Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8300137" data-attributes="member: 6801845">If guns were so overwhelmingly powerful, we wouldn't have had hundreds of years of overlap.  Yet we did.  In addition, there are several proponents of the idea that the reason we didn't continue to see armor used was because of the changing nature of war and armies.  The idea is that basically wars were once fought in large part by nobles and expensive mercenaries.  That changed when nations started having standing armies; it's easier to train someone to use a gun and lives were cheaper than armor that was high quality enough to withstand firearms.But we're also not talking about ranks of soldiers duking it out on a battlefield here.  Were talking about (generally) individuals facing combat on a regular basis against what are oftentimes monstrous enemies.Personally I think of a rapier as an arming sword - it can only be used 1 handed.  In D&D parlance they got rid of the bastard/hand and a half sword and it became the longsword.  After all a longsword was just a sword that was a bit longer than a "typical" sword of the era and region.The other thing being ignored that you frequently don't just "punch a hole" in someone with a sword.  Depending on the weapon you're slashing, or even while stabbing move the blade around a bit to increase the size of the wound.  Well, in real life you were probably slashing, stabbing, using the pommel and the guard to punch, wrestling, parrying and a bunch of other things with many weapons.But it's all D&D oversimplification, getting proficiency in a firearm means that you can handle accurately aiming while under pressure.  I don't think anybody is arguing that it's not easier to use a gun, but D&D doesn't go into enough detail for it to matter.</blockquote>

Verification