You uh
You do realize that your answer relies 100% on "Well we'll just use magic!"
That sorta means the druid wins. That one character is tying up your other spellcasters. As for having infernal, elemental, or mechanical guardsmen, I'm pretty sure at that point we aren't talking about something a level 4 druid would fight.
We're making the assumption that, just as in medieval times people like to think D&D is meant to emulate, an army is made of village conscripts, not a professional army, and that things such as having devils marching with you would be vaguely rare.
Of course, I also used level 4 because, once you get higher then that, armies are even more pointless. An invisible flying wizard casts cloudkill. That's it for that army!
As for the red mantis assassins, once again, how would they know who the druid is? Wildshape.
Oh, and I'm fairly certain you can't just 'fix" a completely warped wheel. You can't hit it with a hammer a few times and presto chango the entire makeup of the wheel is back to normal!
My point remains the same - the existance of full casters means castles and armies and everything else that's "medieval" doesn't function. The bubonic plague which dramatically altered the entire history of Europe - and the plague that struck Greece before it - would've been gone instantly once a cleric goes "YO GOD WHAT THE HELL, CUT THIS CRAP OUT."
So, verisilimitude is, again, based entirely on ignoring realism for the sake of "fun." If we can ignore that castles exist in a world of dragons, and that knights and paladins exist in a world of wizards, and that medieval life exists in a world of druids and clerics...
...We can admit that firearms can exist without completely ruining the world.
Back on subject a bit...
I personally allow Muskets in my games. Guns have been around ALOT longer than alot of people think, and I think they can fit quite nicely into a setting. The guns I use are Muskets, however, and not revolvers, riffles, or anything like that. This means that, while they have some superiority, they are also inferior in many ways to bows and arrows. A gun is not rapid fire, a Musket is much more inaccurate than an bow. ETC.
ProfessorCirno wrote:
...We can admit that firearms can exist without completely ruining the world.
I think what kinda makes Firearms in Golarion okay with me is that the world view of them is skewed to them being a 'specialist weapon from this part of the world' rather then being a revolution in warfare. If I were to advance the time-line a 100 years because my party decided on some FREAKY TIME TRAVEL, I still don't see firearms being a big thing.
It to me feels like their very different from how they came about on Earth. Maybe it'd be a big deal if Taldor invented them and they shot like, Arcane Lightning Bullets. But no, some far-off city that no one cares about made them for a single purpose; surviving in a magic dead-zone.
I think the real question here is;
Do you need a Gun in a world where you can go to College and learn how to shoot Lightning out of your hands?
When college is far out of the hands of most, and takes intensive study from childhood, yes, yes you do.
Two things can be attributed to the Gun's Success on earth. The first, and most obvious, is Replaceable parts, wich won't happen in a fantasy setting since spells like mend make it rather useless, and hand crafted Magical Items are dozens of times for effective.
The other thing that made the gun powerful, and the most IMPORTANT, was the Bayonet. You see, Musket balls can't pierce plate armor, never could. Some of the recreational guns used today wouldn't. It's why Plate was INVENTED. Guns were more effective against infantry, and would wipe out entire regiments of infantry, only to be scattered by a small force of armored cavalry. Then came the invention of the soccet Bayonet, wich allowed you to turn your gun into a spear, and THEN turn it back. Suddenly, Armored Cavalry was unable to charge these formations, and before long, only Skermish Cavalry remained as an effective fighting force.
Now, such an advent may happen, or it may not. But guns ARE effective, and DON'T break the setting. Like I said, I like using them, myself, as they are an interesting weapon and can provide some interesting oppourtunites. A Pistol is like a hand crossbow that's more powerful, rendering it effective without sneak attack or poison. A riffle is more powerful than a Bow or Crossbow, but has less range than either. These are things wich lend them their usefullness. I'd say that if you have a player that wants to use them, let them use a Flintlock type weapon, for most settings. Flintlocks were contemporary to most of the weapons you see on the weapon table, even to some wich weren't contemporary to each other! (Rapier vs Greatsword, anyone?)
EDIT: Oh! Here's a great page about this! Just don't click any links away from it, or you'll be lost for days (I really hope there isn't an unspoken forum rule about links to this site >.>) Fantasy Gun Control
vp21ct wrote: When college is far out of the hands of most, and takes intensive study from childhood, yes, yes you do. So what you're telling me in that Steve Jobs is the worlds greatest Wizard?
Hrm, brilliant, sir!
vp21ct wrote: Two things can be attributed to the Gun's Success on earth. The first, and most obvious, is Replaceable parts, which won't happen in a fantasy setting since spells like mend make it rather useless, and hand crafted Magical Items are dozens of times for effective. So does the hand lightning. I'm not dropping that.
vp21ct wrote: The other thing that made the gun powerful, and the most IMPORTANT, was the Bayonet. You see, Musket balls can't pierce plate armor, never could. Some of the recreational guns used today wouldn't. It's why Plate was INVENTED. Guns were more effective against infantry, and would wipe out entire regiments of infantry, only to be scattered by a small force of armored cavalry. Then came the invention of the soccet Bayonet, wich allowed you to turn your gun into a spear, and THEN turn it back. Suddenly, Armored Cavalry was unable to charge these formations, and before long, only Skermish Cavalry remained as an effective fighting force. I wouldn't say that's why it was INVENTED. Plate proceeded portable firearms by a long while. It IS why Chainmail fell out of use. vp21ct wrote: Now, such an advent may happen, or it may not. But guns ARE effective, and DON'T break the setting. Like I said, I like using them, myself, as they are an interesting weapon and can provide some interesting oppourtunites. A Pistol is like a hand crossbow that's more powerful, rendering it effective without sneak attack or poison. A riffle is more powerful than a Bow or Crossbow, but has less range than either. These are things wich lend them their usefullness. I'd say that if you have a player that wants to use them, let them use a Flintlock type weapon, for most settings. Flintlocks were contemporary to most of the weapons you see on the weapon table, even to some wich weren't contemporary to each other! (Rapier vs Greatsword, anyone?) Rapiers are the single most argued about weapon at my table. They make me 9-flavors of sad.
Including Honey Garlic Sad.
ProfessorCirno wrote: You uh
You do realize that your answer relies 100% on "Well we'll just use magic!"
It does, but so does yours. A druid versus a non-magical army is most likely going to win unless the non-magical army does something really spectacular, the druid messes up really badly, or the army uses some way to counter the druid's magic.
And I also agree that firearms can exist in Golarion without it ruining the setting.
I think you're all over estimating Magic. Perhaps a lvl 16 wizard could wipeout a whole army on his own. But really, how many lvl 16 wizards are there, in setting, who woudld even give a damn.
Druids even less likely. Maybe clerics, but most are Battlefield Medics.
How about we break down the kinds of infantry there might be on a battlefield in Galorian.
Light Infantry: Most likely Warriors, maybe even Commoners. Not likely to have anyone with a PC class in their ranks, or if they do, they'll be a fighter, ranger, or rogue who's serving as a commander or seargent. They do gruntwork, and in less scrupulous armies, will be cannonfodder. They're weak against quite a bit, and rely on weapon specialization within their ranks, whole units armed with just one type of weapon. Some of these might include:
--Muskets. Muskets are Simple Weapons (they really are, and I think that one of the 3rd party supplements has them as such), wich means that a unit full of warriors would be able to use them. They'd have less range than Bowmen, but would still be able to attack formations at range.
-- Pikes. This allows the unit to break up heavy cavalry charges and formations, maybe even light cavalry. It can be used against infantry in a charge, in a variation of the greek Phalanx, pushing enemies and hurting them before they're even within range of hurting you. Muskets were highly effective against Pikes, as the Musket range was greater than that of a Pike.
-- Various. Phased out by the time of the Musket, Light infantry was sometimes armed with various assorted weapons, typically axes or short swords, often in tandem with shields, and used as Cannon Fodder or as a pawn in controlling the battlefield.
Ranged Infantry: Probably an equal number Warriors and Fighters, with perhaps a Ranger or two in their ranks. Where muskets have a range of 50-100 ft, Bows are nearly double that. This makes them very effective for controlling a battlefield. Wont be heavily armored, and would rely on speed and other units to protect them. Light Infantry can be a threat, as they can get closer alot faster.
-- Longbow. The weapon most of us imagine with it, this weapon is very effective against almost all types of Infantry, but espesially Heavy infantry, as Heavy infantry is too slow to approach such a formation. Is a Martial Weapon, but has greater range and refire rate than Muskets or Crossbows.
-- Crossbow. Acts much like the Musket, and truly, The Musket largely replaced Crossbows on the battlefield. Still effective in sieges, however.
Light Cavalry: Light Cavalry is best used as scouts and breaking up Ranged Infantry. Will likely be Fighters or Rangers with Ride skill. Against prepared Light Infantry, they will not be as effective, but are good at surprising. Against Heavy Infantry, they are very ineffective.
Heavy Infantry: All Fighters, maybe some low level Paladins, with a cleric to act as Battlefield Medic. Light Infantry would be decimated before them, though Pikes a bit less so.
-- Muskets. Musketeers were this, as they wore Breastplate, and were often highly trained. This combination is deadly against light Infantry and Cavalry, however, it isn't very cost effective.
--Pikes. As Muskets, very useful, not as cost effective. Like Light Infantry but slower and tougher.
--Sword and Shield. This makes them even tougher, but means they gotta get close. Might have various weapons on them other than Sword.
Heavy Cavalry: Fighters and Paladins, again. Very Good at disrupting Infantry, so long as it's not Spear or Pike infantry. Less effective against Ranged Infantry, unless it's flat terrain. For that purpose, though, Light Cavalry is more effective.
--Lance. This makes Charging VERY powerful. Allows them to Decimate enemy forces. Supplemented by Sword and Shield, for when the lance is destroyed.
Artillery: On the Battlefield, Artillery is most used for disrupting the enemy. Catapults and the like are Siege equipment, not artillery. The First Artillery was like a Giant Crossbow, and after that, The Scorpian used by the Romans. It persisted like this until the Cannon was introduced, and Light Cannon became the quintessential Artillery for it's speed and stopping power.
Mages: Weather Sorcerers or Wizards, it doesn't matter. A handful of Low Level Mages might serve as Infantry, or be mixed in with. Area Effect or Line of Effect spells would be most effective. However, Many of these spells (like lighting bolt) Do not have the greatest Range. This limits there ability. Once they have fly, however. One Or Two mages can quicly step into the battle field to decimate a unit. However, their spells are limited. Sorcerers are more suited to the task of Battlefield Mage, but are not as likely to do this, and in many settings are rarer than Wizards.
Monstrous units are also a possibility, but there's too much to list, and some would just double as one or the other of those listed, with exceptions.
Undead: Effective Terror Weapons, if you can field enough, they are also resistant to both Muskets and Bows, making them good for approaching such formations. If they can use weapons such as those, they are even more terrifying.
Flying Mounted: Very Rare, but would dominate non-ranged Infantry. Decimated by Bows, Crossbows, or Muskets if they don't get the drop on them.
A Dragon: Just... if an Army has one of these on their side, Counter with PCs or another Dragon... otherwise, it's all over.
Tomb - my main point is "magic makes the concept of organized war archaic."
vp21ct - again, that's all well and good, but the side with the spellcasters win, even if they're just level 4.
My point was, and is: We already ignore a lot of internal inconsistencies with the game, and rightfully so! Nobody wants t start as a level 0 peasant who dies of disease in the second game due to unclean water.
But some great points as well... realistically Magic does change warfare as we know it... even level 3-5 casters can frag up a column or a unit without too much effort.
SO the only counter to this would be in effect to make magic rare from an NPC perspective (so players can be casters but they'll be a part of a very very small select group) or limit casters in war from a RP perspective (A modified Geneva convention, if you will, calling magic a weapon of mass destruction) and having various codes/practices/penalties limiting magic in war.
Makes a great story hook as well, maybe the players are a 'hit' team to remind a certain convention breaking mage that interfering in war is bad for their health.
That's just it though... the side with the Spellcasters doesn't nessisarily win.
A Level Four wizard can maybe cast a total of 5 combat spells. Of these Magic Missile and Flaming Sphere have the greatest range. The Wizard is very likely going to lay on one or two protection spells, limiting him to at least 4 spells. Additionally, he may have a disruptive spell, like Gust of Wind or Sleep. Further Reducing now to 2. He might kill a handful of enemies with his spells, probably drop 4 enemies, unless the roll nicely on their will, and knock down a few more. Then he's done for the battle, entirely. Out of spells. dead weight.
A Sorcerer has a bit more staying power, but they'll still be out of spells before the battle is half way over.
And Any fight wich calls upon a full blown lvl 8 Wizard or Sorc means there's gonna be Spellcasters on the other side, too, and those spellcasters may well be there just to disrupt Spellcasting, such as with Counterspells or Dispell Magic.
Also remember. A Sorcerer potential is maybe maybe, 1 in 100. Most wont get much higher than lvl 4 and just stay in their village as the local caster. A Wizards with ties to Arcane Universities are about the same. An nation that can muster an army of 10,000 will likely have 100 wizards. Most wont be higher than level 10. Each Wizard can probably kill 50 or so guys, if they prepare spells specifically for killing. Most forces that will be going up against a force will also have Mages. Those Mages will likely focus on disrupting the mages.
End result, Magic Users are largely forced into an Artillery like roll, or other wise nullified by a combination of superior numbers and a lack of enough spells, or by other mages.
vp21ct wrote: That's just it though... the side with the Spellcasters doesn't nessisarily win.
A Level Four wizard can maybe cast a total of 5 combat spells. Of these Magic Missile and Flaming Sphere have the greatest range. The Wizard is very likely going to lay on one or two protection spells, limiting him to at least 4 spells. Additionally, he may have a disruptive spell, like Gust of Wind or Sleep. Further Reducing now to 2. He might kill a handful of enemies with his spells, probably drop 4 enemies, unless the roll nicely on their will, and knock down a few more. Then he's done for the battle, entirely. Out of spells. dead weight.
A Sorcerer has a bit more staying power, but they'll still be out of spells before the battle is half way over.
I dont necessarily see it that way... scribe scroll pretty much arms even a level 1 caster with some tough magic, including invisibility (which is not an automatic, "I win" button admittedly)... get close enough, cast flaming sphere into the supply wagons at night and thats the ONLY spell you need to cause big damage to an enemy logistics)... Mages would almost act like special forces - why the hell let the other casters see you to counter your spells. Night raids, casting from concealment, shapechanged druids etc means that the enemy response is reactive at best (at worst they cant respond at all), and challenges them to use up their spell slots on amplify, see invisbility etc... problem is that its a lot of troops to cover with limited duration spells even if they too are using scrolls.
And as for magic missile? Except for sniping an officer (or even a fellow mage on the other side) there are far better spells to cause disruption at low levels
Yes! Exactly! Mages just aren't for large scale battle. Meaning they don't really have a place in war aside from special forces and the like. (Also, very good for sieges, an Earth Elemental can just earthwalk right through that fortification and open the gate for you). But otherwise, things are just too big for them.
On the other hand, though. An high level mage is perfect on the battlefield, especially a Sorcerer,a s they can just rain fireballs down from on high.
Yep... so magic pretty much screws with warfare as we know it... A castle is just a big target waiting for an earth elemental, stone to mud, etc... supply chains are kept small because they are too vunerable to spells and clerics do the raising food thing (assuming God is actually on yourside), units spread out because of assumed spell area affects etc.
Which is what the Prof has been arguing.
Now... back to guns.
The existance of fireballs which can fry a unit from 400ft+40/level would not, I think, end warfare in a fantasy world any more than the existance of artillery which can drop HE shells on a unit from 50 km away has ended warfare in the real world.
If anything what it would probably do is make fantasy warfare look a bit more like modern warfare in certain respects. In the real world, the trend of increasing firepower has generally been met by a trend of increasing dispersal of soldiers; we use squads and fireteams as basic military elements rather than regiments all lined up on one end of the cornfield, and for all that far more soldiers fought in the Kursk salient than did at Cannae, there were far fewer per unit of area. I suspect something similar would be true of fantasy armies given sufficient magical firepower to drive the development of new tactics.
On guns... they really should not be blanket exotic weapons.
Actually, I treat them as Simple Weapons. Their basically shorter range, More powerful crossbows. A Gun is easier to use than a Bow, etc.
vp21ct wrote: Actually, I treat them as Simple Weapons. Their basically shorter range, More powerful crossbows. A Gun is easier to use than a Bow, etc. To Work a Musket you must;
The 18th century musket, as typified by the Brown Bess, was loaded and fired in the following way:
* Upon the command "prime and load", the soldier would make a quarter turn to the right at the same time bringing the musket to the priming position. The pan would be open following the discharge of the previous shot, meaning that the frizzen would already be up.
* Upon the command "Handle cartridge", the soldier would draw a cartridge. Cartridges consisted of a spherical lead bullet wrapped in a paper cartridge which also held the gunpowder propellant. The other end of the cartridge away from the ball would be sealed with a twist of paper. The soldier then ripped off the paper end of the cartridge with their teeth and spat it out, keeping the main end with the bullet in his right hand.
* Upon the command "prime", the soldier then pulled the hammer back to half-cock and poured a small pinch of the powder from the cartridge into the priming pan. He then closed the frizzen so that the priming powder was trapped.
* Upon the command "about", the butt of the musket was then dropped to the ground and the soldier poured the rest of the powder from the cartridge, followed by the ball and paper cartridge case into the barrel. This paper acted as wadding to stop the ball and powder from falling out if the muzzle was declined.
* Upon the command "draw ramrods", the soldier drew his ramrod from below the barrel. First forcing it half out before seizing it backhanded in the middle, followed by drawing it entirely out simultaneously turning it to the front and placing it one inch into the barrel.
* Upon the command "ram down the cartridge", he then used the ramrod to firmly ram the wadding, bullet, and powder down to the bottom followed by tamping it down with two quick strokes. The ramrod was then returned to its hoops under the barrel.
* Upon the command "present", the butt was brought back up to the shoulder. The soldier pulled the hammer back and the musket was ready to fire, which he would do on hearing the command "fire".
According to Wikipedia.
To work a Bow;
Get Arrow, Pull String.
Simple Weapon my Ass, Even Martial seems to be a little low for it's operation. These are not modern firearms designed to be workable by anyone; they require a knowledge of their use.
I remember hearing that the it takes 20 seconds to load and fire these thing properly. Isn't like, one Standard Action 6 seconds?
The main reason I don't see Firearms going forth into the world anytime soon; Magic is powerful in direct use. Musketeers are pretty much bait for a level 5 Wizard. But, Golarion is a world where magic has bit of freedom in how it's used. Weapons and Armors are enchanted. And the world is used to combating something far more deadly then the musket; Magic. Magic causes you to explode, be electrocuted by HANDLIGHTNING, melts your face and so much more. Clerics have magic to heal this.
What is a 2 inch deep wound (less with armor) to healing someone who's been split open by a enchanted blade.
Combat in Golarion is a lot higher paced and fluid then what it was in our medieval times.
Firearms remain in Alkenstar because it's a magic dead region, some get exported, yes, but the reason Alkenstar had to begin using them was because they couldn't use magic.
I don't ever see warfare turning out the way it did on our planet on Golarion too because it has additional variables to stop that from occurring.
Also, just as a side note; Alkenstars population is 53kish, which, to be fair, could only ever rally a 10,000 in the best of times. They're in no position to outnumber anyone.
What I think you're missing vp21ct is that;
A. Muskets are a complex weapon to operate.
B. Golarion is doesn't work like Earth does, there is many more variables.
C. You've shown that you lack a bit of knowledge on the workings on the very weapons you rally for. Plate being used to counter muskets, Muskets being simple to use (anything but) and stating that a battlefield Golarion would have open use of firearms in light infantry and that a level 8 Wizard/Sorc would be counter spell while fighting against muskteers (implied, not directly stated) but these musketeers don't have Wizards; they at best have Alchemists. So, if anything above level 5 shows up; that 20 second load time is looking like a 20 second death sentence.
(Just so we're clear; 20 seconds is derived from the Muskets rate of fire of 3 shots per minute.)
Coriat wrote: The existance of fireballs which can fry a unit from 400ft+40/level would not, I think, end warfare in a fantasy world any more than the existance of artillery which can drop HE shells on a unit from 50 km away has ended warfare in the real world.
If anything what it would probably do is make fantasy warfare look a bit more like modern warfare in certain respects. In the real world, the trend of increasing firepower has generally been met by a trend of increasing dispersal of soldiers; we use squads and fireteams as basic military elements rather than regiments all lined up on one end of the cornfield, and for all that far more soldiers fought in the Kursk salient than did at Cannae, there were far fewer per unit of area. I suspect something similar would be true of fantasy armies given sufficient magical firepower to drive the development of new tactics.
On guns... they really should not be blanket exotic weapons.
This -- honestly everything Prof suggests is possible -- I won't say otherwise -- but it's stuff that has already been a part of warfare since the greeks were fighting if not before. The only difference is the druid has magic to help him do it -- which of course can be countered by other magic (alarm, detect magic for the sentries, and a whole host of other options).
I won't say a druid can't be an effective raider -- he obviously is -- but that doesn't mean one druid will somehow stop a thousand person army in its tracks -- especially in a world where druids/magic users in general are common.
Quote: [snip]
* Upon the command "present", the butt was brought back up to the shoulder. The soldier pulled the hammer back and the musket was ready to fire, which he would do on hearing the command "fire".
Everything you describe up to this point is irrelevant to the question or whether a firearm should be exotic or not (Also, what you are describing is a specialized training routine for mass formations of soldiers to fire quickly and all in synchronization with each other, not the normal operation of the weapon. In game, I'd say you're describing soldiers being trained to use the Rapid Reload feat or something similar, not simple proficiency).
Exoticness solely represents how hard it is to hit with the weapon; the only penalty to an exotic weapon is that if you don't have EWP, you take a -4 to hit. Nothing to do with loading times in the EWP feat.
Quote: To work a Bow;
Get Arrow, Pull String.
And if that is your first time picking up a bow, you will be lucky if that arrow goes even near where it's supposed to. With a gun, even a commoner has a half-decent chance of actually hitting something.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
In my Kingmaker game I dropped in a pair of duelling pistols for one of my players. They are mildly magical and increase in power every time he wins a duel.
"Hocus" and "Pocus" as they are called are fun little weapons and I feel totally fit into Golarion's fantasy setting. I see an opposition between magic and firearms as a false dichotomy. When your players are sitting around a table, and fights a man with a pistol, it's a rare player that says:
"HOLD IT! A Gun! That's it. I'm packing my s*** and going home. I was willing to accept the antipaladin on a flying skeletal horse, but a GUN! Do you even realise what that would do to warfare! Etc..."
Usually what players will say is:
"DIBS!"
I also changed firearms to simple weapons in my games (a gun's a real simple thing, "just make a fist and the bullet does the punching for you."), I decreased reload times from a minute to a full-round action, and gave the following types of guns:
Derringer - 1 shot, 1d6 damage, x3 critical. 20 ft. increment. (concealable)
Pistol - 1 shot, 1d8 damage, x3 critical. 30 ft. Increment.
Shotgun - 2 shots, 2d6 damage, x3 critical. 20 ft. Increment.
Rifle - 1 shot, 2d8 damage, x3 critical. 50 ft. Increment.
That was it. If I'm feeling fancy I might introduce a revolver modification into the game, but I'm not going to go crazy with it.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote: [...]I also changed firearms to simple weapons in my games (a gun's a real simple thing, "just make a fist and the bullet does the punching for you.")[...] The only reason I see guns remaining as exotic weapons in the Golarion setting is that they are a weapon most never heard or used and thus no one except a few from Alkenstar has any sort of understanding of how they work. Also I would believe that the daily maintenance of such weapons (cleaning and so on) is part of the proficiency. The point part is simple, you might even be able to shot, but then you have to learn how to aim correctly etc.
If it weren't for the uniqueness of a gun I would probably those with multiple bullets in the martial weapon category because they are close to bows and the ones with only a single bullet in simple, since their long reload makes them sorta like crossbows.
RE: Guns should require all these steps to work -
Longbows were exotic as hell weapons in real life in that they regularly required years of specialized training to utilize them properly.
D&D just gives proficiency away like it was candy.
The problem with "this should be realistic" is that so many other things aren't realistic in the slightest.
RE: Magical warfare -
Don't think fireball. Think create food and water. You now have a siege in which the people inside don't need to worry about starvation or dehydration.
Think fly. Your castle - the very concept OF a castle - is now dead.
Think plant growth, dramatically altering agriculture and shaking the entire class system.
Think Remove Disease. No more black plague. No more plague of Greece.
Think invisibility. Now anyone can be assassinated no matter where they are.
Yeah I don't think any of the spells you describe will end warfare either. Or class systems, or whatever. You're being hugely over-optimistic about the world-changing potential of the spells you named.
There were plenty of sieges in real life in which the defenders had plenty of food and water. Think most of the twenty-odd sieges of Constantinople, for example. I do agree you will see fewer long set piece sieges, though, mostly because they are a subset of the massed set-piece battles that I also think you would see less of.
Maybe flying is why dungeons are such a popular means of fortification. But again, we have flying in modern warfare. We don't use castles (more modern forms of fortification are still very much in use), but we still have armies and wars.
A variable crop yield of 1/3 isn't going to do away with the class system. You got much larger variations in agricultural productivity in the medieval real world based on whether you lived in, say, Egypt vs. Scotland or Norway, yet Egypt didn't evolve into a classless society nor did the great production of the Nile region shake the seats of its rulers.
Remove disease requires a CL check, DC 17 for ye olde Black Death. A hard check for most of those who will be casting remove disease. A success cures one single person. The spell explicitly does not prevent the person you just cured, who is probably weakened from his partial brush with the plague and the resulting Con damage, from being swiftly reinfected.
Multiply that by the need to successfully remove disease a thousand times a day or more in large metropolises (RL Damascus, with death tolls fairly mild by European standards, saw about a thousand deaths a day) and I don't foresee an end to the Black Death in fantasy worlds (More like, the wealthy and important will get a magical cure and the rest won't). If anything fantasy plagues could be worse, considering there are demon princes and such out there whose entire existence is spent thinking up worse diseases than the plague to unleash on the world.
No chance of curing isolated infections before they can spread, either, since the plague spreads very fast and you'd also have to cure every damn rat or flea. ;)
This is discounting that according to the DMG most small hamlets and such (on up to "small town"; a large town will average 1 guy) won't even have anyone capable of removing disease, because I don't know if this holds for Golarion.
As for assassinations and invisibility, fantasy world rulers often seem to be pretty high level people. Of course you can assassinate average Joe, but you can do that even without magic. If the CIA wanted to assassinate me, it'd be really easy.
I suspect the same general conclusions hold about most other world-changing spells - they will have a huge impact, certainly, but they will not make society unrecognizable.
Quote: The only reason I see guns remaining as exotic weapons in the Golarion setting is that they are a weapon most never heard or used and thus no one except a few from Alkenstar has any sort of understanding of how they work. Also I would believe that the daily maintenance of such weapons (cleaning and so on) is part of the proficiency. You can believe that, but in game, non-proficiency results in a -4 to hit. It's certainly reasonable to rule that it also results in not knowing how to take care of the weapon, but even so, a mechanic whose main effect is a -4 penalty to hit is a bad way to represent a weapon that is easy for anyone to kill with, and where the difficult parts have nothing to do with to-hit.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Plenty of things in a fantasy setting change overall warfare.
With the advent of more accurate firearms and artillery, we got away from the meet n greet style of warfare where people lined up in ranks to shoot each other all gentleman-like.
In a world where fireball and cloudkill (or any other ranged AoE spell)exist, armies would never have fought that way...ever. They would have gone straight to guerilla/squad tactics, as anyone cought in a group of 5 or more is insta-dead, if a spell can bet set there.
Magic becomes the firearms of a fantasy setting. The great equalizer.
It ignores DR, like a bullet (IRL) can ignore plate mail.
Guns in a fantasy setting won't upset this. They can't.
EDIT: If you think about magic in warfare to its logical conclusion, I'd think that magical warfare would look something very similar to todays battlefields. Stealthy SpecOps mages on the ground taking critical targets, mages of each opposing force in the air with fly spell fighting for air superiority, and full on war mages providing artillery spells. Magus would most likely be the infantry grunts.
A man in platemail with a sword would be almost obsolete, if it weren't for the study required to become a wizard...
Rogues would most likely, in an army, be dedicated to eliminateing the enemies wizards...
Overall if you didn't have magic in some form, it'd be like showing up to a gun fight with a rolling pin.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Overall if you didn't have magic in some form, it'd be like showing up to a gun fight with a rolling pin.
Important Note: If you're damn good with a Rolling Pin, you just might win that fight. :P
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
vp21ct wrote: Kryzbyn wrote:
Overall if you didn't have magic in some form, it'd be like showing up to a gun fight with a rolling pin.
Important Note: If you're damn good with a Rolling Pin, you just might win that fight. :P ...and win initative :P
ProfessorCirno wrote: RE: Guns should require all these steps to work -
Longbows were exotic as hell weapons in real life in that they regularly required years of specialized training to utilize them properly.
D&D just gives proficiency away like it was candy.
The problem with "this should be realistic" is that so many other things aren't realistic in the slightest.
Longbows are a tough use, I'll agree to that. But, in a world of their common use; there Martial proficiency seems about right.
My main point is; these are NOT lever action, bolt action or simple use guns.
There are barrel-loaded, flint locked fire arms, which, for what it's worth; do take so figuring out beyond the a normal glance.
They should NOT be simple weapons, their operation is always going to a hassle and require time to figure out.
Add in their rarity and their obscurity; you have an Exotic Weapon.
By contrast, Bastard Sword is also exotic (to a degree), but you don't bump one-handed use down to martial and two-handed use down to simple because you can use a Dagger.
My point basically is; Early Firearms are NOT simple, by any degree.
Rueon wrote: ProfessorCirno wrote: RE: Guns should require all these steps to work -
Longbows were exotic as hell weapons in real life in that they regularly required years of specialized training to utilize them properly.
D&D just gives proficiency away like it was candy.
The problem with "this should be realistic" is that so many other things aren't realistic in the slightest.
Longbows are a tough use, I'll agree to that. But, in a world of their common use; there Martial proficiency seems about right.
My main point is; these are NOT lever action, bolt action or simple use guns.
There are barrel-loaded, flint locked fire arms, which, for what it's worth; do take so figuring out beyond the a normal glance.
They should NOT be simple weapons, their operation is always going to a hassle and require time to figure out.
Add in their rarity and their obscurity; you have an Exotic Weapon.
By contrast, Bastard Sword is also exotic (to a degree), but you don't bump one-handed use down to martial and two-handed use down to simple because you can use a Dagger.
My point basically is; Early Firearms are NOT simple, by any degree. Quote frankly, no, composite longbows were not martial weapons. They required specialized training which is literally the definition of exotic weapon proficiency. English longbowmen regularly have been found with deformed skeletons due to how the usage of the weapon twisted their body.
The problem is that what does and doesn't constitute an "exotic" weapon is compmletely buggered. Completely. Is it a weapon that needs specialized training? A weapon that's "not European?" or simply a weapon that's vaguely "better" then martial weapons?
If it requires specialized training, why is the repeating crossbow - literally easier to use then a longsword - an exotic weapon? If it's weapons that're "not European" then what's the bastard sword doing there? And almost all exotic weapons that are there for "better" purposes are very notably not worth the feat it costs for the upgrade.
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Quote frankly, no, composite longbows were not martial weapons. They required specialized training which is literally the definition of exotic weapon proficiency. English longbowmen regularly have been found with deformed skeletons due to how the usage of the weapon twisted their body.
Longbow as used by English/Welsh bowmen = bow made from a single piece of wood - yew, ash etc
Composite longbow = bow made from a composite of materials - woods, horn, sinew etc.
Rueon wrote: My main point is; these are NOT lever action, bolt action or simple use guns. Why? The question was about using firearms in the game... why can't they have bolt action, cartridge bullet or rifling for accuracy?
ProfCirno is advocating making them reliable and useful in the game.. in other words, likely not the self-destructive, 5 round loading ones.
Isn't there a setting that uses guns, explosives and such in a pretty serious way? Iron Kingdoms?
It seems to work fine in that game pretty well.
I think KaeYoss' comment stands: you can justify anything, just decide what type of feel you WANT and go from there.
ProfessorCirno wrote:
[...]If it requires specialized training, why is the repeating crossbow - literally easier to use then a longsword - an exotic weapon? If it's weapons that're "not European" then what's the bastard sword doing there? And almost all exotic weapons that are there for "better" purposes are very...
the long and the short is that the difficulty of using a weapon have little to do with what sort of feat is needed. If I remember the explanation correctly then a martial weapon should be better then a simple weapon, while a weapon that is weird or better then martial weapons should be an exotic or something like that.
Kaisoku wrote: Rueon wrote: My main point is; these are NOT lever action, bolt action or simple use guns. Why? The question was about using firearms in the game... why can't they have bolt action, cartridge bullet or rifling for accuracy?
ProfCirno is advocating making them reliable and useful in the game.. in other words, likely not the self-destructive, 5 round loading ones.
Isn't there a setting that uses guns, explosives and such in a pretty serious way? Iron Kingdoms?
It seems to work fine in that game pretty well.
I think KaeYoss' comment stands: you can justify anything, just decide what type of feel you WANT and go from there. Looking at the top of my browser, apparently I'm in Pathfinder Campaign Setting.
Which means, these weapons need a place in the world of Golarion.
That place is Alkenstar. They don't produce anything beyond Muskets, Cannons and, for whatever reason; revolvers.
My argument is; they're rare, specialized weapons from a corner of the world.
So, this isn't Iron Kingdoms. This is Golarion. That's what guns come from, that's what they make. Feel free to play differently, but in the default of the setting; those are the guns available and that's how they work.
Helaman wrote: Not sure how I am on this... on one hand I feel its wierd to add it and would just as soon just ignore them (which of course I can at my table) but on the other hand I just cant help thinking they should do a tad more damage and can see also it as a natural growth (assuming physics and chemistry work the same way at the basic level when uninfluenced by magic).
How many of you have tried firearms and what were your experiences?
I use firearms in my home brew Georgian pirate campaign (I use the Monte Cook Ptolus firearms that are available for free as a PDF). I like them. Its not about firearms being more/less effective than magic, but rather about creating a feel for the setting. I want a setting that is more like Perdido Street Station than Lord of the Rings, and having rules for firearms helps achieve that. Firearms are relevant weapons using the Monte Cook rules, but they did not become overpowering. I have many different magic firearms, and some more elaborate, rare, steam-punky firearms that end up being serious contenders to the magic bows and arrows that are available at high levels.
In any case, having or not having firearms, and the rules you use for firearms is a decision to make based on the flavor of the campaign world you want to run. D&D serious works with sub machine guns, and rocket propelled grenades if you do it right. Imagine an Alien II style scenario with a bunch of so armed adventurers underground, being attacked by umberhulks. "Their coming out of the floor." "Short controlled bursts!" Then, one of them fails their save vs. confusion...
Rueon wrote: Looking at the top of my browser, apparently I'm in Pathfinder Campaign Setting. When I started reading this thread, it was in Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion. The OP's post talks about "our experience" in general, and in fact other than the title, he didn't mention anything Golarian specific.
I'm not sure why it was moved to the campaign setting, as he seemed to be asking about general experience, and that's what the conversation was about for the first page and a half of posts.
It appears you started reading the thread after someone moved it here, while I started reading before. Hence the disconnect.
If this is now a Golarian specific thread that talks about specific experiences in Golarian, then I don't really have anything else to talk about in this thread (my experience in Golarian is minimal).
I don't know enough about it to know if I disagree or not.
For the OP though, my point stands: <effective> firearms don't break the game mechanics, but they change the feel, so it's really a matter of taste.
Sure we had issues with early firearms.
We did not have dwarf/gnome workers and magic weilding alchemists nor active participation of gods of artifice
|
