|
ProfessorCirno posted:To reiterate: If D&D were not about doing as many instances of damage as you could... I never thought about it like that, but it really is, isn't it? What if you made that idea a core of your combat system, with "an attack" now represeting the chance for your combat maneuvering to do a flat amount of damage to a single opponent? You don't increase the amount of damage (which should probably be set to "1" with hp adjusted accordingly) to an opponent, you increase the number of chances to do damage to an opponent. Because that's a lot more abstract than variable damage from your single attack, you can build in whatever weapon fluff you like (or leave it up to the players), such as "my rapier makes up to 4 separate holes in my opponent" and "my axe makes a hole up to 4 times bigger in my opponent". There's also scope for some weapons having hit bonuses against a single opponent, others against multiple opponents, and others being a middle ground. Or have I just re-invented a "wounds" system?
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
what if, and stay with me here because this is crazy, some people played D&D in worlds that had more advanced technology
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
The multiple attacks thing is actually hilarious because you can follow where and how it happens. Like, let's set it up. I'm AD&D, and I'm a fighter. I do my weapon damage, plus a bonus from strength (maybe), plus a bonus from having a magic weapon (maybe), and that's it. Now, as I level, ideally, we want my fighter to fight bigger and nastier things as they level up, but that's where we hit our problem: that means I need to do more damage. How? Attributes, it was already decided, don't change outside of magic items or poo poo like Wish, so that's out of the question. Because the entire game is built around finding magic loot, we aren't going to make automatic magic loot a part of my class (that doesn't happen until 3.5, and only for wizards, naturally). And I've already GOT a weapon, and the idea of upgrading your weapon...well, that already exists, sorta, in the shape of magic weapons, and you don't make them. Also, it should be pointed out, class abilities aren't really a thing outside of monks and druids. So how the gently caress do I do more damage? The easy answer was to shrug and go "Uh, attack again, I guess?" So that was the AD&D solution. Let's see how other editions did it. 2) We went with multiple attacks because that's what AD&D used. 3) We went with multiple attacks because that's what AD&D used; also you can't move when you do them. 4) WHAT IF POWERS? SUDDENLY, A NEW AND- 5) Oh my god that was terrifying, it was something different. Don't worry, we went with multiple attacks because that's what AD&D used. A wonderful and long history of refusing to examine your actual mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Serf posted:what if, and stay with me here because this is crazy, some people played D&D in worlds that had more advanced technology Surely you jest...
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:The multiple attacks thing is actually hilarious because you can follow where and how it happens. Mike "D&D is not a math problem, it's about feeling" Mearls says that nothing is wrong except sometimes bonus actions sometimes :|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
The standard D&D world already has plenty of technology that, in the real world, coexisted with early muskets and pistols. But firearms are bad wrong imagining, stop it immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Mike "D&D is not a math problem, it's about feeling" Mearls says that nothing is wrong except sometimes bonus actions sometimes :| Like, 5e is hilarious because if you ever wondered what "amateur D&D-clone made by someone who doesn't care and isn't original but has actual financial backing" would look like, here you go. D&D is a math problem, it's just one the devs are supposed to solve for the players, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
So like, Tome of Battle actually tried to move away from the idea of making Full Attacks by having maneuvers be so powerful that a high-level maneuver would take a Standard Action, but it would deal as much damage as a full attack, effectively letting you full attack without limiting your movement or making you jump through Pounce shenanigans. Of course, this got dumped on hard because the concept wasn't conveyed very well, so people looked at Inferno Blast dealing 100 damage in one strike and cried OP. But if you run the numbers: quote:While it may seem excessive for the 9th-level Inferno Blast maneuver to deal (exactly!) 100 damage with a Standard Action, if we instead consider that this is supposed to replace the three weapon attacks of a level 17 Fighter's full-round attack, then 33 damage per hit over three hits is a fairly reasonable benchmark to aim for: Star Wars SAGA Edition intentionally moved away from the full attack concept - you only ever did just one attack per round, period. True20 did this too. FantasyCraft did this too. The solution in those games was to switch to a Vitality/Wound Points/Damage Track system - you don't need to make multiple attacks if any single attack has a decent chance of taking out your target (and attacks that don't increase the chance that you next attack will). 4e tried to carry on the precedent set by SAGA Edition, but as ProfessorCirno said, the thing still fell apart in the end, both because 4e went with a flat-and-traditional HP system, but also with the introduction of abilities and effects that gave you extra attacks (or at least extra instances of damage) anyway. Part of that is just mismanagement and bad design (i.e. Essentials books): if you never introduce these new items and effects, then no problem, but another part, an important part, is never examining the base mechanics either (again, thank you ProfessorCirno for the segue). When I was doing my analysis of character progression for the monster stats rebuild, the thing I noticed was that damage just does not scale. A Fighter going from level 1 to level 2 doesn't really deal more damage. Their proficiency bonus does not go up. Their weapon damage does not go up (because they're not expected/obliged to get a better sword). They gain Action Surge, but that's specifically a limited-use ability. But, a monster going to the next CR step is going to have more HP. Or maybe they can trade-off that extra HP for more damage, but since the Fighter never gained anything to eat into that extra HP anyway, then that just makes the monster more of a glass cannon (which is an entirely separate issue, but one that the MM routinely falls prey to). What ends up happening is that, from a purely mechanical standpoint, combat length increases. The time it takes for a Fighter to reduce a target to 0 HP doesn't actually reduce except when they gain more strength (+1 damage!) or, more significantly, when they gain an Extra Attack, but this design creates a plot resembling a flight of stairs, where your Damage-per-Round plateaus a lot until you hit those levels where you gain the next Extra Attack. And you see this happen even in previous editions of the game! A 3rd Edition Fighter suffers from the same problem: going from level 1 to level 2 buys you ... a feat. If you can leverage that feat to give you extra damage, then great, but that doesn't always happen. You're going to run out of Weapon Specialization eventually. Meanwhile a creature gains an extra hit die per level, so you need to catch up or you'll fall behind. In this regard, you also get a sense of why Power Attack is one of the best feats you can ever take: it allows you to "convert" all of the "to-hit" bonuses into "more damage". If you gain a point of BAB, but you're already hitting on every roll except a nat 1, then you can take an extra -1 to-hit penalty for +1 damage! Same thing with Trip Attack - it causes a -4 AC bonus against prone creatures, so you take another -4 to-hit penalty for +4 damage! 4th Edition was probably the closest they got to getting this right by having enough moving parts (magic items, better/more powers, tier-related bonuses) to upgrading your damage that you probably wouldn't fall behind on the HP arms race, but the core of the problem still remained that HP directly goes up every level, but damage does not. Who got this right absolutely? 13th Age. A level 1 Fighter swings their longsword for 1d8 + Str damage. A level 2 Fighter swings their longsword for 2d8 + Str damage. A level 5 Fighter swings their longsword for 5d8 + (Str x 2) damage. And this is what I was talking about when I cheered on Turtlicious for doing the same in 5e, and that at least you should add your level (or level-based modifier, as in BAB or Half-Level Bonus or Proficiency Bonus) to your damage. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So like, Tome of Battle actually tried to move away from the idea of making Full Attacks by having maneuvers be so powerful that a high-level maneuver would take a Standard Action, but it would deal as much damage as a full attack, effectively letting you full attack without limiting your movement or making you jump through Pounce shenanigans. One of the main problems that D&D has usually not addressed, though, is that damage is generally not the best way to remove things from combat. 2E AD&D was my first, and even there a Fighter could be scary as hell with their 5/2 attacks, but it still doesn't compare to the Wizard spending an action and removing multiple targets from being a threat or a single big bad that the Fighter would have to chip away at. There's precious little comparison of overall levels of influence on the game world. 4E tried approaching that, was rejected by some, and now we've got some legitimately good ideas (gently caress all these finicky bonuses, let's streamline stuff, etc) in a wrapper of nostalgia and purposeful 90's-era ignorance masked as game design.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:One of the main problems that D&D has usually not addressed, though, is that damage is generally not the best way to remove things from combat. That goes hand in hand with damage falling off over time to begin with. If you, say, multiplied all your damage rolls by your character level, you could very easily dish out enough damage to "one-shot" most enemies, and that puts you in good stead to compete with a Wizard's save-or-die if the monster is essentially being subjected to an "AC-or-die". Similarly, the Wizard might have Fireball, but if the Fighter has cleave mechanics, then they can kill off a bunch of small enemies right quick as well. A Wizard only has the advantage of turning the enemy into a "mission kill" with spells if the alternative is the Fighter having to "chip away" at them, but if the Fighter can also inflict literal kills as fast as a Wizard can spell them to incapacity, then the fight is much evener. (of course, this does nothing to address the Wizard's ability to world-bend, but that's a different topic altogether) gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
How well does "level x weapon dice" work when combined with your 5e monster stat changes? A tenth level Fighter doing 10d12 X2 every turn seems high. Or does it not go up every single level?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:How well does "level x weapon dice" work when combined with your 5e monster stat changes? A tenth level Fighter doing 10d12 X2 every turn seems high. Or does it not go up every single level? If you're already used my revised monster stats, then you shouldn't need to do that because I already accounted for the fact that character damage does not always go up per level. If you notice, a level 1 monster is supposed to have 30 HP, and then a level 2 monster is supposed to have 31 HP, and then a level 3 monster is supposed to have 32 HP. I could have left all of those at 30 HP, but it would've looked really awkward, and even my writing isn't immune to the charms of hidebound tradition. I'd still recommend at least adding your proficiency bonus to your damage rolls, either for martials specifically or all characters in general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Can you cast banishment on yourself? I had my group roaming Carceri looking for someone and a demon that was stuck there possessed the cleric. The cleric was trying to banish the demon by casting it on herself, but would that work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
VaultAggie posted:Can you cast banishment on yourself? I had my group roaming Carceri looking for someone and a demon that was stuck there possessed the cleric. The cleric was trying to banish the demon by casting it on herself, but would that work? Demonic posession is mentioned in the MM but only in a hand-wavey way. Unless I've missed a rule somewhere else, the answer would depend on whether or not a 4th level spell counts as "powerful magic". Without other information, I'd go with "yes, that works".
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
That kinda stuff is a cleric's shtick, so I'd rule yes. The power of Helm compels you!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Regarding damage and saving throws, it's (morbidly) funny to compare AD&D (namely 2e) and 3e. In AD&D, you had five saves, none of which were connected to stats, and they all got better as you leveled depending on your class. HP, however, tended to actually scale rather slowly; in AD&D, monsters didn't utilize their stats, because gently caress that, so they didn't have a constitution bonus to HP, meaning an extra HD was just +1d8. Meanwhile, fighter's ability to hit DOES go up every level, and in early levels, where most monsters aren't even a full single HD, your chance to hit was the main thing that held you back. In other words? In early levels, wizards' auto-hit spells went up against enemies' tiny saves and destroyed them, but at higher levels, where monsters had more or less close to automatic saves, the real key to victory was pure HP damage. And a fighter with high strength, weapons grandmastery, and an enchanted greatsword, is going to do horrible things to dragons. In 3e, your saves do NOT go up every level, and while they are again connected to your class, now your class has explicit "strong" saves and "weak" saves, the latter of which more or less don't go up. Monster HP, on the other hand, loving skyrockets because now there isn't just one single "Monster HD" and they get feats and constitution bonuses and all kinds of other poo poo. Your ability to hit also leaps dramatically, and your AC finds itself practically nailed to the ground, meaning hitting is eternally automatic, but unless you can find a means to do a LOT of damage, it won't mean much. In other words? In early levels, your fighter does decently enough massacring enemies when they're lucky enough to hit, or you could just have your wizard put all of them to sleep with one spell since saves are pathetic and nonexistant. In later levels, all your enemies are made of fluffy titanium dough, and your fighter is desperately trying to saw at them, but your wizard, meanwhile, continues to wipe out entire groups with a single spell just by targeting their "weak save."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
What was the rationale for bad enemt saves in 3e and later? Just trying to tie it to stats rather than the insane save vs wands and whatever in 2e? I.e. was it 'realism'? They had to have realized that issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
Enola Gay-For-Pay posted:The thing I'm taking away from all of this is that the guy who voices McCree in Overwatch made a Gunslinger class for D&D, which is a little on the fuckin' nose. He had a gunslinger character in his pathfinder campaign (it's a base class) and helped the player convert it when they moved to 5e. A lot of those annoying rules about misfiring came straight from PF
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:What was the rationale for bad enemt saves in 3e and later? Just trying to tie it to stats rather than the insane save vs wands... ...They had to have realized that issue. Then it hit the real world and people who hadn't played AD&D went "Hey I can load up on Sleep and knock the entire encounter unconcious and then leave the Fighter to clean up, nice" and the designers were all "Say whaaaaaaaat???"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
VaultAggie posted:Can you cast banishment on yourself? I had my group roaming Carceri looking for someone and a demon that was stuck there possessed the cleric. The cleric was trying to banish the demon by casting it on herself, but would that work? Yes, you can cast it on yourself, but it wouldn't work for what you're talking about doing in that situation. You must be able to see the creature you're targeting. Casting it on yourself if you're in D&D Heck would just plop you back into the material plane. I would assume it would take the demon with them but I am less familiar with how possession works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
esquilax posted:He had a gunslinger character in his pathfinder campaign (it's a base class) and helped the player convert it when they moved to 5e. A lot of those annoying rules about misfiring came straight from PF Important to keep in mind, also, that PF's gun rules are deliberately punitive because Paizo didn't want people to have guns for similar reasons as shakeman. I have guns in my campaign set in Faerun 11491, where magic stuff has been taken to crazy extremes but due to ~reasons~ is still limited and restricted in scope and scale (players have smartstones they can use to search things on WISkipedia or call one another, vehicles include mechanical chariots and also hovercars that use Tenser's Floating Disc-like magics, etc.). Magic guns use magic ammunition. They have a loading property but they are magazine fed, so it only takes a bonus action to reload every multiple rounds and is more or less flavor. It helps that the party's gun expert plays Shadowrun and so is used to just ridiculous amounts of crunch and bookkeeping. The struggle in having guns in a campaign is that people expect a gun to do more than other weapons due to verisimilitude or whatever, but you have to strike a balance between making guns the obvious choice for everyone vs. making guns dumb, useless, and objectively worse (see Pathfinder guns). How I handle this is by making guns different and way, way swingier. You make ranged attacks with them like usual, but they do not add dex to damage roll, just the attack roll. Instead, guns have different kinds of ammunition which roll different numbers of dice and +damage values which average to the same as an attack would with a dex roll. So, for example, instead of a bow which would do 1d8+4(8) damage, a pistol might be 2d6+2(8) damage. The floor for damage is actually lower 1d8=1+4=5, vs 2d6=2+2=4, but the potential damage output is greater (1d8=8+4=12 vs 2d6=12+2=14). Bigger guns do considerably more damage but with considerably more "swing" by incorporating more dice and fewer straight additions, so a big fuckoff rifle might have 3d8+2(14) with a range of 5-24 in damage. What's going to be available for the party and enemies I can control so it's commensurate with the non-gun type weapons but with the trade-off of less consistency, but more potential damage. Fluff-wise this is basically "you grazed him" or "it glanced off his armor" vs. "you domed him" or "welp, sucking chest wound." It's not a perfect solution, but it fits for the setting and our table, and it helps that because guns are ubiquitous, many enemies are using them also. It makes combat a bit swingier and a little more tactical, and since it's a homebrew where I'm building a lot of the encounters with these things specifically in mind it doesn't break anything because it's working as intended. That said, I suspect there is a "nah you're fuckin' this up" problem in the "roll more dice" method of differentiating guns, so if I'm missing something huge please let me know. The goal was mainly to make guns different but not an obvious clear choice, as it stands I think guns slightly edge out equivalent ranged weapons for damage on average because of the greater number of dice being rolled per attack, but not to the degree things are breaking. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
There is the side effect that in 5e you don't add static modifiers again when you crit, so the big guns are objectively better on criticals (where the big fuckoff gun is 6d8+2 on a crit), but I'm not sure how much that'd skew the average.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
The "No gunpowder in fantasy" thing just proves that Paizo and WotC nerds don't actually read the books that they fellate: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Fire_of_Orthanc Gunpowder is Tolkienian as gently caress. In the Hobbit he also mentions that Goblins invented most of the terrible war machines of the world. My standby is if people want a gunslinger I tell them to skin a Warlock or Crossbow user. If I feel the need to differentiate guns from crossbows I don't go any further than: Recoil Property - Treat as Crossbow but use STR to hit. Static Damage - A Heavy Crossbow does 1d10 + Dex damage. A Rifle does 6 + Stat damage every time. Outlaw Star Rules - If you wanna shoot a guy with a 1d10 piercing bullet then cool, whatever. But scattered alchemists and antique dealers will have shells that shoot lightning bolts, HP drain bullets made out of vampire dust, pixie dust bullets that stun the target, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:The "No gunpowder in fantasy" thing just proves that Paizo and WotC nerds don't actually read the books that they fellate: It's important to note that industrialization is widely used a thematic signifier for evil and corruption in Tolkien's work. References to things like the Fire of Orthanc is intended to be striking in its rarity, and further illustrate (in conjunction with the creation of the Uruk-Hai) Saruman's fall from grace. To say that it's "tolkienian as gently caress" is disingenuous. It's referenced once, as a narrative device to show how terrible a villain has become in being subverted from their purpose to protect and serve. e: expanding on that though, it helps show us some of why many of us have a "no guns in fantasy" mindset. Industrialization in high fantasy is always a thing that happens part and parcel with corruption and destruction. Our own history in the real world bears witness to this as well, though not so strikingly as in a fantasy narrative. In that light, firearms have trouble fitting into a heroic fantasy setting. NeurosisHead fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
LotR also only has like 5 Wizards in the entire world. Yet nobody blinks at every party having 4 casters. My point is that saying that gunpowder and guns are some kind of bridge too far misses the point of playing a heroic fantasy rpg. It's almost expected that players will get their hands on the rarest, never before seen/not seen in an age poo poo every campaign arc. Eberron makes this explicit as soon as the party reaches 5th level.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
If you got someone walking around in their +18AC platemail and the guy next to him has a gun well what the gently caress are we doing here? I should be musketeering it up at this point in history because gunpowder made wearing a tin can a huge fuckin' waste of time. Also made huge cool swords a waste of time because the literal least amount of effort to bleed someone out became the only game in town. DM can I please trade out for a rapier and a breastplate TIA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:If you got someone walking around in their +18AC platemail and the guy next to him has a gun well what the gently caress are we doing here? I should be musketeering it up at this point in history because gunpowder made wearing a tin can a huge fuckin' waste of time. Also made huge cool swords a waste of time because the literal least amount of effort to bleed someone out became the only game in town. DM can I please trade out for a rapier and a breastplate TIA. The difference between "guns exist" and "guns are in widespread use" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So like, Tome of Battle actually tried to move away from the idea of making Full Attacks by having maneuvers be so powerful that a high-level maneuver would take a Standard Action, but it would deal as much damage as a full attack, effectively letting you full attack without limiting your movement or making you jump through Pounce shenanigans. This is a good comparison because it shows that Tome of Battle didn't actually increase DPR even compared to an unoptimized PHB Fighter, so it doesn't really change the nature of a particular game damage-wise if the Swordsage or Warblade or whatever is just dropped in to replace the Fighter. That said, it's even more ridiculous that people say Tome of Battle is overpowered in general, because a Fighter that actually makes use of the post-PHB, pre-Tome of Battle martial fixes does insane damage compared to a ToB martial: - The Fighter actually gets four attacks per turn at level 17, and assuming the facts above they do so at a +15 before Power Attack (Weapon Focus was left out of the math above, which would give +2 damage if the bonus were traded away). Assuming the bonuses above, that's at a +29/+24/+19/+14 - Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization actually increase damage less than Leap Attack and Shock Trooper. I'll explain these below. - Leap Attack. Leap attack allows you to make a jump as part of a charge, and if you choose to do that with a two-handed weapon, you triple extra damage you do from Power Attack. That translates to an extra +5 damage if you only trade 5 to hit bonus. - Shock Trooper. This feat lets you apply the to-hit penalty from Power Attack to your AC instead of your to-hit bonus while making a charge (and as we just saw, we now have augmented our charges with Leap Attack). This means a Fighter can apply their full BAB and be pretty much guaranteed a hit. So now we can take the full -17 to-hit penalty, apply it our AC, and then apply the bonus damage to all attacks made that round without sacrificing accuracy. This gives us: +34 Power Attack damage (-17 to get +34) +17 Damage from reading Leap Attack's "triple power attack damage" conservatively +10 Str modifier damage +5 weapon enhancement bonus damage This means a Fighter can swing for 66 damage per one of four attacks before rolling damage dice, for a combined 264 damage. Sure, your AC is now in the single digits, but it's not like AC attacks are what you're most worried about at that level anyway! It also puts into perspective how the 13th Age Fighter is dealing 17d8 + whatever for an average of ~100 or less damage at the same level (I think, I'm not well versed on 13th Age). Nickoten fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
I just learned A Fact and felt like saying it. It's fine. Use guns, I don't care. I'm starting a game today and someone is going to be a kenku gunslinger and who cares even. pew pew!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
i have a wizard that can shoot lasers out his eyeballs, but guns, guns are way too powerful
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:If you got someone walking around in their +18AC platemail and the guy next to him has a gun well what the gently caress are we doing here? I should be musketeering it up at this point in history because gunpowder made wearing a tin can a huge fuckin' waste of time. Also made huge cool swords a waste of time because the literal least amount of effort to bleed someone out became the only game in town. DM can I please trade out for a rapier and a breastplate TIA. if the argument is that it's diegetically useless to be an armored soldier in the age of guns, consider that it's equally useless to be an armored soldier in the age of WIZARDS. EDIT: To be clear, if we're going to rule out the introduction of firearms as untenable because of the logical conclusions they will inflict upon the setting's worldbuilding, we also have to come to grips with the fact that the introduction of spellcasting is also never properly factored into the basic worldbuilding of the game, either gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:If you got someone walking around in their +18AC platemail and the guy next to him has a gun well what the gently caress are we doing here? I should be musketeering it up at this point in history because gunpowder made wearing a tin can a huge fuckin' waste of time. Also made huge cool swords a waste of time because the literal least amount of effort to bleed someone out became the only game in town. DM can I please trade out for a rapier and a breastplate TIA. You have incorrect and anachronistic ideas about how early firearms work which might be tainting your perspective on fitting guns into a classic fantasy setting. Older types of guns (the first European guns showed up in around 1300 and were called hand cannons) do not obsolete other weapons and armor for a few reasons: they're far more expensive, they are very difficult to make compared to swords or polearms, they require more skill and training to use than polearms or crossbows would have, they requires components that were not common until much later, they are difficult and expensive to maintain, they take more time and finesse to load, and early ones both kicked like a mule and had very poor accuracy due to how both the barrels and ammunition were made. If they did hit someone though they'd put a big ol' hole in them sure enough, but so will a crossbow bolt or your basic Mongolian steppe bow, and neither of those give a gently caress about your platemail either. Wheellocks and flintlocks are incredibly stylish and fit perfectly in most fantasy settings is what I'm saying and are not at all overpowered even if you are trying for historical accuracy for some reason. And this is without getting into the whole there are people who literally shoot fire and lasers out of their eyes thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Guns and plate mail existed at the same time in history though. Actually, gunpowder weapons in Europe preceeded full plate mail by about a hundred years! If you don't want that knight in your game I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
"Saints Ruleth!" -Sir Jonathan of Gats
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
also game mechanics do not have to reflect reality because you are, in fact, playing a fantasy game. just have a gun use the same stats as a bow
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:if the argument is that it's diegetically useless to be an armored soldier in the age of guns, consider that it's equally useless to be an armored soldier in the age of WIZARDS. the latter point drives me nuts and is the fundamental part of our homebrew setting fwiw I also have to keep pointing out that there's a huge difference between having guns laying around for people to pick up and use instead of bows/crossbows, and an entire class built around guns mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
I always saw wizards, knights and guns to be more or less on par, for real battles. All take a stable economy and society (more or less) to field in number, all are scary as gently caress to some poor drafted serf.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Grogs going all "my historical realism" while not knowing jack poo poo about history will always be my favorite thing. Guys. The 30 Years War was a thing that happened. Shut up. Edited for brain-fart typo. Whoops!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Grogs going all "my historical realism" while not knowing jack poo poo about history will always be my favorite thing. Remind me about how well the guns of that era worked. A 'gunslinger' character is implicitly late 19th century tech if not later. Compare that to someone like Hawkeye in last of the mohicans, who had to pick up other firearms to keep his firing rate going, which wouldn't work at all in fantasy RPGs mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:23
|
|