Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark Chance" data-source="post: 5374792" data-attributes="member: 2795">I agree there wouldn't be any point since I don't think anyone has suggested that "reskinned bows" are guns. I certainly know I haven't. What I was wondering is why firearms get treated with a degree of realism no other weapon is subjected to, and why this treatment is seen as good cause to exclude firearms from fantasy games.I get the idea that firearms should be balanced against other weapons via various means, and that properties unique to firearms are a sensible way to do this. But once one starts talking about 5-round reload times, shot ignoring armor bonuses, massive amounts of damage, et cetera, one has (IMO, of course) entered a room best left empty. For example, there is no reason for firearms to inflict oodles of damage. A flintlock isn't appreciably more deadly than a sword. Get hit with either one, and you're in a world of pain (speaking realistically).But realism in damage isn't usually a game system goal. Instead, abstraction is. Thus, a Pathfinder flintlock pistol could do 1d6 points of damage, or 1d8, or 2d4, et cetera. All of these choices are arbitrary, and when I designed firearm rules for my game, I went with simple, fun, and useable. No ignoring armor bonuses. No misfires. No reload times so long so as to be unuseable as a way of balancing damage higher than anything short of a siege weapon. Et cetera.In-game use of my rules, interestingly enough for my group, showed that the firearm's biggest disadvantage was its noise. Once those first shots were fired, any chance of catching the enemy off-guard pretty much went out the window. The racket caused by the PCs' firearms alerted guards in a way that no other mundane ranged weapon would.</blockquote>

Verification