Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 5399471" data-attributes="member: 32536">I guess my question is "why do they need to be treated differently?" Why do guns need to be different in order to justify including them? Why can't they just be one more weapon choice, no different than the choice between a shortsword and a rapier? Honestly, I have absolutely no interest in unique gun rules for a D&D game. The rules we have right now for differentiating weapons are good enough. What is more, the list of major ranged weapons really could use the addition of guns. It is kind of limited right now, and ranged weapon users would benefit from having the same kind of variety that melee weapon users have.Of course, the best reason is simply that I think they would be fun to have and I don't have any objection to guns in fantasy. I don't see the need for any other reason.Also, I never said anything about there being a mysterious lack of gunpowder use outside of guns. I think everything here is based on rather strange logic. You are rather arbitrarily saying that guns are "more advanced" than other weapons, and are basing your claim on the idea that "more advanced weapons" must have different rules than other weapons. I don't agree with either.Guns are not more advanced than other D&D weapons. Historically speaking, they all existed alongside each other for centuries. I thought this point had been well established in this thread. The technology for making guns is no more advanced than the technology needed to make good plate armor and crossbows. Stating that the changeover occurs because of advancements in the "technology spectrum" means you would have to apply the same logic to other equipment in the game, like the rapier or full plate armor. Because you are not, it is simply not a consistent or logical way of looking at things.As for the idea that more advanced technology requires different rules... My response would be "not necessarily". Sure, a few things need different rules, but only because they have elements that make them behave completely unlike previous weapons. For example, a homing missile may need different rules than other weapons, simply because homing attacks and area of effect attacks work very differently than most default weapons do. However, the level of abstraction the current rules provide can easily cover any less significant change in technology. It is the change in effect and usage that matters, not the level of technology itself.Ultimately, a gun and a bow really are not very different. The physical principles behind them are very different, but they are nothing more than two different ways of throwing a projectile at an enemy at lethal speed. Nothing more, and nothing less. Why should they have different rules (beyond the normal rules differences, at least) when their basic effect is so similar?To further address the point that "we need different rules for more advanced weapons", I have to ask how is a laser weapon any different than a Brilliant Energy weapon. Would a Brilliant Energy rifle and a laser rifle have any meaningful differences? Would a laser rifle have any more impact on a setting than a Brilliant Energy bow would (assuming the cost is the same)? I really don't think they would be different at all. Advances in technology and advancements up the chart of magical weapon bonuses are not that different.Sure, the D&D system doesn't make weapons feel different all that well. But, as I've been trying to argue, that hardly matters in the case of guns. I honestly believe that, as far as it matters for game rules, guns are more similar to bows than swords are to axes. If the rules for swords and axes work, I don't see why rules for guns would not. I don't see where I have been simplifying or belittling anything...As for your reasons... I've done nothing but try to point out why I don't accept those reasons, and why I don't share them. I don't think whether guns are primitive or not really has a lot of bearing on this topic. Of course, neither does any discussion of what I may use in my game, if for no other reason than the fact that I don't have a game right now. I've only been talking about the abstract, and perhaps my preferences for the potential inclusion of guns in a rulebook or future iteration of the rules. Eberron doesn't have guns...Anyways, nitpick aside, I simply don't understand what you mean by "addressing" guns. There are countless ways of implementing guns and gunpowder into the rules and into a setting, some of which may have an impact on the setting, some of which may not. These impacts would have an impact regardless of how the rules for guns may work. And honestly, even if guns were thrown in without anything being "addressed" I don't think it would be a problem for the game.</blockquote>

Verification