I'm going to add black powder weapons to my traditional Swords and Sorcery game

Ummm I think she missed the point of using a gun...

Sixteen dice on a thrust to zone VI.

A gun can only kill people so I don't understand what you're getting at.

Regular musket shooter here:

I can get an average of three to four shots off with my .75 matchlock, on a good day. Being shot back at would probably drop that to two, maybe three. some guys charging at me can close a lot of distance in 30 seconds.

The lady in the pic is late 16th- early 17thC, and thus is before bayonets. Musketeers are not meant to engage in close quarters, but clubbing your musket is indeed a standard order taught in manuals of arms.

She clearly shot the dude at bottom right, and since it's a single shot weapon, she used the best option left to her.

Took a while for it to go out of style.

Sounds like fun

Don't forget the guy in the back who has the balancing stand think shived in his chest.

Bitch is hardcore

I enjoy pointing out that IRL battlefield gunpowder weaponry predates full plate armour. I like saying this to autists when they're puffed up in full "guns don't belong in fantasy" mode and watching them deflate. After this they'll try to huff and puff about how guns would be be overpowered, which is easily defeated by pointing out how slow-firing and inaccurate early handguns were. Usually they'll concede at this point, but you'll always get some bloody-minded types who'll stubbornly insist "yeah well guns just don't fit fantasy anyways", but that's not a fact, it's just an opinion, and a shitty one at that.

Which is one aspect of D&D I despise because non of the official settings ever make use of them, even Ebberon doesn't make use of them

LotFP has an optional rule of 'no reload' during combat. Since it's usually super close in skirmish fighting with everyone moving around all over the place it's assumed with that rule that you just can't reload until combat is over. Sure you may have a brace of pistols that give you the -5 to opponents AC (if it's over 12) but that's it and it's to the close action.

...

The 4e artificer had a pistol in his picture. Mostly guns in 4e were 'Use crossbow stats' and Artificers had great crossbow support.

She doesn't give a fuck

I like you people.

I'm also kinda disappointed that absolutely no official setting makes use of them. It'd probably get rid of a lot of the "no guns in muh fantasy" people.

There's only one reason I dislike including guns or black powder weapons in tabletop games, and that's the simple fact that a lot of players get all of their knowledge of guns from movie, television, and video games. Most of that knowledge is also only in terms of modern firearms as well.

I tend to find that the perceptions of firearms tend to lead to annoying disagreements about what exactly they should do. Even though early guns were little better than crossbows, the idea of them doing anything less than a bucket of damage dice, instakilling everything, and/or ignoring armor is somehow offensive to some people, because in their minds Guns are effectively death rays that kill whoever they're pointed at.

I'm not going to bother to add realistic early firearms and then have to deal with players bitching and moaning about how that rampaging minotaur should have totally died from the tiny lead ball they shot at it, ignoring the barbarian continuously swinging at it with an axe.

>clubbing your musket
Won't that destroy or otherwise incapacitate your musket?

Not to mention people seem to think that only the PCs are the ones using guns at all. If the PCs can do it anyone in the world can as well.

Well it's not like it's made for precision shooting so having a big black of wood with a metal tube to shoot shit should be able to withstand bonking people on the head.

she has an unused sword

Yeah, that's the other thing too. Players who want the super armor-ignoring deadly guns in the setting also complain to no end if they have to go up against a line of bandits with muskets.

It's not even really a matter of people being bad players either. It's just where people's minds tend to go. You say 'I'm going to include guns in my fantasy setting', and they immediatly jump to being a sharpshooter or sniper blowing up the heads of an army of orcs, rather than considering that you might mean early firearms or that the orcs might have them as well.

>thus is before bayonets
it always amazes me when I remember it took about a century for people to realize they could just put a knife on the end of the gun and make it a spear.

didn't early guns become a dominant not because they were strictly better than swords and bows but because anyone can be trained to use gun in a very short amount of time.

Also regular musket shooter. I use a rifled .59, and on a good minute I can load four. With other guys shooting at me I'll only be averaging two or three a minute.

Now granted, I have a bayonet, but a lot of guys didn't, especially us Cornfeds. Using the musket as a club was part of training well into the 19th century, even with bayonets.

Most muskets are designed to be able to take that kind of punishment.

Tbh were I to run a game with blackpowder guns, I'd make it as they were in the old Kurosawa movies. Meaning they're plentiful, but that doesn't mean everyone has them.

Like in the Musashi book, when he goes to confront the school people under the tree, there's a bunch of swordsmen waiting to kill him, and just one dude in a tree with a gun.

That said, would one play out line infantry combat in D20 work? Because that might be cool to try.

Still used today

Musket rest.

Reread, I am supporting her usage.

Fuck no. The butt is solid hardwood, shaped along the grain, and typically capped with an iron or brass buttplate.

>Unsheathing a weapon provokes an attack of opportunity

She was holding a perfectly valid weapon already.

Why does that amaze you? An armoured man with a pike or spear would always be better than a man with a musket and bayonet. If your musketeers are in close combat, they are not shooting, and it is a waste of the troops and the cost of the weapon.

Its not until muskets get cheaper to produce and more efficient that we start seeing bayonets. When the cost of producing a musket is suddenly cheaper than armour, and the accuracy and power makes armour inefficient, it makes sense to focus on what works.

But were countered by cost of production. For one musket, you could arm a half dozen pike men, and use them as bulk troops, supported by muskets.

Whacha shooting? I can manage 3-4 on my matchlock, but I shoot flintlock for work (British Short Land Pattern), meaning I get a lot more practice in, and manage the full 4 in rank with my section.

>Bitch is hardcore

'61 Springfield. Use it for my reenacting and occasionally live firing.

Don't suppose there's a good port of Lamentation's 16/17th century gun/armor rules to other systems? (I assume this is covered by GURPS swashbucklers, don't know about 5e)

Bah! Get that new-fangled crap out of here, kiddo!

Real men use exposed powder pans!

Not to my knowledge. I prefer WHFRP2ndEd anyways.

And you can do more excessive things with larger weapons, too. That's just something that's relatively man portable for a regular human. Your hulking Conan types or various non humans who are bigger and stronger could have guns normally intended for swivel mounts and stuff like Puckle Guns.

The Wall Gun, which is like, ST 13, gets into 5D6 +2 territory IIRC. That's not even that high.

You also have the fun of Banestorm campaigns where the PC's fight the evil, evil bullshit possessing Wizards who hate guns, and devise ways to fight, and beat the bullshit and government sponsored gun suppresson.

No, that actually sounds like a pretty good idea.
If you could integrate pirate wizards that would be cool too

Gunpowder is in my friend's/DM's game. However, it's only used for siege weaponry by major military powers because it's so rare. My character is actually trying to get his hands on a supplier right now.

I think making it commonplace would be fine and is fine in most settings. I don't see why everyone is so afraid of it.

Hell yeah

Charcoal, Saltpeter, Sulfur.

Even a rudimentary bomb is easy.

That's another thing people tend to forget. You're in a goddamn fantasy setting with ogres, trolls, and other fuck huge monsters in it.

Imagine the look on your face when you roll around a corner and there's a half giant swinging a cannon at you with her halfling minion lighting the fuse for her.

Suck grape shot

Replace "half giant" with "ogre" and "Halfling minion" with "deaf, shell shocked goblin runt" and you described a basic part of Warhammer's ogre kingdoms: Lead Belchers

Are you saying that's gamebreaking? Or are you trying to educate me by telling me trivia that I already know?

If it's the former, a stat block making it not too op would be fine. If it's the latter, I just decided not to argue semantics in a fantasy game set in a homemade magical world invented by my best friend who chose to have gunpowder be rare because he can. Maybe those aren't the base ingredients in his world? Maybe the yield is so low from making it that it really isn't feasible to try to produce it on a mass scale. Maybe sulfur isn't naturally occurring in his setting.

...

>Maybe those aren't the base ingredients in his world?
So.... Not black powder at all then? I give points to the Iron Kingdoms setting for having its magical blasting powder, but still being utter shitsocked by the one race that figures out black powder.

>Maybe the yield is so low from making it that it really isn't feasible to try to produce it on a mass scale

People no longer shit and no one burns wood?

>Maybe sulfur isn't naturally occurring in his setting.
Now we're just getting full on stupid.

How does this grab you, user?

What magic system do you suggest for that?

>Sulfur is an essential element for all life, but almost always in the form of organosulfur compounds or metal sulfides.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur

I can understand wanting to limit or not having gunpowder in your setting but let's not use foolish logic here.

Then again I don't want to be like those faggots who get ass blasted by tit plate armor either.

You realize I'm not arguing about real life gunpowder, right? I assume there would be some FANTASY reason for its rarity and I feel that he's entitled to that as the author of his world.

Just because you turn a trip on doesn't mean you have to be a cunt. You know exactly what I mean but you're being contrarian just to be contrarian.

I have dynamite guns at the steampunk nation, cookson repeaters for the not!africans and the medieval fortresses are starting to lean towards vauban fortifications in my setting. I'm in your side.

A musket is kinda simple, and can work even with a somewhat bent barrel.

Crossbows were actually fragile and more complex.

Ritual Path Magic is a fan favorite, but means you pretty much have to judge rituals as the GM because it's quite subjective. For dead simple, I'd suggest Sorcery, using magic as Advantages bought with character points. This makes magical effects quite discreet and easy to judge while at the same time making them faster and easier then Basic Set magic as skills.

Wall Guns are fucking metal. The 30 points you need to drop into ST to use one makes shooting one standing unsupported hard, but with a tripod or pintle mount on a wall you can ignore the ST requirement and they are automatically considered braced.

It's always fun to see monsters adapted to a different setting.

I was inspired.

>I'd suggest Sorcery
Thaumatology: sorcery?

Except you're making stupid asspull excuses that make no sense, instead of just saying "its magic" or "a wizard did it". You're trying to be smarter than you really are.

Nah, I'm just poking holes in your attempt to use real life science when you could just claim DM ex machina.

Nope. Most muskets and rifles can withstand use as an impromptu melee weapon pretty well even today. A Brown Bess or M1 Grande for example are very durable, and early heavy matchlock muskets were straight up intended to be used as a club after being shot.

Anyone got the "Its magic, I don't gotta explain shit" pic?

dumping gunners

...

...

Yep, that's the one. It's versatile and quite a lot of fun. Spell-casters don't quite dominate but really do have some very cool powers.

Jesus Christ what an edgelord. I would expect nothing less from a tripfag.

...

>when you could just claim DM ex machina.
Except that's exactly what he's doing?

...

>hating based clown
Found the faggot.

No, he's trying to give reasons that don't mesh. If you're going to handwave, handwave. Don't try to use a reason that only works with a flawed understanding of reality.

He's trying to give exact reasons that leave glaring logic holes. Its easier to accept "the gods hate it" or "Wizard guild ritual to enforce artificial scarcity" than "people don't poop and sulfur isn't an elemental constant"

Could you hook a brother up with a PDF?

...

...

I'm trying to figure out how the hell you'd aim that and drawing a blank.

He's trying to make a rational reasoning behind an irrational concept. Saying "a wizard did it" sounds better and is less pretentious than trying to justify science.

...

What would the cost of these weapons be?

My setting in D&D has no full plate and guns will probably be slowly entering into the western part of my setting in the next 12-20 years or so. That same setting also has few stone castles and more wood ones for the same reason

>Don't try to use a reason that only works with a flawed understanding of reality.
Why are you assuming that a fantasy world with magic and gods and shit in it runs on our system of physics? For all we know the periodic table is completely inaccurate in this setting and everything runs on aristotelian physics.

Then why bother trying to define it? To sound smarter?

>Aim
>Drawing a blank
Point blank is your answer. If you're not already punching that katar blade through your foe's kidneys, then you have no need to pull the trigger

I was giving an example of how a fictional world may justify it. Should I link the definition of fictional?

This is not my setting. I understand basic chemistry. What I don't understand is how you can be okay with magical forces altering the fabric of reality on a regular basis but when chemistry is slightly different then all hell breaks loose. Suddenly it's full of pseudointellectuals raking Wikipedia and warming up their fingerless shitposting gloves for arbitrary arguments. In a world where mithril and adamantium are a thing, I think it's feasible to say that maybe, just maybe, their chemistry might be a little different from ours. I always just assumed High fantasy worked off a bizarroworld version of our periodic table.

Just because it looks and functions like our gunpowder doesn't make it exactly like our gunpowder down to the molecular level. Or maybe there just isn't much sulfur there.

If the world is so different, is there even a point to trying to explain a scientific reason?

>Suddenly it's full of pseudointellectuals raking Wikipedia and warming up their fingerless shitposting gloves for arbitrary arguments.

You say as you list arbitrary arguments rather than just circumventing the problem of using real world physics as a reason, in a fantasy world.

...

like this

Just say a wizard did it, user. You're begining to sperg.

the guns in D&D always seem so fucked stat wise.

>Damage nearly equivalent to Heavy crossbow (better critical)
>Require exotic proficiency feat
>Ammo costs more

I've been trying to think of a way to introduce them that actually makes them feel like a fun choice to use without making them OP

some Ideas I've had (not all at once):
>All guns bypass DR/cold Iron
>Deals 2d6 x3 crit
>Increasing the damage Even More but with a significant reload time (something like 3d6 x3, Full round reload, not elligible for rapid reload)

Anyone come up with any interesting ways to introduce guns into their setting without them feeling flimsy and unpowerful, and without them dominating the battlefield?

You get it!

I'm pretty sure you're aware of Attack on Titans right?

They no doubt have the technology to create more advanced firearms but you guys using muskets because anything more than that is a waste of resources because bullets by themselves don't do shit to the titans.

Having consistency in a fantasy world is proper but trying to use real world physics to explain why something isnt there is stupid just like assholes who go -4 strength for females because they are biologically weaker then males in a setting where people are wearing fucking power armor.

Point being, quit being a bitch.

Maybe a wizard made a finite amount of gunpowder and once all of that is used up it's gone.

[Spoiler]Because there's no sulfur in the world.[/spoiler]

I've had a lot of luck introducing them as basically heavier crossbows, like you did.
Prohibitively long reload times meant they were generally used as "Fuck, I'm not in stabbing range" weapons since I made them simple proficiency to fire. I then made loading times decrease with martial and exotic proficiency, allowing dedicated gunners to be a thing (that fired every other round) and rewarding "reload caddies" as my players called them.
Eventually we found out that the best use of guns for long-term engagements was a high level combatant blazing away while a team of level 1 mooks reloaded for them.

Well put user.

Sure. You can always ask in GURPSGEN if you need more help.

Thanks man.

...

...

I never had a problem with this, just make the PCs fight swarms of weaker enemies to compensate.

>Ye olde tactical flash-lamp.

Ivan plz go