|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 12:52AM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2007
|
No, it doesn't. Scale mail isn't thick enough to stop a bullet, unless it's from the very first firearms. And then we're just talking about a gun that goes off once an encounter.
Yep, the effect of a bullet on an ancient armor is devastating. Go check it, this is the effect of an early gun used in the Battle of Pavia (1525) versus a fullplate armor (sorry the link is in italian, but that's the best I know...).
I don't know if it can pierce throught a knight and hit the other knight behind it, but it's damn close :p
Never seen it. Way before my time.
Then you must see it!
Yeah, this is somewhat misleading. Your reinactors are using modern blackpowder that is machine made, and probably a modern replica of a long rifle flintlock as well with a perfectly sized ball. It represents the best case scenario, not the average one. I do not want guns that good in my campaigns.
In dnd terms you are using a +5 flintlock with +5 ammo. Your example crossbow is also a light crossbow with probably a 30 lb pull firing wooden arrows. The real example it should be using is an arbalest with a gear crank firing metal bolts.
I want canons, not musketeers in my campaigns. I certainly do not want gunslingers since breech loading wheel guns just cause huge problems. Not the last of which is it instantly narrows the hero advantage to the common man.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 04, 2012 - 9:49PM
#82
|
|
|
I want canons, not musketeers in my campaigns. I certainly do not want gunslingers since breech loading wheel guns just cause huge problems. Not the last of which is it instantly narrows the hero advantage to the common man.
That's perfectly fine, as long as the rest of us can have the firearms rules for the campaigns that we want too.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 3:38AM
#83
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Yeah, this is somewhat misleading. Your reinactors are using modern blackpowder that is machine made, and probably a modern replica of a long rifle flintlock as well with a perfectly sized ball. It represents the best case scenario, not the average one. I do not want guns that good in my campaigns.
It comports with historical accounts of bullets vs. armor.
I want canons, not musketeers in my campaigns. I certainly do not want gunslingers since breech loading wheel guns just cause huge problems. Not the last of which is it instantly narrows the hero advantage to the common man.
Which is why we're all talking about guns as an insertable module. YOu just would not insert it. Everyone's happy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 8:51AM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
I don't even understand why it needs to be a module. Just present it and let the DMs sort it out. I understand certain sets of rules packaged as modules, but stuff like equipment might vary based on the setting anyway. Do we also need a Stone Age module? And Bronze Age module? If you don't like it, you tell the players "no guns".
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 9:29AM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2010
|
The 3e (I know, dirty word) DMG pages 162-164 give the DM pointers on including anything from muskets to antimatter rifles. It seems to me with a few pages of support you can have whatever you want. Maybe the guide could also discuss the different ways guns and whatnot could be presented stylistically? By which I mean the gun-fu, cinematic, simulationist approaches and the differences between them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 1:59PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2009
|
The 3e (I know, dirty word) DMG pages 162-164 give the DM pointers on including anything from muskets to antimatter rifles. It seems to me with a few pages of support you can have whatever you want. Maybe the guide could also discuss the different ways guns and whatnot could be presented stylistically? By which I mean the gun-fu, cinematic, simulationist approaches and the differences between them.
We know, but they were laughably bad. Like they didn't even try to make them work.
I don't know if the "different ways" to handle them would work, these require a lot of testing and balancing or they are worthless. I prefer a single "style" that do not break the game or makes guns joke weapons.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 3:23PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2010
|
The 3e (I know, dirty word) DMG pages 162-164 give the DM pointers on including anything from muskets to antimatter rifles. It seems to me with a few pages of support you can have whatever you want. Maybe the guide could also discuss the different ways guns and whatnot could be presented stylistically? By which I mean the gun-fu, cinematic, simulationist approaches and the differences between them.
We know, but they were laughably bad. Like they didn't even try to make them work.
I don't know if the "different ways" to handle them would work, these require a lot of testing and balancing or they are worthless. I prefer a single "style" that do not break the game or makes guns joke weapons.
Then you must have more experience with them; I never used them. I only meant to point out that there is a precedent for giving these options some support in the DMG. In fairness to the designers I wouldn't expect them to do much testing on something like this. Its purely optional and not necessarily part of their published settings. That said, if they include a similar section in the 5e DMG I would expect it to take the communities reaction to their last attempt into account.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 7:46PM
#88
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I don't even understand why it needs to be a module.
That's how modules have been described. Optional rules packages within the rules that DMs can opt int or out of.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 8:09PM
#89
|
Date Joined:
Aug 14, 2005
|
Some interesting discussion here. I'm glad to see Amethyst mentioned; I've been using that in my games since it was released, and it saw a fair bit of use once we started an more mage-tech setting, reflavoring firearms and other ranged weapons as we saw fit. I'd really like to see a module like that in 5th.
Really, I look at it in two different lights. The first one being that we've already got stuff for High Seas (In the form of things like Stormwrack, Spelljammer, Elemental Planes/Chaos, and other places, across various editions). To this end we've had a fair number of Pirate/Swashbuckler type content, and small handguns on par with crossbows do quite well visually if that's your thing. I sort of roll things like Eberron into that as well - Airships and magitech basically fit quite well with the concepts of firearms, whether reflavored or not. Second of all, theres a fairly common tradition of Magic vs Technology in many fictional settings, and what about people who would like to play a game like that? I mean, thats the core of Amethyst right there. I realize, of course, that its not for everybody, but isn't that the whole point of having modular rules? I'd probably use em, certainly, if they were similar to Amethyst's balanced system, if we were using a setting that supported the idea.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 2:28PM
#90
|
|
|
And in pathfinder they have a chance to misfire too, because they were not crappy enough, apparently.
Probably because Paizo is attempting to acquiesce to the "eww guns" purists, without realizing those purists just ban guns entirely when DM-ing and whine about them when playing.
I was even looking the gunslinger in the srd and... Wow, he is bad like... Bad... He has to spend grit even to do things that other character do normally (like attacking locks), and "Dead Shot" is just a full-attack that is a bad version of a full-attack... That's how I don't want firearms handled in D&D.
If you want a gunslinger, just stick to the ranger and do "pew pew" noises everytime you shoot you bow... Nobody will question your actions...
That's first glance. The Gunslinger doesn't look very good when you first see it, but in play it's actually pretty fun.
|
|
|
