>"Oh no he's coming at us with a broadsword, and all we have are these useless guns!"
Seriously, why are guns so worthless in fantasy settings?
Guns are a hundred times better than any sword ever will be no matter how sharp or 'unbreakable' it is.
Also
>I dodged a bullet but I can't dodge a sword swipe!
Fucking bullshit. This is why I hate traditional gaming so much.
>Inb4
>B-but it's a magically enhanced sword!
Yeah, and a magically enhanced gun would be better because it'd automatically get headshots and kill people instantly.
Guns>Swords.
>>46432072
Depends what gun you're talking about. Obviously anything approaching modern guns is going to beat a sword, but the early guns (muskets, gonnes, etc) were terribly inaccurate, with a slow reload time, so there is an argument there.
>>46432097
This. Obviously a modern gun would destroy someone using a sword, but earlier firearms were pretty shite.
>>46432072
Is this bait? It must be. Not even the most flag-waving, burger-eating, freedom-enforcing /k/ommando is delusional enough to think that guns were always immediately better upon their introduction to the battlefield than the conventional weaponry of the time.
So it must be bait, because otherwise you are literally the most retarded person on both /tg/ and /k/ right now.
>>46432072
Nice new copypasta.
Did you come up with it yourself?
>>46432097
>>46432169
Well they're not dogshit at point blank range. If someone's like 5 meters away he is going to get hit. And musket balls crush bones.
>>46432072
maybe it's an primitive gun, maybe magic swords exist and magic guns don't, maybe the art of swordsmanship is itself magical and gunsmanship (?) isn't. maybe the setting just isn't aiming for any kind of realistic tone.
people like melee combat, and the point of fantasy fiction is to allow things which aren't possible in real life. if you use your imagination you can justify anything you want, and if you don't want melee combat, that's fine, but just don't play a game where it's a focus.
>>46432169
Im sure he is referring to usual magic-modern settings where there are people who kill entire elite squads with only a sword when they could clearly use guns.
>>46432072
>Seriously, why are guns so worthless in fantasy settings?
Because if they were useful, widespread, and reliable, it wouldn't really be a fantasy setting anymore.
>>46432072
But if you have a setting where modern weapons and armies destroy ancient weaponry and legions, people will complain you're promoting nationalist brown nosing.
>>46432213
And reloding takes an eternity. While you try to stuff some gunpowder in the barrel a good swordsmen can kill half a dozen enemys. Also early guns couldn't pierce full plate armour in most cases.
>>46432248
Well, a good swordsman will not kill 6 enemies, because swords are a last-ditch weapon on the battlefield, and if you're fighting six people in a building at once, you're just a drooling moron who deserves to die.
>>46432072
If you hate /tg/ so much, why don't you just find a new hobby then?
It's called game balance friendo.
I'm curious, is there any setting that combines both modern day small arms action with high magic?
Like say someone with an M4 carbine with an underslung wand chamber holding a fireball wand. Because fireball wand is just better than 40mm grenades and you don't even have to reload until the wand is empty.
>>46432262
I didn't mean six at a time, but one after another. Also I was exaggerating.
And in fantasy settings it's quite possible that somebody trashes half an army
>>46432072
Traditional weaponry are far more effective and efficient. Take for instance the fact that you can hire, train and arm an entire unit of bowmen for a fraction of what it would cost to produce a helicopter, to say nothing of fueling and arming said chopper. Yet, all it takes is one well aimed arrow to mess with the chopper's aeronautical systems or to ignite its fuel tank. Give that you can produce far more bowmen for the cost, you don't even need them to be particularly skilled, just get a lot of them and one of them's bound to get lucky.
>>46432305
Shadowrun, but magic is unwieldy in that. It's hard to store and then very expensive. Wands like DnD doesn't really work. I guess one could make a claim alchemy could work like that. But to my knowledge alchemy has never been investigated to deep.
Also, while a high force spell is better than grenades, getting 10 grenades and bouncing them around corners using a semi automatic grenade launcher isn't that hard in shadowrun.
They're also dirt cheap, especially if you're using flashbangs. I go through like 10 of them on each run.
>>46432305
Harry Potter?
>>46432347
>Engaging the enemy at visual range when you can just fuck shit up from a fuck ton kilometers away
REEEEEEEEEE! This webm always triggers me.
>>46432072
Ave Nex Alea /k/ommrade.
Yeah it's fucking stupid but in all seriouslyness there's a reason for it. If guns were as effective as they are IRL, PCs would die extremely easily unless the players were really lucky or really tactically good. It would increase the difficulty curve too much, and would make any melee build pretty much useless.
Basically if it was realistic it wouldn't be fun.
>>46432169
I mean on a strategic level they absolutely were. Guns allowed every peasant conscript to kill at range with almost no training compared to archery which took years and years to learn to do well. Guns replaced everything else because reduced training requirements allowed the fielding of large armies with minimal time and cost. It was the beginning of industrial warfare where production capacity really starts to matter more than skill at arms.
Oh, and you can turn a long gun into a capable pole weapon with the bayonet. Can't do the same with a bow.
>>46432305
You can run anything in GURPS.
>>46432412
I like sci-fi where technology has progressed to the point when armor has caught up and went beyond the weaponry. A properly made armor, though bulky it may be, will last quite a while against most ranged weaponry. This makes things like grappling and the like more important. Ripping the armor of foes and proper backstabs.
Way more fun to roleplay in. Caught them unawares before they get in the power armor.
>setting that combines both modern day small arms action with high magic?
Homura comes to mind, and they did it really well too. It turns out that having a shit load of gun is just as good as spamming magic. You got magic swords? Well fuck you I have an AT-4 recoilless gun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVi_fs2oz3E
>>46432213
>Well they're not dogshit at point blank range.
Except they were, dumbass. Early period gun tactics pretty much entailed having a whole line of gunners firing in volleys. If the enemy infantry are at point blank, the gunners have done something wrong and are about to switch to a melee weapon.
>If someone's like 5 meters away he is going to get hit. And musket balls crush bones.
If the enemy is wearing heavy armor, it's not a guarantee you'll penetrate. Plate armor used to be tested to see if it could withstand guns. That's where the term "bulletproof" comes from.
And there's still go guarantee you'll hit because firstly, early rifles weren't terribly accurate, and secondly your aim isn't necessarily going to be great when we consider the psychological factors of a combat scenario. If the enemy only has a sword, as you seem to be arguing, he's going to bum rush you so you lose your advantage of range, and most people don't take well to a burly man with a sword charging them.
If you miss your one shot, don't incapacitate in one hit, or don't penetrate his armor, you're done for.
>>46432347
The thing that really grinds my gears about this kind of thing is, if you can make a magic bow that does that, why not make a magic rifle? It would be even more effective.
>>46432469
Power Armor makes everything better.
I'm working on a setting where heavy armor that can do that is common in-universe, but not everyone has it. This way I can weight the game more towards the players than the average mook (because it's a somewhat cinematic campaign) and also emphasise that other guys in heavy armor are baaaaad news.
>>46432072
Because, while realistic settings can be cool, a swordsman killing a bunch of gunmen can also be cool, and fantasy settings are in no way obliged to be realistic.
>>46432469
There's actually a manga right now where various people from Japan are ending up in a fantasy world and gaining magical powers. One kid tried to develop a crude gun, but in that world, anything living has some sort of protective shield around them. This magical protection/surface tension doesn't extend to inorganic things like metal, not unless it was being held by an organic element. So swords work because there's a person holding them, and arrows work because of the wood. But a wholly free floating piece of metal like a bullet would meet with this magical resistance.
>>46432507
>Except they were, dumbass.
The ability to use a bayonet made the Musket superior to any other ranged weapon when at hand-to-hand distances.
>Plate armor used to be tested to see if it could withstand guns.
Usually pistols, because anyone who afford heavy armor was more likely to fight a duel than be on the front lines at that point in history.
>he's going to bum rush you so you lose your advantage of range, and most people don't take well to a burly man with a sword charging them
You fix bayonets and fucking stab him with your new spear. Pole weapons > swords.
>>46432462
You don't need skill to shoot at the general direction of the enemy. When armies fight armies, you don't aim for individuals. You just empty your quiver at them.
What you need is strength.
With crossbows you don't even need strength anymore.
What made gunpowder weapons take over the battlefield was that they combined the armor piercing capabilities of crossbows and the range of the bow.
>>46432514
>The thing that really grinds my gears about this kind of thing is, if you can make a magic bow that does that, why not make a magic rifle?
maybe they don't know how. or maybe it's just not possible.
>>46432469
>I like sci-fi where technology has progressed to the point when armor has caught up
Armor will never catch up again. The only ways for armor to make sense in a scifi setting are 1) different scientific progress among different factions. But when you're so much ahead of your enemy it isn't a fight anyway, unless you are severely outnumbered. 2) a matter of cost. For some reason nobody is using the expensive guns, but everybody is wearing armor worth a fortune.
>B-but it's a magically enhanced sword!
But why not humans with more durability thanks to a constant exposure to magic?
>>46432519
Just make mini iron golems and shoot those.
>>46432519
That's fucking horseshit and grimgar is shit.
>>46432519
That's so fucking stupid.
>>46432462
Early guns did none of those things, they were expensive, short ranged and predated bayonets by over 200 years.
>>46432072Play D&D.4d12 for .50 cal. The only bullet type you'll ever need!
>>46432680
I dislike guns in fantasy land and I find that fucking stupid too.
Early guns were terribly inaccurate, and musket balls can't go through metal fucking armor.
>>46432542
>bayonet
Was not around until the mid/late 1600's as a common military weapon. So not relevant to the discussion of 'early' guns.
>>46432072
even in the modern day with close combat guns, people with melee weapons have an advantage at... melee range.
It's a part of police training and everything.
>>46432347
>NotUsingSuperiorRange.webm
Every time. You'd think the US Army/JGSDF would've flagged this by now.
>>46432696
Yeah, I think it's better to not come up with such convoluted explanations. Maybe guns just aren't a thing for whatever reason, maybe they are a thing but it's one of those settings where people can train themselves to such extent that their speed and durability is enough to stand against guns.
>>46432709
Kind of weird how it taken so long for people to put a pointiy thing at the end of the gun when you consider how popular polearms were.
It doesn't fit the narrative the writers are going for.
>>46432655
I don't even say it's magical, I explcitly point out that the humans in my fantasy worlds evolved to be tougher than the average earthling. Because why the fuck wouldn't you have a baseline higher toughness when you can run into shit like Trolls and Wyverns in your back yard. Then again I base the logic of the world off the logic of the rules.
Alternatively, the know how for making "modern" rifles is there it's just that the general infrastructure of the world isn't quite there yet to support fielding massive armies.
>>46432788
>maybe they are a thing but it's one of those settings where people can train themselves to such extent that their speed and durability is enough to stand against guns.
Even so that still doesn't make sense unless the average army is made up of those kinds of people.
Oh wait, in most fantasy armies don't matter. It's all about personal scale conflict where if a military is involved it's still personal scale.
>>46432072
>I hate traditional gaming so much.
you are free to play in other mediums if you do not enjoy this one.
Might I suggest calladooty?
>>46432072
because guns don't have much actual pushing force, which is more important in fantasy worlds for reasons.
It's a very sudden, sharp strike, not a deep and pressing one.
Maybe people are playing fantasy for fantastic displays of swordsmanship and martial skill, not guns.
>>46432361
I wish someone would make a Shadowrun game that didn't market itself to high level autists, rules-wise.
>>46432688
Yeah, Chinese hand-cannons.
>>46432072
You need a sword because you have ranged-weapon-specific I-frames on your dodge roll.
>>46432671
>Just summon mini iron elementals and shoot those.
ffy using the retard context manga logic.
>>46432097
By the 1700's, most rifles weren't really all that bad in terms of range and accuracy.
Me and my class went to Jamestown and got to shoot a few rounds when we were probably around 12 at the time. We shot from 10 yards, and it really wasn't too difficult, even for the girls, and the more experienced actors/guides were able to shoot pumpkins and shit from about 25 yards away.
Not bad overall, but it's definitely not as cooperative as, say, an M16 or an AK.
It probably can't hold the magic as well or some shit like that. Even early guns were in about three different parts.
Bullets are WAY too expensive to just use willy nilly.
If you're using a bullet, that's an investment. And will probably kill everyone on the enemy team.
>>46432897
I can hit a man sized target from 100m with a Brown Bess without fail.
They're a lot more accurate than people think.
>>46432072
They do slightly more damage than swords, as being hit with an already lethal, weighty, sharp blade does only 1d8 damage.
Why should guns do much more than that?
>>46432849
Yeah, it's not so bad after playing it with a group that knows the rules. I suggest having a paper in front of you that groups up every kind of die to keep track of your pools. And a flow sheet for each kind of action. But there are way to fucking many sub-games of the game.
>>46432994
>Caster
That's one OP pistol if I ever saw one. No wonder Gene Starwind doesn't get killed.
>>46432305
the secret world, not /tg/ but there were some threads here a while ago.
>>46432347
That triggers me harder than the katana thing ever did.
>>46433188
>the secret world
Wasnt that a mmorpg with a clusterfuck of conspiracies and legends?
>>46432735
One of the glaring issues of Cypher System
Monte Cuck strikes again
>>46433248
Yes, it's all conspiracies and urban legends are real.
He asked for a setting not a system. It mixes, guns, melee weapons and magic, in a somewhat coherent manner.
>>46432843
>displays of swordsmanship and martial skill
Then why are almost all depictions of swordmanship so hilariously bad?
>>46433372
Both of your questions basically boil down to: why am I so autistic?
Not everyone is looking for or cares about the same things as you. Try to look beyond your own viewpoint before you criticize the viewpoints of others.
>>46432519
what manga?
>>46432213
> If someone's like 5 meters away he is going to get hit
No, if someone is 5 meters away you are only going to hit him by chance or because he is an idiot or does not know what your metal staff you are holding weirdly does. Muskets are heavy as shit, and terrible to aim without something to bear their weight and swivel around on, which presents a new problem to aim at short ranges. that is one of the reasons they were used in huge numbers, and if you wanted to hit someone close you used a pistol.
>>46432347
An apache combat helicopter is armored enough to wistand 20mm autocannon rounds. No matter how good an archer you are, you're never going to make more than a dent in the paintjob.
TL:DR : this webm went full animu weaboo, and it's not something I say often, being an anime amateur myself.
>>46432405
Also this.
>>46432789
because any implementaion meant adding a considerable weight to the end of the gun furthest from your grip, making aiming impossible, further, the blade would usually be propped into the muzzle with considerable force so it would not dislodge instantly, making subsequent removal and reloading of the gun not feasable for battle.
They needed to make the guns better and lighter before making additional weight for the sake of versatility an option, and even then the development into what we know as bayonets took quite some time as well.
>>46432347
HNNNNNNNNGH
>>46433386
stop forcing your viewpoint on people who are comfortable in their own narrow ignorance.
>>46433717
>An apache combat helicopter is armored enough to wistand 20mm autocannon rounds. No matter how good an archer you are, you're never going to make more than a dent in the paintjob.
the bows are magic
I think generally speaking someone who takes on gunners with a sword is a legendary swordsman hero. Nobody lesser would manage.
>>46432347
>all it takes is one well aimed arrow to mess with the chopper's aeronautical systems or to ignite its fuel tank
Let me guess, you think that shooting a gascan makes it explode as well?
Not to mention>>46433717
>helicopter is armored
>>46433809
depends more on the gunners than on the swordsman, as the initiative and the opportunity lies almost always with the gunners. They have more chances to kill him all the way he has to traverse, after which he has free reign.
Unless he is so good that he relfects the projectiles with his blade, the question whether he survives depends on the aim and equipment of the gunners.
I think the actual reason why melee weapons have a place in a fantasy setting even if it has guns are not other people, it's monsters.
Yeah, a gun can fuck up a dude with a sword pretty quickly. But what is it going to do to a skeleton or another creature that just feels no or little pain? You already neet a pretty big calibre to stop a bear or a rhino and a magical beast of the same size is probably going to be tougher and even harder to stop.
I mean, yeah, if you get in close range with a big beast, you have a problem, but there are probably a lot of magical creatures that plain just don't give a fuck about getting shot with anything but the big guns.
>>46433869
I meant, that a hero, or a player character in interactive medium is someone who possess incredible skill and among other things luck. I mean, yes, real bullets are hard to dodge, but we could suspend our disbelief so we could admire the guy who moves so fast no gunman can aim at him straight. I also gives us an image of an underdog, and I maintain that all heroes are underdogs in quantifiable sense.
Implicitly, guns are better then swords in general, or else nobody would bother making them.
>>46433897
>Implicitly, guns are better then swords in general, or else nobody would bother making them.
guns ARE better than swords, but your logic doesn't play out. people still make combat knives even today, for instance. different weapons can have different niches.
>>46433930
But nobody has knife divisions, that's the point. Modern rifles are universal, knives in rifle world is highly situation. That said, guns did not phase swords out instantly, but when I think of "guns in fantasy" concept it gives me image of powerful force that conquer everything using firearms, while one hero is bad enough dude to make sword work again.
>>46433883
This is fucking retarded, would you rather face a 12 foot tall ogre with a scar 17/Grenade launcher or machine gun or some fucking sword
>>46432072
I always just ban guns in my game. I'm playing a fucking fantasy setting the last thing I want to see is some COD guy going on about his guns and how he just shoots everyone.
I assume that generally fantasy is short on guns because primitive guns are not very good, can't compete with fireball-throwing warmages and shit so they don't stick around to be used and improved.
>>46434011
>but there are probably a lot of magical creatures that plain just don't give a fuck about getting shot with anything but the big guns.
but there are probably a lot of magical creatures that plain just don't give a fuck about getting shot with anything but the big guns.
Of course I'd take the fucking grenade launcher or sword, but in most fantasy settings all you have are some sort of pistol or rifle at best.
>>46433796
Okay. The Apache helicopter has a cruising speed of 165 miles per hour. The M230 chain gun has a maximum firing range of 4500 meters. The Hydra 70 rocket has a maximum firing range of 10,500 meters. The Hellfire missile has a maximum operation range of 8000 meters.
Guns are cool, swords are just autistic
D&D is the only game. Traditional gaming is ruined if D&D does something wrong.
>>46434056
Why the fuck do you think you can hurt a monster with a sword if a machine gun doesn't take it down. That's just retarded. Muh Magic sword, fuck your magic sword give me magic bullets and I can take it out a mile away
So I heard you want to play Fantasy Craft, /tg/.
It has rules for the early blunderbusses and dueling pistols. They are insanely powerful. You can literally be a Drake covered in them, like a winged and scaly Clint Eastwood.
Only downside, you won't be able to reload them until the next session. So you just have a couple of them on you, duh.
>>46434126
Are you actually retarded?
Nobody even said that a sword could take down a monster that would ignore a machine gun.
>>46434011
>This is fucking retarded, would you rather face a 12 foot tall ogre with a scar 17/Grenade launcher or machine gun or some fucking sword
The development of guns doesn't start with grenade launchers or machine guns, though. It starts with primitive guns, and if those are utterly useless against the threats people are actually facing, it's hardly improbable that people would just give up on guns instead of thinking that maybe after a few centuries of R&D they'll be hot shit.
>>46432072
Modern weapons are just too powerful and it would be unfun. Everything would devolve into modern military tactics.
Small humaniods - take cover and engage with infantry
Medium size monsters - take cover, suppressing fire and let dms kill with 308s.
Large monsters - take cover, suppressing fire, mortar or anti tank
Large armies - fortify using artillery positions, spotters, air support or push using mobile infantry, tanks
Larger armies - nukes/arty
>>46434183
what's the point ofa monster like that in a campaign?
Tell that to GURPS.
Give a man a week's training and an M4 and he can solo an orc warband.
>>46434075
This is why I don't have guns in fantasy. Guns are something you can shove in to any random persons hands and it will work well enough. What I want out of fantasy is powerful, one man army, heroes with skills that can't be easily replicated and can take on threat that a mundane army can't handle. When guns come in to the equation, its always about how a militia armed with guns could kill those heroes and any threat they could take on for less than the cost of the master swordsman's magic sword, and will spew number like those if the GM dares to try to world build so that the takeover of guns is less inevitable than it is in real life.
Because of autism. Medieval fantasy was always gay anyway. Sci fi is always a superior genre
>>46433115
Why should they do more at all? Shouldn't the maximum damage of a sword with a single hit be greater than the maximum damage of a bullet? But a sword might just deal a flesh wound to your arm while a bullet will go through your arm.
Sword = 1d8
Bullet = 1d4+2
actually, those both average to 4.5 damage...
an ogre might just rub their face in pain from a musket ball to the face but roar in pain when stabbed in the stomach. It doesn't make sense for bullets to deal more damage, does it? A javelin would deal more damage than a bullet designed to be used on normal humans, right?
The perils of HP systems.
>>46434255
Actually, given the durability of your average mid-game martial, all they have to do is say "I stand in front of the dragon as it breathes fire on me, unleashing my heavy machinegun on that punk-ass-bitch while it shaves off a sliver of my health."
This is a viable tactic against most of what you listed; both sides.
>>46434281
>This is why I don't have guns in fantasy. Guns are something you can shove in to any random persons hands and it will work well enough. What I want out of fantasy is powerful, one man army, heroes with skills that can't be easily replicated and can take on threat that a mundane army can't handle.
the one-man-army has made a frequent appearance in modern settings with great success, especially in action movies and FPS games. you just need to ignore the realismfags.
>>46432405
That's boring unless you're a /k/ fanatic, though.
Look at your picture, now look at mine.
Early guns were nothing like modern ones, they were more akin to handheld fireworks than anything.
It wasn't until the 1500s when guns started to get reliable.
So, fuck you. You want a fantasy setting with guns? Be my guest. But don't expect guns that would normally be from another era entirely to exist in every fantasy setting.
>>46434049
Oh wow look at me and my shitty sword, wow swordfights are so cool guys come on. I sure do love climactic swordfights, it's so much better than using that brain thing I have rattling around and just shooting someone from a distance.
>>46432097
>>46432111
>>46432169
It's always the same excuse!
BUT THE OLD GUNS WERE SHITTY, THEREFORE ALL GUNS ARE SHITTY LOLOLOLOL.
Fuck you autistic retards. When someone bursts into your house with a gun, are you coming at him with a fucking sword? Hell no, you shoot that piece of shit with a gun like any modern human being.
>>46434690
What about if the setting has Gothic Plate armour? Wouldn't that place it in an era with muskets or some such?
>>46434709
>OLD GUNS
>modern human
you're a weird guy, anon
>>46434709
Anon, we aren't talking about modern guns. We aren't talking about modern humans. We aren't even talking about the real world. We're talking about guns in fantasy settings, and what a modern human would do when someone bursts into his house with a gun is utterly irrelevant.
>>46434281
>What I want out of fantasy is powerful, one man army, heroes with skills that can't be easily replicated and can take on threat that a mundane army can't handle. When guns come in to the equation, its always about how a militia armed with guns could kill those heroes and any threat they could take on for less than the cost of the master swordsman's magic sword
That's a good point, I think right here is the heart of the issue.
Back in the days when you had to use a sword to kill someone, it took someone exceptional (a hero, if you will) to kill a lot of bad guys.
Samuel Colt made everyone equal and now everyone could do that. And since everyone could now be a hero, there are no more heroes.
>>46434709
...baby boy, I'm legit worried about you. You've gone beyond just being weird, and surged full on into autistic breakdown.
A, most fantasy settings don't have guns. They're medieval fantasy, where a crank crossbow was a wondrous work of art that revolutionized siege warfare.
B, it's been said a hundred times in this thread already. A modern gun would curb stomp anything but badass magical bullshit armor and swords and such. However, older guns (muskets, wheel locks, etcetera), which are the only sort that could even theoretically be used in a fantasy setting, were fairly shitty. Anything farther than a few meters was highly inaccurate, and if you missed you had a minimum of thirty seconds or so where you were trying to reload. They were shitty.
>>46434709
If modern guns exist in your fantasy setting then chances are swords are out of use and 99% of dragons, giants and the ilk are dead too.
Thing is, fantasy typically means ''old school'' hence why there is also plate armour and the ilk. So unless, for some reason, you want modern gun tech in a medieval fantasy setting, you're looking at shitty old guns.
>>46434709
I do use a claymore for home defense.
Actually had to chase some kids trying to bash my door down with it.
I was a little loaded at the time, so I was shouting incoherently with the occasional, "Blood for the Blood God!" thrown in.
It was a fun night.
As for your autism, I already mentioned that guns didn't get good and reliable till the 1500s. Before that, they will literal handheld, single-shot mortars that looked like a baton, fucking hard to aim and fire.
Even during the 1500s, guns had to evolve. Sorry to burst your bubble, but early guns were in fact shit. That's why the crossbow lived as long as it did, because guns were a technology in the works.
Look at early pistols in the age of sail, pirates frequently carried multiple pistols because they were prone to jamming or exploding and had a slow reload, that way the pirate could continue firing.
>>46432072
I like the idea of there being something intrinsic to firearms that means they can't be enchanted. Maybe it's that there are too many moving parts, maybe it's that there's too much separation between them and the person using them, maybe it's combustion throwing off the elemental balance, or maybe it's just arbitrary bullshit. But it's a good reason why guns are useless - or, at least, why other options are viable.
>>46434824
How many heroes were there before guns that were known for personally killing a lot of bad guys?
>>46434856
>>46434840
To elaborate on this: In a fantasy setting, the greatest, most mad inventor in the world could theoretically create a single shot musket. This fellow would become one of the richest mother fuckers in the world *very* quickly. However, muskets would not immediately become the go-to weapon, just like they didn't in our world. In the real world, firearms were around for a long time before they finally replaced the weapons of the time.
Thinking, at any point, that a modern gun would end up there somehow is ridiculous without bullshit GM fiat magic. If they did, they'd basically be the holy grail, and would be worshiped as an instrument of the gods.
>>46434867
To be honest, that first one makes sense to me.
I mean, say you want to enchant a gun. Which part? Theres dozens of parts at least, which one do you enchant for the best effect?
Ultimately, it might mean that a fully enchanted gun is lethal as all hell but exceedingly rare whereas any mug that can use magic can enchant a sword to be like ultra sharp and to be unbreakable.
>>46434867
I'm currently developing a setting where magic comes from drawing magic symbols on things. Anything with separate moving parts is hard to enchant in synch and tiny things are hard to enchant period. It's so much easier to mass-produce cloaks for your army and paint runes of protection of their back and give them swords with runes of cutting on their blades then to produce a single enchanted rifle and matching enchanted bullets. Guns actually exist and are somewhat advanced (Setting are World War I level technology) but are thought of as hunting weapon except for very expensive to make and maintain custom-made artefacts of death for the rich.
>>46434709
Hey, if you want to set up the industrial base and capacity to create modern firearms in a game I'm running, be my guest. I'm up for that being a full campaign.
But most fantasy settings are either early renaissance or late medieval-ish. Enjoy trying to get your snaplock to work in the rain in the meantime.
>>46434884
quite a few if you count legends. if not, there's a handful. here's one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Terrail,_seigneur_de_Bayard
>At the Battle of Garigliano he single-handedly defended the bridge of the Garigliano against 200 Spaniards, an exploit that brought him such renown that Pope Julius II tried unsuccessfully to entice him into his service.
spaniards qualify as bad guys, right?
mind you, similar feats have been recorded in the modern day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_L._Salomon
>When the Japanese started overrunning his hospital, he stood a rear-guard action in which he had no hope of personal survival, allowing the safe evacuation of the wounded, killing at least 98 enemy troops before being killed himself during the Battle of Saipan.
>>46434900
Honestly, its easy enough to even block guns out of a fantasy setting.
I mean, if ya think about it, given how much more dangerous a fantasy world is, having the resources and time to develop advanced tech would be rare. Why try making something new when it'll mean having a few less weapons if you come under attack, at best?
In my setting, gunpowder is just becoming a thing. Dwarves tried making guns once but the lad working on it ballsed up and blew up his lab, which made a hole in the fucking mountain so now the one dwarf that understood it and had the balls to try is dead and every other dwarf is scared shitless of it. Safer to stick to magic. Meanwhile, my Gnomes have developed gunpowder to the point that they can make grenades and they've applied that to medieval artillery tech to produce ballistas with explosive bolts. However, gunpowder is still very dangerous and difficult to produce so they have a small supply of it. They use this to drive off Dragons and Giants whom otherwise might try snack on the Gnomes
>>46434730
Nothing requires guns to be invented, plate armour would have been invented even if gunpowder was never imported from China or independently discovered by accident.
>>46435183
true, but they were still historically from the same era. Well, some sort of guns were available during that time anyway.
>>46435098
well, that's good to know heroes in combat can still exist, not matter what the pessimists who call themselves 'realists' would say.
>>46432462
>peasant conscript
Every thread. Every fucking thread...
>>46432994
Atleast this is an acceptable answer
>>46434908
For sheer practicality you'd put an enchant on the barrel, to prevent wear, damage and corrosion, and one on the lock, a minuscule fire enchant to remove the need for a flash pan.
>>46433457
See >>46432676
Grimgar
>>46434117
>D&D is the only game. Traditional gaming is ruined if D&D does something wrong.
D&d is the mainstream music equivalent of /tg/
Said thes, YES traditional gaming is ruined if D&D does something wrong, because to many d&d is the only thing that exist..
>>46436820
If you could afford to do so, sure. That'd be great for militias and such.
But whereas one might be able to enchant a sword for resistance to decay, increased damage output and increased ease of use with little trouble, producing similar enchantments on a gun could be more difficult and thus more costly.
Guns are an aesthetic, the idea that "anyone could do that."
Which is complete bullshit today, in the post-Napoleonic era of self-loading rifles and radios.
Nerds simply fetishize firearms in a way that they don't apply to swords. The Napoleonic era memes are the first in and will probably continue to dominate popular minds until the next weapon takes over - piloting bits/funnels/personal drone swarms, maybe.
I think the other core part is the lack of risk. Any expert soldier in an era can dish out lots of damage with their favored tactics and conditions, but suspension of disbelief for power fantasies about surviving is a lot different. Players can suspend disbelief that a fighter pilot or sword master or power-armored dude can be untouchable to Murphy's law, but small arms are perceived as "gritty" enough (thanks to WW1?) that the meme doesn't apply.
Again, in the post-firearms era, RPG players will probably romanticize firearms the same way swords are now, complete with historical references to (obviously) high-level characters like Roy P Benavidez shrugging off dozens of bullets in the course of an adventure.
>>46437006
Any enchant that would stop a sword from rusting, being unbreakable, or losing its edge would work as they're just chemical and mechanical damage to the blade. The fire enchant on the lock removes the unreliability of externally primed firearms.
Any enchant that makes the gun unbreakable also means you can pack as much powder in the barrel as you want and not have to worry about the gun exploding.
>>46437105
So a justification for surviving gun damage based on personal badassness [sic] is a prerequisite for guns in fantasy? Chi, life-force, or an orgone forcefield?
>>46437110
You're sort of missing the point here lad. The point is that swords could be enchanted significantly more easily and cheaply, allowing for them to be rendered more effective on the whole than guns.
Basically, the idea is a gun can be made reliable for the same cost it would take to make a sword exceptional. In such a scenario, swords retain the advantage of speed and ease of production, leading them ultimately to be a pretty popular weapon at the end of the day.
>>46437195
In this scenario, in which we've removed the need for a lock, a gun would be a tube of metal, a stock, a hammer, and some flat springs. Also, with enchants that keep it from being damaged, things like pistol swords and axeguns stop being a terrible idea.
>>46432347
Whoever subtitled that has no sense of timing.
Just a question. This thread is about fantasy settings, but doesnm't the problem persist in sci-fi?
In a pseudomedieval setting, aren't guns just a middle ground between spells and bows?
>>46432347
You are wholly, inarguably correct. This is why you don't find helicopters in today's battlefield. The archers just knock them out of the sky effortlessly.
This is sarcasm, by the way. I felt the need to spell it out on account of how clearly retarded you are.
>>46432690
Until you run into something with 23 or more hit points. Then you'll need another bullet about half the time.
>>46432994
> bullets
> expensive
It's literally just a ball of lead, a very cheap metal. And gunpowder is easier to manufacture than refined iron.
>>46444101
anon you are failing a knowledge check right now.
>>46432097
yeah but that doesn't make you able to dodge bullets or intentionally block them with a sword or knife.
>>46432072
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKHdJfnM9rA
TL:DR firearms weren't clearly superior to hand weapons in close combat until the widespread adoption of centerfire cartridges in the 1860s and 70s, and even after that it was common sense to carry both.
>>46432227
>maybe the art of swordsmanship is itself magical and gunsmanship (?) isn't
Time to be that guy who reaches legendary status with the gun and imbues it with magic like the sword-wielding heroes of old.
>>46432347
>flying that low
Those guys deserved it.
>>46432347
So this anime is called Seraphowari? Because i want to hear the bullshit explanation they give for that scene to happen
>>46432482
Fucking DEX builds. SURELY I WILL WIN, MY SPEED IS SUPERIOR.
>>46432482
Za Warudo?
>>46434264
Having to outsmart it or having to maneuver siege engines into place or ambush it, or having to go on a quest to ally with another force of nature.
Fucking duh.Or throwing it at a party you don't like when you want to GM another system.
>>46432482
>gun fu at close range
If either of them had a shiv this would have been settled at the 1:30 mark
>>46432623
Demons don't like guns as they hate humanity and so don't turn into them.
>>46432072
Because self-loading firearms introduce a level of lethality to stand-up engagements which are unsustainable for the small groups of highly individualized protagonists inherent to most fantasy settings.
And people are stuck with the mindset of these small groups meeting the Enemy in open combat and, obviously, having to come out on top every time, and don't see how this could be possible with this level of lethality (because it isn't), and instead of having the protagonists work to shape and unbalance the battlefield and engage the enemy on their own terms, as people who 'win' firefights in the real world generally do, instead just turn guns into high-powered airshit because it's easier.
>>46433018
Nice. Is it moving? Does it notice you have a gun and starts bobbing and weaving around? Did it bring a sword to gut you with while you fumble with your shots?
>>46446189
How the fuck is anyone going to gut anyone with a sword at 100 metres out
>>46432238
Honestly, this. Some just ignorethe existence of guns (Naruto has the tech for guns but they dont exist), some do have guns but people are either able to dodge them or magic is simply far more powerful (elfen lied maybe?) And others explain away guns or have no need to develop guns because magic is so widespread (eg. Avatar has a tech level approaching our own and in some fields exceeding it but no guns, despite how useful they might be for non benders)
Fullmetal alchemist might be a good example - high tech, they do have guns, but a good alchemist is often better against it
very early firearms (1450 to 1550 or so) where often very unreliable, though it depended on the firing mechanism. Matchlocks gave away your position at night and couldn't be used in the rain or wind, even if your powder was dry. Furthermore, there are a lot of accounts of early firearms not being as lethal. Also the amount of smoke generated could mean trouble in a confined space.
That's why knights and armor continued to exist along side firearms for over a hundred years.
if I recall, by 1700 or so better powders had been invented and the flintlock weapons were pretty reliable and consequently rather deadly. While swords and shields were less used, the bayonet was still an important weapon
I've read during Desert Storm the US Army had and officer with some confirmed kills using a sword. Sure he used his rifle mostly, but he still killed a guy on the battlefield with a sword for some reason.
>>46446219
With a 100m sword of course
>>46434159
>Not playing a Giant/ogre/drake who carries several deck cannon instead
Grapeshot best shot
You could make a post-apocalyptic setting à la Mad Max where finding just one cartridge can be considered good luck.
Guns exist, are as lethal as you know them to be. But you are going to put a lot of thought into who is going to get shot.
>>46448380
If that were the case, no one could afford to practice with guns so even a very effective gun would probably be highly innacurate in the hands of untrained users who cant afford to train because no bullets.
Probably the best way is to either set a period that has no guns or, have a logical hard counter to guns that makes them useless.
One is in the books sabriel/abhorsen etc. Where man made things dont work or fall apart in areas where magic is strong, another is something like creatures that simply regenerate from bulletholes and can only be killed by eg. Chopping off their head, another would be some kind of magic bullet deflecting shield.
>>46446111
>Because self-loading firearms introduce a level of lethality to stand-up engagements which are unsustainable for the small groups of highly individualized protagonists inherent to most fantasy settings.
I take it you've never played Call of Duty.
>>46448967
They'd still be highly valued, just reserved for very close range.
>>46446111
What the fuck is going on in this grainy ass Webm?
>>46448967
If the setting is based a decade or so after the apocalypse there could be people who already have gun training. They might even have experience after wasting 99% of their bullets before the first year was over. Though they'd be out of practice, naturally.
>>46432072
Iron Kingdoms does a lot with guns. Pic Related is a member of the Arcane Tempest, a group of pistolier mages and occasional black ops dickbags in service to one of the setting's major nations. There's also a pretty good range of mundane gunnery on offer, from pistols up through artillery.
Mind you, while the tech level wobbles drunkenly up and down from 1800 to 2800, automatic weapons are still pretty much a new and untested field. Even the stupidly rare gun mage snipers only use break-action rifles. So I doubt it would slake your apparent lust for tacticool Modernity Fuck Yeah action.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
British manuals state infantrymen should be drilled to fire every 15 seconds and be able to hit at 100 yards with buck and ball loads, all you fucking retards who go on about minutes to reload or useless past 20 feet.
>>46450136
that seems worthless in any kind of close range skirmish.
>>46450428
1 Thats why you have a bayonet
2 how close are we talking about
3 its great for closing to close range.
>>46450574
didn't the bayonet take a mad long time to invent compared to guns themselves?
And I assume we're talking about dungeons or sewers and the like, given the OP, so pretty fucking close.
>>46449495
Not to mention nutters with arsenals or people that decide to make a bullet cottage industry.
Or you could go with the idea that while bullets are easy to make, guns are not. People mostly fight with hacked-together pieces of shit that backfire/explode much too often.
So finding a pristine, old-world gun that works flawlessly would be the equivalent of, say, a magic weapon.
>>46450663
No literally about the same time as modernish stocks, Europeans started shoving knives down the barrel. I don't see any thing about dungeons/sewers in the op also muskets/bayonet/pistol/saber where used to storm forts/towns for a few hundred years.
>>46450711
I think true magic items in that case would be CNC lathes
>>46450428
That's on the faster, or really even fastest, end of pre cartridge guns. And it's worth remembering >>46450136 that this reload speed was the culmination of some 200-250 odd years of 'musket-like' firearms (as in the arquebus or musket rather than some miniature cannon on the end of a very long stick). After the invention of better means of ignition with flintlock, the greater availability of flintlock, the use of pre-prepared paper cartridges, ect.
I'll cite some pike and shot era stuff in a bit.
>>46450663
Bayonet emerged in 17th century, I'll check for specific date in a bit. That was the plug, the socket bayonet that allowed you to fire with it attached was closer to the 18th century.
I would say that handguns rather than hand-cannons have been around since the 1500s.
>>46450734
the OP is talking about why guns suck in fantasy, anon.
You know, the place where you fight in castles, dungeons, sewers, cities, forests...
>>46446111
What the fuck I'm reading? Are you seriously implying that heroic fantasy was more real and believable before modern guns came around? Also, have you been living under a rock or something because there's tons of action movies and games that are basically heroic fantasy with guns.
>>46432072
Because with realistic gun rules, nobody would have any reason to use melee weapons, or armour.
>>46450768
Your forgetting shit like the pre-cartridge breach loaders.
>>46450811
You mean like real life when you take a fort or and get ambushed/ambush some one else 3 times to the way to it.
>>46450850
Yeah. You know, the times in real life where gunmen fell back on melee weapons.
>>46450845
Actually, it's pretty easy to circumvent this if you add armor that is effective against small arms fire, but can be pierced by swords, spears and stuff. It's quite believable too because even irl you can easily pierce a kevlar vest with a sword and it stands no change to a spear.
![2014-01-17-Strip_302_NCO_Sword_web[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/OiHZHQy.gif "2014-01-17-Strip_302_NCO_Sword_web[1].gif")
>>46446801
>but he still killed a guy on the battlefield with a sword for some reason.
>>46450850
>Your forgetting shit like the pre-cartridge breach loaders.
If you go that way you might have revolving muskets as well. They existed too as did multi barrel repeaters.
>>46450880
Which is why the are issued both or in a formation with both.
>>46432072
Because 1d8 for a sword, which is a lethal as a gun
>>46432809
>Because why the fuck wouldn't you have a baseline higher toughness when you can run into shit like Trolls and Wyverns in your back yard
We didn't hunt real life megafauna to extinction by being super-durable. We did it by being smart (zerg rush with spears)
>>46451203
If we're talking about like D20 modern or Star Wars guns they seem to typically do 2d8 or more, so it's not lethal as a gun. No idea about Forgotten Realms guns though, but I suppose they must suck hard.
Guns suck in fantasy settings because of the much vaunted balance you people were so quick to complain about when there wasn't much.
Key point: 90% of damage is based on character classes in most fantasy games rather than the weapons wielded by those characters. Guns suck because they are dependent on the character for damage rather than their own damage.
So, your choice: balance or realism. You can't have both, period.
>>46451305
Spelljammers pistols did 1d4 that exploded on a 4, so you could theoretically do a huge amount of damge with them. The muskets did an exploding 1d8.
The nice thing about swords is that they don't stop working when it's raining.
>>46450921
I had to look this up, I'm surprised you're right.
Still, how hard could it be to design armour that work well against both without being too heavy?
>>46432072
>Seriously, why are guns so worthless in fantasy settings?
They're not in mine. It's just that guns are fairly rare due to gunsmithing being the last art still protected by a guild, meaning only body guards, city guards and criminals have them due to punishing cost.
>>46432347
sauce?
>>46451662
Modern rifle plate, being essentially a thick piece of steel with an anti-spall liner, will do the trick.
>>46451698
>>46432072
I'm guessing because they aren't cool enough? They're weapons for enemy mooks that the party can take down with their weeaboo fightan magic or wizard spellz.
This is why I play Shadowrun, nothing stops spell slingers faster than a bullet in between the eyes.
>>46451374
Shockingly, fuckface, getting stabbed with a blade is just as lethal as getting shot.
So no, we'll take both. Period.
>>46451803
only in the real world. In games with HP where a Level 1 Warrior can take an average of 4 hits or so from a sword, you have to decide how much damage you want a bullet to do in comparison.
>>46451836
>you have to decide how much damage you want a bullet to do in comparison.
1d4, there we go.
>>46432072
Someone's a faggot who hasn't played Song of Swords. You talk like how nogunz liberal cucks think free men talk. We don't think guns are magic, because they aren't, and weren't.
Medieval firearms, which did exist, weren't point and click superweapons. Their fired powerful projectiles, of course, and were intimidating, but ultimately they were not terribly accurate, slow to reload, and useless at close quarters.
And let me restate that last point, early guns were useless at close quarters not just because they had one bullet and bayonets hadn't been invented yet. Early firearms also had delay between the priming charge and the weapon actually firing. Sometimes as long as half a second, meaning that not only did you have to aim at a target, but you had to aim at a target and keep aiming at it until the weapon actually discharged, which would be pretty awful in close quarters.
Firearms are powerful missile weapons, but they aren't magic, and they weren't, at the time, better than swords. It wasn't until you reached muskets with bayonets and good tactics that firearms totally displaced melee infantry, and it wasn't until WWI that they fully displaced cavalry.
>>46451739
You mean ceramic.
>>46451919
Well congrats, you just made a bullet fired from a gun less damaging than an arrow fired from a bow (1d6) or a bolt fired from a crossbow (1d8).
Kinda makes guns suck in a fantasy setting, doesn't it. Which brings us back around to the OP.
Almost any melee weapon you can pick does more than 1d4, and most battlefields can be crossed in 1 to 2 turns. This is not a solution. More than just "1d4 there we go" is needed here.
>>46451919
Since in games like D&D we mostly only have HP, we can't really simulate how a bullet could damage internal organs. While same could be argued with swords and other melee weapons (+especially arrows), in case of bullets it would be expected that they should have "stopping power" in order to differentiate them from swords? How about having bullets knock stuff down with a saving throw?
>>46451979
Fine, take your 1d8 and calm down. You've been a twat all evening and we kind of wanted to do our first sesion tonigjt.
>>46451990
You don't deal with that. At all. HP is retarded. Bullets don't make it less retarded nor should they.
>>46451966
Depends on the plate.
>>46452004
I know HP is retarded, but aren't we're talking about D&D here? If we're not then I see no issue given that in more detailed systems like GURPS, guns don't suck compared to swords because combat is deadly anyway.
>>46451990
bullets don't knock stuff down.
Bullets actually REALLY SUCK compared to almost all weapons in a scenario where things like shock and bleeding out aren't a thing, since that is like 95% of what bullets do.
Haveyoutriednotplayingd&d.jpeg
GURPS Dungeon Fantasy actually did an expansion article for doing dungeon crawls with 18th/19th century level technology. Could be fun.
People still use swords so guys can make use of those enchanted relic blades, armour is better than in the default medieval setting and the guns aren't cartridge firing yet but they no longer suck so much. Another thing even added a high powered Musketeer template.
>>46432347
>average battle in civilization.webm
>>46432072
>Guns tend to be a significant sign of technological development and fantasy tends to be pretty luddite even steampunk fantasies like Eberonn.
>Guns would deal loads of damage and while you could balance that out with shit aim or just elaborate that guns are generally more expensive/bring more attention to yourself you know how D&D retards are. Manipulating space and time is fine so long as you call yourself a wizard, but a fighter rolling a few more dice to try and snipe down said wizard from afar breaks the game and the DM puts his foot down.
The problem with D&D is it assumes everybody playing is a well adjusted person.
>>46432305
I reckon the Dresden Files does a pretty good mesh of technology and magic. Generally the more advanced the technology is the more prone it is to messing up around magic. On the other hand he gets wrecked by a flamethrower because his shield specifically deflects kinetic energy, not heat which works pretty well as far as balance is concerned.
> imo
>>46432625
I dunno anon, armor is winning in a few fields right now.
Like, tanks?
We've been making tanks we can't actually destroy with even significant effort for a while now.
>>46432519
Small piece of wood inside every bullet. Done.
>>46452004
Oh, it's you. Go to sleep Virt.
>>46453127
You've clearly never made a bullet before.
>>46451990
>>46452004
Damage is never going to make sense in games with hit points that keep increasing rapidly with each level, because you're eventually going to be unable to significantly hurt anything with any weapon unless you stand there and hit it over and over for round after round. It doesn't matter what weapon you have, it's going to gradually become less and less effective because you're playing a game where everything inexplicably gets tons more meat on its body just by having seen more things than usual.
>>46453066
>Guns would deal loads of damage
you talking about muskets or automatic weapons? something else?
>>46453191
>gets tons more meat on its body
>he thinks hitpoints correspond to toughness
inthegarbageitgoes.webm
>>46453161
Not the anon you were talking to, but while not necessarily with wood INSIDE of them, there are such things as wooden-tipped bullets.
While they were primarily meant for training, wooden bullets are very much a thing, as far back as World War II. Do a quick search on wooden bullets, there is info about them, even if actual battle usage doesn't seem to be well documented.
The main ones that get talked about are the purple wooden-tipped rounds Germans were known for using in training. There's some talk that some were possibly used by desperate soldiers when supplies ran low.
They fire just fine, from what I've heard, and I'm not interested in being fired upon by training rounds, regardless of their wooden tips.
>>46453201
More modern weapons senpai.
Muskets, blunderbusses, etc would probably have a wider spread and be closer to some acid flask but as a ranged weapon.
The first real firearm was the revolver and it was invented to curb run-away slaves since muskets weren't exactly practical for shooting at them or anything unless you had a squad line.
The other legendary edge gun AK-47 was invented by the Soviet Union as a means to arm peasants with cheap guns they could build, maintain, and use without the need of sophisticated factory labor. Basically arming the slaves instead of picking them off.
Guns in general could basically be their own system with different ratios of misaim penalty, damage output, spread, and quality of the gun.
>>46453161
okay, how about a common monster piece? There's gotta be some sort of monster that has something that can be used in the bullet making process. Like bones or claws.
>>46453207
You're right, it's about luck and experience. That's why the spell that cures hitpoints is called cure wounds.
>>46453066
>you know how D&D retards are. Manipulating space and time is fine so long as you call yourself a wizard, but a fighter rolling a few more dice to try and snipe down said wizard from afar breaks the game and the DM puts his foot down.
can't you kill a level 1 wizard in a single shot with a crossbow from afar?
>>46453269
>>46432542
Except that a bayonet has like three avenues of attack, all of the thrusts, meaning that a guy in plate will fucking wreck you, because he has a sword, possibly a shield. Pole weapons are only good when massed or against horsemen who also have a limited avenue of attack.
Guns aren't good in fantasy settings, because people wanna play knights, not musketeers when they play D&D.
Play something like 7th sea if you want to use guns. Or NBA
>>46432482
Never, and I mean never, in my entire life have I cringed so hard.
My whole body is tense now.
How can people voluntarily subject themselves to this flamboyant bullshit?
>>46453407
I don't get it, he looks like the typical person on the pro-guns side. Not nearly as annoying as someone who might say that you should be able to take down a level 20 warrior with a single .50 cal round or something.
Well, maybe he does think that, who knows.
>>46453528
>The first real firearm was the revolver and it was invented to curb run-away slaves since muskets weren't exactly practical for shooting at them or anything unless you had a squad line
That was the most retarded thing I ever read.
>>46453541
I'm preety sure my IQ droped after reading it.
>>46453294
Or it could be a combination of both. Think of it like a movie action hero.
>>46453541
I thought he meant revolvers were the first real game changing firearm, since 2 guys with knives would beat 1 guy with a gun that needed even 5 seconds to reload, at least in an urban environment and not in an open field with fortified defenses. 3 guys would ensure it.
And unless commoners who didn't own slaves wanted to help defend slave owners or they hired thugs, the slave owners would be outnumbered. Didn't matter in the end, since that particular period wasn't that violent anyway.
>>46453613
Even that's retarded.
I'd put forth that matchlock muskets were the first real game-changing firearms, since they were the first ones adopted on a wide scale.
Flintlocks and their direct predecessors changed the game again, since they were far more reliable than a matchlock while not being as expensive to produce as a wheellock.
>>46432519
Doesn't D&D have something similar where metals are antithetical to magic? Eg. wizards wearing armour.
>>46453644
The snaplock and doglock?
>>46453691
Aye, those are the locks of which I speak.
>>46453644
They did indeed change warfare, but they could still be defeated by enemies without guns.
After repeating firearms were introduced I can't think of any conflict where the faction with them lost to a more primitive force.
Or were there exceptions? There's always exceptions I suppose, I just don't know any.
>>46453486
Anime is cringe-inducing all over
>>46453613
>I thought he meant revolvers were the first real game changing firearm
Well he's still retarded, because early firearms literally changed the face of warfare
>>46453486
You seem upset. Relax, it's magical girls.
>>46432213
>Well they're not dogshit at point blank range. If someone's like 5 meters away he is going to get hit.
This is fucking hilarious. If somebody is within five meters and you have a gun, and they have a knife, YOU'RE the one that dies. They can close that distance before you can properly aim and fire.
>>46453773
>Early firearms literally changed the face of warfare
Muskets didn't do dick. That's why the Chinese only saw gunpowder as useful for pretty fireworks.
Your musket would've done fuck all against platemail armor.
Perhaps specifying a revolver was a bit of a misnomer but we have to agree that it was the concept of bullet rounds that changed warfare, not any particular gun itself.
And when you think of the first bullet round guns, you think of revolvers.
>>46453813
But I sure could poorly aim and fire. If I hit him at all I'll be at an advantage in melee as long as I have my own knife, if not a bayonet.
>>46453756
Firearms, like all technology, were subject to incremental improvements.
Matchlocks changed the game, flintlocks changed the game, bayonets changed the game.
I actually don't know how big of an impact revolvers had on the battlefield, being sidearms. I know Union cavalry made use of the Spencer repeating rifle in the American Civil War, but the army didn't adopt a repeating rifle as its main armament until the Krag-Jorgensen in the 1890's.
>>46432262
>Using swords.
Nigger they're called spears. Cheap to produce, any hungry welp can pick up and use it.
Honestly spears and hammers were the weapons of choice for combat until guns came along. Nope, nobody even really took bows seriously.
>>46432542
>Usually pistols, because anyone who afford heavy armor was more likely to fight a duel than be on the front lines at that point in history.
Mein gott the retardation is real.
>>46453833
There was repeating rifle (Girardoni air rifle, air rifles can be badass too) adopted by Austrian army in late 1700s. I think it was first widely used repeater.
>>46453850
>nobody even really took bows seriously.
what about the British?
>>46432361
Have you ever played Shadowrun? Mages are broken as fuck there.
>>46453850
halberds fuck yeah
>>46453865
Also, Samurai did until the Portugese brought guns and bows got pretty replaced by them.
>>46434709
And I'm revoking your /k/ard. Any fucking gun owner knows that an assailant within fifteen feet renders your gun useless. In home defense a gun is only superior to a sword if your house is-
>Very large and open
>You get the drop on the assailant
But for the average person living in a tiny shitty apartment or old house like mine, it's actually a lot better to keep an axe handy along with your sig.
>>46453865
It is a troll. Just look at the file names.
>>46453830
>Perhaps specifying a revolver was a bit of a misnomer but we have to agree that it was the concept of bullet rounds that changed warfare, not any particular gun itself
No, that's incorrect. The gun had made its indelible mark on warfare centuries before Sam Colt started turning out revolvers.
Read about the 30-years-war. Even so far back as then, infantry were a variable mix of men armed with muskets and men armed with pikes to protect them.
>>46453864
True, but it was hella expensive and it took 1,500 strokes of the pump to charge the air tank for 30 useful shots. I wouldn't call the air rifle a game-changer, since I highly doubt (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a battle was ever decided by who had it.
>>46453909
wouldn't a pistol be better?
>>46449400
Cod protagonists are literal Gods, who shrug off multiple rifle rounds after a 10 second breather.
BBs are more lethal than 5.56 in CoD singleplayer.
If you slow down the experience long enough for one brain cell to impact another (as rolling things out by hand is want to do) then it quickly becomes apparent how utterly inhuman they are.
>>46446111
This guy is correct. Dark Heresy gets it right to a degree by having suppressing fire as very real mechanic and having most PCs have at least some chance of going down instantly if ambushed by a fixed MG or the like. It's not as lethal as a simulation but most players will have at least some respect for incoming fire's right of way.
>>46453850
except the fuckers that conquered almost whole asia
>>46432412
>If guns were as effective as they are IRL, PCs would die extremely easily
>PCs would die extremely easily
games dont need to be realistic
>>46453922
I don't mean an assault rifle sig anon, I mean their pistols.
>>46453972
I think I'll just improve my stealth skill and get the drop on them.
