As long as you are saying that you just don't like the feel of firearms in your fantasy, I have no problem. The issue I have is when people say that guns would cause some sort of necessary, drastic, and fundamental change in a setting. I don't see any reason for that to be the case. You could probably just drop 16th century firearms into most D&D settings without changing anything else and maintain the usual amounts of historical realism and anachronism found in D&D.
Why DON'T people like guns in D&D?
- Thread starter Herobizkit
- Start date
As long as you are saying that you just don't like the feel of firearms in your fantasy, I have no problem. The issue I have is when people say that guns would cause some sort of necessary, drastic, and fundamental change in a setting. I don't see any reason for that to be the case. You could probably just drop 16th century firearms into most D&D settings without changing anything else and maintain the usual amounts of historical realism and anachronism found in D&D.
I agree - if you stick with era-appropriate firearms, it would not alter most settings very much. As I stated way earlier in this thread, the problem with almost every "firearms in D&D" rule I've seen makes them 18th or 19th century era guns against everything else being medieval/early renaissance level.
Truth Seeker
Adventurer
I did not read this entire thread...so there's possibility that a specific subject may or may not have been touched. Dealing with guns.
Magic.
For me...if someone wanted guns per se. Magic itself would have suffer greatly, with the ability of not been able to defend against it. Although I have seen variant writiings of that being bridged (mixing mocdern with medieval elements). To me...the introduction of firearms, would mean that one age is leaving and another is coming in.
Second...what armor could absorb that bullet punishment? Not all...I assume.
Third...the damage?
I would make it a ability score loss, and depending whatever area is hit. The PC getting hampered with those injuries. Would be more challenging and more annoying ( to them), than being cut with a sword or puncture with arrow. (This is not an absolute solution on approach).
But some folks have been able to blend the two...and they comfortable with it. As long the GM is too. But in the end.
An element has been changed, a change that would echo throughtout the world at large and affected the gods themselves.
That age of myth and magic will be replaced with the Age of Science.
Shadowrun is the perfect example of a total evolution from one age to another. (for those who don't know...it was a modern times theme that literally exploded with the rerelease of magic, dragons, demons and more. That mesh with today's times).
What edition they up to now?
Magic.
For me...if someone wanted guns per se. Magic itself would have suffer greatly, with the ability of not been able to defend against it. Although I have seen variant writiings of that being bridged (mixing mocdern with medieval elements). To me...the introduction of firearms, would mean that one age is leaving and another is coming in.
Second...what armor could absorb that bullet punishment? Not all...I assume.
Third...the damage?
I would make it a ability score loss, and depending whatever area is hit. The PC getting hampered with those injuries. Would be more challenging and more annoying ( to them), than being cut with a sword or puncture with arrow. (This is not an absolute solution on approach).
But some folks have been able to blend the two...and they comfortable with it. As long the GM is too. But in the end.
An element has been changed, a change that would echo throughtout the world at large and affected the gods themselves.
That age of myth and magic will be replaced with the Age of Science.
Shadowrun is the perfect example of a total evolution from one age to another. (for those who don't know...it was a modern times theme that literally exploded with the rerelease of magic, dragons, demons and more. That mesh with today's times).
What edition they up to now?
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
Why? Logically, why would magic suffer? It doesn't suffer with crossbows, which are as easy to use as firearms.
Why is having a tiny hunk of lead hit you in the chest at high speed more traumatic than a sword thrust, a crossbow bolt, or a swung axe hitting you in the chest?
Shadowrun is the perfect example of a total evolution from one age to another. (for those who don't know...it was a modern times theme that literally exploded with the rerelease of magic, dragons, demons and more. That mesh with today's times).
What edition they up to now?
4th.
And magic doesn't trump technology except when fighting magical things, like spirits. Magic doesn't work on or with technology well, either; they *can* (you can enchant a monofilament whip into a weapon focus), but with great difficulty. But SR mage types can wear armor and hide behind cover just as well as the street samurai does.
Brad
Truth Seeker
Adventurer
1. If using guns per se, in a medival setting, without changes to current spells. What protection can be offered? This is my logic, you introduce an new element, that the current ones have no means to adapt at that time.
2. Unlike swords or arrows. Bullet damage impact can be increased by the amount of gunpowder applied, and the current shaping of the bullet head for better pentration (and range). Without applying to the former with magic boosting. (Wait, just caught myself here...the former abilities can be increased by also, with heavier metals and stronger bows and pull strength. But the bullets heavier (dmg) and wider range will be beat them out in the end.). The fight is no longer personal (face to face), it becomes a thing of distance and impact.
3.Thanks.
4. True, true...I played in the very 1st ed of SR, there was a distinct line on what can affect what. What is going here, is that some folks want to blend the elements of both eras into one. Not the first time to happen, nor be the last.
But for me, adding guns in a sword swinging, bow firing era...will change everything. I have handle guns, never fired. But if I did use it...something of me would have changed. And there's the rub, some may have experience that feeling, and don't wish to explore it.
2. Unlike swords or arrows. Bullet damage impact can be increased by the amount of gunpowder applied, and the current shaping of the bullet head for better pentration (and range). Without applying to the former with magic boosting. (Wait, just caught myself here...the former abilities can be increased by also, with heavier metals and stronger bows and pull strength. But the bullets heavier (dmg) and wider range will be beat them out in the end.). The fight is no longer personal (face to face), it becomes a thing of distance and impact.
3.Thanks.
4. True, true...I played in the very 1st ed of SR, there was a distinct line on what can affect what. What is going here, is that some folks want to blend the elements of both eras into one. Not the first time to happen, nor be the last.
But for me, adding guns in a sword swinging, bow firing era...will change everything. I have handle guns, never fired. But if I did use it...something of me would have changed. And there's the rub, some may have experience that feeling, and don't wish to explore it.
Desdichado
Hero
Like I said; a lot of misconceptions about guns.
A skilled shooter is vastly different than any Joe Blow with a gun. And an action-movie shooter is vastly different than the best real-life shooter anyway.
Also: people survive gunshot wounds all the time. I have no idea where this idea that getting shot is more likely fatal than getting stabbed through the guts with a sword or whacked on the head with an ax, but it's a really bizarre misconception.
While people do survive gunshots daily, if you look at ER & domestic violence stats*, you'll see that gunshots ARE deadlier. Its a lot easier to deliver a fatal blow with a single gunshot than with a single stab or slash.
It is especially a lot easier to kill with a gun if you don't have the muscle mass to deliver a deep stab, or the skill to strike the right place to slash...not to mention the additional advantage of being able to kill from a significantly greater range.
But the other point is spot on- tech doesn't perforce replace skill. In many cases, it enhances it.
* There was a huge 20+ year study done on domestic violence that pointed out (among other things) that women are far more likely to use a gun than men in domestic violence situations. The reason? The gun is an equalizer in a fight with a stronger, faster opponent.
I don't want to get too deep into a "are guns more deadly than swords?" argument, but I do have to ask if it is fair comparing statistics involving domestic violence in the modern day with modern guns to fantasy combat between highly trained warriors in a medieval/early modern setting using heavy matchlock guns. Just about every aspect of the comparison is faulty in some way.
Actually, its very fair.
I'd expect a trained warrior to be deadly with anything he knows how to operate.
A modern gun, however, takes no training to be lethal. Barring the kinds of guns in which you have to cock them first THEN pull the trigger (as opposed to point & pull), in a very real sense, you're more of a hazard with a gun without training than with.
Early guns had their hazards, to be sure...misfires & non-fires were much more common, for instance. However, few RPGs have mechanics that take into account the unreliability of firearms into account. Similarly, few RPGs make those early firearms less accurate than other ranged weapons, when we know that bows and crossbows were much more accurate weapons for the period. Instead, most RPGs assume that ancient firearms will work reliably every time and are as accurate as any other ranged weapon of the period.
I'd expect a trained warrior to be deadly with anything he knows how to operate.
A modern gun, however, takes no training to be lethal. Barring the kinds of guns in which you have to cock them first THEN pull the trigger (as opposed to point & pull), in a very real sense, you're more of a hazard with a gun without training than with.
Early guns had their hazards, to be sure...misfires & non-fires were much more common, for instance. However, few RPGs have mechanics that take into account the unreliability of firearms into account. Similarly, few RPGs make those early firearms less accurate than other ranged weapons, when we know that bows and crossbows were much more accurate weapons for the period. Instead, most RPGs assume that ancient firearms will work reliably every time and are as accurate as any other ranged weapon of the period.
They also bend the rules of physics constantly with bows - compounds would be exotic, letting you draw multiple arrows on the string at once, pinpoint accuracy, speed, and range all at the same time).
Crossbows, throwing knives, and guns though? They're left in the cold. The crossbow, despite being considered heretical due to how dangerous it was, despite there being mercenary teams made of nothing but crossbowman, is, in D&D, "the weapon the wizard uses at levels 1-3 after running out of spells."
Sorry, but bows already bend and break the rules of physics and reality. Demanding every other weapon has to adhere to realism is asinine.
Similar Threads
