I am also not a fan of guns though how they were handled with the Gith (I think) was pretty good.
Yes, getting hit is much more like save-or-die than take 1d8 points of damage.The thing to bear in mind, and this is important, is that any weapon can kill you with a single strike.
I believe it's a knife assault that's more dangerous than a typical gun assault, not a knife wound vs. a gun-shot wound. A knife assault is always at close range, where the attacker can grab with one hand and deliver dozens of thrusts with the other. Many gun assaults only involve a single hit. Also lumping small-caliber pistols in with rifles and shotguns (with buckshot) is a bit like lumping knives, swords, and axes together.Ask an emergency room medico which kills more often -- a knife wound or a gunshot? You may be surprised that knife wounds are more lethal by a large percentage. You know, the standard d4 dagger?
The key strength of guns is not the super-lethality of gun-shot wounds, but they are more dangerous in the sense that they often can bypass shields, armor, and skill at arms. You don't accumulate defensive wounds while fending off gun-shots, and you don't typically get battered and bruised in a gun-fight until you finally succumb.Guns are not more lethal -- they merely allow the application of force at an increased range.
I believe it's a knife assault that's more dangerous than a typical gun assault, not a knife wound vs. a gun-shot wound.
When we think of guns, we tend to think of small arms, but gunpowder made its biggest splash early on as a way to knock down enormous walls with ease. Once the big, heavy siege cannon demonstrated its power, then lighter field artillery proved itself against infantry and cavalry. The arquebus was just a loud, smokey alternative to the crossbow.How or why would a magical society even begin to develop guns? Would they even be the same as "real world" firearms?
How or why would a magical society even begin to develop guns?
His point is that there is no reason to make guns the deadliest weapons in D&D...or any other FRPG.
Slightly - you don't want to keep either loaded in damp weather. One warps, and damp powder can etch the inside of the barrel.Nearly every period crossbow requires some physical strength to reload; no gun does. A trained child could reload an arquebus, but would be physically incapable of reloading a 150lb pull crossbow. That means you have a bigger pool of people who can be made into a credible threat.
Others have already pointed out the superior penetration guns had, which means you can affect more targets- even if the wounds crossbows and bows are just as deadly, that makes the gun a Better weapon in certain situations.
Also (experts, correct me if I'm wrong), but it is easier to keep a period gun operational in wet weather than it is for a crossbow.
When guns finally became common, they weren't expensive, they weren't especially dangerous to operate, and they weren't more lethal than the alternatives. In fact, they were considered almost perfectly comparable to crossbows, and military expeditions, like those of the conquistadors, often included equal complements of gunmen and crossbowmen.
Let us just say that my experience does not agree with yours, on any level.Way I see things, the only time ranged weapons are of any real use is if you have a character who is specialized (ie. taken feats, has relevant class features, etc) in their use.
The Archer-style Ranger is the most obvious of this type, followed by a Rogue who focuses on Ranged Sneak Attacks, or getting extra damage via Combat Advantage. The Ranger tends to be nearly as annoying by himself as a party with only one character spec'd in Mounted Combat.
Only in 4e have I seen the value of a dedicated non-magical ranged combatant "out of the box" at level 1.
Way I see things, the only time ranged weapons are of any real use is if you have a character who is specialized (ie. taken feats, has relevant class features, etc) in their use.