Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6091236" data-attributes="member: 1165">These are just my opinion, based on my own flawed understanding of history.Guns are not "single-player" weapons. This means a lone gunman just doesn't make sense. A few adventurers might pack pistols or rifles, but that's about it.Guns are "mass" weapons because they are (in flavor, not game terms) inaccurate. It's not easy to shoot a target, even if they're only 30 feet away and didn't notice you, but it's a lot easier to lob a bunch of bullets at a bunch of guys. Most PC interactions with guns would involve a squad of a dozen guys (use the mob rules!) firing bullets at them, with a Reflex save for half damage. Not too different from going up against a single wizard with a wand of fireballs.Because guns have to be massed for a country to find them useful, the cost of an individual gun must be low. They are currently not. So the only people who can afford them are wealthy hunters, maybe a few nobles (who probably consider them cowards' weapons) and maybe a few eccentric adventurers. If you want, you could decide the only reason guns are so expensive are because their construction methods are secret.Guns used in armies have two costs -- costs per gun itself, and "cost" of training. Training someone to use a crossbow or a gun is easy. It doesn't take long. With no training at all, it's possible to kill someone with a gun, although it would be hard to deliberately with a medieval gun due to inaccuracy (not so hard if the victim is asleep and you can CdG them). Contrast with the longbow, which at this time in history (a nebulous target date, to be sure) was probably a superior weapon, but training someone to use one effectively was very time-consuming, and quite a few trainees were never going to be any good at it. However, the longbow was certainly more accurate, especially in the kinds of small unit combats that PCs take part in. (NPC adventurers would tend to dislike gunslingers, thinking archers are better and actually "earned" their skills.)Recall who wants one. Not many people. Countries would want many, but if you turn up at the black market asking for a single rifle, people might think you're weird.I think the shift would come to mass warfare much earlier than personal combat. The problem isn't the spread of knowledge, but simply making more accurate guns. Until they're made accurate, buying guns for personal combat just doesn't make much sense. You're literally better off with a crossbow.</blockquote>

Verification