Pro-gun vote here!
Say hello to by BOOMSTICK!
Considering that firearms and flamethrowers were a product of the middle ages, I'm about sick of people saying that firearms have no place in D&D. If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em--but don't deny that they belong in a medieval setting.
Thank you for that. The baseline D&D world takes place in a setting roughly the same technologically as the Late Middle Ages/Early Renaissance. Heavy plate is just one of the "give aways" on that point. The other is the rapier. Guns saw regular use in warfare from the Hundred Years War on.
Excellent points, all. I should like to point out that the use of the breastplate (very commonly used in D&D), as opposed to full-body armour, was specifically due to the use of firearms since it offered the best compromise between mobility and protection from a chest shot.
Yay to guns. They are officially in the Forgotten Realms, and I've yet to see them dominate any campaign. In fact, most players run like hell from anyone using them, because they don't trust them. Guns were even more prevelant in Spelljammer, and I rarely had anyone in a Spelljammer campaign interested in them, and even then, they tended to shoot first in the encounter then draw their swords. Not really a major campaign issue.
|
Personally I don't see firearms as a problem within a fantasy campaign, I mean we are talking about worlds were one wizard or sorcerer of modest levels could lay waste to an entire village.
Also, I've seen many settings include firearms with no troubles of balance or game dynamics. In fact, if you look at Ptolus, not only does it include firearms, it also includes firearm licenses.
It's one of the handouts you get. *grins*
As some had said previously, I think it's easier to decide not to use the included material than it is to shoehorn it in later.
I'm okay with firearms being in a fantasy setting, since it gives me a lot of options for development outside of the magical arcs.
I, for one, think magics existing (Arcane, Divine, and/or Psionic) would make certain technologies develop faster unless said magics seemed to be embraced/usable at various societal levels (ala Eberron).
Firearm improvements develop out of constant need and usage, be it a colonization/frontier usage or a constant and progressive series of warfare.
In a world were a lot of magic seems the providance of the upper classes, with the sole exception of blood (sorcerer) and nature (druid) magics, with a smattering of divine thrown in of course, it'd make a lot of sense for technolgists to exist.
That said, not all of those techies would be for the greater good. *grins*
|
|
Just as there are guns in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms.
This is totally off topic, I apologize for that now.
It used to be firearms and other items of "higher tech" simply did not work in Greyhawk. In fact the only character capable of utilizing firearms was the hero god Murlynd and he had a pair of six shooters. I can't really recall where I saw this originally, which makes my assertion kind of weak, so if someone could point that out I would appreciate it. Has something changed that I missed or is that generally not the case now? Or was I dead wrong in that train of thought?
I will admit I have not followed Greyhawk since 2nd ed and have paid very little attention to any treatment given the world by the RPGA. I used to hang about on Canonfire all the time but that is hardly staying up to date with the setting, great as that site is.
|
|
Can the DM really say, "Sorry, you may have spent $100+ on books but I don't like them?!"
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, you as the DM set the expectations for your campaign, its setting, and the material you use. If a player goes out and buys material you don't want in your game it really is your perogative to say no. The choice to buy that material was theirs and they take the risk you might say no to something that is not "core".
When it comes to excising material that already exists in a campaign or setting, that is a little more difficult I admit. But, it is still within your rights to remove material that you find is not appropriate for your campaign or its style. And sometimes that has a lot to do with extremes or how closely intergrated that material is in the setting. Removing guns from Iron Kingdoms? Nearly impossible. It sounds like it will be much easier to simply ignore in the Pathfinder world.
Of course there is no reason to be petty about it but if you have a good reason for not wanting said material in your game I would think your players would respect that decision to help preserve the fun for the entire group. That includes the DM.
Firearms brought to Greyhawk from Wildspace in Spelljammer would not function due to Greyhawk's particular "physics," but at the same time, the old campaign setting mentioned that guns brought there from some other dimensions (like Earth?) still functioned.
Can the DM really say, "Sorry, you may have spent $100+ on books but I don't like them?!"
You betcha...the DM has to have fun too and if the DM ain't havin' fun, no one's havin' fun. If a player thinks she can browbeat me into allowing a bunch of crap just because they spent money on something, my answer will be "You should have asked me FIRST."
I don't much care for guns in DnD either - BUT, having said that, is a gun really that much different than a wand of magic missle?? At least you can require a ranged touch attack (or something similar) for a gun. Magic Missiles are automatic hits!
Now, if a hit by a gun = instant death - that's another story. The easiest "fix" (IMO) is to make them 1) require a hit (touch attack, etc.) 2) make them deal low damage (1d4, or 1d6?), and 3) if you want a high damage gun (i.e., a cannon) make it more like the spell 'fireball' (5d6 damage, reflex save for half, 30' radius area of effect, etc.).
I vote for no guns.
Guns are not a part of heroic fantasy literature for the most part.
There are two PCs in my FR world with guns. While they don't use them often, it doesn't really thrill me that they have them.
I would rather have the mightiest weapon of the battlefield be the bow and the catapult.
Plus, look at the names of primitive guns.
I believe that adding guns to Varisia really puts the word "Blunder" in Blunderbuss.
I like guns in D&D, but if everyone else doesn't, I'd rather Paizo made tons of money and kept putting out cool stuff.
Guuuuuns. Cool.
Can't wait to crank out some silver bullets, or shot... whatever.
I am a fan of early guns and I don't think they are out of place in a fantasy game. Nor is gunpowder. Having seen a relatively 'High-Tech' Brown-Bess in action, I can say that guns are loud, smokey, inaccurate, short range, bulky and slow to load. Akin to a crossbow with crap range, but more expensive to make and load, and harder to maintain. Misfires and jams are a bugger to clear. Gunpowder is vulnerable to moisture and to stray sparks... burning hands or fireball spells will most likely ignite and destroy your powderhorn and probably take a good part of you too.Removing gunpowder from the campaign concept also reduces the possibility of the scenario of my players rushing to defeat the villains to cut the fuse in time. (It can be done with magic, sacrifies or such, but to modern players the imperative of a big damned bomb really strikes home).
I think the only genuine concerns I might have, are establishing baseline tech levels for guns, and limiting PC development of vunder-tech from player knowledge.
I vote for guns in game. They won't dominate or have a big impact.
DD
Love the idea of Firearms in Pathfinder- my Gamers back home want to try out a mercenary company based on the gang of Lunatics from the Verhoven movie "Flesh and Blood"
|
In any event... you can probably expect to see guns appear about as often as you saw them appear in Greyhawk back in the day... or in Dungeon over the last several years. As in very, VERY rarely. If ever.
When have guns EVER appeared in Dungeon? I've been a reader since around issue 90# and I can't remember there ever being a gun in any adventure...
Guns existed in the (late) Middle Ages. There were reasons they weren't used more often, however.
Early guns had a tendency to misfire and injure the user. If the powder got wet, you had a really expensive club. They were very expensive, and the powder (unless you knew how to make your own, which most people didn't) was hard to get ahold of.
Crossbows were a much better weapon all-around. They were more reliable, cheaper, required less training, and did more damage than early firearms.
There were reasons that guns were developed, but I won't get into that right now. I'm a little fuzzy on some of the specifics. I'm sure someone more versed in the History of the Middle Ages than I will come along and provide the details.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I can't believe people get so upset about this issue. The double-bladed sword, spiked chain, and repeating crossbow are all okay in your pseudo Medieval setting, but guns ruin it?
Wait...what's that you say? You just ignore those weapons and don't let your players use them? Interesting idea. If only it could be applied in other situations.
Creative Director
|
When have guns EVER appeared in Dungeon? I've been a reader since around issue 90# and I can't remember there ever being a gun in any adventure...
In any event... you can probably expect to see guns appear about as often as you saw them appear in Greyhawk back in the day... or in Dungeon over the last several years. As in very, VERY rarely. If ever.
That's kind of my point. As in, don't expect to see guns in Pathfinder that often.
Guns have appeared in Dungeon though, if only in the many Spelljammer adventures that have been published in its pages. (to take just one example)
|
Creative Director
|
I can't believe people get so upset about this issue. The double-bladed sword, spiked chain, and repeating crossbow are all okay in your pseudo Medieval setting, but guns ruin it?
Wait...what's that you say? You just ignore those weapons and don't let your players use them? Interesting idea. If only it could be applied in other situations.
Heh. Honestly, you can probably expect to not see many double-bladed swords in Pathfinder either.
There'll be plenty of spiked chains though. And I'm sure there'll be a repeating crossbow before long.
But double-bladed swords strike me as silly and something that got thrown in at the last minute because Darth Maul had one.
|
I can't believe people get so upset about this issue. The double-bladed sword, spiked chain, and repeating crossbow are all okay in your pseudo Medieval setting, but guns ruin it?
Wait...what's that you say? You just ignore those weapons and don't let your players use them? Interesting idea. If only it could be applied in other situations.
Don't lump in repeating crossbows with the others, they actually existed. Also WHO CARES IF GUNS WERE AROUND IN THE MIDDLE AGES OR NOT! I am playing D&D, a game where people interact with a FANTASY world with elements pulled from many times. It's fantasy! If I want flying butt-monkeys with frickin' lasers on their heads, I can have that. It would be weird and not very conductive to gameplay but oh well.
The people in charge of guns in this setting have said that yes it will have them, they will play a very minimal role and that, for the foreseeable future they will not exist in any material for the adventures. Let it go. This isn't an NRA battle of who is for or against gun control, it is simply the stance that Paizo is leaving a door open to a possibility to maybe address this at some unforseen time in the vague and distant future if they feel it necessary to do so.
For. Against.
Don't have a cow over it.
FH
Bravo! It's long past time we progressed past the Middle Ages. I mean, honestly, why not a late Renaissance-era setting? Still fantastic, but we can have guns and decent sailing ships, etc.-- the latter get stuck into most people's settings anyway because they don't know what's anachronistic.
And, for the love of God, guns should be SIMPLE weapons--that's why they caught on, because you don't need to be an expert archer to point and pull a trigger.
Shouldn't there be cannons before guns? Any history profs in here?
...rules for guns run the gamut.... from the Ptolus rules (perhaps too permissive for many) to the Skull and Bones set from Green Ronin which emphasize time required to reload.
Also, the Iron Kingdoms setting from Privateer Press has both guns and cool classes to make the best of them (the Gun Mage got me jazzed to play in the Iron Kingdoms world.) Just don't call their tech "Steampunk", they prefer "Full Metal Fantasy". :)
I'd also like to agree with, despite the bizarre monster creations I fear he uses to maul his PCs, Fake Healer:
I am playing D&D, a game where people interact with a FANTASY world with elements pulled from many times. It's fantasy! If I want flying b*&~-monkeys with frickin' lasers on their heads, I can have that. It would be weird and not very conductive to gameplay but oh well.
Exactly! If I was playing some sort of factual-based medieval game then I'd expect all sorts of rules governing what's allowable based solely on real-world, historical accuracy. That's not fantastical, that's not D&D. At least not the D&D I've played the last 26 years.
At any rate, not that there's really a vote, per se, going on but I'll add a voice to the "Yes, guns please" side of the room.
- Chris Shadowens
|
|
Although I am not usually pro-firearms in a setting unless they are an essential element of said setting (Iron Kingdoms), I think most of us can say without hesitation that we are largely buying into Pathfinder and the new world Paizo is creating sight unseen. These guys know D&D. They know what they are doing, and if that means adding some amount of ballistic mayhem, I am all for it. They will do it right, and I'm sure it will have its place in the setting without breaking it.
On that note...
How about the nation/race/power group with the guns has a doddering old psychotic of a leader/mastermind (Charlton Heston) who might be part messianic figure (Ten Commandments), part liberator of the oppressed (Planet of the Apes) and part survivalist (Omega Man).
He could be all about the proliferation of firearms and the right of everyone to use them!
Some twisted aspect of the NRA in D&D might be a cool roleplaying twist on the subject matter.
|
|
Actually, Paizo is looking for a Chaotic outsider to take the place of the Slaadi...perhaps bloated beings with ridiculously opinionated natures and followings of cultish middle-aged women are in order.
Oh, and Heath, somehow I knew my Heston bait would draw out a reply from you quickly, 82 posts or no...
This is quite the contentious topic, isn't it?
I'll admit my initial reaction was, um, not favorable to the idea. But after reading both sides of the debate, and hearing from Wes & James from Paizo, I'm ok w/ how they will be introduced and presumably used in PF.
They'll likely be in a certain small part of a very large world. As has been said numerous times here, it's easier to take something out than add it in later. So this seems to be the best solution to the problem.
Those who want them, have them. Those who don't, well, stay the hell away from (unknown territories) if you know what's good for you. :)
This way both sides should be able to relax and play in the same sandbox...
I like firearms in the game. I was considering making a match lock pistol a simple weapon proficiencly. Currently I have it as a exotic weapon proficiency open for dwarves only. but I wuld like to see firearms in the Pathfinder. Maybe not as a simple weapon, but not as a central theme of some adventure plot. But as a exotic weapon that garners a lot of ooohs and aaahs, and what wonderful strangeness from others in the game world.
I am definitely interested in guns. I think low tech guns can always be interesting story devices in fantasy. They make a very interesting appearance in David Brin's (okay, sci-fi, not fantasy, but still) Second Uplift Trilogy.
Also, count me in as a GM who can and frequently does say NO to some crazy thing or another out some danged splatbook. And no, I don't care how much my players spent.
While I like a variety of weapons in the game, I'm not so fond of the whole gun idea. I'm not that against it, but imagine if Aragorn used a gun instead of a sword. It kind of ruins the romance.
That said, I also love Seven Samurai and the use of guns in that movie. So what do I know?
I'm ambivalent about the whole firearms debate, and DMs can freely remove them from the Pathfinder Adventures if they don't like them, or add in more firearms if they do.
What interests me is Pathfinder's take on firearms when it comes to its association with magic. Firearms changed medieval warfare forever and within the space of just a few centuries bows and arrows were relegated to the dustbin. Certainly, certain aboriginal cultures continued to use bows, spears, and slings, but by about the 17th-century none of these weapons could stand up to a gun on the battlefield. This doesn't mean I'm against guns, but it does lend itself to an important thought.
The technology used to create a longbow or crossbow can be quite complex, but a functioning firearm is another matter entirely. And this is where magic comes into play. If we draw the conclusion that smaller firearms were descended from cannons, then cannons must also be in the game. But would cannons have been invented in a world where wizards can throw fireballs to decimate army units, cast magic missile to unerringly strike foes, and lay waste to entire areas with meteor swarms?
If we say yes then the question must be asked why and by whom? Traditionally dwarves are not big on arcane magic, so they might be the inventers, but if it's them wouldn't the guns in Pathfinder be far superior to the guns in medieval Europe in the 14th century? Dwarves are certainly supposed to be better architects, engineers, and weapon designers than humans. So I would assume they are also better at inventing workable firearms.
In FR smokepowder replaces gunpowder. Smokepowder is made from ground dragon bones and other materials and so this makes guns by default very rare. Will Pathfinder take this approach or go down the traditional approach of gunpowder; a combination of saltpeter, sulfur, charcoal, and other chemicals, that would be more of an alchemical substance (and require Craft [alchemy] to create)?
And what of magic and firearms? If we say firearms are going to exist, will they be impacted by magic? Will we see all the mid-level and high-level NPCs in Pathfinder with +1 flintlock pistols, or +2 keen blunderbusses or +1 unholy matchlock rifles? The answer better be yes, because any NPC worth his salt will want a magic one if its his main ranged weapon.
Also, what about the impact on Pathfinder's monster ecology? Stone giants with matchlock pistols would be bloody dangerous!
Gee...I've rambled a lot!
Lord knows I probably won't ever include firearms in my campaign, but lord the one gun can make an interesting plot device.
Especially if the "One Gun" is this gun.
|
|
Firearms brought to Greyhawk from Wildspace in Spelljammer would not function due to Greyhawk's particular "physics," but at the same time, the old campaign setting mentioned that guns brought there from some other dimensions (like Earth?) still functioned.
It does make you wonder how the ban on firearms could exist in the same world Expedition to Barrier Peaks takes place. Quite an odd "disconnect".
Guns are better than psionics. Yep, I went there.
|
|
And herein lies my objection. Yes firearms appeared in the Middle Ages. Now if there is an established baseline - "firearm technology won't surpass 13th century Earth" (as an example) then I'm good to go. However, what typically happens is one author/designer envisions medieval-level firearm tech while another enivisions Age-of-Sail and yet another envisions something else.
I don't see that as being a valid argument. Where, when the focus has been on a single setting, have that setting's game designers vacilitated on how the setting approaches firearms?
And as a counterpoint on the setting front, I have plenty of 'non-traditional' or 'quirky' settings to choose from. Well designed, internally consistent 'traditional' settings are a little harder to come by these days.
But since there are plenty of established "traditional" settings, why should a new setting that is being designed from the ground up be completely "traditional" rather than find its own voice.
but they can have a very large impact on a campaign's setting and tone.
I think you grossly overestimate the effect that a gunpowder weapon has in a setting where the players have access to magic missile at 1st level and fireball at 5th. Oh no! Not a slightly more damaging crossbow that loads slower! ;)
Finally, the 'moving Greyhawk geography' around is a straw-man argument. The Pathfinder reinterpretation of goblins is proof-positive that you can take something 'traditional' or 'common' and make something exceptional out of it.
That's kinda what bringing firearms into it is doing, though.
Second, even if it is not officially considered "core" material for the campaign world, some players are going to see it in print and ask for its inclusion -- "After all," the old argument dregs on, "if we the players spend money on the products we should have the option to use the material."
And you reply, "Um, sorry, but no."
A DM has the right to exclude material from the games he runs. One of my rules is, "If I don't own it, and haven't read it thoroughly, it's not allowed in my game." No "ifs," "ands," nor "buts." If it's a new (to me) rule set, say like Tome of Battle, I may eventually allow its use (but only after I've had a lot of time to read and understand it and purchase it myself). But if it's something that doesn't fit with with the setting or adventure I'm running (say like FR's spellfire, or warforged), it's just not going to be an option--ever. There's a difference between being fair and being a doormat.
And, for the love of God, guns should be SIMPLE weapons--that's why they caught on, because you don't need to be an expert archer to point and pull a trigger.
I disagree with them being simple weapons (I'd say martial if anything). Point and click is easy, yes. But there's other elements to using a firearm that does require training. I dare you, if you have no previous experience with one, to go play with a matchlock musket (just be careful not to blow yourself up). Contrary to the opinions of seemingly many, the use of the old black powder weapons does require some training (just not nearly as much as a longbow to be used effectively).
I don't much care for guns in DnD either - BUT, having said that, is a gun really that much different than a wand of magic missle?? At least you can require a ranged touch attack (or something similar) for a gun. Magic Missiles are automatic hits!
Now, if a hit by a gun = instant death - that's another story. The easiest "fix" (IMO) is to make them 1) require a hit (touch attack, etc.) 2) make them deal low damage (1d4, or 1d6?), and 3) if you want a high damage gun (i.e., a cannon) make it more like the spell 'fireball' (5d6 damage, reflex save for half, 30' radius area of effect, etc.).
Even better--forget all of that and just make them like crossbows with higher damage and a slower reload time. Forget any special rules like touch attacks, misfires, extra damage, etc. Those are completely unnecessary, mostly unwarranted, and usually unbalancing in one direction or the other. Just make them work like every other weapon in the game and call it good.
I'm all for adding having guns available. They shouldn't be too prevalent, but having them there gives me options. Also, don't make the rules too realistic or punitive, if firearms are an option it should be fun to use them. They don't need to be better than the longbow, but don't make a rifleman impossible to play either. I like fun and fantasy, not playing a historical simulation.
See, this guy's got the right idea. :)
I can't believe people get so upset about this issue. The (snip) repeating crossbow are all okay in your pseudo Medieval setting, but guns ruin it?
Um, China, dude, like in 250 B.C. Just saying. ;)
He he! N'Ra is my diety of steam and smoke. He holds the secret of blackpowder and his followers believe everyone should have the right to bear arms.
They also drive carriages with flat beds in the rear with runes on the back that state things like "I'll give up my thunderstick when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" and "If thundersticks are outlawed, only outlaws and goblins will have thundersticks". Another favorite is "Thundersticks don't kill people, dragons do." Their clerics tend to wear a lot of flannel or camouflage during inappropriate social occasions and refer to their followers as "sportsmen" even though most have not seen a jogging track...well....ever! They prefer to drink their ale in strange half dozen mini-casks assemblages manufactured by fine gnomish metalsmiths.
F2K (a real world NRA member)
Azzy replies to Sebstian:Sebastian wrote:
I can't believe people get so upset about this issue. The (snip) repeating crossbow are all okay in your pseudo Medieval setting, but guns ruin it?
Um, China, dude, like in 250 B.C. Just saying. ;)
Repeating crossbows in China in 250 BC? I'm not quite sure if you are saying this, if you are, they didn't have them contrary to their inclusion in recent famous Chinese "Hero" movies, or so I am told by a Chinese history buff... here in China.
I use guns in my campaign now, my players brought them with them from their homeland (The Celestial Imperium). By the way, I live in China, my players are all Chinese, and they started playing to practice their English--now they are all addicted.
The backstory to this is that the campaign has both a "silk road" and naval trade with western kingdoms. The China equivalent in my campaign is a powerful centrally controlled Empire that has strictly controlled magic to the point where unsanctioned magic users are hunted and imprisoned. The solution to such oppression was the development of technology, and my players are involved in the bringing of said technology to Greyhawk.
We havent had any balance problems.
A dude pulls out a musket. The other dude casts fireball....
Although I did get a surprise when one of my players spent down time building 10 kg black powder bombs.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.... lots of you already said it.
|
|
Repeating crossbows in China in 250 BC? I'm not quite sure if you are saying this, if you are, they didn't have them contrary to their inclusion in recent famous Chinese "Hero" movies, or so I am told by a Chinese history buff... here in China.
Yeah, right.
Next thing you know this guy's going to say there weren't wushu masters battling in treetops, or that they didn't make robes which could blot out the sky and provide protection from raining arrows.
I vote no to firearms. But if/as they are in I will cope
I prefer not to see them as they do not sit well in my heroic fantasy concept. I dont think they have to destroy the world I just dont like them in the genre, and yes I accept that a DM can fix it.
As I understand history of gunpowder warfare (and I refreshed by reading gunpowder warfare in wiki)war before firearms involved only those really trained to fight as most everyone else was no good at it. After firearms anyone could join in and be just as good as the next person.
This is the flavour that firearms bring- as Syndrome says in a world where everyone is special, no one is special.
It is a flavour thing- I have no problem with printing press, air ships, whatever.