Why do medieval fantasy games have such a strong aversion towards blackpowder weapons?
Blackpowder weapons like cannons and early handgonnes were in use for centuries in medieval warfare. Cannons and early hand cannons in battle predates the use of plate armor.
So why the h8
>>48294059
>for centuries
That image you got there isn't from the Middle Ages, and guns really only became big at the very tail end of the period.
Medieval guns were more likely to be arrow launching engines and incedary tools rather than true guns. Though frankly, in a world where dragons exist, those arrow launching engines would be shit popular simply because they're the most mobile sort of ballista imaginable and you really need something you can carry and set up anywhere if you're trying to take down a giant flying reptile.
>>48294059
I personally like the aversion from black powder weapons. I won't say no to pirates with bombs though
>>48294059
Tolkien didn't have them in LotR, and that's like the single biggest source of medieval fantasy tropes
>>48294059
Because you're 4-6 fuckers on foot.
Learn to think before cluttering the board up with shit threads dude.
Because fantasy isn't really rooted in medieval. At least not in late, gothic medieval.
People just assumed if it has swords it needs to have knights in full armor too and other relatively late shit, but most of the source material was more like antiquity or dark ages - at very best the full medieval period of 1200s, before the dawn of any firearms. I personally dislike rapiers, halberds and gothic full plates in my fantasy as much as firearms for that very reason.
Besides, until dawn of arquebus handheld firearms were so shit that they're nearly pointless. Cannons are another story though.
>>48294819
>Because you're 4-6 fuckers on foot.
Yes, and?
>>48294059
Actually the medieval period ended pretty shortly after the arrival of gonnes, the 14th and especially 15th centuries are the renaissance, not the medieval.
>>48294059
>Why do medieval fantasy games have such a strong aversion towards blackpowder weapons?
The middle ages lasted roughly 500 to 1500.
Cannon only becomes a serious thing that makes people pay attention around fucking _1453_ with the fall of Constantinople to Ottoman cannon, and before that it's mostly the occasional immobile fort-defense installation or else gimmick "arrow cannon" weaponry that's hard to take seriously.
>Blackpowder weapons like cannons and early handgonnes were in use for centuries in medieval warfare.
Only if you stretch the definition of "like", "cannons" and "centuries".
>Cannons and early hand cannons in battle predates the use of plate armor.
Plate armor was in use by the Romans. Then it fell out of use and fell into use again around cannon time, which makes it much more reasonable to put it anywhere in fake-middle-ages than putting cannon.
>>48294911
14th century is the late medieval, while the 15th century marks the beginning of the early modern period..
Though some people still prefer to use the term renaissance, it's pretty inaccurate.
>>48294911
>the 14th and especially 15th centuries are the renaissance, not the medieval.
>>48294920
>The middle ages lasted roughly 500 to 1500.
>>48294936
>14th century is the late medieval, while the 15th century marks the beginning of the early modern period.
can we get a consensus on what the fuck "medieval" is first, then discuss medieval cannons afterwards? personally I like using 793-1492, but this seems like one of those things where opinions are like assholes.
>>48294908
>here are some fuckers who carried swords because muskets were only used in massed batteries
>>48294920
Not really. Cannons were used seriously in combat as early as the battle of Crecy in 1346.
Also the lorica segmentata is not the same as plate armor used during the 15th century.
>>48294920
>Plate armor was in use by the Romans.
Greeks, actually. First users of plate armour were bronze and iron age greeks.
>>48294059
The problem is including full plate for knights. The knights heyday was the high period middle ages. Mail with surcoats is colourful, swords and shields were more useful in these days. I don't know why don't visually design around this period.
>>48295184
>Also the lorica segmentata is not the same as plate armor used during the 15th century.
Next you'll say that coat of plates and brigandine were not plate armor.
the phrase you're looking for is "solid plate"
>>48294059
Because it's different, and grognards don't like things that are different.
>>48294059
Autism, mostly.
Seriously. My players are all autistic in frighteningly difficult to counter ways. One is an artist who only plays goofy non-adventurers, one is a full-stop MLP Tumblr-Hipster, and the other is a fucking psycopath/skinwalker.
Each of them produced a fucking Tome-worth of reasons to deny gunpowder in every, single, setting I have ever used for them.
It gets fucking old, is what I'm saying.
Also, thread question: Wheelock, Flintlock, or Percussion Cap?
>>48297229
Wheelock. That spin is damn sexy.
>>48297229
Wheellock. Also Matchlock.
>>48295184
>seriously in combat
No. Cannons during the hundred years war were used incredibly sparingly. The ones used at Agincourt were only fired a few times.
>>48297229
Percussion cap for efficience. But those came into being well after wheel and Flint locks
>>48298488
My point being, which era of firearms appeals to you more in a fantasy setting/rpg?
These two seemed like Early Moder/Late Renaissance chaps, >>48298155 >>48298219
>>48294059
A million fucking reasons that all make it incredibly clear that balancing them is ridiculously hard.
>Shooting
Smoothbore weapons are inaccurate as fuck and had to be used in big formations to do anything. If you reflect this mechanic in the game, some bubble-blowing double baby is going to whine that you're not being fair because she isn't leveling fast enough because of low hit rates. Reverse this, and you have the magical bullshit smoothbore that bullseyes everything and then everyone wants one or thinks they're being punished for not playing like that.
>Reloading
Realistically before the musket, reloading these weapons is fucking slow. For an arquebus you have to deal with a match, for a wheellock you have to deal with the gear. If you factor that into the game mechanics, some bubble-blowing double baby is going to whine that you're not being fair because he isn't leveling fast enough because of low rate of fire. Reverse this, and you have the magical bullshit self-winding gear and perfect match and then everyone wants one or thinks that they're being punished for not playing like that.
>Damage
Disputable really. /tg/ will not shut their stupid fat fucking neckbeards up about how muh plate was totally bulletproof despite numerous museum examples with massive fucking holes in them, and other parts of /tg/ will not shut the fuck up that firearms immediately invalidated armor despite armor sticking around for a long fucking time afterward. So you're gonna either make the gun too fucking strong or not strong enough and everyone derails the fucking game throwing a bitch fit about just how powerful these weapons are, and since 90% of /tg/ has never even seen a real blackpowder weapon being used, everyone is a duning krueger fucking tard and they're shit. So it'll be either too powerful, in which case everyone has them, or fucking weaksauce in which case nobody does.
And if you make it only a situational weapon, they still cry, because muh role.
>>48298540
damn right I am. Though I'm a retard who also loves himself some da vinci style tanks and ornithopters.
>>48298540
For my person setting then, definitely pre percussion cap. Those raise rate of fire massively.
Matchlocks arbalests are the most common gun, with wheel and Flint lock muskets, rifles and pistols being rare prizes.
>>48298713
or just go full video game meme and make guns deal less damage than bolts/arrows but ignore a set amount of armor, but that's only if you really want to derail the party with endless bitching and moaning.
>>48298713
OR be not retarded and give them the same stats as crossbows or bows or whatever, and make the differences aesthetic.
>>48299743
>early guns having even remotely similar ranges to bows
Don't give advice on how not to be retarded.
>>48298713
I just go with a longer reloading time. Coupled with stealth penalties for carrying/using them depending on the type.
>>48300021
Most bows in RPGs bear no relation to the way real bows work anyway.
>>48298713
>rate of fire has an effect on leveling speed
What?
>>48297229
>psycopath/skinwalker
You've gotta have some stories for us.
>>48298713
>Smoothbore weapons are inaccurate as fuck and had to be used in big formations to do anything. If you reflect this mechanic in the game, some bubble-blowing double baby is going to whine that you're not being fair because she isn't leveling fast enough because of low hit rates. Reverse this, and you have the magical bullshit smoothbore that bullseyes everything and then everyone wants one or thinks they're being punished for not playing like that.
Arquebuses were not that inaccurate. The fact is that militaries at the times fired in salvos and discharged their guns as quickly as possible. The military doctrine at the time was to unleash as much shot at the enemy as possible. It's the same with bows. Bows were probably just as inaccurate as blackpowder weapons at longer ranges since archers fired their weapons at an arc and have no way of knowing where exactly the arrow would land. Guns on the other hand were direct fire weapons so you would at least get a sense where the bullet would land. Add that arrows are affected by the wind a lot worse than bullets and bows were probably even less accurate than guns at longer ranges.
People who shoot blackpowder weapons attest that the guns themselves are not inaccurate and military writers lo of the 16th century like Humphrey Barwick attested that arquebuses were just as accurate as bows in the hands of skilled shooters.
>Realistically before the musket, reloading these weapons is fucking slow. For an arquebus you have to deal with a match, for a wheellock you have to deal with the gear. If you factor that into the game mechanics, some bubble-blowing double baby is going to whine that you're not being fair because he isn't leveling fast enough because of low rate of fire. Reverse this, and you have the magical bullshit self-winding gear and perfect match and then everyone wants one or thinks that they're being punished for not playing like that.
Arquebuses were actually faster to load than crossbows.
>>48298927
To add to this, I've been working on a early modern fantasy setting for a while. Where magic is fairly common, but fairly weak.
Crafting magic into material is basically the domain of the (crazy) elves, and the isolationist tower living version trade materials that have been carved to give them superior qualities.
So most guns are still big clunky things, some flintlocks but generally heavy and ackward. And most cannons are rather inaccurate and terrible. By shrivcraft guns can be light rifled musket, or suck.
However the Shrivar are culturally and psychologicall super opposed to change, so don't really get with adopting new technology, so trying to get them to create the parts to let the best gunsmiths actually put together the more complex guns is not easy.
So there is a revolver in this early modern setting. One. Only one.
>>48294969
Historians have stabbed each other with rusted knives for centuries trying to answer what the fuck a medieval period is. We're not hammering it out on /tg/ on a friday night.
>>48300822
It's almost like history is complicated and convoluted as shit.
>>48300700
Wasn't part of that the fact that musket balls they fired were cast significantly smaller than the bore diameter? The idea being no matter how much powder fouling was in the gun your soldiers could always ram the ball home quickly, which is what they wanted, even at the cost of accuracy and range. You could do an interesting mechanical tradeoff there.
If you load undersize ammo you can fire quickly, but with significant range and accuracy penalties.
If you load bore diameter bullets, you have much better power and accuracy, at the cost of longer reload, and a hard cap on the number of shots.
>>48300594
Earning exp. Depending on how the GM is doing things, exp is determined by how much a PC did in combat, not just a y/n question of where they present.
So someone who hits more targets will get more exp.
>>48300839
Thanks to the marxist historians saying everything is all conflict and shit. Fuck modernism and fuck post modernism for what they did to history
>>48300839
And a whole lot of it just isn't there anymore.
>>48300945
Almost all systems of and general approaches to history are ways of creating narratives, typically politically comforting and useful ones, from whatever fragments of politically motivated hagiography survived the centuries.
>>48300907
what system actual does this?
>>48300945
continental philosophy in general is just a miserable abortion of failure. fail after fail after fail.
>>48294887
I use early iron age and late bronze age for my games. No knights here no sir. I've found that it makes people come up with more interesting characters.
>>48300700
>since archers fired their weapons at an arc and have no way of knowing where exactly the arrow would land.
This is less true than you'd think. The reason for arching the shots is to gain more range, which is done in the introductory phase as the two armies approach one another. Once the range had closed and the archers were able to shoot directly, they were trained at striking targets 200 meters out, at least for the English/Welsh longbowmen.
Even then, when the bow was used among horse archers and skirmishers, the range was again reduced, probably below 50 meters, and the arrows were again fired directly at the targets.
Meanwhile, the arquebus was accurate at ranges of 50 - 80 meters, weather depending.
Ergo, your claim that bows were probably just as inaccurate as blackpowder weapons is false.
>>48301035
whichever system the GM decides to make work like that. I know at least that D&D 3.5 mentions it as an alternative system.
>>48300619
Nothing grandiose as your typical That Guy thread. He mostly just doesn't care much for human life or think very humanly. Like, we read up on another site about someone's intra-party struggles.
Basically in a completely batshit game, someone was playing a Dragon. An actual goddamn dragon. And she had laid an egg and hatched it. One of the other party members, being fucking stupid as well as hilariously evil, decided to kill, eat, and use the skin of the newborn babe as a purse. Her question was how to deal with him.
My friend? Let it go. Like, just let it go. Doesn't matter at all. He wouldn't want to ruin the other player's fun by killing their character.
It kind of scared me.
>>48294969
The middle ages ended in 1492 when the discovery of the Americas triggered a fundamental shift in the economic and geo-political paradigm of Europe.
>>48301133
Sound advice. Dragons aren't people, and a decent player would realize they're playing a sub-human and behave accordingly. She'd just get knocked up again and hatch another after a few days of brooding depression. Now if she killed the guy in an animal rage after catching him in the act that would also be understandable.
>>48301109
Military archers did not aim. Archers were trained to discharge their bows as quickly as possible. The doctrine was to overwhelm the opposing army with many arrows. So I've never fired a bow but based on the usage of bows in warfare I doubt accuracy really meant shit. And as I said, the weather fucks up bows a lot more than guns. Rain fucks up a bow as much as a gun and the wind fucks up the accuracy of an arrow a lot worse than a bullet.
Regarding accuracy of the actual weapon, here's what Humfrey Barwick, writer and mercenary during the 16th century, had to say:
>If loaded properly with good powder, a musket will kill a man in proofed armor at 200 yards, common armor at 400 yards, and an unarmored man at 600 yards.
>Responding to John Smythe's claims that the longbow was uncomparibly more accurate than firearms, Barwick points out that he two practiced with the longbow until he was 17 and was a good shot, but after 4 or 5 months of practice with his harquebus he believed he could shoot more accurately than the best bowman in England.
>Sir John Smythe claims that harquebusers would never shoot at a target more than 8, 10 or 12 yards, Barwick counters that no skilled soldier would fail to hit a target the size of a dinner plate at that range
>Musketeers can deliver their first volley at 480 yards, and then deliver another volley every time the enemy has advanced 80 yards.
>Bowmen cannot start shooting until the enemy is within 160 yards.
>Humfrey Barwick proposes a challenge where the best archer in England stands at 120 yards and shoots 10 arrows at him before he returns fire with 2 shots from a musket or harquebus.
Source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05277.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext
>>48301199
No. The Dragon in question was Intelligent and had a Good alignment. Her CHILD was just murdered. Killing the bastard who did it is the most natural thing in the world.
And if she were Evil, he just took something from her! She should be pissed her ownership rights were violated and FUCK HIM UP.
>>48301401
>Dragon
>Intelligent
>Good
So lets assume these are true. If she's truly good, she'll control her anger, forgive him, and move on. Rather than cause more pain and suffering than is needed. Not to mention if she can just push out eggs, they can easily get into the dragonskin handbag market for the benefit of the party.
An after thought: she doesn't have to worry about having a whining fire-breathing brat causing all kinds of trouble for her and the party. She should thank the guy.
>>48301501
all admit this is some pretty high tier trolling.
Now shut up troll.
>>48301501
....
Oh hi Jim. Didn't know you browsed here. Totally wasn't talking about you buddy.CALL THE POLICE I THINK HE'S IN THE HOUSE
>>48301281
>16th century
that's the kicker
>>48301517
Took you long enough. I figured the boy going fishing would have been a dead give away.
>>48301521
Easy on the caps there mate. No idea who Jim is, unless you mean Jim Bean.
>>48301557
>No idea who Jim is
The name of the guilty has been changed. Good trolling, I didn't catch on for a bit there. But >>48301501 was overplaying your hand.
>>48301580
I was curious at how dense you actually were, that's all.
>>48301604
Guess we found out.;_;
>>48301109
>>48301281
I grew up hunting and even with modern compound bows in good conditions it takes a lot of practice to reliably hit a target, and those have MUCH less draw than a longbow did, it pulled on a person so hard that longbowmen were pretty much useless by the time other soldiers slowed down due to old age because of how deformed their spines were. With that much pressure on your body try actually hitting a target. Longbows weren't based on accuracy but finding general ranges and overwhelming people. Archery competitions used shorter bows at much shorter range, because you don't have three hundred targets stacked next to each other so that as long as you aim in their general direction there's a good chance you'll hit. It took years of training and sacrificing their bodies just to get rangefinding down and reliably shoot close while your entire body is being shocked by the pressure it's under. They weren't using modern materials, they used the best of the crap they had on hand which wasn't very efficient. Longbowment didn't pick a target, they picked a range.
Because outside of cover based modern warfare games there aren't many ways to make fire arms combat a lot of fun, for the same reason that snipers in video games fuck every thing up.
There's no interesting clash of blades, no running forward with shield raised through a hail of arrows, just "the man shoots at you" and if he hits you're dead or nearly dead.
>>48300700
As late as the 100 years war, gun-wielded were trained to close their eyes while firing, so as not to get smoke in them. These people were not "aiming" in any sense
>>48301738
Sorry, 30 years war, not 100
>>48294974
>And did so centuries after the period in question.
>>48301738
>aim
>close eyes and pull trigger in one motion
>>48301738
That's what I'm saying. Musketeers weren't sharpshooters. They didn't aim, they just fired their guns at the general direction of the enemy. They were drilled in formation, how to use their weapon properly and how to fire by rank but they didn't train as marksmen.
IIRC earlier guns were actually more accurate than 18th century muskets due to the caliber of bullet they use. However they took longer to load and so militaries opted for more firepower over accuracy.
So in reality blackpowder weapons weren't as inaccurate as the media depicts them but they are seen this way due to the way they were used in warfare.
>>48301687
This is true. Using warbows requires strength training. While bows were still around when guns started emerging they were eventually fazed out due to just being inferior weapons, not just because they were easier to handle. Bows and guns had about the same range, I believe the heavier muskets had better range, and bows had better rate of fire. But bows lacked the punch that bullets had. An arrow isn't as effective against armor as a bullet and even against unarmed targets it still isn't going to bring them down. Getting hit by a musket ball will generally keep the victim down. Also bowmen couldn't maintain their rate of fire for long periods of time because they would tire out and lose their effectiveness while musketeers could maintain a steady stream of fire because loading their guns isn't as tiring and they could fire by rank to keep a steady flow.
>>48301281
English longbowmen didn't aim. Read up on the expectations placed upon Persian archers and the accounts of their skill.
>>48301892
>an arrow won't take you down but a bullet will
Do you not know the force behind an arrow, or even whatever the fuck you'd call the things they used with a longbow because those weren't arrows. Those were shooting javelines. Think of the force used to send it over a hundred yards impaling you.
I'm the one who posted >>48301687 but while bows weren't made for long range single target accuracy, especially in battle since guns don't require holding that kind of weight back while aiming, the force of the arrow wasn't the issue. Longbows and crossbows were known to punch through armor, and arrows from regular bows still went through most cheap shit armor, which is a big reason that expensive suits have ridiculous curves, so that an arrow couldn't land a direct hit and kill them before they actually got into a fight.
>>48301738
You know that you can line up a shot and pull the trigger as you close your eyes, right? The time it takes you to blink is way longer than the time it takes for an arrow to fly more than a few yards.
>>48294059
Firearms steal spotlight from casters in killing martials and can kill unprepared casters. They can't accept that.
>projectile weapons other than slings
It's like you don't even want to be a practical adventurer
>>48294059
Because...I don't even know. Most people aren't even aware firearms are a D&D mainstray, to the point there's a GOD based around their use!
I blame public medium ignorance.
>>48302649
that's pathfinder you're thinking of lad
>>48303008
Firearms were featured heavily in the Player's Options series, and I believe the firearm god was from 2nd edition Forgotten Realms
Because that'd be too easy
>>48301892
While there might not have been a good light infantry doctrine or training, there are recorded instances of snipers or sharpshooters killing generals at least since the 17th century.
>>48294242
It's from the late 15th century says image search, so late medieval ages. Why are you spouting nonsense when you have no idea, mongrel.
Guns have been arround since the 14th century.
>>48295240
>Greeks, actually. First users of plate armour were bronze and iron age greeks.
Yeah well this obviously doesn't count. There's also a tribe of North American natives with wood 'plate' armor. Shall we include them too?
>>48302616
>You will never be a Rhodian slinger firing lead bullets that ignore armor, pulverize flesh and armor.
>>48294059
>Why do medieval fantasy games have such a strong aversion towards blackpowder weapons?
Medieval fantasy revolves around "sword and sorcery" and celebrates the "knight in shining armor".
It doesn't help to make two of those obsolete.
>M-Muh handgonnes though
They still don't fit the romantic image of the middle ages. They arose as the high middle ages of noble knights and feudalism came to an end and the late middle ages of centralized states and professional armies arose.
>>48294819
>Because you're 4-6 fuckers on foot.
Good point, but how much time would it take to reload one of the earliest handguns? Would it be significantly longer than it takes to reload the heaviest of crossbows (which adventurers can and do use)?
>>48305070
>There's also a tribe of North American natives with wood 'plate' armor. Shall we include them too?
There's nothing wrong with having wood armor in a game, as long as the stats for it are shit.
>>48294059
Mostly because as soon as you have black powder a player wants to use his 23 Int (or system equivalent) to build a machine gun.
That being said, I like High Medieval fantasy like Warhammer with gothic armor and guns and blocks of pikemen. But that's just personal taste.
![1374518-2237898276_30db97333a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0UtUa21.jpg "1374518-2237898276_30db97333a[1].jpg")
>>48305459
>Mostly because as soon as you have black powder a player wants to use his 23 Int (or system equivalent) to build a machine gun.
And what's wrong with that? You automaticaly presume it has to be some kind of portable Sturmgewehr instead of an organ gun or a pucklegun, which is pretty much "line up a few muskets and put wheels under it". A cool and useful weapon, but not something adventurers can easily drag around.
>>48305573
Nothing is wrong with it. Until the player wants it to be a Thompson, simultaneously inventing better metallurgy, rifling, cartridges and all the other stuff needed to make it work.
If you have a good group, it's not a problem.
>>48298713
>Damage
Broadly speaking, a gunshot wound either takes you out of the fight immediately from death or shock, or it has no immediate effect. Such wounds were famously difficult to treat with early medicine, tho, and would often (usually?) lead to eventual death by infection or blood loss.
>>48305670
>(usually?)
Not that usually. I don't think they were much more deadly then arrows, for the large part. But removing arrows was easier (and generally more sanitary since it didn't involve a surgeon dinging around in a wound with his fingers.)
>>48305448
>There's nothing wrong with having wood armor in a game, as long as the stats for it are shit.
lol wtf are you talking about. This was a methodological argument, that the term 'plate armor' doesn't describe any single piece armor of any material.
>>48305726
>>48305670
Actually I take that back. I recall something now about early fire arms being more prone to disease, because the bullets moved fairly slowly and would take bits of cotton and other materials with them into the body.
Conversely, other then disease they still aren't much more deadly then arrows. There are stories from the civil war of bullets at longer ranges bouncing off or getting stuck in cloth uniforms.
>>48301089
But you get cataphracts! Worthy trade in my opinion.
>>48301077
Fuck off britbong, you suck at the arts beyond literature,economics and natural sciences.
France,Italy and germany on their own outweigh you.
>>48305060
That image depicts a scene from the late middle ages. If the picture itself is medieval I'll eat my hat.
>>48294059
I dislike guns of any sort in fantasy RPGs, mostly because they tend to be used by shitheels to engage in godawful imperialist power-fantasies, using their guns to run roughshod over cultures that lack them.
>>48306189
Not even there they are special.
Every nation produces good literature from time to time.
>Brits good at economics
Keynes and? Everything else ended in disaster.
Marx and Engels had good ideas but both were german, so they do not count.
>natural sciences
They have that?
>>48306705
Depends on what you consider medieval I'd say. Looks like early 16th century to me, say first quarter.
>>48307275
>>48306705
>>48305060
Those are people dressed in the maximilan fashion, which was popular at the very start of the early modern period.
>>48305070
>Yeah well this obviously doesn't count. There's also a tribe of North American natives with wood 'plate' armor. Shall we include them too?
What exactly is the basis of your argument? Because they used iron as well.
>>48294768
Tolkien also didn't have plate armor in his setting, so he was obviously more researched than the scrubs that try to imitate him.
The medieval ages lasted from the 5th to 15th century.
Cannons and black powder weapons were first used in Europe in the 13th century. Like OP said, they predate plate armor.
For 300 years, black powder and knights coexisted.
Black powder weapons were around even longer outside of Europe, in places like the middle east and Asia.
Medieval fantasy is horribly boring and cliche compared to real life. Medieval fantasy is nonsensical and has no internal consistency. Tolkien was, is and will always be a racist hack who raped dozens of cultural mythologies with his poorly written schlock and terribly built world. Medieval fantasy needs to move away from Tolkien.
>>48298457
AFAIK no cannons were present at Agincourt.
However if you look up the battle of Crecy the French utilizes their cannons to dislodge the English from their position and it worked. This was in the 14th century.
>>48305448
>Medieval fantasy revolves around "sword and sorcery" and celebrates the "knight in shining armor".
It doesn't help to make two of those obsolete.
But it didn't make those obsolete. Knights still existed when cannons and guns were around. Crossbows, castles, cannons, guns, bows and knights all co-existed.
And you start seeing professional armies until centuries later outside of the middle ages. Most armies were made up of retainers, levys and mercenaries.
>Good point, but how much time would it take to reload one of the earliest handguns? Would it be significantly longer than it takes to reload the heaviest of crossbows (which adventurers can and do use)?
IIRC guns were quicker to load than heavy crossbows.
>>48305726
u wot?
Just look at this video:
https://youtu.be/Bk1oWUjS3UQ?t=1082
The amount of damage those musket balls could do was massive.
>>48306852
Which is just wrong t b h
A lot of cultures wanted guns. The Native Americans were one of the main buyers of these guns from traders. the Japanese, even African cultures wanted these guns and did have them. The Zulu had access to modern rifles but opted against them because it didn't fit in their army doctrine.
