Firearms in fantasy. Yea or nay?
>>43592125
Nope. They destroy the climat completly.
>>43592125
If I put them in, they're reshaping how war is fought, just like real life.
Shock value is important
All day every day.
>>43592125
Normally Yea, but for a long running game I like the idea of the campaign starting without them, and then they start to crop up as time goes on.
>Party becomes a well-oiled pike-n-shot-n-spell team
>Here comes the dragon who wields massive, multi-shot cannons to supplement their breath attack.
>>43592125
Yes.
The Renaissance is much more interesting than the medieval era anyway,.
>>43592125
Yeah. My dung collector needs it to scare skaven and mischieving brats.
Depends on the campaign, but yeah, I don't see any reason to outright ban them from the genre, that seems silly.
>>43592125
Yea.
>>43592699
Guns existed in medieval warfare as well.
>>43592125
Yea.
Not INSTANTLY MURDERING MURDERSTICKS, though.
Only if there's a scifi element as well.
my setting already has sentient magic robots
it'd be a little weird for me to draw the line at basic bangsticks
>>43592125
Only if they shoot magic.
>>43592699
Not really, no.
Hell Yeah.
Also, fuck the idea that there at things that don't belong in fantasy.
Of course. The late medieval period is the best time for a campaign apart from the very early period, and so obviously you're going to need guns sometimes.
Of course it depends on the campaign. Guns fit in some campaigns and settings and not in others.
What's the most basic firearm you can include, if gunpowder is JUST NOW being discovered in your fantasy setting?
>>43593167
Fireworks or a fire lance for that Chinese flavor. In Europe, probably a handgonne, metal tube with an opening on one end.
>>43592125
It's a stupid question and people that flat out say no are even more stupid.
Fantasy is so broad a genre there is no reason guns couldn't be included.
>>43592182
Leave in the wizards who can summon hurricanes, teleport, control minds and create undead armies though. They don't change anything.
And make sure everyone wears plate armor, which protects against guns but not magic.
>>43592125
Yay. I wouldn't use them in something like D&D that has its own weird approach to fantasy, but gunpowder and steam technology can both find comfortable places in fantasy.
>>43592125
No. Guns mean gunpowder, and gunpowder means my players will cry and bitch and moan about anything that can't be solved by blowing something up, and cry and bitch and moan even louder if something dares try to blow them up.
>>43593343
>ho can summon hurricanes, teleport, control minds and create undead armies though. They don't change anything.
>And make sure everyone wears plate armor, which protects against guns but not magic.
>implying wizards won't blend all three of these things
>>43593447
I don't think the fact that you have shitty players is an argument against fantasy guns in general. Bad players can ruin anything; good players can make odd ideas work well. For example, a horror game is basically impossible to run with bad players, but good players can make horror one of the best kinds of tabletop.
>>43593447
Doesn't that happen already with magic?
Admittedly though, your players sound like little bitches.
>>43593481
Iron Kingdoms pls, go and stay go.
>>43593447
But they already have something better than gunpowder, magic. What can you do with gunpowder that you can't do with a well-prepared set of spells?
>>43593447
Just stick with the shitty, inefficient gunpowder they had back when it first came out and make your game a race to see who can get a mule cart full of powder in the right location first to blow the other up.
>>43593167
Fire lances, bombs and slow-burning chemicals you can stuff on fire arrows for better incendary effects.
If you git good, you'll use blackpowder to launch heavy arrows from stupidly light siege engines.
Later on those gonnes
>>43592527
became a thing, which are basically pipes with purpose-built ignition chambers that get pretty much the maximum out of shitty/safe early blackpowder.
>>43593167
Grenades. Easy to make, killy as fuck, only slightly incredibly dangerous to use, predate useable guns by a century or more. After that, cannons. Handguns are much more difficult, you'd only see the likes of a handgonne or an arquebus being made after 100 years or so of the simpler stuff.
>>43592946
Well how common are the magic robots? I mean in Elder Scroll it's forgivable since the magic robots are rare and were made by a now extinct race.
As to why the Dwemer never figured out guns and stuff, as I understand, they weren't always the most practical sort, I think I read somewhere that it took the dwarves awhile to figure out that the protective metal plating on their machines could be worn be dwarves for their own protection.
>>43593675
Part of it is that they weren't actually that good at technology, or magic for that matter. Most of it relied on their own weird pseudomagic called tonal architecture.
>>43593913
ah, that's right. Forgot that for all their wonders, Dwemer were basically just super powered Harry Potter magicians.
Don't need to know what 2+2 equals when you have magic that can warp reality so it adds up to whatever the fuck you want.
>>43593913
Tonal Architecture was weird as shit, but could it led to apotheosis. That's Daedric Prince tier shit right there.
>>43593620
>cannons are easy
IRL the safe size of cannons was limited by blackpowder corning technology. Until they had corning figured out, making pretty small ones OR handgonnes was the only safe way to go on about launching ball projectiles from tubes.
What's more, both casting them in one piece (with or without drilling the bore afterwards) and forge-welding them from hoops are technologies that are HARD to master and that were generally spread by importing craftsmen directly.
>>43593962
The Princes have always been gods tho. Also the Dwemer destroyed themselves, they're a parable of hubris.
>>43594127
The problem was in making the barrels strong enough, at first they used bronze which is strong as fuck but very pricey, it was the development of iron cannons that lead to handguns and that came much later, in the renaissance.
Firearms are the most basic sort of combat in my campaign.
>>43594127
>importing craftsmen
from where though, everywhere else was still hitting each other with bone clubs and axes.
>Party bursts into the Dragon's inner sanctum
>The Dragon sits there patiently seemingly unperturbed by the swords, spears, and muskets trained on it
>Looks over and huffs a bit of fire and a loud sizzling sound can be heard
>Tears away the curtain revealing a loud cannon
>>43594226
>I roll to unzip dick
>>43593343
I make sure to remove Wizards from all my settings.
Wizards are a shitty concept.
>>43593008
Yes, really yes.
>>43592125
Depends on the type of fantasy, like always.
>>43594145
>Birth of Malacath
>Punishment of Jyggalag
>Ascension of the hero of Kvatch
Many princes have been created.
>>43594266
Indeed.
I intend to remove magic from the next setting I write.
>>43594326
The last one was Mantaling and not a new prince
Guns are fine. Just rule that they pierce armor. In D&D 3.whatever, just say that the target takes a -3 penalty to armor bonuses and that you need magical armor with +(X+1) enhancement to beat firearms with total enhancement of X.
Primitive guns took forever to load and weren't as effective at range as bows anyway (the earliest guns had shorter range), so I don't know why people complain about them so much. They don't really fit in my homebrew (Late Antiquity), but for late-Medieval settings they make sense.
>>43594326
Malacath was already a Prince, he was just twisted into something else
Same with Jyggalag
Mantaling was not the creation of a Prince in the technical terms, but it allowed Sheogorath and Jyggalag to exist at the same time.
>>43594160
Harldy.
>>43593567
That is one of the earliest use of gunpowder to launch a projectile in Europe. Those and the bronze pot guns led to breech-loaders and gonnes, one which was basically combining the pot with a barrel that could be made of iron here and the other was making a barrel that contained a potlike firing chamber, which was the one component that absolutely had to be cast in bronze in the beginning. That happened during the 14th century and larger, breech-loading cannons with integrated firing chambers came after and from that.
>>43592584
>Here comes the dragon who wields massive, multi-shot cannons to supplement their breath attack.
I am reminded of The Onion article where the US military introduced a new gunship in the form of a Chinook with a 155mm howitzer hanging by steel cable underneath it, fired by a guy hanging out the boarding ramp and pulling a cord.
>"'While the weapon system has proven remarkably effective in test runs, the largest problem has been finding volunteers to fire the weapon itself, as 'the recoil is a bit of a bitch.'"
>>43594427
>Early guns automatically pierce armour
Anon, plz.
>>43592125
I play Shadowrun, so yea.
>>43592125
Depends on the type of fantasy you're going for. Game of Thrones type fantasy doesn't need guns. Lord of the Rings doesn't need guns, although interestingly it did have explosives.
You can incorporate guns into fantasy perfectly fine, though. Especially the lower type of fantasy, where you can't just solve everything with wizards. Just set it in a Renaissance era.
>>43594740
Even early guns generate energy in excess of anything archers can produce. The limiting factor were the shitty aerodynamics of ball projectiles, but at least Hannes von Seldleck (sp? been years) suggested overcoming that problem by giving riders guns instead of crossbows and have them fire those at the distances they'd normally employ their crossbows at - which was pretty much up in the face of the dude they wanted dead. He strongly suggested getting guns over crossbows even. That was during the 1400s and in letters he wrote for a young relative of his concerning matters of war.
So yeah, at the distances your regular party engages their opponents, guns are going to be stupidly effective and would demand specific and expensive countermeasures in the form of quality helmets and armour.
>>43594663
That's a very PC way to upgrade a troop transport helicopter into a gunship.
>>43594893
>So yeah, at the distances your regular party engages their opponents, guns are going to be stupidly effective and would demand specific and expensive countermeasures in the form of quality helmets and armour.
Assuming a party of 4, each with a gun, that's 1 shot each, with probably a minimum reload time of 20 seconds. If they're carrying braces of pistols, they're still going to have to drop, draw, and aim to get another shot off, and they might have 2-4 pistols each. Keep in mind that those pistols aren't going to be cheap and are going to be less able to penetrate armor than a musket, not to mention that guns aren't super death rays that OHKO everything.
Early guns aren't really that good.
What did semi-early firearms, like flintlocks and stuff, actually cost?
>>43593343
>Plate armor doesn't protect against magic
>Implying warriors don't pray to their ancestors, put on war paint, and make sure to never break mirrors or walk under ladders before a fight, so magic has almost no effect on them
Literally scrub tier. Why is your magic and game such garbage?
>>43592125
They can work. Currently playing in a pre-steel world in my game however.
Here is the best guidelines I have found.
1. Nothing above flint lock. NO CAPLOCKS. Match locks should be most common, with Dwarven and Gnomish wheel lock and flint locks.
2. No Rifling. No rifled guns, meaning no grooved or spiral barrels which give you accuracy past 100ft.
3. No bayonets. Once you invent the bayonet the tension between missile troops or hand to hand troops is over. Let your muskets and your pikes each fill their roles. (English civil war is the best example of this distinction).
*you can do cartridges without mucking things up, even though they come from a later time frame but never let shells enter the selling
*also you can let that gaudy ranger/rouge have a looking glass sight. He is going to put it on a crossbow anyway
The best way to prevent most unwanted technology from entering your setting is to just to say that the metallurgy isn't good enough for that yet.
The way for a player to upgrade the technology is for a rouge to focus on the Craft skills: Locksmiths, Lens grinding, Clock-making, and Alchemy.
In my current setting firearms exist, but are relatively uncommon. Mostly because they are thought to be the weapons of anarchists and layabout pagan elf races, which they totally are. Because all the pagan layabout elves use them to shoot all the filthy gaijin invading their oh so perfect no government we all free inhabitants bullshit society.
>>43595130
Hey, sounds like those elves finally have something worth defending. Maybe we should try out that Anarchy thing?
>>43595106
>2. No Rifling. No rifled guns, meaning no grooved or spiral barrels which give you accuracy past 100ft.
This is one thing I don't agree with, since it soon spirals down into the 'lel guns r inakurate' memes, as well as rifling also being a dorf invention in my favored settings
Make them like kentucky long rifles, if anything.
In my setting, firearms are on the rise, and are being touted as the weapons of god. Said god is sponsoring the development of technology, because it taxes him a lot less than spreading his divine might around, and it lets him kill those disrespectful wizards a lot cheaper. Industrial spies have an unfortunate tendency to get hit by lightning.
The theocracy is coming.
>>43595171
Yes, I actually quite like how they came out though I'm not a fan of hippy bullshit. The idea for their creation was 'anarchy that actually works' and so it actually does, but they are pretty weak in other areas and are a bit cunty as most elves are.
The lands south of them are the religious leaders of the world, so their land is kind of like the cultural or governmental leaders of the world in the sense that everybody wants to be like them.
>>43594972
The main problem is ablative health turning characters into damage spongues here, not guns.
>Early guns aren't really that good.
Once again, they were good enough that somebody with experience suggested replacing crossbows with guns on specific units that relied on the crossbow's potential armour penetration and were not expected to get off a second shot during the engagement.
They were shit in comparison to rifled guns using minne projectiles with cased, smokeless power and chemical ignition, but blackpowder produces more energy than any other handheld and mobile weapon and impairs more of that energy onto its projectiles as well regardeless.
>>43594976
>flintlock
>literally the last step before chemical ignition became a thing
>semi-early
>>43595172
If you want to. But again does the setting have the metallurgy for that king of thing? Dwarves maybe, but human no.
>43595258
Do you know what they cost or not?
>>43594226
>dragons can be killed with enough musketeers
>dragons respond by raising their own standing armies in response.
>dragons with divergent interests start using their standing forces as mercenary companies
>ally with human, elf and orc kings their interests align with
>the draconic wars are basically the world's 30+ years wars as it all turns into a clusterfuck.
>>43594976
It's known that a musket in the late 1700s would cost about £2, which would be a bit less than $400 today.
Of course wages were also lower, so a direct conversion isn't the most useful figure. Proportionally, it might be more like a month's wages for an average laborer.
Rifles were exceedingly expensive and could cost four times as much or even more.
>>43594976
Cheaper than crossbows and english warbows (which required a special grade of wood), the gunpowder was the killer (it takes one oz to fire a matchlock, and I get prices from 6d to 18d a shot depending on the direness of the situation, which in d&d terms means probably about 5 to 15sp per shot). A musket would be one pound and then some (the first breechloading rifles were considered stupidly expensive at prices around 5 pounds apiece and my usual assumption is that 1 gp is more or less 1 shilling in D&D at least).
>>43595106
Rifling vastly predates caplocks though. Wheellock rifles existed (I like having elves use wheellock rifles as their standard infantry rifle)
Yea I say. The new weapon of the civilised world that they'll beat back the forces of savagery and darkness with.
>>43595448
>a powder invented by people trying to invent an elixir of youth
>guns made by people who considered washing once a month good hygiene and whose understanding of metallurgy would make a grade schooler cringe
>improvements brought about by people trying to turn lead into gold
There was nothing scientific about the invention of guns.
>>43595385
>>43595393
Thank you, that is very helpful. I'm trying to change the gun prices in WFRP so that guns turn into less of underperforming money sinks. As it stands, longbows are cheaper, have better range, comparable damage and are equally hard to learn, but cost 1/10th as much.
>>43595478
>engineers are scientists
Don't project your own stupidity on others, Anon.
You know, considering alchemy is a form of magic in D&D I'm surprised people havn't figured a way for gunpowder to be magical in and of itself.
Imagin if magical beast start eating or coming into contact with it and it starts to change them. In Monster hunter there is a Elder Dragon called Gogmazios that is said to eat gunpowder and you have another monster like Teostra that shoots burning dust or embers out of it's mouth or even better if you had something like a Brachydios that has body fluids that explode when exposed to air.
>>43595385
Assuming we're using 1770 as a base year, it'd take 27 day's wages to buy a musket.
http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/ukearncpi/earnstudynew.pdf
I really like the concept of a +1 blessed shotgun. In general applying fantasy weapon conventions to modern weapons could be cool.
>>43595778
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8hvyjZWHs
I like the thematic shift they provide, at least in systems where firearms are actually as lethal as expected. Or at least beliviably so. I'm perfectly fine with PCs not dying from a single gutshot, but I just want them to have an effect, at least. If you're shot, that's bad news.
I like that it takes away much of the power fantasy and puts in some reason, so to speak. With swords, it's easy to get into this power fantasy that if you're good enough, it won't matter how many enemies stand before you. You'll still win. But with guns, they tend to take it down a notch. In short, I like the fact that guns in a well made system are actually impactful when used and what that means for the game. You can still have heroics and heroic deeds in something with guns, but it's gonna require a lot more human approach. Can't just rush in there and be so good that you kill everyone. You're gonna have to actually react.
Have been thinking of homebrewing a fantasy game set in some part of the gunpowder era. Wild west stuff might work, or possibly pirate stuff. Musketeers, maybe. Problem is, they tend to be very romanticized. Might have to think about it some more.
>>43597045
>Can't just rush in there and be so good that you kill everyone.
Haven't seen many westerns or 80s action movies, have you?
>>43597131
Sure. And that's why I keep saying "In systems where they're done well."
There's plenty of systems where rushing in swinging a sword is gonna get you killed as well. Doesn't change the fact that guns are easier to make feel actually dangerous and decisive than swords.
>>43592125
My favorite is when somebody wants to make a gritty, realistic, low fantasy game where there are no firearms even at the most basic level (despite there being cannons and other explosives,) claiming that they are anachronistic to a medieval setting, while simultaneously allowing plate armour, two-handed swords, fencing weapons, and shit like pistol-crossbows.
I love them in grittier settings.
WFRP is amazing.
>>43597246
Hey now, my professional assassin with leather supple, form-fitting armor and buckles up the ass, dual-wielding hand crossbows and using hidden blades is totally legit. Firearms though? Naw man, that shit is unrealistic.
>>43597246
>hand crossbows
Players who ask for that or repeating crossbows usually get told very snappily to use the firearms rules I gave them.
>>43597297
Buff coats are alright in all honesty distant relative
>>43597360
This is pretty fucking far from a buff coat, though. Remember, an assassin is always supposed to dress and arm himself so that people know he's an assassin!
>>43597399
I once had a player in my game who went for this shit absolutely 100%. Edgy as fuck, grimdark up the ass, dressed in buckles and black leather and masks and so many fucking daggers that he would have made an excellent (if angsty) knife rack.
He got pissy as fuck when everyone instantly recognized him to be an assassin, since he was "being subtle" about it and there was no way anyone could have known how he was totally an assassin you guys.
He really loved Assassin's Creed games, unsurprisingly.
>>43597399
The assassins didn't become feared legends by being subtle.
>>43597453
>get to Saladin's tent
>just leave a note that says "If I wanted to, you'd be dead"
>not subtle
The assassins were incredibly good at making sure they had their people infiltrated everywhere.
>>43597453
Yes they did. If they weren't subtle, they were fucking dead before they could do anything. If you couldn't at least get close to the target (usually done by not drawing undue attention by dressing in a way that shouts I AM AN ASSASSIN I KILL PEOPLE) or otherwise operate in unnoticed ways, you weren't killing anyone.
Even the retarded, angry dissident hired to stab a local ruler to death had to at least get close enough that he could rush the fucker and stab them to death. You're not getting anywhere looking like that. And stealth? Better fucking forget it, that much metal is going to make you jingle like a fucking christmas tree. It's also going to make it impossible to actually be agile and quiet.
>>43597555
>William of Orange - shot point blank in the stomach by a man disguised as a monk
>Henry III and IV of France, both stabbed by men disguised as monks
>>43597399
I think the issue with "Assassin" type characters in a game about adventuring and killing monsters/other superpowered people is that it requires a very different skill set than targeting mundane fuckers sitting on their throne. A Hobgoblin is going to fucking kill you if they find you in the middle of their base regardless of if you look like a peasant, so are most wizard minions. I think of assassins in adventuring parties more along the lines of No More Heroes type assassins, people who are just really good at murder and cleaning up(or have other people do it for them).
>>43597616
And both of those men were subtle. That's the point. Even if your endgame is to simply fucking kill the man in plain sight as brutally and quickly as possible, you're gonna want to get close enough to do it. For example, by dressing up as a monk.
Very, very few people have ever actually relied on simply not being seen at all when wanting to kill someone death. In real life, it's just not gonna be feasible most of the time. In real life, guards don't have vision cones so narrow that standing next to them will make you practically invisible, and civilians aren't simply going to ignore you fingering a crossbow and casting glances at the ruler. Sure, actually going unseen has happened, but that's usually some fucker finding a good hidey spot and then killing the target when nobody notices. Like that unknown asshole who killed king Wenceslaus III by hiding in his toilet and stabbing him up the ass when he went for a shit, then getting out of there.
>>43597641
If only that were so. Very often, these "assassins" are also assassinating people. And portrayed as very, very lethal when they do it, a la Assassin's Creed (though the cliche itself is much older, the games provide a very good example of it).
And even if you were to kill hobgoblins in their home, and had to do it by sneaking in there for some reason, you sure as fuck wouldn't equip yourself in a way that would actively hinder you. Strapping a ton of knives, swords, pouches and leather to yourself is a great way to make noise and be as cumbersome as possible.
>>43597552
Great job citing probably the only time they didn't just bumrush and stab someone in broad daylight. Surely isn't just some bullshit story made up by a faction of notorious bullshitters and propagandists either.
This complaint about fantasy assassins is such a crock of shit. You're talking about worlds where warriors hit up the local taverns fully armed and armoured, wizards flying around town stocking up on pocket lint and animal waste and wildmen druids and rangers talking to their new animal friends in the town square. But somehow in this world the town guard loses their shit when some skinny dork in black leather comes in with them? Watch out lads he's surely here to kill local authority and absolute nobody Mayor Bumwad, nevermind that all these other adventures could raze the town with an arm behind their back if they wanted to - it's this sneaky guy we have to watch out for! Yes we better keep an eye on the guy who scouts and picks locks for a bunch of adventurers too lazy to have a magical summon do it.
>>43597916
All of these things would get PCs run out of town, arrested or killed in my game. Get on my level, scrub.
>>43597916
>Great job citing probably the only time they didn't just bumrush and stab someone in broad daylight.
And to do that you still need to be close enough, you can't look like >>43597399.
You have avoid looking suspect a least for your way in. Then you rush the guy, kill him, and wait for you own death because you won't have any way out.
>>43597768
>Very often, these "assassins" are also assassinating people
It's because once you're targeting Orc warlords, the town guard can't really do shit. In the case of "target with PC levels" vs 'Assassin", your entering another thing entirely.
>n, you sure as fuck wouldn't equip yourself in a way that would actively hinder you. Strapping a ton of knives, swords, pouches and leather to yourself is a great way to make noise and be as cumbersome as possible.
Hey, maybe, just maybe, this is game about incredibly skilled heroes and villains. Maybe, just maybe there just that fucking good.
Or you could be a bitch and say, "lel magic".
>>43597916
and nizam al-mulk
and sanjar tapar.
leaving a note about how they could have killed them was their whole thing. just killing them leaves you with a pissed off kingdom.
>>43598032
>thinking you can just do things to PCs without it turning into an atrocity recalled throughout the ages forevermore
I bet you run one of those "you're smelly dirt farmers and you exist to suffer" games
>>43595385
How much would a sword or other weapon cost, for comparison?
>>43598188
Or you could have town guards be an actual threat to the PCs. Considering the sheer number of monsters, bandits, and murderhobos waffling about the average game setting having the guards be some weak-ass schmucks doesn't cut it.
>>43597552
>>just leave a note that says "If I wanted to, you'd be dead"
It wasn't a note, the hashashin baked a certain cake so if you woke up with one in your room you knew they had been there. Much more terrifying than a note.
>>43599010
>Assassin cakes
Were they good?
>>43599080
a cake to die for.
>>43592125
>Gunpowder?
Yes. Petards, small bombs, anyway.
>Full on firearm-toting armies?
Less so. I don't mind there being the odd dwarven arquebus in my setting, but too much is just too much.And yes, I am aware that weaponised gunpowder was reasonably prevalent in the not-even-that-late-medieval period.
>>43592125
yea
Friendly reminder that hand-held guns have been around longer than full plate.
On a similar topic, why does fantasy hardly ever have brigandines? These things are sexy as hell. Pillars of Eternity remembering their existence gave me a mighty erection.
>>43593343
I never really understood how armor wouldn't provide any protection against magic. I can understand it not protecting against electrical attacks but I can imagine it preventing a fireball from cooking the flesh, blocking spikes made of ice and a ton of other magical missiles and such.
>>43599938
something something Magic something something Shit.
I don't know, some abstract notion of balance?
>>43599736
Because from the outside, they don't look particularly protective.
Fantasy loves chainmail and plate because they're obviously armor. A bridgandine just looks like a fancy vest with little studs on it.
I'm ok with them as long as they have all the disadvantages of primitive firearms. Unreliable, slow to load, very unreliable in wet weather. Have to keep a matchlock lit (exposing your position at night). They are best suited for mass warfare.
>>43592125
Well, I always hated the fact that fantasy is often confined to medieval or earlier tech, so I have no reason to say no.
>>43600103
>unreliable
Not really
>very unreliable in wet weather
Even a matchlock will fire in mist, a wheel and flintlock can handle a light drizzle, which is better than a bow which will get rekt if you shoot it under the rain
>Exposing your position at night
Nobody did shit under cover of night without some light
>Slow to load
Not that much slower than effective battlefield use of bows by the 18th century, and crossbows don't get realistic load times either
>best suited for mass warfare
Which is why every people on earth switched to guns as soon as they could except the one european country that obsessed to the point of absurdity over massed archery
>>43600033
>vest with little studs on it
Did studded leather come from people having no idea what brigandine was?
>>43600256
Exactly what studded leather is, really.
>>43600256
Yes.
>>43600271
Studded leather isn't Brig
>>43600301
Yes, studded leather is literally brig.
>>43600340
Studded Leather is D&D speak for an imaginary shit armor one step up from Curboli.
Actually Brig would be closer to plate armor in protection.
That is why studded leather isn't brig. Studded leather was believed to literally be leather with metal studs no metal plates at all.
I am sure you will continue to argue and I will have to break out copypasta of every edition of D&D from 1st to 5th where the term was used. Gygax and Arneson got it from Victorian arms and armour texts.
>>43600394
Except a brig as light as studded leather would be nowhere near that protective. A jack of places, where it's larger plates, maybe. It's basically fancy medieval scale armor at best.
And fwiw, I just prefer to refluff the three leathers as light, medium and heavy buff coat when I want to avoid arguments with history nerds.
>>43600216
>Which is why every people on earth switched to guns as soon as they could except the one european country that obsessed to the point of absurdity over massed archery
The English were slow and sporadic in adopting firearms but not completely backwards. The Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547 was the last major victory the English won with longbows (though they also had a shitload of cannons, including warships firing from just offshore, and some Italian mercenary mounted arquebusiers) but firearms were used in large numbers as far back as the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.
>>43592125
Depends on the setting, the period, the region and civilization.
>>43592125
If I play a setting advanced enough for full plate then its not unreasonable to want an arquebus
>>43600033
It always struck me as weird why fantasy authors went for weirdly constructed titplate instead of allowing female characters to unbuckle their brigandine or lamellar at the top and loosen the lacing on their aketon or arming doublet. It's really dissapointing google doesn't show results for women in brigandines, especially how it emphasises the hips. Looks like my perverted yet autistic needs will go unsated.
>>43601963
They're really hard to find but some exist, you just need to get lucky and look character are on deviantart for the one person who went for more realistic armor options.
>>43593499
guns work well for no-magic characters and hit harder than most bows or crossbows. and as an alchemist, you can pretty much build a lot of nasty special ammunitions.
it is like a spell you can keep in an ammo box
>>43602218
Even magic chars. If your magic doesn't include attack spells (or you don't want to bother with attack spells) why not pack a pair of pistols or a musket, maybe all three. Hell even if you know a few combat spells why not pack this on your horse for when you don't feel like it.
And magic varies a lot between settings. Even some 3.5 direct and indirect attack spells are of questionable value in somewhat realistic mass combat, and became moreso in 5th edition, where your level 20 wizard can probably at best be used for counterbattery fire)
>>43592125
only if the setting is a 17th century pseudo-historical setting, and firearms are shitty and muzzle loading.
MGs might be a bit overpowered. but then, hey, so is magic so should be fine.
A WW1 game with magic would be hilarious.
The idea that there can be anything excluded from fantasy (taken on the whole as a genre, specific works can include or exclude whatever is appropriate) is frankly kind of silly.
>>43592125
Every fantasy settings with firearms that isn't modern-day or futuristic instantly becomes the wild west in function.
>>43603150
How so?
>>43595172
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9H9cQT1i1c
An interesting discussion of rifles vs. smoothbore muskets in a military context. Mechanically, rifles should take a lot longer to load for one. Care and feeding of a rifle should be more difficult than a muzzle loader.
>>43603271
Because apparently telling your players "no you can't advance tech by 3-4 centuries on your own, this isn't how science and metallurgy work" is apparently too hard for some DMs.
Or because anon has no culture and doesn't realize there is an entire adventure genre with some fantasy included that deals with 16th-17th century stuff, and that musketeers, as good as they were with a sword, are named after their primary battlefield weapon, not after a passing flight of fancy.
>>43603296
Sure, but all told, if you saddled all ranged weapons with the same restrictions, bows and crossbows would also not be shootable as fast as they often are depicted.
>>43603296
Urgh. Read smoothbore for muzzle loader at the end.
>>43598642
And then you get into the retardation of exponential guards and guards ending up a railroading tool because they have to be an actual threat to the PCs.
A bunch of guys who go around fighting, exploring dangerous tombs, and being active constantly are going to be stronger then a bunch of enlisted fucks who sit in a city.
>>43599736
But D&D does have brigandine, they just call it studded leather because the guy who added it to the game didn't know what the picture he was looking at actually depicted.
>>43592125
Yeah why not
Got a sort of pirate-y themed setting I'm playing around with in FantasyCraft, and pirates just aren't pirates without at least having flintlocks available.
>>43592125
It works in Warhammer Fantasy.
>>43592766
>dung collector
Even my rat catcher thinks you're lower class.
>>43604920
>dung collector
>has a pimpin' carro
>works on the outside, chance to tip my shit covered hat to ladies.
>get dosh selling dung for fields and fires
>allow people to poo outside the loo without consequences.
>have fearless as a starting talent
Rat catcher
>works on sewers like jew dwarf
>eats rats
>chance to get his balls ripped by giant rat
Yeah, no.
>>43594663
>I am reminded of The Onion article where the US military introduced a new gunship in the form of a Chinook with a 155mm howitzer
You mean the Boeing test.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/o5tom2b6n1n15x5/
>>43593481
Awful awful art, the arms come out of the body so awkwardly
>>43594663
Amazon prime delivers ogre giant assault rifle.
>>43605099
That scene was always weird. In among all this future tech was a regular Apache, just hauling robot guns around.
>>43601963
>Looks like my perverted yet autistic needs will go unsated.
>>43605469
With a full set of Hellfire Missiles and rocketpods to boot.
> Player gets pissed that there are guns in this setting
> "It's not realistic! They didn't have guns in the Middle Ages!"
> Pull out Joan of Arc's letters and show him where she asked the Dauphin for gunpowder
> He quiets down
> Later
> Party discovers a handgun that has a grapeshot secondary fire option
> The bitching begins again
> Ask him when dark elves invaded Britain
>>43592125
No.
PERIOD.
>>43607347
Why not?
>>43592125
Yeah, early gunpowder tech is fun.
>>43592125
Yes, obviously. Best (late medieval) Period requires guns.
>>43605030
> he doesn't even have a small but vicious dog
Stay pleb, poop wrangler.
Yay! I love it when firearms are included in a fantasy setting, especially when balanced with the upkeep required to keep such a thing functioning. Gives players something to do during camp, adds to the ambient-ness.
Something about two characters talking about the day's adventure just seems more fantastic when one of them is cleaning their firearm.
>>43594326
Didn't they retcon that whole shivering isles nonsense? I haven't heard Jyg referenced in any latter works
>>43592125
The worth of a Fighter isn't its AC, or its extra Feats. It's the ability to fire three rounds per minute in any weather.
>>43607790
>mfw there was no shrine to Jyggalag in Skyrim
>>43607876
>>43607790
No, they just left it open to interpretation as to what happens. They do reference that it all still happened when Sheo makes a passing reference the the 'whole sordid affair'.
>>43600033
>Fantasy loves chainmail
Well, it was used for a pretty long time in history and by various people.
>>43592125
Depends on the setting.
>>43599736
Because they look gay as hell.
>>43592125
Nay
>>43607995
Unlike plate, right?
>>43608046
Nothing gay at all.
>your Alchemist/rogue will never fight her enemies with her trusty airgun axe
>>43594511
>Malacath was already a Prince, he was just twisted into something else
Wrong, he was Trinimac, who was an Aedric Et'Ada who had a very essential role during Convention and was the one who ripped Lorkhan apart by order of Aka-Tusk/Auriel
Rolled 3 (1d6)
>>43608046
I'd suck that.
>>43608371
>Dragonero
My Nigga.
>>43597360
>repeating crossbows
Those very much existed you dongle mongol. And they were fucking awesome as shit.
>>43608832
>And they were fucking awesome as shit.
They seem to be a gift that keeps on giving. This one was actually found in a Warring States tomb.
Yes, it's a repeating pistol crossbows that launches two darts with every cycle.
Ancient chinese home defence.
>>43609061
...but the Koreans were like: NOT ENOUGH PUNCH IN THIS MUTHA and made a rifle-sized one with a composit bow.
>not having a Japanese gun sabre as your weapon
The grip's a gun barrel that opens towards the butt. Stuff it with fine birdshot and shoot a dude before you unsheath your Katana in order to teleport behind him.
>>43592163
A little bit of gunpowder destroys the climate?
>>43609752
...Dragon's breath (magnesium pellets in the gunpowder), flechettes or chain balls are also an option.
>>43592125
>Firearms in fantasy
sure, why not?Admittedly I may not be a good point of reference as I'm an American, and firearms are common sights in American myth, legend, and Folktales, so there inclusion seems normal to me.And yes, for me, there is a difference between being an "American" and a "murrican"
>>43592125
Fantasy is a broad fucking term. In high fantasy that other-wise revolves around the concept of idealized middle ages complete with the concepts of chivalry and all the romantic elements that go with it?
No, fuck off with that.
But I don't see why we could not have fantasy set or inspired by other eras than classic middle ages.
I'm a massive world-building nerd, what I'm building could be called fantasy, and firearms play a central role in it.
Like everything else, it's about HOW you use it, not whenever you can use it. 90% of the time I see it used, it fucking sucks and feels forced and out of place, but then again, 90% of all fantasy is already trash to begin with and the mishandling of firearms is just a symptom of a greater problem, not a problem in and off itself.
They exist but are seldom used in actual warfare. The negatives far outweigh the positives when the opposing force has wizards. Even a single decently trained war wizard can ignite an enemy powderkeg and take out a significant portion of their artillery.
Firearms are mostly owned by farmers, hunters, and noblemen. They're expensive to purchase so a well-off peasant family will likely only have a single musket passed down from generation to generation. More as symbols of heraldry than practical weaponry. That being said, when raiders come to town, all the villagers rally behind the guy with the gun.
>>43609840
They're a common sight in European folklore too, you know.
>>43592125
If I put in firearms I have to put in cannon (because they're simpler to produce, and people in my settings aren't fucking retards) and if I put in cannon people aren't going to be too worried about most big monsters are they?
Guns and cannon make the setting boring, and usually require you to either make them silly as fuck for "balance" reasons or to make your shitty fluff not dumb.
Putting guns and cannon in most fantasy settings is LOADS more work and a lot less fun than putting magic in gunpowder settings.
>>43610324
>They're a common sight in European folklore too, you know.
honestly I didn't, most of the old legends I've read that have come out of Europe seem to either predate firearms or don't include them.
>>43609959
That greater problem being an endemic tendency towards wholesale follow the leader copy-catting that happens right now to produce a fucktonne of shitty 3/4e D&D style settings with a heavy focus on making WOAH SO COOL characters that slickly climb walls, do a backflip and shoot the big bad bully king in the head with fucking pistol crossbows. Rather than actual flawed characters with personalities the reader might understand and relate with, instead of try to put themselves in the shoes of.
For some reason I associate this with tumblr, but that's probably just because so many artists go on tumblr all the shit ones end up there too. Oh, and yes, I mad. I fucking hate perfect characters; I always end up identifying with the poor bastards they kill with one flick of their pinky fingers.
>>43610365
Cannons & Dragons sounds pretty fun to me to be quite honest
>>43610393
Grimms fairy tales nigga. Soldiers and huntsmen are often main characters, and *they* often have guns.
>>43610365
M8 you need to read War of the Worlds if you think having canons just makes all the big monsters disappears. Bearing in mind that was set six centuries later.
>>43610400
>Rather than actual flawed characters with personalities the reader might understand and relate with, instead of try to put themselves in the shoes of.
I think this actually just scratches the surface of a much bigger problem, really, but I'm not sure if I want to get into a preachy rant of my own here.
Suffice to say I don't think the problem is in the self-glorifying awesome characters per se, but rather a wider problem of "I have no fucking idea what I'm doing here" among so many fantasy writers, who just have no thought-through plan of what and why they are making.
>>43610393
Myths and legends - old legends, sure. But honestly most of the commonly known folklore in the majority of europe was collected in the second half of 19th century - and folklore does not conserve itself.
>>43610365
>I put in cannon people aren't going to be too worried about most big monsters are they?
That is some serious leap of logic there.
>>43610433
Yes, because ogres and dinosaurs are totally the same as GIANT MARTIAN WAR MACHINES WITH DEATHRAYS.
Your comment is so dumb that I honestly have no idea if it's genuine or bait.
>>43610512
>Giant Martian war machines
Roughly equivalent to Dragons, yo.
>>43610512
You obviously don't know what the big problem with those war machines was, then.
They were too fast. They couldn't aim their artillery at them, because they'd fire a test shot and by then the machine would've moved a hundred metres away.
In any case, no, there's not a whole lot of difference between GIANT MARTIAN WAR MACHINES WITH DEATHRAYS and GIANT FLYING LIZARD WITH FIRE BREATH.
>>43610512
Attack on titan is only a decent anime, but they had cannons and look how much good it did them. You need to make your monsters stronger than cannons.
>>43610512
>dragons are dinosaurs
dude wat
>>43610491
>That is some serious leap of logic there.
Why? Guns give normal people the power to kill great warriors and giant animals or big monsters without really being particularly special or heroic.
How is it a leap of logic to assume that unless people are retarded, there aren't going to be a lot of ogres or whatever around if the villagers have guns? Or that "dragon problems" will really just be an exercise in getting cannon and grapeshot up a mountain?
>inb4 posting retarded D&D ancient supersayan dragon stats or neutronium golems
>>43610571
>Cannon don't work on giant humanoids for reasons, only swords do.
Amazing argument, I am convinced.
>>43610591
>Why? Guns give normal people the power to kill great warriors and giant animals or big monsters without really being particularly special or heroic.
Spike pits did that trick for thousands of years. Works better with heavier animals even. Rocks do the trick as well. It's even a story in a pretty famous Song of Ice and Fire-style fantasy novel.
>>43610512
>>43610582
>GIANT MARTIAN WAR MACHINES WITH DEATHRAYS.
They call them "Beholders" in D&D.
>>43610591
You know, crossbows do almost the same exact thing as firearms, and nearly no one complains about them being included.
>>43610591
You are an idiot.
First of all: it's up to YOU, THE FUCKING WORLD BUILDER to decide whenever guns harm ogres or not. Because an ogre is a fantastic creature and it will exactly those proprieties and abilities that you give on him.
Monsters in general are an embodiment of a threat itself. You are here suggesting that threats dissapeared from the world when guns were brought into question? Are you fucking mental? Do you have any idea how many dragon and ogre and troll stories have been invented LONG after guns became a social common place?
Heroism did not dissapear when guns entered the fray. Neither did threat and fear of things beyond your control, of your environment turning against you.
What you are really telling us here is that you are an absolute moron with no imagination, or knowledge of folklore and mythology, just with a few dumb, riggid "cannonic" ideas of how fantasy should work and imposing them on others. So congrats on your headcannon about all of fantasy, but it's time you grew up.
>>43595106
I disagree.
Due to the rate of fire, and what you can do with it, plus with range and other factors, the only thing you really have is a higher damage crossbow to start.
You can have percussion cap, you can have cap and ball, and you can even have paper cartridges (better than spending an action to reload each round when it takes seconds to notch an arrow or a bolt).
Fact is that other than damage factor and flavor, they really don't change MUCH and you don't have to nerf them down in a setting with magical automatons. They're going to face the same issues as any ranged weapon, plus all the other noise factors they'll create. So, bad as stealth weapons.
So let them have Sharps rifles.
>>43610591
>Guns give normal people the power to kill great warriors and giant animals or big monsters without really being particularly special or heroic.
I dunno man, hitting a moving dragon with a really slow to move and load artillery piece seems pretty special. That's some Annie Oakley shit right there.
>>43594244
Ari Ari Ari Arrivederci!!!
>>43610694
>using immoral and unchivalrous weaponry
>>43610633
Canons don't work well on the titans because of their regenerative abilities, and the canons are difficult to aim at the nape of the neck of the titan, which is their weak point. The people swinging around on cables slashing about don't make a whole lot of sense, admittedly, which is why heat was nowhere near the point I was getting at. It seems like you just saw the name of an anime you don't like (how would you know? You haven't seen it) and decided to not read the part of my post that was germaine to the discussion. You get a D- for reading comprehension, you dumb faggot.
Make your monsters stronger than canons or stop complaining.
>>43610633
>Cannon don't work on giant humanoids for reasons
Those reasons being that you have to hit a small spot on the back of their neck to kill them. Blowing holes in them does diddly; you need that killshot.
Would you care to try aiming a cannon at a small part on the back side of a monster that runs faster than you can?
>>43610030
I do this the opposite way. The reason why guns are used is as anti-mage weapons. Wizards can bat aside bows and crossbow bolts using opposite forces on the projectile, but bullets are far too fast for them to be able to do that.
Wizards can't cast spells on things they cant see, and a gunpowder horn and the gunpowder inside the gun is too difficult to cast spells on. Many mage-hunters draw symbols or carry trinkets that raise their spell resistance to avoid this problem as well.
Personally I think the 'Mage blows up the gunpowder' thing is lazy, because if you can claim they can just ignite gunpowder at a distance why can't they just ignite a person? Or start a tiny flame in their lungs? It's dumb.
>>43611048
Magic's effectiveness scales down with the range of the spell. Unless you're a badass wizard, a tiny spark from miles away is all you're going to get, which is all you need for the powderkeg. The reason you can't always just start a fire inside someone's brain or lungs from so far away is because human beings and other sapient forms of life have a soul. The soul acts as a sort of semi-permeable membrane for magic. Unless you're especially puisant, your magic will penetrate no further than the target's skin.
Besides, most fighting forces don't include musket artillery for the stated reasons, so the point is somewhat moot. To the point where if you actually did bring a bunch of musketeers it might take the enemy by surprise and give you an upper hand, but that shit only works once.
>>43611048
I kind of cheated in my justification for mages and guns in the same setting. I just stole the real-world reason for having bows and guns in the same setting. Mages are fucking good, better than any arquebusier...but they're also worth ten times as much as that arquebusier. And they take thirty years of good training to approach combat levels, too. *Much* better to put them to good use producing the cartridges necessary to create the gun's blast. There's a huge demand for them in the less magically focused nations, too. All over the world.
>>43611205
So why don't mages just ignite clothing? Melt armor? Burn bowstrings? Ignite fletching? Set hair on fire?
Etc etc etc
>>43611205
>that shit only works once.
You'd be very surprised.
People took for fucking ever to adapt to large changes in tactic and environment. Look at how people reacted to the Mongols, or Gustavus Adolphus' reforms, or the entirety of the First World War.
>>43604913
Don't you mean Warhammer: Age of Sigmar?
>>43611290
Nothing works for Warhammer: Age of Sigmar.
Well my homebrew setting is fantasy with rare and ancient sci-fi technology like cybernetics and robots and laser rifles from the human civilization that dominated the planet in ages past...
So yay not just on guns, but yay on plasma rifles, rail guns, and nanites in my fantasy!
>>43611278
They do. That's what war wizards are for. But the hotter the flame required, the closer you need to be, and each of your examples kill only a single person while exploding a barrel of gunpowder can kill lots of people.
>>43611280
The difference is that firearms aren't new. It would be the equivalent of bringing a bow and arrow unit to French foxholes in WW1.
Now that I'm typing that out, I don't know that nobody brought bows and arrows to French foxholes. If someone knows if that happened or not, let me know.
>>43611561
>The difference is that firearms aren't new
Yeah, but horseback archers weren't anything new to the Chinese or Eastern Europeans. Mongols still fucked them up.
>Now that I'm typing that out, I don't know that nobody brought bows and arrows to French foxholes
Well, not for the First World War at least. But as ever, Mad Jack brought a longbow to D-Day, and Digby Tatham-Warter disabled an armoured car with his umbrella.
>>43611280
>or the entirety of the First World War.
...you mean that war in which the French and Brits tried digging, improved their artillery tactics by technological and organizational means, produced gas grenades to counter the gas the Germans were spraying at them and finally deployed tanks to break the stalemate?
Meanwhile, the Germans tried Paris-guns, gas and Sturmtruppen and tactical long-rage bombing with Zeppelins.
Oh, and aircrafts went from "LOLNIGGA YOU CANT PUT GUNS ON AIRFRAMES" to heavy bombers raiding factories behind enemy lines.
And all of that within maybe four year's time.
>or Gustavus Adolphus' reforms
What's more remarkable about G's war effort is that he managed to have his troops steal whole forests and ship them back to Sweden while waging a war.
>>43611632
You're right. The Mongols were pretty hardcore. I won't deny that. It would make sense for armies to arm their guerilla combatants with muskets to slip past the enemies wizard ranks. Tactics will usually outplay technology, as Sun Tzu once said.
>Disabled An armored car with his umbrella.
I hope they buried him in medals and blowjobs. What a pimp.
>>43611725
Yes, I know the First World War anon. I was referring to the fact that that *took* four years, and more specifically that people were marched across the Somme into machine guns more than once. I.e. it took more than one instance of new situations for people to react.
>>43611748
>I hope they buried him in medals and blowjobs. What a pimp.
He retired to his estates in Kenya. When the Mau-Mau uprising happened, he raised a volunteer mounted police force against them. He also apparently invented the concept of the modern safari where you take pictures of animals rather than shoot them.
>>43611880
>and more specifically that people were marched across the Somme into machine guns more than once.
That was part of improving artillery tactics, cyincally speaking. They had more success after the Entente had learned to map out as many artillery and machine-gun-positions as possible rather than to simply wing it. What's more, the creeping barrages had only been perfected far enough to be workable around 1917. But then again, the story of the brass sitting on their hands doing nothing IS the standard story told in Anglo pop history.
>>43612052
>the story of the brass sitting on their hands doing nothing IS the standard story told in Anglo pop history.
Not at all. Nowadays it's all "Oi those Eighties faggots sure gave Haig a bad shake, in reality he was just a fish-out-of-water trying to deal with an unknown situation who fared about as well as many others in his situation".
>>43612052
There were a lot of defective artillery shells too. As many as two-thirds of the shells the British fired were defective in some way.
>>43592125
Not really. I'm fine with canons. Even "hand canons" which are generally impractical "guns" firing small canonballs that takes 5 minutes to clean out and reload. But for guns I only include them rarely if it fits the general atmosphere and even then is generally a small race specific thing. Like maybe Dwarves use them and they're not all that great but its their thing.
How do you handle reload times fairly if you decide to include early firearms in your setting?
>>43612100
I blame the Scottish.
>>43613214
Have the reloads take a long time like usual and encourage carrying backup weapons, probably. (Whether melee weapons or just extra guns)
>>43611561
I don't know about arrows, but a lot of soldiers made makeshift grenade catapults for the small-scale indirect fire niche. A roman engineer would probably loathe their crudeness, but there you are.
>>43610365
Most cannons were only good against standing targets for most of their early history. I'm not even sure when they started being used against infantry instead of castle walls.
If cannons are widespread, they're probably going to only be used in siege and countersiege. Things like traditional medieval weaponry and magic would still be a lot better for taking out a fairly fast dragon or giant.
>>43613214
The same way a heavy crossbow would be handled in the system. If it's "you can fire only once per turn", same deal with firearms, for example.
>>43613832
Not really the same effect. You can only attack with a sword once too. Shouldn't a heavy crossbow or a firearm take like 3 turns?
>>43613862
>He can't attack with a sword 3 times in one round
>>43593499
You don't need to spend your life training, studying, and forsaking your martial training to light a fuse.
>>43613781
Actually, a scenario where high level heroes aren't available, so you have to immobilize the dragon/whatever long enough to allow a canon to shoot him down, could be fun.
>>43610591
Look at Monster Hunter and derivatives. The beasts of the world are so fucking strong that even people WITH guns can't handle them efficiently. You need specialists who are trained in whatever manner suits them.
>>43614191
The problem is when people say that there is no monster or threat that could be fought by high level heroes that cannon and other guns would be better, even if the world building goes out of its way to try to stop that.
>>43609752
>>43609798
You have my attention, tell me more.
>>43610591
>Why? Guns give normal people the power to kill great warriors and giant animals or big monsters without really being particularly special or heroic.
Stop, just stop. Go do some reading on hunting man-eaters, or just dangerous game in general.
Monsters are still monsters no matter how many guns your party is toting.
>>43611561
>It would be the equivalent of bringing a bow and arrow unit to French foxholes in WW1.
Disregard bows, acquire altitude
>>43615686
Bugger me side-wise with a pickelhaube, but do I love this series, men.
Kobolds with early firearms
This is how I want to fantasy
>>43612084
Not in the popular understanding of history it's not. Most British historians take a balanced view today, but the average person on the street here unquestioningly accepts the narratives from Blackadder Goes Forth and The Donkeys, and many get pretty shirty if you try to say otherwise.
It's the exact opposite with WWII mind, where "we won the war" is the mantra as if the USSR and USA were just taking care of the sideshows, and Dunkirk was a triumph over the Germans.
Fuck this gay country.
>>43613247
It was us Americans.
We were selling so many shells we'd sometimes run out of explosive and use sawdust as filler instead.
Really it's all Europe's fault, though, for only having a few weeks of shells stocked.
>>43608371
>>43608642
Does anyone know a place I can find english pdfs?
>>43615913
Nigga that's the literal opposite of what we were taught in secondary school, which I think is a pretty good indicator of what the current pop history is.
The whole point of the WWI bit was learning that those silly buggers just after the war all felt like Haig was a hero because they didn't want to upset the families of the guys who died, and then once they'd all kicked the bucket the next generation tore him a new one as a kind of backlash (Blackadder is used as an example, because what school kid -- and teacher -- isn't going to use that as an excuse to watch something on T.V.?), and then that nowadays we have a more balanced view. And then we're told to show our own perspective with sources, as if we're not just going to parrot what they told us to.
For WWII we mostly focused on the US and the USSR, so that bit's right out the window. We also did Dunkirk -- about how it was a myth and was mostly just a retreat using the Royal Navy.
So, pop history's better than you think it is. It's still shit, though. People legitimately think stuff like "oh that Henry VIII chap wasn't very nice, was he?".
>>43615913
You think that's bad? There's Australians who think we won at Gallipoli
>>43610365
If you manage to hit a dragon with a barely movable siege weapon made for knocking down castle walls, then you deserve that kill as far as I'm concerned. Stuff slow enough to take out with cannons can probably be taken out with a big ditch full of spikes anyway.
>>43620928
How...I...what?
We have so much shit about how Gallipoli was a horrific loss.
I mean we have 'The Band Played Waltzing Maltilda'...
Idiots.
>>43592125
Depends on the setting.
Yay if it fits, nay if it doesn't.
My problem with guns is that it doesn't feel like there's a way to balance them properly. They either feel like too much of a hassle or too powerful of a beast.
>>43592125
Yeah.
In the future of the setting I'm making, guns will be a thing. Although the system I'm using means they'll pretty much just be alternatives to crossbows. Although untrained individuals will be able to use them without any major penalties.
>>43610591
>guns give normal people the power to kill great warriors
I'll assume you're talking about DnD, and stop you right fucking there.
Assuming everyone on the face of a DnD world were a level 1 warrior, they'd be rocking 1d8 hit points. Call it 4-5 average.
Your average one handed martial weapon, a longsword, does 1d8 damage. Call it 4-5 average. And smaller (for a medium creature) swords and bows do 1d6.
This means it's totally feasible to kill your average soldier or human being in one shot with your average weapon.
Now, say we take a great hero, a level 7 warrior. He has 7d8 hp. Lets call it 32. This guy has roughly 8 times as much plot armor or beefiness than your average soldier or peasant.
So what you're telling me, is that this guy can presumably be felled by one or two level one warriors with muskets, right?
This means guns would have to do around 7d8 damage to kill the level 7 warrior, the great hero. In your mind, guns do around 7d8 damage?
I think you need to stop watching so much TV and playing so much COD, anon.
>>43592163
correct
http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/05/26/the-real-no-go-zone-of-france-a-forbidden-no-mans-land-poisoned-by-war/
Firearms are stupid and have no place in fantasy
>>43625430
Amerifats won't let anyone take away their guns. ESPECIALLY in their fantasies.
>>43592125
My setting, set in renaissance times, has firearms that effectively work like crossbows but take longer to reload, so most gunners have a sword to switch to after the initial salvo.
As an added bonus, large concentrations of the stuff creates an anti-magic field, and a large explosion caused by it creates wild-magic/opens portals into hell. It is therefore strictly regulated.
My players are loving the strategic applications.
