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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="amerigoV" data-source="post: 5076331">My perspective on this was formed in the way 1e handled bows. Basically, a 10th level fighter (say with 70hp) could stand there all day and let people shoot him with a bow (pre-str bow days - 3 hps of damage per hit - yawn). One could use the HP analogy of skill, grit, luck in melee combat. But it just was a farse from a bow perspective (keep in mind this is pre-Matrix there kiddies - standing in the open dodging arrows seem silly). So Ok, one can except it - its a game, not a combat simulator. But trying to add in guns on top of that just made it worse. In gun combat, cover is important (well, except vs. the A-Team and vs. "precise" Imperial Troopers). In D&D, cover vs. ranged is an afterthought until you started to get to 3.x. It just never made sense to me and that is my prejudice.BUT, systems that treat bows and firearms "better" (I will not say realistically) changes my mind on the subject. I have coverted to Savage Worlds recently and they handle range weapons differently -- your ability to hit the target has nothing to do with the targets skill -- you cannot dodge the projectile. You can take cover or wear armor to try and absorb the damage. That run-of-the-mill archer/gunman will hit you regardless of how awesome you are - better find cover! That is satisifying to me and that opens up guns in fantasy (I run Eberron, so some form of gun would not be out of place in that setting given all the other advancements during the War).I am not that familiar with other systems - but if cover is important for range weapons, then guns can be added so long as the game world can absorb the concept in my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification