Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Derren" data-source="post: 5761353" data-attributes="member: 2518">European Hand Cannons are 14th century (About 1312 they came to England), maybe even 13th century.Cannons fall in the same century (early 14th, 13th when you count islamic countries. And a lot earlier for China)The problem is that the existence of guns played a very important part in the development of those armors. Without guns you would not have thick full plate armor. And there is nothing else in D&amp;D which would promt armors to develop the same way. Actually for D&amp;D it would make sense to wear less or more agile armor becuse there are so many things which can simply crush you (dragons, giants) or bypass armor (magic).And a lot of other things depend on advanced armor. Two handed weapons and bastard swords were only invented after full plate armor reduced the need of a shield. A lot of typical D&amp;D weapons were only invented at the same time or after cannons. There are not just a few anomalies but actually quite a lot.The issue is simply that D&amp;D is not &quot;vikings with crude axes&quot; but &quot;knights in shining armor&quot;. And to even et knights in shining armor you also need guns from which exactly this armor protects.And about your tales,they had been created in earlier ages, but by now everyone associates them with the late middle ages. The modern society as romanticed those tales and the &quot;romantic idea of the middle ages&quot; is set in the high to late middle age, meaning 15th century and onward.PS: There is gunpowder in Lord of the Rings...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Derren, post: 5761353, member: 2518"] European Hand Cannons are 14th century (About 1312 they came to England), maybe even 13th century. Cannons fall in the same century (early 14th, 13th when you count islamic countries. And a lot earlier for China) The problem is that the existence of guns played a very important part in the development of those armors. Without guns you would not have thick full plate armor. And there is nothing else in D&D which would promt armors to develop the same way. Actually for D&D it would make sense to wear less or more agile armor becuse there are so many things which can simply crush you (dragons, giants) or bypass armor (magic). And a lot of other things depend on advanced armor. Two handed weapons and bastard swords were only invented after full plate armor reduced the need of a shield. A lot of typical D&D weapons were only invented at the same time or after cannons. There are not just a few anomalies but actually quite a lot. The issue is simply that D&D is not "vikings with crude axes" but "knights in shining armor". And to even et knights in shining armor you also need guns from which exactly this armor protects. And about your tales,they had been created in earlier ages, but by now everyone associates them with the late middle ages. The modern society as romanticed those tales and the "romantic idea of the middle ages" is set in the high to late middle age, meaning 15th century and onward. PS: There is gunpowder in Lord of the Rings... [/QUOTE]

Verification