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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 5077046" data-attributes="member: 5834">I wouldn't want to do it that way. Seems pointless. Why would anyone use a gun if a bow is much, much better?Materials for making guns are harder to come by than bows. Materials for ammunition are harder to come by. Why would anyone put out the effort to make a gun if they are inferior to a bow?If you want to throw guns in just because a player thinks it cool, then do it. But don't try to make it seem reasonable or well-simulated as some game designers seem to try to do. Make it like bows. As in they can fire up to 4 or 5 shots a round. A real bowman can't fire 5 or 6 shots a round no matter how long they've been doing it. They can't start off with a double shot or split three arrows together at targets within 30 feet. Why are game designers going out of their way to make crossbowman and gunman realistic while letting bow users go off?That's not fair. Don't suddenly get realistic with guns and crossbows while letting bows be machine guns. That's what I'm talking about when I say done right on top of the affect on warfare.No way some inventor is going to make some weak gun that pales in comparison to a bow as anything more than a novelty. So the game designers should ensure that there are feats in place (as they have recently done with crossbows) to make guns competitive and interesting if they are going to include them. Otherwise, why bother? The only way I would allow a gun is if I was building a setting based around gun technology or some player just really, really wanted to make a character like The Warlord comic I used to read and had to have a gun. And if I did that, I would at least make his gun special and cool rather than saying "here you go. Here's your d8 gun. Look at the longbowmen firing tons of arrows while your little piddly gun gets one shot or runs out of ammo."</blockquote>

Verification