This statement always bugged me. Why does only the bow have to be trained to its "fullest capacity" but not the xbow or gun?mmadsen said:In contrast, it took years to properly train a the bowman, who had to develop considerable musculature before being able to use his weapon to its fullest capacity. This was particularly true of longbowmen, of whom there was a saying that in order to a good one you had to start with his grandfather.
If your argument is with his use of fullest capacity, then we agree. If your argument is with the notion that a longbowman requires much, much more training than a crossbowman or arquebusier, then we disagree. You can't even use a reasonable longbow until you "develop considerable musculature" -- a yew longbow doesn't pull anything like a modern sporting bow -- and you don't simply point and shoot, since the arrow follows such an indirect arc, compared to a bolt or ball.Aaron2 said:This statement always bugged me. Why does only the bow have to be trained to its "fullest capacity" but not the xbow or gun?
Another reccomendation for Arcanis here. Plus, it has rules for modifying and misfiring.Taren Seeker said:I suggest the Player's Guide to Arcanis. It has multiple types of Flintlocks, crafting rules, feats for use, and 3 prestige classes all designed to take advantage of them.
They walk the line between following some historical limitations and making them playable and attractive weapons when compared to Bows, Crossbows, etc.
Note that the pistol still does lower damage on average. Basically, the average of an "exploding" die is (half max value+1) + 1/(max value-1). So, the average of an exploding d4 is (2+1)+1/(4-1) = 3 1/3. The average of an exploding d8 is (4+1)+1/(8-1) = 5 1/7. The lower die gets a bigger boost out of the explosiveness (5/6 compared to 8/14), but unless you're rolling d1s the higher die will still have a better average.David Howery said:Basically, I rather liked the 'extended damage' rules of 2E, but not the way they were applied (a pistol had a 25% of doing extended damage, as it used a D4 for damage, but a rifle used a D8, so had a much smaller chance.. the opposite of what it should have been).
Two things: 1) most players don't know the difference between matchlocks, wheelocks or flintlocks; "olde tymey" black powder weapons all being more or less the same to them, and 2) there's very little else about D&D that is "typical medieval"; so why not firearms?David Howery said:I don't think I'd have flintlocks in a D&D game, as they were pretty far into the Industrial Age when they appeared... a little too advanced for the typical medieval setting of D&D. Matchlocks would be better.