I do enjoy guns in my fantasy, of course, I would also love to play in setting based around the 1600s-1700s.
anyways I actually dislike numeria, and I use golarion, but my dislike is solved quite easily. i am just not intrigued by the sci-fi stuff, love super-science, just not the sci-fi stuff can't really say why. So instead I made the place di-vinci and steampunk in design instead much more pleasing asthestic to me
|
(If you're shocked at how inaccurate smoothbores are, how about modern weapons? 5000 bullets per casualty isn't an unusual figure.)
Part of that, is full-auto fire is used for suppression. You lob a wall of bullets towards the target so your troops can advance...
Semi-auto is used for more "accurate" shooting...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the development of firearms in a world where spellcasters can throw fire or water at great distances, I doubt muzzle loading weapons would have ever caught on. When you have the ability to so easily ruin your enemy's ammunition, why would they use a weapon vulnerable to such an attack?
Because spellcasters and soldiers don't exist on equal parity. In a typical fantasy world, soldiers outnumber spellcasters by a very large ratio, probably in the neighborhood of 100:1 to 1000:1. You can't work on the assumption that soldiers routinely engage in battles with equal sized forces of spellcasters, or with spellcasters at all.
Using the logic of this argument -- that the existence of magic capable of nullifying a weapons technology would prevent the development of that technology -- there's little reason why weapons technology would have developed beyond clubs and rocks.
The first level spell entangle is sufficient to make the entire concept of massed soldiers inefficient. If the ancient britons had had 1st level druids in D&D, the Romans would have been destroyed by the celts. The celts loose, unorganized fighting "formations" are optimal against any kind of ranged spell caster (the fewer targets within 30' of each other you have, the less damage a spellcaster can do to your forces), while the phalanx formation favored by the Romans is just spellcaster bait. Every attempt to charge, retreat, or simply turn would be ruined by one casting of entangle with its massive area of effect potentially targeting dozens of soldiers and pinning them down.
If the phalanx is easily nullified, then the entire history of the development of weapons is radically altered. You'll never see the rise of massed troops, which means you'll never see the development of everything from the longbow to lances to pole-arms.
And while heat metal is a second level spell, and thus available to a much smaller cadre of casters than entangle, it still should have prevented the widespread use of metal weapons and armor, shouldn't it have?
Since the standard gaming world presents both massed soldiers, and the whole range of weapons developed from massed combat, we should assume that spellcasters are of such limited frequency that they do not have a significant contributing effect to the development of weapons technology. They may turn the tide of battles where they are involved, but they simply aren't involved in most battles.
While i agree with most of your statement Gail i would say however that supply wagons full of firearm ammo not cartridge based is one cantrip away from going up which even an adept can do. I think the application of magic speeds the process due to a competive need rather than a sensible need. IE our armies can't cast spells so we need to develop weapons that give us an edge over armies that have spellcasters.
While i agree with most of your statement Gail i would say however that supply wagons full of firearm ammo not cartridge based is one cantrip away from going up which even an adept can do.
I don't think that's a very effective argument, since the same thing can be done by a person with a torch or even a flint & steel. Pots of oil exist (and can be used as weapons in D&D), yet those are just as vulnerable. If something is as flammable as gunpowder, it IS going to be protected, you know.
While i agree with most of your statement Gail i would say however that supply wagons full of firearm ammo not cartridge based is one cantrip away from going up which even an adept can do.I don't think that's a very effective argument, since the same thing can be done by a person with a torch or even a flint & steel. Pots of oil exist (and can be used as weapons in D&D), yet those are just as vulnerable. If something is as flammable as gunpowder, it IS going to be protected, you know.
Magic has alot more range than most of those options
Spark alone has a 25ft range so not outside the realm of bows and arrows but can even be used when weather would say you couldn't. Just pointing out that magic increases the likely hood of muzzleloader type ammo being blown up.
I agree with Gail & Talo. Seriously, you guys are not contradicting each other by any means. Different ares of Earth developed gunpowder at different times & for differing reasons. China had it for the longest time & really didn't tinker much in the firearms field. They had some, but nothing like the west. That is they way with many early technical innovations. Somebody in country 'A' invents a gadget. Gets ridiculed/rejected/ignored. One hundred years later, somebody sees what 'A' did and voila, country 'B' now has a new device for warfare.
This is how Golarian does firearms. They have been around a long time, but not widespread because magic seemed easier. Now you have a country in a magic dead are that need to replace the "firepower" of magic because magic is dead there. Firearms get a serious look as a non-magical replacement.
Maybe in another gameworld, mages are not prevalent in this one country because of a religious prejudice. Clerics can't make up the difference completely. They develop primitive firearms for the devastation they can reap when used in mass formation. "I see your wizard & raise you 100 matchlocks in mass formation." Will it be effective? Maybe, maybe not. History shows us that the militaries of the world will hammer away at a concept they like, even if it isn't as effective as they hoped it would be. Artillery barrages before a mass charge into machine gun fire during WWI.the generals were sure it would soften a target, but thousands still died charging into those not-so-soften targets.
I agree which is why however i am making the point that in a magic heavy society guns would evolve faster than our own magicless world (or so they say the voices tell me its an illusion so the goverment can keep the leprichauns gold)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree which is why however i am making the point that in a magic heavy society guns would evolve faster than our own magicless world (or so they say the voices tell me its an illusion so the goverment can keep the leprichauns gold)
I think an alternate theory could be that a magic heavy society develops technology at a much slower pace.
The technology of the average gaming world (Golarion included) seems to stuck in a perpetual quasi-medieval era, with some small regions that are as advanced as the renaissance or even early victorian era, and many more areas that are stuck in bronze age (or stone age) - often for thousand year stretches.
I mean, look at medical technology in Golarion. Its not advanced at all - there aren't even doctors as a profession, and there have been doctors since Hippocrates. But why would there be doctors? Why would anyone bother to research medicine when cure light wounds is easy to cast, and most priests can do a "mass heal" (for a 1 HD commoner, a 1st level channel is indistinguishable from a mass heal) and cure the daily wounds of work from a whole congregation three times a day?
Yet at the same time, these societies tend to be as socially advanced as our own with (for the good side, at least) modern attitudes towards race (as in white, black, etc.), gender, religious tolerance (between good religions at least), etc.
It makes sense too. Technology is driven by an innovating artisan class, which is composed of the brightest, most determined individuals acting out a desire for intellectual mastery of their world. In a world where gods are real and magic is taught in colleges, the vast majority of intellects will be drawn in those areas of research.
Which means Golarion may have seen a dozen minds like Edison born in the last 100 years, but seen no technological development because of it - Edison studied evocation magic and invented a better continual flame!
|
|
I postulated an alternate development of firearms than historically took place in our reality based on some things that could be done with magic. It is an exercise in "what if the world didn't develop according to history as we know it". I believe some refer to it as thinking outside of the box.
Oh, no, I get it.
It's just that kind of thinking outside the box often leads having to throw out published materials, rewrite the rules entirely, and create your own setting from scratch. Because all that stuff is designed to fit inside the box, and encourages using the box rather than going outside it.
In the desire to be able to just use the weapons list as its published, alongside all the other material, I try to justify what already exists, rather than what could exist given the set of possibilities offered by the game.
It's just so much less work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, D&D is about medieval knights wearing post-Rennassaince armor worshiping greek gods and fighting brain eating space aliens and sentient jello.
I mean, we left "medieval fantasy" long ago. Like, in OD&D long ago.
(If you're shocked at how inaccurate smoothbores are, how about modern weapons? 5000 bullets per casualty isn't an unusual figure.)
You're forgetting that the vast majority of bullets fired in modern warfare aren't intended to hit anyone. It's suppressive fire, used to keep the opposition behind cover while your allies move in to flank them. Modern firearms are quite accurate.
Rifling dates from the late 15th century, I'll point out. Rifled firearms saw extensive use by snipers in sieges (and sometimes on ships) for the next couple of centuries. Not, I agree, a particularly useful thing for the sort of adventurers most RPGs handle.
It's probably also worth noting that skirmishing cavalry also used firearms quite a bit. My mind boggles at how they reloaded, but mounted arqubusiers were a fairly common troop type, and mounted pistoleers even more so. The latter drove the Gendarme off the battlefield.
(If you're shocked at how inaccurate smoothbores are, how about modern weapons? 5000 bullets per casualty isn't an unusual figure.)
Ride up, fire, ride away to reload at a safe range? Doesn't seem that complicated. Pistoleers would carry a brace of pistols (4-6).
At the end of the day, D&D is about medieval knights wearing post-Rennassaince armor worshiping greek gods and fighting brain eating space aliens and sentient jello.
I mean, we left "medieval fantasy" long ago. Like, in OD&D long ago.
this is a very accurate description of D&D.
and we can say that it pulls ideas from everywhere.
meaning that modern japanese schoolgirls with Iphones are perfectly allowable.
For everyone wanting Fantsy Magic, Pirates, Intrigue and Guns I would direct you to 7th Sea RPG. Thats what I use to get that whole pirates with magic vibe.
|
One thing that's always confused me is the statement "I don't like firearms because because I like a medieval setting" I always equate that to "I don't like jets because I like a 20th century setting". People do realize that firearms were developed in the middle ages right?
Anyways, I like fire arms in my fantasy and I'm happy to see pathfinder include them in their game.
I don't care when guns were invented. To me they do not feel medieval and fantasy, thus, no guns in my games...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a post. Don't be a jerk.
|
|
I don't care when guns were invented. To me they do not feel medieval and fantasy, thus, no guns in my games...
I realize and support that it is your game and you can use and not use whatever you want, but...
The logic behind your statement is baffling!
I mean whether or not you feel guns aren't medieval, they still are (e.g. ANYTHING from the Middle Ages IS by definition, medieval)...
Doesn't mean you have to use them, but you can't deny they were a part of that time period based upon your feelings of them...
|
|
Again, I recommend L.E. Modesitt's Corean Chronicles and Saga of Recluce for good fantasy with guns.
Paul Kearney is the master of doing excellent fantasy with guns. His MONARCHIES OF GOD and SEA-BEGGARS series (the latter of which is nautical fantasy with guns) are both superb, among the best epic fantasy works ever published, and feature great use of gunpowder, cannons and mortars without moving too far from the traditional fantasy paradigm. Tad Williams' SHADOWMARCH series is nowhere near as good, but also has some interesting use of gunpowder-based weaponry, whilst the WHEEL OF TIME series is set right on the cusp of the development of usable firearms (prototype cannons and hand-guns appear in the last couple of books).
For RPGs, the original DEADLANDS is my favourite game for the wide variety and type of Wild West firearms available (along with crazier stuff like steam-powered gatling guns). My old D&D group also preferred a late-medieval/early Renaissance level of technology during our 2nd Edition days (using one of the green-covered 'historical' books TSR put out) with arquebuses and very primitive bombards available to use, but still too impractical to make swords, bows etc useless.
[The problem is when players have access to hundreds of thousands of gold. then such braces no longer seem rare. Especially, when we can simply say "allright, you teleport to Absalom. you are able to buy three guns."
The bigger problem is the Throwing Weapons Problem.
Namely: Magical Weapons.
Yeah, you can carry around thirty guns, but they're not enchanted and will do piddly damage (if any damage) to anything with DR.
Likewise, in 3e, you could super specialize in throwing weapons and begin to see bow levels of damage, after spending multiple feats, going into specific PrCs, and ignoring literally all other magical equipment so you could purchase 12 or 16 (I forget the number) magical returning throwing weapons.
Or you could buy a bow.
One thing that's always confused me is the statement "I don't like firearms because because I like a medieval setting" I always equate that to "I don't like jets because I like a 20th century setting". People do realize that firearms were developed in the middle ages right?
Anyways, I like fire arms in my fantasy and I'm happy to see pathfinder include them in their game.
Heck it's worse then that - the full plate mail that fighters love so much were developed in response to firearms. That's like having knights riding horses but claiming nobody ever found a means to domesticate and breed horses.
Yeah, you can carry around thirty guns, but they're not enchanted and will do piddly damage (if any damage) to anything with DR.
Likewise, in 3e, you could super specialize in throwing weapons and begin to see bow levels of damage, after spending multiple feats, going into specific PrCs, and ignoring literally all other magical equipment so you could purchase 12 or 16 (I forget the number) magical returning throwing weapons.
Or you could buy a bow.
This is precisely my grievance. Thank you for re-introducing it to the discussion.
My definition of fantasy is pretty broad; it basically boils down to, "Anything that has magic in it, and some things that don't, I know it when I see it." The Dresden Files books are a fantasy series, and it takes place in modern Chicago and stars a wizard detective who carries a pistol for situations when fireballs won't do the trick.
What I normally define as "D&D fantasy" doesn't have firearms in it by default, but if they're primitive enough and don't replace bows then I'm all for including them. Golarion fits the bill rather nicely: a gunslinger anywhere outside of the Mana Wastes is seen as a dangerous oddity.
THe rules for guns have to be there for players that would like to play pirates, or in a later Renaissance world, etc etc. Just because they will be in the book (Ultimate Combat) does not mean you have to allow the players to use them. Common sense.
|
|
I don't care when guns were invented. To me they do not feel medieval and fantasy, thus, no guns in my games...I realize and support that it is your game and you can use and not use whatever you want, but...
The logic behind your statement is baffling!
I mean whether or not you feel guns aren't medieval, they still are (e.g. ANYTHING from the Middle Ages IS by definition, medieval)...
Doesn't mean you have to use them, but you can't deny they were a part of that time period based upon your feelings of them...
Why is it? I hate guns in fantasy games that have swords and magic in them. They just kill the feel of fantasy for me. Like i said, i don't care when or why some of the things in a fantasy game was developed in the real world. And i am in no obligation to use it if it did exist in the middle ages. And the feel is important.
|
I am really torn on this subject as I am a big fan or single shot flintlock style firearms in a fantasy setting.
What i am not a fan on are repeating type firearms in my games. As i have not yet read anything about the Gunslinger because one of the first pictures I saw for it was in Paizo blog for a short fiction story and the person was carrying a revolver.
My stance at this point is No firearms in my games. When I get Ultimate Combat in the next few days I might change that stance to no repeating firearms in my games and maybe rework the rapid reload rules to deal with single shot firearms.
Now this is mostly from a aesthetic point. I just do not like the image of a "cowboy" type character running around with a revolver.
Oh, and I am dead set against Ninjas's and Samurai outside of the oriental themed areas as well. Gnome Ninjas and Samurai just don't do it for me.
I hear a lot of people complaining that guns just don't belong in a fantasy setting, and frankly this has always annoyed me. So, I'd like to share my views on it, and hear some of your thoughts as well.
It depends entirely on the GM and balancing fun versus consistency.
Back a billion years ago, or at least 15 or so, I ran a long running campaign at MIT. One of the grad students from Mexico wanted to play in our fantasy campaign, but he said that he always wanted to play a tough ombre, gunslinger.
Voila! On the session that he was introduced, the party was attacked with a magic bolt-thrower, and his PC was born.
Joel Rosenberg has a whole series, Guardian of the Flames, that has the development of a gunpowder like substance as a thematic element. (In his world, the material reacts violently to water; so, weapons are made with little water dispensers as the primers for the explosions.)
In service,
Rich
www.drgames.org
|
|
Why is it?
The part that struck me as odd was where you said: "To me they [guns] do not feel medieval..."
As I said, I support your not using something in your own game, but, just because you do not feel that guns are medieval does not make them any less, well, medieval...
I mean I can understand (though I do not agree) that they do not feel fantasy, but regardless of how you feel, they remain medieval...
I think guns and firearms can have a place in fantasy, and if someone wants to swing their world that way, that's all well and good--as long as they've thought hard about how firearms interact well with the other technologies, magic, and gear available in the world as well. What also comes with this is a convincing system that uses both "standard fantasy" mechanics and firearms mechanics in a way that makes sense. For example, in the real world, we got rid of metal armors because firearms rendered them obsolete. If you use firearms in your fantasy game world, do you still use plate armor, and if so, why? (I don't really need that question answered for me--it's just something I hope the GM has thought about; for example, the GM might state that magical materials still make plate armor relevant, etc.)
I as a GM do not use firearms in my current campaign world, for a number of reasons. For example, I use the Pathfinder ruleset and did not like previous d20 rulings on how firearms function in that particular system; I didn't quite find the gunslinger to my taste when the UC playtest came out either, and am at this point not going to revise my world for UC now that it's out. I also really wanted to focus on magic BEING the technology of my world for the most part (the one concession I've made is the existence of clockworks for a number of reasons not relevant to this discussion). When firearms become prominent, a debate always seems to break out about what's more available, what's better, of magic versus firearms and other technologies are available and if you can have a gun, why would you train a mage to throw a fireball--or even have an alchemist (not necessarily the class) make alchemist's fire, etc. There ARE answers to these questions---they are just not questions I wanted to ask when creating my world, for reasons that largely boil down to personal preference and a desire to avoid certain arguments.
And for the record, in my world: what are galleon-type ships (by which I mean large cargo ships generally speaking) are armed with if they don't have cannons? They are armed with spellcasters and the "boring" ballista whose bolts can fire all kinds of nasty magical and alchemical surprises. The merchant companies which can afford a galleon can afford such protections.
Just another point of view. I have another idea for a more steampunk-esque world where I absolutely have guns and explosives (but probably less magic--but it wouldn't be no magic either). So I absolutely think it can work. What I think is important--and hopefully I am ultimately hitting on the purpose of this thread--is to not to push for one "right" way to do fantasy, with or without firearms. :)
For example, in the real world, we got rid of metal armors because firearms rendered them obsolete.
If you look up the history of plate armor, it didn't start to be phased out of use until the 18th century - well after the introduction of firearms. Historically speaking, Japanese samurai didn't even have plate armor until after the introduction of firearms by the Portuguese, instead using lacquered wood and leather armor, if I recall correctly. We got rid of metal armor because it was expensive to produce and to equip entire armies with, and because powerful rifled longarms could punch through it.
The term 'bulletproof' didn't arise from wishful thinking.
For example, in the real world, we got rid of metal armors because firearms rendered them obsolete.If you look up the history of plate armor, it didn't start to be phased out of use until the 18th century - well after the introduction of firearms. Historically speaking, Japanese samurai didn't even have plate armor until after the introduction of firearms by the Portuguese, instead using lacquered wood and leather armor, if I recall correctly. We got rid of metal armor because it was expensive to produce and to equip entire armies with, and because powerful rifled longarms could punch through it.
The term 'bulletproof' didn't arise from wishful thinking.
Okay, I summed up hundreds of years of weapon evolution in a single sentence, because it wasn't my intent to do an in-depth, lengthy analysis of firearms vs armor technology; my intent was to discuss coherent game design. Please insert the word EVENTUALLY between "we" and "got." (I also made the always-lethal mistake in messageboard discussion---I assumed the reader would be able to fill in the blanks in such a brief statement using their own common sense without needing to get pedantic over something that wasn't even the point of the post. I apologize for that mistake.)
If the example sucks, I hope the point I was actually trying to make still stands, as that was the part of my post that was actually important: make sure that the equipment you have available in your world makes some kind of sense working together. It doesn't have to resemble the real world, but it DOES need to provide some form of verisimilitude.
Okay, I summed up hundreds of years of weapon evolution in a single sentence, because it wasn't my intent to do an in-depth, lengthy analysis of firearms vs armor technology; my intent was to discuss coherent game design. Please insert the word EVENTUALLY between "we" and "got." (I also made the always-lethal mistake in messageboard discussion---I assumed the reader would be able to fill in the blanks in such a brief statement using their own common sense without needing to get pedantic over something that wasn't even the point of the post. I apologize for that mistake.)
If the example sucks, I hope the point I was actually trying to make still stands, as that was the part of my post that was actually important: make sure that the equipment you have available in your world makes some kind of sense working together. It doesn't have to resemble the real world, but it DOES need to provide some form of verisimilitude.
Never before have I encountered a case where someone's forum avatar was so indicative of their temperament.
What I said doesn't miss the point of your post. I've found that most DMs that I've had, when thinking about world-building and how various mechanics might fit together, looked for a historical precedent. What I just pointed out was a couple-hundred-year-old historical precedent for firearms existing alongside plate armor and swords. So there's you're verisimilitude.
|
|
it's not really a question of whether there were guns in the medieval period. We're not simulating medieval history.
I'm not debating that, all I was pointing out was that Hama said that guns did not FEEL medieval. I thought that was a rather bizarre statement as guns are JUST as medieval as any other trope used in D&D...
Whether or not they are fantasy is another issue entirely...
Regardless however, one cannot make something not be medieval simply because they feel it is not so...
You know what, Durandal, I am a bit grumpy today (and I'm half certain I was the unwitting model for Lucky Marm ;) ). It IS a blow to the pride for me when I feel like I've submitted, broadly speaking, what I hope is a useful perspective, and the only response I get is a criticism of what I perceive as a tiny part of the greater whole, with no reaction to the rest and the context removed from my statement. But first, what's tiny to some is huge to others and vice versa; second, that's just the nature of discourse on the Internet. And I should be old enough to pull on my big girl panties and accept that. So I apologize for the harsh tone of my response. Carry on and enjoy your thread. :)
You know what, Durandal, I am a bit grumpy today (and I'm half certain I was the unwitting model for Lucky Marm ;) ). It IS a blow to the pride for me when I feel like I've submitted, broadly speaking, what I hope is a useful perspective, and the only response I get is a criticism of what I perceive as a tiny part of the greater whole, with no reaction to the rest and the context removed from my statement. But first, what's tiny to some is huge to others and vice versa; second, that's just the nature of discourse on the Internet. And I should be old enough to pull on my big girl panties and accept that. So I apologize for the harsh tone of my response. Carry on and enjoy your thread. :)
I acknowledge your maturity and your point with approval, and I also apologize for any perceived offense on my part. Though now I admit I am finding it disproportionally amusing to imagine everything you type as being said by a grumpy little dwarven woman with a stereotypical Scottish accent, sitting at a bar and waving around a half-filled pint for emphasis.