Some people say that guns (even medieval ones) do not fit the aesthetic of their fantasy setting...

Then it makes no sense roleplay wise
It could always just be an crossbow with much higher damage and less accuracy but then it would be retarded to use
Just putting firearms in the games alone takes a lot of effort to make it right

>Then it makes no sense roleplay wise

Are you saying you wouldn't play a character who slowly develops tinnitus from prolonged use of firearms?

I meant that firearm having the same stats as a crossbow makes no sense roleplay wise

They obsolete plate and mail.

As I wrote in the thread yesterday (that used the very same op image, funny that), in the setting my group is currently running guns serve as A) weapons of status and showpieces, B) as weapons used en masse by formations of troops of a particular region, and C) magic wands for non-caster classes, with capacity (or number of pistols they have stuffed in their belt) being their spellslots. Guns deal pretty high damage, (most basic one, the pocket pistol, dealing 1d12 piercing (they get no modifiers to damage for sake of balance, while bows get both str and dex, but have the lowest base damage, crossbows are middle of the road) and some masterwork arcane rifle sit in the vault of some godking dealing 8d12), but the mainly they scale by how much AC granted by armor they ignore (1 for pocket pistol and going up to 10). The downside is that ammo is pretty rare (outside that one region) and that they take 3 full turns to reload and require concentration. How OP or UP they are depends on the situation. Ambush a group of musketeers? They get slaughtered. A group of musketeers ambushes you? You're in for a good time.

Why?

>same thread
>same pic
geez, OP, grow up. You're the reason people think all necromancers are evil.

Nonetheless, that gun in your pic doesn't fit in any setting because it not worky. The trigger mechanism doesn't connect to the powder charge.

They don't fit in my setting because our setting is basically northern germania in the 800's. The most advanced civilizations are an early imperial Rome type, a sort of Carthage ran by two evil magic using sisters, and an Acheamenid Persian civ that consorts with Bedouins and such and maintains a decentralized empire.

Why were cuirassiers a thing then in the 30 years war?

THIS IS THE FIFTEENTH SUCH THREAD THIS WEEK
FUCK OFF
FUCK
OFF

That just isn't true, guns (particularly the very early ones) of that period were worse then bows in just about every way but that they were easier to learn

Why do you keep making threads pushing guns in fantasy?

Mail yes, plate no. Proofed plate existed alongside firearms for a long time, it's where the term comes from. I think people underestimate just how INSANELY GOOD armour was.

Also this, except they were pretty good in the fucking shit up if you actually hit something department. It was just that if you missed a good bowman could put at least 5 arrows in you before you reloaded.

...

Rolled 4, 6, 3 = 13 (3d6)

>3d10
>not 3d6

Nothing wrong with guns in fantasy, just depends on what you're going for

because you keep providing both salt and (you)'s

I could see that argument in a low- or no-magic setting, but in a setting with powerful magic, guns are a shittier form of spells.

Guns and rockets in some form or another have been used in warfare for around the last thousand years, at least.

Being easier to learn isn't much of an advantage in a typical adventure setting. You're not training a peasant army, you're a small group of elite warriors who have considerable resources and time dedicated to getting good at what they do.

I guess they'd make sense for less combat oriented professions like healers or bards, or maybe as a backup weapon in case of emergency for wizards and the like.

but what if guns are part of your magic?
6 braves of the flower is not really worth watching though, the last few episodes devolve into a scooby doo episode with the most retarded ending and pacing possible

One would assume that in a setting with powerful magic, guns would be magic as well.

Meme. Guns were deadlier and longer ranged than bows.

The first recorded use of a firearm is 1364.

They mean that it doesn’t fit what they think the medieval period looked like, in other words what they grew up consuming so now they have it in their heads that muh childhood>facts

Oddly enough, I think a big part of it is the typical RPG action economy. Players demand weapons they can use every turn, often many times in one turn, and that pushes guns way past where they were in the Renaissance or even early modern eras. You want a cannon or arquebus that takes forever to load? I'm cool with that. But that's not what you want, is it? No, you want a fucking assault rifle.

this, in most high adventure settings, player characters are the tops of the tops and bows took a lot more training and were better than medieval guns. Guns took over because they found it better to have a hundred amateurs with guns than spending 30 years training a bowman (an old English saying: "if you want a good archer, start with his grandfather")
Therefore, medieval worlds with bands of highly trained adventurers being hired frequently would be more inclined towards longbows as the ranged staple

Arquebuses had awful accuracy, you can hardly say that the effective range was longer than on bows.
Thus, it ensues that bows were deadlier in a variety of conditions, due to actually hitting the target instead of scaring him with smoke and thunder.

>Why do you keep making threads pushing guns in fantasy?
>salty
have another (you), OP. If that's the thing that makes you happy, who are we to judge.
Still, not a very productive thread.

My setting has wheellock-type guns, but they're super fucking expensive. Only elite soldiers and the rich have them. I've fluffed them as more accurate than they were in reality because I want them to actually be better than bows. The setting is also low-magic (with a focus on time consuming, research-based magic, no casting spells off the top of your head), so there's magic bullets.

r8 muh setting

Depends on the setting

I just want a wheelgat, man.

Oooh, do tell.

>Arquebuses had awful accuracy, you can hardly say that the effective range was longer than on bows.

I can, bows were horribly inaccurate as well. English Longbowmen were out-ranged readily by continental gunners, who could be reliably lethal at longer ranges and reliably penetrate plate armor at closer ranges, which is something longbows absolutely couldn't do. This was a focal feature of the debate over whether to entirely abandon the longbow in favor of guns or to use it alongside guns in England during the late 1500s.

The bow declined in England as well, where there were laws put in place to ensure archers were continuous trained, so them being easier to train new troops in wasn't the driving force behind their adoption there. It declined despite the presence of these laws.

Firearms caught on in Europe during a time when professional standing armies were making a return to Europe, when competition would be steep for anything that could grant an edge. They caught on because they were superior to the alternatives.

This could be countered by actually making the guns worth the investment of time to use, or making it so the system isn't designed to encourage players to only use on type of weapon ever (so that firing a gun and then switching to a different weapon might actually offer a benefit beyond forcing you to use one weapon or another that you suck with).

>flintlocks killed off medieval combat and made guns the only source of warfare
Not really, repeating rifles and pistols didn't kill it off. Modern era weapons did, sort of. Soldiers still carry Tomahawks and knives for a reason.

Why not? It's a projectile weapon with high damage that takes a long time to load and is a pain in the backside to maintain. That's all the mechanics any RPG system needs.

Gunpowder doesn't really start outpacing mechanical propulsion until you start incorporating all the side benefits - pre-packed ammo, multi-fire, etc. Through most of history, a quality bow could outperform a gun for general murder purposes - the biggest advantage of the gun was it's significantly easier to train someone to use one.

I just finished watchng that.
I like how her gun was portrayed. You got all these saints wandering around, and she can stand toe to toe with some of them, but only situationally.

STOP SPREADING THIS MEME.

Guns caught on even in England, where archery training was the norm. They caught on because they were deadlier and longer ranged than bows.

>pain in the backside to maintain

So are bows.

Personally I don't include guns in my fantasy setting because I'm trying to do a blend of early middle ages and barbaric/sword and sandal.

>>pain in the backside to maintain
>So are bows.

And let's not forget that for the first century and a half or so, the average handheld gun had a grand total of no moving parts whatsoever.

Every day until we like it, huh?

You're talking about muskets, a more recent weapon design than arquebuses.

>They caught on because they were superior to the alternatives.
And because of shared logistics with pistols, and ease of use in embrasures.

I dare anyone to tell me that pic is better in all regards than a bow or a crossbow. Guns caught on for a variety of reasons, but they weren't an immediate change in paradigm outclassing all competition. As laser weapons won't be in the near future either.

whoops, meant for

Muskets were a form of arquebus.

Even the hand bombards like you post there had something to offer over bows, which is why they saw extensive use shortly after their invention.

And of course it wasn't an immediate paradigm shift. It took centuries for them to fully replace bows, but starting with the Hussite wars, they were a widespread feature of warfare in Europe, and it was because they were effective weapons.

Yeah, they had SOMETHING to offer over bows. They weren't superior in everything, like some people ITT seem to imply.

>Muskets were a form of arquebus
Don't blame me for the awful mess that is english early firearms nomenclature. Everyone else in Europe differenciates the two.

By the end of the 1500s, they were superior to bows in most ways (bows stood out in rate of fire, but this depended on the soldiers being enduring enough to sustain this rate of fire).

Do you guys think this is the same person who did the grr martin and elf waifu threads that had the same header every day? I almost seems like a forced copy paste meme.

It's not a meme, guns and crossbows really are easier to learn to use than a longbow. The eventual supremacy of guns was an aggregate of many factors, not just one thing.

For the relatively limited scope of a DnD tech level setting, modeling guns along the same mechanical lines as crossbows works fine. The RL damage issue isn't that relevant - fantasy monsters shaking off gunfire is such an established trope that most players won't even blink if their arquebus doesn't auto-kill that rust monster.

Define gun.

Slings are even better than bows if you go that route.

>It's not a meme, guns and crossbows really are easier to learn to use than a longbow. The eventual supremacy of guns was an aggregate of many factors, not just one thing.

I wasn't disputing that.

The problem with modeling them as crossbows is that they become crossbows with extra drawbacks.

Some people dont want guns in their settings, and most standard fantasy settings which people base their own on are gunless
If you want guns in your setting either work it out with your dm, or become a dm and make your own damn setting

If a setting has plate armor, what other weapons/armor/tech should exist, to be historically accurate?

>firearms in fantasy shitpost thread
Every day.... every fucking day its the same fucking shit.
This place is nothing but a fucking dumpster fire

>This place is nothing but a fucking dumpster fire
Yet you're still here. You have been for a long time, and you will be for a longer time. You can never leave. This horrid place has sank its hooks into your very soul, eternally tying you to it. You can never leave. Even if you stop posting, stop lurking, the image of this forsaken place has been burnt into you, like a nuclear shadow.

You can never leave.

It could be worse.
At least its not an adventurer's guild thread.
Or people complaining about potatoes.
Or people complaining about people complaining about potatoes.

>The problem with modeling them as crossbows is that they become crossbows with extra drawbacks.
By the time that stopped being true, you're hitting the Napoleonic era and the world rapidly stops looking like most people's conception of D&D.
The firearm's advantages were logistical and army-scale for a long, long time.

>Soldiers still carry Tomahawks and knives for a reason

>teleports behind you
Omae wa mou shindeiru
>tomahawks a jihadist in the back

You're a retard,

>guns would destroy the balance
>magic wouldn't

Medieval guns can have basically the same stats as magic, if not more unwieldy and awkward.

I don't want guns in my setting. they are arbitrarily powerful enough that any peasant with a week or two of training could successfully take out a high level character. I like swords and magic. simple as that.

I didn't think I was going to like this, but I was really glad I read it.

It's less about aesthetic and more about "What purpose do they serve mechanically that makes them distinct, but not a better, or worse, choice?".
When you can answer that soundly, then guns are perfectly fine, but most games do not answer it soundly.

just go multi-barrel, these were good enough to kill a s.korean cop and it's tech from approx 1000CE

>peasant saves up all his money for a gun and some powder and ammo
>goes up to bbeg
>fumbles for a good 10 minutes
>shoots the bbeg
>bbeg shrugs it off and eviscerates the peasant

Try harder, retard.

I think he meant "Carried" user. As in, Civil war soldiers with lever-action rifles still had melee arms because they anticipated getting into an arm's-length ruck. That's less and less common but it's never entirely diminished to zero. Look at the disgusting melee weapons in ww1. Pic related.
Nowadays, we fight police actions with short enough carbines to manage the melee stuff and yet British soldiers engaged in a bayonet charge back in the 2000s.

>if not more unwieldy and awkward
This is how I handle the flintlock weapons in my setting, best way to deal with it IMO.

>Flintlock weapons come in three varieties; pistol, musket, and blunderbuss
>Pistol and Musket use the stats from DMG, blunderbuss works in a similar fashion but in 15ft cone attack w/ dex save.
>Firearms come from the far western countries, any PCs not from those countries does not have proficiency with them
>Full round to reload (including movement) to inspire more pirate-like combat (i.e shoot and discard)
>Ammo is more expensive the further you get away from the weapon's land of origin

I like having firearms more as a fun little spicy addition to combat, something someone can add flair to their combat style with. Not a fully-fledged combat system in it's own right.

They're ugly, loud, and undermine heroics

user you just described my dwarf

>some people say that guns (even medieval ones) do not fit the aesthetic of their fantasy setting. What exactly makes them not fit into said aesthetic?

My setting has more of a stone age/bronze age aesthetic with some Atlantean-style crystal magic shit.

First recorded use of a gun that survives in Western Europe; we have archaeology that shows cast bronze cannon in China dating back at least a century before that date, which means they must have been using them before even then in more primitive forms.

This. Especially after the Hussite revolts.

They were superior enough that after everyone saw how the Hussites kicked ass with them, they began ordering and buying and making them en masse.

We also have the De'an Shoucheng Lu which dates the first use of fire lances with projectiles to the early 12th century. And these weren't referred to as especially important but their use was noted, showing that they had been in service before.

for every (OP), there will be one more of these threads in the future

>in my game of play pretend where every game mechanic, including damage, range, action economy, and availability, this one thing would ruin game balance
fuck off forever with this argument

Sure. My character is a northern tribesman who spent a lot of time fighting for the "romans" and even lead a cavalry wing for them as an auxiliary. He's literate now and understands the span of the Empire and it's army/economy, and right before the beginning of the campaign he went home to the north to deal with family stuff. Anyhow, divine magic is far more common than arcane but arcane exists, but mostly in th form of court sorcerers or feared warlocks in the remote countryside. Divine magic is used by one of the "Carthage" sisters, the other is a sorcerer and they're both evil, though one far more so than the other. They rule twin cities across a small straight from each other. The Persians are strong but have pots of rebels whom they're more apt to pay off than right, since they're rich as fuck. My character fought against them as well as "carthage" before he got out of the army.

The heaviest armor is segmented, basically half plate, but other than that chain is the best you get. There are other factions as well, but more minor (celts, balts, desert tribes, elves [heavy cavalry and robust ecenomy, but not expansionist because of low birthrate and internal turmoil over religion] dwarves which have a sort of symbiotic relationship with humans in some areas, gnolls who are fucked up raiders, lots of other stuff) we even had a pretender break away romantic empire, that shit was hilarious

Hollywood.

Early guns are about the same as steel crossbows.

Do you gave a citation for this claim?

Giving them flints and pans?

Medieval guns work as tubes on a stick or a crossbow stock at best with Corned powder just coming into vogue. The guns often pictured come a hundred to two to three hundred years after the 'medieval' era ended in full.

WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO TO STOP THEM BROS? WE NEED TO MAKE A SAFESPACE FROM REALISMFAGS

>58109218
unless we talk about those weird handcannons or whatever they are called, no.

It mostly has to do with the fact that Veeky Forums fears progress and doesn't want things to advance because it reminds them of time moving beyond them in real life while they remain manchildren who dwell on the past

What has you upset?