Guns vs Fantasy

How do you justify the existence of fighters, wizards and magical monsters in a setting where barely trained peasand could instakill them from beyond their field of view?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rCFMFeZ0JvQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_(armour)
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Guns are expensive. Peasants won't have them.

How you justify the existence of special forces in our world? Why not just have peasants with guns instead?

Wizards have guns too. Stronger ones with magic attachments

>where barely trained peasand could instakill them from beyond their field of view?
That's not how guns work.

So is steel, and presumably wizard wands.

Levee armies make sense, cost wise.

The answer is - you can't, if you go full modern. Sadly most DM's I know just cart Blanche remove firearms and limit themselves to black powder kegs.

Depends on the level of fantasy, high-level Wizards in D&D or the like can basically have permanent magic shields that put modern counter-ballistic armour to shame, things like elementals would give absolutely no shits, and fighters would use guns.

Replace every instance of Missiles/Arrows with bullets. Congratulations, we found a way.

Protection from Arrows.

The wizards and magical monsters disguised themselves and infiltrated and took over the government and banned gun ownership (probably control mass media as well so further this goal).
They only started acting more openly after most of the population had been successfully disarmed.

Catapult for all intents and purpose turns things into bullets.

It's not an instakill unless your system allows it or they have zip for hitpoints.

Guns can't actually instakill magical monsters. Impenetrable hides (e.g. Nemean Lion), or similar extraordinary protective measures, protect them. Or they're just really, really tough.

Fighters and Wizards also use guns. (I've played this campaign, in Pathfinder, using the "modern firearms" rules). A Fighter is a well-trained soldier who knows how to handle his gun, while a Wizard has long since upgraded his staff to a rifle and uses magic like invisibility and enchantments to make killing with a gun more effective.

Magical armor/shields/guns not being of modern standard.

And what a peasant with a gun could do against a wizard with a magical gun?

>So is steel, and presumably wizard wands.
I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Peasants tend to not have those things either.
>Levee armies make sense, cost wise.
No, they absolutely don't. Especially not in a fantasy setting.

I justify the peasants ability to oneshot my players. Just like they can miraculously their insta-gib a boss, or higher level enemy.

If you make a fair system in which both the players and npc's have equal opportunity to one shot each other, then just give the npc less health, It works well. (Note: bosses HP maximum is greater than the normal players, but it's still reduced, I like 50%, but you can do whatever)

I just don't agree at all with your premise, OP. Anything a fighter or wizard or a magical monster could do, they can do even better with a gun in hand.

This is the third time we're having this thread in the last eight hours. Fuck off already.

This is actually canon in Harry Potter.

>How do you justify the existence of fighters, wizards and magical monsters in a setting where barely trained peasand could instakill them from beyond their field of view?
Is this a joke? it's pretty easy
Wizards have shields and supernatural senses that alert them of danger
Your Fighter that fights monsters isn't your average dude, he's John Mclain up to 11
Monsters don't die because you shoot them with a pistol the same way a tank doesn't explode because you shoot them with a pistol

If by wizard you meant David Copperfield, yeah, he dies
If by fighter you mean a dude with a sword, yeah, he dies
If by Monster you mean just a weird looking animal, yeah, it dies

Because JK Rowling is a hack, since wizards have access to magical gloves and hats that automatically use a shield spell when you're targeted by a spell.
Doing the exact same for bullets would be child's play

>Doing the exact same for bullets would be child's play
99.99% of Wizards in Harry Potter setting have no idea of what muggles can do, it's pretty hard to create stuff for what you can't predict.

Blessing of the Lady: The knight is immune to ranged fire because their elf Goddess says "nuh uh I have an anti bullet force field."

Which is even more stupid. Are they like Amish?

this shit only flies when
>everyone taking up a gun becomes retardedly bad at aiming and has the reaction time of a sloth
>you can dodge bullets more easily than a swordstrike
>superhuman capabilities that scale up your defense and physical power without doing anything for bullets
>magic shield
>no damage / speed advantage over meelee, magic or archaic ranged weapons

here is what i did, since i wanted firearms to be a part of the setting:
>a bit less overall damage than melee, but amazing armor-piercing capabilities
>good for initiative strikes, but horribly long reloading time
>we have a "defense points" mechanic that acts as a damage buffer before taking HP-damage. if you wear some reasonable armor, the first hit wont do a serious wound, but getting hit by a surprise attack by a musketeer is almost always certain death.

if i were to implement fully automatic arsenal, i'd equip every meelee-focused character with magic abilities, such as a deflective shield that prevents any shot from doing enough damage to pierce armor, but can still be canceled by other magic. same goes for mages

I mean, that's only the case because Rowling is a hack.

In the UK there are sufficiently few guns that wizard can not know what "firelegs" are because they are no threat to them.

I'm fairly sure that MACUSA in america will have access to charms with permenant shielding against fast-moving small metal objects or something. This whole thing is a meme

With games not set in the US, that way you dont need to shot people just cause you have a weapon.

Pretty much, on top of living in their own world and barely interact with muggles but for some odd cases they tend to be super arrogant and think that muggles can't do shit

Also , yeah, Rowling is a hack, her books are full of plot holes, plot armor and plot contrivances, really she doesnt' differ much from Kubo Tite or Masashi Kishimoto.

>field of view
>wizards have scrying spells
>in some stories they can create wide-ranging magical effects that harm armies from far away
OP, I don't think you really thought this through at all. Even Harry Potter wizards, whose magic is relatively limited to immediate casting in range can just put up a simple shield spell to block bullets.

You're overestimating the effectiveness of primitive firearms.

you dont. firearms break any "balance" in a fantasy setting, if magic didnt do it in the first place.
even if superhuman capability is common, they'd do better using a gun. or a big gun, depending on how superhuman we're talking.
shielding via magic is the only solution. maybe the shield can only be broken with the help of your own shield or other magic, so guns become a thing of magic-less subhumans

Except there are wizards all over the world and they regularly travel to each other?

Also, even though there are people from half-wizard and full on muggle families, everyone decides to ignore technology? Especially thins like guns that have been around for more than 200 years?

They are just magical Amish.

Guns and swords coexisted for centuries, and for the majority of that time guns simply weren't viable in anything other than sieges due to being slow and unreliable. Just keep firearms to this tech level and you'll be fine.

No, they're just retarded and british, like the author and these fags

They're all supposed to be for kids.

It just so happens older teens end up liking them a lot more in the long run

>firearms break any "balance" in a fantasy setting
Like fuck it does. That's claiming that a particular type of weapon suddenly changes everything completely about the setting, which just isn't plain true. You're basically saying that bows make swords obsolete.

Guns can't even instakill a lot of real-life, normal animals.

dafuq? That's like saying pole-arms break balance because Wall of Spears > Calvary Charge.

>instakill them from beyond their field of view
Haha, not with late-medieval guns. Lines of gunners might be the ultimate evolution in mass warfare, but most players don't end up in mass warfare.

In a modern setting, with instant-death-ray guns (ignoring that that's not how guns work):
>fighters
Watch any modern action movie.
>wizards
Take cover and avoid being a target (you know, like a sensible person), up until the point that some magical solution to bullets is available to them, at which point things continue as normal.
>magical monsters
Most of the ones that would be bothering people would be immaterial and just form a body for the purpose of bothering people. "Killing" them isn't a matter of just shooting them. As for the ones that actually are physical, , as well as generally avoiding people.

Eat a bag of dicks

Crossbows can already do that.

Shadowrun has a pretty good idea of it, guns are sweet and definitely good at killing things, but magic can kill things from across the city and make it look like an accident. With the proper preparations of course.

Because all guns do is deal damage. Sure, if you're presenting it as any given isolated combat scenario in an empty field, the person with the gun has an advantage, but you're ignoring the wider context that will surround any given battle in reality (or fantasy reality).

Fighters have skills and training, they can spot ambushes, set up ambushes, think tactically, know what to look for, run further and faster, carry more equipment, apply their physical strength. And if the setting has guns then fighters will have guns too, and will have better aim and reflexes than a "barely trained peasant".

Wizards can use all sorts of utility spells, for transportation, sensing danger, summoning cover and reinforcements, supplying food, repairing objects, and manipulating terrain. They can summon a dense fog to make ranged weapons ineffective, cast a spell to turn a field or road to mud so vehicles can't pass, et cetera.

And monsters could be plain immune to bullets. A dragon with iron-hard scales that you need to kill by hitting a very specific small weak point directly under its chin or in the space between its upper foreleg and ribcage is going to be hard to deal with by shooting it. Other monsters exist which can teleport, displace where they appear to be, tunnel through the earth, et cetera et cetera.

And if you're dealing with forests, dungeons, cities, or any other dense terrain, the range of your gun is only as far as you can see. Considering that a "barely trained peasant" is likely to freeze up, run, fire wildly or just have shitty aim in the moment of seeing some slavering hellhound suddenly charge at them from across the room, the gun isn't going to be an instant "I win" button.

Training is important. In any scenario where they're in real danger, a person's ability to fight (including shooting) drops massively.

>Guns can't actually instakill magical monsters. Impenetrable hides (e.g. Nemean Lion), or similar extraordinary protective measures, protect them. Or they're just really, really tough.
Pretty much this is always a good way to justify fantasy classes when firearms exist. Evangelion sorta does it with AT-Fields. Attack on Titan gives its Titans regeneration.

The real world actually does this a little bit too, though in a nuanced manner. Fighting in urban areas necessitated the development of firearms effective at shorter ranges during WW2; indoor fighting with short corridors and small rooms could also justify melee fighters. Modern soldiers still train in hand to hand as well. in the world of espionage and spygames, I'd bet that Rogues at least make some amount of sense.

there are plenty of ways
guns might be primitive musket-like affairs that take a minute to reload and not reliably accurate
maybe fighters are some anime bullshit at higher levels
and why imply wizards and fighters wouldn't also adopt guns if they're so effective that any peasant can use them?

It's like you don't know what history is, how how weapon's tech and advancement changes and entire conflict.

Even muskets could punch through armor, meaning armor was becoming a liability, which is why once arrows were completely supplanted by bullets you don't see body armor until humans figured out how to protect themselves from bullets.

Tech changes war. Better artillery and guns begat trench warfare, better combat planes begat the rise of carriers and the fall of battleships, better technology begat automated drones and intercontinental missiles.

Likewise, iron and steel, in combination with centuries of testing and experience, lead to more efficient swords and armor that outclassed the copper blades and shotels.

Particular types of weapons most certainly change everything, especially something as anachronistic as a modern firearm.

>Why not just have peasants with guns instead?
Yes, herro?

>How do you justify the existence of fighters, wizards and magical monsters in a setting where [guns exist]?
I dunno, there's not a lot that changes.
Fighters are better than peasants at shooting guns and avoiding being shot at.
Wizards can enchant their guns.
Magical monsters can eat bullets for breakfast.

The whole dichotomy of "guns vs. fantasy" is false, just as the notion that the guns somehow kill the fantastical element.
Guns are nothing more than weapons, and believe me, humanity had a lot of those in its history.

If I have a tank or a "recreational" nuke, then the fact that you have a gun means little to me.

Depends on the system, but there's usually a trivial way to negate projectiles. A pair of examples follows.

>D&D
>implying guns can stop wizards
Wind Wall
Evocation [Air]
Level: Air 2, Clr 3, Drd 3, Rgr 2, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Wall up to 10 ft./level long and 5 ft./level high (S)
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

An invisible vertical curtain of wind appears. It is 2 feet thick and of considerable strength. It is a roaring blast sufficient to blow away any bird smaller than an eagle, or tear papers and similar materials from unsuspecting hands. (A Reflex save allows a creature to maintain its grasp on an object.) Tiny and Small flying creatures cannot pass through the barrier. Loose materials and cloth garments fly upward when caught in a wind wall. Arrows and bolts are deflected upward and miss, while any other normal ranged weapon passing through the wall has a 30% miss chance. (A giant-thrown boulder, a siege engine projectile, and other massive ranged weapons are not affected.) Gases, most gaseous breath weapons, and creatures in gaseous form cannot pass through the wall (although it is no barrier to incorporeal creatures).

While the wall must be vertical, you can shape it in any continuous path along the ground that you like. It is possible to create cylindrical or square wind walls to enclose specific points.
Arcane Material Component

A tiny fan and a feather of exotic origin.

>GURPS
Deflect Missile
Blocking
Deflects one missile about to hit the
subject – including any Missile spell.
Counts as a parry for combat purpos-
es. If the caster is not the subject,
apply distance modifiers as for a
Regular spell. Deflected attacks may
still hit a target beyond the subject.
Cost: 1.
Prerequisite: Apportation.

>windwall
By this description it wouldn't stop bullets or cannon fire, just give a 30% chance to miss

>deflect missle
Works on ONE missle

Thus, volley fire remains the tactically supreme strategy.

Monsters and PC-tier warriors can absorb bullets the same way they take axe blows to the torso: that is, either they can take lots of them or they are so agile/skilled/lucky they can generally avoid them. Wizards focus their efforts on things other than the mostly-obsoleted lightning bolts and fireballs.

Spells that allow you to do something like "make this person my puppet" or "summon some minions" will still be useful in a world of guns, especially if the person is too courageous for you to be able to point a gun at and say "do what I say or get shot" or if you can give said minions guns so you can gun whilst you gun.

>Attack on Titan
Note that titans are absolutely powerless against WWI and later cannons and missiles.
It's actually a major plot point.

>Guns are either inaccurate or take forever to load
You know like they were up until the mid 1800s
>PCs are superhuman, a wizard can maintain a powerful forcefield at all times, a fighter can shrug off an armour piercing .50 BMG to the head
>PCs integrate guns into their abilities
Wizard is a gun wizard, he uses a gun to increase the range and power of his spells. Fighters might carry an automatic anti-tank rifle or grenade launcher while wearing 80 lbs of body armour, paladins can use divine smite on bullets, rogues can use smoke grenades, camo, and flashband grenades, etc.

So using DnD 5e as an example for the third option. A fighter might be armed with an anti-tank rifle that does 2d12+dex damage on a hit, he wears heavy body armour that gives him an AC of 22. A wizard with a spell gun might have the range of all of his spells doubled and gets to reroll up to two dice when he rolls for damage with spells but must use two hands to use it and must use his bonus action to aim.

IIRC rowling only meant a duel between a wizard and someone with a gun, with nothing else.

Note that even in settings where combat magic is inferior to guns (and no magical shields or so exist or are easy to learn), magic can usually do things no plausible mechanical technology can:
create armies of undead, heal the sick instantly, levitation, teleportation etc.
of course there are also really low level settings where not even that is possible
Whenever there's a magic vs technology setting that favours technology it's almost always retard wizards throwing fireballs at tanks.
The absolute winner would be the side that embraces both.

Guns in the hand of peasants in sufficient numbers are effective.
Yes, this is a good thing. It explains how civilization manages to exist in a world of monsters.
But just because a dozens of peasants can fight off a wyvern doesn't mean those doesn't of peasants can go dungeon diving to stop a dark ritual that would summon countless demons those peasants don't have enough firepower to resist.

Strength in numbers does work in trpgs so long as you don't force that aspect on the players too. It also reigns in murderhoboing. Try looting and pillaging when the militia eventually gets tired of your shit and can actually threaten you.

Wuxia has it right. Martial Artists ( In this situation, player characters ) can kill generals and kings. But they are not a substitute for armies. You can kill 1 man, 3 men, or maybe even 10 men if you're very very good but you're still not a match for an army no matter how skilled you are. This is where D&D fucks up.

>Wizards
It does have the orc/mutant armies of the evil wizard using WWII technology, I really liked that.

>This is actually canon in Harry Potter.
Sure, since "Someone on the Internet said that Rowling said a muggle with a shotgun could kill a wizard" is basically the same thing as "Rowling said a muggle with a shotgun could kill a wizard".

Weird how everybody "knows" that she said it in "an interview" but nobody can post a sauce.

Take this to the WoD thread. The magefags will take care of you.

Guns dont ruin fantasy but /k/faggotry tends to. If you ever come up with balance reasons for why not every person runs around with .50 cal revolvers they'll complain that its just unrealistic and talk about how much impact tanks can do against real life animals. The point is finding a balance, like say a volatile nature, easily jammed, or long reload times.

But theres plenty of justifications you can give go go against guns everywhere. Its that usually this infuriates the airsoft nut at the table. Speaking from tons of experience with that happening.

Displacement's better vs guns, they only have a 50% chance to hit you then.

What's stopping some alchemist from turning leather vests into kevlar with some exotic potion or whatever?

PC fighters can afford plate armor, so the bullets bounce off. Why do you think knights used it in the first place?

youtube.com/watch?v=rCFMFeZ0JvQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_(armour)

Not only that, but they can afford plate armor made out of fictional super-metals and enhanced through magic, while the peasants can't afford magic guns or bullets.

If anything it makes them more justified than normal.

making them immune to traditional weapons
only silver bullets or special blessed ammo can damage them

>The church does a service of dealing with large scale threats for places that pay regularly but pushes the bill for private services and time spent blessing or soliciting ammo.
>The church is choosy and will run their nose to the sky if the creatures or events are caused by sinners of their own definition.

>Mages remain loyal only to coin and usually ask no questions but skill can't be measured and most practiced users follow the example of the church and leave small threats to grow until they can once again be called for service

>Trained witches and wizards aren't much like the church but are invested in counteracting such threats from the root and act discretely and if possible with much more ferocity.

>lastly and probably the most used of the rest are mercenaries or brigands will lay claim to enchanted blades or firearms and stage enough that the populace is satisfied with their prices before the others

Yes a wizard who can bend the rules of reality to teleport, slow down time , shield himself and shoot fireballs is scared of a pistol.

In any setting? Determining the power level you want. I could say a mid level fighter is capable of catching a rifle bullet between their index finger and thumb.

Why have trained soldiers when we could just give the homeless weapons to fight out wars?
Why have tanks when we could just give barely trained teenagers anti tank weapons?
Why have special forces when we could just use peasents?

Because
A) guns are not just "point at person and they die" the fact that you think they are ahows how little experience you have with weapons
B) not all guns are made equal. Sure, most modern weaponry would make low level monsters a breeze, but shit like dragons, hydras, trolls, giants etc. can easily tank most everything short of dedicated anti-armor/monster weaponry. And for stuff like orks, goblins, skeletons and what not, strength is in numbers. Sure, you can take one or two down with ease, but a 1000? Fat fucking chance, you aren't doomguy.
C) most non-gun classes would have to adapt. In periods like right now, when armor is generally less powerful than guns, fighters and the like are pretty fucked. But if armor has the advantage, like it has at certian times and undisputablely will again at some point, then it's time to rip and tear. As for wizards, they have magic. It offers a whole lot more than just damage output, and is generally going to be able to do a much wider variety of tasks than your favorite raifu.

>DM doesn't let me magdump
Why can I only shoot once or twice per turn but a NY cop who has to deal with a 50 lbs trigger pull can do 12 shots in 3 seconds.

Draw first

Because wizards and magical monsters are basically living guns.

On the subject of armour.

If wizards are real, they can enchant things - probably.

Which means you can wear triple-stacked Type 4 plates and have feather weight spells cast on them, and it'll feel like you're wearing nothing at all.

>undisputablely will again at some point

Prove it.

If it really is beyond dispute, prove it.

Also lol at Orcs and Goblins being a threat. What good are numbers going to do when every solder is packing a full-auto rifle? Do you remember WW1? Human wave attacks do not fucking work when two defenders with a machine-gun can kill 550 men a minute.

>where barely trained peasand could instakill them from beyond their field of view
true but not in the way you think it was

the arquebus, gun of choice for late medieval to early renaissance, was only useful in volleys from large squads of men and only with a suitably large force of pikes to support them
heavily armored knights co-existed alongside guns for a very long time, only going out of style with the invention of the musket
this is mostly true for large scale battles, scaling it down, and the arquebus is nowhere near as deadly
in small scale combat, you dont have the accuracy to make your shot count nor the numbers to make an effective volley, and you may not count on being protected while you load
in this situation, the most common situation for most RPGs, sword and bow would rule, as you could feasibly charge a small group of musketeers and make into close range or fire 3 or 4 arrows to each of their one shot

also, untrained peasants wouldnt always be the best use of muskets, their effectiveness relied on discipline to hold your ground and training to maximize rate of fire, so the peasants would be better as the pikemen, while you use army regulars or well paid mercenaries for the actual musketeers

untraiined peasants would fare extremely poorly against your average PC fighter, as their poorer discipline would make them far more likely ro break to a sudden charge

None of that is even remotely true. If you introduce guns to fantasy setting it just leads to a situation where everyone has a gun instead of a sword. It doesn't change the balance at all.

Obviously in that kind of setting it would be inexcusable, so it needs some adjustments that most of the time wouldn't be excused but mechanically

Guns are, for a reason, less deadly than melee weapons (Dark heresy, for example)
Classes and monsters are adapted to these guns, armor against bullets, fighters are proficient with guns, magic is, well, magical... (a lot of moderm settings)
Guns are extremely expensive, what user here said (D&D I think)

If anything fails to convince look at warhammer fantasy rpg, shitty hobbos being able to insta kill the highest level character with a backstab or a good shot.

>Also lol at Orcs and Goblins being a threat. What good are numbers going to do when every solder is packing a full-auto rifle? Do you remember WW1? Human wave attacks do not fucking work when two defenders with a machine-gun can kill 550 men a minute.

God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal. Goblins being tiny, weak and cowardly matters a lot less when guns exist. Heck, being a smaller target is often a good thing.

Honestly, you wouldn't even need level IV plates, as they're made of ceramic (which is known for having little multishot protection, assuming the wizard can't magic that out) and instead substitute it with enchanted level III plates, which nets you with weightless multishot protection against full sized rifle ball cartridges (in theory at least).

It's like everyone forgets that there were guns in Europe since the 1200s, and in fact, knights in plate armor actually postdate guns by about a century, as does the archetypical longsword. (not swords in general, of course, but that particular type) There was literally never any point in time where there were knights in shining armor, but not guns.

Joan of arc, for instance had a bunch of hand cannoneers on her side, including one famous sniper, Jehan de Montesiler.

I've got a set of plates, and even if they were weightless, you'd still feel like a goddamn ninja turtle. They're like an inch thick, rigid, and strapped to your back and front.

What's up with the near constant "guns in fantasy" threads lately?

Is this a new meme? Some elaborate troll campaign? It's never been a problem before but now there's always a "guns in fantasy" thread up.

Sam made *men* equal.

Goblin firearms would be a hoot to see.

people just think it's clever

>Protection from Arrows.

This. Protection from Arrows covers musket fire.

Shields that block any object coming at you over a certain velocity.

>The wizard's hand is already outstreched and teleports the gun into his hand, thus shooting before the peasant who has to point the weapon up first.

I can train anyone with 200 rounds and 4 hours (on an AR) to be a decent shot.

I can train that same person with 30 rounds and 45min (on an ak) to lay lead at something.

Another 8 hours of basic movement and stances and I have a soldier who can negate years of martial training at a distance of 50 meters.

Guns in a fantasy setting opens a can of worms if they can fire more than 3-5 rpm.

>implying that the notJews of the setting wouldn't sell human firearms to goblins for profit

So why do we have professional soldiers then if anyone can be trained in 8 hours, smart guy?

>Even muskets could punch through armor

Not for a while, they couldn't. Knights in plate armour co-existed with guns for a long time. The word "bulletproof" was invented in that era, to describe whether or not a suit of plate armour could withstand a direct hit from a bullet.

It is an incredibly poor magician which can't use indirect methods of spellcraft to nullify something as simple as guns. Illusions, Barriers, outright reality warping.. you name it.

Fighters would just adapt and start using the better weapon.

Magical monsters.. many times have enough tricks, speed, or outright sturdiness to handle commonly accessible firearms. They aren't random deer, they are monsters, they are called that for a reason.

I think he's comparing to fantasy fighters, wizards, and monsters. It's not that hard to sit at something that isn't sitting back. But put that guy up against an actual soldier and good luck.

But that's also the scary thing about firearms, and what gives so many modern militaries such trouble in various insurgency scenarios. Those trained soldiers die just as fast when they get shot. The gun doesn't care who's holding it.

Because trained/motivated gunmen are much better than poorly trained/conscripted gunmen probably?

I'm showing how firearms negate swords you tard.

Shoot, not sit

You don't even need to do all that.

>give peasant a gun
>let him shoot tin cans for a few hours with some minor pointers
>stick him in a tree in the middle of a dense forest
>repeat a few times, if you run out of guns, literally use the remaining people as fodder and bait
>create a few pit-related traps
>strategically use your equipment
Boom, you now have a formidable army capable of murdering many wizards/swordsmen unless they simply burn down the entire forest.

How do you justify continually making this thread? Easily: It's easy replies

Gun control. Why do you think Voldemort was trying to take over Britain and not the US.

so all the fighters will be using firearms instead of swords then, retard. gee was that so hard?

>Level 1 peasant
>Ever hitting a PC
>Ever beating the PC's Perception
>etc