Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?

[ProfessorCirno]

FYI, there were cannons at Crece. So um, that doesn't exactly help the guns are anti-historical argument.

Composite longbows were exotic weapons that weren't trained for accuracy. D&D has stretched the rules. That's fine - I'm all for the archtypical archer drawn back, waiting awhile, then unleashing a storm into an enemy.

The problem is, D&D won't stretch the rules for any other ranged weapon.


Regarding magic and firearms: Yes, I have read the settings. That wasn't my point at all.

Complaint: Firearms would change the settings works and alter how armies and knights and such operate.

Response: Magic would already do this. Guns are no much for someone who flies and fireballs. And yet, despite the fact that a single mage could annihilate a castle by himself, castles still exist. Sure, many rulers are wizards, but that just makes it more weird - they'd know better then anyone that big long towers and castles offer no protections against a wizard.

 

[Dausuul]

I didn't say useless. I said they sucked. We have 2 battles won by heavy infantry (in a strong defensive position) with archer support and 1 battle won by horsearchers with heavy cavalry support. The Carrhae description makes clear that without the heavy cavalry the battle would have been indecisive.

So, what you're saying is that because archers can't win battles all by themselves, archers "suck?" Baloney. You can't win a modern war with air power alone, but air power is still immensely valuable. Archers were a devastating force on the battlefield when deployed in combination with other troops. Just because other troops were required does not make archers "suck." Look up "combined arms" sometime.

As for the specific battles in question: At Agincourt, the archers effectively negated the enemy cavalry, a major contribution. At Crecy, they laid waste to the whole opposing force. The infantry just protected them while they did it. At Carrhae, the Parthians forced the Romans into an impossible dilemma; they could fight in open formation and be devastated by Parthian horse archers, or they could lock their shields and be unable to defend themselves against cataphract charges. Both archers and cataphracts were required for victory.

The Mongols carved out the largest empire the world has ever seen, using arrow fire to break up enemy formations, then charging into melee to finish off the disorganized foe. The first part of that maneuver was absolutely crucial for the second to have any hope of success. English longbows were so deadly, and so vital to England's military victories, that Edward III issued an edict requiring every able-bodied man in the country to "learn and practise archery."

Bows are obviously not as good as modern guns, but for most of history they were highly effective weapons and widely used in warfare. Like all weapons, they had their limitations, but they certainly did not "suck."

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[gamerprinter]

What about the historic Mongols?

Ah, the Mongols practically took over Europe, they certainly took over the Mideast and Russia - if it weren't for the Khan to die in the homeland, Europe might have been a Mongol state, as Russia was for much of its history.

How could they do this (hint) they had bows and were mounted archers. If the bow is such an inadequete RL weapon in combat, how could this have happened.

Mongols didn't wear heavy armor, some had armor, many had no armor whatsoever. Mongols had several specialized types of long composite bow, one fired using your feet for super long distance ranges, followed by mounted archery, until they were really close, then some used javelins at close range.

This occurred in the 14th century - the march into Europe. Armor in Europe, while not Maximillian armor was a plate-mail type construction, almost going to full plate - yet there was no stopping the Mongol Hordes from practically reaching Austria, they did sack Czechoslovakia.

The entire Mongol military machine was dependant and horses and bows. Had their khans survived for the European campaigns to finish - Europe might have been a very different place.

Point: bows have proven to be among the most effective weapons in military history - with many examples, the Mongol example is just one of them. The idea that bows "suck" in RL is simply false.

GP

 

[Celtavian]

One word. Training. You could train a peasant to shoot a gun in battlefield conditions in a few weeks. You need years of training and physical conditioning to shoot a longbow continuously for a battle.

Early firearms were worse than bows. Early guns had worse accuracy and rate of fire. But would you rather have several hundred bowman or several thousand gunman.

Guns had greater penetration than bows too. Guns are what made plate armor obsolete and were more deadly than bows. It was much easier to get an arrow out of a man than a little lead ball. Armor had actually been developed to resist bowfire, even longbow fire. Though it did take a long time to train a bow user, it is not as easy as you make it sound to train a group of firearms users to fire as one. Takes quite a bit of training.

Guns are superior in warfare to bows. That is why they replaced them. They advanced quite quickly past bows, which is why they replaced them.

And if an archer is taking an average of 12 seconds per shot, what is the load time of a gun? From what I've seen of the musket, a trained person could load one pretty quickly and fire again. Probably not much more time than 12 seconds for some well trained soldiers.

 

[Celtavian]

IIRC they looked into going back to longbowmen. Better range, better accuracy, better rate of fire. There was, however, one good reason they considered the attempt impractical. Training time. It took days to train someone to use a musket competently. It takes years to build up the skill and strength required for a 100lb+ longbow.

And penetrating power and killing ability. I just last week read a book on this. The gun had greater penetration than the longbow. No armor they made back in that time could stop a gun, yet they had developed plate resistant to longbow arrows.

 

[Celtavian]

Ah, the Mongols practically took over Europe, they certainly took over the Mideast and Russia - if it weren't for the Khan to die in the homeland, Europe might have been a Mongol state, as Russia was for much of its history.

How could they do this (hint) they had bows and were mounted archers. If the bow is such an inadequete RL weapon in combat, how could this have happened.

Mongols didn't wear heavy armor, some had armor, many had no armor whatsoever. Mongols had several specialized types of long composite bow, one fired using your feet for super long distance ranges, followed by mounted archery, until they were really close, then some used javelins at close range.

This occurred in the 14th century - the march into Europe. Armor in Europe, while not Maximillian armor was a plate-mail type construction, almost going to full plate - yet there was no stopping the Mongol Hordes from practically reaching Austria, they did sack Czechoslovakia.

The entire Mongol military machine was dependant and horses and bows. Had their khans survived for the European campaigns to finish - Europe might have been a very different place.

Point: bows have proven to be among the most effective weapons in military history - with many examples, the Mongol example is just one of them. The idea that bows "suck" in RL is simply false.

GP

There have been many mounted bow troops. And when the Crusaders went to attack the Muslims in the Middle East, their small bows were harassing weapons. They could barely penetrate the mail of the Crusaders. This was before the advent of plate. They used bowfire to wound horses.

The Mongols were successful because of numbers. There weren't many standing armies back in the days of the Mongols. United standing armies equal in size to the Mongol horde were pretty rare.

 

[Celtavian]

Bows useless in combat? Please! Tell it to the French at Agincourt and Crecy. Tell it to the legions at Carrhae. Tell it to the Samurai. And there's a reason the archers outnumbered the melee specialists in each of those battles on the winning side.

Yes, White Plate defeated arrows. Even with Bodkin heads. But White Plate defeated just about everything, ranged and melee. Late medaeval europeans were the best armour makers the world had ever seen. And it took some of their best work to stop the English Longbow. But if you think the Lorica Segmentum of the Roman legions wasn't decent armour that's your issue. Or for that matter the armour that was still being worn by the French in the first two thirds of the Hundred Years War.

The longbow had its place on the battlefield pretty much from the dawn of warfare until the mid fifteenth century. With good reason. Not all armies used it - but many did (and it was particularly effective against horses).

True. But they couldn't stop the gun. Even now with all our technology, killing power is still far past defense.

 

[Tale]

And penetrating power and killing ability. I just last week read a book on this. The gun had greater penetration than the longbow. No armor they made back in that time could stop a gun, yet they had developed plate resistant to longbow arrows.

And I just read this past week that the origin of "bullet proof" is armor that has been tested against bullets. Buyers would actually look for the dent. Not the hole.

 

[Barastrondo]

I think it boils down to this: some people don't like guns in D&D because neither Conan nor Strider used one. Ditto Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Sure, John Carter often used radium-based Red Martian firearms, but I think most people forget how much sword-and-planet fiction informed early D&D.

I don't think it's even a matter of forgetting how much any one source did or didn't inform early D&D as the authors played it: it's a matter of what sources inform the D&D games that a given player partook of early in their gaming career, and what sources inform them even now. Gygax wasn't much of a fan of Lord of the Rings, but there are tons of D&D gamers who are, and the inspiration they get out of Tolkien (or Jackson) matters a lot more than what worked best for Gygax.