In the game I play in we have two guns in the party and not a one of us wants to use the feat to learn to use them. We'll probably sell them.
So, why are you so for guns in the game then? You get them, and don't even want to use them! That's why I don't allow guns in my games is for the reason you mention: no one wants to be bothered with taking the time to learn them, get proficient with one, all for the wonderful payoffs of snail-slow shot speeds, the dangers of carrying an explosive around on your side in a magical world, and painful reloading times. It'd be better if I threw my pistol at someone, and probably more accurate.
Contributor
|
Okay, I know we're on a new page but I don't want to wade through all that other stuff.
If you're going to drop firearms from the Pathfinder world, what are you dropping them on?
And wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective to drop big rocks?
If you're really in favour of gunpowder, why not use bombs.
Or you could shoot firearms off the world, if they had enough muzzle-velocity...
|
In the game I play in we have two guns in the party and not a one of us wants to use the feat to learn to use them. We'll probably sell them.So, why are you so for guns in the game then? You get them, and don't even want to use them! That's why I don't allow guns in my games is for the reason you mention: no one wants to be bothered with taking the time to learn them, get proficient with one, all for the wonderful payoffs of snail-slow shot speeds, the dangers of carrying an explosive around on your side in a magical world, and painful reloading times. It'd be better if I threw my pistol at someone, and probably more accurate.
Actually the only reason we don't use the guns is they do not fit with our current characters. If my cleric of fire dies, you better believe I am coming back as a gun toting rogue.
Guns are nothing more than a tool, not too much different than a crossbow or a wand of magic missiles. Just because my character does not want to use one now, doesn't mean a new character will not. If the GM bans them outright then he eliminates that option for me. Some things I don't mind being banned, such as ressurection type spells. But if you eliminate guns because you don't like them, then you need to get rid of similar options for fairness to all players. Ban guns, crossbow and wands of fireball or magic missiles. Then it is fair to all players.
If the excuse is realism then you have to be kidding since you have magic. But for realism, if you have crossbows get rid of the heavy armor and if you have magic get rid of castles and walled cities. Then we can talk about guns.
In our game it is a sea based game. Lots of ship to ship fighting. Now imagine Pirates of the Carribean with crossbows instead of guns. Kind of silly to be standing behind the catapult (you have to be kidding me) on the forecastle saying "Arggggh me matey, to the depths with you!"
Most likely I bet the guys who don't like guns don't own any. I have a small collection and I like guns in the game. I also have a small collection of swords and daggers. No big deal. It is a matter of personal preference. But why take something out for everyone based upon somebody's personal preferences? I really dislike the "half" races. Yet I am not asking Paizo to take out half-orcs and half-elves since I know some people like them.
We are all smart folks. If you don't like the bad guy having a gun replace it with a one handed crossbow--- and get rid of the heavy armor :)
|
Drill sergeants are so clever. Mine didn't generally bother trying to trick us. They also didn't bother giving us actual numbers of pushups to do. They liked to say things like "Private, do pushups 'till I get tired."
We had one drill sergeant that just said "Kill yourself". I once watched him tell a privte to kill himslef and then hop in a circle around the poor guy shouting "Die, Die, Die!" while he did pushups.
It seems a number of people have either
1. had problems with past rules interpretations of firearms (eg: balance, workability etc), or
2. feel that the flavour of DnD is incompatible with fireamrs, or
3. Don't see that firearms would have developed in the first place (competing with magic).
A 1. In the excellent Savage Tide AP, I pleaded with my DM to allow "Malachi the Mad", a Swashbuckling Rogue and Captain of the the now beached Sea Wyvern, to use a pistol using the Privateer Press OGL firearms rules <http://www.privateerpress.com/docs/privateer_firearms.pdf>.
He was reluctantly persuaded. Since that time (with at least three fumbles, which fortunately did not end up with Malachi's arm being blow off), and many more holes in the ceiling than dead-eye shots, but 2 or 3 massive criticial sneak attacks, they are consisered a great game success, both in flavour, and balance, by the DM and all the players. On balance, I would have to say that I would be doing more damage had I put the same number of feats into a longbow, but the boomstick is way more fun.
A 2. That really depends on the setting. Even for me, "fireamrs everywhere" is not to my liking. I can't see elves or rural halflings having much to do with them. I can see races that culturally have little to do with arcane magic, but everything to do with metallurgy "giving it a shot" (such as Dwarves, and possibly although unreliably Gnomes).
A 3. See A 2, also consider the "training time" for a non-adventuring mage. One person can make alchemical powder for hundreds of poorly trained militia. The results may normally be on par with the ancient crossbow, but may chance to do more damage on a critical.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I used to believe that firearms were completely incompatible with D&D. This was generally because past rules governing firearms were horrible, and completely out of touch with other in-game mechanics.
Guns aren't going to be a major focus, they will be used judiciously, they will add flavor, and if you don't like them - they're easy to sub out.
And for those who think that firearms are completely incompatible with sword and sorcery style gaming - there are a number of books that disprove this. I personally am a huge fan of the Solomon Kane stories...the man travels with a rapier, dagger, two single shot pistols, and a magic staff. His guns aren't unbalancing...they just add flavor to the stories.
Now, if all hobgoblins had AKs and every wizard got exotic weapon proficieny (glock) as a free feat, we'd have a problem. But c'mon, the Paizo folks have shown an incredible love/understanding of the game. Have faith that they're not going to crap it up.
Well, Paizo's going to do what Paizo wants to do. In the end, if they include firearms in their products, I'll just ignore them and substitute something in their place. It's no big deal.
I didn't catch any rabidly anti-gun posts (but then I didn't read them all), just a heaping helping of generalized frustration aimed at posters like me who would prefer to not tape guns to their wands. I believe my crew pretty much uniformly agreed that we'd just make the substitution. Are we not allowed to express an opinion about a game issue without others perhaps figuring we're somehow attacking Paizo's future?
Personally, I thought we employed good reason in our explanations of our expectations.
I feel like I must keep adding: Yes, I understand that gun use will be minimal. Whatever has that that got to do with me not liking the, even minimal, use of guns? Yes, I understand that there's precedent for the fusion but then there's also country-rap and dijonaisse. I outlined a preference, I didn't put Prep H in anyone's toothpaste tube.
Or did I? >:)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I didn't catch any rabidly anti-gun posts (but then I didn't read them all), just a heaping helping of generalized frustration aimed at posters like me who would prefer to not tape guns to their wands. I believe my crew pretty much uniformly agreed that we'd just make the substitution. Are we not allowed to express an opinion about a game issue without others perhaps figuring we're somehow attacking Paizo's future?
Personally, I thought we employed good reason in our explanations of our expectations.
I feel like I must keep adding: Yes, I understand that gun use will be minimal. Whatever has that that got to do with me not liking the, even minimal, use of guns? Yes, I understand that there's precedent for the fusion but then there's also country-rap and dijonaisse. I outlined a preference, I didn't put Prep H in anyone's toothpaste tube.
Or did I? >:)
Jade - to whom are you responding? Just curious.
To address your main point, all I know is that if you don't embrace guns in D&D, you must hate America, freedom, and democracy.
|
Yes, I understand that there's precedent for the fusion but then there's also country-rap and dijonaisse. I outlined a preference, I didn't put Prep H in anyone's toothpaste tube.Or did I? >:)
WHAT THE ?!?!? Who put preparation H in my toothpaste tube!! Why you little...!!!! <choke choke>
Seriously though although this wasn't exactly a flame war the length of the thread does seem to indicate that there is a sentiment for either side. Both sides have good points and both had their share of patronising (maybe no guns got more from the anachronist nerds so it's them on a points decision). The keep it out and keep it in's have been heard and balanced and of course Paizo will do what they feel is best. but that doesn't invalidate either side from expressing their oppinion in healthy debate. Sorry Jade but I think you do have to keep adding what you understand as some don't seem to and you get caught in the flak. I think a ring of +2 verse pedantry wouldn't go astray
and I agree ... I'm not keen on guns in my Eberron campaign ...
But if a PCs come up to me with a desire or a cool idea for it then I know I'm a good enough DM to give it a go and keep the campaign in balance. And if the heroes want to keep pockets full of gunpowder and my little kobold [tm] sorcerer busts out a burning hands spell then chuckles to me.
I can't believe people are still worrying themselves with this minor, minor, minor aspect of the Pathfinder world. Are we going to get this worked up about every minor (and easily removed by DMs) addition to the campaign world? I can't wait to hear peoples responses when they learn that all the female characters in Pathfinder (and female players) will be forced to wear chainmail bikinis or that they will be replacing potions in the game with lollipops.
Okay, so I made up the first one.
. . . or that they will be replacing potions in the game with lollipops.
Replace potions with lollipops?!?!?! That's impossible. That would imply that potions are rather sweet and possibly syrupy to begin with. Why, in my game world, cure potions are saltier than the Great Salt Lake. And a salty lollipop is just wrong I tell you . . . WRONG!!!!
Seb, I just wrote out a chunky explanation for you but submission of it took me to the main screen... so seek out my latest posts (as you once taught me to do during this phenomenon) and you'll be able to read it.
I've learned from experience that posts are rarely lost... they usually hit the boards within a few hours at most. Sometimes though, they're just gone baby gone.
EDIT: It's not there! You devils! As it is I find myself usually saving my longer posts in Word before submission just in case.
EDIT: the concise version.
It seemed there was a general tone of frustration and irritation aimed at those who expressed their personal opinion about not enjoying guns with their fantasy. I didn't feel singled out, but I did feel those who merely elaborated their feelings about their own preferences were being cast in an unfair light. Some offered references to the many instances where guns show up in contemporary epic fantasy, proving that all the cool kids are doing it.
What's that got to do with my own personal preference?
It was intoned repeatedly that guns would only make a rare appearance in Pathfinder and one of my posts was fueled by Fake Healer when he spoke a bit angrily about people not reading what Paizo had to say on the matter. I didn't see example of (and I've said twice before I did not read each post) people saying they wouldn't buy Pathfinder because of their preference. Most added a line about just making a substitution. But at the end of that post I realized that someone, on one of these pages may have actually said something charged to set him off, because he doesn't usually pop for no good reason.
Rookseye said nothing charged, however "finally, a voice of reason," seemed to me to imply the inverse, that people who abstain from guns in fantasy had somehow failed to employ reason. That was ambiguous and I could have just invented that inverse-be-true aspect, and attacked my own invention. Happens.
This post o' mine sucked in comparison to the last one but my index finger is getting stiff. MEDIC!
I believe I ended the letter saying that, in the face of people's ire, I was showing them my: "--trouser demon; so shiny, so perfectly forming, splitting the wind itself.
WHAT THE ?!?!? Who put preparation H in my toothpaste tube!! Why you little...!!!! <choke choke>
\
I've been Homer-choked! :)
::scratching fantasy #118 off the list::
Thank you for your thoughtful post, Prankster. I too, would allow guns if players asked. Like you though, just not my own personal thang is all.
I can't believe people are still worrying themselves with this minor, minor, minor aspect of the Pathfinder world. Are we going to get this worked up about every minor (and easily removed by DMs) addition to the campaign world? I can't wait to hear peoples responses when they learn that all the female characters in Pathfinder (and female players) will be forced to wear chainmail bikinis or that they will be replacing potions in the game with lollipops.
Okay, so I made up the first one.
I did replace potions with lollipops once, Phil. I absolutely swear on my word of honor that I did. Quite funny you should mention it.
Aside from banter, this is a place for the exploration of opinions. Even unpopular ones. If there's a guns-not-my-thing poster who actually expresses worry in his or her post, someone point it out to me... as a favor. Please? With a lolly of giant strength on top?
|
|
Hi Jade,
In retrospect, and after re-reading my post:
"And thence spake a voice of reason amid the din and tumult, and the world churned on; happier"
it may seem as though I was inferring that the anti-gun lobby (weird to say that in reference to D&D) was in some way wrong for expressing their opinion on the matter so assiduously, but that wasn't my intent at all.
I was merely commenting on how something so minor in the big scheme of this new world could provoke such a lengthy, and really, pointless debate. My post referenced back to Varl, who summed up nicely how this whole matter was perceived by most of us, not just the vocal majority.
For most, guns, included or excluded is no big deal. It will not ruin the low-magic Greyhawkish fantasy of the realm if a single small power group or enclave, or even nation for that matter has the possession or use of some form of primitive firearm. You can always choose that this enclave/group/nation does not have the guns and move on.
I think that the real debate going on here is between the people who are unable to look past 'canon' as it reads in a campaign setting and adjust minor elements in a world as a DM should. The Brady's and Heston's posting on this subject are absolutely entitled to airing their own opinions, but should keep in mind that this issue is FAR from a world breaker as some are making it out to be.
Hi Jade,
In retrospect, and after re-reading my post:
"And thence spake a voice of reason amid the din and tumult, and the world churned on; happier"it may seem as though I was inferring that the anti-gun lobby (weird to say that in reference to D&D) was in some way wrong for expressing their opinion on the matter so assiduously, but that wasn't my intent at all.
Thanks for replying, Rookseye. I wasn't understanding why the later pages of this thread were generating so much heat. You've explained it quite well. I just didn't see any world-breaker arguments in my perusal so I'm thinking I really must perform the dread act and actually go read every post to be grounded in the evolving dynamic of this thread.
|
|
To address your main point, all I know is that if you don't embrace guns in D&D, you must hate America, freedom, and democracy.
Hhhmm... I think you err.
But I assume that I just missed the subtle second layer of irony in your posting, didn't I?
If I erred in this assumption, I take it that non americans can still harbour their own point of view on gun use and still be good, non american, freedom loving democrats...
And back to topic:
There are surely more important issues about the new campaign setting but the availability of an exotic weapon which never found wide spread use in plain vanilla D&D anyway (= the flavour of D&D the new setting is supposed to support).
Greetings,
Günther
|
|
I've never been a fan of guns in medieval games.
Eh, to each their own, I suppose. :)
They're always developed having diminished capacity as far as how easy or quickly they can be fired and/or reloaded, as a way to politely say, "it's balanced that way", so that all the other weapons aren't dominated or made entirely obsolete.
Well, game balance is essential.... But, do note that early guns (up to and including the Napoleonic times) had a much slower reload time (2.5 rounds even in the hands of highly trained professionals) than that given for the firearms in the DMG (a standard action). So, it's fair to use a slower reload time to balance firearms against other weapons (as is done with crossbows). In fact, to make firearms playable in D&D, it's necessary to speed up the reload time.
Guns are the reason why medieval arms and armors died out.
An oversimplification to be sure. It had more to do with making an easily produced ranged weapon that was effective in the hands of a minimally trained conscript.
I just can't stomach the idea of having pee-shooters in my games.
That would be "pea shooter," after the toy. :p
What's the point of adding in something that's ridiculously hard to use as guns are typically portrayed? It'd be like a warrior with his sword having to whip out his whetstone, and be required to sharpen it furiously ("Jokan, what the heck are you doing behind that rock?!?") before attacking. ;-)
So, are you going to complain that the heavy crossbow (with its full-round action reload time) is hard to use, as well? ;)
|
|
1) Firearms would never take off in most D&D fantasy worlds, for the same reason cannons were a big NO! NO! in the Phlogiston in Spelljammer: gunpowder goes boom!
Notice how many spells involve fire?
So, anyone with gunpowder on them = potential bomb, hehe ;)
Not like fire wasn't used in warfare in the real world at all--it just wasn't magically produced.
3) Firearms are just projectile devices, basically a sling stone with Strength bonus. Dead simple. One thing I don't like in 3rd ed is way firearms/seige engines/crossbows have had Strength damage removed from them...which is all that mechanical advantage is, really.
Huh? The weapons you mention do not rely on the user's Str in any way, shape or form, hence no Str -based damage bonus.
-I hate all the books you used to get with every 9mm gun under the sun, each with it's own damage, rubbish! 9mm is 9mm from similar guns.
Whaaa?? Hello, medieval firearms.
Easy way to do guns:
Even easier way:
Musket 500 gp 1d10 1d12 ×3 150 ft. 10 lb. Piercing
Bullets, firearm (10) 3 gp — — — — 2 lb. —
Musket: The musket holds a single shot. Loading a musket is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
...Y'know, like they did in the DMG? ;)
Seriously, don't make extra-special (and wholly unnecessary) rules for firearms. They're, in game terms, nothing more than crossbows with higher damage, slower reload time and an additional component (gunpowder).
Wow! That took me over an hour to read.
My $0.02... I know Pathfinder is in capable hands. I can't wait to see what they come up with next! I can adjust as I go.
Cheers,
J.
:)
|
|
[
I just can't stomach the idea of having pee-shooters in my games.That would be "pea shooter," after the toy. :p
No Azzy seriously!
I ALSO cannot just can't stomach the idea of having pee-shooters in my games. EWWW :^P are we going back to the days of Gully Dwarves here people!!!! Just flush (wash your hands) and be done with it!
An oversimplification to be sure. It had more to do with making an easily produced ranged weapon that was effective in the hands of a minimally trained conscript.
Regardless, they still made arms and armor obsolete, and I'm not at all interested in any degree of technological obsolescence for arms and armor in my games caused by the inclusion of firearms. For me, it's simply better to not have them in the first place to avoid the inevitable escalation that would result from allowing tech to seep into my games. Plus, I enjoy a strictly defined fantasy game. Guns for me are not part of that overall paradigm, and they never will be.
That would be "pea shooter," after the toy.
Those too. ;p
So, are you going to complain that the heavy crossbow (with its full-round action reload time) is hard to use, as well? ;)
No, its the most damaging missile weapon in the game, and for that, it should be harder to use.
The funny thing about the debate on firearms is that its been mentioned several times that firearms made heavy armor obsolete. While this is true, there have been a few posts that have mentioned firearms only needing to hit a touch attack to hit, etc.
Firearms didn't make heavy armor obsolete because heavy armor did nothing against firearms. Heavy armor made a knight almost invulnerable to arrows and bolts from crossbows. Only the elite could afford to have heavy armor, but your elite forces could wade through the "rabble" and get to the other "important" targets.
Firearms didn't magically phase through armor to hit people wearing plate. If you shot someone not wearing armor and someone with a breastplate on, the guy in the breastplate has a much higher survival rate. The problem is, heavy armor didn't make someone "virtually invulnerable" to gunfire the way it did to arrows and bolts.
It became a cost benefit ratio issue. While a plate armored guy might survive being shot (maybe not, but he may), he was likely out of the fight, especially if he was unhorsed. And even if he survived the battle, he might be crippled and of less use as a warrior in the future. From a cost benefit, it didn't make much sense to spend the time and money to create heavy armor when all it did was help someone to stay alive that might not help in the fight. It was more cost effective to buy your own guns. As someone pointed out, breastplates were still in favor for much of the early age of gunpowder, because they did still keep someone from getting injured by the bullets.
So, in a world where you have magical healing, and where you may actually have less pragmatic "good" aligned military leaders, its not a given that the same pattern of heavy armor obsolecene would come about.
|
|
Good point, KnightErrant.
Actually for quite some time people tried to counter bullets by increasing armour thickness. The problem was that this made knights virtually immobile and therefore useless.
Btw. I recall there being similar discussions about crossbows. They were banned for some time by the pope due to being "unchristian". I think the main criticism was about their ability to pierce armour...
Back to rules: Increasing lethality and reloading times from bow (fast) to gun (slow) seems to be a good way - the way most often gone so far. If you don't like guns, ignore them. They are supposed to be rare anyway!
Greetings,
Günther
Not caring what other think i'm just going to post my experience.
Last night I asked my group about incorparating firem arms into our current campaign. We are currently playing the Savage Tide AP, and under Parrot Island, so we just started. It was accepted with out any discussion or even batting of any eyelash. Some one correct me but I am guessing firearms appears in WoW? ALl the people I play with are avid Wow players. Any way I am incorparating cannons (for ship to ship combat). I am also making available, match lock muskets, hand grenades, match lock blunderbuss (short range area affect) and match lock long rifles (invented by gnomes). The are slow, expensive, powerful and simple weapons.
I expect them to be eveywhere one the battle fields in our games future. The lotus dragon shall be armed with muskets, hand grenades and blunderbuss'. I think both the scarlet brotherhood pirate fleets and the crimson fleet will be well armed with cannons and personal firearms.
Anyway no guts no glory I shall let you know how our group enjoys the use of fire arms in the game (or doesn't).
SO if the pathfinder does not whole hardily accept firearms as our group has and makes it a rare exotic weapon, I'll probably accept it. Heck I ropably like it if thier are no fire arms in Path finder, because pazo does a good job.
Yes, the Second Lateran Council forbid the use of crossbows. A lot of this stemmed from the feedback of various lords that didn't like the weapon being used against them drumming up all sorts of stories about how powerful and dangerous these weapons were.
Really big heavy crossbows could punch through armor, but they had a more difficult time of being reloaded. They were easier to use than bows, but there were several historical battles where longbows out performed crossbows.
Yes, the Second Lateran Council forbid the use of crossbows. A lot of this stemmed from the feedback of various lords that didn't like the weapon being used against them drumming up all sorts of stories about how powerful and dangerous these weapons were.
Really big heavy crossbows could punch through armor, but they had a more difficult time of being reloaded. They were easier to use than bows, but there were several historical battles where longbows out performed crossbows.
Historically, longbows were seldom used outside of England (and France, when the English were fighting there). They were generally superior to crossbows (roughly equivalent power, much better rate of fire), but it took years of training to become competant with a longbow vs. months with a crossbow. Firearms were more powerful than crossbows with a similar training time, so they were adopted rapidly when they could hit the broad side of a barn and didn't blow up too often. By that point, Europe was going through a bunch of large wars and the Catholic Church had lost a lot of clout. Also, most nations had moved away from fuedal levies to more or less professional armies, anyway, so the social aspect was less of an issue.
|
|
Plus, I enjoy a strictly defined fantasy game. Guns for me are not part of that overall paradigm, and they never will be.
Fair enough, I respect that. For me the paradigm shifts depending upon the setting (and the needs of the setting)--in some fantasy settings I feel firearms are appropriate, in others not so much.
I really think it's high time for a fantasy setting to embrace firearms without going overboard, focusing attention on them, or making them a defining gimmick or characteristic. "Yes, they're here, so what... so is cheese, now get on with the rest of the game." ;)
No, its the most damaging missile weapon in the game, and for that, it should be harder to use.
See, that's what the musket is for me. :)
Fair enough, I respect that. For me the paradigm shifts depending upon the setting (and the needs of the setting)--in some fantasy settings I feel firearms are appropriate, in others not so much.
I can see certain firearms working within the confines of certain eras if that's where one sets the game world at. But I still don't think I'd enjoy playing or DMing in a setting like that. It's just not for me. That sounds like I'm limiting myself terribly, but I like certain hard coded delineations between things, and one of them is fantasy<-->technology.
What's funny is, if I discovered a creature that was some mutated abomination that has 4 arms, with two of those arms being blunderbusses physically grafted as part of the creature's physiology, that'd be fun! Weird huh? ;)
|
|
I can see certain firearms working within the confines of certain eras if that's where one sets the game world at. But I still don't think I'd enjoy playing or DMing in a setting like that. It's just not for me. That sounds like I'm limiting myself terribly, but I like certain hard coded delineations between things, and one of them is fantasy<-->technology.
What's funny is, if I discovered a creature that was some mutated abomination that has 4 arms, with two of those arms being blunderbusses physically grafted as part of the creature's physiology, that'd be fun! Weird huh? ;)
Weird, and yet it makes perfect sense in that most of us (gamers) are pretty odd by nature. :D
Some one correct me but I am guessing firearms appears in WoW? ALl the people I play with are avid Wow players.
Yeah, World of Warcraft has firearms, as well as bows, crossbows, and throwing weapons.
I like guns, in real life and in science fiction and in one fantasy campaign. The witchfire trilogy had a cool gun element that addressed a lot of game mechanic and RP concerns. After the campaign, none of my players have asked for guns in our following games.
Gnomish hand cannons! Gnomish hand cannons! Gnomish hand cannons!
I that campaign there was a shift towards using guns as the characters increased in level, and also ESPECIALLY with the arcane types. Simultaniously fighter types abandoned them except for as a first round weapon. It seems that a doubled barrelled what ever was good at helping preserve spells over a string of encounters. But a decently constructed fighter was more effective at up close and personal thuggery.
It was fun to observe, but for my players guns fell the way of psionics, kinda cool, kinda funky, but just not interested.
IMO, guns should fill a similar role in a campaign as polearms (as they did historically): devastating on a battlefield when used by large groups, while good, but limited, when used by individuals. Unless being used in a unit employing volley-fire tactics, firearms usually ended up as "one-shot, then draw a sword" weapons. Those rich enough to afford more than one gun (usually pistols), could fire more than once, but the slow reload times meant that one shot per combat was the best you could hope for, most often.
I have noticed in my games that very few players choose polearms or firearms (when I use them) for that very reason. Actually, the same goes for crossbows.
Reach weapons allow for opponents to get inside a character's reach. Crossbows and firearms are to slow for combat-types and get out classed by spell for caster-types. The only characters that really use them do so for flavor.