Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ProfessorCirno" data-source="post: 5076241" data-attributes="member: 65637">...There...were guns in the Renaissance :|Again, it's the same reason crossbows are always mechanically worse for bows.  Because D&D has established itself into several tropes, and one of them is Bows Are Always Better.I'm sorry, but saying it's an argument with tech levels is rediculous.  D&D is all over the damn place historically.  Plate armor made in the Renaissance next to medieval longbows next to caveman clubs, and they all use modern morality.  And a fighter that uses all of those.  Hell, D&D has the monk class, and it's not based on western monks, or eastern monks, but bad 70's kung fu.  You have an entire class based on bad 70's kung fu.  This is the game that confuses slings with slingshots.The realism argument is equal bunk, because it, too, inevitable lands into Bows Are Always Better.  A monk can punch through a wall, a fighter can wrestle with a dragon, and a ranger can string several arrows on a single bowstring and tag a target with pinpoint accuracy hundreds of yards away, but a crossbow or gun that doesn't take three turns to reload?  Unrealistic!Unfortunately, cliches such as Bows Are Always Better are incredibly hard to dislodge, because they're not just ingrained into the game, but into the minds of those that play it.</blockquote>