Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8294168" data-attributes="member: 6704184">That statement is so over broad as to simply be effectively false. Some calibers tumble internally, but by far the majority of gunshot wounds are survived, and when they aren’t it’s due to lack of medical care. Relatively few single gunshot wounds actually kill people. Most fun deaths are either suicide, or multiple gunshots, or gunshot+lack of medical care.  The same is literally true of a bow. Range wins. That makes sense. The Battlemaster makes a better gunslinger anyway. Of course people would pursue mundane explosives, and thus eventually firearms. In a D&D world, alchemists fire isn’t even that expensive, as well, so it’s possible that alchemy (ie chemistry and other laboratory sciences) is more effective in D&D than IRL.  But even if we assume IRL medieval science, you’d have to make offensive magic incredibly ubiquitous to eliminate the strong incentive to develop deadlier weapons that normals can use, not to mention one that can be used with only weeks of training, rather than years. If magic is not ubiquitous, and not evenly distributed, the incentive to develop mundane armaments increases, it does not decrease.</blockquote>