*destroys your aesthetic & lvl 5 adventurer*

>lvl 20 adventurer takes 10 shots to the face without flinching then deletes you from existence
k

Could see that working as an aristo weapon in 40Keks.

>Why are gunfags so annoying?
Well, the last guns in medieval settings thread I've seen ended up with some guys unironically claiming that gun ownership is the only true condition of a democratic, non-shitty society and actually assumed that anyone who does not want guns in their medieval settings is a commies and defends totalitarian regimes.
That should probably tell you enough.

Honestly, I did not want to to believe it but I'm pretty much convinced that besides the usual onslaught of shitposters, at the hear to these discussions there are some really profoundly disturbed gun-nuts literally getting angry at people for not sharing their gun-fellating fetishes.

Jokes on you, I use guns in my games.

Don't need a "good" reason to not want something, dumb fuck. That's just asking why I don't want to eat shit.

They have some really weird expectations on how guns would be statted and interact with the rest of the rules.
Like, that in a system where getting hacked in the face with a halberd or taking a crossbow bolt in the gut does 1d10 damage, a shot from a musket or early-model wheellock would do 6d8x100 + DC15 Con save vs. instant death.

idk what kind of dm would say "oh yeah you get hacked in the face with a polearm for 1d10 damage". in our group that sort of shit is reserved for crits and the like. speaking of the topic at hand, though, we do have guns. they do an ok amount of damage, but ignore a large amount of AC granted by armor (then again, bows and crossbows do the same with the right ammo). The thing is, they take a few full turns to reload and require concentration, so our fighter just carries 3 pistols on her. in effect, they are like spells for non-casters. You empty your guns and most likely won't fire them until the next encounter.

>include guns in your game
>make them weak

Fuck Pathfinder in particular for doing this. I'm not a "guns do 8d20x10+50" shitter but guns should have a punch to them. A pistol doing as much damage as a dagger doesn't make any fucking sense when you're firing a .45-.90 calibre lead ball at someone.

Pistol? I have a blunderbuss and shoot your whole party.

>I don't need to have reasons for my opinions!!111

You're an Americlap, aren't you?

Sure it does. The issue is that damage is largely abstracted and characters in games like Pathfinder can take a gorillian hits from a nuke and still walk it off just fine.

In games with even vaguely sensible damage numbers (CoC comes to mind), characters drop in 1 ~ 3 hits if they're being attacked by anything even remotely deadly.

Why are you bringing nationality into this?

Why are you dodging the question?

I think the real issue here is 90% of campaigns never make it to level 10.

Why are you replying to obvious trolls

A level 5 adventurer would probably wreck a modern soldier. These guys can often cross thirty+ ft in a startlingly brief snap of time and and tank their way through blows that would crush a normal man while doing so.

You don't need a good reason to not want guns in your game, Satan. It's just a matter of tone and preference.

Black gunpowder pistols were miserably weak IRL at any range other than point-blank.
Muskets could not hit a target beyond 20 or so yards, and also lost power rapidly with distance.

There is a reason why Napoleonic cavalry went back to armour.

>Expecting people to be able to reasonably explain the way they feel about things is trolling

Autism, everybody.

>You have to be able to logically explain why you like everything you like
Maybe I just enjoy something captain autism.

Guns were a mistake

Literally

Now war is boring

Cuirassiers were the only ones who did, and they were considered the elites of cavalry. 1800s breastplates were often lead-lined and "proofed" against gunfire, but were very expensive, bulky, and difficult to produce.

The "muskets can't hit beyond 20 yards" is a meme that was disproven as far back as the 1600s. I forget the name but an English officer got sick of the rumor mill saying guns were a bad replacement for the longbow, so he ran rests and documented them. He concluded that while it did have a more limited range, it was accurate enough up to 100 yards, and men under his command could shoot and reload them effectively after a few weeks of training, compared to the years of training needed for even minimally effective battle use of the longbow.

The earliest handgonnes were quite weak to armor, and though they packed a punch, crossbows outshined them for reload and range. By the 1500s however with the rise of reliable matchlock and experimental wheellock, they rendered plate armor all but obsolete. The average calibre of a matchlock musket was anywhere from .55 to .65 calibres, and the largest ones (usually Spanish) ranged upwards of .89 calibre. By the 1700s, the British had the biggest conventional bore, standardized at .75 calibres and ranging anywhere from .69 to .81. Even the .55 matchlock rounds cut through plate armor like it was butter. Early on they tried proofing plate armor like later breastplates, and while it could stop penetrating hits, the sheer force of a huge ball of lead striking and mushrooming its force could sever muscle and break bones, and proofed plate armor was so heavy that you were barely mobile in it.

Early pistols were less effective at all but short range, yes, but that was their intention. You didn't go shooting a pistol under 8 yards or so, but in that 8 yards, a youth thug could kill a veteran knight in the squeeze of a trigger.

>Muskets could not hit a target beyond 20 or so yards, and also lost power rapidly with distance.
Get a load of this dude.
Firing at this distance doesnt mean that they wouldn't hit further away, but it's close enough to have most bullets find their traget, the enemy has to deal with the smoke and the charge is most likely out of formation so any melee attack will face severe problems.
It's not like musketeers could't just ready their sword and stab the guy who is wondereing where John went.

Here have shitty japanese muskets for comparison, and even those managed an effective range of 80 meters.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima_(gun)

You disgust me
>in4 bait

...

Of course it is.
This board is just easy as fuck to troll and mods don’t fucking care.

is it that hard to level up?

>destroys your aesthetic
I seriously hope you aren't saying that musketeers aren't aesthetic.

Course not, but when's the last time you've played in a high-powered campaign that didn't start that way?

>not having a breastplate at lvl 5

My guns are practically the same statwise as crossbows, they just take longer to reload and have a little more armor penetration, and they make a fuckload of noise.

...

Quasi-related, I have been playing a game that heavily features firearms in an anachronistic setting. Firearms are commonplace, and typically breech/break loading, and tend to take preformed caseless alchemical cartriges. So far, my players have had interesting interactions with them, as almost anyone can get their hands on them, the game has spiralled into a pretty interesting XCOM style thing where people are constantly taking cover, or sneaking around, or choosing when to initiate combat, and sharing resources/ammunition. Whats more, my guns are mostly short-ish range (most handguns being most effective at 30ish feet), so battles have been tense, dangerous, and strategic.

Even the melee-focused players seem to be having fun devising tactics to catch people off guard or to close distance, and the party's tactics have developed much faster than any other party I've DMd for. Aesthetics aside, we actually had an interesting postgame discussion where we discussed the implications of essentially giving anyone access to a pretty powerful ranged weapon. I tend to favor complicated or flexible maps that have all sorts of clutter and nonsense inside them, and the party has expressed that they've been enjoying the fact that the game has had almost no beatsticking- it has been really fast raids, tense firefights where both sides are looking for or trying to create an opening, lots of held actions and attempts at controlling areas using magic or traps. Even the flat-out gunslinger character uses techniques like disarming foes and draw-fire-dropping pistols like a pirate, or knowing when to reveal her position or not. Our party barbarian now carries around a tower shield on backup so she can be used as cover SWAT style.

Ultimately, I've had more fun in this game by shifting the meta TOWARDS medium ranged weapons, aesthetics aside. How have guns changed your games?

That sounds bloody well amazing. What's the rest of the setting like? Do the guns themselves more resemble early 16c breechloaders or 19th century Springfield trapdoor rifles? Do you have any repeating weaponry (e.g. revolvers or Warhammer-esque multi-barreled rotating rifles)?

Yeah but what if they're MAGIC guns?

Also, completely unrelated: that zombie pic would be a pretty cool enemy. It'd have a crapton of rifles jammed in its rotting flesh and it could just pick them out one by one and shoot from the hip, bypassing the complex actions and thought processes required for reloading a firearm.

Guess again fag.

*destroys your powder*

How do flintlocks destroy anything? I stat them similar to crossbows. They do a little more damage but guns are more rare and expensive and the ammo is more expensive as well, the ammo is also more rare so you probably can't buy it in every single village and you need a really good smith to repair it if necessary so maintenance is only available in bigger cities. Also, arrows can be coated with poison or you can have flaming arrows.

Maybe it's overly simplified but it works nicely and lets players add a different flavor to their characters if they want to, for example to play a pirate character.

If I'm having a Eurocentric setting, then I am not including the Asian discovery of gunpowder.

They're "not" flintlocks, rifled barrels, somewhat shaped rounds, paper alchemical cartridges that look a little bit like quartersticks of dynamite. There are repeaters, notably, a rifle design that feeds from a big dumb box magazine looking thing with a heavy lever that looks not too dissimilar to one of those Chinese repeating crossbows, but they see very limited use because of their significant drop in reliability and their cost. There are hornet-nest and multibarrel weapons, particularly pistols.

A small (SMALL) amount of rotary cannons were used in the last war, but their capacity/loading mechanism wasn't large/fast enough to perform very effective supressive fire, which is typically something that magi do.

Instead of rate of fire, gun tech mostly leaned towards armor penetration to take down monsters, magi, witches, paladins, priests, etc. It's a strange warfare system where knights charge entrenched positions and cut down riflemen with battleaxes, and casters are mostly force multipliers.

One of the most recent magical developments is a series of spells that essentially gate-of-Babylon rifle volleys, and the mage who developed and distributed it for free made mad buxx because it's actually just a temporary automatic contract that allows you to summon weapons from a huge vault of guns filled with mage interns that just spend their day reloading them, and the "material component" of the spell is flat out cash that gets teleported into his bank account.

No, but most campaigns fizzle out before they get that far due to the GM burning out or the players desiring a change of pace.

>oh no, i just took 1d10+2 damage

Unless gunpowder itself is something rare and exotic(which means no cannons), there's no reason at all for ammo to be expensive. If you're using a flintlock, you're not using a cartridge so the ammo is just a lead ball.

Similarly the idea that you'd need a special smith to repair a gun seems kind of unlikely. You'd probably need a professional gunsmith to make and design one in the first place, but I'm sure any old smith that's used to making things like spurs and buckles could make any replacement part necessary.

This method of adding firearms to a setting just kind of bothers me. Sure, early firearms were rareish, but that was because they were matchlocks and matchlocks kind of suck, not because they were hard to make. Similarly, as firearms proceeded towards flintlocks(it wasn't an overnight thing, it was around a hundred years of development of wheellocks, snaplocks, etc), firearms became more and more common(because they sucked less and less).

IMO going either full pike and powder, only having shitty matchlocks, or making gunpowder some magic alchemist shit are all way better ways to do it.

>*destroys your aesthetic & lvl 5 adventurer*
a level 5 fighter, with 18 in CON, would have 14 + (6 x 4) + (4 x 4) hp, or 54hp
and wearing plate to give 18 AC

an arquebusier wielding a matchlock, with 13 dex and +2 prof, would hit on a 15+ or 30% of the time for 1d12 + 1, or 7.5 damage
lets just round that off to 2.5 damage per musketeer

alone, that is a dead musketeer
you would need 5 or 6 of them to stand even a fair chance of taking down a level 5 adventurer
and thats fighting as a cohesive unit in a vacuum

a level 5 fighter is likely very experienced at fighting large groups and may simply refuse to fight them on even ground and challenge them when odds are in his favor
on a foggy morning, in a thick forest, he is more likely to get the drop on them, with all their guns being unable to be brought to bear

so it would only steamroll a level 5 adventurer with numbers and coordination, and with that much expense just hire the darn person instead of killing him

>Unless gunpowder itself is something rare and exotic
to my knowledge, sulfur was not always available, requiring long trade routes between to get sufficient quantities of it
and saltpeter was the real bottleneck, the whole "turn piss into saltpeter" was actually an act of desperation when normal supplies were cut off, and the french were actually going nuts because their supply of it was always tenous

its not necessarily rare or hard, but it requires a large amount of existing infrastructure and industry to have it become the dominant firearm

Tabletop games bring out the worst in nerds.

Okay. Bows and crossbows do 2d6 damage. Gun do 2d6+1, 2d8, if musket. Armor Piercing 2 like crossbow, need 2 full turn to reload.
Enjoy your brace of pistols and don't forget about weight, cost and dealing with drow/holster issues.

>pistol doing as much damage as a dagger
Daggers are leathal as fuck.

I allow guns in my games, but they are a specialized tool only really useable by Alchemists (the ammo isn't really mundane, so only a couple of classes can load and fire it without risk, and it's quite expensive to buy rather than make), and they take for fucking ever to reload in actual combat, so it's more like "Set the enemy's asshole on freezing fire, then swap to another weapon" than Schwarzeneggering your way through a battle.

Man, even modern guns sometimes fail to hurt enough that people being shot even notice. More than one person has been shot and only noticed when it was pointed out to them by someone else. Unless you actually hit somewhere important, bleeding out is the big danger. With melee weapons they are more likely to actually hack away at your ability to move by slicing through or massively bruising muscles and breaking bones. Rifles do better with hydrostatic shock, but even then they sometimes will just poke a little hole that ultimately does no lasting damage.

Those aren't muskets, they're arquebuses. Technically speaking they're the most advanced arquebuses in the world and were used with the most advanced arquebus tactics in the world. This is mostly because the rest of the world moved on to muskets and early rifles while the nips focused on perfecting their arquebus technology.

Way to miss the point there...

>implying heroic characters can't dodge or parry bullets
Cinematic action 5 lyfe.

Nice "katanas are underpowered in d20" copypaste there.
Maybe you should try and shoot an actual black powder gun once.
>But what about the other goalpost I just set up

>pans not linked to barrels
I don't give a fuck about guns in fantasy setting, but that weapon ain't gonna fire.

I'm glad you remember me, I get to live RENT FREE in your mind.
Not carrying out Operation Unthinkable was a mistake.
I, for one, enjoy these threads. More settings need guns, bows are for fags who watched too much LoTR

Same reason vegans, luddites and /pol/ are annoying. Literally nobody will ever just fucking shut up about their Actually The Way It Should Be opinion

That's the way you should do it user. For dnd at least
>Guns ignore upwards of 10 AC. You'll need 40 to comfortably ignore them
>Deal respectable damage, scaling comes from the number of possible shots and AC bypass
>Reloading requires three full turns where you are not attacked, 10 minutes of reduced movement speed and disadvantage on perception and saving throws, or a rest of any length