Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felon" data-source="post: 1058676" data-attributes="member: 8158">Provoking Attacks of Obtusemess <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As you said yourself, he can try it out and see how well it works--although IMO your premontions of apocalypse are overstated. My own prediction is that the impact would likely be that characters are more inclined to stay at a healthier distance in a gunfight.Well, you did specifically refute my statement that "too powerful" was a relative term, insisting it was "an absolute".The reason you supplied was "Make handguns threaten and noone will even remotely consider using melee weapons". So your primary support for stating that a house rule allowing guns to threaten is absolutely too powerful has been the assertion that melee should be a balanced, viable alternative. In a campaign that emphasizes realism, it is perfectly reasonable for the norm to be quite the contrary, with knives and fists patently overshadowed by bullets. In that case, such a house rule would be acceptable.There has been very little support as of yet to demonstrate that balance would be screwed by allowing guns to threaten. The harshest consequence so far is that melee falls to the wayside, and many an RPG has been playable (and hence "unscrewed") with an uneven ratio of slugfests to slugthrowers.Notions of realism has been integral this thread's been about since Tywyll started it. I'm not sure what you mean about bias. Since I am engaging in a debate, I logically use examples that support my position. That seems like something any sane person would do.What exactly do you mean by "I can actually grab that gun but I won't grab that sword"? Are you indicating that it's safer to grab than a sword because it has no sharp edges? Grabbing a gun is dangerous too. It can go off and do more than sever a digit or two. Or are you suggesting that a man wielding gun, with his guard up and ready to fire on opponents, is somehow incapable of firing that gun defensively to prevent someone from snatching it out of his hand, or rush him? If only that were true; armed robbery would be a much rarer crime.It occurs to me that close quarters gunfights in D20M currently have the potential to be highly amusing, playing out something like a violent game of hot potato.Weeeeeeeell, that's a pretty melodramatic interpretation.A more accurate one would be thus: "I adjust my tone appropriately when I'm dealing with someone who seems to be adopting an air of authority, so as to establish that high self-esteem alone will not allow them to advance their arguement unchallenged."I chastised myself afterwards, I assure you. Such hubris is criminal.</blockquote>

Verification