every genre.) We live in a world where it's very easy to feel powerless, insignificant, and ignored. Fantasy fiction envisions a world where the actions of the individual _matter_ to the world at large--where a Frodo Baggins or a Harry Potter can, through virtue and steadfastness, turn the course of history... and where, through ruthlessness and cunning, a Sauron or a Voldemort can do the same.

Guns are part and parcel of the modern world--the chosen weapon of the mechanized, bureaucratic, impersonal warfare of today. They bring those associations with them when imported into a fantasy setting, which is why many people are reluctant to admit them, even if the setting is one in which they would legitimately fit (late medieval/early Renaissance). 

There's also the fact that guns in a medieval setting don't lend themselves to many of the traditions surrounding fantasy weaponry. Fantasy is full of storied and legendary weapons with histories that go back hundreds of years, sometimes thousands. In medieval times, guns simply were not old enough for that.

Finally, because we're used to modern, mass-produced, highly accurate firearms, a lot of people have trouble with the idea that you can have guns and bows/swords coexisting. Because guns _now_ are vastly superior to swords and bows, folks instinctively assume that guns _then_ must have been the same way. Introducing guns to a medieval campaign requires changing those preconceptions, and changing preconceptions has a cost in terms of player focus and immersion. Why pay that cost if you don't have a specific reason for doing so?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 2, 2010)

The big problem I have with Guns, and what EGG and I co-wrote in a sidebar of Living Fantasy, is the fact that the adoption of the gun pretty much changed a lot of things that would change the historical background.  (And this has nothing to do with armor penetration).

A gun enabled conscripted peasants to have a lot more battlefield power.  While a mage also has that power, a mage (or cleric) is equal to an archer, somebody who has to be trained for years and can't easily be replaced.

Once you factor this into play and did research, you see the introduction of gun and cannon changed a lot of things.  You didn't need to have feudalism anymore.  You couldn't have the medieval castle anymore, they would logically have to be converted to star or polygon forts with sloping walls.  And it completely change the dynamics of warfare so you ended up with completely different government structures to handle it.  (It was the end of Feudalism and the rise of the centralized state, and the beginning of leevies instead of knights).

So, basically, I don't like guns and I dislike the introduction of them in the modern-steampunk-style use, because if you understand the history of warfare you'd find logic problems with the introduction of them at times.  I think the creators of those types of words aren't providing enough logic to their world.  I like Fantasy with as much realism as possible.  (In other words, avoid simplistic "it's magic" type of explanations).  

It's the same reasons I hate seeing the Peter Jackson LoTR movies, because he had two major human settlements without any sort of farmland surrounding them.  How do those people eat.  They aren't importing food from the hobbits.  That sort of stuff took me completely out of the picture.


----------



## Pseudonym (Feb 2, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> A monk can punch through a wall, a fighter can wrestle with a dragon, and a ranger can string several arrows on a single bowstring and tag a target with pinpoint accuracy hundreds of yards away, but a crossbow or gun that doesn't take three turns to reload?  _Unrealistic!_.




From reading various posts on the subject of guns here over the years this does seem to be the case.  I have no idea why people accept at face value elven wizards riding on dragons but insist guns in D&D must conform to FBI ballistic data.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 2, 2010)

Heroic literature is associated with periods in which expensive defensive technology largely outstripped offensive technology resulting in a military period where a well equipped and well trained artistocrat was relatively immune to attack and, hense, capable of great deeds.  Converse periods where offensive power tends to overwhelm defensive technology become eras of great conscript armies, which, while stirring to a wargamer aren't necessarily the stuff of heroic literature.

The medieval period with its advances in armor technology is one such period.  It's a military age of aristocratic armored horse warriors.  So too was the great Heroic age of Greece, when similar advances in Bronze armor and weapons left unarmored combatants with stone and wood tools in awe.  Medieval Japan is a similar period of armored aristocratic warriors.  Gradually, these ages were eclipsed by various advances in offensive technology: crossbows, longbows, and ultimately firearms.

For the past 400 years or so, the firearm in various incarnations has almost completely overwhelmed defensive technology.  That may be changing with the introduction of new materials for making armor, but hithertoo, the firearm has been the great equalizer of men and left relatively little oppurtunity for great deeds on the field of battle given the scope of modern war, the relatively small influence a single person usually has (except in command), and the instant death that haunts even the most skilled combatant.  

D&D creates a game in the heroic mold.  The ablative hit point mechanic and the relatively low damage weapons caused compared to the maximum hit points at high level means that a high level D&D hero is worth dozens if not hundreds of ordinary soldiers.  The hit point mechanic creates a natural narrative of being hit and yet able to resist many blows that would fell an ordinary mortal.

This narrative is strongly at odds with the narrative created by guns.  To really see how the presence of guns impacts the heroic narrative, the best device is to watch Kirosawa's 'Seven Samurii' and watch how the gun plays out in the narrative as an unheroic, magical, capracious, arbitrary, and ultimately unjust tool.  It's hard to be heroic when a random mook with a firearm can cut you down in your prime without even giving you a chance to defend yourself.   And, conversely, if you don't have gun mechanics that let random mooks cut you down in your prime without even giving you a chance to defend yourself, the 'gun' doesn't feel very much like a gun ought to.  

Most people don't like guns in their fantasy because they instinctively know that they make it harder to tell heroic stories.  It can be done, preferably with a somewhat different system than default D&D, but the default setting that everyone is or less comfortable in has to go away and you end up with something a bit more 'punk'.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 2, 2010)

I have noted when Gygax used guns, they were always under the assumption that such elements were temporal anomalies from another time, and the assumption was they were good toys for the PCs but once the ammo ran out, they were worthless.  This kept things interesting but it didn't do anything like change the societies.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 2, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> The big problem I have with Guns, and what EGG and I co-wrote in a sidebar of Living Fantasy, is the fact that the adoption of the gun pretty much changed a lot of things that would change the historical background.  (And this has nothing to do with armor penetration).
> 
> A gun enabled conscripted peasants to have a lot more battlefield power.  While a mage also has that power, a mage (or cleric) is equal to an archer, somebody who has to be trained for years and can't easily be replaced.
> 
> Once you factor this into play and did research, you see the introduction of gun and cannon changed a lot of things.  You didn't need to have feudalism anymore.  You couldn't have the medieval castle anymore, they would logically have to be converted to star or polygon forts with sloping walls.  And it completely change the dynamics of warfare so you ended up with completely different government structures to handle it.  (It was the end of Feudalism and the rise of the centralized state, and the beginning of leevies instead of knights).




Bull.

Firearms weren't the death of knights, pikes, other better establish polearms, and better coordination with tactical responses to charges were.  And for that matter, firearms weren't the death of plate mail - on the contrary, the kind of "full plate" that D&D has were made *explicitly to deal with firearms*.  The technology that *made* that plate mail is banned, but the plate itself is fine?  Yeah, _ok_.

Everyone chants that Crece proved "Bows are better then crossbows!"  _There were canons at Crece._


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 2, 2010)

Honestly, the problem with quoting heroic tales of old is that _they never existed_.  Samurai weren't katana wielding footsoldiers until long after they had been made completely irrelevant to armies and war had become almost purely symbolic in Japan - most of the time they fought on horseback with bows and lances.  Likewise, swords are a rather cool weapon, but they also weren't the main arm of most knights.

The crossbow was considered so deadly and "dishonorable" that it was made _heretical_.  And yet, playing D&D, you'd never understand why.  Likewise, composite longbows would be, by game definition, exotic weapons - they were very specialized weapons that took years to train up to properly use in order to get the correct draw, sometimes disfiguring their wielder.  And yet in D&D it's a plain ol' martial weapon just about anyone can grab.

D&D does not, and _has never_, adhered to any sort of historical accuracy.  It created it's own tropes and then ran headlong into them until they became permanent.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 2, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...There...were guns in the Renaissance :|




Quite true.  However, let's think about some fictional examples for a moment.  Consider, for a moment, The Three Musketeers.

These guys are from the 17th Century - tail end of the Renaissance.  And they are called Musketeers - ones who use muskets.

Interesting how they are mostly known for _swordplay_...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 2, 2010)

Me, I like guns in my D&D - my homebrew is set in a quasi Reformation/Counter-Reformation period. I started reading fantasy in the 1960s, and much that I read was not pseudo mediaeval. Heck, some of the Grimm's brothers stories mention guns, as does some of Tolkien. Stone Soup, the King's Dragoon, and yes, Solomon Kane and John Carter.

As to the 'why nots'... I think much of it is unfamiliarity with antique handguns.

Some folks seem to think that guns are all powerful and ignore armor - they don't. Crossbows were actually better at piercing armor.

Some folks think that they are slow - they are, but heavy crossbows were slower. A cranquin is slow and cumbersome, making the arbalest slower than a arquebus.

Some folks think that they are hard to learn - they are easier to master than a longbow, but harder than a crossbow. (If any of the three should be an exotic weapon it is the longbow - if you want to train a longbowman start with the grandfather....)

Pricier than a crossbow, cheaper than a well made longbow (which was pretty much out of the game by the time the handgun became a primary weapon), the firing mechanism was often made by the same folks who made the locks for doors.

They did do an awful amount of damage, not so much breaking bone as pulverizing it. Big, fat, slow, soft lead are excellent at transmitting energy - which is also why armor was also good at stopping it. A suit of good armor might be 'proofed' - bearing a nice dent where the armorer took ten steps away from the armor then shot it with a pistol. (Source of the term 'bullet proofed'.  )

So I give them good damage (D10) a good critical modifier (X3) but do not fiddle with the chance of critical, and give them poor ranges. (Both the crossbow and the longbow could outrange an arquebus.)

And they are very susceptible to damp - especially matchlocks. No firing in the rain, no going swimming with your weapon loaded.... And a matchlock has a limited time that it can be held 'ready' whether you are firing or not the match is burning, and to keep it burning it is spun in a circle - it is easy to see what weapon is being used.

Wheellocks can hold fire for a long time, but are bloody expensive - used much more often for pistols than for handguns. As for reliable... not so much - the springs were subject to corrosion and over winding, and sometimes the sparks just didn't hit the pan right if the lock had been knocked askew. And sometimes it just took a while, with the shooter holding the trigger until a spark reached the pan. (Whirrrrrr *BANG!* was better than just Whirrrrr....)
Made by jewelers and locksmiths the wheellock was very expensive.

The whole game changes when the flintlock is invented... cheap, reliable, and able to hold fire. It was just plain better than the wheellock. I have fired a Brown Bess (Land Pattern Musket) that was in active service for a hundred years, first in the British infantry, then cut down to carbine length and its muzzle flared for use by the Navy, then traded to Spain and eventually ending up in Mexico. And the gun still fired just fine. (How much of the gun, aside from the stock, had actually lasted a century of service is anybody's guess.)

A Land Pattern Musket would misfire on the average of one out of sixteen shots under battlefield conditions.

One of the oddities of the Brown Bess - because so very many of them were made it is often possible to buy an original for less money than to purchase a replica.... 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Feb 3, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> IMO, the reason fantasy appeals to people is that it emphasizes individual empowerment. (Yes, there is wish-fulfillment going on too, but there's wish-fulfillment in every genre.) We live in a world where it's very easy to feel powerless, insignificant, and ignored. Fantasy fiction envisions a world where the actions of the individual _matter_ to the world at large--where a Frodo Baggins or a Harry Potter can, through virtue and steadfastness, turn the course of history... and where, through ruthlessness and cunning, a Sauron or a Voldemort can do the same.
> 
> Guns are part and parcel of the modern world--the chosen weapon of the mechanized, bureaucratic, impersonal warfare of today. They bring those associations with them when imported into a fantasy setting, which is why many people are reluctant to admit them, even if the setting is one in which they would legitimately fit (late medieval/early Renaissance).



Couldn't -- and didn't -- say it better myself.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Firearms weren't the death of knights, pikes, other better establish polearms, and better coordination with tactical responses to charges were.  And for that matter, firearms weren't the death of plate mail - on the contrary, the kind of "full plate" that D&D has were made *explicitly to deal with firearms*.  The technology that *made* that plate mail is banned, but the plate itself is fine?  Yeah, _ok_




Instead of responding to different opinions rudely and with dripping sarcasm, you should at least try to understand things from the historical perspective.

I never said pikes were removed, or that everything changed all at once.  And I never made mention of Full Plate at all.

Early Modern warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But firearms did end up eliminating the calvary and the middle-ages knight.  It did change a lot of things.  It might have been slow but it did impact things enough to do this.



> D&D does not, and has never, adhered to any sort of historical accuracy. It created it's own tropes and then ran headlong into them until they became permanent.




Not necessarily.  Keep in mind that the origins came from Wargaming, and wargames did try to keep things as historically realistic as possible--they were what has come to be termed in the modern age as "simulationist".  In fact the rise of these alternate steampunk settings tell me that a lot of creators are lazy and haven't studied history as much as they should have, and seen how the gun changed things.

To me, if people want to use the D&D ruleset for guns, that's fine, but I want to see a well thought out campaign world that either takes into account what would happen if guns existed and how the society would change, or I'd rather go with the "Gygaxian Naturalism" default, where gunpowder won't work and is unstable on that world.  I don't want to see lazy "let's mix guns into our setting and have the guns not affect anything else".


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 3, 2010)

deleted


----------



## amerigoV (Feb 3, 2010)

My perspective on this was formed in the way 1e handled bows. Basically, a 10th level fighter (say with 70hp) could stand there all day and let people shoot him with a bow (pre-str bow days - 3 hps of damage per hit - yawn). One could use the HP analogy of skill, grit, luck in melee combat. But it just was a farse from a bow perspective (keep in mind this is pre-Matrix there kiddies - standing in the open dodging arrows seem silly). So Ok, one can except it - its a game, not a combat simulator. But trying to add in guns on top of that just made it worse. In gun combat, cover is important (well, except vs. the A-Team and vs. "precise" Imperial Troopers). In D&D, cover vs. ranged is an afterthought until you started to get to 3.x. It just never made sense to me and that is my prejudice.

BUT, systems that treat bows and firearms "better" (I will not say realistically) changes my mind on the subject. I have coverted to Savage Worlds recently and they handle range weapons differently -- your ability to hit the target has nothing to do with the targets skill -- you cannot dodge the projectile. You can take cover or wear armor to try and absorb the damage. That run-of-the-mill archer/gunman will hit you regardless of how awesome you are - better find cover! That is satisifying to me and that opens up guns in fantasy (I run Eberron, so some form of gun would not be out of place in that setting given all the other advancements during the War).

I am not that familiar with other systems - but if cover is important for range weapons, then guns can be added so long as the game world can absorb the concept in my opinion.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 3, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Two words:  Solomon.  Kane.
> 
> 
> RC




I will match your two words and call: Jon Shannow.

(a character by David Gemmell)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 3, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> YSince this is a thread asking for why people don't like guns in D&D - which undoubtedly relies 100% upon peoples perceptions - how are anybody's perceptions in this thread _*"Bunk"*_ or _*"Bull"*_?  Innacurate when compared to reality, most likely, but still opinions and perceptions - something of which nobody should have the right to denigrate.  Disagree with: Yes - Denigrate: No




Because they're claiming they want historical accuracy when it comes to guns.

"If we add guns, it's not fantasy anymore, you might as well add rifles and remove all knights!"

"If you have guns, they have to be realistically portrayed, with long load times, and lots of negative modifiers."

"If guns are invented, the entire system would have to be altered around their usage!"

Nevermind that we have mobile artillery platforms, air to air and air to ground combat, massive biological warfare, and instant healing from magic.

Guys, _guns would change everything!_

That's why the opinion is bunk.  You already have magic.  You have wizards that can fly through the air, throw down a single cloudkill, and murder an entire army.  And yet _guns_ will take it too far?


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 3, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> To me, if people want to use the D&D ruleset for guns, that's fine, but I want to see a well thought out campaign world that either takes into account what would happen if guns existed and how the society would change, or I'd rather go with the "Gygaxian Naturalism" default, where gunpowder won't work and is unstable on that world.  I don't want to see lazy "let's mix guns into our setting and have the guns not affect anything else".




Unless of course your campaign setting is set in a time before they became prevalent.  Sure they will change society over time, but it hasn't happened YET...


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

*I know*



ProfessorCirno said:


> ...There...were guns in the Renaissance :|




I know.

When I said, I stop at the Rennaissance - I meant I stop before entering the Rennaissance, because that's too modern for my tastes. Guns were definitely available during that era.

And while I agree that D&D doesn't necessarily fall into medieval only - as you say it falls all over the place historically, I am a setting author/creator for publication and while those settings are fantasy realms, they very closely work with real world historical times/locations. One is Kaidan, which is based entirely on a Japan-like world at the end of the 12th century. The new one I'm working on is pre-Roman northern Britain (like) with a Pict setting.

While D&D jumps all over the place, I don't.

GP


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Feb 3, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> In fact the rise of these alternate steampunk settings tell me that a lot of creators are lazy and haven't studied history as much as they should have, and seen how the gun changed things.



Or they have, and have just decided they like things the other way and are willing to ignore realism in favor of their preferred fun.

Which is something that should always be considered when evaluating any breach of historical accuracy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 3, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> Unless of course your campaign setting is set in a time before they became prevalent.  Sure they will change society over time, but it hasn't happened YET...




Or, guns are on the decline.....with most examples being ancient relics of a bygone age.  Ala The Dark Tower.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 3, 2010)

I feel the need to point out, I don't need guns in the game.  if you don't want guns in your game, that's fine.  But be honest about the reasons here.  Just say "I don't like guns."  Bam, game set.  That's not arguable.

It's when the historical accuracy argument and stuff like that is thrown around that there's an issue.

Also, as for guns in a setting without overloading it, it's a rare and exotic weapon that only one group of people have, making sure to brutally ensure nobody else gets a hold of them or is able to research into them.  A party member could be an envoy of that group, or maybe a rogue who left it and is being hunted down.  While anyone who picked one up would initially be able to use it, they wouldn't know proper care or maintenance for it, and it would very quickly become useless.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

I say play what you want. If you like a typical D&D game that is only loosely based on one or several time periods and technologies, then do just that. I like to game and design settings using real-world historical references and technology.

I can still get creative, while having armloads of reference material of historical locations of Earth. I enjoy being based within the confines of technological restrictions. My settings have weapon, armor, equipment and wondrous item restrictions based on what was available within a specific date in history.

That's surely not for everyone, obviously not you, ProfessorCirno. And I don't begrudge you for it. I'm glad you have fun in your preferred version, as should everyone - and I enjoy my preferred version, which don't include guns.

PS: you should review my other post, I editted it and added a whole second paragraph, explaining more...


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I feel the need to point out, I don't need guns in the game.  if you don't want guns in your game, that's fine.  But be honest about the reasons here.  Just say "I don't like guns."  Bam, game set.  That's not arguable.
> 
> It's when the historical accuracy argument and stuff like that is thrown around that there's an issue.
> 
> Also, as for guns in a setting without overloading it, it's a rare and exotic weapon that only one group of people have, making sure to brutally ensure nobody else gets a hold of them or is able to research into them.  A party member could be an envoy of that group, or maybe a rogue who left it and is being hunted down.  While anyone who picked one up would initially be able to use it, they wouldn't know proper care or maintenance for it, and it would very quickly become useless.




You think along the same lines as I do.  Guns in my campaign are made by hobgoblins (very milataristic) and even then normally only the special or leader types have them.

People have tried to recreate the fire powder charges for the lead balls, but oddly no luck so far.  Dang devious hobgoblins.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> I say play what you want. If you like a typical D&D game that is only loosely based on one or several time periods and technologies, then do just that. I like to game and design settings using real-world historical references and technology.
> 
> I can still get creative, while having armloads of reference material of historical locations of Earth. I enjoy being based within the confines of technological restrictions. My settings have weapon, armor, equipment and wondrous item restrictions based on what was available within a specific date in history.
> 
> ...



Always a good way to handle things, in my opinion. I settled on 1600-1650
for my campaign - a good deal later than most folks, I think.

The Timetables of History is a wonderful resource for planning things out in this fashion.

One of the Fantasy Craft campaigns that I am drawing up plans for is an espionage game set during the time of Queen Elizabeth I - with Dr. John Dee as spymaster. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Starglim (Feb 3, 2010)

They pretty much negate the ideas of armour, elves, wizards, orcs, 5000-year-long histories where the first kingdom has much the same structure as the latest .. edit: Either I accept the idea of technological progress and along with it accept that most of the D&D universe makes no sense, or I'll run a game in _illo tempore_, in fairytale-land (which does not at all mean a nice, happy, pretty or childish place). It's not acceptable or enjoyable to me to try to have it both ways. I won't speak for anyone else.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Feb 3, 2010)

Herobizkit said:


> Title says it all.  I've heard scores of arguments FOR guns in D&D... now I'd like to hear from the other side of the fence.  What is it about guns that just screams "NO!" in your campaign worlds?




1) Tone. Flavor. Lore of the setting. Fantasy Gun Control. The flavor of guns and other "high-tech" items (even though early guns were _not_ high tech) doesn't fit with most fantasy settings. Even fans of relatively high-tech settings like FR (where guns actually exist, although I believe they're from Starjammer) and Eberron resist having guns added to the setting.

Having magic available to only a small portion of the population, IMO, fits those settings better than having guns available to anyone who can afford or steal them. (Ironically, in FR, magic is all over the place, and in Eberron, anyone can buy a little magic from a store. Still, people can't afford Wands of Magic Missile unless they've got some kind of powerful sponsor.)

2) Rules.

Why does reloading a crossbow in DnD take such a short time, but reloading a gun takes so much longer? It's like, because guns are used in modern day combat, they have to take actual historical data and impose them on the game.

IIRC, you couldn't keep a bow strung all the time. If that rule were imposed in DnD, it would ... suck.

Warhammer Fantasy has more realistic rules, with long reload times for both crossbows and guns. No one uses a crossbow unless they have to, and I've seen players waste up to two full rounds trying to reload a pair of pistols. (Or is it four rounds? I don't recall.) And of course, there's the brace of _extremely expensive_ guns. Then again, Warhammer prevents you from using a longbow properly unless you have Rapid Reload.

On a similar note, one of my few beefs with d20 Modern are the myriad versions of guns. You don't have 2'-6" foot long swords doing more damage than 2'-9" swords in either d20 Modern or DnD, but for some reason people become consumed with muzzle velocity, caliber, etc when it comes to guns. (For my games, I ruled that all automatic rifles have the same stats. Not realistic, but I just don't give a damn.) I think this type of thinking carries over to DnD designers.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 3, 2010)

One of my PC's was a gnomish inventor from Lantan (3e FR) and his goal was to create a handheld weapon, similar in power to a wizard's blast. He jealously guarded his research and when he finally finished his weapon decided that there's no way he was going to give it to the masses or sell it no matter how much gold it earned him. In that way he was the creator, not some nameless guy, and also kept it from messing too much with the setting.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

*I think he and I means fantasy versions...*

I think the Auld Grump means his basic setting idea is based on an historical period, yet still is a fantasy realm. Whose to say there no Elves in his 1600 to 1650 based setting? Probably not, but so what.

While my first published setting and adventure is based on 12th Century Japan, its not Japan and includes the full range of mythical beings of East Asia, including Oni, Kitsune, Korobokuru, etc. My setting doesn't have elves, dwarves, halflings. It also doesn't have Druids. Because social castes are a major aspect of the setting, the default start of the setting places all characters in the Commoner caste (with optional rules if you want to play otherwise.) Thus in the basic setting, no one starts off as Samurai or Yakuza, those castes are above and below the starting caste, which does include: barbarians, sorcerers, a kind of paladin (sohei), rangers, rogues (shinobi, members of Ninja clans), fighters, cleric types, etc. (most of the basic classes, though heavily Japanese flavored.)

Also while the setting does allow the Samurai tropes as sword wielding soldiers, the core setting is more focused on mounted archers as the base samurai class - as it was in its start from 1185 AD forward.

My setting is definitely not Tokugawa Japan (1600 - 1850), and most of the technology and culture is different than what is in my setting, as it is about 500 years earlier.

Its historically based, yet still deeply a fantastical setting and not to be confused with the real thing, just adapted from it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2010)

Starglim said:


> They pretty much negate the ideas of armour, elves, wizards, orcs, 5000-year-long histories where the first kingdom has much the same structure as the latest .. edit: Either I accept the idea of technological progress and along with it accept that most of the D&D universe makes no sense, or I'll run a game in _illo tempore_, in fairytale-land (which does not at all mean a nice, happy, pretty or childish place). It's not acceptable or enjoyable to me to try to have it both ways. I won't speak for anyone else.




Are you trying to say that there was no lore about fairies in Elizabethian England? Most of our fairy lore only goes back that far.... Shakespeare wrote an entire play about them, perhaps you have heard of it? John Dee was widely called a Wizard* in the real world - as well as Necromancer (look up John Dee Converses With Some Spirits - a period illustration.)

In what way does the invention of the firearm prevent the belief or practice of magic?

In what way do they prevent the existence of orcs?

China had gunpowder and 5000 year histories of not much changing....

And as has been pointed out - firearms did not cause the disappearance of armor! - Maximillian and Gothic Plate were about advanced as armor could be, and both were from the time of gunpowder. Guns were less able to penetrate armor than a crossbow.

The Auld Grump

*Wizard was also sometimes used to describe Benjamen Franklin, with less support....


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 3, 2010)

As a side note, do guns exist in Eberron? Or canons, or anything of the sort? Seems like it would fit. But I dunno. I'm curious because I'm just recently getting into running it.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It's when the historical accuracy argument and stuff like that is thrown around that there's an issue.




OMG!!! Someone is wrong on teh interwebs!  

There are many times when people having incorrect data or impressions is a real problem.  I don't see how this is one of them.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 3, 2010)

I'd be for guns if I could find a decent set of rules for them in D&D.  The problem is that whenever I see guns played out in a D&D (or D&D like) setting, it is the swords, bows, armor of medieval (or even early Rennaissance) against guns that were made in the 18th or 19th centuries.  And, I've heard a few times over the years that, "ok, these rules are great for firearms..." and it turns out to be similar to what I cited above.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 3, 2010)

NewJeffCT said:


> I'd be for guns if I could find a decent set of rules for them in D&D.




Given that 4e bows go, what, 200ish feet?  No need to do anything but give them, say

+2 Acc
d6/d8/d10 damage to taste
20/40 range increment

And you're good.  Only decision is whether they're simple, military, or superior.

Brad


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 3, 2010)

Umbran said:


> OMG!!! Someone is wrong on teh interwebs!
> 
> There are many times when people having incorrect data or impressions is a real problem.  I don't see how this is one of them.




Chill the hell out.

Bad arguments are bad arguments, no matter what they're a bad argument _for_.  You seem to be reacting way more to this then I am.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 3, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Herobizkit (Feb 3, 2010)

Since I started the thread, I thought I'd better plant my flag for my camp of choice.

Mechanically (and I mean GAME mechanically), guns "should" be a dice better than standard range weapons.  I am still running 3e; Handguns/pistols do 2d4, Rifles do 2d6, and Double Tap is borrowed from d20 Modern.  Also IMC, I see guns potentially being as advanced as "Wild West" style revolvers and lever-action single-shot rifles.  That's my own style choice for my own homebrew settings.  

My campaigns also tend to run magic-high... insofar as all casters are spontaneous casters.  For those races who do not traditionally embrace magic, they embrace technology instead.  Iron Kingdoms would be the closest analogy to what I like to see in a fantasy setting.

Here's the argument I don't understand in the context of a D&D universe - if Plate Armor is designed to withstand bullets, why isn't there armor designed to withstand _fireballs_, too?  The 'realism' of gun dynamics goes right out the window when you place them alongside magic.

If _wands of magic missile_ are so common (ex Eberron), then so must be the persons who can use said wands, otherwise why mass-produce them?  In a Core only game, such wands are generally limited to Wizards and Sorcerers; Bards and Rogues can finesse them with Use Magic Device, and a Cleric with the Magic domain can use them as well.  But a generic peasant can't even make it glow funny.  The same generic peasant CAN pick up a bow and pray that it works.  The same generic peasant will be very happy to get his hands on a gun - easier to use (Pistols are Simple weapons IMC; Rifles are Martial) with no training necessary.

And don't even get me started on Mages who want to make guns better.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Bad arguments are bad arguments, no matter what they're a bad argument _for_.




I think I have clearly and logically explained why my "doesn't fit my history" premise is not a bag argument. If you're referring to those that tried to insist that guns ended armor - which was a bad argument, but only due to lack of knowledge. Most non-historian types might not realize some of these "truths".

However, I think you missed my edit to a previous post where I explained that my interests stops with the Rennaissance (which had guns), meaning I don't play Rennaissance settings, as for me, that's too modern for me. And even qualified to say I prefer setting technologies between 500 BC and 1000 AD - which doens't even include the medieval period.

I did play your kind of non-historical though roughly middle ages to Rennaissance typical D&D back in 2e days. But my tastes have changed, and now I like settings loosely set in specific historical time frames, and in places where guns do not exist.

You may not want to play this kind of game, but I do. This does not make it a bad argument, just a personal preference.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 3, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> The big problem I have with Guns, and what EGG and I co-wrote in a sidebar of Living Fantasy, is the fact that the adoption of the gun pretty much changed a lot of things that would change the historical background. (And this has nothing to do with armor penetration).
> 
> A gun enabled conscripted peasants to have a lot more battlefield power. While a mage also has that power, a mage (or cleric) is equal to an archer, somebody who has to be trained for years and can't easily be replaced.
> 
> Once you factor this into play and did research, you see the introduction of gun and cannon changed a lot of things. You didn't need to have feudalism anymore. You couldn't have the medieval castle anymore, they would logically have to be converted to star or polygon forts with sloping walls.



I call shenanigans! Once you have mid level MUs, your castles may as well be made of glass. It takes a _higher_ level MU to defend a castle against another MU, which is exactly the opposite of how castle defense is supposed to work.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Chill the hell out.




I am perfectly chill, dude.  I'm just being colorful in showing that you're kind of missing the forest for the trees.



> Bad arguments are bad arguments, no matter what they're a bad argument _for_.




Yeah.  So?  Do you imagine the following discussion is going to take place?

Person A: "I don't want guns in my game."

Person B: "Why not?"

Person A: "Due to <technically incorrect reason>."

Person B: "Well, you're opinion is dumb, because that's technically incorrect!"

Person A: "Oh?  Golly!  I guess that means I want guns in my game after all!"

I'm going to hazard a guess that this will never happen.  

Revealing that Renaissance armor would, in fact, stop Renaissance bullets isn't going to change how they feel about firearms in the game.  Beating folks over the head with how _wrongity-wrongwrong with wrong sauce_ they are about history (calling their opinions "bunk") is probably not going to lead them to enlightenment either so that they'll recognize why they really don't want the weapons in the game, or so that they'll reconsider the place of firearms in their game.

If you want to educate and enlighten, you need to be gentle.


----------



## BenBrown (Feb 3, 2010)

My question about guns is always *What do they add?*.

We've got a dozen different races with nifty special abilities, a slew of existing ranged weapons, and more ranged offensive spells than you can shake a wand at.  Guns don't really add anything other than a bit of color or a way of saying "Look at me!  I'm not standard D&D!"  I tend to think there's too much stuff in D&D already, so my campaign creation generally starts with stripping stuff out.   I could add guns, but I'd have to add a whole bunch of other stuff.  There's feats and prestige classes and powers and such already to make bows really freakin' nifty.  If I were to add guns, I'd have to add stuff to make guns really freakin' nifty.  It's work I don't particularly want to do since, as someone mentioned above, if I'm going with early renaissance guns, I've got to disabuse players of some of their ideas about how guns work, and if I go with 18th-19th century guns, I'm... wait, why are you still wearing armor and carrying a crossbow?

Rational?  Not necessarily, but I just don't feel they add anything.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 3, 2010)

Lots of people here don't seem to like reading 

I don't care what the personal history of your campaign is.  That's cool.

I don't care that you hate guns.  That's cool.

The issue is when someone whinges about how guns would drastically alter the universe, or that they're totally not historically accurate to D&D medieval world assumptions.

Will they allow guns into their game if they're wrong?  No, probably not.  But stupid and bad logic shouldn't just be welcome with a smile and "Well, that's absolutely correct!  I mean it's not, but I totally accept it!"

Let's look at one example of a complaint: If I allow guns, there's no reason to have knights.  Why is this a bad argument?  Because there's nothing there showing how guns would exclude knights.

The mark of these arguments is those first three words: "If I allow."  The issue isn't with guns, it's with _something different!  _We could talk until we're blue in the face about plate armor and the origin of "bullet proof" and such, but that's not the issue.  "If I allow" is an indicator that says "The following is an excuse"

I'm saying, enough with the excuses, just be honest.  Say you hate guns in your fantasy games and _move on_.  Stop trying to develop excuses that make no sense.

Ben Brown - the problem is, there are no crossbow PrCs.  At all.  There is literally nothing you can do with a crossbow that you can't do better with a bow.  Wait no, you can lie down and give yourself -4 AC with a crossbow, so there's that.  Why do people take a crossbow then, if there's nothing good about it?  Because it's cool.  Why do people go "I'd really like a gun?"  Because it's cool.

D&D was founded on "Hey, isn't this awesome?"  As long as the firearms fit the game's consistency, and there's no reason they can't _unless you don't want them to, which is, I see I'm forced to repeat again, perfectly fine,_ then there's no real reason to bar them.

The problem with "Standard D&D" is that, yes, it *does* get old.  When your only option for "ranged guy" is either "Spellcaster" or "Use a bow," then people get really tired of the same crap repeated.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

Really, I don't hate guns in D&D, they have their place in the RIGHT SETTING. I create really deep and detailed settings, but I only have so much time. I certainly like a more ancient setting, older than most, that's why guns don't work for me. Its not because I hate the concept.

I have even considered looking to build a fantasy New World setting, roughly overlapping Auld Grump's setting period - from 1600 to 1700. Which meant there would have to be guns - flintlock rifles, pistols, and both ship and ground cannons. There's lots of Witch hunts, real witches, native American magic, spirits, plenty of undead, and since it was at the end of the Elizabethan period, fey as well. Its something I've thought about.

But like I said, I develop commercial settings, create pro maps for publishers, run a daytime business and have a family - I'm limited on time. My main interest is with both early medieval Japan and pre Roman Britain at this time, and it may take a couple years to work my way through all the intended publications.

While the New World setting is interesting, I have more pressing projects that are closer to my interests.

I don't hate guns in D&D. I just don't need at this time, nor even prefer them. I like older time period settings the most. Write what you know - "they" say.


----------



## N0Man (Feb 3, 2010)

It's not so much that I'm anti-gun, but more that I'm pro-knife.


----------



## David Howery (Feb 3, 2010)

In my younger days, I was a black powder enthusiast; I still own a couple of muzzle loader replicas.  So, when guns made their first appearance in the Realms back in 2E days, I included them.  However, I also added several home rules for the problems that I knew the earliest firearms had: high chances of misfires, absurdly long and complex loading process (especially for matchlocks), intensive cleaning requirements, and extremely inaccurate beyond 50 yards.  Not to mention, the problems of such things as 'no glass, no steel' (they carry static electricity, make black powder go boom unexpectedly), the joys of having your powder flask fail it's save against a fireball, the rather extensive list of accessories they needed to have, and things like that.  The only real advantage of firearms was the open ended damage rule... thus, the only reason the PCs bothered with them (they mainly stuck to pistols, to keep the weight at a minimum).  Early firearms were useful only in mass quantity... have a big bunch of men shoot lots of bullets to do a middling amount of damage.  The PCs lacked the numbers to do all that much with their pistols (especially with the high misfire modifiers I gleefully applied).  Basically, pistols were a one shot item they used and then put away as the dragon closed in...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 3, 2010)

> Why do people go "I'd really like a gun?" Because it's cool.




Word.

Final Fantasy Zero has guns. No crossbows, really, though you could change bows or guns or anything else into crossbows if you really thought they were cool (and sometimes, they are; had me a 3e dwarf who used an entire bandoleer of heavy automatic crossbows as his ranged weapons. Like a fantasy tommy-gun it was!). In FFZ, it's very genre-appropriate, since FF tends to be a mishmash of fantasy and sci fi tropes from the get-go ("Hey, here's your classic sword-and-sorcery adventure, and then there's TIME TRAVEL!"). 

It's cool that not everyone wants guns, different strokes and all that. I am totally okay cramming together my fictions and makin' a little game sandwich out of 'em. I don't always HAVE to (I appreciate a more historical "dark ages" approach on occasion, too), but y'know, I'm flexible. 

And I don't mind guns being handled unrealistically. I don't need that level of realism. I don't even WANT that level of realism. Too much detail, not enough dakka.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2010)

BenBrown said:


> My question about guns is always *What do they add?*.
> 
> We've got a dozen different races with nifty special abilities, a slew of existing ranged weapons, and more ranged offensive spells than you can shake a wand at.  Guns don't really add anything other than a bit of color or a way of saying "Look at me!  I'm not standard D&D!"  I tend to think there's too much stuff in D&D already, so my campaign creation generally starts with stripping stuff out.   I could add guns, but I'd have to add a whole bunch of other stuff.  There's feats and prestige classes and powers and such already to make bows really freakin' nifty.  If I were to add guns, I'd have to add stuff to make guns really freakin' nifty.  It's work I don't particularly want to do since, as someone mentioned above, if I'm going with early renaissance guns, I've got to disabuse players of some of their ideas about how guns work, and if I go with 18th-19th century guns, I'm... wait, why are you still wearing armor and carrying a crossbow?
> 
> Rational?  Not necessarily, but I just don't feel they add anything.



Sure they do - they add things what go *BOOM!* 

Really, that is one of the things I like - cannon, and mortars, and things what go *BOOM!*

I like batteries of cannon, I like the downfall of the castle. (Unlike armor, the age of the castle did begin to end with the coming of the gun.) 

I like the heavy rotten egg stench of blackpowder smoke caught in the fog.

I like highwaymen who cry stand and deliver! over the barrel of a gun. 

I like Guy Fawkes and his gunpowder treason, I like pirates and rebels, and letting God speak from the muzzles of cannon.

I like things what go *BOOM!* 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Herobizkit (Feb 3, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's cool that not everyone wants guns, different strokes and all that. I am totally okay cramming together my fictions and makin' a little game sandwich out of 'em.



I love game sammiches.  I have a feeling that FFZ will be the answer to many of my gaming questions.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Really, I don't hate guns in D&D, they have their place in the RIGHT SETTING. I create really deep and detailed settings, but I only have so much time. I certainly like a more ancient setting, older than most, that's why guns don't work for me. Its not because I hate the concept.
> 
> I have even considered looking to build a fantasy New World setting, roughly overlapping Auld Grump's setting period - from 1600 to 1700. Which meant there would have to be guns - flintlock rifles, pistols, and both ship and ground cannons. There's lots of Witch hunts, real witches, native American magic, spirits, plenty of undead, and since it was at the end of the Elizabethan period, fey as well. Its something I've thought about.
> 
> ...



The Elizabethian campaign sounds good to me!  As I said, I have vague plans for an espionage game under Dr. John Dee. (As it happens, Dr. John Dee really was Elizabeth's spymaster, and was designated 007.... How could I ignore something like that?!  ) Antagonists include France and Russia.

I have been concentrating on the Old World - the New World is out there, home of the dark elves and the orcs, but given my focus on the Wars of Religion the New World is not my primary sandbox - I am pretty much sticking with the equivalent of the Germanies (all hundred some odd of them), since that is the area hardest hit.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Feb 3, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Long post, 90% of which I agree with.




I'd say you gave voice to my personal disliking of guns in the fantasy genre.  

Well put.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

*re*

For me it depends. I don't mind guns if it is done in the right way. I have yet to see a D&D world do it in the right way.

In the real world guns developed as a way to win battles. It was an advancement in military technology that caused many changes in how we fight each other. Guns made old types of armor obsolete and bows and swords not even worth having. An army armed with guns was far superior to an army armed with bows, armor, and swords.

Is that the case in D&D? Nope.

If you go by how D&D stats their guns, you would think a bowman far superior to a gunman. Yet in the real world that is not the case at all. Guns are easier to aim and fire than bows. They have great penetrating power than bows. They are more lethal than bows. They allow a warrior to be more mobile than a bowman and use more compact ammunition. A gunman could carry far more rounds and powder than a bowman.

And given the advent of magic, I see no reason why cultures that employ powerful magic can't build extraordinary guns. It's not like they have trouble extracting the material for creating advanced guns. They shouldn't even lack the technology. Yet most D&D worlds are at flintlock technology levels. Why? They should have some seriously potent guns available that probably employ all manner of alchemical and magical rounds. They do for bowmen, why not gunman considering the gun is a superior weapon to the bow?

If it were not, we would have still been using bows during the Revolutionary War. Did you see how the native tribes of the Americas did with bows against guns?

So if you're not going to do guns right, why include them? A bowman in D&D should not be able to fire up to 6 arrows in a 6 second round why a gunman is firing 1 with a rifle and maybe 3 o 4 with the few multiload weapons someone may have made up in the game. Why are the game designers suddenly trying to get realistic with guns while they're letting bowmen shoot an arrow a second? If they want to get real, then they should make bows fire at a much slower rate. A skilled English longbowmen was considered quick if he could fire 5 arrows a minute. That is one arrow every 12 seconds or two D&D rounds.

D&D is a mix between simulation and fantasy. Why get realistic about guns to make them weaker than bows and swords? Put them in their proper technological place if you are going to throw them into a world. That means guns are by far a superior option for ranged weaponry than anything else in the game save for perhaps magic or don't throw them in the game.

Have the game designers bothered to watch _The Last Samurai_ or read their history books in regards to guns? Once guns enter the picture, the old ways of fighting go bye, bye because all weapons prior to guns are inferior. A gun barrage can inflict far more damage than a bow barrage to a group of running soldiers over an open battlefield. Then you work in heavy artillery and we're talking _Meteor Swarm_ type damage from non-magic based source in a huge radius.

I'd rather have the game designers not include guns if they aren't going to do them right. If someone creates a fantasy world where guns are in their rightful place at the top of the weapon food chain and have had a massive effect on warfare and culture in the fantasy world, then I'd be cool with guns. Otherwise, get them out of my fantasy world. Don't tell me some 1d8 weapon is a gun when the truth of the matter is they should do 3 or 4 times the damage of a sword or bow with far more range and penetrating power. And should have a rate of fire equal to or superior to a bow or no one would waste their time using one.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 3, 2010)

Celtavian, the question I asked earlier in this thread, I'll ask you:

Why do we expect guns to have a huge effect on the in game world _if magic hasn't?_

Again, a single wizard can fly around and throw cloudkill, destroying an entire army all by himself.  Fireball+Enlarge Spell means you have one person with the strength of multiple cannons, five times their range and pinpoint accuracy.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Lots of people here don't seem to like reading
> 
> I don't care what the personal history of your campaign is.  That's cool.
> 
> ...





That's not true at all. Guns did eliminate the need for knightly warfare. They are vastly superior weapons to swords and bows. Vastly...as in Grand Canyon size vastness. As in if you take your sword and bow army against an army with guns, you will die.

For some of us gamers, we don't like the idea of it.

Sure, D&D is a game of loose simulations of weapons focused more on cool versus reality which is why bowmen are so potent. I get that. But don't put guns in the game and make them these wimpy little things that lack potency when people that don't even follow history to know how the gun made everything before it obsolete can see that guns are far and away superior to swords and bows. And with the heavy influence of magic, there is no reason to believe that D&D cultures couldn't create advanced guns if they set out on that technology path.

It's ridiculous when a bowman is 10 times superior to a gunman. It isn't even close to true in the real world. Once guns were advanced, bows becamse obsolete. Of course, not in the D&D world. C'mon now. Do guns right or don't include them.

If I made a world that included gun technology, I'd do it right. Especially given the amount of magic in the world. You'd have flamethrowers, automatic weapons with alchemical rounds, rocket propelled magic grenades, and armies of warriors armed with advanced guns that annihilated most common armies. Then I'd probably have the elves counter with arcane advancements to their bows and the like. Then their would be battles over ore and the necessary components for gunpowder creation and the like.

That being said, if you can be happy with the occasional far weaker than a bow gun in your game for the coolness factor, then go ahead. I wouldn't be. I know how potent guns are and the D&D version of guns is ridiculous. I'll keep my players using bows, slings, and crossbows unless I feel like working in proper guns and their affect on warfare into my campaign.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 3, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> Once you factor this into play and did research, you see the introduction of gun and cannon changed a lot of things.  You didn't need to have feudalism anymore.  You couldn't have the medieval castle anymore, they would logically have to be converted to star or polygon forts with sloping walls.  And it completely change the dynamics of warfare so you ended up with completely different government structures to handle it.  (It was the end of Feudalism and the rise of the centralized state, and the beginning of leevies instead of knights).
> 
> So, basically, I don't like guns and I dislike the introduction of them in the modern-steampunk-style use, because if you understand the history of warfare you'd find logic problems with the introduction of them at times.  I think the creators of those types of words aren't providing enough logic to their world.  I like Fantasy with as much realism as possible.  (In other words, avoid simplistic "it's magic" type of explanations).




And yet the introduction of magic changed nothing? I agree with the introduction of the cannon, castles changed (over many years). But don't you think the introduction of teleporting, passwall, flight, and fireballs would have changed castle design too? Yet it doesn't.

How can you worry about the effect the introduction of cannons and guns has on a society and then completely ignore the effects of the introduction of magic?


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Celtavian, the question I asked earlier in this thread, I'll ask you:
> 
> Why do we expect guns to have a huge effect on the in game world _if magic hasn't?_
> 
> Again, a single wizard can fly around and throw cloudkill, destroying an entire army all by himself.  Fireball+Enlarge Spell means you have one person with the strength of multiple cannons, five times their range and pinpoint accuracy.




Uh. I don't know about your game world, but magic has had a serious effect on my game world. The army with the more powerful wizards wins. Try and send an army without wizards against an army with wizards and see who wins. 

The assumption in a fantasy world is that powerful wizards are rare, thus they are coveted by kings and rulers and the like. That is why campaign worlds like _Forgotten Realms_ had so many powerful wizards that kept the peace or forces like Alustriel's mage force in Silverymoon or the War Wizards in Cormyy. They helped keep the peace in those kingdoms.

Even Greyhawk was often ruled over by wizard councils or their most powerful and prominent characters were wizards like Bigby, Mordenkainen, and Tenser.

And who rules drow society? Priests. With what? Priestly magic.

Do you read game settings at all? I would say that magic has altered the way they fight and the balance of power in almost every game world ever created whether it was wizards that destroyed massive areas of the world or is it is wizards running the world. 

Even in books like _Lord of the Rings_, Gandalf has far supeior power to all others in the book save for maybe other wizards or creatures like the Dark Lord. In a book like _Tigana_ two wizard overlords battling. In the _Wheel of Time_ it is the Dragon Reborn an the various wizard groups running things. In a _Song of Ice and Fire_ the rebirth of magic has brought back dragons and priestly powers for the fire gods that are raising the dead and changing how people fight.

So what exactly are you talking about? Magic in every fantasy story changes the way the world wars and the balance of power. Writers acknowledge it. Game designers acknowledge it. Setting writers acknowledge it. If anything the advancement of guns would either work with magic or directly against it. Only guns could match magical destruction without a magical source as their basis.

Did you really just state that magic hasn't altered the gameworld in D&D? I find that hard to believe. Yet 99% of the campaigns I play in, the group without a wizard or priest is going to lose to the group with both of those classes unless they are far superior. The entire reason a D&D party can defeat a dragon or similarly strong creature is because they have a wizard and a cleric backing them up. 

Magic has dramatically altered the D&D world compared to the real world. The only reason you may not have noticed is because D&D has always been that way.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

Bagpuss said:


> And yet the introduction of magic changed nothing? I agree with the introduction of the cannon, castles changed (over many years). But don't you think the introduction of teleporting, passwall, flight, and fireballs would have changed castle design too? Yet it doesn't.
> 
> How can you worry about the effect the introduction of cannons and guns has on a society and then completely ignore the effects of the introduction of magic?




What are you talking about?

It lead to the development of spells like _Forbiddance_. Magic led to counter magic. Thus kings and rulers that wanted their kingdoms protected had to have wizards and priests backing them up or they will lose.

What king could hold their kingdom together against a wizard intent on killing him in D&D? Wouldn't happen. All the wizard would do is turn the tide of every battle by decimating his army and if the king or ruler didn't find a wizard or priest right quick to help him, he would be doomed.

This has always been factored into every game setting. And it has dramatically altered the world. Not only do you have to construct your castles to repel armies, but you have to have your own wizards and to a lesser extent priests to provide the magical defenses of the castle.

Did you notice in the D&D fortress builder book a massive number of magical options for castle defense? That was a D&D example of how magic altered how people defend their castles and the like.

Do you think any powerful wizard builds a tower and doesn't put magical defenses on it if he is able knowing how easy it is for a magic user to get in?

There a whole bunch of spells with no combat game use whatsoever, purely for defending where you live. []Glyph of Warding[/i], _Guards and Wards_, _Forbiddance_, and _Permancy_ in combination with other spells to provide more defense against magical incursion.

Magic has changed the world. But it's already written into the game books in the form of crunch and fluff.


----------



## Starfox (Feb 3, 2010)

David Howery said:


> IEarly firearms were useful only in mass quantity... have a big bunch of men shoot lots of bullets to do a middling amount of damage.  The PCs lacked the numbers to do all that much with their pistols (especially with the high misfire modifiers I gleefully applied).  Basically, pistols were a one shot item they used and then put away as the dragon closed in...




This is an important observation. What is good for adventurers is not automatically good for an army and vice versa. An army has completely different concerns, such as supply, ease of use, shock effect and use in formations. Take the pike as an example. A very powerful weapon in massed formations, but a single pike is only useful is special situations. 

A gun in DnD should be a good option for a low-level commoner or warrior, but not necessarily for a professional adventurer. 



Bagpuss said:


> How can you worry about the effect the introduction of cannons and guns has on a society and then completely ignore the effects of the introduction of magic?




If I recall, one of the reasons given early on for why dungeons were built in the first place was that they offered intrinsic defenses against magic and the supernatural. Afraid a dragon will breath on your troops as you marshal them? Put the marshaling yard underground. Afraid a lightning bolt will blast your thin, high castle wall? Use yards of earth instead (as historical fortifications did, only above ground). And magic also makes those dungeons possible - spells like _dig_ exist to make dungeons feasible. 

Of course, some players prefer their fairy castles and a less simulationistic game, so dungeons as defenses were not universal.


----------



## Nebulous (Feb 3, 2010)

In general i don't like guns in D&D either because they seem out of place, but my campaign just reached a part where it is heavily pirate based, and almost all of the pictures features guys (and gals) with pistols. So...i said it is a locally popular weapon, and even has some magical versions of pistols.  I'm running 4e so a pistol is just a rechargeable power for pirates, does some decent damage and a condition effect. Nothing complicated.  PCs don't have the right feats to use such an exotic weapon efficiently, although they might later.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 3, 2010)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Given that 4e bows go, what, 200ish feet?  No need to do anything but give them, say
> 
> +2 Acc
> d6/d8/d10 damage to taste
> ...




For guns of that era, though, I would go with 5/10 as a range increment. I'd probably keep them as simple weapons, but make them expensive.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 3, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I'm just being colorful in showing that you're kind of missing the forest for the trees.






> If you want to educate and enlighten, you need to be gentle.




Please note the inherent humour in beginning with the first and ending in the second.


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 3, 2010)

DnD (and most RPGs) have major problems with ranged weapons in general that just get exacerbated with pre-modern firearms.  Modern firearms in RPGs of course suffer from the "in RL, you would never use anything that isn't a gun, so do we want to support martial artists/knife fighter character concepts" problem.

People have no problem abstracting away melee activity in a round to an arbitrary number of swings.  Ammunition, on the other hand, is quite countable.  If your ammunition is magic or otherwise limited, it gets even worse.  So attack rates for ranged weapons *means something concrete* while attack rates for melee weapons *doesn't*.

Further, in RL it generally only takes one honest hit to drop someone.  In an RPG, it frequently takes many (in DnD, it takes lots).  Again, melee attacks are abstract, while ranged attacks are concrete.  If it takes 10 sword "hits" to drop a guy, no one worries.  If it takes 10 arrow shots, you have a problem (you can't really shoot even a bow all *that* fast).  If it takes 10 *crossbow bolts*, the *concrete* loading time breaks your system.  If it takes 10 early blackpowder shots, pray you are using 1 minute rounds.

As early firearms take the utter extreme in high hitting power (including, in DnD's armor piercing=to hit world, good accurary)/low ROF parameter space, they don't work in DnD.  Yes, you could inflate their ROF and deflate their damage, but then, why even bother?  You don't have "firearms" in any meaningful sense anymore.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 3, 2010)

Who says I don't?

I've no objection to arquebusses, muskets, or even muzzle loading rifles.  I just expect adventurers to want to be able to hit the broad side of a barn door and not spend several rounds reloading.  Early gunpowder is therefore not an issue for adventurers any more than I expect there to be adventuring pikemen.  (About all it does is makes the town militia a force on the battlefield or provides non-magical artillery).  And I'd back trained longbowmen even against Napoleonic infantry.  (American Civil War infantry with breachloading rifles are another issue).

Longbows are better than crossbows - partly because there are fewer functional limits to the weapon and partly because they take much more training.  The reason the crossbow was considered dishonourable was that you could train a peasant in an afternoon to shoot hard enough to take down a knight.  (Longbows take years).

And I want a modern convertion of 4e that works as an action movie - Shotguns doing knockback etc.  (Bows and crossbows discarded).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 3, 2010)

> Is that the case in D&D? Nope.
> 
> If you go by how D&D stats their guns, you would think a bowman far superior to a gunman. Yet in the real world that is not the case at all.




I get that you lean on the Simulationist side of the equation a little hard, but is it out of league to say that guns, in D&D, are quite a bit different than in the real world?

Maybe they're more like wands, that the "common folk" can use, launching rounds with magic (or even launching magic)? Maybe the alchemical formula is different, giving them different penetrating power? Perhaps monsters and villains in fantasy games have the same ability to dodge and block bullets, what with their enchantments and their hide like diamond and their godlike reflexes? Perhaps bullets in a fantasy world are brittle and blunted and lack the piercing power of a steel round?

For my mileage, bows and guns do almost the same thing in FFZ (they've got some different "treasure" versions, but the basic guns and the basic bows have the same basic stats). Neither is superior, mostly because at FFZ's level of abstraction, it's a wash. Heck, they even wind up doing the same damage, though that's more of a coincidence, an accident of design (they could do more or less). 

I don't see this as unrealistic, because I don't see these fantasy "guns" as having a lot to do with historical guns. They look similar, and work in vaguely similar ways, but they are not the same thing, at all.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I get that you lean on the Simulationist side of the equation a little hard, but is it out of league to say that guns, in D&D, are quite a bit different than in the real world?
> 
> Maybe they're more like wands, that the "common folk" can use, launching rounds with magic (or even launching magic)? Maybe the alchemical formula is different, giving them different penetrating power? Perhaps monsters and villains in fantasy games have the same ability to dodge and block bullets, what with their enchantments and their hide like diamond and their godlike reflexes? Perhaps bullets in a fantasy world are brittle and blunted and lack the piercing power of a steel round?
> 
> ...




I wouldn't want to do it that way. Seems pointless. Why would anyone use a gun if a bow is much, much better?

Materials for making guns are harder to come by than bows. Materials for ammunition are harder to come by. Why would anyone put out the effort to make a gun if they are inferior to a bow?

If you want to throw guns in just because a player thinks it cool, then do it. But don't try to make it seem reasonable or well-simulated as some game designers seem to try to do. 

Make it like bows. As in they can fire up to 4 or 5 shots a round. A real bowman can't fire 5 or 6 shots a round no matter how long they've been doing it. They can't start off with a double shot or split three arrows together at targets within 30 feet. Why are game designers going out of their way to make crossbowman and gunman realistic while letting bow users go off?

That's not fair. Don't suddenly get realistic with guns and crossbows while letting bows be machine guns. That's what I'm talking about when I say done right on top of the affect on warfare.

No way some inventor is going to make some weak gun that pales in comparison to a bow as anything more than a novelty. So the game designers should ensure that there are feats in place (as they have recently done with crossbows) to make guns competitive and interesting if they are going to include them. Otherwise, why bother? The only way I would allow a gun is if I was building a setting based around gun technology or some player just really, really wanted to make a character like The Warlord comic I used to read and had to have a gun. And if I did that, I would at least make his gun special and cool rather than saying "here you go. Here's your d8 gun. Look at the longbowmen firing tons of arrows while your little piddly gun gets one shot or runs out of ammo."


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Who says I don't?
> 
> And I'd back trained longbowmen even against Napoleonic infantry.  (American Civil War infantry with breachloading rifles are another issue).




If Longbowmen were better, they would have been used. Every general or king was looking for a battle advantage. They would have went back to using longbowmen if they could beat infantry. But a group of infantry backed up by artillery would decimate longbowmen.


----------



## nightwyrm (Feb 3, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> I wouldn't want to do it that way. Seems pointless. Why would anyone use a gun if a bow is much, much better?




One word. Training. You could train a peasant to shoot a gun in battlefield conditions in a few weeks. You need years of training and physical conditioning to shoot a longbow continuously for a battle. 

Early firearms were worse than bows.  Early guns had worse accuracy and rate of fire.  But would you rather have several hundred bowman or several thousand gunman.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 3, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> I've no objection to arquebusses, muskets, or even muzzle loading rifles.  I just expect adventurers to want to be able to hit the broad side of a barn door and not spend several rounds reloading.  Early gunpowder is therefore not an issue for adventurers any more than I expect there to be adventuring pikemen.  (About all it does is makes the town militia a force on the battlefield or provides non-magical artillery).  And I'd back trained longbowmen even against Napoleonic infantry.  (American Civil War infantry with breachloading rifles are another issue).
> 
> Longbows are better than crossbows - partly because there are fewer functional limits to the weapon and partly because they take much more training.  The reason the crossbow was considered dishonourable was that you could train a peasant in an afternoon to shoot hard enough to take down a knight.  (Longbows take years).




Good points - early firearms were basically only effective at short range and when using massed firepower.  A primary value of them was the shock & awe of the loud noise and smoke scaring horses.

As a DM, I tend to use crossbows as weapons for lower level minion types, as they likely won't do more than get one shot off anyhow, but bows for specialized NPCs and bad guys.  (I still remember 1E and 2E days when bows got 2 shots a round, which indicated they fired twice as fast as crossbows...)

I think a realistic reload time for a medieval/early Renaissance gun would be at least a couple of rounds.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> One word. Training. You could train a peasant to shoot a gun in battlefield conditions in a few weeks. You need years of training and physical conditioning to shoot a longbow continuously for a battle.
> 
> Early firearms were worse than bows.  Early guns had worse accuracy and rate of fire.  But would you rather have several hundred bowman or several thousand gunman.



A longbowman was a years long investment, a peasant with a gun is expendable.  A longbowman might be twice as effective as a handgonner, but you could field a lot more than two musketeers to each longbowman.

The real competition for the gun was the crossbow - even easier to train users, but so very, very slow to load.... A crossbow was more accurate, and was better at penetrating armor, but did less tissue damage than a bullet.

Pikes, warhammers, and polearms lasted more than a century after the gun became common - during the Thirty Years War the Spanish Hapsburgs still fielded more than twice as many pike as arquebusiers.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 3, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> If Longbowmen were better, they would have been used. Every general or king was looking for a battle advantage. They would have went back to using longbowmen if they could beat infantry. But a group of infantry backed up by artillery would decimate longbowmen.




IIRC they looked into going back to longbowmen.  Better range, better accuracy, better rate of fire.  There was, however, one good reason they considered the attempt impractical.  Training time.  It took days to train someone to use a musket competently.  It takes years to build up the skill and strength required for a 100lb+ longbow.


----------



## Jack7 (Feb 3, 2010)

I have three general points against guns in fantasy role play games.

*1.* Once they become widespread then you can kill a man, and most other things fairly easily, tipping the balance of power to technology versus magic. (Sure, you could invent a spell that acts as shield or even a targeting displacement, but could you get it up in time before several guys discharge rounds to your head or a vital organ? And don't forget that if everyone or even a sufficient number of individuals have guns then the disadvantages of long re-load and re-fire times can be rather easily overcome by smart and practiced variable rates of fire, along with variable position fire.) So they tip power scales against other forces towards combat oriented technology, but not just combat oriented technology, but technology with a highly lethal potential and capability. Which initially sounds great but this merely redirects the use of magic (as but one easily noticed side-effect) towards ever more combat-oriented expression in an attempt to counter-balance force-projection capabilities (and magic in fantasy games is already far too combat oriented to me - meaning all you really have left is a tactical combat game with magic attempting to match technology at the level of basic engagement, a supposedly game of role-playing would become even more just a tactical skirmish game with new weapon systems). After all if magic cannot effectively compete with technology as a combat tool then it will be abandoned as a combat tool, so as far as combat is concerned magic would either adapt, or die. If you do not believe this then ask yourself this question, "how likely would it be that if gun(s) were introduced into your campaign that this would not be almost immediately followed by an arms-race?" The race implying a rush to technological improvement that would far exceed that of other weapons, because gun weapons are far more open ended and versatile in capability and potential than swords, pikes, spears, long-bows, etc. In the narrow range of combat function they show almost as much potential as magic, and can often be far more directly lethal.

*2.* How wide spread exactly will they be and how fast will they spread? Once guns become replicable (in the sense of being mass-produced, and believe me a smart political and military power will look for ways to mass produce effective weapon systems) then the period of time in which they will be of little practical value (see fire-rate mastery above) will be a short one. The natural impetus of technological advancement is of relatively short direction and for an easy reason and that is that technology works upon the foundations of science, meaning a thing is almost always replicable. Meaning it spreads like wildfire and improves constantly over the lifespan of the invention, sometimes for generations and generations. With magic, which unfortunately in games far too often mimics pseudo science in effect, the implication (still existing, even if unstated) at least is that magic is very hard to master and so hard to replicate that only a few practitioners or experts may master the principles in any given population group. A child, and I have trained my own children to shoot well, can master any sufficiently advanced firearm and easily dispatch a far more dangerous yet unarmed opponent. If you're being honest about it. (Of course if your firearm is so primitive that it is extremely inaccurate and is very ineffective then that's beyond the point - because why really employ such an inaccurate and dangerous device, except maybe as a psychological weapon, or to render a one time shock effect.) So as a matte of technology and science guns are extremely dangerous to any world in which they are introduced when it comes to replication and how fast they will spread. Because once guns are mass produced they are no longer tactical weapons like swords, they become strategic weapons. Numbers of swords always remain in actual effect, tactical weans. Numbers of guns, behind a good leader, or anyone who really understands their potential, always become over time strategic weapons. And that's a whole nuther kettle of fish. Only in cartoons is Judo ever much of a match for a Peacemaker. Plus it takes a along time to kill a man with a knife if he's fighting back and knows what he's doing, and that kinda thing is extremely dangerous to everybody involved. I can do it almost instantly if he's in effective range of my shotgun. The only real danger to me is the question of how many shells will I discharge before he ain't breathing no more. And that's an economic question, not even much of a tactical one one.

*3.* I think they defeat the point of personal and heroic valor (only as regards the duel or close combat aspect of fantasy gaming combat styles - I am not implying gun combat cannot be valorous and dangerous and heroic under certain circumstances - I've seen this myself) in fantasy combat. Because of what I said in points one and two above.

Now all of that being said I am not against guns ever appearing in a fantasy setting and a few have in mine. Only one used a modified type of gunpowder, the other three functioned in different ways (one even fired different types of ammunition). But to me guns in fantasy settings should be proprietary artifacts, either created or discovered, have certain built in limitations (all guns, like any other technology, does anyway, it just might not be immediately evident to those unfamiliar with how guns really operate), as well as certain capability advantages, but should not be easily replicable, if at all. They should be like a sufficiently high-powered magical artifact.

That limits how wide-spread they can become in a given fantasy world but does not necessarily limit their overall effectiveness in use for small scale combat.


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 3, 2010)

NewJeffCT said:


> Good points - early firearms were basically only effective at short range and when using massed firepower.  A primary value of them was the shock & awe of the loud noise and smoke scaring horses.
> ...




This is different from the value of bows and crossbows... how?  Well, other that the fact that early firearms _could_ actually hurt someone, whereas bows and crossbows had been completely sidelined by mass armor introduction.  Loud noises and smoke scaring horses might, just conceivably have been of some value up to, say, 5 years after significant adoption of firearms, but we know that you could train horses to deal with it, so it completely fails as a major component of the utility.

Bows *suck* as weapons in RL.  Bows *are not* long range weapons.  Bows *are not* armor piercing weapons.  There is a reason that the only people who used bows were people who could actively avoid melee (siege, navy, horse archers), *and even those people at best used bows as coequal military arms*.

Which does, I suppose, bring us slightly back on topic: part of the reason guns do poorly in DnD is that DnD overstates the performance of bows.


----------



## Tale (Feb 3, 2010)

People don't like guns because they hate fun.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Feb 3, 2010)

I dislike guns in D&D for the same reasons I dislike tophats and spats in D&D.

It has nothing to do with balance of power for me, it has everything to do with breaking the mental images I have of my campaigns.

The Freeport stuff doesn't bother me in the least, but it isn't found in my campaign world.  If I were playing in a Freeport game I'd happily run a character with a gun, but a fully armored knight would cause me the same issues in that campaign that the tophat and spats cause in my "sword and sorcery" game.


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 3, 2010)

I find that Warhammer scratches my black-powder fantasy itch more than a homebrew D&D game would; it's more a solid unity of theme, and I do like themed games a lot. The fashion evokes a black powder era, and the art does a lot to get players' heads around the conventions.

D&D is more the game I go to for the romance of the sword, be it scimitars in the desert, swords against sorcery, or something in the chivalric romance genre. If I'm feeling more in more of a romance of the gun kind of mood, I think a Weird West sort of game is more what I'd do.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 3, 2010)

I think it boils down to this: some people don't like guns in D&D because neither Conan nor Strider used one. Ditto Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Sure, John Carter often used radium-based Red Martian firearms, but I think most people forget how much sword-and-planet fiction informed early D&D.

It's all about genre conventions and genre-emulation. For some folks, guns just aren't fantasy. What I don't quit get is why some people think guns make heroes less heroic? What about other martial technologies? Are the Knights of the Round Table cheapened by their plate armor and _stirrups_?  

As for me, I like 'em. Then again, my 1st character was named "Severian", and I would have loved to kit him out with an ancient laser pistol and a mercury-filled two-handed sword...


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 3, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> This is different from the value of bows and crossbows... how?  Well, other that the fact that early firearms _could_ actually hurt someone, whereas bows and crossbows had been completely sidelined by mass armor introduction.  Loud noises and smoke scaring horses might, just conceivably have been of some value up to, say, 5 years after significant adoption of firearms, but we know that you could train horses to deal with it, so it completely fails as a major component of the utility.
> 
> Bows *suck* as weapons in RL.  Bows *are not* long range weapons.  Bows *are not* armor piercing weapons.  There is a reason that the only people who used bows were people who could actively avoid melee (siege, navy, horse archers), *and even those people at best used bows as coequal military arms*.
> 
> Which does, I suppose, bring us slightly back on topic: part of the reason guns do poorly in DnD is that DnD overstates the performance of bows.



Bows useless in combat?  Please!  Tell it to the French at Agincourt and Crecy.  Tell it to the legions at Carrhae.  Tell it to the Samurai.  And there's a reason the archers outnumbered the melee specialists in each of those battles on the winning side.

Yes, White Plate defeated arrows.  Even with Bodkin heads.  But White Plate defeated just about everything, ranged and melee.  Late medaeval europeans were the best armour makers the world had ever seen.  And it took some of their best work to stop the English Longbow.  But if you think the Lorica Segmentum of the Roman legions wasn't decent armour that's your issue.  Or for that matter the armour that was still being worn by the French in the first two thirds of the Hundred Years War.

The longbow had its place on the battlefield pretty much from the dawn of warfare until the mid fifteenth century.  With good reason.  Not all armies used it - but many did (and it was particularly effective against horses).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 3, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> This is different from the value of bows and crossbows... how?  Well, other that the fact that early firearms _could_ actually hurt someone, whereas bows and crossbows had been completely sidelined by mass armor introduction.  Loud noises and smoke scaring horses might, just conceivably have been of some value up to, say, 5 years after significant adoption of firearms, but we know that you could train horses to deal with it, so it completely fails as a major component of the utility.
> 
> Bows *suck* as weapons in RL.  Bows *are not* long range weapons.  Bows *are not* armor piercing weapons.  There is a reason that the only people who used bows were people who could actively avoid melee (siege, navy, horse archers), *and even those people at best used bows as coequal military arms*.
> 
> Which does, I suppose, bring us slightly back on topic: part of the reason guns do poorly in DnD is that DnD overstates the performance of bows.



Bows useless in combat?  Please!  Tell it to the French at Agincourt and Crecy.  Tell it to the legions at Carrhae.  Tell it to the Samurai.  And there's a reason the archers outnumbered the melee specialists in each of those battles on the winning side.

Yes, White Plate defeated arrows.  Even with Bodkin heads.  But White Plate defeated just about everything, ranged and melee.  Late medaeval europeans were the best armour makers the world had ever seen.  And it took some of their best work to stop the English Longbow.  But if you think the Lorica Segmentum of the Roman legions wasn't decent armour that's your issue.  Or for that matter the armour that was still being worn by the French in the first two thirds of the Hundred Years War.

The longbow had its place on the battlefield pretty much from the dawn of warfare until the mid fifteenth century.  With good reason.  Not all armies used it - but many did (and it was particularly effective against horses).


----------



## Holy Bovine (Feb 3, 2010)

In D&D the fantasy worlds I use tend to assume a low tech level where technological innovation has been supplanted by magical innovation.  You still have the lowly peasants toiling away at the farm but the cities are often wonderous in comparison with 'continual' flame streetlights and animated statues as city guards.  Guns just seem out of place although I have used things like cannons and crude mortars as static castle defenses so gunpowder isn't usually unknown.

Compare that to a Warhammer Fantasy RPG and guns are not only commonplace but very important to the feel of the setting, imo.  Just one of the reasons I love WFRP.


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 3, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Bows useless in combat?  Please!  Tell it to the French at Agincourt and Crecy.  Tell it to the legions at Carrhae.  Tell it to the Samurai.  And there's a reason the archers outnumbered the melee specialists in each of those battles on the winning side.




I didn't say useless.  I said they sucked.  We have 2 battles won by heavy infantry (in a strong defensive position) with archer support and 1 battle won by horsearchers with heavy cavalry support.  The Carrhae description makes clear that without the heavy cavalry the battle would have been indecisive.



> Yes, White Plate defeated arrows.  Even with Bodkin heads.  But White Plate defeated just about everything, ranged and melee.  Late medaeval europeans were the best armour makers the world had ever seen.  And it took some of their best work to stop the English Longbow.  But if you think the Lorica Segmentum of the Roman legions wasn't decent armour that's your issue.  Or for that matter the armour that was still being worn by the French in the first two thirds of the Hundred Years War.




Historically, all bows have struggled against all armor.  Bows have always been marginal weapons.  Which has a whole lot to do with people not really fielding them much.  Interestingly, the people who did use horsearchers who also *had money for armor* that I know of (Sassanids/Byzantines) treated the horsearchers as a secondary arm to the heavy cav.



> The longbow had its place on the battlefield pretty much from the dawn of warfare until the mid fifteenth century.  With good reason.  Not all armies used it - but many did (and it was particularly effective against horses).




And no army (other than in siege and maybe naval circumstances) used the longbow as a primary arm.  Fancy that.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 3, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> This is different from the value of bows and crossbows... how?  Well, other that the fact that early firearms _could_ actually hurt someone, whereas bows and crossbows had been completely sidelined by mass armor introduction.  Loud noises and smoke scaring horses might, just conceivably have been of some value up to, say, 5 years after significant adoption of firearms, but we know that you could train horses to deal with it, so it completely fails as a major component of the utility.
> 
> Bows *suck* as weapons in RL.  Bows *are not* long range weapons.  Bows *are not* armor piercing weapons.  There is a reason that the only people who used bows were people who could actively avoid melee (siege, navy, horse archers), *and even those people at best used bows as coequal military arms*.
> 
> Which does, I suppose, bring us slightly back on topic: part of the reason guns do poorly in DnD is that DnD overstates the performance of bows.




Umm, longbows were noted for their ability to penetrate armor at range - it wasn't until steel full plate armor came into regular use in the later half of the 14th century that longbows (and crossbows) started losing their popularity as a weapon.

Similarly, crossbows were noted for their ability to kill armored knights.  

Early firearms also did not penetrate heavy armor, and men still wore armor into combat as late as the early 20th century for the protection it afforded.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 3, 2010)

FYI, there were cannons at Crece.  So um, that doesn't exactly help the guns are anti-historical argument.

Composite longbows were exotic weapons that weren't trained for accuracy.  D&D has stretched the rules.  That's fine - I'm all for the archtypical archer drawn back, waiting awhile, then unleashing a storm into an enemy.

The problem is, D&D won't stretch the rules for any other ranged weapon.


Regarding magic and firearms: Yes, I have read the settings.  That wasn't my point at all.

Complaint: Firearms would change the settings works and alter how armies and knights and such operate.

Response: Magic _would_ already do this.  Guns are no much for someone who flies and fireballs.  And yet, despite the fact that a single mage could annihilate a castle by himself, *castles still exist*.  Sure, many rulers are wizards, but that just makes it more weird - they'd know better then anyone that big long towers and castles offer no protections against a wizard.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 3, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> I didn't say useless.  I said they sucked.  We have 2 battles won by heavy infantry (in a strong defensive position) with archer support and 1 battle won by horsearchers with heavy cavalry support.  The Carrhae description makes clear that without the heavy cavalry the battle would have been indecisive.




So, what you're saying is that because archers can't win battles all by themselves, archers "suck?" Baloney. You can't win a modern war with air power alone, but air power is still immensely valuable. Archers were a devastating force on the battlefield when deployed in combination with other troops. Just because other troops were required does not make archers "suck." Look up "combined arms" sometime.

As for the specific battles in question: At Agincourt, the archers effectively negated the enemy cavalry, a major contribution. At Crecy, they laid waste to the whole opposing force. The infantry just protected them while they did it. At Carrhae, the Parthians forced the Romans into an impossible dilemma; they could fight in open formation and be devastated by Parthian horse archers, or they could lock their shields and be unable to defend themselves against cataphract charges. Both archers and cataphracts were required for victory.

The Mongols carved out the largest empire the world has ever seen, using arrow fire to break up enemy formations, then charging into melee to finish off the disorganized foe. The first part of that maneuver was absolutely crucial for the second to have any hope of success. English longbows were so deadly, and so vital to England's military victories, that Edward III issued an edict requiring every able-bodied man in the country to "learn and practise archery."

Bows are obviously not as good as modern guns, but for most of history they were highly effective weapons and widely used in warfare. Like all weapons, they had their limitations, but they certainly did not "suck."


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 3, 2010)

deleted


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

*What about the historic Mongols?*

Ah, the Mongols practically took over Europe, they certainly took over the Mideast and Russia - if it weren't for the Khan to die in the homeland, Europe might have been a Mongol state, as Russia was for much of its history.

How could they do this (hint) they had bows and were mounted archers. If the bow is such an inadequete RL weapon in combat, how could this have happened.

Mongols didn't wear heavy armor, some had armor, many had no armor whatsoever. Mongols had several specialized types of long composite bow, one fired using your feet for super long distance ranges, followed by mounted archery, until they were really close, then some used javelins at close range.

This occurred in the 14th century - the march into Europe. Armor in Europe, while not Maximillian armor was a plate-mail type construction, almost going to full plate - yet there was no stopping the Mongol Hordes from practically reaching Austria, they did sack Czechoslovakia.

The entire Mongol military machine was dependant and horses and bows. Had their khans survived for the European campaigns to finish - Europe might have been a very different place.

Point: bows have proven to be among the most effective weapons in military history - with many examples, the Mongol example is just one of them. The idea that bows "suck" in RL is simply false.

GP


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

nightwyrm said:


> One word. Training. You could train a peasant to shoot a gun in battlefield conditions in a few weeks. You need years of training and physical conditioning to shoot a longbow continuously for a battle.
> 
> Early firearms were worse than bows.  Early guns had worse accuracy and rate of fire.  But would you rather have several hundred bowman or several thousand gunman.




Guns had greater penetration than bows too. Guns are what made plate armor obsolete and were more deadly than bows. It was much easier to get an arrow out of a man than a little lead ball. Armor had actually been developed to resist bowfire, even longbow fire. Though it did take a long time to train a bow user, it is not as easy as you make it sound to train a group of firearms users to fire as one. Takes quite a bit of training.

Guns are superior in warfare to bows. That is why they replaced them. They advanced quite quickly past bows, which is why they replaced them. 

And if an archer is taking an average of 12 seconds per shot, what is the load time of a gun? From what I've seen of the musket, a trained person could load one pretty quickly and fire again. Probably not much more time than 12 seconds for some well trained soldiers.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> IIRC they looked into going back to longbowmen.  Better range, better accuracy, better rate of fire.  There was, however, one good reason they considered the attempt impractical.  Training time.  It took days to train someone to use a musket competently.  It takes years to build up the skill and strength required for a 100lb+ longbow.




And penetrating power and killing ability. I just last week read a book on this. The gun had greater penetration than the longbow. No armor they made back in that time could stop a gun, yet they had developed plate resistant to longbow arrows.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Ah, the Mongols practically took over Europe, they certainly took over the Mideast and Russia - if it weren't for the Khan to die in the homeland, Europe might have been a Mongol state, as Russia was for much of its history.
> 
> How could they do this (hint) they had bows and were mounted archers. If the bow is such an inadequete RL weapon in combat, how could this have happened.
> 
> ...




There have been many mounted bow troops. And when the Crusaders went to attack the Muslims in the Middle East, their small bows were harassing weapons. They could barely penetrate the mail of the Crusaders. This was before the advent of plate. They used bowfire to wound horses.

The Mongols were successful because of numbers. There weren't many standing armies back in the days of the Mongols. United standing armies equal in size to the Mongol horde were pretty rare.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 3, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Bows useless in combat?  Please!  Tell it to the French at Agincourt and Crecy.  Tell it to the legions at Carrhae.  Tell it to the Samurai.  And there's a reason the archers outnumbered the melee specialists in each of those battles on the winning side.
> 
> Yes, White Plate defeated arrows.  Even with Bodkin heads.  But White Plate defeated just about everything, ranged and melee.  Late medaeval europeans were the best armour makers the world had ever seen.  And it took some of their best work to stop the English Longbow.  But if you think the Lorica Segmentum of the Roman legions wasn't decent armour that's your issue.  Or for that matter the armour that was still being worn by the French in the first two thirds of the Hundred Years War.
> 
> The longbow had its place on the battlefield pretty much from the dawn of warfare until the mid fifteenth century.  With good reason.  Not all armies used it - but many did (and it was particularly effective against horses).




True. But they couldn't stop the gun. Even now with all our technology, killing power is still far past defense.


----------



## Tale (Feb 3, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> And penetrating power and killing ability. I just last week read a book on this. The gun had greater penetration than the longbow. No armor they made back in that time could stop a gun, yet they had developed plate resistant to longbow arrows.



 And I just read this past week that the origin of "bullet proof" is armor that has been tested against bullets.  Buyers would actually look for the dent.  Not the hole.


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 3, 2010)

Mallus said:


> I think it boils down to this: some people don't like guns in D&D because neither Conan nor Strider used one. Ditto Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Sure, John Carter often used radium-based Red Martian firearms, but I think most people forget how much sword-and-planet fiction informed early D&D.




I don't think it's even a matter of forgetting how much any one source did or didn't inform early D&D as the authors played it: it's a matter of what sources inform the D&D games that a given player partook of early in their gaming career, and what sources inform them even now. Gygax wasn't much of a fan of Lord of the Rings, but there are tons of D&D gamers who are, and the inspiration they get out of Tolkien (or Jackson) matters a lot more than what worked best for Gygax.


----------



## nightwyrm (Feb 3, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> And if an archer is taking an average of 12 seconds per shot, what is the load time of a gun? From what I've seen of the musket, a trained person could load one pretty quickly and fire again. Probably not much more time than 12 seconds for some well trained soldiers.




Depends on what gun you're talking about. Remember that there's a span of several centuries between the earliest muskets and the emergence of the rifle. 

Napoleonic era (early 1800s) muzzle loading muskets can fire off 3 rounds in a minute Muzzleloader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. If you're using a breech loader, your fire rate obviously goes up.

This is not taking into account that you basically have to clean your muskets of powder residues after every 10 shots or so.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 3, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> The Mongols were successful because of numbers. There weren't many standing armies back in the days of the Mongols. United standing armies equal in size to the Mongol horde were pretty rare.




So the weapons they carried were meaningless. I guess the Mongols were stupid, they should have avoided carrying weapons at all, since Russia, China, the Mideast, Czechoslovakia, Poland all gave up because of Mongol numbers. Why even use weapons and armor in war, since only the numbers matter - somehow that sounds WRONG.

How about them dumb ole English Long Bowman - what a waste of time. So that's why the French cut off the fingers of a captured English Bowman, to teach them a lessen for choosing such an inferior weapon to battle. The French hated them because of that.

While its really not worth discussing history with you, since you obviously know more than the truth about every standing army that ever chose bows as a weapon of war. What a bunch of dumb asses they were.

Since it only takes numbers perhaps sending 50,000 peasants with no weapons was better - the other side would just give up, cause numbers is everything... 

GP


----------



## Kinneus (Feb 3, 2010)

For the same reason I don't like aliens in Indiana Jones.
Oh, wait...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> So the weapons they carried were meaningless. I guess the Mongols were stupid, they should have avoided carrying weapons at all, since Russia, China, the Mideast, Czechoslovakia, Poland all gave up because of Mongol numbers. Why even use weapons and armor in war, since only the numbers matter - somehow that sounds WRONG.
> 
> How about them dumb ole English Long Bowman - what a waste of time. So that's why the French cut off the fingers of a captured English Bowman, to teach them a lessen for choosing such an inferior weapon to battle. The French hated them because of that.
> 
> ...




Heh - play nice. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 3, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> There have been many mounted bow troops. And when the Crusaders went to attack the Muslims in the Middle East, their small bows were harassing weapons. They could barely penetrate the mail of the Crusaders. This was before the advent of plate. They used bowfire to wound horses.
> 
> The Mongols were successful because of numbers. There weren't many standing armies back in the days of the Mongols. United standing armies equal in size to the Mongol horde were pretty rare.




Okay Celtavian, you just need to stop this. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Speaking as someone with a Bachelor's degree in History (with Medieval Europe and East Asia as my specialties), most of the facts you have been spouting have been completely wrong. Rather than tear them all apart one-by-one, I will focus on the Mongol issue and use it to point out some of the various issues covered in this thread.

The Mongol's certainly didn't win battles using sheer numbers. After all, their biggest conquest was China, and it is almost a historical fact that no-one outnumbers the Chinese army. The Chinese weren't slouches either. The 13th century, Song-dynasty Chinese had pretty sophisticated "mountain-pattern" scale armor and even could field gunpowder artillery. There are plenty of historical accounts of the Chinese throwing gunpowder bombs off their walls at the besieging Mongols. The Mongols still won in the end using their horse-mounted archers and their brilliant organization and tactics. Of course the Mongols took gunpowder weapons for themselves and utilized them against their enemies, including the Chinese.

Throughout history, the nomadic tribes of the Central Asian steppes, who primarily relied on mounted archers, have repeatedly conquered everyone else in Eurasia. Their fighting ability can not be understated.

Anyways, guns and gunpowder have a much older history than people usually give them credit. Here is a rough timeline of the advancement of gunpowder weaponry (and the armor used to combat it):

10th-11th century: Gunpowder is invented in China and utilized in primitive incendiary and smoke bombs, as well as in fire spears and fire arrows. (In Europe, William the Conqueror invades England, Chainmail is still the best armor available, and the knight's lance hasn't been invented yet.)

12th century: Cannons and grenades are first utilized in warfare. (Richard the Lionhearted is off on the Crusades.)

13th century: Rocketry is first developed, and rockets are deployed as weapons. Cannons first spread to the Arabic world. (Later crusades, Mongols reach Europe.)

14th century: Ming China fields entire military divisions of gunpowder-using troops. The hand-cannon is developed. Gunpowder weapons reach Europe. Plate armor is developed and is worn by both mounted knights and foot-soldiers. (Hundred years war is in full swing.)

15th century: The matchlock arquebus is invented and widely adopted. Advancements with infantry trained with long pikes obsoletes mounted knights. Battles switch to armies of foot-soldiers wearing plate armor and armed with guns and spears. (The Battle of Agincourt is in 1415, Colombus discovers the Americas in 1492.)

16th century: Wheellock firearms are developed. Mounted archers are still being used by the Mughuls to conquer India (alongside muskets and cannons). Cortez conquers the Aztecs while wearing plate armor and carrying both a musket and a sword. Nobunaga Oda uses guns and swords to begin the unification of Japan. (Queen Elizabeth is alive in late 16th century.)

17th century: Around 1650, the flintlock musket is developed, finally creating a weapon that obsoletes plate armor. (The Scientific Revolution takes place.)

18th century: Flintlock muskets and field artillery fully rise to prominence, but cavalry swords and bayonet charges still play a major role in combat. (American Revolution and French Revolution occur towards the end).

19th century: The widespread adoption of rifling in gun barrels for the first time. The development, in rabid succession, of the minie ball, the percussion cap, smokeless gunpowder, metal cartridge ammunition, and repeating firearms paves the way for modern weapons. The Gatling gun and Maxim machine gun are invented.

20th century: Modern automatic firearms are invented and come into wide use. New materials are invented that can resist gunfire, making armor once again an essential part of the battlefield.


For some reason, a lot of people seem to block out large sections of this timeline from their thinking. When "early firearms" are brought up, they think of the 18th century, and completely forget about the seven hundred years of much more complicated history that preceded it. For example, Napoleon's troops were not using anything even resembling what could be called "early firearms", yet he seems to be continuously brought up in these discussions as if he did. It is also worth pointing out that plate armor and the knight are not directly correlated; plate armor only came into use in the twilight days of the knight, and lived on for centuries longer.

My background as a student of history makes me much more inclined to like having guns in D&D.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 3, 2010)

> My background as a student of history makes me much more inclined to like having guns in D&D.




So it turns out to look like the only reason people seem to have for not liking guns in D&D is _personal taste_, however rationalized.

Which is fine. Great, even. Ideal. Our games should reflect our favorite images of the fantastic.


----------



## Herobizkit (Feb 4, 2010)

All this realism and simulationist talk is very interesting and enlightening, but I'd like to point out an important detail that I mentioned up-thread:

None of this actually matters in a magic-using world.

Spellcasters will continue to obliterate foes with a touch or a wave of a wand, Men-At-Arms will continue to charge into the fray swinging their axes or whatever they have, and generic NPC soliders will use whatever weapons are affordable by their liege lord.  The richer the king, the better the weapons, and if that means guns, well... too bad for the other guy.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2010)

I think most of us have already conceded to that. The realism discussion is less about simulationism in gaming, and more about trying correct misinformation regarding what bows and guns were capable throughout history - more a threadjack really.

Except for the most anal gaming groups, most kind of "hand wave" realism in favor of fun and flavor, which is what D&D should be about. Besides D&D is not really a simulationist game - it could be played that way, but then the rules aren't really built for that.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 4, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So it turns out to look like the only reason people seem to have for not liking guns in D&D is _personal taste_, however rationalized.
> 
> Which is fine. Great, even. Ideal. Our games should reflect our favorite images of the fantastic.




SHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

You're interwebbing wrong!  ;-)

Brad


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 4, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So it turns out to look like the only reason people seem to have for not liking guns in D&D is _personal taste_, however rationalized.
> 
> Which is fine. Great, even. Ideal. Our games should reflect our favorite images of the fantastic.




Yep, very true.


----------



## Glade Riven (Feb 4, 2010)

I can see how guns can grate people wrong. As to why firearms arn't usually developed in D&D settings...seriously; weapon wands, even those that need a range-touch role, are far more potent. Most settings do not have a need for firearms to develope. I did a check one time with Privateer Press's Iron Kingdoms setting (which has guns) on building a "ray gun" out of their Liber Mechanica book. The damage was sick in comparison (Scorching Ray 4d6 vs. Range Touch, hook it up to warcaster armor via a cable and infinite WAND of DOOM vs. 2d8 gun that requires a skill check to reload on the next turn).

Now, I like guns & my players like guns, and am working on some homebrew rules for a Pathfinder campaign setting. It starts with smoothbore muskets as exotic weapons with a 1dx (x being dice size for type of weapon) 17-20/x3 crit, full round action to reload. Hard to hit things accuratly, but when they do hit, the wound is nasty. It makes my PCs slightly uncomfortable with their mortality. Possible upgrades increase accuracy (rifling, 2dx dmg 19-20/x2 crit), but lessens the potential nastyness of the crit. Cartrege system upgrade improves reload time, but costs extra per round. Costs are equil to certaint magical improvements. In my setting it fits the fluff, and it makes random NPCs or villians dangerous. I can see it not working in other settings, though.

Oh, and Eberron doesn't have guns explicitly mentioned in any of the books - but if it exists in D&D, it exists somewhere in Eberron.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 4, 2010)

When I was eight and starting playing D&D, I was fascinated by Charlemagne and the history that followed it. The Basic Set lists plate mail as the heaviest armor. Thus, my earliest memories of D&D conjure up the 9th and 10th centuries more than than the 14th. When I get nostalgic about D&D, it's the dark, dark ages all the way. Nonetheless, I am also a big Warhammer Fantasy (1e and 2e) fan.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 4, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> I didn't say useless. I said they sucked. We have 2 battles won by heavy infantry (in a strong defensive position) with archer support and 1 battle won by horsearchers with heavy cavalry support. The Carrhae description makes clear that without the heavy cavalry the battle would have been indecisive.




Spot the ratio of troops used at Carrhae.  There was a reason the horse archers massively outnumbered the heavy cavalry.  And a monoculture of _anything_ is going to get beaten.  No weapon or armour is perfect.  (And without the horse archers, the Parthians would probably have lost).



> Historically, all bows have struggled against all armor.




Yes, it's called an arms race.  There has been a continual struggle between weapons and armour.  Bows have been part of it.  Armour was for a long time _bulletproof_ - and sold with a deliberate dent in it to prove it had stood up to being shot at.  It took a lot of advances in gun technology before they finally struggled past armour.  And armour made a comeback in the 20th Century.

And as for struggling against armour, tell that to anyone who thought chain was a defence against bows.

As for rate of fire, IIRC matchlocks were around 2/minute (less earlier), flintlocks around 3, and longbows found six a comfortable pace when worried about exhaustion.  They also had a better range than napoleonic muskets - and as armour had been driven off the battlefield by that point (it still wasn't worth spending the years to _train_ the longbowmen).



> Bows have always been marginal weapons. Which has a whole lot to do with people not really fielding them much. ...  And no army (other than in siege and maybe naval circumstances) used the longbow as a primary arm. Fancy that.




Um.  I can't be the only Englishman on this forum?

One primary arm generally makes you vulnerable to whatever can beat it.  Which is why very few armies have ever stuck to just one.  (Even the Romans didn't).

And thanks, SkyOdin.


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 4, 2010)

It is continuing the threadjack, but:



Neonchameleon said:


> Spot the ratio of troops used at Carrhae.  There was a reason the horse archers massively outnumbered the heavy cavalry.  And a monoculture of _anything_ is going to get beaten.  No weapon or armour is perfect.  (And without the horse archers, the Parthians would probably have lost).




So heavy lancers are expensive.  That doesn't mean that the purpose of archers (as archers) wasn't, (as it has always been) "mere" harassment.



> Yes, it's called an arms race.  There has been a continual struggle between weapons and armour.  Bows have been part of it.  Armour was for a long time _bulletproof_ - and sold with a deliberate dent in it to prove it had stood up to being shot at.  It took a lot of advances in gun technology before they finally struggled past armour.  And armour made a comeback in the 20th Century.




I'll let you be the judge of how full a powder load the armorer used...  But yes, you could make plate breastplates that bounced pistols.  However, that armor was proof against *everything (including lances)* except longarms.  Making armor that was proof against longarms was semi-possible (it is much, much easier to wield a bigger gun than to wear twice as thick and heavy armor) for a time, although the coverage had to be reduced.  

myArmoury.com: From Lance to Pistol



> And as for struggling against armour, tell that to anyone who thought chain was a defence against bows.




myArmoury.com: Mail: Unchained



> As for rate of fire, IIRC matchlocks were around 2/minute (less earlier), flintlocks around 3, and longbows found six a comfortable pace when worried about exhaustion.  They also had a better range than napoleonic muskets - and as armour had been driven off the battlefield by that point (it still wasn't worth spending the years to _train_ the longbowmen).




People keep on saying that bows have better ranges than muskets.  It isn't true.  What is true is that archers can afford to start shooting earlier because they can reload for a second volley.  The musketmen need to wait because they will only get one volley off.  On the other hand, firearms are the first and only ranged weapon ever fielded that could reasonably reliably stop disciplined infantry from closing (as witnessed by the fact that they are the first and only ranged infantry weapon ever fielded without melee support).

...

Getting back on topic, firearms in DnD (and many RPGs) suffer from the fact that the system cannot handle the RL aspects of the weapons in any meaningful sense.  So the appeal of firearms is limited to those who are excited by them AND feel that merely going "boom" is adequate to be a gun.  As people who are excited by firearms are also more prone to caring about the simulationism of their performace, you are left with a very small target audience.  Say, enough for a few lines in an out-of-the-way location (3e's DMG, for example), or a small dedicated 3rd party product.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 4, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> Getting back on topic, *weapons* in DnD (and many RPGs) suffer from the fact that the system cannot handle the RL aspects of the weapons in any meaningful sense.




Fixed that for you.


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 4, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So it turns out to look like the only reason people seem to have for not liking guns in D&D is _personal taste_, however rationalized.




And the only reason people seem to have for liking them in D&D, too!



> Which is fine. Great, even. Ideal. Our games should reflect our favorite images of the fantastic.




_Exactly so_.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Heroic literature is associated with periods in which expensive defensive technology largely outstripped offensive technology resulting in a military period where a well equipped and well trained artistocrat was relatively immune to attack and, hense, capable of great deeds.  Converse periods where offensive power tends to overwhelm defensive technology become eras of great conscript armies, which, while stirring to a wargamer aren't necessarily the stuff of heroic literature.
> 
> The medieval period with its advances in armor technology is one such period.  It's a military age of aristocratic armored horse warriors.  So too was the great Heroic age of Greece, when similar advances in Bronze armor and weapons left unarmored combatants with stone and wood tools in awe.  Medieval Japan is a similar period of armored aristocratic warriors.  Gradually, these ages were eclipsed by various advances in offensive technology: crossbows, longbows, and ultimately firearms.
> 
> ...



That all sounds pretty reasonable... however, it's easily demonstrable as wrong.  There's an entire subgenre of modern action movies called "gun fu" that belies your entire post.  There's also a genre you may be familiar with called the "western" in which heroic (and villainous) gunfighters go around the frontier countryside as icons of heroic stories.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 4, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> For some reason, a lot of people seem to block out large sections of this timeline from their thinking. When "early firearms" are brought up, they think of the 18th century, and completely forget about the seven hundred years of much more complicated history that preceded it. For example, Napoleon's troops were not using anything even resembling what could be called "early firearms", yet he seems to be continuously brought up in these discussions as if he did. It is also worth pointing out that plate armor and the knight are not directly correlated; plate armor only came into use in the twilight days of the knight, and lived on for centuries longer.
> 
> My background as a student of history makes me much more inclined to like having guns in D&D.




Great history lesson - thanks. That is part of what I said in my first post in this thread.  Whenever I see guns in D&D, it tends to be flintlock musket type guns against medieval arms & armor.   Early guns took a good 90-120 seconds to reload after each shot.  You could get 18-24 longbow arrows off in that time, 9-12 light crossbow bolts and 4-6 heavy crossbow bolts.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 4, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> So heavy lancers are expensive.  That doesn't mean that the purpose of archers (as archers) wasn't, (as it has always been) "mere" harassment.




Call it what you like. The lancers would not have won without the archers. If archers are "mere" harassment, so is a modern air force, but good luck fighting a war without one.



Kraydak said:


> On the other hand, firearms are the first and only ranged weapon ever fielded that could reasonably reliably stop disciplined infantry from closing (as witnessed by the fact that they are the first and only ranged infantry weapon ever fielded without melee support).




Originally, firearms were fielded the same way bows were, with ranks of pikemen to protect the gunners. Later, someone came up with a clever idea; unlike a bow, a gun is a long iron tube solid enough to serve as a melee weapon, so why not put something pointy on the end of it and dispense with the pikemen?

Hence the invention of the bayonet. Guns no longer needed melee support because they were melee weapons themselves. You can be damn sure that without that, pikemen would have stuck around--when your ranged weapon takes upwards of 15 seconds to reload and has a maximum effective range of about 100 yards, you do _not_ want to rely on it exclusively. Bayonets may seem like a curiosity nowadays, but back then they were an essential part of a soldier's gear. (Although even now, bayonets see use once in a while. In 2004, a Scottish unit deployed to Iraq was ambushed by insurgents; running low on ammo, they fixed bayonets and charged to great effect.)

But specialized melee troops were still employed, specifically sabre-wielding cavalry. You know what they did? They charged in and slaughtered the disorganized foe after massed gunfire broke up the enemy formation. Sound familiar? It should, because it's exactly what cavalry working with archers did, centuries before. Mongol horse archers took on much larger armies that way; your own "Lance to Pistol" link describes tactics that could have come straight out of General Subutai's handbook, if he'd had a handbook.

No one here is disputing that guns eventually became superior to bows. If they hadn't, we'd still be shooting arrows today. But early pistoliers and arquebusiers were deployed in exactly the same manner as archers, to perform exactly the same function--and not because the generals didn't know what they were doing, either.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 4, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> Okay Celtavian, you just need to stop this. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.



I second the call for Celtavian to stop.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 4, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Guns no longer needed melee support because they were melee weapons themselves.




Ah, the fond memories of bayonet drills and hand-to-hand combat training with the M-16.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 4, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> 17th century: Around 1650, the flintlock musket is developed, finally creating a weapon that obsoletes plate armor. (The Scientific Revolution takes place.)



Point of order! Flintlocks were invented well before 1650! (They just didn't become popular until then, for who knows what reason.  )


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 4, 2010)

NewJeffCT said:


> Great history lesson - thanks. That is part of what I said in my first post in this thread.  Whenever I see guns in D&D, it tends to be flintlock musket type guns against medieval arms & armor.   Early guns took a good 90-120 seconds to reload after each shot.  You could get 18-24 longbow arrows off in that time, 9-12 light crossbow bolts and 4-6 heavy crossbow bolts.



Which actually demonstrates that the load times on heavy crossbows are wrong - slow as loading an early handgun was it was still faster than operating the cranquin on a heavy crossbow.

The argument that has made the most sense, and the only irrefutable one, is 'personal preference' - some folks like guns, and some folks don't.

I like guns in my game, and focus on the early to mid 17th century in regards to weapons. Others like an earlier period, and still others just use what is in the books. And all those choices are fine.

I have found that folks in my games prefer having shorter the arquebus than to lugging around seven feet of musket.  My favorite is still a musket that has been cut down to carbine length, but the range was sacrificed for wieldiness on shipboard - ranges in a boarding action being much shorter. But some of the most telling uses of musket aboard ship were as sniping weapons to kill officers.

In play the guns are fired once, and then quarters close. Players seem to prefer dropping the gun and pulling a melee weapon to affixing a plug bayonet. Then again, I think that I have only had one player ever use a spear in my games, and that was a ranger with a long spear.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 5, 2010)

Kraydak said:


> It is continuing the threadjack, but:
> 
> So heavy lancers are expensive.  That doesn't mean that the purpose of archers (as archers) wasn't, (as it has always been) "mere" harassment.




Horses in general are expensive.  It was the archers that won Carrhae - the heavy cavalry couldn't break the Roman infantry on their own.  But could handle the Roman cavalry.  Heavy cavalry on their own would just have bounced off the disciplined heavy infantry the Romans liked using.  The heavy cavalry were the secondary element in slaughtering the Romans - without the heavy cavalry it would have been a minor roman defeat - but without the horse archers, the Romans wouldn't have been seriously threatened.

Combined arms historically has been a good thing.  (Or are you advocating for no air force?)



> I'll let you be the judge of how full a powder load the armorer used...




Depends how honest the armourer was.  And what period the test was.  Arquebusses normally couldn't.  But they developed over time and the heavier muskets normally could.  Not all longarms are the same.



> People keep on saying that bows have better ranges than muskets.  It isn't true.  What is true is that archers can afford to start shooting earlier because they can reload for a second volley.  The musketmen need to wait because they will only get one volley off.




Smoothbore or rifled musket?  I'll accept that someone using a muzzle loading rifle was as accurate as a longbowman.  And even slower firing than a normal muzzle loader - which is why they were a specialist role.



> On the other hand, firearms are the first and only ranged weapon ever fielded that could reasonably reliably stop disciplined infantry from closing (as witnessed by the fact that they are the first and only ranged infantry weapon ever fielded without melee support).




And no one is claiming that longbows are as effective as American Civil War firearms.  On the other hand, early-mid 17th century firearms as used in the thirty years war were mixed with pikemen to prevent the enemy closing and pikemen were still used effectively by professional armies such as the Swedes in the 1720s.  They simply were not used without melee support until a lot of development had been done.  And longbows could see off unarmoured infantry and most cavalry without too much trouble - it was heavily armoured infantry that they suffered against.  (Which is why there were proposals to bring them back in the Napoleonic wars - the better armour piercing of the bullets had removed the targets longbows were weak against.

You appear to be working under the assumption that a breachloading rifle loaded with cartridges and a matchlock arquebus loaded using a powder horn are both firearms and that they are therefore equivalent.  There were hundreds of years of evolution before firearms came to completely dominate the battlefield.


----------



## HandofMystra (Feb 5, 2010)

I am not sure if the OP got his question answered: I, personally,  do not like guns.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 5, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Which actually demonstrates that the load times on heavy crossbows are wrong - slow as loading an early handgun was it was still faster than operating the cranquin on a heavy crossbow.
> 
> The argument that has made the most sense, and the only irrefutable one, is 'personal preference' - some folks like guns, and some folks don't.
> 
> ...




I should have said a heavier crossbow, not a heavy crossbow, which was often a 2 man operation.  I was watching a demo of crossbow vs longbow and the light crossbow was firing at about half the rate of the longbow, but the guy using the crossbow said that the more typical medieval crossbow would have been half again as slow, mean about 1/4 the speed of a longbow, but still faster than any sort of firearms from the same era.


----------



## shadow (Feb 5, 2010)

Just to chime in with my 2cp - I used to actively *dislike* the inclusion of firearms in D&D games.  This was really because of genre reasons.  Most of the heroic high fantasy (or swords and sorcery) that comes to people's minds don't include firearms (e.g. _The Lord of the Rings_, _King Aurthur_, etc.)  However, I've come to loosen my stance of firearms in D&D.  Now the question is - what type of setting are you trying to create.  A setting in some legendary, mythic past probably doesn't need guns.  However, in swashbuckling style game, firearms are definitely appropriate.


----------



## messy (Feb 5, 2010)

anachronism.

(hooray for one-word posts!)


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 5, 2010)

shadow said:


> A setting in some legendary, mythic past probably doesn't need guns.  However, in swashbuckling style game, firearms are definitely appropriate.




We had a steampunkish Planescape game where guns up to repeating cartridge rifles were available.

Amazingly, nobody used them.  

Why?  They weren't worth the effort after like 4th level.  The characters I remember were either strength-types (my kensei anthro-tiger or the Dr00dzilla) or casters (the psion, the wizard, etc).  A weapon that didn't add a stat to damage was basically worthless to us.

The one time I recall using them, the druid player insisted we take these demons under rifle fire so as not to alert them to our possession of a kick-ass demon-killing spear.

By about the 20th round, when it was obvious the damage wasn't getting past their healing, we charged and killed them in two rounds in melee and great nukage.

Now, later on we ran into a golem with a gatling gun on his arm, and that was cool and scary.  And at lower levels we ran into puds with rifles, but they really just didn't do much.  We talked about it, and the best way we could find to make the firearms that the DM came up with was to start with a monk, use Zen Archery, and make a custom gunslinger monk prestige class based on the dude from Kung Fu, or maybe stack a ton of sneak attack onto it.

Brad


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 6, 2010)

Melee weapons are not more "heroic" than guns. Sword-fights, like gun-fights, are usually settled in seconds once serious combat is initiated, and usually go to the person with the steadier nerves and steadiest hand. Now, if you are more familiar with guns than with swords, it might be easier to romanticize them, but I think it should be evident that exciting sword fights are not necessarily realistic.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 6, 2010)

Tale said:


> And I just read this past week that the origin of "bullet proof" is armor that has been tested against bullets.  Buyers would actually look for the dent.  Not the hole.




What's your source?

You can find what I'm telling you in _A Knight in Armor_ and a _Knight in Battle_ and a _History of Medieval Warfare_. You trying to call me out for falsehoods? There's your sources.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 6, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> So the weapons they carried were meaningless. I guess the Mongols were stupid, they should have avoided carrying weapons at all, since Russia, China, the Mideast, Czechoslovakia, Poland all gave up because of Mongol numbers. Why even use weapons and armor in war, since only the numbers matter - somehow that sounds WRONG.
> 
> How about them dumb ole English Long Bowman - what a waste of time. So that's why the French cut off the fingers of a captured English Bowman, to teach them a lessen for choosing such an inferior weapon to battle. The French hated them because of that.
> 
> ...




Oh, this is your comeback. A sarcastic insulting comeback with little to no facts. Yes. I'm aware of the English longbow and the effectiveness of the longbow archer. I even know it was originally a Welsh weapon. And yes, I know about Crecy and Agincourt. I study Medieval Warfare, sorry for bothering to do so and offer that information here.

Of course the Mongol weapons were effective, but not superior to their opponents. The reason they conquered parts of Europe and China was because of numbers. Most European and Asian nations did not have large standing armies as we do nowadays. Thus they were unprepared for a large invasion by a horde the size of the Mongol Horde. It would have taken them a long time to gather an army to repel them. They were rather surprised by the advance of a foreign horde into European territory. It's not like old world Europe had a sophisticated intelligence system in place prepared for such eventualities.

And the small riding bow did have it's period of effectiveness, until defenses were created against them. The gun was the ultimate destroyer of the age of armor, at least armor as the Medieval folk made it. We have plenty of modern armor made for stopping small arms fire, but killing power has still far exceeded defense in modern warfare. One of the last times defense was competitive was back in the Medieval days where heavy armor was designed to protect against even longbow arrows.

The Mongols also had effective tactics. They knew how to siege cities, cut off supply lines, instill fear, and cut off communication. That is why they were feared over the weapons they employed. And if you failed to defend against them, they wiped you out as an example to future rulers that might defy them. Alot more going on than their skill with the small riding bow.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 6, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> Okay Celtavian, you just need to stop this. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Speaking as someone with a Bachelor's degree in History (with Medieval Europe and East Asia as my specialties), most of the facts you have been spouting have been completely wrong. Rather than tear them all apart one-by-one, I will focus on the Mongol issue and use it to point out some of the various issues covered in this thread.




I haven't been spouting facts. I've been generalizing about the progression of firearms and how it affected warfare and weapons. 

No, I'm not completely wrong. I find it strange that you would say so given how few facts I've stated and the simplicity of my argument.



> The Mongol's certainly didn't win battles using sheer numbers. After all, their biggest conquest was China, and it is almost a historical fact that no-one outnumbers the Chinese army.




No it is not historical fact. The Chinese army was not this unified force with modern communication standards and the ability rally thousands of troops quickly to a given location. It didn't work that way back then. China was spread amongst the country in urban and rural communities. There are many isolated villages, cities, and the like loosely unified by an emperor. It is nowhere near likt is in the modern day.



> The Chinese weren't slouches either. The 13th century, Song-dynasty Chinese had pretty sophisticated "mountain-pattern" scale armor and even could field gunpowder artillery. There are plenty of historical accounts of the Chinese throwing gunpowder bombs off their walls at the besieging Mongols. The Mongols still won in the end using their horse-mounted archers and their brilliant organization and tactics. Of course the Mongols took gunpowder weapons for themselves and utilized them against their enemies, including the Chinese.
> 
> Throughout history, the nomadic tribes of the Central Asian steppes, who primarily relied on mounted archers, have repeatedly conquered everyone else in Eurasia. Their fighting ability can not be understated.




It was not the mounted archers that gave them superiority. Numbers had a great deal to do with it. If you are a student of history, you would admit this.

The Mongol Horde was called a horde for a reason. Genghis first united a great many Mongol tribes into a vast army. Then he took this army on to conquer other nations.

Very few were prepared to deal with an army this size because they did not maintain large standing armies that were anywhere near as mobile as the Mongol Horde.

You seem to believe that horse archers were anything new in warfare to Europe or China. Mounted archers have existed for a long, long time prior to the Mongol invasion. But not the numbers the Mongols brought to bear.

You going to argue this? I'd love to see you argue this one. 



> Anyways, guns and gunpowder have a much older history than people usually give them credit. Here is a rough timeline of the advancement of gunpowder weaponry (and the armor used to combat it):
> 
> 10th-11th century: Gunpowder is invented in China and utilized in primitive incendiary and smoke bombs, as well as in fire spears and fire arrows. (In Europe, William the Conqueror invades England, Chainmail is still the best armor available, and the knight's lance hasn't been invented yet.)
> 
> ...




I know just about everything involving Medieval history you listed. I was aware plate came later. I'm not the one that brought up Napoleon. I'm aware that plate armor and its descendants such as partial plate contiued to exist and be used, though full suits of plate were more for ceremonial use than warfare.

The weapons were talking about are all about mass warfare. Guns, bows, mounted calvary charges, pikes, and the like were all mass warfare tactics that were most effective when employed by large, trained groups. And they changed how warfare was conducted, every single one of them and all were trumped by the gun.

What part of my argument do you consider wrong?

It's pretty simple. I'll state it in order.

1. Guns are better than bows. They will obviate the need for bows pretty quickly. They will obsolete plate armor pretty quickly. They have a nearly open ended growth potential that far exceeds the muscle-powered bow. Muscle-power is an inherent limitation of the bow that does not exist with the gun.

2. Guns change the way warfare is conducted. They change tactics, weapons, and just about everything involved in warfare including defensive contruction of buildings and fortifications.

3. If you are going to introduce guns into D&D, prepare to make the extreme change to the world that guns had on the real world.

You make it sound like gun advancement was slow. It wasn't unless you are looking only in terms of a few human lives. In terms of human history, gun advancement a lightning strike. 

The Western World went from roughly 10000 years of knives, swords, spears, bows, slings, and their variations to roughly the Arquebus to Nuclear weapons in 600 years. Do you take that into account when introducing guns into your D&D world?

I do. To me 600 years is a flash in the pan. Just because Chine failed to capitalize on gunpowder and maximize its advantages doesn't change that Europe did maximize it to the effect of conquering most of the known world.

You write all that and all you do is prove exactly what I stated to begin with, except you supply greater factual evidence with dates and a rough timeline. Thanks for proving my argument.

Guns introduced into a D&D world will have a dramatic effect on warfare and personal weapons to the point it will obsolete plate, bows, swords, and the like. Dragons will be fought with heavy artillery as will giants. And the technology curve will speed along fairly fast.

You can even begin to discuss and hypothesize how magic will affect firearms advancement. Will it accelerate it or slow it? Both sides could be argued. But it will have an effect on the advancement of firearms.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 6, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> Oh, this is your comeback. A sarcastic insulting comeback with little to no facts. Yes. I'm aware of the English longbow and the effectiveness of the longbow archer. I even know it was originally a Welsh weapon. And yes, I know about Crecy and Agincourt. I study Medieval Warfare, sorry for bothering to do so and offer that information here.
> 
> Of course the Mongol weapons were effective, but not superior to their opponents. The reason they conquered parts of Europe and China was because of numbers. Most European and Asian nations did not have large standing armies as we do nowadays. Thus they were unprepared for a large invasion by a horde the size of the Mongol Horde. It would have taken them a long time to gather an army to repel them. They were rather surprised by the advance of a foreign horde into European territory. It's not like old world Europe had a sophisticated intelligence system in place prepared for such eventualities.
> 
> ...




Actually it is factual, and if it seemed insulting, I was only responding in kind. Your previous post "seemed" to indicate that I was wrong in my declaration that the Mongols were an effective fighting machine, and bows were a major part of that. _I never said it was their only effective tactic_.

The post I was responding to seemed to indicate - Mongols were effective only due to their numbers, which by declaration negates any other citing of Mongol effectiveness.

However, I see in this response that you actually realize that numbers are not the only effective tools for Mongols - large forces of trained fighters, highly mobile cavalry and mounted infantry, skill in siege tactics (learned in China), cutting off supply lines and lines of communication, and use of fear tactics. All true, and I am in total agreement. If you qualified your previous statement to emphasize that numbers in addtion to the above points, I would not have responded with such "snarkiness."

You also need to add to that list of Mongol battle tactics is they did their campaigning in the winter, as their homeland is largely mush in the warmer months, whereas Europeans generally campaigned in the summer. Finding a horde at your door, when your snuggling to keep warm - gave the Mongols a serious tactical advantage.

Regarding your list of Armor Books - except for some of the newer material that is being based on actual testing of said arms and armament, most of the books you mention, actually are rewritten excerpts from Stone's Guide to Armor and Weapons - which I see as the only definitely work on armor, I disdain most of the other sources as copied text from Stone's Guide and nothing much new.

While I only minored in history - my information is based facts. So my "insulting comeback" was only based on facts.

Oh and Tale's point about "bullet proof" being armor tested by firing a gun is true - source: Stone's Guide to Armor and Weapons.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 6, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> Actually it is factual, and if it seemed insulting, I was only responding in kind. Your previous post "seemed" to indicate that I was wrong in my declaration that the Mongols were an effective fighting machine, and bows were a major part of that. _I never said it was their only effective tactic_.
> 
> The post I was responding to seemed to indicate - Mongols were effective only due to their numbers, which by declaration negates any other citing of Mongol effectiveness.
> 
> ...




We have both studied. But a major reason the Mongol Horde had success was their numbers. It is a documented fact.

Yes they were good warriors. Better than say the best Chinese or European? Arguable, very arguable. Especially if you took a Mongol warrior one on one.

There's a reason Genghis Khan united Mongolia before going on his empire building spree. One or two Mongol tribes weren't going to conquer China, Russia, and Europe. China had fight Mongols before successfully.

Ultimately, Genghis amassed a huge army of trained soldiers and went on a conquering spree. When an army the size of the Mongol army showed up on your doorstep, you had better be ready or bow down. That is why so many bowed down without a fight once they learned Genghis knew how to bring a city down.

China and Europe both believed their city walls would stand against the Mongol Horde without a problem. Little did they realize the Mongols had learned how to take down cities. And a city that wasn't prepared for a sieged was going to be destroyed.

And the Mongol army often had a numbers advantage on top of a mobility advantage against the places they attacked in Europe and China. One thing about the feudal system and the like is that it did not encourage large standing armies. It encourage a loose federation of individual armies that worked through various agents such as dukes, knights, and the like. 

And there were also various mercenary units such as the Swiss Pikeman that took time to gather and pay. Thus slowing down the gathering of an army in Europe.

Whereas Genghis Kahn and his descendants had their army gathered and ready when they showed up on the doorstep. It was a bit too late then to put out the call to conscript the peasants and get all your knights and mercenaries gathered.

Even during the Crusades, those armies were mostly made up of gathered knights, mercenaries, and peasants loosely tied together by a cause. Even then there was massive infighting.

But the Mongols were unified. They were one large army that had been working together to conquer for ages, much like Rome. I would have loved to see the organized armies of Rome during their peak go up against the Mongol Horde during its peak. That would be very interesting.

Just to add, mounted archers were nothing new when the Mongol Horde came. They existed ages back and are well-documented during Rome's conquests. 

No need for a heavy argument. People are going to do what they want in D&D. Some will throw guns in for a little added fun. And I'd go with them if a world builder did a good job integrating them into the campaign world rather than them being an afterthought as they usually are. Otherwise, I don't like guns. Just like at one time I couldn't stand monks in campaigns based in Western civilization. Having a Eastern style martial artist as a primary class in a standard Medieval type campaign I found annoying. I've learned to live with that. So if someone does guns up right, I'll learn to live with them. Otherwise, I'll keep them out of my campaign unless I want to do them up properly.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 6, 2010)

Celtavian said:


> You seem to believe that horse archers were anything new in warfare to Europe or China. Mounted archers have existed for a long, long time prior to the Mongol invasion. But not the numbers the Mongols brought to bear.
> 
> You going to argue this? I'd love to see you argue this one.



When did I say that horse archers were a new invention of the Mongols? I clearly stated that horse archers from Central Asia had been conquering everybody else for most of human history. Don't forget the reason we are talking about the Mongols in the first place. You were arguing vehemently that bows are useless as a weapon of war, so someone then brought up the Mongols as an example of a military force that predominantly used the bow. You then countered with the argument that the Mongols only won using sheer numbers (with the clear implication that their numerical advantage was so significant that it didn't matter what weapon they used). I just brought up China because its population is so large that it can field really large armies, which negates your "numbers is the only thing that matters" point. Once we bring in factors other than numbers (such as tactics, organization, mobility, and weaponry), your arguments begin to fall apart.

In any case though, what brought the Mongols their victories wasn't numbers or horse archers alone: it was tactics and organization. Genghis Khan was a brilliant military and civil leader, who not only unified the Mongol tribes but transformed them into an organized state. Not the least of his contributions was inventing a writing system for the Mongol language. Moreover, the Mongols as a whole were masters of _fear_. They were unspeakably brutal, razing cities that defied them to the ground, and they used that track record to terrorize other cities into surrendering peacefully.

Calling the Mongols a horde of barbarians who relied completely on overwhelming numbers is a complete misrepresentation. Of course, this whole Mongol thing is a complete tangent that has little to do with the main point of the thread, so I suppose we should just drop it and focus on the subject at hand.



> I know just about everything involving Medieval history you listed.



I wasn't posting that just for benefit; most of the latter part of my post was directed more towards the topic as a whole and for the benefit of everyone else on reading this thread.



> What part of my argument do you consider wrong?
> 
> It's pretty simple. I'll state it in order.
> 
> ...



Points 1 and 2 are true, _eventually_. It wasn't true at all with early firearms. As I demonstrated it took _centuries_ for gunpowder weapons to advance from crude early designs into the weapons we are more familiar with. Furthermore, the amount of change guns brought about is often grossly exaggerated (and much of the changes that guns take credit for are due to other factors).

As for the third point, that I completely disagree with. Most fantasy is loosed based on the Late Middle Ages with some Renaissance elements thrown in. Well, in the 14th and 15th centuries, _gunpowder and early firearms were already in Europe_. In other parts of the world, firearms weapons have been developed considerably. So as long as people stick to actual early firearms, rather than anachronistic 18th century flintlocks, it is possible to add in guns with no significant changes to a setting at all.



> You make it sound like gun advancement was slow. It wasn't unless you are looking only in terms of a few human lives. In terms of human history, gun advancement a lightning strike.
> 
> The Western World went from roughly 10000 years of knives, swords, spears, bows, slings, and their variations to roughly the Arquebus to Nuclear weapons in 600 years. Do you take that into account when introducing guns into your D&D world?
> 
> I do. To me 600 years is a flash in the pan.



In geological time or in terms of evolution maybe, but to a historian 600 years is a long time full of significant changes and a multitude of things worthy of a lifetime of study. Is the Han dynasty just a "flash in the pan"? Is the Roman Empire a "lightning strike"? What does that make WW2? It only lasted a mere six years, so by your reckoning it can't possibly be important. History is the study of what life was like in the past; a single human lifetime is not an insignificant measurement of time.

You are just trying to talk about guns in D&D as being equivalent to 19th century firearms, and ignoring the reality that there were entire centuries where guns, plate armor, bows, swords and pikes were all utilized alongside each other. Yes, change did _eventually_ happen. But guns hardly swept away everything else overnight. If guns in D&D resemble the actual weapons at use in the world of the 15th century, then there is no reason to revise anything about a setting.


----------



## Tewligan (Feb 7, 2010)

Oh, good lord - would you people quit crapping up this thread with historical bickering?! This is a thread about the pros and cons of guns in a D&D game - start another thread if you need to quibble about what made the Mongols so awesome for several pages.


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 7, 2010)

The main reason against guns:
They are overcomplicated. Everyone tries to write up rules for guns including stuff like misfires, and long loading times, and special maintenance skills, and extra or special damage, and armor penetration, and rules for getting gunpowder wet, and everything else about guns they may have heard. 

Contrast all that with the rules for swinging a sword. It shouldn't be that complicated to shoot a gun. In fact, if it is more complicated to shoot a gun than a crossbow, the system is probably doing something wrong.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 8, 2010)

Leatherhead said:


> The main reason against guns:
> They are overcomplicated. Everyone tries to write up rules for guns including stuff like misfires, and long loading times, and special maintenance skills, and extra or special damage, and armor penetration, and rules for getting gunpowder wet, and everything else about guns they may have heard.
> 
> Contrast all that with the rules for swinging a sword. It shouldn't be that complicated to shoot a gun. In fact, if it is more complicated to shoot a gun than a crossbow, the system is probably doing something wrong.



I object to your use of the term 'everyone' - as I stated way up the thread I just give them good damage, good critical multiplier, short range increments, and the same reload time as a heavy crossbow.

No special rules against armor, no rules for misfires, and no rules for firing in the rain - rain is even worse for bows than it is for guns, and can turn an expensive composite bow to worthless junk just by having it strung and kept in the rain. If I am going to handwave the one I am going to handwave the other.

Getting the powder wet I do have rules for, which comes down to 'buy new powder. or get an alchemist to reclaim the powder, but really, powder is cheap, so just buy more'. Better still 'Keep your powder dry', which works wonders for keeping the rules simple....

The Auld Grump


----------



## David Howery (Feb 8, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I object to your use of the term 'everyone' - as I stated way up the thread I just give them good damage, good critical multiplier, short range increments, and the same reload time as a heavy crossbow.
> 
> No special rules against armor, no rules for misfires, and no rules for firing in the rain - rain is even worse for bows than it is for guns, and can turn an expensive composite bow to worthless junk just by having it strung and kept in the rain. If I am going to handwave the one I am going to handwave the other.
> 
> ...




another special rule should be just what happens when the PCs' powder flasks fail their saving throws vs. fire... I used to live for such moments... 

and those flasks pretty much have to be made out of brass; no glass, steel, or any of that... not the greatest saving throw...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 8, 2010)

David Howery said:


> another special rule should be just what happens when the PCs' powder flasks fail their saving throws vs. fire... I used to live for such moments...
> 
> and those flasks pretty much have to be made out of brass; no glass, steel, or any of that... not the greatest saving throw...



Actually, apostles were often ceramic.  Cow horns were also common containers for smallish quantities of powder.

I generally avoid having anything other than large quantities of powder explode - otherwise it feels like penalizing the player for not using a bow. So, ceramic apostles of nice heat resistant pottery. Large quantities are more often a plot device.

The Auld Grump


----------



## David Howery (Feb 9, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Actually, apostles were often ceramic.  Cow horns were also common containers for smallish quantities of powder.
> 
> I generally avoid having anything other than large quantities of powder explode - otherwise it feels like penalizing the player for not using a bow. So, ceramic apostles of nice heat resistant pottery. Large quantities are more often a plot device.
> 
> The Auld Grump




*smacks forehead* 
You know, I totally forgot about the horn flasks... and I even own a replica of one for my own muzzle loading guns.  I suppose horn would have a fairly good saving throw against fire, don't think it would heat up that much (ceramic seems more likely to both heat up and break)....


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 9, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I object to your use of the term 'everyone' - as I stated way up the thread I just give them good damage, good critical multiplier, short range increments, and the same reload time as a heavy crossbow.
> 
> No special rules against armor, no rules for misfires, and no rules for firing in the rain - rain is even worse for bows than it is for guns, and can turn an expensive composite bow to worthless junk just by having it strung and kept in the rain. If I am going to handwave the one I am going to handwave the other.
> 
> ...




Noted, I should have said "and/or".


----------



## Ace (Feb 9, 2010)

Guns are a mixed thing in my play circle, I like them but a lot of players don't. The reasons range from flavor to a dislike of what called the barrage round (everybody shoots first then melee commences) eating into the archers niche protection.

However Iron Kingdoms style expensive ammo guns seemed to get wide spread acceptance. One maybe two gun guys is cool, more than that not so much.

I have experimented with alchemical "cartridge guns"  myself, the are fireproof, load quick and seem to work well enough. The also negate cannon (too much powder=boom) or reduce them to regular powder whihc cab be a bug or feature depending


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 10, 2010)

David Howery said:


> *smacks forehead*
> You know, I totally forgot about the horn flasks... and I even own a replica of one for my own muzzle loading guns.  I suppose horn would have a fairly good saving throw against fire, don't think it would heat up that much (ceramic seems more likely to both heat up and break)....



Actually, ceramic is a lot more likely to break if heated up, then cooled down quickly. A fireball isn't likely to do much to it, but putting it in a bonfire, then dropping it into a bucket of cold water will shatter it. Pottery is wonderful stuff, and will last thousands of years.  Iron, bronze, and silver will corrode away, but a clay pot will stand the test of time.

The Auld Grump


----------



## los (Feb 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Solomon Kane is set in the 16th century - post-Columbus.  While to a historian the Medieval period carries just into the 16th century, in terms of genre and style, I'd call that well past the pseudo-Medieval period that's D&D's forte.
> 
> You do what you want, of course.  But if I wanted to do 16th century, age of Cortés, Shakespearean-times kind of stuff, D&D would not be the system I'd choose.




Exactly.  

Guns in Seventh See == me happy.  Guns in D&D == me not so happy.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 10, 2010)

Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?

Because they don't enjoy reading threads like this one all the time...


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2010)

For me, I care not for historical accuracy. If I can put a jungle right in the middle of a frozen tundra and defy geography, why be concerned with history?

Same with tone. Guns can _work_ even in a fantasy setting. And like it was said previously, I like things that go boom! For instance, there's no fantasy analog to the shotgun. The shotgun just has perfect sounds, power, and raw damage.

Ultimately, the problem comes down to balance. 

1) Time. Others reference the black powder reload issues. It becomes almost pointless to reload when a combat could be over in 3 rounds if you fire the first round and spend the next 2-4 trying to reload. Not to mention the AoOs you're drawing. 

2) Cost. This is another big limiting factor. Bullets or powders or the guns themselves cost gold per shot. Meaning that if you want to just compete with the archer in the party, you're going to be broke eventually just funding your attacks. 

3) Damage. The logic applies to guns in general, but also to damage: *A gun should be different than a bow, otherwise what's the point?* Why go to all the effort to make, sink money and loading times, just to get an equivalent damage result? And if you're going to increase the damage, you should make the user suffer.

If these could be solved - make them slightly different without being a waste of tiem OR overpowered - would make me happy. 

Then I would solve the in-game problem by making them rare. Perhaps their existence angers the Gods or the Spirits (in Exalted, guns frustrate the Spirits because they can't decide who's in charge of guns: fire, since it burns? Earth, since it makes the metal? Etc etc. So using them is taboo in a spiritual sense). Perhaps they are seen as barbaric, offensive to honor, or too dangerous to be allowed to exist. Perhaps, as someone else suggested, they are bygone relics - no one knows how to reproduce them, and so they are coveted but rare.

Maybe they are, inherently, magical. Just another type of magical device. So it's not powder and a ball, but a dart being spat amid lightning. 

It doesn't really matter, as long as it allows the occasional PC to play a gunslinger, squint-eye staring at a group of orcs thirty feet away, a hand twitching to reach for his weapon.


----------



## nightwyrm (Feb 10, 2010)

Rechan said:


> 1) Time. Others reference the black powder reload issues. It becomes almost pointless to reload when a combat could be over in 3 rounds if you fire the first round and spend the next 2-4 trying to reload. Not to mention the AoOs you're drawing.
> 
> 2) Cost. This is another big limiting factor. Bullets or powders or the guns themselves cost gold per shot. Meaning that if you want to just compete with the archer in the party, you're going to be broke eventually just funding your attacks.
> 
> 3) Damage. The logic applies to guns in general, but also to damage: *A gun should be different than a bow, otherwise what's the point?* Why go to all the effort to make, sink money and loading times, just to get an equivalent damage result? And if you're going to increase the damage, you should make the user suffer.




That brings back memory of an Iron Kingdoms game I played.  I played a gunmage and carried around 3 or 4 loaded guns to get around the reload in combat problem but each shot costs like 10 gp.  Like Chris Rock said, I must really hate you to pop a cap on your ass.  Most of the time I just threw daggers at people.  At least they were cheap.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 10, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Ultimately, the problem comes down to balance.



No, I think ultimately it comes down to two things.  1) a lot of people don't like guns in their fantasy.  It just feels wrong to them, like an anachronism, although technically, of course, that's not correct. 2) a lot of people have bizarre and incorrect ideas about guns, i.e., how effective they were, how cumbersome and difficult they were to use, their utility vs. other alternatives, how costly they should be, etc.  In many cases, designers have overcompensated for either their own misconceptions, or those that they believe their audience will have, making many gun rule sets needlessly crippling or complicated or both.

Personally, I'm a big fan of guns and fantasy.  I use D&D as my ruleset, or a house-ruled permutation of it, anyway, and I use guns, to get a kind of _Pirates of the Caribbean_ swashbuckling  fantasy/horror vibe.  I wouldn't do without them.  

But surprisingly, finding gun rules that I liked for 3.5 was more difficult than I thought.  Of all the available options, I ended up settling on the Green Ronin Freeport rules, except that I dropped the misfire chance as too cumbersome to bother with.

Then again, it's been _years_--decades, even---since I saw D&D as a good system for replicating a Tolkien-esque fantasy setting.


----------



## David Howery (Feb 10, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Actually, ceramic is a lot more likely to break if heated up, then cooled down quickly. A fireball isn't likely to do much to it, but putting it in a bonfire, then dropping it into a bucket of cold water will shatter it. Pottery is wonderful stuff, and will last thousands of years.  Iron, bronze, and silver will corrode away, but a clay pot will stand the test of time.
> 
> The Auld Grump




true.  But I think horn is even more resistant to fire.  Due to my youth in rural MT, I actually got to experiment with trying to burn cow horns (after de-horning), and they char but generally don't burn.... and even then it takes a while.  I think a horn flask exposed to something like a fireball would come through pretty good, since it wouldn't be exposed to the fire for long; the outside would be black and charred in a few places, but the inside would be fine.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2010)

Hobo, I was saying it came down to balance for me. I'm fully aware people don't like guns in D&D because it violates their vermisilitude and whatnot, given this thread.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 10, 2010)

Rechan said:
			
		

> 1) Time. Others reference the black powder reload issues. It becomes almost pointless to reload when a combat could be over in 3 rounds if you fire the first round and spend the next 2-4 trying to reload. Not to mention the AoOs you're drawing.
> 
> 2) Cost. This is another big limiting factor. Bullets or powders or the guns themselves cost gold per shot. Meaning that if you want to just compete with the archer in the party, you're going to be broke eventually just funding your attacks.
> 
> ...




Hmm. FFZ guns don't cost more time or gold, and don't do damage any differently, with pretty much the same mechanics.

How are they different?


 The special, "magical" versions of each weapon have different abilities attached. For instance, the first "treasure weapon" for Bows is the Dark Bow, which makes enemies less likely to hit your characters. The first treasure weapon for the Guns is the Blaze Edge, which deals lightning damage. 
 The jobs that can use them are different, and have different ways to use them. Alchemists can use Guns to transmute their foes into useful items, while Gunners can use Guns with more power if they spend a turn readying their shot. Hunters gain the ability to hit enemies who are agile and evasive instead.
 Certain feats work with certain weapons. Guns might pierce defenses, while Bows might gain a faster rate of fire. 

It's not a tremendous difference, but it's there. 

Combat in FFZ is waaaaaay too abstract to worry about exact ammo costs, load times, and other record-keeping exercises.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 10, 2010)

Is FFZ your game, KM?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 10, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Hobo, I was saying it came down to balance for me. I'm fully aware people don't like guns in D&D because it violates their vermisilitude and whatnot, given this thread.



Oh, haha. Whoops!  Fair enough.  I misinterpreted your statement there.

Although that could be a reflection of my point #2, maybe.  Lots of gun rules---probably most that I've seen---tend to be fairly poorly designed, so that guns are either way too good, and of course everyone would want them, or way to crocked so of course nobody wants them.  Or... they're just right, but finicky and cumbersome to use from a mechanics perspective, compared to other weapons.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 10, 2010)

gamerprinter said:


> How about them dumb ole English Long Bowman - what a waste of time. So that's why the French cut off the fingers of a captured English Bowman, to teach them a lessen for choosing such an inferior weapon to battle. The French hated them because of that.




And apparently french soldiers killed any german found with a saw-edged bayonet in wwII. Are you telling me that it was a devastatingly effective weapon?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 11, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Although that could be a reflection of my point #2, maybe.  Lots of gun rules---probably most that I've seen---tend to be fairly poorly designed, so that guns are either way too good, and of course everyone would want them, or way to crocked so of course nobody wants them.  Or... they're just right, but finicky and cumbersome to use from a mechanics perspective, compared to other weapons.




That's one of the things I've noticed, too.

The rules I've seen, it's either guns = useless or guns = magic wands of super-death that auto-kill anyone you shoot with them.

Both are patently silly.  If they were useless, we'd all be using swords and crossbows.  And if they were magic wands of super-death, people wouldn't survive being shot with them.

Brad


----------



## cattoy (Feb 11, 2010)

It doesn't matter one bit if a bullet can pierce platemail or not.

A dagger can't pierce platemail and nobody gives a damn that you can still stab a fighter in full plate to death.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 11, 2010)

cattoy said:


> It doesn't matter one bit if a bullet can pierce platemail or not.
> 
> A dagger can't pierce platemail and nobody gives a damn that you can still stab a fighter in full plate to death.




Yes, but a character dagger-stabbing an orc who's dressed in platemail is fantasy. If that same character uses a pistol against the orc, it's an exercise in historical simulationism.


----------



## cattoy (Feb 11, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Yes, but a character dagger-stabbing an orc who's dressed in platemail is fantasy. If that same character uses a pistol against the orc, it's an exercise in historical simulationism.




Yeah, because the historical records clearly document the effects of bullets on orcs.

Historical simulationism and D&D? down that road lies only madness.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 11, 2010)

cattoy said:


> Historical simulationism and D&D? down that road lies only madness.




If not madness, then certainly a barrel full of non-fun. From the introduction to the firearms section of _Fencing & Firearms_:
Before we get started with firearms rules, a few words about what this section is not intended to do. While the 16th through 18th centuries serve as our historical baseline for firearms, we are not hindered by real world concerns. Realism takes a backseat to playability and fun. Thus, firearms and the rules that govern them are deliberately unrealistic.​Of course, I'm biased in this case, but seems like a good way to start.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> Of course, I'm biased in this case, but seems like a good way to start.



I'm with you there.  I don't want my firearms to be historically realistic.  I want my firearms to remind me of all the swashbuckling movies I watched as a kid and all the Rafael Sabatini books I've read.


----------



## Meatboy (Feb 11, 2010)

_"Why do we expect guns to have a huge effect on the in game world if magic hasn't?" -_ProfessorCirno
  For me this hits the nail on the head for why I am not a big fan of guns in DnD. 

  As has been stated a few times in this thread longbows take years for someone to really master. Then again supposedly so does training a wizard. I am fairly certain that all it would take is one king or lord to note that fact and the entire dynamic of the game world should change. 
  I mean why spend thousands of gold training and arming knights. ( Let's not forget that knights spent a lifetime training in their arts too! ) when for a few hundred, assuming you had some relatively intelligent people in your land, say INT 13 or more, you could train them as wizards and just have them mass cast magic missile. 

I really feel that if historically kings could field thousand of knights, bowmen or infantry that once you introduce magic it would not be long before massed mages became the norm and not the exception. Thus ensuring that something like the gun would probably never even be thought of.


----------



## shadow (Feb 11, 2010)

*It's about mythology and romanticism*

What it essentially comes down to is romanticizing the sword.  Sure, in real life sword fights were bloody affairs that ended rather quickly.  However, there is a huge mythology built around gallant warriors and magic swords.  Bows are often similarly romanticized - think about Robin Hood and all the other legendary archers.  Firearms, however, don't have the same level of romanticism and legends built around them.  (Well, in modern cinema there is "Gun-Fu", but that is a different genre altogether.)

As far as "magic would prevent the development of firearms" goes, I don't think that the argument holds much water.  With that logic you could also argue that magic would prevent the development of the longbow. (Why develop a long range weapon that takes quite a bit of strength and training when it's easier and more efficient shoot a fireball?)  Besides, since when has D&D been about "realism" or "believability"? If you want to start arguing about how magic would affect the campaign world, you should start with how "raise dead" and "resurrection" spells would affect society psychologically and sociologically.

Leaving questions of "realism" aside, I think the real reason is simply the "mythic" and "legendary" status afforded to swords.  

If you want to emulate the "mythic heroism" genre and leave guns out of the mix, that's fine.  If you want a different style of play that includes some firearms, that's fine too.  Just don't argue it's a question of "realism".


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2010)

shadow said:


> What it essentially comes down to is romanticizing the sword.  Sure, in real life sword fights were bloody affairs that ended rather quickly.  However, there is a huge mythology built around gallant warriors and magic swords.  Bows are often similarly romanticized - think about Robin Hood and all the other legendary archers.  Firearms, however, don't have the same level of romanticism and legends built around them.  (Well, in modern cinema there is "Gun-Fu", but that is a different genre altogether.)



Ahem.  Perhaps you've heard of this little niche genre called The Western?


----------



## Barastrondo (Feb 11, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Ahem.  Perhaps you've heard of this little niche genre called The Western?




I was gonna say. The Western is pretty much the romance of the gun, right down to being deconstructed in works like Unforgiven. It's a different romance, one with a more level playing field, but it's distinct.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 11, 2010)

Barastrondo said:


> I was gonna say. The Western is pretty much the romance of the gun, right down to being deconstructed in works like Unforgiven. It's a different romance, one with a more level playing field, but it's distinct.



It's been a Brave New World for my personal gaming when I decided to ditch the strictly enforced subgenre chimneys that I used to operate with.  Mix and match, all the way, that's me.  I specifically call out Sergio Leone as an important influence on my current go-to setting, for instance.  Along with Charles Dickens, H. P. Lovecraft, Robert Ludlum and Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom stuff.


----------



## Storminator (Feb 11, 2010)

I think guns are unpopular in D&D because they clash with some of D&D's core assumptions. What are the skills of a great gun hero? You're a quick draw and a dead-eye shot. So you win initiative often, and when you do, you kill your foe right now.

This flies in the face of D&D's initiative system, where it's hard to win consistently, and the hit point system, where it's hard to one-shot your foes. 

So you can fit guns into the initiative and hp systems (it's been done a billion times already), but you either completely break your game, or the guns have failed to live up to expectations.

So guns tend to be pretty unsatisfying. Personally, I'd rather have cannons. Pirate battles just don't feel right without cannons, which is something I miss in D&D.

PS


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 11, 2010)

cattoy said:


> A dagger can't pierce platemail and nobody gives a damn that you can still stab a fighter in full plate to death.




You can do that IRL. In fact, a dagger is one of the better weapons available to deal with a guy in full plate. Because it's small and can be aimed precisely, you can drive it through the eyeslit, the joints, et cetera; something difficult to do with a larger weapon.

That's not to say daggers were the weapons of choice for taking down armored knights--you still had to get close enough to use the thing, after all. But it certainly could be done, and there were even daggers specifically designed for the purpose. The stiletto, the misericorde, and the rondel dagger were all made for getting past heavy armor.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 11, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> You can do that IRL. In fact, a dagger is one of the better weapons available to deal with a guy in full plate. Because it's small and can be aimed precisely....




...at a prone knight while he's being held down by other rabble. Otherwise, IRL, before you could get past the broadsword and shield to line up that precise aim, you'd almost assuredly end up with your torso split open.


----------



## shadow (Feb 12, 2010)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Ahem. Perhaps you've heard of this little niche genre called The Western?




I almost mentioned the Western genre.  Although the Western does tend to romanticize the gunslinger, it's a slightly different romanticism.  Also, most Westerns take place in the late 19th century - a few hundred years of technological development from the "default" assumption of the D&D game.

That said, core D&D seems to be all over the place when it comes to weapons, technology, and mythology.  (We have bronze age slings next too late medieval long bows.  We have monster out Greco-Roman myth next to the clerics loosely inspired by medieval religious orders.)  Therefore, fitting gunslingers into D&D could be done without too much problem. It would be a different type of fantasy, but it would not be any less "realistic" than the "baseline" assumption of D&D.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 12, 2010)

Storminator said:


> I think guns are unpopular in D&D because they clash with some of D&D's core assumptions. What are the skills of a great gun hero? You're a quick draw and a dead-eye shot. So you win initiative often, and when you do, you kill your foe right now.
> 
> This flies in the face of D&D's initiative system, where it's hard to win consistently, and the hit point system, where it's hard to one-shot your foes.



We think weapons are more accurate than they are too..

Only minions/level zeros die instantly...and IRL police studies show 1 in 6 shots in short(under 50 yards) range actually connect this is from well trained dudes. But they still might do hit point damage . Suppression fire could be smacking down hit points. Remember that bit about HP not being wounds... its significant ... 

In D&D that cleave attack might only really hit the one guy just fatigue the second who moved out of the way.... the police records dont record this effect .



Storminator said:


> So you can fit guns into the initiative and hp systems (it's been done a billion times already), but you either completely break your game, or the guns have failed to live up to expectations.




Part of us "knows" we are all minions.... and guns are not fantasy unless we work our brains in to "Western mode"


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Part of us "knows" we are all minions.... and guns are not fantasy unless we work our brains in to "Western mode"




I think you'll find that, guns in "western mode" don't behave the way the rest of D&D combat behaves.  In Western mode, even the non-minions often die after one shot. 

The face-to-face duel in standard D&D fantasy is a longish thing, with folks dancing around bobbing and weaving, cutting nicks and scratches in each other - ablative combat.

The face-to-face duel in Westerns is one-hit, one-kill, over quickly, usually based on whoever drew first.

Genre mismatch.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> The face-to-face duel in standard D&D fantasy is a longish thing, with folks dancing around bobbing and weaving, cutting nicks and scratches in each other - ablative combat.
> 
> The face-to-face duel in Westerns is one-hit, one-kill, over quickly, usually based on whoever drew first.



Except one can characterize a normal "shootout" as a typical combat. The "dozens of guys on a street", ducking for cover and shooting at one another is a normal combat.

How is it HP was described by Gygax? No actual physical damage until the killing blow (so you don't have a fighter who gets shot with three dozen arrows while the noob is taken out by a glancing blow). 

A shootout can easily be described as a typical HP wittling battle. Except that all those misses are, in a lot of cases, successful attacks that reduce HP. It's just that the final hit kills the target. 

However, when looking at the Western where it's a Duel, or just a few guys standing twenty paces from one another, it comes out to something much different:

Save or Die spells. 

The Gunslinger is just the mundane equivalent of a caster. You hit the target, and either he saves (and takes some hefty damage), or he just dies. Because the Save-or-Die caster that wins initiative often kills his target rather swiftly.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2010)

Rechan said:


> A shootout can easily be described as a typical HP wittling battle. Except that all those misses are, in a lot of cases, successful attacks that reduce HP. It's just that the final hit kills the target.




Can you wedge guns into the D&D paradigm?  Sure.  But why?  

I already have missile weapons - bows, crossbows, thrown weapons, and wands of magic missile (and other spells).  If the gun is not going to be mechanically differentiated from those other things, I fail to see the point in including them.  I have _no need_ for just another missile weapon that does damage like all the other missile weapons.  The niche is already filled.  

And the areas where guns are really interesting - the things that make guns cool and give them their own forms of romance as a weapon - are where they strongly deviate from the D&D paradigm and genre.

Stop trying to tell me I _can_ include guns - I have been playing and houseruling rpgs for decades, and know that full well.  The fact that it is possible is not meaningful to me.  "Can do" is not equivalent to "should do".  I will not do so unless someone shows me something cool, that I want in my game, that I get out of doing so that I don't get with what's already in the rules.

There, sir, is your challenge.


----------



## Meatboy (Feb 12, 2010)

The things about "western style" shootouts is that they just emphasize another reason why people don't like guns in DnD.  They remove that heroic face to face confrontation. Even if you could get decent mechanics for guns shootouts seem to involve two or more guys hiding behind things and trying to score the first shot. And unless I'm the rogue or severely out numbered when I play DnD I really dislike hiding for the durations of my fights.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I think you'll find that, guns in "western mode" don't behave the way the rest of D&D combat behaves.  In Western mode, even the non-minions often die after one shot.
> 
> The face-to-face duel in standard D&D fantasy is a longish thing, with folks dancing around bobbing and weaving, cutting nicks and scratches in each other - ablative combat.
> 
> ...




Well true... reality says that hit points serve old west no worse than they do other eras. .. its just not in sync with myth and "western mode."

Shoot out at OK Corral was not bang your dead... 1 shot 1 kill...  Not sure about wiki sources on it but "thirty shots were fired in thirty seconds"..."and only 3 men killed."

Where did this data come from no clue? but it makes it sound very much like police stats which I have seen from reliable sources. Most shots miss ...  freaking out your enemy and avoiding it yourself (alah hit points in the form of determination loss are as important to staying in the game as anything) and sometimes only a minor flesh wound will kill somebody (damn saving throw based death in the real world for this one).


----------



## Umbran (Feb 12, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Well true... reality says that hit points serve old west no worse than they do other eras. .. its just not in sync with myth and "western mode."




Yes. That's why I refer to it as "genre clash", rather than an issue of the system not matching some version of historical accuracy. 

I mean, really, it isn't like any commonly played game simulates real-world combat very well.  The systems are designed to be fun to play, and/or to simulate some semi-mythical combat.  

For my personal tastes, I prefer games with death spirals or hit locations when I'm dealing with guns (with, say, Shadowrun and Deadlands being examples I've found fun to work with) - these things accentuate the menace of firearms, and fit the fictional mythology, but they don't fit into the D&D paradigm well at all - in fact, I'd really prefer my D&D to *not* have those things.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Stop trying to tell me I _can_ include guns - I have been playing and houseruling rpgs for decades, and know that full well.  The fact that it is possible is not meaningful to me.  "Can do" is not equivalent to "should do".  I will not do so unless someone shows me something cool, that I want in my game, that I get out of doing so that I don't get with what's already in the rules.



I return sir: why?

No one here is saying "You SHOULD have guns in your game". In fact, this thread has been about "Why _shouldn't_ you". So, what purpose is there in trying to convince someone who DOES NOT like guns that they're missing something?

In fact, the entire thread has been:
Argument: Here's why guns don't belong in D&D.
Counter-argument 1: But here's something that conflicts with that explanation/argument/opinion.
Counter-argument 2: I don't care; I want guns in my D&D, and here's how I'd do it.

I mean, if I like Psionics in my games, and you don't... I shouldn't try to convince you to put Psionics in your game. That's not how it works. I merely ask for Psionics rules for _my_ game. I don't care what you don't allow/don't want for your game - I'm not playing in it.  

After all, the 3e DMG had rules for guns, and it was clearly a Variant rule that didn't require them to be in your game. So, what gives?


----------



## David Howery (Feb 12, 2010)

one thing you have to decide on ahead of time is just what types of early firearms you'd allow in the campaign.  From what I remember of my old FR campaign, I only allowed the crudest ones to appear; arquebus, blunderbuss, and horse pistol, all matchlocks.  IIRC, I simplified the damage rules on them all a lot (arquebus 2d4, blunderbuss 1d6, pistol 1d8, extended damage on max. die roll), and made them all horrendously inaccurate at mid and long ranges.  Plus, with matchlocks, you can't just carry around the guns ready to use at all times (those slow matches had to be lit, and only lasted so long).  Armies were able to make good use of matchlocks because they had a lot of people, some of whom were in charge of keeping pots of hot coals ready to use in battle... not so easy with a small group of PCs.  In fact, lighting up those slow matches proved to be about the hardest part of the job when they were in a hurry.  In my experience, the guns were only useful when the party knew they were going to be in combat in a few rounds, were handy for one volley, and then put away as melee came around.  I never once saw even a middling size monster/enemy character killed by one shot, much less a big one.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 12, 2010)

I also have to chuckle at the argument about how introducing guns will lead to a total change in the campaign world, comparing longbowmen to musketeers.

Folks, we're talking about a medieval world that has not changed despite dropping monsters and magic into it.

To use a simple example: Castles would have to have an entirely different design. For starters, the "Large Wall, courtyard, then large building" design does not work:

*Magic*. With easy access to flying and teleportation spells, having an open aired area is stupid. Anyone could land in the courtyard or teleport in as they have a view of the courtyard (which they could get by flying, or higher vantagepoints on the landscape). That's just low level spells - the higher you go, the less reasonable a mere wall with a courtyard makes sense.

*Monsters*. Again, the flying issue. Anything from dragons to gryphon riders could easily get right past your first line of defense by just hopping over your front gate. Also, don't worry about cannons; that stone wall is rather pointless next to a giant earth elemental, or something that can scale it like a chain link fence (equally likely with something as tall as the wall itself). 

The only time a stone wall as protection would work would be against non-magical humanoid invaders.

Now, the response is going to be either: 1) The response would be magical coutnermeasures! or 2) That wouldn't always occur, so having to change it is unnecessary. 

The answer to both of those is the same: it's a blatant security risk. Rather than build the stone wall/open courtyard and THEN spend tons of money/time/effort/power on magical countermeasures, or take the chance that no medium level MU or monster comes along, the safest, most logical, least problematic method would be to redesign castles and other fortified buildings in the first place. They would never have developed (or, quickly changed after it happened the first time or two). 

Simply put, the Historical Medieval Western World wouldn't be the same if fantasy elements are introduced wholesale; it would have developed differently. So to say "Introducing guns would make everything obsolete" is ignoring the obvious: magic would too.

Hell: in Eberron, you had mass-produced eternal wands of magic missiles handed out to low level NPC class spellcasters, filling up "Magic Missile Corps" during the Last War. If a squad of LOW LEVEL GRUNT guys (which magewrites were) firing magic missiles (auto-hit attacks that likely would kill your first level warrior), and _that_ didn't change the nature of warfare, then a gun ain't going to do it.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Can you wedge guns into the D&D paradigm?  Sure.  But why?



For the same reason you wedge anything else into your D&D paradigm.  Why wedge Greek mythology, Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, Norse mythology, native american tradition, Lovecraft, Judeo-Christian angel/demonology, and dinosaurs into the D&D paradigm?

Because someone thought it would be COOL!  In any case, guns are hardly a blip on the "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot"-o-meter compared to a paradigm that already shoehorns all of the above in it anyway.


			
				Umrban said:
			
		

> I already have missile weapons - bows, crossbows, thrown weapons, and wands of magic missile (and other spells).  If the gun is not going to be mechanically differentiated from those other things, I fail to see the point in including them.  I have _no need_ for just another missile weapon that does damage like all the other missile weapons.  The niche is already filled.



Bully for you.  You are not the sum total of the D&D playing audience, though, so while I'm glad you get what you want out of the game, that doesn't mean that what you want is the sum total of what all players want.  Clearly, some people enjoy the idea of guns in D&D.

And the point is kinda moot anyway; most firearms rules I've seen _are_ mechanically distinct from those other options you listed.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> And the areas where guns are really interesting - the things that make guns cool and give them their own forms of romance as a weapon - are where they strongly deviate from the D&D paradigm and genre.



I disagree.  Strongly.  I also disagree that there's a coherent and consistent D&D "paradigm and genre" anyway, and if there is one, it's "throw in the kitchen sink" which, if anything, is much more encouraging to would-be gunners in D&D than it is discouraging.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Stop trying to tell me I _can_ include guns - I have been playing and houseruling rpgs for decades, and know that full well.  The fact that it is possible is not meaningful to me.  "Can do" is not equivalent to "should do".  I will not do so unless someone shows me something cool, that I want in my game, that I get out of doing so that I don't get with what's already in the rules.
> 
> There, sir, is your challenge.



This is a total threadjack.  This discussion isn't, "Convince Umbran, who's naturally a skeptic on the issue, that he needs to have guns in his game."  This is a more generic discussion about guns in D&D.

You're trying to shut down discussion by positioning your opinion on the question as a universal truth that first needs to be overcome.  That ain't so.


Umbran said:


> For my personal tastes, I prefer games with death spirals or hit locations when I'm dealing with guns (with, say, Shadowrun and Deadlands being examples I've found fun to work with) - these things accentuate the menace of firearms, and fit the fictional mythology, but they don't fit into the D&D paradigm well at all - in fact, I'd really prefer my D&D to *not* have those things.



Well, keep the discussion firmly in the "personal taste" arena, and you're good to go.  The prior post, though... that didn't mention personal taste even once, and implied that your personal taste was, actually, something much more than merely your personal taste.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 12, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Simply put, the Historical Medieval Western World wouldn't be the same if fantasy elements are introduced wholesale; it would have developed differently. So to say "Introducing guns would make everything obsolete" is ignoring the obvious: magic would too.




True, but magic has an out; you can throttle back the prevalence of magic in the campaign world. If only one in a thousand people has the capacity to wield magic, and most of those never get past the first couple of levels, then castles can be built without worrying too much about attack by high-level wizards. If monsters with extraordinary abilities are rare and difficult to recruit into armies, likewise, you can probably get by without designing your castle to meet that specific threat.

Since D&D magic doesn't exist in the real world, DMs and game designers are free to adjust the prevalence of magic to fit their needs. Guns, however, did exist in the real world, so there's an expectation there that they will work more or less the same way, including ease of production.

Now, all that said, if you're looking at a fantasy setting in the style of the Forgotten Realms, where the designers' motto is "an epic-level chicken in every _pot of the archmagi_," then I agree, it's silly to expect society to work the same way as it did in medieval Europe.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 12, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> True, but magic has an out; you can throttle back the prevalence of magic in the campaign world.



Again, you're cutting out monsters. Pretty much anything above 5th level has the capacity to get over that wall, since by then you're looking at flying monsters or things with spells. 



> Since D&D magic doesn't exist in the real world, DMs and game designers are free to adjust the prevalence of magic to fit their needs. Guns, however, did exist in the real world, so there's *an expectation there that they will work more or less the same way, including ease of production*.



If a DM can dial back or change magic so it has no impact on his game world's progression, then he can dial back guns' impact or change guns so it has no impact on his game world's progression.

I mean, in the Real World, Medieval lead to Renaissance. Yet since D&D is in Medieval period, it... continues to stay in the medieval period. Removing guns, you would _still_ have the progression to the Renaissance, but yet that doesn't stop folks from continuing the play in the medieval period. So dropping guns in the medieval period wouldn't cause a chain reaction that would result in wars fought with musketeers, the DM wouldn't ever have to run the game where this is occurring.  

It is up to the DM to set the precedence with whatever he wants. The campaign world IS what the DM makes it, not once he introduces something that will get out of control in the world itself. Because otherwise, guns are apparently the only thing that unfreezes the time clock and makes the game world advance.



> Now, all that said, if you're looking at a fantasy setting in the style of the Forgotten Realms, where the designers' motto is "an epic-level chicken in every _pot of the archmagi_," then I agree, it's silly to expect society to work the same way as it did in medieval Europe.



Or Eberron, or Greyhawk...

If typical D&D modules are any indication, there's a wizard in a tower over every hill.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 12, 2010)

Rechan said:


> Again, you're cutting out monsters.




No, I'm not. Read the rest of that paragraph.

"If monsters with extraordinary abilities are rare and difficult to recruit into armies, likewise, you can probably get by without designing your castle to meet that specific threat."



Rechan said:


> I mean, in the Real World, Medieval lead to Renaissance. Yet since D&D is in Medieval period, it... continues to stay in the medieval period.




Only if you design your world that way. If you take the "medieval stasis" approach in world-building and don't make at least some effort to justify it, then I'll agree that you've pretty well forfeited the argument on verisimilitude and the logical consequences of guns. But it's quite possible to design a world where technology evolves and changes.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I think you'll find that, guns in "western mode" don't behave the way the rest of D&D combat behaves.  In Western mode, even the non-minions often die after one shot.
> 
> The face-to-face duel in standard D&D fantasy is a longish thing, with folks dancing around bobbing and weaving, cutting nicks and scratches in each other - ablative combat.
> 
> ...




You obviously have never played the Wild ARMS series of videogames. Those games mixed Western mood and weaponry with every standard fantasy trope you can imagine (with a heavy dash of Sci-Fi for good measure).

I guess this illustrates a possible major source of the difference between the pro-gun and anti-gun factions: their sources of inspiration. I for one have played a _lot_ of videogame RPGs where guns, swords, magic, monsters, and technology freely mingle. I have barely blinked at games where a trio of gunners lay down automatic fire in an otherwise medieval fantasy setting. At this point I don't think that there is such a thing as a genre mismatch. I understand though that a lot of people have different inspirations and tastes.

This thread has made me strongly tempted to run a campaign based on the late 16th/early 17th centuries though.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 12, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> No, I'm not. Read the rest of that paragraph.
> 
> "If monsters with extraordinary abilities are rare and difficult to recruit into armies, likewise, you can probably get by without designing your castle to meet that specific threat."



Who said anything about armies? 

A dragon doesn't need to be in an army to simply decide to drop down in the castle's front yard and start tearing it apart. It's now within the castle's defenses. 

If you've just made monsters and magic rare, then no duh guns aren't for you. Neither is most things in D&D and your world all ready doesn't reflect the choices of everyone else.



> But it's quite possible to design a world where technology evolves and changes.



Now, here's the point: So you care enough about all that to go out of yoru way to make your campaign world so very interwoven and historically/ecologically/technologically/magically/whatnot balanced. 

So why should you say guns don't go into D&D? They don't fit in your world like a _whole lot of other stuff_ doesn't. So why is this an argument against guns, isntead of against lots of magic and other things that threaten the delicate balance? 

The argument for no guns is not, therefore, "Guns do not fit in D&D", but "Guns do not fit in *MY* handcrafted campaign world".

And by making it anything more than that, then you're arguing from the point that others' campaigns must be like yours, because guns have to be kept away from their worlds too.


----------



## Herobizkit (Feb 13, 2010)

True story.  Here's the easiest fix for my campaign world.

a) Add Guns (pistols and rifles).
b) Give them open-ended damage (as per 2ed arquebus et al).
c) Put the bows and x-bows in the hands of the savage humanoids.
d) Profit.

Sounds familiar somehow...


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Feb 13, 2010)

For me it's simple.  I like Lord of the Rings style fantasy, which leaves out guns.

I don't get the arguments that gun damage must be handled differently - they're not inherently more lethal than any other weapon.  If a sword puts a hole in you you die; if a gun puts a hole in you you die too.  Range, accuracy, and rate of fire are important advantages of a gun over a melee weapon, but none of those have anything to do with actual damage inflicted.  A lot of the arguments sound to me like people want to handle melee weapon damage cinematicaly but gun damage realistically, which doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Garthanos (Feb 13, 2010)

Umbran said:


> For my personal tastes, I prefer games with death spirals or hit locations when I'm dealing with guns (with, say, Shadowrun and Deadlands being examples I've found fun to work with) - these things accentuate the menace of firearms, and fit the fictional mythology, but they don't fit into the D&D paradigm well at all - in fact, I'd really prefer my D&D to *not* have those things.




According to medical science or the studies by military scientists, death spirals dont even fit well reality reality ;-) and since I don't enjoy them  (.. accentuation of hopelessness is not my favorite genre feature) I can happily claim that's not realistic -> note I have no problem with non-realist when I do like the form it takes ;p


----------



## GSHamster (Feb 13, 2010)

I don't think the problem is with the fantasy genre as it is with the _leveling_ paradigm.

The fundamental conceit of (combat) rpgs is that:

*As I do stuff, I become harder to defeat.*

In fantasy games, you have all sorts of explanations for this, from magical healing, to better armor, to better skill with weapons, to just being physically tougher than the other guy. Levelling up represents becoming tougher and better skilled. In a swordfight, we expect the more skilled fighter to come out alive. And a lot of the attraction of RPGs relies on this: our working on a character and slowly making them more and more powerful. 

However, as you introduce technology, it becomes a lot harder to justify this basic idea. The entire point of technology, in a lot of ways, is to replace skill. There is an old saying, popular in the eighteenth century, that "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." This saying perfectly encapsulates the point that technology makes the unskilled deadlier. Non-fantasy games need to be able to account for this. If you have a game where a character can get shot with a gun at point-blank range and almost always survive, that's really hard to take.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 13, 2010)

GSHamster said:


> However, as you introduce technology, it becomes a lot harder to justify this basic idea. The entire point of technology, in a lot of ways, is to replace skill. There is an old saying, popular in the eighteenth century, that "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." This saying perfectly encapsulates the point that technology makes the unskilled deadlier.




Technology, unsurprisingly, also makes those who are skilled deadlier.  Keep a bit of perspective.  Guns aren't distintegration rays or star trek phasers.  



> Non-fantasy games need to be able to account for this. If you have a game where a character can get shot with a gun at point-blank range and almost always survive, that's really hard to take.




That actually depends on a number of factors.  Get shot in the skull with the high caliber rifle and you're almost certainly done for.  Get shot in the leg by a 9 mil and odds are you'll live, even at point blank.

Curiously, if you get your skull cleaved by an axe, odds are you're dead.  Get your leg slashed by a sword and your odds of survival aren't too bad (though probably worse than with the 9 mil, due to the bleeding).

In all of the above cases, dead or not, your average person is probably on the ground, doing little more than whimpering and bleeding.  

Guns aren't magic (though I'm not disputing that in a fantasy game they could be).  They function on the same principles as extremely primitive killing tech.  Even in the stone age humans were capable of splintering bone, spilling blood, and puncturing organs.  The biggest advantages guns have are ease of use and rate of fire (both relatively modern developments).

IMO, in a game where any decent ranger can give Legolas a run for his money, there's no reason why guns couldn't be roughly on par with bows.  I don't use guns in every campaign I run, but I see no issues when I do use them.  It's an matter of theme and atmosphere more than anything else.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 13, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> That actually depends on a number of factors.  Get shot in the skull with the high caliber rifle and you're almost certainly done for.  Get shot in the leg by a 9 mil and odds are you'll live, even at point blank.
> .




I agree the specifics are what really matter here. But if you have a guy with an axe and a guy with a gun squaring off, my money is on the one with the gun. My guess is at point blank range, you are likely going to be shot multiple times, not hit by a single bullet. All things being equal, I do think a gun is by far the more effective weapon. Though I can see how there would be specific circumstances where an axe may be preferable. 

In terms of having guns in a campaign, that is really about the individual gaming group and its prefrences. My experience is most D&D gamers are a little put off by having guns in their game, primarily for flavor reasons, but also for issues of balance. Personally I don't mind, I kind of like having guns in my game, because I think it adds a lot of flavor to the setting. But the kinds of firearms you find in a game like D&D are usually old 15th century-style weapons, not modern handguns or machine guns. And their potency is somewhat diminished (and sometimes enhanced) by the presence of magic.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 13, 2010)

Well, once again, for myself the gun is not how the combat engine of the game system handles things, but rather how the rise of gunpowder warfare changed things.

People have mentioned anachronisms in the core D&D world.  That's fine.  EGG wrote once that the "classic" fantasy setting including higher technologies like sailing ships and foot travel, magic artisans spent a lot of time improving the upper classes (so they had some conviencies that even seemed modern, such as "witch lights" (magic lights akin to modern outdoor street or neon lighting), and that he even saw experiments in steam, the introduction of movable type (printing press), plumbing and clocks, and other things as plausible.

But the introduction of Gunpowder changed things so much not having them influence a D&D society would be a little too much to accept.  Siege Warfare, fortifications, even forms of government would change (and did change in history).  An introduction of higher tech would also make it easier for a dominant race or culture to wipe out the more primitive.  (If humans have guns and orcs don't, so long to the orcs after some wars).  

Certain inventions change societies immensely.  I can accept a "steampunk" setting but things have to change with it.  If you have steam and machines, wouldn't that lead to mass production and the Industrial Revolution.  And once that happened, what happens to magic?  If magic does not go through a similar revolution, it might become a lot less valuable in the long run.  

I think--and mind you, like the subject says, this is why I don't like it--guns and other inventions such as electrical machines changes the dynamic so much it no longer has the classic feel.  That's fine if you want a different setting, but if you're playing in an idealized quasi-European (or general historical) setting we've come to know and love, some of these things stand out.  If the gun removes the knight and the classic castle, is it easier to change the setting, or remove the gun?  

There's a certain level of logic I demand from my entertainment.  I'm not saying everything has to be modeled on historical reality or real-world physics, and I accept "suspension of belief" to some extent, but I also demand that such settings don't insult the intelligence either.  For instance, while Peter Jackson's LoTR adaptations were mostly good, I kept getting mad every time I saw human settlements surrounded by moor and no farms.  (Sorry, but humans do not import stuff from the hobbits).  It's also why some SF settings (be they games or tv shows/books/movies) get dated after time passes and new theories and inventions take hold.  It's why I never liked illogical weapons in 3e such as the "double-sword".  

Granted, we each have our own tolerance and lack of tolerance points.  A biologist might dislike D&D a bit more because of biomechanics and the square-cube law, at least where things like giants and dragons come into play.  (And this isn't just with Fantasy, a Lawyer or Doctor will pretty much hate the things typical Hollywood screenwriters portray of their professions.) However, there are some thing that can be waved away with "it's magic", like giants (I remember articles on Dragons saying they fly through supernatural means since the wings would never support their weight), but the general nature of the game involves some belief of real-world physics and civilization, so I can't just wave away the influence of the gun on culture nor can I accept a double-sword which would be incredibly hard to fight with (outside of a wuxia like campaign).  

So, at least, that is why I dislike guns.  If we have guns, lets make sure the effect on society is handled as accurately and as plausible as possible.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 13, 2010)

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree the specifics are what really matter here. But if you have a guy with an axe and a guy with a gun squaring off, my money is on the one with the gun. My guess is at point blank range, you are likely going to be shot multiple times, not hit by a single bullet. All things being equal, I do think a gun is by far the more effective weapon. Though I can see how there would be specific circumstances where an axe may be preferable.




Assuming we're dealing with period appropriate tech, it would be a guy with a musket against that guy with an axe.  You could just as easily replace the musket with a crossbow, and I'd say the odds would be the same.  If the ranged attacker is successful, he'll probably win because a solid shot with either musket ball or crossbow bolt will drop most people in their tracks (even if it doesn't kill them outright).  If he misses or wings the axeman, he's probably dead because reloading either weapon should be nearly impossible when someone is chasing you with an axe.

Of course, if you're suggesting someone with an AK-47 is shooting the guy with an axe, of course the situation changes dramatically.  However, I don't think most people mean "adding modern, automatic firearms" when they say "adding guns to D&D".  As I said before, the reason that modern firearms are so advantageous in combat is because of their ease of use, coupled with their high rate of fire.  Primitive firearms (such as those you're likely to find in D&D) don't retain much of that undeniably deadly combination.



> In terms of having guns in a campaign, that is really about the individual gaming group and its prefrences. My experience is most D&D gamers are a little put off by having guns in their game, primarily for flavor reasons, but also for issues of balance. Personally I don't mind, I kind of like having guns in my game, because I think it adds a lot of flavor to the setting. But the kinds of firearms you find in a game like D&D are usually old 15th century-style weapons, not modern handguns or machine guns. And their potency is somewhat diminished (and sometimes enhanced) by the presence of magic.




I completely agree about it being a matter of preference.  I've known quite a number of players who loved the idea of firearms in D&D, which is partly why I include them in my campaigns now and then.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Feb 13, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> Assuming we're dealing with period appropriate tech, it would be a guy with a musket against that guy with an axe.  You could just as easily replace the musket with a crossbow, and I'd say the odds would be the same.  If the ranged attacker is successful, he'll probably win because a solid shot with either musket ball or crossbow bolt will drop most people in their tracks (even if it doesn't kill them outright).  If he misses or wings the axeman, he's probably dead because reloading either weapon should be nearly impossible when someone is chasing you with an axe.
> 
> Of course, if you're suggesting someone with an AK-47 is shooting the guy with an axe, of course the situation changes dramatically.  However, I don't think most people mean "adding modern, automatic firearms" when they say "adding guns to D&D".  As I said before, the reason that modern firearms are so advantageous in combat is because of their ease of use, coupled with their high rate of fire.  Primitive firearms (such as those you're likely to find in D&D) don't retain much of that undeniably deadly combination.




I agree. In my example I was actually thinking more modern semi automatic pistol v. axe.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 13, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> So, at least, that is why I dislike guns.  If we have guns, lets make sure the effect on society is handled as accurately and as plausible as possible.




It isn't necessarily difficult to make guns low-impact in a setting though.  Just establish guns as something uncommon and you're set.


For example, one of my players is a big fan of the Dark Tower, so in a particular "Dark Ages" campaign I established a small peacekeeping order of gunslingers (ronin with Peacemakers).  Guns were relics of a previous age, the secrets of which had been lost to all but the Gunslingers, who were quite careful protecting and preserving their secret.  Unsurprisingly, that player chose to be a member of the Gunslingers and had a blast.  There were less than a thousand functional firearms in the entire setting, and moreover, the secrets of gunpowder were lost to all but the order.  Hence, the world was in no danger of being overturned by six-shooter technology.


Another idea I've had, for a future campaign, is that guns were invented by the dwarven people.  Moreover, the process of creating gunpowder requires exposure to deep earth radiation that dwarves are highly resistant to, but which is deadly to most other races (hence, even if some human lord were to learn the secret of making gunpowder, it would be effectively useless).  Since the dwarves are staid and largely isolationist, they merely use the technology to defend themselves (which has made dwarven strongholds largely unassailable).

While they do sell firearms and gunpowder to outsiders, the dwarves moderate the sale of the latter.  They aren't stupid and recognize that allowing greedy lords sufficient quantities of gunpower would render the dwarves somewhat vulnerable to attack (and enslavement).  As such, guns aren't used by armies, as there simply isn't sufficient gunpowder available.  Rather, they are the toys of nobles, adventurers, and occasionally small elite military units.


Overall, I prefer to keep gunpowder limited in some fashion (although I generally advance the technology itself to include six shooters, as I feel that those typify the West and help engender a "romance of the gun" feel).  It limits the use of guns which adds to their charm and mystique, and explains why guns haven't overthrown the "natural order" of the times.  I have to agree with others that, outside of a low-magic setting, if magic hasn't overthrown the "natural order" then guns certainly shouldn't either.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 13, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> Well, once again, for myself the gun is not how the combat engine of the game system handles things, but rather how the rise of gunpowder warfare changed things.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Why do people tend to attribute every change that happened in the Early Modern period to the existence of guns? There seems to be a fairly common belief that the rise of gunpowder immediately obsoleted the knight, which then caused a chain reaction in Europe's social structure that swept aside the feudal system and transformed the Western world.

There is no way I can understate how wrong that simplistic notion is. Guns in of themselves did little to change Europe. Many of the changes that people claim that guns are responsible for are the results of a complex mix of factors and only came about gradually across centuries. 

The gun didn't eliminate knights, the pike did. Even then, the knight just evolved into new forms, abandoning the lance in favor of pistols and arquebuses. Cuirassiers and harquebusiers, gun-wielding, plate-armored cavalry that still predominately used the sword, were a major force on the battlefield in the Thirty Year's War, in the early 17th century.

Even if the gun had completely eliminated the knights, that in of itself wouldn't have caused any kind of social upheaval. The transformation from the feudal system to absolute monarchies and the modern nation state was the result of extremely complex factors, and it can be in no way simplified down to being a side effect of the gun. Regardless, the stereotypical fantasy kingdom more closely resemble an Early Modern nationalistic absolute monarchy than a medieval feudal government anyways. That is one of the classic anachronisms of "medieval" fantasy.

Guns didn't eliminate castles either. Fortresses were still in use in the American Civil War, and weren't totally obsoleted until the advent of air power (even then, they persist in the form of the armored bunker to this day). Versailles wasn't built because castles were useless, it was built because the French Kings had no fear that an enemy army would get that close to them, and thus they could afford the luxury. Fortifications remained a pertinent part of warfare, there just came a time when kings no longer felt like living in them anymore.

So, I don't see where all of this talk about guns transforming society with their existence talk is coming from.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 14, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> Guns didn't eliminate castles either. Fortresses were still in use in the American Civil War, and weren't totally obsoleted until the advent of air power (even then, they persist in the form of the armored bunker to this day). Versailles wasn't built because castles were useless, it was built because the French Kings had no fear that an enemy army would get that close to them, and thus they could afford the luxury. Fortifications remained a pertinent part of warfare, there just came a time when kings no longer felt like living in them anymore.




Yes, but they were POLYGONAL forts, not the classic castle.  And yes, a Palace is not a fortification.  

So while you may attribute the pike and other factors removing the knights, gun and gun warfare did change a lot of things, especially the invention of the actual canon.  There are anachronisms and the classic fantasy takes items from the Early Modern (and magic adding some almost high-tech elements to the society), but the Gun might just be a key factor from making it feel like Castles and Wizards or whatever tropes you expect.  Adding the gun would likely make it different enough to not feel the same.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 14, 2010)

> but the Gun might just be a key factor from making it feel like Castles and Wizards or whatever tropes you expect. Adding the gun would likely make it different enough *to not feel the same.*



And that's the key.

As I pointed out earlier, Magic would have as much an impact on castle design as guns would. Guns wouldn't be the only thing that would cause change, etc etc. The issue isn't change.

The issue is how it _feels_.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 14, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> Yes, but they were POLYGONAL forts, not the classic castle.  And yes, a Palace is not a fortification.
> 
> So while you may attribute the pike and other factors removing the knights, gun and gun warfare did change a lot of things, especially the invention of the actual canon.  There are anachronisms and the classic fantasy takes items from the Early Modern (and magic adding some almost high-tech elements to the society), but the Gun might just be a key factor from making it feel like Castles and Wizards or whatever tropes you expect.  Adding the gun would likely make it different enough to not feel the same.




As long as you are saying that you just don't like the feel of firearms in your fantasy, I have no problem. The issue I have is when people say that guns would cause some sort of necessary, drastic, and fundamental change in a setting. I don't see any reason for that to be the case. You could probably just drop 16th century firearms into most D&D settings without changing anything else and maintain the usual amounts of historical realism and anachronism found in D&D.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 14, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> As long as you are saying that you just don't like the feel of firearms in your fantasy, I have no problem. The issue I have is when people say that guns would cause some sort of necessary, drastic, and fundamental change in a setting. I don't see any reason for that to be the case. You could probably just drop 16th century firearms into most D&D settings without changing anything else and maintain the usual amounts of historical realism and anachronism found in D&D.




I agree - if you stick with era-appropriate firearms, it would not alter most settings very much.  As I stated way earlier in this thread, the problem with almost every "firearms in D&D" rule I've seen makes them 18th or 19th century era guns against everything else being medieval/early renaissance level.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 14, 2010)

I did not read this entire thread...so there's possibility that a specific subject may or may not have been touched. Dealing with guns.

Magic.

For me...if someone wanted guns per se. Magic itself would have suffer greatly, with the ability of not been able to defend against it. Although I have seen variant writiings of that being bridged (mixing mocdern with medieval elements). To me...the introduction of firearms, would mean that one age is leaving and another is coming in.

Second...what armor could absorb that bullet punishment? Not all...I assume.

Third...the damage?
I would make it a ability score loss, and depending whatever area is hit. The PC getting hampered with those injuries. Would be more challenging and more annoying ( to them), than being cut with a sword or puncture with arrow. (This is not an absolute solution on approach).

But some folks have been able to blend the two...and they comfortable with it. As long the GM is too. But in the end.

An element has been changed, a change that would echo throughtout the world at large and affected the gods themselves.

That age of myth and magic will be replaced with the Age of Science.

Shadowrun is the perfect example of a total evolution from one age to another. (for those who don't know...it was a modern times theme that literally exploded with the rerelease of magic, dragons, demons and more. That mesh with today's times).

What edition they up to now?


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 14, 2010)

Truth Seeker said:


> I did not read this entire thread...so there's possibility that a specific subject may or may not have been touched. Dealing with guns.
> 
> Magic.
> 
> For me...if someone wanted guns per se. Magic itself would have suffer greatly, with the ability of not been able to defend against it. Although I have seen variant writiings of that being bridged (mixing mocdern with medieval elements). To me...the introduction of firearms, would mean that one age is leaving and another is coming in.




Why?  Logically, why would magic suffer?  It doesn't suffer with crossbows, which are as easy to use as firearms.



> Third...the damage?
> I would make it a ability score loss, and depending whatever area is hit. The PC getting hampered with those injuries. Would be more challenging and more annoying ( to them), than being cut with a sword or puncture with arrow. (This is not an absolute solution on approach).




Why is having a tiny hunk of lead hit you in the chest at high speed more traumatic than a sword thrust, a crossbow bolt, or a swung axe hitting you in the chest?



> Shadowrun is the perfect example of a total evolution from one age to another. (for those who don't know...it was a modern times theme that literally exploded with the rerelease of magic, dragons, demons and more. That mesh with today's times).
> 
> What edition they up to now?




4th.

And magic doesn't trump technology except when fighting magical things, like spirits.  Magic doesn't work on or with technology well, either; they *can* (you can enchant a monofilament whip into a weapon focus), but with great difficulty.  But SR mage types can wear armor and hide behind cover just as well as the street samurai does.

Brad


----------



## Truth Seeker (Feb 14, 2010)

1. If using guns per se, in a medival setting, without changes to current spells. What protection can be offered? This is my logic, you introduce an new element, that the current ones have no means to adapt at that time.

2. Unlike swords or arrows. Bullet damage impact can be increased by the amount of gunpowder applied, and the current shaping of the bullet head for better pentration (and range). Without applying to the former with magic boosting. (Wait, just caught myself here...the former abilities can be increased by also, with heavier metals and stronger bows and pull strength. But the bullets heavier (dmg) and wider range will be beat them out in the end.). The fight is no longer personal (face to face), it becomes a thing of distance and impact.

3.Thanks.

4. True, true...I played in the very 1st ed of SR, there was a distinct line on what can affect what. What is going here, is that some folks want to blend the elements of both eras into one. Not the first time to happen, nor be the last.

But for me, adding guns in a sword swinging, bow firing era...will change everything. I have handle guns, never fired. But if I did use it...something of me would have changed. And there's the rub, some may have experience that feeling, and don't wish to explore it.



cignus_pfaccari said:


> 1.Why? Logically, why would magic suffer? It doesn't suffer with crossbows, which are as easy to use as firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 14, 2010)

GSHamster said:


> However, as you introduce technology, it becomes a lot harder to justify this basic idea. The entire point of technology, in a lot of ways, is to replace skill. There is an old saying, popular in the eighteenth century, that "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." This saying perfectly encapsulates the point that technology makes the unskilled deadlier. Non-fantasy games need to be able to account for this. If you have a game where a character can get shot with a gun at point-blank range and almost always survive, that's really hard to take.



Like I said; a lot of misconceptions about guns.

A _skilled_ shooter is vastly different than any Joe Blow with a gun.  And an action-movie shooter is vastly different than the best real-life shooter anyway.

Also: people survive gunshot wounds all the time.  I have no idea where this idea that getting shot is more likely fatal than getting stabbed through the guts with a sword or whacked on the head with an ax, but it's a really bizarre misconception.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Like I said; a lot of misconceptions about guns.
> 
> A _skilled_ shooter is vastly different than any Joe Blow with a gun.  And an action-movie shooter is vastly different than the best real-life shooter anyway.
> 
> Also: people survive gunshot wounds all the time.  I have no idea where this idea that getting shot is more likely fatal than getting stabbed through the guts with a sword or whacked on the head with an ax, but it's a really bizarre misconception.




While people do survive gunshots daily, if you look at ER & domestic violence stats*, you'll see that gunshots ARE deadlier.  Its a lot easier to deliver a fatal blow with a single gunshot than with a single stab or slash.

It is _especially_ a lot easier to kill with a gun if you don't have the muscle mass to deliver a deep stab, or the skill to strike the right place to slash...not to mention the additional advantage of being able to kill from a significantly greater range.

But the other point is spot on- tech doesn't perforce replace skill.  In many cases, it enhances it.

* There was a huge 20+ year study done on domestic violence that pointed out (among other things) that women are far more likely to use a gun than men in domestic violence situations.  The reason?  The gun is an equalizer in a fight with a stronger, faster opponent.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 14, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> * There was a huge 20+ year study done on domestic violence that pointed out (among other things) that women are far more likely to use a gun than men in domestic violence situations.  The reason?  The gun is an equalizer in a fight with a stronger, faster opponent.




I don't want to get too deep into a "are guns more deadly than swords?" argument, but I do have to ask if it is fair comparing statistics involving domestic violence in the modern day with modern guns to fantasy combat between highly trained warriors in a medieval/early modern setting using heavy matchlock guns. Just about every aspect of the comparison is faulty in some way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2010)

Actually, its very fair.

I'd expect a trained warrior to be deadly with _anything_ he knows how to operate.

A modern gun, however, takes no training to be lethal.  Barring the kinds of guns in which you have to cock them first THEN pull the trigger (as opposed to point & pull), in a very real sense, you're more of a hazard with a gun without training than with.

Early guns had their hazards, to be sure...misfires & non-fires were much more common, for instance.  However, few RPGs have mechanics that take into account the unreliability of firearms into account.  Similarly, few RPGs make those early firearms less accurate than other ranged weapons, when we know that bows and crossbows were much more accurate weapons for the period.  Instead, most RPGs assume that ancient firearms will work reliably every time and are as accurate as any other ranged weapon of the period.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 16, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, its very fair.
> 
> I'd expect a trained warrior to be deadly with _anything_ he knows how to operate.
> 
> ...




They also bend the rules of physics constantly with bows - compounds would be exotic, letting you draw multiple arrows on the string at once, pinpoint accuracy, speed, and range all at the same time).

Crossbows, throwing knives, and guns though?  They're left in the cold.  The crossbow, despite being considered heretical due to how dangerous it was, despite there being mercenary teams made of nothing but crossbowman, is, in D&D, "the weapon the wizard uses at levels 1-3 after running out of spells."

Sorry, but bows already bend and break the rules of physics and reality.  Demanding every other weapon has to adhere to realism is asinine.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 16, 2010)

shadow said:


> That said, core D&D seems to be all over the place when it comes to weapons, technology, and mythology.  (We have bronze age slings next too late medieval long bows.  We have monster out Greco-Roman myth next to the clerics loosely inspired by medieval religious orders.)  Therefore, fitting gunslingers into D&D could be done without too much problem. It would be a different type of fantasy, but it would not be any less "realistic" than the "baseline" assumption of D&D.




Just an observation: we have that kind of situation in the real world.

When the European empires were all over Africa, you had warriors with assegai and leather shields facing regiments with firearms...just as the American West featured Native Americans fighting gunpowder-wielding settlers and scouts with tomahawk, bow, club and javelin (at least at first).

Watch video of street fights in the Middle East of today and you can see people using slings in skirmishes with police or soldiers armed with submachine guns or even APCs & Tanks.

Just because a weapon is "obsolete" doesn't mean it disappears from the battlefield forever, all over the world.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Feb 16, 2010)

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree the specifics are what really matter here. But if you have a guy with an axe and a guy with a gun squaring off, my money is on the one with the gun. My guess is at point blank range, you are likely going to be shot multiple times, not hit by a single bullet. All things being equal, I do think a gun is by far the more effective weapon. Though I can see how there would be specific circumstances where an axe may be preferable.



 Guess you never saw the Patriot starring Mel Gibson: He kills 4 men with a axe + dagger when they got guns in one scene.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2010)

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree the specifics are what really matter here. But if you have a guy with an axe and a guy with a gun squaring off, my money is on the one with the gun. My guess is at point blank range, you are likely going to be shot multiple times, not hit by a single bullet.




That depends on the gun, doesn't it?

If we're talking a modern automatic pistol, or even a 19th-century revolver, then I agree, the guy with the gun has the edge.

If we're talking a 17th-century flintlock pistol... not so much. The guy with the pistol gets _one_ shot, with a weapon of limited accuracy and dubious reliability. If he doesn't kill or disable his foe (and his odds are not good--even with the best modern guns and plenty of training, people often miss at very short range), he'll never have the chance to fire another. His head will be rolling on the ground long before he can reload.

That's not to say the flintlock pistol wasn't a useful weapon, but outside of mass combat I'd expect it to serve the same function javelins do for a 4E fighter; a one-shot ranged option for use at the start of combat. If you get lucky and take the enemy down, great, you win. If you wing him, or force him to duck and cover, you've gained an advantage in the ensuing melee. If you miss, well, nothing lost by trying.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 16, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> That depends on the gun, doesn't it?




It doesn't.  Watch.




Bedrockgames said:


> But if you have a guy with an axe and a guy with a gun squaring off, my money is on the one with the gun. My guess is at point blank range, you are likely going to be shot multiple times, not hit by a single bullet. All things being equal, I do think a gun is by far the more effective weapon. Though I can see how there would be specific circumstances where an axe may be preferable.




If you have an armored guy with a spear and a guy who's completely unarmed, my money is on the guy with the spear.  But in D&D, it doesn't work that way - the unarmed guy might VERY easily overpower and take down the armored guy.

This is a game where people can *punch through armor*.  Realism does not, and has never, applied.  Effective weapons have never mattered in D&D - this is the game with the *double axe* for crying out loud.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 16, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> If you have an armored guy with a spear and a guy who's completely unarmed, my money is on the guy with the spear.  But in D&D, it doesn't work that way - the unarmed guy might VERY easily overpower and take down the armored guy.
> 
> This is a game where people can *punch through armor*.  Realism does not, and has never, applied.  Effective weapons have never mattered in D&D - this is the game with the *double axe* for crying out loud.




In which case, guns are exactly as effective as the designers choose to make them, no more and no less. They could be as bad-ass as the greatbow or as wussy as the sling. No way to know until we see the stats, so there's no point speculating.

Unless you want to speculate on what guns _should_ be like, in which case either we're back to discussing what's realistic (if going the verisimilitude route), or we're discussing what's balanced (if going the gameplay-first route).


----------



## Salamandyr (Feb 16, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It doesn't.  Watch.
> 
> If you have an armored guy with a spear and a guy who's completely unarmed, my money is on the guy with the spear.  But in D&D, it doesn't work that way - the unarmed guy might VERY easily overpower and take down the armored guy.
> 
> This is a game where people can *punch through armor*.  Realism does not, and has never, applied.  Effective weapons have never mattered in D&D - this is the game with the *double axe* for crying out loud.




More like...if you have a fighter with a spear, and an unarmed _monk_, then the unarmed _monk_ might overpower and take down the fighter.

D&D is designed to have very specific departures from reality.  Outside those departures, reality is generally intended to hold forth.  In general, in D&D "people" CANNOT "punch through armor", but a "person" might have a specific magical ability that allows them to punch through armor.

Just as in reality, we might say "people can't fly" while recognizing that, they can, if they have access to an airplane...if in D&D a bunch of peasants suddenly take to the air, we know something is very strange, because in D&D people _can't_ fly, absent some outside agent like the _Fly_ spell.  Otherwise mundane NPC's who show a magical ability clues us in that something unusual is going on, to look for the hidden wizard, to check if they are possibly disguised fae, etc.  If D&D was "unrealistic", we would have no basis for deciding if a given situation was unusual or not.

As to the double axe, it's neither an iconic D&D weapon, nor does it appear prior to 3rd edition.  In 3rd it was considered an exotic weapon, requiring special training to use effectively, which I think is at least a nod to the idea it is not a plausible weapon.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 16, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> This is a game where people can *punch through armor*.  Realism does not, and has never, applied.  Effective weapons have never mattered in D&D - this is the game with the *double axe* for crying out loud.



And don't even get me started on that absurd spiked chain.

I've never had a problem with guns in my D&D game...I remember houseruling them into my BECM games back in the day (a double-damage crossbow that took 2 rounds to reload.)  I like the new-world, swashbuckling flavor that they bring to the game.

Cannons and muskets?  Yes please.
Dragonborn and warforged?  Thanks but no.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 16, 2010)

Salamandyr said:


> More like...if you have a fighter with a spear, and an unarmed _monk_, then the unarmed _monk_ might overpower and take down the fighter.
> 
> D&D is designed to have very specific departures from reality.  Outside those departures, reality is generally intended to hold forth.  In general, in D&D "people" CANNOT "punch through armor", but a "person" might have a specific magical ability that allows them to punch through armor.




Kinda.  If an unarmed 5th level fighter goes up against a 1st level Fighter with a spear, the 5th level fighter will win nearly every time.  An unarmed 10th level fighter will murder a 1st level spearman.  

D&D combat is quasi-realistic.  It's built to model heroic fiction and action movies.  

I like firearms mostly for flavor reasons.  I'm more interested in running games set on the frontier of larger, civilized, pseudo-renaissance empires than I am in running games set in less civilized, "points of light" pseudo-medieval kingdoms. 

Also, its fun to give goblins kegs of gunpowder.


----------



## Salamandyr (Feb 16, 2010)

Stoat said:


> Kinda.  If an unarmed 5th level fighter goes up against a 1st level Fighter with a spear, the 5th level fighter will win nearly every time.  An unarmed 10th level fighter will murder a 1st level spearman.
> 
> D&D combat is quasi-realistic.  It's built to model heroic fiction and action movies.
> 
> ...





But that's just the same thing holding true.  Certain, _exceptional_ people can do improbable things, but they can't do impossible things without some outside agency that allows it.  An unarmed man defeating an armed one is improbable, but not impossible.  Police, martial artists, and such all train on how to do just that.  Punching a hole through full plate armor, or flying requires magic though.

I don't really care about guns in d&d one way or the other, they don't fit into my preferred campaign milieu because technologically it's more dark ages/fall of Rome than high Renaissance/Enlightenment.  Rules-wise, I've never run across a game that really made firearms feel like a fun addition.  They've just sort of been tacked on, crossbows with bigger dice.

For 4e, I'd probably handle them as an extra encounter power that does 1d10 per tier+Dex, modifiable as per a ranged basic attack, with an *Effect:*target grants combat advantage until the end its turn, to represent ducking/flinching.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 18, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While people do survive gunshots daily, if you look at ER & domestic violence stats*, you'll see that gunshots ARE deadlier.  Its a lot easier to deliver a fatal blow with a single gunshot than with a single stab or slash.



Then again, not much domestic violence happens today involving swords, does it?  Also, modern guns are not equal to the kinds of early firearms that people generally think of when they talk about adding firearms to D&D.  I think we're talking about piratey flintlocks and Dumas' muskets, not AK-47s and SiGs.

Be that as it may, I'm not interested in real world statistics about domestic violence with guns and how that impacts my D&D games.  My D&D games are about emulating action movies and swashbuckling fantasy stories, and in action movies and swashbuckling fantasy stories, getting shot isn't any more or less lethal than getting slashed with a sword, on average.

I think all this detailed historical analysis is a bit of a red herring for most people actually.  D&D isn't about emulating reality, it's about emulating a _genre of fiction_.  Granted, it's grown beyond that, and picked up all kinds of weird stuff from _other_ genres while it's been at it, but at its heart, that's what D&D tries to do.  Why people suddenly abandon that and start talking about all kinds of real world details when firearms come up is a disconnect for me.  To me, with or without firearms, D&D still does basically the same thing.  It emulates swashbuckling sword & sorcery action-oriented, pulp-aesthetic fantasy.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Feb 18, 2010)

Salamandyr said:


> But that's just the same thing holding true. Certain, _exceptional_ people can do improbable things, but they can't do impossible things without some outside agency that allows it. An unarmed man defeating an armed one is improbable, but not impossible. Police, martial artists, and such all train on how to do just that. Punching a hole through full plate armor, or flying requires magic though.



 Blunt Weapons don't punch a hole through armor: they just deal blunt trauma.
Like the olympics: hitting a metal pole at 50 mph, almost always kills you no matter your head gear. Blunt trauma alone bypasses armor to a degree. 

Heck, you be shot in a bullet proof vest and die from blunt trauma.


----------



## Salamandyr (Feb 18, 2010)

Starbuck_II said:


> Blunt Weapons don't punch a hole through armor: they just deal blunt trauma.
> Like the olympics: hitting a metal pole at 50 mph, almost always kills you no matter your head gear. Blunt trauma alone bypasses armor to a degree.
> 
> Heck, you be shot in a bullet proof vest and die from blunt trauma.




I'm not really sure what your point is here.  Punching a hole through armor was somebody else's example.

Second, punching only causes "blunt force trauma" because, thanks force is dispersed over a wider area...more force over a wider area can puncture as well as less force applied to a smaller area.  Throw a telephone pole hard enough, and _it_ can go through you; it just requires a lot more force to do than a spear.

But that's a digression and not really germaine to the conversation.

EDIT: so this conversation actually made me curious enough to look up the meaning of "blunt force trauma".  Essentially, all it means is "non-penetrating trauma".  So it's a question of effect, not purpose.  A fist with enough force behind it could do penetrating trauma, and a sword with little force behind it could do blunt force trauma.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2010)

And in fact, a strongly swung sword blow that doesn't penetrate the target's armor WILL do BFT.  There's also the issue of hydrostatic shock.

Any blow of sufficient force can send shock waves through the body which may deaden nerves or even disrupt organ function (IOW, may cause death).  This is because water- a major component of the human body- is non-compressible.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 19, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Then again, not much domestic violence happens today involving swords, does it?



Errm, but there's lots of domestic violence happening involving all kinds of pointy or blunt implements. At least around here (I'm from Germany), (domestic) violence involves knives a lot more often than guns.

I haven't investigated this more deeply but I had the impression it was easier to survive a dozen knive-stabs than a dozen bullets. I might be mistaken, though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2010)

Yep.

There was an ER/Trauma surgeon on CNN the other day, saying that once you get shot 3+ times at once, your odds of dying are about 99%.

Now, before anyone starts talking about "I saw this guy who got shot N+ times (>3), and _he _survived...", realize that, according to the CDC, there were more than 12K gunshot  fatalities in the USA alone in 2006...accounting for about 67% of all homicides. 

And those 12k gunshot fatalities were accompanied by about 80k non-fatal shootings...of which 52K were "deliberate."

With numbers like that, of course you've heard about people surviving multiple gunshot wounds.

In contrast, less than 10% of all USA homicides result from stabbings, less than 7% from beatings.  Simply put, our skeletons are well designed for protecting us from the kind of damage we can do to each other with bare hands and simple weapons...without training, of course...but are not structurally capable of protecting us from firearms in any meaningful way.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There was an ER/Trauma surgeon on CNN the other day, saying that once you get shot 3+ times at once, your odds of dying are about 99%.




That's only applicable to _modern_ firearms though.  Try shooting someone 3+ times with a musket, and I think you'd find the reload time prohibitive.  I imagine it would be much easier to stab a capable opponent 3+ times, than to shoot them an equal number with a musket.

Also, I have to wonder what the odds of survival are after being stabbed 3+ times.  While it _might_ not be 1%, I'd wager to guess that it isn't far off.  The human body simply isn't meant to be abused in such a manner.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 19, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Errm, but there's lots of domestic violence happening involving all kinds of pointy or blunt implements. At least around here (I'm from Germany), (domestic) violence involves knives a lot more often than guns.
> 
> I haven't investigated this more deeply but I had the impression it was easier to survive a dozen knive-stabs than a dozen bullets. I might be mistaken, though.



Yeah, but I didn't say anything about knives.  A knife blade five or six inches long, and a sword blade that's four or five times as thick, and at _least_ a foot and a half long (on the shorter side) are hardly comparable implements.

Besides, I just got done saying, in the same post that you responded to, that this fixation on "realistic" damage of swords vs firearms is a red herring anyway.  Plus, all you did was restate the same thing that I was responding to, without addressing any of the rest of the context of my post.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 19, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Yeah, but I didn't say anything about knives.  A knife blade five or six inches long, and a sword blade that's four or five times as thick, and at _least_ a foot and a half long (on the shorter side) are hardly comparable implements.




Nitpick: I have never seen a sword blade that was four or five times as thick as a knife.  Two or three, at most.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 19, 2010)

Sorry; by thickness I meant width.

My bad.  Point is, there's a ton more mass involved with getting hit (or stabbed) with a sword.  Even the relatively small gladiuses of Roman fame were notorious for the gaping, sucking wounds they inflicted on their enemies.  Getting stabbed with a kitchen knife in a domestic dispute really isn't a comparable situation, in my opinion.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 19, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Sorry; by thickness I meant width.
> 
> My bad.  Point is, there's a ton more mass involved with getting hit (or stabbed) with a sword.  Even the relatively small gladiuses of Roman fame were notorious for the gaping, sucking wounds they inflicted on their enemies.  Getting stabbed with a kitchen knife in a domestic dispute really isn't a comparable situation, in my opinion.




With that I will certainly agree. Kitchen knives are made for chopping vegetables. Swords are made for killing people. Stands to reason that the latter is more likely to kill you than the former.

A sword blow can break your skull with the blunt impact alone; not easy to do that with a knife.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 19, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> That's only applicable to _modern_ firearms though.  Try shooting someone 3+ times with a musket, and I think you'd find the reload time prohibitive.  I imagine it would be much easier to stab a capable opponent 3+ times, than to shoot them an equal number with a musket.
> 
> Also, I have to wonder what the odds of survival are after being stabbed 3+ times.  While it _might_ not be 1%, I'd wager to guess that it isn't far off.  The human body simply isn't meant to be abused in such a manner.




While it would be harder to actually have the time to hit someone 3 times with a musket in any reasonable amount of time, given the size of musket balls- American musket balls were .69 caliber or bigger- I'd imagine the fatality rate for that number of hits was pretty similar.

As for stabbings, I was recently looking at an Australian report by Kenneth Wong and Jeffrey Petchell (of Royal Prince Alfred Hospital) who looked at stabbings and shootings.  They noted that the stabbings primarily involved knives and machetes.  Of the people studied, 52% had been injured in multiple locations...and the overall fatality rate of firearm injuries was double that of those who were stabbed or cut.

Another study (Journal of the American College of Surgeons) showed the survival rates were 16.8% for stab wounds and 4.3% for gunshot wounds...but I don't recall a break down of the results into number of injuries per patient.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 19, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While it would be harder to actually have the time to hit someone 3 times with a musket in any reasonable amount of time, given the size of musket balls- American musket balls were .69 caliber or bigger- I'd imagine the fatality rate for that number of hits was pretty similar.




As has been mentioned, swords are significantly bigger than your average knife.  Muskets are notably less accurate than modern firearms, and possess a remarkably reduced rate of fire.  Using modern data to compare medieval/renaissance weaponry is likely misleading.



> As for stabbings, I was recently looking at an Australian report by Kenneth Wong and Jeffrey Petchell (of Royal Prince Alfred Hospital) who looked at stabbings and shootings.  They noted that the stabbings primarily involved knives and machetes.  Of the people studied, 52% had been injured in multiple locations...and the overall fatality rate of firearm injuries was double that of those who were stabbed or cut.
> 
> Another study (Journal of the American College of Surgeons) showed the survival rates were 16.8% for stab wounds and 4.3% for gunshot wounds...but I don't recall a break down of the results into number of injuries per patient.




Again, you'd have to break that data down significantly before it would be of any practical value.  You want to look at machete/sword attacks for stab wounds, because a knife produces a much smaller wound than a sword (which would naturally increase the survival rate).  You want to look at single shot, higher caliber shootings for firearms (because the ability to shoot someone multiple times in rapid succession will obviously lower the survival rate).  Finally, you'd want to utilize those instances that did not have rapid response (because modern medicine can be borderline miraculous at times, and victims who had to be resuscitated will only confuse the data).  

If you haven't accounted for as many factors as possible, then your statistics are unscientific to say the least.  I don't think anyone here is contesting that a modern firearm is deadlier than a knife.  

The debate is over primitive firearms versus swords (and other medieval weaponry), which is hardly what the data you presented above is based on.  It's entirely possible that much of this data is comparing a cooking utensil to an actual weapon; _of course_ the weapon is superior in that scenario!  A musket is not the equivalent of a semi-automatic rifle.  A steak knife is not the equivalent of a sword.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> As has been mentioned, swords are significantly bigger than your average knife.  Muskets are notably less accurate than modern firearms, and possess a remarkably reduced rate of fire.  Using modern data to compare medieval/renaissance weaponry is likely misleading.




As has been mentioned, accuracy isn't the issue I'm talking about.  When I'm talking about guns here, I'm talking about surviving multiple contemporaneous gunshots.  That issue doesn't change significantly over time in favor of the modern firearm.  In fact, with modern medicine, survival rates from gunshot injuries have risen.  Don't believe me?  Start looking at how many people died of complications from gunshot wounds from the Civil War on- where you have a combination of muskets, the beginnings of modern battlefield medicine and relatively reliable statistics- and you'll see the trend.  Modern medicine has done wonders in this area...mostly because of improvements in control of post-surgical infections that claimed the lives of huge numbers of wounded, but also in surgical techniques that turn formerly fatal wounds into survivable ones.

And despite those improvements, that poor survival rate from multiple (3+, as stated by the trauma surgeon) GSWs was calculated using data from _top-flight medical facilities. _ Away from those facilities, its probable that death from multiple GSWs is virtually assured, possibly indistinguishable from rates of death from earlier eras.

Your point has more validity with bladed weapons, where the societal trend is to smaller and less inherently lethal blades, which fewer and fewer people carry, and with which fewer and fewer persons are actually trained to fight.

Still, though, the Aussie study _did_ include machete data...and still the firearms outperformed bladed weapons.

(I recently tried to find data on machete attacks/fatalities _exclusively_, but instead of getting crime rates, I kept getting referred to terrorism reports, not crime statistics.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 20, 2010)

Fanaelialae said:


> The debate is over primitive firearms versus swords (and other medieval weaponry).




Not really.  As Hobo said, the red herring is over primitive firearms versus swords.

Realism has never had a place in D&D.  That it suddenly has to be slammed in whenever someone wants to make a ranged attack with a weapon that isn't a bow is staggeringly dumb.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As has been mentioned, accuracy isn't the issue I'm talking about.  When I'm talking about guns here, I'm talking about surviving multiple contemporaneous gunshots.  That issue doesn't change significantly over time in favor of the modern firearm.  In fact, with modern medicine, survival rates from gunshot injuries have risen.  Don't believe me?  Start looking at how many people died of complications from gunshot wounds from the Civil War on- where you have a combination of muskets, the beginnings of modern battlefield medicine and relatively reliable statistics- and you'll see the trend.  Modern medicine has done wonders in this area...mostly because of improvements in control of post-surgical infections that claimed the lives of huge numbers of wounded, but also in surgical techniques that turn formerly fatal wounds into survivable ones.
> 
> And despite those improvements, that poor survival rate from multiple (3+, as stated by the trauma surgeon) GSWs was calculated using data from _top-flight medical facilities. _ Away from those facilities, its probable that death from multiple GSWs is virtually assured, possibly indistinguishable from rates of death from earlier eras.




You've completely missed my point, which is that you effectively _can't_ receive "multiple contemporaneous gunshots" from a musket!  It would either require multiple shooters/guns or take a long time due to slow reload speed.  Hence, saying that the survival rate for being shot 3+ times is low is quite misleading, because isn't very likely to happen in your typical D&D scenario with guns.  

I'm aware that modern medicine has increased survival rates among gunshot victims.  I also imagine that modern medicine has increased survival rates among stab victims.  If both types of injuries approached 0% survivability in medieval times, then they're equally deadly.  Mind you, that 0% is mere supposition as I've no data to back it; I'm just pointing out a scenario which would indicate that medieval firearms were no deadlier than a sword, much less a crossbow.



> Your point has more validity with bladed weapons, where the societal trend is to smaller and less inherently lethal blades, which fewer and fewer people carry, and with which fewer and fewer persons are actually trained to fight.
> 
> Still, though, the Aussie study _did_ include machete data...and still the firearms outperformed bladed weapons.
> 
> (I recently tried to find data on machete attacks/fatalities _exclusively_, but instead of getting crime rates, I kept getting referred to terrorism reports, not crime statistics.)




The Aussie study _included_ machete data.  Knife stabbings skew that data (the only knife fighter in D&D is the rogue, who is more akin to a professional assassin).  Never mind that a machete isn't really a sword to begin with.  

The most accurate data for the situation is from those shot a _single_ time.  It would also be helpful to know how often a single shot was fired and completely missed (because gunshot statistics don't include those people the bullet avoided).  

You can get any kind of crazy result if you only select data that suits your desired results, but if it doesn't mimic the theoretical scenario as closely as possible, then for all practical purposes your data is meaningless and potentially misleading.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2010)

> You've completely missed my point, which is that you effectively can't receive "multiple contemporaneous gunshots" from a musket! It would either require multiple shooters/guns or take a long time due to slow reload speed. Hence, saying that the survival rate for being shot 3+ times is low is quite misleading, because isn't very likely to happen in your typical D&D scenario with guns.




Up until now, you've missed my point, which is that you obviously CAN receive multiple musket wounds.

While its highly improbable that a person could receive multiple contemporaneous gunshot wounds from the same musket, there is _nothing _ preventing a single target receiving multiple wounds from multiple shooters.

So, to be perfectly clear: I don't care about ROF, accuracy or number of shooters, just the survival rate from multiple contemporaneous GSWs.

You claim that "being shot 3+ times is low is quite misleading, because isn't very likely to happen in your typical D&D scenario with guns."

This is an odd statement to me because:
There is no such thing as a "typical D&D scenario with guns"- a typical D&D scenario has no guns.  A D&D scenario with guns is, perforce, atypical.
IME, most parties have multiple PCs with ranged weapons.
In those few D&D campaigns in which I have participated that did include guns, nearly every PC in the group had at least one, if not multiple, firearms- even the spellcasters.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Feb 20, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Up until now, you've missed my point, which is that you obviously CAN receive multiple musket wounds.
> 
> While its highly improbable that a person could receive multiple contemporaneous gunshot wounds from the same musket, there is _nothing _ preventing a single target receiving multiple wounds from multiple shooters.
> 
> ...




By "typical D&D scenario with guns" I mean that D&D is based around the idea of a small party of adventurers.  You won't normally encounter an entire platoon of musketeers because D&D combat typically doesn't take place on that scale.  Muskets are most effective when used in military scale engagements, which D&D generally avoids (hence the lack of mass combat rules in 4e).

You said that in one study, where roughly 50% of the people had multiple stab wounds, the survival rate of stab wounds was double that of gunshots.  Another study showed stab wounds had a roughly 17% stab survival versus 4% for gunshots (but doesn't account for the number of wounds).  

Leaving aside that I still believe these statistics aren't very practical since they're based on modern weaponry, they do show a trend.  If a person is shot or stabbed, the odds are that he will die regardless of the type of weapon used.  If you want to model realism, that seems like a good place to start; getting hit would allow only a 20% or less chance for survival (knives could apply a -3 and guns a -16 modifier to that base).  It would certainly be quite gritty, but not much in keeping with the spirit of D&D or fun, IMO.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 21, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz, what exactly are you trying to get at with the argument that guns are more deadly than bladed weapons? What bearing does that argument have on the question of whether or not guns are acceptable in D&D? Even if you are right, and guns are more deadly than bladed weapons, so what? That in of itself has nothing to do with guns being in D&D. You need to be a lot more clear about how this relates to the main point of the thread.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 21, 2010)

Actually, it probably doesn't- it was, AFAIK, just an interesting tangent that started with Hobo's puzzlement in post #216.


----------



## Herobizkit (Feb 21, 2010)

@ SKyOdin: It is an interesting conversation even if it doesn't relate to the OP.  While guns may (or may not) tend to be more deadly than knife wounds in reality, it doesn't much matter in a game system where damage is abstract and, by far and away, ranged weapons tend to be INferior to melee weapons.

If we were to make guns more lethal, we'd likely have to change the way damage is handled at present... likely by using the True 20 damage track, or cap a PC's max HP at his CON score (which I've always wanted to try, but no one was up for it).


----------



## rustypaladin (Feb 21, 2010)

*guns can be quite lethal in Dnd IF they are TOO common*

I have been reading the gun post for some time & I just thought I would add my two cents worth. As a DM in some 32+ years of experience, I have come to realize that adding guns to a DnD campaign can be fun BUT! The but being you ABSOLUTELY have to do some thinking about what era of tech you are going to allow as well as general availability. If guns are common, it doesn't take a marksman to become a serious threat to anyone in power. After all, IF guns are common, that also means that they would be more reliable, more accurate & deadlier as well. If you are an adventurer or even the purchasing agent for a king, you want the most 'bang' for your buck, so to speak. Let's face it, reality IS going to take a back seat here because if it doesn't, then NPCs AND PCs would start dropping like flies. Is the king unpopular? Shoot him from a distance with a buffalo gun! Sick & tired of that mage making you, the warrior (or maybe the rogue...) feel like your just a meatshield? Shoot 'em. The important things to consider is tech level & availability. OBVIOUSLY, modern guns wouldn't be available UNLESS you are willing to deal with the consequences. If the PCs have some really nasty new weapons that completely invalidate the Emperor's Blackbows or magical protections the emperor may just hire an assassin or rogue to steal them since they are so danged valuable. Once you allow firearms into a campaign, just decide how common they are & WHO controls them. A point was made quite some time ago  (? sorry I forgot the post) about gunpowder only being made by the dwarves deep within the bowels of the earth. EXCELLENT IDEA!! Of course, it could just as easily be created by a secret order of assassins or who or whatever you decide. The poinit is that guns are GREAT equalizers if they are reliable enough to be used by others. If they don't work very well AND aren't very accurate as well as being quite expensive, then who's going to want them other than the occaisional PC? Whether it's 100% historically accurate or not, firearms DID change the face of warfare. As long  as you the DM, keep the above considerations in mind, adding guns CAN BE a fun addition. I like the idea myself of the swashbuckling era use of them although 6-shooters & some rifles are as good as it gets. Otherwise, what are the OTHER races going to think if say humans or orcs start mass producing them? The elves would be smart enough to recognize the threat. Of course, certain religions MAY have a problem with them as well. I'm sorry if it seems like I have wandered all over the map here. This subject has come and gone numerous times in my various campaigns & I only hope some of what I have babbled on (and on & on...) about helps. Some great ideas btw! rustypaladin


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 21, 2010)

rustypaladin said:


> ...
> rustypaladin




And, someone once again brings up buffalo guns, six-shooters, and rifles (all stuff from the 19th century) as examples of firearms in a D&D game. *sigh*

What will it take to change D&D's audience's perceptions of what it means to be an appropriate firearm for a D&D setting? I mean, there is nothing wrong with having six-shooters in your D&D game if that is the feel you are going for, but there are a lot more options than that, particularly if you want to have guns but don't want to modify the setting away from more standard Late Medieval fare.



			
				rustypaladin said:
			
		

> After all, IF guns are common, that also means that they would be more reliable, more accurate & deadlier as well.



Actually, there is no necessary connection there. Guns became commonplace even before they became reliable or accurate.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Feb 21, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> And, someone once again brings up buffalo guns, six-shooters, and rifles (all stuff from the 19th century) as examples of firearms in a D&D game. *sigh*
> 
> What will it take to change D&D's audience's perceptions of what it means to be an appropriate firearm for a D&D setting? I mean, there is nothing wrong with having six-shooters in your D&D game if that is the feel you are going for, but there are a lot more options than that, particularly if you want to have guns but don't want to modify the setting away from more standard Late Medieval fare.
> 
> Actually, there is no necessary connection there. Guns became commonplace even before they became reliable or accurate.




That has been my point a few times in this thread - it seems like people use guns from the 18th or 19th century while D&D is generally medieval era tech where early firearms from the 1300s had 2-3 minute reload times and were horribly inaccurate beyond point blank range.  

And, you're correct on guns being common before they became good.  The way they were used for the first few centuries of use, though, was in a massed firing group of soldiers, though, not as individual weapons.

I can see having a loaded firearm and firing that once before charging into melee.  Otherwise, it's not very useful for an adventurer if you want to stick with late medieval or early Renaissance tech.


----------



## rustypaladin (Feb 21, 2010)

*re: guns can be quite lethal in Dnd IF they are TOO common*

The ONLY real point I was making is that IF a DM wants to have firearms in DnD, most PCs aren't going to really care about them if they aren't really viable. Lets face it, if you have a warrior who can buy enchanted arrows (+2 with flaming burst enchantments) to use with their +3 Bows that also gives them their strength bonus of say, +3, why in the heck would ANYONE really bother with firearms that would give them 1 shot every 5-10 rounds which MAY do as much as 3-18 IF they even hit? That's not to mention the fact that non-enchanted arrows are dirt cheap whereas bullets & powder (IF it stays dry and/or isn't ruined by whatever) has to be replaced at a far higher cost with considerable time and effort involved. I know if it was me, I sure wouldn't invest my money in the dubios benefits of "kaboom-ite" over a good enchanted weapon. It's merely offering the DM and/or players an interesting alternative that SHOULDN'T (with a little careful thought) unbalance a campaign. Options & flavor, that's all I'm offering.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 22, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> What will it take to change D&D's audience's perceptions of what it means to be an appropriate firearm for a D&D setting?




I was unaware that there were inappropriate firearms for a D&D setting. I figure either all firearms are out, or else the door is open to pretty much anything a DM and players feel like implementing. I played a 1E three-year campaign while stationed at Fort Bragg that included a range of firearms from matchlocks to tommy guns. I still have my character's sheet from that game that includes equipment listings for percussion caps.

I also remember a little something about an expedition to the Barrier Peaks that included lasers, needlers, and nuclear-powered armor. In a friend's game, his party's wizard created a custom spell called _assimilate_ that enabled him to tap into the downed spaceship's computers in order to master all of the alien technology. They finished the campaign by repairing the ship and traveling the stars.

Were those games wrong because they included inappropriate technologies?


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Feb 22, 2010)

Herobizkit said:


> Title says it all.  I've heard scores of arguments FOR guns in D&D... now I'd like to hear from the other side of the fence.  What is it about guns that just screams "NO!" in your campaign worlds?




Off the top of my head:

 - Same reason (though different target) as to why some people dislike Psionics, Kender, Tinker Gnomes, Tieflings or Dragonborn or Warforged;  It just does not fit the expected themes / flavor of their game.

 - Guns do not necessarily fit well with game systems using HP.  You can argue that your mighty warrior PC can survive being stabbed with a Dagger (absurd as the arguement may be).  It is harder to argue against someone surviving a gunshot unless your players are very willing to accept the notion that a 'Hit' in D&D is not the same as taking a wound in real life.

 - Game Balance vs Simulation:  In real life, the use of guns stopped the use of plate armour, and they were pretty easy to use.  How to have this interact with AC values in the game is tough to work out.  You could have it as Dex vs Reflex for 4th Edition game.  For 3rd Edition games, ignore the Armour and Shield bonus for pc's, but what about monsters with high AC?

 - It opens a slippery slope.  If guns, then why not cannons?  Gunpowder bombs?  Steam Engines?

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## rustypaladin (Feb 22, 2010)

Lord Zardoz said:


> Off the top of my head:
> 
> - Same reason (though different target) as to why some people dislike Psionics, Kender, Tinker Gnomes, Tieflings or Dragonborn or Warforged;  It just does not fit the expected themes / flavor of their game.
> 
> ...



Hey Lord Zardoz, (Great name btw) I agree whole-heartedly with you! I was merely tossing out some ideas & opinions for those considering it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2010)

Lord Zardoz said:


> Off the top of my head:
> 
> - Same reason (though different target) as to why some people dislike Psionics, Kender, Tinker Gnomes, Tieflings or Dragonborn or Warforged;  It just does not fit the expected themes / flavor of their game.




Highlighting this as the correct answer ;p



> - Guns do not necessarily fit well with game systems using HP.  You can argue that your mighty warrior PC can survive being stabbed with a Dagger (absurd as the arguement may be).  It is harder to argue against someone surviving a gunshot unless your players are very willing to accept the notion that a 'Hit' in D&D is not the same as taking a wound in real life.




I can survive a dragon breathing fire on me, reaching down and biting me, and then throwing me away to smack against the cavern wall.  But a gunshot?  _Immersion broken!_



> - Game Balance vs Simulation:  In real life, the use of guns stopped the use of plate armour, and they were pretty easy to use.  How to have this interact with AC values in the game is tough to work out.  You could have it as Dex vs Reflex for 4th Edition game.  For 3rd Edition games, ignore the Armour and Shield bonus for pc's, but what about monsters with high AC?




As has already been shown, the former is patiently untrue, and the latter is something D&D has never given a damn about (See: compound bows, a very specialized weapon, being treated as a martial weapon).



> - It opens a slippery slope.  If guns, then why not cannons?  Gunpowder bombs?  Steam Engines?




I'm really glad you labeled that a slippery slope for me, but I'm confused as to why you did that, as the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.  You uh...you kinda labeled your own argument as being false there.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm really glad you labeled that a slippery slope for me, but I'm confused as to why you did that, as the slippery slope is a logical fallacy.  You uh...you kinda labeled your own argument as being false there.




This slope is less slippery than most.

If you have gunpowder weapons of any kind, its logical to ask why not other weapons using the same principles- rockets, bombs, cannons, etc.

There are, of course, many reasons:
Lack of a particular visionary.  Gunpowder was around for a long time before becoming weaponized.  Just because someone figures out the gun doesn't mean someone will figure out the rocket, or vice versa.  However, when the difference is only one of scale- gun vs cannon- this answer is less likely
Scarcity of materials.  While they both use gunpowder, early rockets and early firearms did have some differences in the materials they needed for their manufacture.
Technological limitations.  Perhaps those who invented the firearm can't smelt enough metal of the requisite quality to make cannons.  Or maybe they lack enough skilled metalworkers. 
Religious or Political edict.  If something is outlawed, it will, at the very least, be rare.

So, if you have guns, cannons are fairly likely.  Bombs & rockets are slightly less so.

The steam engine, though- despite its principles being discovered by the ancient Greeks- doesn't have a direct lineal connection to the tech of firearms that would make its appearance an inevitable consequence.


----------



## rustypaladin (Feb 22, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Highlighting this as the correct answer ;p
> 
> 
> 
> ...



choices, choices, choices. That's what it's all about isn't it? IF someone doesn't want to incorporate "tech weaps" in their campaign, cool. If they do, thats OK too AS LONG as they understand the implications & possible complications. My comments are (mostly) for the relatively new gamers/DMs who are considering it. I find that it amusing & thought provoking how many different takes this post has added to. Thanks for the input!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Feb 22, 2010)

Lord Zardoz said:


> - It opens a slippery slope.  If guns, then why not cannons?  Gunpowder bombs?  Steam Engines?



Err... why not cannons, (primitive) grenades, rockets, and the like? How exactly is this "slippery slope" supposed to be a problem? Sure, if you include firearms of any sort, then you basically need to include cannons and such. I don't see how that is inherently a drawback. In fact, it may be a plus, since it makes ship-to-ship warfare into something a bit more familiar, if nothing else.

I don't see the steam engine connection, though. How are guns supposed to lead into steam engines? They are totally different technologies that are built on entirely different principles, and in the real world they were invented centuries apart on opposite ends of Eurasia.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 22, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> With that I will certainly agree. Kitchen knives are made for chopping vegetables. Swords are made for killing people. Stands to reason that the latter is more likely to kill you than the former.



Certainly.


Dausuul said:


> A sword blow can break your skull with the blunt impact alone; not easy to do that with a knife.



Actually, I've read that that's about all viking era spatha did: They weren't much more than glorified metal clubs.

Regarding stabby implements: Didn't the most dangerous ones have a cross-shaped profile to result in wounds that would be difficult to heal/patch up?

I'm not sure if a roman gladius worked that much better than one of today's chef's knives, though.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 22, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> I was unaware that there were inappropriate firearms for a D&D setting. I figure either all firearms are out, or else the door is open to pretty much anything a DM and players feel like implementing.
> ...
> Were those games wrong because they included inappropriate technologies?




I am not going to tell anyone that their fun is bad or wrong. That wasn't really my point. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I am a fan of the WildARMs series of videogames, which has rocket launchers crafted from the fossils of biomechanical dragons alongside princess-sorceresses. I wouldn't mind playing in a D&D campaign like that, either.

In the post you quoted, I was responding to rustypaladin's assertion that guns necessarily would change a D&D world, when the principle examples of guns that he used were highly anachronistic 19th century firearms. Of course you would have to change the setting if you were introducing technology that is centuries more advanced than the typical D&D baseline. My central point in this thread is that there are a lot more options for firearms than that.

If you want to have guns be commonplace, but still want to keep your fantasy more or less Late Medieval in tone (like most standard fantasy settings), then 15th/16h century matchlock guns work. If you want to embrace a different tone, than by all means, do as you like. 

I am not even saying that modeling guns on historic guns is the one true way. I for one am actually rather fond of how guns are handled in the Suikoden series of videogames, where they are the product of specialized knowledge similar to magic and are only in the hands of a handful of people, but are more or less semi-automatic rifles. My brother and I have even been talking about having clock-work self-loading guns alongside old-fashioned matchlocks in order to give the PCs a gun that can be used as a main weapon.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 22, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This slope is less slippery than most.
> 
> If you have gunpowder weapons of any kind, its logical to ask why not other weapons using the same principles- rockets, bombs, cannons, etc.
> 
> ...



Actually, the church banned several weapons during the middle ages with less than spectacular success. (Crossbows have been mentioned.) One might suggest that the reason for this is that they were better at killing one's enemies, and the landed lords never knew when they might find themselves at odds with the church.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2010)

rustypaladin said:


> cIf they do, thats OK too AS LONG as they understand the implications & possible complications.




I think the point that I and so many others are staring at, though, is the question of "Why does there have to be implications and possible complications?"

A single wizard can destroy entire armies, and the setting naturally includes flying beasts.  Why do these have no effects, but firearms do?

It goes back to the realism question.  Melee weapons break realism all the time.  Bows break realism.  Slings break realism, but in the opposite direction (Really D&D?  We're making them _slingshots?_).  But as soon as a crossbow or gun steps up, suddenly everyone demands every bit of realism that could be detrimental to the weapon.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 22, 2010)

Ed_Laprade said:


> Actually, the church banned several weapons during the middle ages with less than spectacular success. (Crossbows have been mentioned.) One might suggest that the reason for this is that they were better at killing one's enemies, and the landed lords never knew when they might find themselves at odds with the church.




Its actually a bit of a misconception that the Church "banned" certain weapons.  

While they did issue edicts decrying their use, they were merely condemnations that depended upon one's own moral sense of right and wrong.  There were no teeth in them- while a given priest might refuse to feed or distribute alms to him, a Catholic who used a crossbow could not be denied the Eucharist, confession, marriage in the Church, last rites/burial on holy ground or any other sacrament.


----------



## rustypaladin (Feb 23, 2010)

SKyOdin said:


> I am not going to tell anyone that their fun is bad or wrong. That wasn't really my point. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I am a fan of the WildARMs series of videogames, which has rocket launchers crafted from the fossils of biomechanical dragons alongside princess-sorceresses. I wouldn't mind playing in a D&D campaign like that, either.
> 
> In the post you quoted, I was responding to rustypaladin's assertion that guns necessarily would change a D&D world, when the principle examples of guns that he used were highly anachronistic 19th century firearms. Of course you would have to change the setting if you were introducing technology that is centuries more advanced than the typical D&D baseline. My central point in this thread is that there are a lot more options for firearms than that.
> 
> ...



Well....what a worm's pit! First of all, I NEVER absolutely said that guns absolutely will destroy a campaign, I was 'merely' stating that IF a DM started using tech-weaps of a certain description/tech level indiscriminately there COULD BE possible ramifications. There have been several excellent examples of tech-weaps being used in campaigns in this thread that wouldn't jeopardize game balance. IF SOMEONE (DM/Players) want to use them, that's cool. I am MERELY pointing out that it's POSSIBLE for game balance to get out of hand IF someone introduces them WITHOUT thinking about the ramifications involved. IMHO, It's not about how many HPs someone has or whether or not that's realistic, it's about the quantity of attacks available to anyone using them IF they became widely available without ANY restrictions. IF YOU DON'T have a problem using tech-weaps & you've made them available like magic items as far as availability & that works for you, cool! Just don't throw EFFECTIVE tech-weaps into a campaign WITHOUT thinking about it first, it's that simple.


----------

