Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Igwilly" data-source="post: 7141288" data-attributes="member: 6801225">That's funny, because when I DM'ed 4e, I actually created guns for the game. Modern guns, that is. I would have to re-create them because they were too similar to already existing weapons, so no one was choosing them.They are meant to be balanced against pre-existing weapons by throwing realism into Jupiter. The fact that they were balanced instead of blatantly more powerful may have contributed to their reception.Anyway, it seems odd people talking about the ranger. In my mind, they are more related to two-handed guns like rifles or shotguns. Rogues would fit better with small guns - they even have that feat allowing dual-wielding hand crossbows. But right now I'm thinking more about class description and less about mechanics.Honestly, before deciding which class is best for dual-wielding pistols, we need to know the actual mechanics behind pistols. Have you ever thought about that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Igwilly, post: 7141288, member: 6801225"] That's funny, because when I DM'ed 4e, I actually created guns for the game. Modern guns, that is. I would have to re-create them because they were too similar to already existing weapons, so no one was choosing them. They are meant to be balanced against pre-existing weapons by throwing realism into Jupiter. The fact that they were balanced instead of blatantly more powerful may have contributed to their reception. Anyway, it seems odd people talking about the ranger. In my mind, they are more related to two-handed guns like rifles or shotguns. Rogues would fit better with small guns - they even have that feat allowing dual-wielding hand crossbows. But right now I'm thinking more about class description and less about mechanics. Honestly, before deciding which class is best for dual-wielding pistols, we need to know the actual mechanics behind pistols. Have you ever thought about that? [/QUOTE]

Verification