Medieval setting

>medieval setting
>some nigger creates muh powder
>he have guns now
why is this allowed

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

because guns have been in European history as early as the 1300s you fuckin' mong

Why IS it allowed? Aren't you the DM? If you're not the DM, why aren't you complaining to the DM?

Dm is a pussy and let that happen

>choose medieval setting
>let some nigger have le epic gunpowder rawr

because animals shit

>>medieval setting
> >some nigger creates muh powder
> >he have guns now
> why is this allowed

Guns have been historically part of the European battlefields since the 13th century.

But they developed very slowly and were impractical till the 16th and 17th century.

Don't let your player skip 4 centuries into the future.
Let him play with shit guns.

Im-ucking-plying that he'll ever have anything but a single shot arquebus with limited range and high rate of missfire.

The knowledge needed to make good gun powder, smokeless gunpowder, cartriges, metal processing to make the barrel, precision tools for rifling...

If you allow him straight up rifles 18th century stile muskets then you are a moron.

What makes it a "medieval" setting?

>rolls Nat 20 on Knowledge (Physics)
>creates first functioning Nuclear reactor

It's only kind of evil.

>crit fails int check for operation
>reactor undergoes critical meltdown
>player accidentallies a Chernobyl in the middle of Generic Elf Kingdom

Might actually be kind of fun.

>13th century
14th at best, and they were the most primitive, shittiest possible ribalds that needed at least 10 minutes of prep time for every single shot lest they blow up or not work. they were undersized cannons, siege weapons at best.

arquebuses came around in the late 1400s as very experimental and expensive weapons very dissimilar from the arquebus you might think of, pic related. they became commonplace and developed with triggers and locks in the 1500s. after that it was steadily uphill.

...

1118 at Zaragossa

>siege weapons at best.
IIRC they were mostly deployed as defensive weapons on walls, since they were heavy as fuck and took ages to load.

Nevermind its from an unsourced durch wikipedia article

Ask not why this is allowed. Ask
>what has allowed my players to believe this is acceptable?
>Why do they want gunpowder/firearms?
If the players want for what they cannot have then you've either failed to make yourself clear, or are failing to engage them sufficiently with the tools you have

or grow a pair instead of passively-aggressively punishing players with your shitfucking "ironic" twists. Yes pre whenever guns where garbage, but we're dealing with games of magic and dragons. Allow guns or don't- but don't try and sell your "well I'll just make them worthless" as some kind of winning move

>Imply this ever happens
>Implying that any sane man would let a nigger near his gaming table.

>unsourced durch wikipedia article
But those are the most credible sources on the internet.

Psssht. That's how you get slav elven stalkers.

There were earlier firearms than this, IIRC. They were pistol-sized metal tubes that attached to polearms, like a sort of reverse-bayonet.

>rolls Nat 20 on Knowledge (Physics)
Fucking kill yourself.

Depends, if she's cute?

absolutely, there's been firearms for way longer than the 13th century, just not in europe. many asian kingdoms used (relatively) advanced handgonnes, firepikes and the like to great effect. the main theory of how guns came to europe was either the mongols or traders to istanbul [sic]

you're correct, actually. early arquebuses/hakenbüchsen had two usage areas, that being the other one. i don't think they ever saw much usage outside of sieges though so i lump the defensive and offensive usage together. still though, it was rare and isolated to eastern europe and some parts of the HRE. it's like having CWIS on your firebase. you can do it, people do it, it works well, but it's not common.

Because historic early firearms are kinda weird and - in europe - 100% tied up with immolating stuff good rather than spreading freedom and a democracy based on controlling the negro vote.

that bronze vase shooting arrows?

he wont even have a shitty arquebus but a shitty handgonne

>medieval setting
>articulated full-plate
>city-states
>not-crusaders
Why is this allowed?

Because gunpowder weaponry was a pretty significant part of late medieval warfare, and because it's more interesting than the same old swords and sorcery shit.

Then it's allright, i guess.

>nigger
>muh powder
Did he invent crack?

Sounds like a great setting desu

>dieselpunk setting
>some fatburger creates muh fission
>he have nukes now
why is this aloud

>nigger
>create
I don't think so.

there is a fair bit of difference between a musket and an assault rifle you fucking moron.

>Nuclear holocaust mutant Russian Elves

Now this is podracing.

>damn simulationists getting reality in muh games!

Eat my dick, firearms were a thing before articulated plate armor.

>not having fire-spitters in your campaign

What a non-fun homo you are

Guns need to be excluded from all fantasy settings.

>rolls nat 1 on intimidation
>turns gay and fuck the orc

If you're the DM then don't let it happen.
Me? It depends, but usually I'm okay with letting my players do shit like this. Just so long as there's a real weight behind their research. They can't just discover guns overnight (though I did make the mistake of letting one of my players do this once with a drunkard wizard).

Slippery slope. You let that happen and next thing you know the necromancer BBEG has equipped every skeleton in his army with a rocket launcher.

Now there's a campaign I'd play

>why is this allowed
Well, modern political correctness proclaims that all races are equals, so the leftists believe that niggers can invent things.

>Medieval setting
>Not having guns
>Medieval times being infamous for being the period of history in which gunpowder and firearms first made appearances on the battlefield.
I bet your idea of medieval combat is just two armies in a field running headfirst into each other with their swords raised, isn't it?

>That's not necessarily anachronistic either
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

>have a magic ring that lets you change one letter of the spell's name and the effect changes accordingly
>Magic Fissile

Certainly better than bullet spam autism.

>muh no middle ground

There's no middle ground where swords remain as a main battlefield weapon, no, and there's no middle ground where guns never overtake all other weapons. Guns will inevitably render all other forms of combat irrelevant. Guns are forever and always the death of fantasy.

Either you are baiting or an idiot.

Guy it's okay if you know nothing about warfare or history but you don't have to rub it in everyone's face.

If you need it more fantasy like, just say it was an experimental positive/negative energy generator.

What kind of guns do the Chinks have anyway?

Basically the same stuff we had.
Either you want to scare people with it.
Set their stuff on fire.
Or throw small things really, really hard at them.

Swords stopped being relevant in the pike and shot era, which is as soon as guns became a viable weapon.

Pikes =/= swords, and you sure as shit don't see any pikes around NOW. There's a reason why I specified inevitability and not immediacy except for swords.

Thw chinks have arquebus in the 13th century? I thought they were invented later on.

Do they also have the same shit as the ribauldequin? That shits tight man.

>guns

>impractical in 17th century

Look, I'm not saying there isn't a reason why especially in Asia bows went on longer, but please user, educate yourself

>Swords stopped being relevant in the pike and shot era, which is as soon as guns became a viable weapon.
Which was why everyone carried a sword.

We had a guy try that once, he got pissy for being upstaged by the archer

Nigga, you confusing "is the main weapon an army is equipped with" with "it exists".
Nobody said that guns are all around, that is just your assumption, and if you do not like guns in your game of make belive, don't implement them.

But guns where a thing.

Status and duels, not warfare. They were symbolic.

It will eventually be. Whether they're developed enough yet or not, they will be.

>they will be.
And your point is ?

So they're the death of your setting, and should not be present.

>Status and duels, not warfare. They were symbolic.
As I have said, you do not need to pretend you know anything about warfare no one will judge you. The sword was used almost universally as the backup weapon and was even the main weapon of some troops such as rodeleros.

Aww jeez, a setting that guess through a change of technological change in which interesting social and moral questions could arise.

No one would like that, all I want is to start in a tavern, beat up some Orks for existing and defeat the bbeg.

>Interesting
>Becomes the real world
Nah.

Are you the "Cavalry is useless after guns" guy? You seem just as moronic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

The arquebus is a european category and kinda vague at that. If you take it to mean basically an handgun with a lug under it, yes, they had it, but apparently the matchlock is a european thing from the 1500s.

Nigga, are you actualy implying during the napoleonic age they didn't regularly do cavalry charges with sabres? Hell, it happend even in the civil war, tough it's VERY debatable if it made real sense.

You're partially right about the sword as a status thing, but up to basically the revolver, it WAS useful a self-defense item by virtue of not necessitating to be recharged (oddly enough, the pistol itself was more opt to duels). Interestingly, this also meant that when there was basically not that much space and time, the sword was the first choice even as a proper military weapon: the navy employed the cutlass for a reason, and those guys had more than enough guns and cannons.

That's actually the reason why I don't get the fuss about firearms in DND-like settings. Even if you had your elves do a perfect pike and shot thing, that wouldn't mean much for adventurers, in close combat the real distinction is before and after the revolver and the semiauto rifle. Sure, adventureres would use their pistols, but have fun recharging that in a dungeon at 20 meters from the zombie- it would actually be pretty interesting tactically, I'd even think.

Everyone being forced to use a gun is not interesting gameplay, no matter how much it gets your jollies off to see a gun.

>Player decides to use OOC technology to make gunpowder
>Asks a shopkeeper about saltpeter or niter
>They don't know what he's talking about
>After some investigation, realizes that it doesn't naturally occur in the setting

Well he does to seem to have a twisted love-hate relationship with guns.
On the I've side they are that perfect killing machine that, as soon as the concept crosses the mind of a peasant, invalids arches, swordmen, riders, fucking MAGICIANS, and probably wooden naval vessels.

On the other hand they turn any setting into the normal world and fantasy send to be his thing.
But bows, swords and horses can be magical right ? Guns can't be.

So lads does he actually know nothing or is it just shitposting?

Not any less than the fact that you'll need to use magical shit.

How is everybody forced to use a gun you turbo twat? Do you even know what early guns look like ?
And as the user said before, 20 seconds to 2 minutes reloading time aren't unreasonable for them.

I think he is just one of those guys that like to argue.
Maybe a little stupid to boot

Because you chose the beta Middle Ages and not the chad Iron Age.

Won't really stop a society from trying to make killing each other easier.
Mass produced magic others are the logical step for any setting with academic magic.
Be it swords that cut further or pass through armor or magical hobo railguns.
Maybe just magic Missile scrolls for everybody.

>Choosing the Virgin iron age and but the Chad bronze age with loving God and primal magic.
Keep trying.

medieval settings have guns, man.

At least enchantments don't change how you fight.

Everyone being forced to carry pistols or muskets is forcing everyone to use guns. That should be obvious.

Certainly such elements are inevitable except in settings with trivial or absent magic, but a world builder can take steps to make sure that such technologies do not come to dominate general warfare strategy. The easiest method of which is to simply make high magic prohibitively expensive to mass produce.

not that user, but it's not ironic to have guns be shit at the start and have the player gradually get them better. it's not like they're starting with a .50BMG, it'll be one shot, short range/ow accuracy depending on rifling, long reload time, and heavier than a bow/arrow until improvements are made.

make sure that he's stuck spending minutes loading after every shot fired

>At least enchantments don't change how you fight.

I think that's enough for me.

>Everyone being forced to carry pistols or muskets
Nigga you just jumped over 500 years of development, which includes academic research, guilds and alchemists, to jump from "first black powder gun" to muskets and pistols.
Also I live in a setting with fully automatic guns and I'm not forced to carry one, why are the characters in your game, of you are even playing, or forbid, running one ?

>Your sword being +3 means you start using it differently

You're not a traveling mercenary, are you?

Or just give the player the basic concept and say, "great with only 100 years your theories will be able to change the modern battlefield, considering that you spend your time and pursue then."

Not one that jumps through 500 years worth of time.

Potions sure seems to make your tactics change enough.

Funny that; because there's accounts of hand gonnes and pistolas being used as skirmishing weaponry in the 14th and 15th centuries, plus you've got the huge boom in firearms popularity around the time of the Hussite Revolts.

I play shadowrun and I don't use a gun. This argument is stupid.
In fact, the only reason my character even HAS a gun is so I have something to disarm when people want me disarmed.

We went over this before and we got a ton of sources showing cavalry in use in a shock assault role using hand to hand weapons up until the 1920s as something regularly done by regular, rational militaries (although mostly in Eastern Europe and Asia post 1914).

Throw in the fact that most ""fantasy"" systems are level based and"guns for everybody" stops making sense after the beginner Levels.

Wasn't aware potions were a weapon.

You forgot your own point there.

The only reason you don't have to use guns in Shadowrun is because of system design stupidity. There's no good reason that melee weapons would be viable.

well, you know, except for magic and all the extenuating circumstances that make melee weapons viable.

I just got the one out that you ignored.
Since you seem to be cherry picking your argument you want to hear I just assumed that nobody ever tached you how to participate in a discussion.

Or the fact that you can't bring your gun everywhere.
Or that a knife is easier to smuggle
Or that it will still kill somebody dead if you get the jump on him.

But that guy will probably argue that the knives carried by spec ops are "dueling" knives and a status symbol.