Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6909072" data-attributes="member: 996">It's not really either.&nbsp; Or it's not very good at it.&nbsp; If D&amp;D were emulating the S&amp;S or High Fantasy or broader fantasy genres (at all well), it wouldn't have bandaid Clerics or Vancian casting (or possibly even PC casters), for instance.But, yeah, not a reality simulator.Not so much.&nbsp; A human being, or even something a bit larger, can be transfixed by a sword, creating a through-and-through wound channel, just like a bullet might create.&nbsp; 'Primitive' weapons are plenty deadly.&nbsp; But pushing a sword through hardened leather or mail is no mean feat, while bullets won't have much trouble with that kind of protection (neither will heavy crossbow bolts, for that matter).&nbsp; 1e went there: it gave weapon vs armor type adjustments in detail, which'd also work fine to model firearms, I suppose.&nbsp; Going all the way to 'ignoring armor' is a simplification, and models a setting in which armor has been more or less defeated (there are times in history when armor is staying ahead of the weapons of the day, and times when it's been all but abandoned).&nbsp; D&amp;D's use of the AC abstraction argues for it modeling a time when armor is quite effective relative to the weapons available.&nbsp; Firearms could be introduced as an exception to that.&nbsp; It's more problematic the more heavily the system relies on armor to keep classes and combats 'balanced'/playable.&nbsp; An attack roll vs some sort of armor-ignoring 'touch AC' in 5e would be problematic.&nbsp; A firearm that forced a REF save vs a static DC would probably be fine, OTOH.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6909072, member: 996"] It's not really either. Or it's not very good at it. If D&D were emulating the S&S or High Fantasy or broader fantasy genres (at all well), it wouldn't have bandaid Clerics or Vancian casting (or possibly even PC casters), for instance. But, yeah, not a reality simulator. Not so much. A human being, or even something a bit larger, can be transfixed by a sword, creating a through-and-through wound channel, just like a bullet might create. 'Primitive' weapons are plenty deadly. But pushing a sword through hardened leather or mail is no mean feat, while bullets won't have much trouble with that kind of protection (neither will heavy crossbow bolts, for that matter). 1e went there: it gave weapon vs armor type adjustments in detail, which'd also work fine to model firearms, I suppose. Going all the way to 'ignoring armor' is a simplification, and models a setting in which armor has been more or less defeated (there are times in history when armor is staying ahead of the weapons of the day, and times when it's been all but abandoned). D&D's use of the AC abstraction argues for it modeling a time when armor is quite effective relative to the weapons available. Firearms could be introduced as an exception to that. It's more problematic the more heavily the system relies on armor to keep classes and combats 'balanced'/playable. An attack roll vs some sort of armor-ignoring 'touch AC' in 5e would be problematic. A firearm that forced a REF save vs a static DC would probably be fine, OTOH. [/QUOTE]

Verification