Why does Veeky Forums fear it?

Now the sad thing about your statement is the fact that it's most likely not the dumbest thing i've read today.

First of all, a working early projectile firearm is pretty damn expensive and by all means a prototype.
So it allows the rich to overcome the strong.
Also crossbows are a thing and war crossbows where rarely pulled back with raw force and used tools for that instead.
Or something like pick related, which is still far easier than using war longbow.

Also see Wizards are all about "knowledge over strength"

>at hundreds (if not thousands) of feet per second
400m/s was a pretty good achivement for early muskets and the force behind that is still slightly above modern pistols and is vastly eclipsed by modern rifels.

Firearms didn't equalize jack-shit till they were able to mass produce them.

The gun is still somehow more detached and impersonal. The mage's fireball is weaker or stronger based on the mage's strength, and the fireball is still a functional result of their own personal power and training.

Early guns were weaker than bows at the time. The only reason Europe started using them was because you could pump out a squad of musketeers in a few days while bowmen took waaaaaaaaay longer

>it's detached and personal because I say so

England used to have a law forcing all men to practice archery for an hour a week, usually done on a Sunday after church. This meant that when the time came to round up an army, you already had a bunch of guys who were competent with a bow.

Pic related, it's a thing of beauty. And the English longbow ain't bad either ;^)

The longbow was better than most guns for a long time

Okay let's be fair here "weaker" is a blanket statement.

In terms of force carried, early single shot firearms where easily above arrows, not much compared to todays direarms, but still.

The thing is that lead bullets disperse so much force upon impact that plates where really frigging usefull against them.

And even if a ball manages to hurt you you where still more likely to live on with that ball of lead stuck in your body than having a sharp tiny steel knive constantly shredding your flesh and guts.

Because balance is difficult and most GMs are lazy. An early gun in the form of a smooth metal tube firing a poorly cast ball is worthless to an adventurer, unreliable, slow to load, and largely inaccurate. As accuracy, reliability, and reload rate increased guns even for individuals became objectively better than bows (which are a staple of fantasy). So your options are

A. Drop bows in favour of guns or have guns be objectively better than bows
B. Drop guns in favour of bows or have bows be objectively better than guns
C. Do some work to balance weapons that you might not even care about

Personally if I was to use guns I would have them be some anachronistic form of rifle, like a cross between a Kentucky Long Rifle and a Jezail. Some extremely long, accurate weapon that penetrates all armour but takes forever to load. I would probably balance them with bows by making them take longer to load, being more tempermental and making it more difficult to enchant said weapons (its harder to fit all those runes on a tiny musket ball than it is the long shaft of an arrow). I simply like baroque weapons like the Jezail and always liked the idea of a guy in full or partial plate armour carrying some baroque muzzle loading weapon.

Wrong, it's because guns don't use the same resources as archers do.
Bows require a specific part of specific trees and they were running out, but still needed more effective ranged units.
Guns were also easier to make than crossbows.
Blackpowder required resources that wasn't in demand by any other military unit.

You can train a guy to hit with a bow relatively quickly, so it wasn't the major issue.

Archery in warfare was already well on the decline in mainland Europe at that point, the measure of comparison was with the Crossbow, which is about as complex to manufacture as a musket.

You push the bow, not pull the string faggots

You can train a guy to hit with a bow relatively quickly, so it wasn't the major issue.

.t nerd who hated phys. ed.

Hitting isn't the problem, it's getting arrows far enough and fast enough.

>medieval times
>guns being made and distributed is a possibility
Bub, if you are playing a game that is actually set in medival times, guns are already a thing, otherwise you play iron ages with plate armor.

Keep thinking.

>You can train a guy to hit with a bow relatively quickly, so it wasn't the major issue.
Having the physique to pull the bow itself is the big issue. Sure, you could pretty easily teach anybody to shoot a shortbow or selfbow with some level of accuracy; most peasants did that. Hell, it's way easier than teaching a musketman to load. But on a straightbow like a longbow you need a lot of raw strength to give an arrow the power to penetrate plate armor, and that requires gains. Gains that would have to be deliberately cultivated over the years (longbowmen skeletons deformed by training yada yada yada). No prerequisite strength above the bare minimum needed to carry and shoulder a musket or hand cannon is needed to make an effective musketman.

Not the only reason i guess. But my point was that they didn't switch to guns because it was a more powerful weapon

Hitting them with a bow that actually matters in warfare is the hard thing.

Sure i can hit somebody with a toy bow, if my enemy isn't more thatn 20 meters away and a rat with a stroke, i migth even hurt it.

>leave me alone mom, im posting it again!

>No prerequisite strength is needed to make an effective musketman

You know, except carrying all of his stuff, marching over miles and then still be able to have a steady hand and be ready for the possible melee combat.

Fucking armchair experts.

>You know, except carrying all of his stuff, marching over miles and then still be able to have a steady hand
Read my post again. See the part about
>the bare minimum needed to carry and shoulder a musket or hand cannon

Fucking illiterates.

because Veeky Forums doesn't understand history.

It’s weird what details we fix on. I mean, other things the Middle Ages had that D&D generally lacks:

- smallpox
- 30 year life expectancy
- nosegays
- Christianity
- a total absence of illithids

Just odd to focus on the guns is all.

can't we just have a general for this topic?

Not really.

The difference is that being able to carry a heavy object for a long distance is something that the average laborer or farmer can do without requiring any differences in musculature or bone structure or the regular training required to obtain them. Being able to draw a 90-pound bow does.
And Longbowmen require as much training in the melee as musketmen do, so that's largely irrelevant.

>30 year expectancy
This takes into account high infant and high child mortality, which for all we know does actually exist in D&D for the average person. 90% of the characters you encounter are people who survived into adulthood, who even in the medieval era could expect to live up to his 60s or 70s barring plague, deprivation or violence.

Guns were deadlier. Making them was a problem for a while.

Reports of mercs of that time that used both longbows and guns always make it clear that the gun is flatout better.

Because guns remind Veeky Forums that progress and technology always wins. They would rather stagnate in the same settings time and again instead of ever trying something new. And while you have every right to do that, I also have every right to mock you for it.

Plate armor was also absurdly effective against arrows.

youtu.be/Dp0cNZopl_U

Looking at the image got me thinking: personal firearms cause endless REEEEEEEing on both sides, but what about full-size cannons? Hell, I don't see much use of siege weapons of any kind in RPGs (wargames are obvious exceptions). Have you ever had a campaign or anything where the players made use of honest-to-God artillery?

because it makes the individual worthless in the face of mass manufacturing

which makes them trash in a game about personal heroism and individual action

>Because guns disrupt the status quo.

In some low fantasy game maybe. In a DnD-like world where a fairly shitty wizard is a flying cannon and mid-tier monsters can be made of solid rock or masses of animated water or whatever and everyone and their mother has some sort of protection from physical harm? Guns should be anything special, not even anything actually relevant, until some smartass figures to make overlarge guns that exploit super-strength of heroic characters. There is only fuss about them because lots of writers still want people with swords and no obvious superpowers remain relevant when they shouldn't be.

>guns lead to industrialization overnight

Yeah that's true, my point was simply that even musket men needed to be quite Veeky Forums but british longbow archers where above and beyond them.
Still you wanted to make sure that your musketmen got their training when they got into service.

At this point i have learned to love the fact that the slightes mention of "firearm" seems to summon the picture of modern soldiers against cavemen into peoples minds.

There's a few reasons why I don't like them, but it most comes down to adding a ton of work for the GM to balance them properly. Otherwise you're stuck with a weapon that is blatantly broken and/or unfun for players to use.

I also ban elves, but that's a seperate issue.

no, but what they represent does, guns dont take much on the wielders part, you point and shoot- the complexity and skill is in the making of it. having an option for such "lazy power" undermines what the game and setting is about- personal skill and achievement

also because quality guns signify technological progression, which signifies industrialization

having a scenario in which a bunch of mooks with guns can overcome say a dragon or troll or hydra or golem or whatever other monster they wouldn't normally- while a testament to guns as a weapon- is the death of such a setting

>guns represent industrialization to me because I don't know anything about history.
Thanks for playing dude.

>The thing is that lead bullets disperse so much force upon impact that plates where really frigging usefull against them.

Incorrect. That was the exact things that made guns more effective against plate than bows and crossbows. Even in case of a non-penetrating shot, all of the bullet's kinetic energy still was transferred to the wearer.

>And even if a ball manages to hurt you you where still more likely to live on with that ball of lead stuck in your body than having a sharp tiny steel knive constantly shredding your flesh and guts.

Double extra incorrect. A great majority of non-fatal hits from early firearms that actually penetrated into the victim's body (not just left grazes and bruises at extreme range) resulted in death or limb amputation. Not only because of greater kinetic force of the bullet, but also because a large lead ball drove pieces of clothes into the wound.

Because Warhammer has swarms to be mowed down along with giant creatures that can take multiple bullets. Other settings have them too, but an absurd quantity of death is Warhammer’s thing

>guns represent industrialisation
but thats not what I said you fucking retard

>quality guns represent technological advancement from simple weapons

>guns in europe
>13th century
>industrial revolution
>late 18th century
kill yourself retard

because warhammer is a strategy game about tactics and armies as much as it is about your lone hero mowing down armies

>playing DnD
There's your issue.

>technological advancement means the industrial revolution
how many times were you dropped as a child?

>13th century firearms
>quality guns

It's called late medieval Russia.

>Armor absorbing more of the force made it more effectice against the wearer.

Jesus that's contradictory
Overall force isn't ar relevant as the relation between force and area affected.
Sure a good early matchlock had four to six times the force of the bow, but the area affected was also way larger.
Also more force lost to the shaping of the projectile upon impact.
Also the shape of the ball made it loose the little initial force it had rather quickly compared to an arrow.
It's not like the enemy will just stand in front of you and wait to get shot.

>Double extra incorrect. A great majority of non-fatal hits from early firearms that actually penetrated into the victim's body (not just left grazes and bruises at extreme range) resulted in death or limb amputation. Not only because of greater kinetic force of the bullet, but also because a large lead ball drove pieces of clothes into the wound.

Hey fucko, i never said that musket shots where extra survivable, but it's still more survivable than having an arrowhead stuck in you, which by the way, also needs to create an open wound with all those icky organic materials entering the wound.

>playing the most popular and accepted RPG is a bad thing.

I dare say EVERYONE would fear a medieval Davy Crockett device.

Okay to have the level of arguing around here not to drop down to pre-shool autism levels.
My problem here is that "quality" doesn't mean good.
Rather it's rather synonymous with "attribute" or "characteristic".
So saying the "coming of quality guns" is a non-statement and doesn't mean anything.

But i guess you wanted to say was that the coming of mass-manufactured firearms made other weapons, which where prevalent in times with simpler technology, less prevalent on battlefields.

>playing the most casual, boring, and monothemed RPG is a good thing

Except of course your guns where able to fire different characterisitcs.
That shit would be hilarious.

Work on your reading comprehension

>it's detached and impersonal

Pft. Spoken like a non martial.

I assure you.

It's very personal.

People who shoot others but have never been fired upon get PTSD for a reason. Killing people is a very personal act, and it leaves a mark on you, whether you shoot someone or stab them to death.

You will never forget that stupid face people make when they die.

>poor form
>doesn't detract from her beauty

>30 year life expectancy
>The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years
>Psalm 90:10

Ok, think about this: How would a legendary gun work?
As in, you open a tomb, beat the gorgon, you get her stash of ancient, magical artifacts, right? And every type of weapon an PC can wield, it can realistically exist a legendary version of it that still works. The sword of a king, the bow of a dragonslayer, ancient armor, etc. A player can take any of this and pausably believe that it will help him in his quest to kill the lich or whatever.
How would that work with a gun? you show a player a 5000 years old gun, and it will either A) be completely inferior to a "modern" gun, making it pointless or impractical, or B) Be exactly the same or better in design to what he already has, which raises the question of why has gun tecnology not advanced in five millenia.
I know swords and bows and armor changed and evolved a lot just like guns, but unlike guns, most of these changes were in design, or unremarkable to the common folk. On the other hand, guns evolved in a very notable and visible way.

You can use a 13th century sword against a 15th century sword and believe it if it wins. not so with a 13th century gun against a 15th century gun.

>This lack of imagination.

>high fantasy

Problem. Let me put your analogy to swords!

Sword tech wasn't static. An average sword made in 1350 would be significantly better than a high quality sword made just a hundred years before, even if that sword was impeccably preserved. Metallurgy is constantly evolving and improving, even back in ancient times. A sword made in the 1300s would be head and shoulders above a sword made 5,000 years before. Bronze swords fell to the wayside for a reason. Steel replaced iron. Better quality steels replaced lesser quality steels.

This is fucking fantasy. If there can be ancient legendary swords that are head and shoulders above swords produced in the current year of the game, then there can be ancient legendary guns.

Just make it a magic gun. How hard is that? It shoots deathbolts or something instead of merely bullets.

why would this not apply to the other ancient artifacts

Because anti gunners are retards.

>tfw you don't find a masterfully crafted and decorated matchlock in the ancient kings tomb, but the paladin gets a new adamant plate armor.

>My problem here is that "quality" doesn't mean good.
I suppose it could mean "poor quality" but as a general rule its shorthand for "high quality/good quality"

and yes, guns did eventually replace other weapons- but that isnt even the issue, the issue is the philosophy behind it- guns are a great equalizer past a certain point, which in a genre which focuses on individual prowess and all that is terrible

basically guns are either useless or defeat the point of it, either way they are no fun

Up until the late 19th century, they were literally glorified crossbows. What the fuck are you talking about?

Now i could beat you to death about the definition of "good quality"

but that's as ignorable as most of your statement.
But
>"either way they are no fun"
at least you managed to get out of your closet and speak about how you feel.

I don't get where the "great equalizer" meme comes from.
All weapons are supposed to equalize or give you an advantage.
That is the point of them.
Sharp rocks where equalizers against sable tooths.

add.

That's like saying "i don't like military picks, because they are great equalizers against plate armor, so i don't include them in my setting."

>back then
>peasants with spears and clubs vs knights with steel, horses, diet and training
>right now
>insurgents with ak-47s and IEDs vs organized militaries with tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, more electronic equipment than in silicon valley, trained soldiers and specialists, modern logistics, etc etc
ah yes "the great equalizer"

a knight might be beefier and more skilled than some nobody, but his beef is just the result of food and training, and modern soldiers can become vastly more effective with training
hell even an old finnish guy with a scopeless rifle managed to best a thousand russians
fuck outta here with that dumb shit

>Why does Veeky Forums fear it?
Nobody fears it. It's retards like you who neither know much about history, nor understand the basic sentiments about aesthetics and symbolism rooted in the medium that constantly screech autistically, making everyone annoyed. You are so fucking braindead that you think just because people don't do what makes sense in your tiny little mind, that it must be because "they are afraid of your grand truth". Your grand truth is neither actually true, nor actually interesting or relevant to most people, that is all.

And I say that as somebody who features guns HEAVILY in his settings.

>Why does gunpowder work so well in Warhammer fantasy but not really any other setting?
Because Warhammer is largely a completely anachronistic setting that does not really derive it's inspiration from romantic visions of medieval era alla Tolkien. Frankly, it's also already pretty damn hideous and sorely lacking in tone and atmosphere all together. You can get away with virtually anything in WH settings because the settings intentionally threw consistency, logic or tone out of the window for zany, absurdist pastiche of crazyness and exaggerated clichés. The exact same also applies to WH40K by the way, and it's what allows completely illogical and otherwise completely unfitting combinations of magic, swords, knights, mechas, WW1/WW2, undead, elves and space-opera all in a single settings.
And don't get me wrong, there IS a certain appeal to WH fiction, there is a certain glee, freedom and fun in the tastelessness of it.
It's just that it's not what most people want all of the time. Most people dream about settings united by an actual vision, usually a romantic one. And those require much more careful choices of elements.

>good quality
15th/16th century

except for their impact on military tactics and all that good stuff you mean?

a swords or axes effectiveness is determined by how strong you are, hell so is a bow to a decent extent

a gun doesent care if you can bench press a tank or if youre an invalid, you pull the trigger it fires

a strong knight > a weak knight

a strong tank commander=a weak tank commander

technological advancement is the antithesis to heroic fantasy for a reason

user, your autism is showing.

a knive doesn't care if you can bench press a tank or if youre an invalid, you swing it and it will cut.

a strong knight who tripped on a loose rock < 3 angry peasants who dogpile him and stab him in the armpits and bash that rock on his head

wars were won with intelligence, discipline, training, equipment and some muscle
the roman manlets totally humiliated the germanics despite the latter being the meatheads of the ancient world, because muscle isn't that important in real life as long as you're reasonably fit

and even then in modern setting we have extremely romantic military types, see the special forces commando, the pilot ace, the hawkeyed sniper, etc. All it takes for people to be able to stand out is for their weapons to be sufficiently complicated enough that they're difficult to master.

Because it is not medieval at all for the factions with guns. They are full renaissance and make no pretense of being otherwise.

Not that it matter anyway. Medieval fantasy is not even medieval more-often than-not. All the things like huge cities, centralized monarchies, standing armies, trade, travelling to other cities relatively safe, and coherent kingdoms is a thing of the renaissance and later eras. It is not medieval at all. They even go in full-plate armor, which was not a thing until the very end of the very Late Middle Ages and often mixed armors that didn't exist until centuries later.

>Because Warhammer is largely a completely anachronistic setting

You mean, like most faux medieval settings.

but the funny thing is that it doesent

>why do people not include guns in heroic fantasy?
>gets reason
>wow thats fucking autistic

Its impact on military tactics is less than you realise initially. The shift in military tactics came about more because of socioeconomic reasons than because of firearms.

The death of feudalism changed how armies in Europe functioned at its very core.

So play stone age fantasy, you fucking luddite. Any point you could make about guns could be made about crossbows and magic. Yeah you don't have to be strong to use them but you have to be clever and skilled unless your enemy is a retard. A skilled tank commander>an unskilled tank commander, etc. Do you think it's just a coin flip?
Why have so many people swallowed these stale memes about guns being some kind of aimbot instant death wand that immediately ends the age of honor and chivalry and fantasy, or of technology not requiring personal skills to use. The latter is only a very recent development and the former is a retarded myth spread by people who've never used a gun of any sort, let alone some black powder Shit

Eh pretty sure he can't differ between correlation and causation.

>wow thats fucking autistic
I'm glad that you have come to terms with it.

I'm not

meant with the second half.

>magic
is entirely reliant on the caster, its not based on strength but rather arcane knowledge- merely a different sort of personal power

>cross bows
true

Sorry user,
have a sexy gun as apology.

>is entirely reliant on the caster
That is entirely depending on the setting and it's choice on how "plot powers" are supposed to work, because thats what magic is.

Do you hate archers or rapier users? Or any other weapon that relies on skill? Because that's exactly the situation for a shootist and a mage. The weapon is a tool, it's the wielder and their skill that make it deadly

Ahh, okay.

Yeah, hoplophobes are generally not known for critical thinking. Fighting takes intelligence, skill, and dedication that they rarely ever have.

Guns (especially in the way that people Really used bows) were not all that less accuracy, nor range, than bows. Simply put, nobody fires arrows/bolts/bullets at their maximum range because tehn you get no decisive impact. Any unit of archers, gunners, crossbowmen, would wait until the enemy gets closer for maximum casualties.

so what about Crossbows?

>rapier
entirely based on personal prowess

>archers
more based on personal prowess than guns