Why would gunpowder be used in a magical world. I was talking with my brother and we were talking about alternatives. Why not base guns off of a small dab of Oil of Impact or a small Thunderstones. Using gunpowder is a loaded idea as it is common place in the real world thus everyone knows what it is made of. Using magic is a way to introduce flintlocks without the added baggage of gunpowder.
Just thinking.
Why would gunpowder be used in a magical world. I was talking with my brother and we were talking about alternatives. Why not base guns off of a small dab of Oil of Impact or a small Thunderstones. Using gunpowder is a loaded idea as it is common place in the real world thus everyone knows what it is made of. Using magic is a way to introduce flintlocks without the added baggage of gunpowder.
Just thinking.
Interesting notions, Xyll.
I'm not sure that gunpowder comes with any 'baggage' , though.
I'd ask 'why not gunpowder'?
Primitive guns fit into D&D's default late medieval milleu very well, as gunpowder weapons were very much a part of the development of armor, weapons, tactics, and fortifications in the late medieval period.
If the campaign world is supposed to be technologically less advanced then I can see a good reason for excluding gunpowder. Likewise, the DM may simply wish to arbitrarily rule it out on 'style grounds.' A world locked in stasis, perhaps?
There don't seem to be any game balance reasons for excluding primitive gunpodwer weapons. It's just a matter of taste.
With gunpowder comes dinomite.
Also, gunpowder weapons led to the end of armor in the real world.
If you do choose to make guns part of your game world, you should include the armor power protection from missles.
This may get moved to the Gunslinger topic. I can never tell.
What is gunpowder made of? It's made out of powdered guns, right?
I've asked around a bit here, and not everyone seems to know what it's made of.
Plus, everyone knows what swords are made of and it doesn't cause any problems, either! ;-P
With gunpowder comes dinomite.
Also, gunpowder weapons led to the end of armor in the real world.
Nah, it was crossbows that did that. And all it really did was change the way things are done. Armour is such an ugly word, everyone uses kevlar nowadays.
Gun Powder had been around for centuries before Nobel figured out how to make Dynamite. I find it strange people assume that a fantasy setting jump a few centuries from muskets to dynamite and TNT, especially since there are plenty of other controllable ways to blow things up. Of course if you want those things in your game, knock yourself out.
Most games I've seen with guns, the gun powder was was actually magical. You can always run with that in your games and this would be a way of preventing other uses. "Sorry you can't make a grenade with it because the magic doesn't work that way."
Another easy way out would be to let your players know that their modern day knowledge is not also their character's. I know that a rifled barrel made for more accurate guns but why on earth would my character trained in muskets.
As for why they might use actual gun powder, it might be a way to balance the power of spellcasters.
With gunpowder comes dinomite.
Also, gunpowder weapons led to the end of armor in the real world.
If you do choose to make guns part of your game world, you should include the armor power protection from missles.
This may get moved to the Gunslinger topic. I can never tell.
One could very well argue that magic in pathfinder has already made armour obsolete.
Conversely, the gunpowder rules presented in the playtest make nothing obsolete.
Unrealistic gunpowder is fine.
Wait, why were there all those sticks of the stuff in westerns?
I'll Google Nobel.
Maybe I was thinking of those round cannonballs with fuses.
Unrealistic gunpowder is fine.
Wait, why were there all thoes sticks of the stuff in westerns?
I'll Google Nobel.
Westerns are set, most commonly, in mid or late 19th Century North America. We're talking about an industrial civilization with advanced chemistry and metallurgy, highly sophisticated engineering, factories, etc. Guns had been in use for centuries by that point, and undergone massive development and refinement.
Gunpowder was invented hundreds of years earlier, in China. Gunpowder weapons were used in much of Europe right alongside with castles, knights in armor, two handed swords, etc.
I'm not sure why we'd expect the development of technology to be much, much faster in most D&D settings than it was in real life.
I'd have to know more about the setting in question, of course.
Wait, why were there all those sticks of the stuff in westerns?
Mainly for mining and stump clearing :).
Another easy way out would be to let your players know that their modern day knowledge is not also their character's. I know that a rifled barrel made for more accurate guns but why on earth would my character trained in muskets.
Right, abuse of player knowledge is not the same thing as something wrong with a setting. It's the DM's role to stop such things.
Besides, unless the player in question is actually a trained gunsmith, metallurgist, chemist, etc, he may not know much more than the general concepts of a given piece of technology. That's not the same as actually being able to make something useful. How many guys do you know who can build a rifling bench from scrap?
Well since a key goal of the gun rules are to represent those in alkenstar (as stated by the devs) that is not going to happen. Magic doesn't work in that reason (one of the proposed reasons firearms are popular there).
In reality at the level we are talking about longbows were more efficient at piercing heavy armor then firearms were. Have a look at the devastation peasant longbowmen did to expensive a heck knights in the 100 years war. Heavy armor was already on it's way out. Also the proliferation of magic (namely the spells that bypass armor completely) would, if it was going to happen, have a far more profound effect on the use of armor. A first level mage can make touch attacks, and higher level mages can use area spells. Less armor and more dextrous soldiers would be the end result of that.
But thats not how fantasy settings work. Its a world where there are dragons, and flying mages and all sort of other stuff, but there are still castles (which wouldn't work at all if such things attacked), but no one asks why that doesnt change things.
I'd have to agree with the statement, "Why not gunpowder?"
As for the historical issues- it's a debate that will never end. There are so many different factors: society, technology, economics, logistics... it's hard to pin down something as generic as 'what brought about the end of heavy armor?' It's a complicated issue and it doesn't have a simple answer.
The fact is- longbows, crossbows, and guns all existed at the same time, and heavy armor was quite popular at the same time as well. I think there is probably a point where changes in metallurgy, chemistry, society, and tactics all came together in order to spell the end of the heavy armored knight, but no one will ever be able to find it and be able to say, 'here it is!'
Just my 2c.
Four or five I'd say.
Nice! Keep them close in the event of the collapse of civilization.
I could draw a crude diagram of a rifling bench, but I have no illusions about being able to build one from scrap.
I have made gunpowder, though. That was fun. :)
I'd have to agree with the statement, "Why not gunpowder?"
As for the historical issues- it's a debate that will never end. There are so many different factors: society, technology, economics, logistics... it's hard to pin down something as generic as 'what brought about the end of heavy armor?' It's a complicated issue and it doesn't have a simple answer.
The fact is- longbows, crossbows, and guns all existed at the same time, and heavy armor was quite popular at the same time as well. I think there is probably a point where changes in metallurgy, chemistry, society, and tactics all came together in order to spell the end of the heavy armored knight, but no one will ever be able to find it and be able to say, 'here it is!'
Just my 2c.
Agreed, and heartily so!
There was 'bullet proof' armor, after all. Fire a ball against a breastplate at such and such a range and note the indentation.
Heavily armed and well-armored cavalrymen often carried pistols in the 1500s and early 1600s.
Because it's an equalizer. In a world where damage at range is predicated on wresting knowledge from heavily-guarded secrets (wizards), or simply being born to it (sorcerors), gunpowder would deliver similar effects for the masses who aren't as knowledgable or blessed by birthright.
Well since a key goal of the gun rules are to represent those in alkenstar (as stated by the devs) that is not going to happen. Magic doesn't work in that reason (one of the proposed reasons firearms are popular there).
In reality at the level we are talking about longbows were more efficient at piercing heavy armor then firearms were. Have a look at the devastation peasant longbowmen did to expensive a heck knights in the 100 years war. Heavy armor was already on it's way out. Also the proliferation of magic (namely the spells that bypass armor completely) would, if it was going to happen, have a far more profound effect on the use of armor. A first level mage can make touch attacks, and higher level mages can use area spells. Less armor and more dextrous soldiers would be the end result of that.
But thats not how fantasy settings work. Its a world where there are dragons, and flying mages and all sort of other stuff, but there are still castles (which wouldn't work at all if such things attacked), but no one asks why that doesnt change things.
I think the penetration power of the longbow versus plate, even with bodkin type arrows, has been exaggerated. Late medieval plate armor got to be quite good at stopping/deflecting arrows.
Take Agincourt for an example. The English archers did not manage to simply stop the massed French cavalry charge. That's even with a pretty open field of fire, and the French moving over muddy ground!The armor worked. The French tactics did not work. Too many men and horses on a muddy field, bad command and control, and the horses took nasty hits. The English used a combination of archery and dismounted knights plus men at arms to win the day. Hand to hand fighting was pretty heavy, in fact. Many of the French deaths seem to have occured when the English massacred prisoners, and not with longbows. No one thinks that the dagger was a wonder weapon.
Because it's an equalizer. In a world where damage at range is predicated on wresting knowledge from heavily-guarded secrets (wizards), or simply being born to it (sorcerors), gunpowder would deliver similar effects for the masses who aren't as knowledgable or blessed by birthright.
Gunpowder weapons were not, in the early stages, terribly accurate. Nor were they so powerful in effect that armor disappeared. Armor actually worked, if it was made heavy and strong.
You might almost argue against crossbows, longbows, siege weapons, etc. People figured out ways to deliver damage at range a long time ago, and many pre gunpowder weapons were quite effective when used correctly. Some, like the crossbow, required relatively little strength or skill.
If a D&D setting had Hundred Years War level technology, which many more or less do (often more advanced, in fact) then simple guns would fit in perfectly with longbows, crossbows, knights in armor, etc. These things all existed together.
What you've got to ask is: how advanced will guns be, if I use them in my setting? What ignition systems exist? Does anybody know who to corn powder? How does metallutrgy effect cannon making? Has rifling been invented? Etc, etc,
There's a world of difference between a pot de fer and the cannon used in the 1600s. There was a long time between the two, as well.
Because it's an equalizer. In a world where damage at range is predicated on wresting knowledge from heavily-guarded secrets (wizards), or simply being born to it (sorcerors), gunpowder would deliver similar effects for the masses who aren't as knowledgable or blessed by birthright.Gunpowder weapons were not, in the early stages, terribly accurate. Nor were they so powerful in effect that armor disappeared. Armor actually worked, if it was made heavy and strong.
You might almost argue against crossbows, longbows, siege weapons, etc. People figured out ways to deliver damage at range a long time ago, and many pre gunpowder weapons were quite effective when used correctly. Some, like the crossbow, required relatively little strength or skill.
If a D&D setting had Hundred Years War level technology, which many more or less do (often more advanced, in fact) then simple guns would fit in perfectly with longbows, crossbows, knights in armor, etc. These things all existed together.
What you've got to ask is: how advanced will guns be, if I use them in my setting? What ignition systems exist? Does anybody know who to corn powder? How does metallutrgy effect cannon making? Has rifling been invented? Etc, etc,
There's a world of difference between a pot de fer and the cannon used in the 1600s. There was a long time between the two, as well.
The technology can also be an issue of cost, as well. For instance, I recently learned that Henry VIII owned a breach-loading rifle. That's at the same time that a common soldier was using an smooth-bore arquebus. So really, if you were a rich guy like and adventurer, what would you buy?
The technology can also be an issue of cost, as well. For instance, I recently learned that Henry VIII owned a breach-loading rifle. That's at the same time that a common soldier was using an smooth-bore arquebus. So really, if you were a rich guy like and adventurer, what would you buy?
I'd probably buy the smoothbore arquebus, because it would be less likely to blow gas and smoke in my face, blinding me on the battlefield or even injuring me seriously. Those early breechloaders were often very fincky. They were experiments. No one got it consistently right until the 19th Century. Even the Ferguson rifle (late 18th) had issues. So did the early 19th century breech loaders like the Hall, Crespi, etc. You don't want the breech rupturing or failing and spraying your face, mouth, eyes, etc with hit gas, fumes, smoke, fragments of the gun! Didn't happen all the time, but it occured often enough to make people nervous.
Getting a poor seal might make the weapon less effective as well as potentially dangerous.That's not to say a masterwork breechloader would be out of the question, but even a really well made gun like that would be an experimental piece, and there would be a greater risk of failure than a conventional muzzle loader.
There were breechloading cannon in the 1400s, but the breeches failed so often that they were abandoned as unsafe or unreliable.
The technology can also be an issue of cost, as well. For instance, I recently learned that Henry VIII owned a breach-loading rifle. That's at the same time that a common soldier was using an smooth-bore arquebus. So really, if you were a rich guy like and adventurer, what would you buy?I'd probably buy the smoothbore arquebus, because it would be less likely to blow gas and smoke in my face, blinding me on the battlefield or even injuring me seriously. Those early breechloaders were often very fincky. They were experiments. No one got it consistently right until the 19th Century. Even the Ferguson rifle (late 18th) had issues. So did the early 19th century breech loaders like the Hall, Crespi, etc. You don't want the breech rupturing or failing and spraying your face, mouth, eyes, etc with hit gas, fumes, smoke, fragments of the gun! Didn't happen all the time, but it occured often enough to make people nervous.
Getting a poor seal might make the weapon less effective as well as potentially dangerous.That's not to say a masterwork breechloader would be out of the question, but even a really well made gun like that would be an experimental piece, and there would be a greater risk of failure than a conventional muzzle loader.
There were breechloading cannon in the 1400s, but the breeches failed so often that they were abandoned as unsafe or unreliable.
Ah, good points. I'm only just getting into more of the specifics of the history of firearms myself.... It just seems cool to me to find out that some of these things go back a lot farther than the average person thinks. (Very interesting about the breech-loading cannon, btw.)
Also, to be fair, although we know Henry owned one- it would be pretty hard to say how much use it actually saw. Besides obvious stuff, like wear and tear, etc.
Ah, good points. I'm only just getting into more of the specifics of the history of firearms myself.... It just seems cool to me to find out that some of these things go back a lot farther than the average person thinks. (Very interesting about the breech-loading cannon, btw.)Also, to be fair, although we know Henry owned one- it would be pretty hard to say how much use it actually saw. Besides obvious stuff, like wear and tear, etc.
Are you aware of the gun-shields in his armoury? Here's a link:
http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal/number_39/gunshield/inde x.html
I actually have no problem with gunpowder weapons in fantasy games. I have used them before and they tend to be used much like they are in pirate/swashbuckler movies fire off a shot and charge into melee. I was just postulating that there could be magical alternatives if people have issues with barrels of blackpowder in a game. Personally I would not want to be running around with black powder when I could get hit by a random fire attack at any time :)
Also the fact that gunpowder can be fouled with water and fire is bad enough in a fantasy world. Modesitt Imager's books has gunpowder weapons pretty bad when certain people can make them go boom at will :)
Can anyone say heat metal on the pistol.
I'm not sure gun/blackpowder is necessarily the problem (easy blowing stuff up probably is part). I'd say its the complication the guns are bringing: what other weapon in the Pathfinder arsenal needs this many considerations? People think about advanced guns as being the only kind, then they get corrected about how bad guns were, then they have to consider whether they want something that finicky. Whereas if they just stick to bows and crossbows the rules are already there and aren't that complicated. Whether or not you want to justify guns on a factual basis you're going to need to sell them to some other on a game basis.
I've never really had a problem fielding guns in game. I made up stats:
Pistol= 1d8 19-20/X3 Range: 30ft
Rifle= 1d10 19-20/x3 Range: 50ft
Essentially Crossbows with the critical modifier of a bow, but with a crappy range increment. It was an exotic weapon. As far as I was concerned, if people want to take the feat for it I don't penalize them by having their ammo cook off (unless its a specific attack against the gun like Heat Metal) as I don't generally worry about the vials of Alchemist Fire or Acid breaking on characters from getting hit and dodging around.
Nah, it was crossbows that did that. And all it really did was change the way things are done. Armour is such an ugly word, everyone uses kevlar nowadays.With gunpowder comes dinomite.
Also, gunpowder weapons led to the end of armor in the real world.
There are many ways to make gun powder but the main way is salt peter(or potassium nitrate) and sulfer 2 very common and very abundant items found in eveyday life.
Sulfer is mined and Potassium nitrate is made by useing this formula
2 KNO3 → 2 KNO2 + O2
One other thing Eastern Asia had developed and advanced gunpowder technics such as the Nest of Bees http://deadliestwarrior.wikia.com/wiki/Nest_of_Bees
I would like to see this some how put into action in pathfinders like a close bust 3 all creatures with 1D6 dam but make the chance to hit low also all im just throwing around ideas
Kevlar is about to be out the window btw have you not heard of Spider goats
I actually have no problem with gunpowder weapons in fantasy games. I have used them before and they tend to be used much like they are in pirate/swashbuckler movies fire off a shot and charge into melee. I was just postulating that there could be magical alternatives if people have issues with barrels of blackpowder in a game. Personally I would not want to be running around with black powder when I could get hit by a random fire attack at any time :)
Also the fact that gunpowder can be fouled with water and fire is bad enough in a fantasy world. Modesitt Imager's books has gunpowder weapons pretty bad when certain people can make them go boom at will :)
Can anyone say heat metal on the pistol.
If gunpowder is vulnerable to magic, so are a lot of other things.
Heat metal sucks for the guy in heavy armor, too. Warp wood messes up bows. Mage hand can be used to prematurely trigger a crossbow, I'm sure. Soaking a bowstring may render it useless.
I'm not sure gun/blackpowder is necessarily the problem (easy blowing stuff up probably is part). I'd say its the complication the guns are bringing: what other weapon in the Pathfinder arsenal needs this many considerations? People think about advanced guns as being the only kind, then they get corrected about how bad guns were, then they have to consider whether they want something that finicky. Whereas if they just stick to bows and crossbows the rules are already there and aren't that complicated. Whether or not you want to justify guns on a factual basis you're going to need to sell them to some other on a game basis.
The rules for other weapons are not realistic, so why should the guns rules be held to a higher standard?
I've never really had a problem fielding guns in game. I made up stats:Pistol= 1d8 19-20/X3 Range: 30ft
Rifle= 1d10 19-20/x3 Range: 50ftEssentially Crossbows with the critical modifier of a bow, but with a crappy range increment. It was an exotic weapon. As far as I was concerned, if people want to take the feat for it I don't penalize them by having their ammo cook off (unless its a specific attack against the gun like Heat Metal) as I don't generally worry about the vials of Alchemist Fire or Acid breaking on characters from getting hit and dodging around.
Interesting write up. I like it. I might do something similar, but I'll make hand-gonnes (the only kind of man portable gun likely to be seen in my upcoming PF game) a simple weapon, not exotic. One of the advantages is that these things are easy to shoot. Loading will be slower and the weapon will have some extra effectiveness versus armor 9not a touch attack, though!). Of course, crossbows will also be a bit slower to load and a bit more effective/hard hitting.
Want to shoot often? Take a bow. Fine with shooting less often but want to do more damage with a single shot and/or punch through armor? Use a gonne or a crossbow.
Different weapons for different purposes or roles, in other words.
I also take into account things like cover and concealment. Being able to shoot a crossbow prone is an advantage in some situations.
Gonnes might spook horses or even men who aren't used to the noise, flash and smoke.
The rules for other weapons are not realistic, so why should the guns rules be held to a higher standard?I never said they should be. I was pointing out a possible reason why some people who don't want to deal with complicated rules might be making a big deal about the inclusion of guns with complicated rules. And part of my argument is that for some other people they may think guns need to be realistic, so in their mind guns either are super-killers or a complicated mess, and thus they raise a stink.
Ah, yes, I get you now.
In 'realistic' rules, guns would neither be super killers when compared with other weapons nor a complicated mess. A realistic system would never have hit points that go up by level, for one thing. A single blow from a dagger, spear, sword- or a single arrow, bullet, bolt, etc ought to be able to POTENTIALLY kill or cripple ANY human being. At the same time, plenty of people are shot, stabbed, mauled, burned, etc and live to tell the tale. The problem is that people think that you can make the D&D combat system into a realistic simulation, not just add some touches of versimilitude.I find it very, very strange that some people think one shot from a gun must be hyper deadly(in the game or in real life), but have no problem with a character being struck six or seven times with an axe and suffering no real effect but a drop in hit points.
Interesting write up. I like it. I might do something similar, but I'll make hand-gonnes (the only kind of man portable gun likely to be seen in my upcoming PF game) a simple weapon, not exotic. One of the advantages is that these things are easy to shoot. Loading will be slower and the weapon will have some extra effectiveness versus armor 9not a touch attack, though!). Of course, crossbows will also be a bit slower to load and a bit more effective/hard hitting.
Want to shoot often? Take a bow. Fine with shooting less often but want to do more damage with a single shot and/or punch through armor? Use a gonne or a crossbow.
Different weapons for different purposes or roles, in other words.
I also take into account things like cover and concealment. Being able to shoot a crossbow prone is an advantage in some situations.
Gonnes might spook horses or even men who aren't used to the noise, flash and smoke.
I went with Exotic because I didn't want them to be common in the setting. Also crossbow specific feats worked on guns. I kept the load times the same as I already gave a penalty with range. Also, realistically, your more likely to tire faster continually reloading a crossbow then a gun, which would affect the load time over time. So rather then worry about realism I decided to make it effectively the same. That's just the reasoning for my setting though.
I went with Exotic because I didn't want them to be common in the setting. Also crossbow specific feats worked on guns. I kept the load times the same as I already gave a penalty with range. Also, realistically, your more likely to tire faster continually reloading a crossbow then a gun, which would affect the load time over time. So rather then worry about realism I decided to make it effectively the same. That's just the reasoning for my setting though.Interesting write up. I like it. I might do something similar, but I'll make hand-gonnes (the only kind of man portable gun likely to be seen in my upcoming PF game) a simple weapon, not exotic. One of the advantages is that these things are easy to shoot. Loading will be slower and the weapon will have some extra effectiveness versus armor 9not a touch attack, though!). Of course, crossbows will also be a bit slower to load and a bit more effective/hard hitting.
Want to shoot often? Take a bow. Fine with shooting less often but want to do more damage with a single shot and/or punch through armor? Use a gonne or a crossbow.
Different weapons for different purposes or roles, in other words.
I also take into account things like cover and concealment. Being able to shoot a crossbow prone is an advantage in some situations.
Gonnes might spook horses or even men who aren't used to the noise, flash and smoke.
If I was going to tolerate guns(Yes for Eberron and The Cleaves) I would make them Exotic except for Gunslingers or Musketeers. As for rifling, sorry, but without supporting technology, they should be as hard to create as a golem. Multiple spells and rare ingredients.
[IMG]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/GothGuru/FRPG/GunpowderBomb.gif[/IMG]
Here's your bomb. Shoot it from a cannon or drop it down a staircase.
It's lit so it's going to go off in maybe 1D6 more rounds for 3D6 concussion and 3D6 shrapnel damage. Shrapnel is piercing and concussion is like a hammer.
Passing out is a fort save, DC18, but I don't want death by shock.
because technology develops very slowly in a world where there is magic.....the tech just isnt needed
that and game balance to make it playable
im ok with 'muskets' but 1st level people lighting barrels of gunpowder can wipe out level 10 people...and thats not how d20 games work
because technology develops very slowly in a world where there is magic.....the tech just isnt needed
that and game balance to make it playable
im ok with 'muskets' but 1st level people lighting barrels of gunpowder can wipe out level 10 people...and thats not how d20 games work
1st level guys can kill high level dudes with good tactics, and that's a problem? You don't have things like poison, carefully planned ambushes, rockfall traps, etc in your games?
What about dumping molten lead on a high level fighter who is scaling the wall of a castle you are defending? Shoving a guy out of a very high tower window(falling damage, baby!)? Tripping a guy in full plate and knocking him into deep water to dorwn> Poisoning a powerful wizard's wine cup. A net can bind up a high level guy, and then you move in for the kill with posioned reach weapons. Get him helpless and then coup de grace!Tactics, baby, tactics!
Ah, good points. I'm only just getting into more of the specifics of the history of firearms myself.... It just seems cool to me to find out that some of these things go back a lot farther than the average person thinks. (Very interesting about the breech-loading cannon, btw.)Also, to be fair, although we know Henry owned one- it would be pretty hard to say how much use it actually saw. Besides obvious stuff, like wear and tear, etc.
Are you aware of the gun-shields in his armoury? Here's a link:
http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal/number_39/gunshield/inde x.html
Actually, that's one that I was aware of- and have gotten to handle personally. :) I'm not talking about a replica, either, but the real thing. I was lucky enough to get a chance to help in setting up a museum that a local collector is building. They're pretty cool.
The rules for other weapons are not realistic, so why should the guns rules be held to a higher standard?I never said they should be. I was pointing out a possible reason why some people who don't want to deal with complicated rules might be making a big deal about the inclusion of guns with complicated rules. And part of my argument is that for some other people they may think guns need to be realistic, so in their mind guns either are super-killers or a complicated mess, and thus they raise a stink.Ah, yes, I get you now.
In 'realistic' rules, guns would neither be super killers when compared with other weapons nor a complicated mess. A realistic system would never have hit points that go up by level, for one thing. A single blow from a dagger, spear, sword- or a single arrow, bullet, bolt, etc ought to be able to POTENTIALLY kill or cripple ANY human being. At the same time, plenty of people are shot, stabbed, mauled, burned, etc and live to tell the tale. The problem is that people think that you can make the D&D combat system into a realistic simulation, not just add some touches of versimilitude.I find it very, very strange that some people think one shot from a gun must be hyper deadly(in the game or in real life), but have no problem with a character being struck six or seven times with an axe and suffering no real effect but a drop in hit points.
So true- it's those touches that I'm interested in... I think the other problem lies in getting people to agree on what they should be.
As for trying to make things actually more realistic- I've played some of those games before, and I didn't find them all that fun.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExplodingBarrels
Goblins would just paint the barrels red because they are illiterate.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExplodingBarrels
Goblins would just paint the barrels red because they are illiterate.
Hehhe, goblins!
:)
because technology develops very slowly in a world where there is magic.....the tech just isnt needed
that and game balance to make it playable
im ok with 'muskets' but 1st level people lighting barrels of gunpowder can wipe out level 10 people...and thats not how d20 games work
1st level guys can kill high level dudes with good tactics, and that's a problem? You don't have things like poison, carefully planned ambushes, rockfall traps, etc in your games?
What about dumping molten lead on a high level fighter who is scaling the wall of a castle you are defending? Shoving a guy out of a very high tower window(falling damage, baby!)? Tripping a guy in full plate and knocking him into deep water to dorwn> Poisoning a powerful wizard's wine cup. A net can bind up a high level guy, and then you move in for the kill with posioned reach weapons. Get him helpless and then coup de grace!
Tactics, baby, tactics!
On the opposite side of the spectrum, for those with out a good plan, those 1st level guys end up dealing with the party's Rogue with Improved Evasion and a low level Wand of Fireballs saying "Don't worry, I've got this".
On the opposite side of the spectrum, for those with out a good plan, those 1st level guys end up dealing with the party's Rogue with Improved Evasion and a low level Wand of Fireballs saying "Don't worry, I've got this".
1st level PCs should avoid taking on whole parties of high level NPCs. When possible, you want to catch them sleeping, seperated from their group, etc.
As you have noted, it's important to have a GOOD PLAN, and not just a barrel of gunpowder, big rock, etc. :)
|
Why would gunpowder be used in a magical world. I was talking with my brother and we were talking about alternatives. Why not base guns off of a small dab of Oil of Impact or a small Thunderstones. Using gunpowder is a loaded idea as it is common place in the real world thus everyone knows what it is made of. Using magic is a way to introduce flintlocks without the added baggage of gunpowder.
Just thinking.
The Amber series uses Jeweler's Rouge as a replace for Gunpowder - Jeweler's Rouge is ferric Oxide and Powdered Aluminium? I believe thats similar to Thermite.
Druids with heat metal could just go straight to steam weapons.
A Magic mouth could just as well yell a low frequency sound - making a sonic weapon.
I presume you mean dynamite?With gunpowder comes dinomite.
No, I think he refers to that magazine for kids about dinosaurs. How that follows gunpowder is anyone's guess, but surely such a rag on Golarion will herald the end of days.
KaeYoss wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
With gunpowder comes dynamite.
I presume you mean dynamite?
No, I think he refers to that magazine for kids about dinosaurs. How that follows gunpowder is anyone's guess, but surely such a rag on Golarion will herald the end of days.
It's a misspelling. I didn't have time to run it through Word.
Let go of it already. :(
I didn't have time to run it through Word.
We're just teasing. But what do you mean, Word? Every browser worth the name has a built-in spell checker (or at least an add-on for one).