The way it works is that magic existed centuries ago, but it became abused, until finally the gods decided to remove it from the world and introduce it to a select few who would keep it secret, kind of like White Wolf's Mage games. We have all the races except halflings, and instead of real-world religions, we have either D&D gods or special exceptions (my character is British, and the DM and I formed England's state religion as worshiping King Arthur as a god, calling him the First Emperor and The Sword of Justice and the like. He's in fact a ripoff of Dragonlance's Kiri-Jolith.)
The thing is, in this modern world, supposedly 2009, we're still going to be using D&D 3.5 weaponry. Our DM has said that she doesn't like guns because then the game devolves into a competition to see who has the biggest gun. It's not a major problem for my character, who plans on taking the Knight of Solamnia prestige classes from Dragonlance (the DM agreed to let me use them). The thing is, knightly combat, like the kind my character would engage in, is somewhat obsolete in the modern world.
Plate armor, for all its coolness factor (we're using D&D armor as well, it is glamered to look like normal clothes or armor), shouldn't be able to stand up to a bullet, and most people in this day and age won't fight with a sword, like I am. Judging by what the DM is saying about the campaign we're mainly going to be fighting other magic users of opposing alignments, so that may explain the lack of guns, but the rest of the world would surely have guns, and they would certainly be dangerous.
Why I am I asking all this? My character is supposed to be an ex-military man who recieved a medal for preventing a terrorist attack in Northern Ireland. My first level is Fighter, and I've taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) because that's the weapon I want, and Mounted Combat, because it's required for the prestige classes I want. How do I justify using such obsolete weapons and tactics when I supposedly would have had a gun as part of the British Army? I'm having trouble reconciling background with modernism. This wouldn't be a problem at a medieval level of technology, but in the modern world, bastard swords aren't exactly standard issue for riot police.
Oh, and Rogues and Wizards also get a new skill called Knowledge (Computers).
The idea here is that your character is somehow adherent to an ancient fighting art which promotes anachronistic combat techniques while giving you sweet abilities - the more exotic, the better, though ToB is by no means necessary. Think of the Jedis: everyone uses lasers weapons ranging from diminutive PDWs to planetkillers, and they use swords. That these are made of laser doesn't even matter, because they could probably kill people with their bare hands if they wanted. It's just that swords are exalted by their order. And they look cool.
Dude, I can totally imagine your knight of King Arthur using Mounted Combat to prevent his precious Harley-Davidson from taking a scratch to its chrome finishings...
In Britain gun laws are pretty severe, but an enthusiast could have a sword with a licence (though you couldn't walk the streets with it). If King Arthur is the state religion than ex.military could maybe walk around with swords as a badge of office (when in uniform).
Wouldn't plate armour stop a bullet? Anyway you could simply replace the leather underpadding with kevlar or something.
I've recently joined a new 3.5 game with an interesting twist. It's set in the modern world, while using 3.5 rules. For the record, this is not d20 Modern, and the DM has officially turned down my offer to use things from it.
Sounds interesting.
The thing is, in this modern world, supposedly 2009, we're still going to be using D&D 3.5 weaponry. Our DM has said that she doesn't like guns because then the game devolves into a competition to see who has the biggest gun.
Core 3.5 is already an arms race, so this would change nothing. But hey, she's the DM.
It's not a major problem for my character, who plans on taking the Knight of Solamnia prestige classes from Dragonlance (the DM agreed to let me use them). The thing is, knightly combat, like the kind my character would engage in, is somewhat obsolete in the modern world.
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
"The biggest misnomer in history is 'obsolete weaponry'". H. Van Tuyll, the Professor who oversaw my History degree.
Plate armor, for all its coolness factor (we're using D&D armor as well, it is glamered to look like normal clothes or armor), shouldn't be able to stand up to a bullet
You haven't researched the term "bulletproof", have you?
This wouldn't be a problem at a medieval level of technology, but in the modern world, bastard swords aren't exactly standard issue for riot police.
Yep, but not in the sense you're thinking. A lot of riot police come out with shields and clubs long before they resort to firing. You'd actually be overequipped for that situation, especially if they have the standard issue riot shields, which are bulletproof plexiglas, instead of the SWAT team type metal-and-kevlar shields.
Sounds interesting.
Yes, I thought so too.
Core 3.5 is already an arms race, so this would change nothing. But hey, she's the DM.
Pardon?
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
"The biggest misnomer in history is 'obsolete weaponry'". H. Van Tuyll, the Professor who oversaw my History degree.
Really? What army still uses swords in the face of machine gun fire? Does "Canon to the left of them, canon to the right of them/doused out with shot and shell" ring any bells?
You haven't researched the term "bulletproof", have you?
No, but I was under the impression that it was firearms that ended the era of knightly combat, and canons that ended the use of castles.
Yep, but not in the sense you're thinking. A lot of riot police come out with shields and clubs long before they resort to firing. You'd actually be overequipped for that situation, especially if they have the standard issue riot shields, which are bulletproof plexiglas, instead of the SWAT team type metal-and-kevlar shields.
Still doesn't make swords make sense.
I mean, I've also got a shortbow. What kind of sense does that make?
And the DM has allowed guns, in a sense. She's just expressed her dislike of them, and none of us can afford them anyway. Thing is, I got a cell-phone issued from the church. Wouldn't the military have issued me a firearm? I don't know how the British military works.
Dude, I can totally imagine your knight of King Arthur using Mounted Combat to prevent his precious Harley-Davidson from taking a scratch to its chrome finishings...
Except I ride horses.
So there are guns but PCs can't have them. Man, that sucks.
No, there are guns and the PC's can have them if they ask.
No, there are guns and the PC's can have them if they ask.
Then why don't you ask?
Or...
Your character spent time working with a group of archaeology/history researchers who are really interested inn learning the specifics behind knighthood techniques and ancient warfare. With grant money they hired people (such as you) to train in the art of medieval/renaissance weaponry for performing their experiments: weapon impact results of bludgeoning weapons, shear effects of edged weapons, puncture weapon effects, various armor protections, marching and riding over long distances, and the impact velocities and effects obtained from charging on horseback, kinesiology, etc, etc.
Pardon?
3.5 is an arms race. It's all about who has the best stuff. Her complaint that it would turn into a "who has the biggest gun contest" is kinda odd.
Really? What army still uses swords in the face of machine gun fire? Does "Canon to the left of them, canon to the right of them/doused out with shot and shell" ring any bells?
They still use knives and bayonets even under fire in close quarters. Why? Ease of use & application over swords, not unlike the adoption of firearms (see below).
No, but I was under the impression that it was firearms that ended the era of knightly combat, and canons that ended the use of castles.
If that were the case, then conquistadors wouldn't have worn breast plates. The reason guns outpaced armor is simple. Price. It was much cheaper to teach the peasants to use guns and just have them fire randomly into a crowd of knights hoping to hit a weak spot in the armor of those that they were aiming at. A suit of full plate took so much know how to make that it could easily take more than a peasant would make in his entire life. Guns were relatively cheap, even the early ones.
Still doesn't make swords make sense.
I mean, I've also got a shortbow. What kind of sense does that make?
The US Cav had firearms back during the Indian Wars. In Custer's estimation it would have only taken 20 Indians armed with bows to completely confound ten times that number of Cav troops. (Which is just more proof that the idea that he attack Little Bighorn out of arrogance is BS - the man was known for having a death wish).
And the DM has allowed guns, in a sense. She's just expressed her dislike of them, and none of us can afford them anyway. Thing is, I got a cell-phone issued from the church. Wouldn't the military have issued me a firearm? I don't know how the British military works.
Umm...Yep. The thing is, you're playing in an alternate reality, so the church leaders might have sensed the coming return of magic, and returned to a more "supernatural" system of armament.
In short, we're not fighting against supernatural threats. We're supernatural forces fighting against each other according to our alignments (namely good vs. evil). The only important thing is that mortals stay in the dark about it. I'll try and dig up the rules she sent me for a better explanation.
In short, we're not fighting against supernatural threats. We're supernatural forces fighting against each other according to our alignments (namely good vs. evil). The only important thing is that mortals stay in the dark about it. I'll try and dig up the rules she sent me for a better explanation.
Umm...yeh, that is a bit odd. Has she justified it beyond her dislike of firearms?
THE WORLD OF TERRESTA
Once, in days gone by, magic flourished in the world. Elves and men, dwarves and gnomes fought for good or for evil with all the magical and martial prowess they could muster. Mighty deities aided or ruined the plans of mortals as suited their own designs. Good fought Evil; Chaos battled Law; everywhere Neutrality strove for balance. Creatures both magic and mortal lived in a world of battle and disaster, always a breathe away from one end becoming too powerful, from the destruction of so much that so many held dear. Civilization survived, but did not move forward. Too much was invested in too many struggles to allow for new creation.
The world was dying. The struggles of gods and mortals over how to shape the world left no one time for invention or progress. Magic was most strongly focused in this struggle, and thus suffered the most. For a generation no new magic was created. The same spells, the same items, were used for the same, endless battles. Knowledge was being lost and not replaced by new. Three deities who loved magic looked upon the end of their art, and wept.
Boccob, the uncaring, the neutral god of magic, seeing the one thing he concerned himself with fading from the world grew concerned. He called together Corellon Larethian, the chaotic good lord of magic as art, Wee Jas, the lawful neutral goddess of the dark side of magic’s power, and Vecna the neutral evil ruler of magic’s secrets. Once he convinced the opposed deities to stop trying to destroy each other, he laid a solution to the end of magic before them. To be saved from ultimate destruction magic had to hide its face from the world. Civilization would have to find new ways to shape the world for good, or for evil, without arcane or divine powers and thus, it was hoped, the world would progress.
The four deities represented the full spectrum of alignments that the mortal and divine worlds followed. By combining their wills to bring about their new world the four deities created a greater power. This power was Eno. Eno was created from the essence of all alignments, so he is of all alignments, and yet he transcends them all. The four deities responsible for his creation convinced the newly created power to implement their solution to the problems the world faced. Being born from four gods, Eno found it a simple matter to bring all the other gods in line with this plan (though some followed more willingly than others.)
For a generation mortals were denied magic. Arcane power was blocked from the world. Clerics and other divine casters found their prayers went largely unanswered. Magic and direct divine intervention became grandfather stories. People still believed in the gods, and pointed to what they suspect was the handiwork of this deity or that. Yet divine power wielded through mortal hands was, as arcane magic, gone from all but myth in the mortal world. Yet it was not the intention of Eno or the gods of magic that magic be lost to the world. It was time for the second part of their plan.
Descendants of the sorcerers of ages past, those who held faithful to the gods, and those of great intelligence were watched. Those who were deemed worthy were sent a messenger from the deity who chose them. These rare individuals were told the truth about the fate of magic. They were also granted the power, in secret, to wield the ancient arcane and divine magics. As the chosen were watched by their own gods, so too were the chosen and their gods watched over by Eno. Those who threatened to expose the secret the gods worked to create were dealt with swiftly and effectively by the great power.
Creatures of magic, arcane and divine, good and evil, soon realized that they did not fit in this changing world. Two demi-planes were created off the material plane, one of darkness and one of light. On these planes magical creatures, and mortal creatures, which did not fit the new world were given refuge. Some mortal races, like the orcs, found the new world unsuitable. The majority of these races fled to the demi-planes. As time past they became as mythical as the magical world.
In small enclaves and secret schools magic returned to the world and flourished, though on a much smaller scale than in days gone by. The rest of the world developed technology and medicine to replace magic in their every day lives. The Evil gods realized the advantages their followers had in secret abilities and powers. As the force of Evil sought to control the new world the forces of Good were there to counter them, and the Neutral was there, as always, to help keep the balance. Thus the eternal struggle remained in the world, though most were unaware that it was being waged in a secret magic world as surely as it was in the world they could see.
Not only magical beings were brought in to this secret struggle. Realizing that as in days past defenders and guardians were needed, others with the right skills were called upon by the gods to take part in the battles of the hidden world. New skills and ideas from the now evolving mortal civilization were adapted by these defenders to aid their causes.
Generations passed, and the secret was preserved. (At times in history just barely.) In the modern age mortals are still tapped to wield great power and greater responsibility, secretly defending a world that does not believe in magic from the dangers of magic misused.
You could have you character be like this guy.
Ah, yes, Jack Churchill. Bad to the bone.
Yes, guns exist in modern times. However they are not nearly as available as we are used to. The militaries, governments, and in special cases, police forces have access to advanced weaponry. If the average citizen has a gun it is a single shot pistol. These pistols replace heavy crossbows in the PHB. They have similar stats to the heavy crossbow (PHB p.116) with a few exceptions. The range increment on these pistols is 30ft and the critical range is 20x4. They weigh 4lbs and cost 200 gold. Bullets come in packs of 20 and cost 5 gold. The rules about loading, firing one handed, and firing multiple pistols are the same as those listed for heavy crossbows on page 115 of the PHB.
Machine manufactured weapons like the above pistols do not absorb magic. Therefore there is no such thing as a “magic gun”. Machine manufacturing lessen the connection the weapon has to its crafter, thus it lessens the attachment to the arcane or divine energies in the world. This rule also applies to any “traditional” weapons found in the PHB that have machine origins. The same special smiths who construct heroes’ armor also construct weapons capable of absorbing magic.
Average people in the world still use the weapons found in the PHB.
Elves are especially infamous for their insistence on “clinging” to their traditional weapons. In some regions elven soldiers do not even carry guns, though their governments have bowed to practical necessity in the arena of bombs.
Dwarven armies pride themselves on carrying guns, and thus not being backwards like the elves. Every Dwarven soldier also carries a war axe in honor of his ancestors and his god. Depending on the land you currently inhabit you may be required to have a permit to carry a weapon.
And here's her section on guns.
Yes, guns exist in modern times. However they are not nearly as available as we are used to. The militaries, governments, and in special cases, police forces have access to advanced weaponry. If the average citizen has a gun it is a single shot pistol. These pistols replace heavy crossbows in the PHB. They have similar stats to the heavy crossbow (PHB p.116) with a few exceptions. The range increment on these pistols is 30ft and the critical range is 20x4. They weigh 4lbs and cost 200 gold. Bullets come in packs of 20 and cost 5 gold. The rules about loading, firing one handed, and firing multiple pistols are the same as those listed for heavy crossbows on page 115 of the PHB.
Machine manufactured weapons like the above pistols do not absorb magic. Therefore there is no such thing as a “magic gun”. Machine manufacturing lessen the connection the weapon has to its crafter, thus it lessens the attachment to the arcane or divine energies in the world. This rule also applies to any “traditional” weapons found in the PHB that have machine origins. The same special smiths who construct heroes’ armor also construct weapons capable of absorbing magic.
Average people in the world still use the weapons found in the PHB.
Elves are especially infamous for their insistence on “clinging” to their traditional weapons. In some regions elven soldiers do not even carry guns, though their governments have bowed to practical necessity in the arena of bombs.
Dwarven armies pride themselves on carrying guns, and thus not being backwards like the elves. Every Dwarven soldier also carries a war axe in honor of his ancestors and his god. Depending on the land you currently inhabit you may be required to have a permit to carry a weapon.
Ok, from this it sounds like guns are not automatic, so swords and bows would still be decently viable options. Even during the American Civil War the sword was still being used to great effect.
But how do you explain why automatic firearms were never invented? Magic isn't common knowledge, so it's not like it was because the Magic Missile spell was a substitute.
The same reason they weren't in core D&D:
They just weren't.
But how do you explain why automatic firearms were never invented? Magic isn't common knowledge, so it's not like it was because the Magic Missile spell was a substitute.
Maybe because there are many different races wandering the world and they all are attached to traditions. This means that no matter how hard they try, they can't find it in them to put away their traditional arms and armor for the more advanced modern weapons.
The same reason they weren't in core D&D:
They just weren't.
Yeah, but core D&D is locked in Medieval Stasis.
Maybe because there are many different races wandering the world and they all are attached to traditions. This means that no matter how hard they try, they can't find it in them to put away their traditional arms and armor for the more advanced modern weapons.
If they're so traditional, why the heck would we have computers and cell-phones?!
If they're so traditional, why the heck would we have computers and cell-phones?!
Don't ask me, ask your DM.
If you can't let some things fly and understand that it's OK for thing that don't make sense to happen in fantasy then maybe this isn't the campaign for you. If you really have a problem with it then talk to your DM about it. It is her world so if anybody can explain the issues of understanding/belief you are having it would be her.
Wow. Sorry about that. Guess I was more bored than I thought. :D To address your question, I don't think there is any real way to justify using a sword over a gun beyond the restrictive rules themselves. For me, this world asks for too much suspension of disbelief because it is supposed to resemble specific things that we know. If it were some fantasy world with city names that were unrecognizable, I don't think I'd have as much of a problem. Really, classic D&D fanstasy rules don't translate well to combination modern(future)/magic worlds. That's why systems like d20 Modern/Future and - even better - Shadowrun were developed. In any event, I wish you luck but I'd like you to consider one thing: sometimes, no D&D is better than bad D&D. If it's too hard to get into the world, it may be better to just leave it alone. ;)
Wow. Sorry about that. Guess I was more bored than I thought. :D To address your question, I don't think there is any real way to justify using a sword over a gun beyond the restrictive rules themselves. For me, this world asks for too much suspension of disbelief because it is supposed to resemble specific things that we know. If it were some fantasy world with city names that were unrecognizable, I don't think I'd have as much of a problem. Really, classic D&D fanstasy rules don't translate well to combination modern(future)/magic worlds. That's why systems like d20 Modern/Future and - even better - Shadowrun were developed. In any event, I wish you luck but I'd like you to consider one thing: sometimes, no D&D is better than bad D&D. If it's too hard to get into the world, it may be better to just leave it alone. ;)
Thing is, this is the only D&D I'm gonna get until our regular DM leaves the hospital.
Thing is, this is the only D&D I'm gonna get until our regular DM leaves the hospital.
Ack. Well, grin and bear it I guess. Just try not to take it too seriously yourself. Respect the game and her world as much as you can, but take a lighter approach to it yourself. At least 'till somethin' better comes along. Who knows, you may even enjoy it. It's possible that her story will be so good and involved that these disconnects won't even register. Possible, not likely, but possible. ;)
I can't see plate armor being useful against modern firearms at all.
You haven't been paying attention to this topic. Automatic/modern arms have not been developed in this setting, making most of your points in this post irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The velocity achieved by these bullets was terribly low.
Velocity is not nearly as relevant as muzzle power, of which muskets contained a whole heap. The Brown Bess, for example, delivered more stopping power than many rifles on the market today.
You haven't been paying attention to this topic. Automatic/modern arms have not been developed in this setting, making most of your points in this post irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Wow, aren't you a slice of heaven! If you noticed, I mentioned I wrote most of it because I was bored. I devoted a second paragraph to answering the OP.
I never even actually mentioned automatic weapons as a problem for plate armor. I mentioned assault rifles and SMGs, yes, but they don't need to be set to auto to poke holes in steel. Still, if my post is irrelevant, what does that make your response to me? I openly admitted I was writing it to write it. You, otoh, have gone out of your way to address something you consider meaningless. Strange.
Velocity is not nearly as relevant as muzzle power, of which muskets contained a whole heap. The Brown Bess, for example, delivered more stopping power than many rifles on the market today.
There's a bit of physics that explains just how important velocity is, but I'm no expert on it. The main thing to consider about this, though, is that with low velocity, you will not have the same punch over range. And less accuracy. One of the main reasons black powder was abandoned for smokeless powder is velocity. Because it's quite important.
Wow, aren't you a slice of heaven!
I might just end up sigging this, as it's true. Moreover, I can't think of any assault rifles that are non-auto (sniper rifles are just rifles, after all, not assault weaponry) so this may be where the misunderstanding lies.
There's a bit of physics that explains just how important velocity is, but I'm no expert on it. The main thing to consider about this, though, is that with low velocity, you will not have the same punch over range. And less accuracy. One of the main reasons black powder was abandoned for smokeless powder is velocity. Because it's quite important.
Actually, Smokeless powder was adopted primarily for visibility. Muzzle power and velocity remained primarily the same. Powder barely effects either, while rifling and round shape effect each dramatically, which may be what you're thinking of.
I might just end up sigging this, as it's true. Moreover, I can't think of any assault rifles that are non-auto (sniper rifles are just rifles, after all, not assault weaponry) so this may be where the misunderstanding lies.
Feel free to sig it. It was amusing to say and I never let any disagreement with a fellow poster to turn into a grudge. :D
I actually own an assault rifle that cannot be fired full-auto. So do a great many people. M4s, SKSs, FALs, AK47s are all assault rifles. And they're quite popular amongst enthusiasts. The thing is, in order to actually own a full-auto assault rifle (or SMG) in America, you need to obtain (and retain at additional cost) an expensive Class III FFL license. Doable, of course, but not within the means of the average dude. Most assault rifles are semi-only. At least in the civilian market. Even military assault weapons have a semi-auto setting.
The misunderstanding probably came from taking what I stated as regarding military weapons only and the common misconception that assault rifles are always fired on full. It's a problem for gun collectors, actually, as the general public does not understand the difference and think every black rifle is a full-auto killin' machine. And that's not the case at all.
Actually, Smokeless powder was adopted primarily for visibility. Muzzle power and velocity remained primarily the same. Powder barely effects either, while rifling and round shape effect each dramatically, which may be what you're thinking of.
Visibility was certainly a consideration. And a huge one. Powder does effect velocity, though, and the fact that there are several configurations of smokeless powder - with varying velocity plateaus - demonstrates this. In fact, the M16 had huge problems because it was originally using a powder that caused fouling issues since velocity was considered to be more important than a clean burn. Here's a snippet:
Show
The Army immediately began to issue the XM16E1 (re-named M16A1 on its adoption) to infantry units, and the rifle was initially delivered without adequate cleaning supplies or kit. Moreover, the Army's inability to deliver 5.56 mm ammunition meeting quantity and velocity specifications led to a change in powder specification for the 5.56 mm cartridge. The change was made without testing the modified ammunition in the rifle under service conditions; the newly-specified 5.56 ammunition increased the cyclic rate of fire, increasing wear on parts, and the new gunpowder's burning characteristics increased fouling in the M16 rifle.
I actually own an assault rifle that cannot be fired full-auto. So do a great many people. M4s, SKSs, FALs, AK47s are all assault rifles. And they're quite popular amongst enthusiasts.
I know all that, but I wouldn't classify those as assault rifles. They have no distinguishing characteristic that marks them as "assault" models in my book. Once you classify such a wide swath as "assault" models, it's just a stepping stone to draconian gun control. Next thing you know, a politician is waving around a petition for an "assault weapons ban" and outlawing an SKS you own that's semi-auto.
Yes, I am a "gun nerd". And whenever the topic comes up, I talk too much about stuff that probably isn't related to whatever started the conversation. For that, I apologize.
Same here, I'm going to be teaching the wife to shoot soon - no hard feelings.
I know all that, but I wouldn't classify those as assault rifles. They have no distinguishing characteristic that marks them as "assault" models in my book. Once you classify such a wide swath as "assault" models, it's just a stepping stone to draconian gun control. Next thing you know, a politician is waving around a petition for an "assault weapons ban" and outlawing an SKS you own that's semi-auto.
Now we're speaking the same language! I honestly wouldn't do so either, but Billy C and Co already did it for us. Oh well. They'll have a fun time getting mine. Don't doubt that. ;)
I hope you do sig my slice o' heaven comment. Because you are. For reals, man. :D
Same here, I'm going to be teaching the wife to shoot soon - no hard feelings.
None at all. Like I said, I never hold a grudge from arguments I have here. And it seems that we agree on much more important things anyway. ;)
On my first real date with my fiancee, I took her target shooting. This past summer we went on a double date with my parents and shot the hell out of some home defense and hunting weapons. Man, was that a blast! She's not that into it, but she wanted to go in order to learn how to handle the gun I keep ready to rock in our house. After that day, I'm not worried about her taking care of whatever she needs to if the time comes. It'd be nice if hse liked it more, but whatevs. The good news is she understands my love for shooting and hunting and allows me to buy all the toys I need and want - within reason.
I'm all confused now!
Sorry! I'll shut up now!
Thing is, this is the only D&D I'm gonna get until our regular DM leaves the hospital.
Have you ever tried D&D Solitaire?
There's a bit of physics that explains just how important velocity is, but I'm no expert on it.
The greater an object's velocity is the greater its momentum is. The greater the object's momentum is the more force that is needed to stop it. This means that it gets harder to stop something if it starts going faster. Thus, if a bullet can go faster, the bullet will be harder to stop.
I don't even know how to play regular solitaire!
Dungeons and Dragons Solitaire
It's a guide that talks about how you can play D&D by yourself and still have things be random and enjoyable.
Ah, but back when black powder was in. The slower moving larger ball was deadly because it carried clothing and anything else it hit into the wound causing infection which most often meant death. Today, a bullet burns away any clothing and so bullet wounds are easier to heal even to the point that they can leave the bullet in the wound.
This is absolutely correct. I don't know why I felt the need to say that, but there you go. ;)
EDIT: Dammit! I said I'd shut up! Maybe I should start a thread just to BS about this stuff. Ugh. My apologies again.
Cuz these types of ammo kill very efficiently.
Well, isn't part of the making gun technology better is because you want something that can kill people better? It is better to have ammunition that can kill a person now rather than much later after they are dead. I'd think that using the better ammunition would help save the lives of troops (in a sense). It would at least keep them from suffering to death or at least keep them from living a miserable life.
Larger weapons, like those built for taking out armor or aircraft like the 50 Cal., my brothers favorite weapon in the army, can do a fair amount of damage too but we're not talking about those.
There was a gun developed to cause more damaging wounds. The AK74 uses a very long - and thin - projectile that "topples" as it enters a body.
Yep. The M16 originally used a similar bullet in its prototype design - upon impact, the bullet "rolled" through the target, which is why hits from the older M16 and AK47 rounds could have an entry at the collarbone and an exit wound halfway down the back.
Well, isn't part of the making gun technology better is because you want something that can kill people better? It is better to have ammunition that can kill a person now rather than much later after they are dead. I'd think that using the better ammunition would help save the lives of troops (in a sense). It would at least keep them from suffering to death or at least keep them from living a miserable life.
Yes. It's actually more humane in a sense to use more destructive rounds as they kill faster, instead of leaving you slowly bleeding to death over the course of an hour or more.
If you're looking for most damage and difficulty in healing then the shotgun is your best bet with a smaller spread it can essentially tear the guts out of a victim.
A shotgun, even when firing a slug has a maximum effective range of about 75-85 yards (about 68.5-77.7 meters) unless you're a deadeye. It's far more practical in combat to rely on rifles unless you are in urban combat, in which case a Master Key might be issued. Shotgun specialist troops are still used in urban squad situations, but they still typically carry a carbine such as an M4 as a primary and the shotgun as a secondary.
EDIT: Dammit! I said I'd shut up! Maybe I should start a thread just to BS about this stuff. Ugh. My apologies again.
Sounds like fun.
How do I justify using such obsolete weapons and tactics when I supposedly would have had a gun as part of the British Army?
Short Answer: Hitpoints.
No, really. Hitpoints, and all the damage abstraction that comes with them, are why your sword is still a viable weapon against a gun.
Let's look at real life for a moment. In real life, being stabbed by a sword is, more or less, just as deadly as being shot by a gun (because you can't get any deader than dead) . RL people may not be made of plasticine, but they aren't made of iron either. So either way, a well placed hit will kill you outright. And those hits that don't kill you can effectively take you out of the fight by incapacitating you instead. The reason people use guns over traditional melee weapons, besides being generally cheaper and easier to use, is that guns allow you to do your "stabbing" at safe distances.
In D&D, you don't have this guarantee. Sure enough, for your joe commoners and rank and file soldiers, swords and guns are still equally deadly; and if user-friendly, long distance swords are a available, there's little reason for them not to use them over the regular kind. 4 to 10-ish HP and standard issue armor aren't going to matter too much either way.
But, your standard PCs are different. They have the HP, the armor, and the feats to not only shrug off a few bullets, but also close the distance between them and a shooter, dish out righteous power attack cheese, and ready themselves to AoO the instant before he can pull the trigger again - All before the shooter gets a chance to load his second bullet. Suddenly, that safe distance that the shooter previously enjoyed is no longer so safe.
Or to put the situation in a different light, remember this scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Imagine how much differently that scene would have turn out if the sword-swinging guy not only not fall down, but was also still at 100% fighting capacity and then used Barbarian Rage+Power Attack+Leap Attack+Vorpal? Okay, Vorpal might be over doing it, but you get the idea.
Or to put the situation in another different light, if you were in a regular campaign, one without guns, would your melee fighter bat an eye when fighting against bowmen, crossbowmen, wizards chucking guano-grenades, and surgical dragon strikes? No? Then what's a more pieces of flying metal.
Granted, your DM's guns are particularly deadly, as they're effectively slow-loading, long-ranged scythes (personally, I would have made the crit multiplier no more than x3), but they are relatively tame compared to some other houserules and they don't stray that far from RAW. Your melee fighter is still far from outdated by them; especially if guns can't be magically enhanced. Just don't rush a whole line of gunmen.
Machine manufactured weapons like the above pistols do not absorb magic. Therefore there is no such thing as a “magic gun”. Machine manufacturing lessen the connection the weapon has to its crafter, thus it lessens the attachment to the arcane or divine energies in the world. This rule also applies to any “traditional” weapons found in the PHB that have machine origins. The same special smiths who construct heroes’ armor also construct weapons capable of absorbing magic.
Just curious, but does that mean you can have a magic gun if you craft it entirely by hand? Or what about Greater Magic Weapon?
And I'm not sure what Greater Magic Weapon does. Haven't done much 3.5 spellcasting.
My biggest beef with all this isn't that guns are a danger to me or other PC's. It's that realtively primitive guns existing side-by-side with modern digital technology and the like really, really strains my willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. How would our world's version of WWII, or even WWI have been fought if the automatic rifle hadn't been invented? It's like weapons technology stopped in the pre-Colonial era. That poses VERY important questions as to how military strategy would have been different. As I've said, it's not that I want a gun, or that I'm scared of guns, or that I want guns to be more powerful. It's that I can't understand how the world, which is essentially identical to our own, but with elves, dwarves, half-orcs, half-elves and gnomes (halflings are banned), didn't develop firearms past their most basic incarnation, while the church I work for can issue me the latest model cell-phone. It just doesn't add up for me!
I'd have to ask the DM about that.
And I'm not sure what Greater Magic Weapon does. Haven't done much 3.5 spellcasting.
Greater Magic Weapon.
My biggest beef with all this isn't that guns are a danger to me or other PC's. It's that realtively primitive guns existing side-by-side with modern digital technology and the like really, really strains my willing suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. How would our world's version of WWII, or even WWI have been fought if the automatic rifle hadn't been invented? It's like weapons technology stopped in the pre-Colonial era. That poses VERY important questions as to how military strategy would have been different. As I've said, it's not that I want a gun, or that I'm scared of guns, or that I want guns to be more powerful. It's that I can't understand how the world, which is essentially identical to our own, but with elves, dwarves, half-orcs, half-elves and gnomes (halflings are banned), didn't develop firearms past their most basic incarnation, while the church I work for can issue me the latest model cell-phone. It just doesn't add up for me!
This is definitely a "ask your DM" issue, and most likely a "don't think about it too much" issue as well.
The simplest answer I would be able to come up with is that some branches of technology developed at different rates in your DM's world; whatever technological advances were necessary for guns to advance simply have not occurred (yet) for whatever reason (different laws of physics, the gnomes are on holiday, etc), while other branches of technology advanced instead (either as is, or though different paths leading to the same destination). Of course, this is all conjecture. Only your DM knows for sure, as it's her world.
To put thing in perspective, your typical D&D setting doesn't make too much more technological sense either. The common races have phenomenal, cosmic power at their fingertips and their still living in the proverbial backwoods manually plowing their dirt farms? Where's my flying car :P
And the gnome homeland is Japan, by the way.
Velocity is not nearly as relevant as muzzle power, of which muskets contained a whole heap. The Brown Bess, for example, delivered more stopping power than many rifles on the market today.
I am not sure what you mean by muzzle power. I assume you mean energy. In ballistics, as in physics: energy equals half mass times velocity squared. In the equation velocity is significantly more important than mass in determining the energy of a ballistic object. The only really significant piece that mass plays in the ballistic equation is the size and the shape of the projectile and the way that force is transmitted to the target. A heavier ballistic object generally has a greater surface area and thus will more efficiently transfer the energy to the target, and in the case of flesh cause more trauma.
There are few pieces of historical armor that would stand up to modern light arms.
EDIT: Fixed.
or if you prefer
Force = Mass X d/dx(Velocity)
Force = Mass X Acceleration.
or if you prefer
Force = Mass X d/dx(Velocity)
Acceleration is measured in units of meters per second squared. Specifically force is measured in Newtons. 1 Newton of Force is defined as the amount of force needed to accelerate 1kg to 1m/s(squared).
When you discuss the transfer of energy from a ballistic projectile to a target, you are actually mostly concerned with the negative acceleration that occurs when the projectile contacts the target. This is where the transfer of energy occurs, at least in a ballistic sense.
Regardless of all that, the important thing to keep in mind is that the most important component of the force equation is how fast the object is traveling.
Acceleration is measured in units of meters per second squared. Specifically force is measured in Newtons. 1 Newton of Force is defined as the amount of force needed to accelerate 1kg to 1m/s(squared).
When you discuss the transfer of energy from a ballistic projectile to a target, you are actually mostly concerned with the negative acceleration that occurs when the projectile contacts the target. This is where the transfer of energy occurs, at least in a ballistic sense.
Regardless of all that, the important thing to keep in mind is that the most important component of the force equation is how fast the object is traveling.
Actually, when talking about a projectile hitting a target the most important thing is how long it takes for the object to be stopped or penetrate the target. If the object is layered or is flexible then it is able to absorb energy for a longer period of time thus stopping the projectile with little to no damage. The more resistant the target is to being pierced the more velocity and the more aerodynamics you want. An aerodynamic design reduces the time of impact and so can the velocity.
Actually, when talking about a projectile hitting a target the most important thing is how long it takes for the object to be stopped or penetrate the target. If the object is layered or is flexible then it is able to absorb energy for a longer period of time thus stopping the projectile with little to no damage. The more resistant the target is to being pierced the more velocity and the more aerodynamics you want. An aerodynamic design reduces the time of impact and so can the velocity.
Which is why we have wonderful designs like hollow points that drastically change the shape of the object upon impact which leads to more transfer of energy.
When I was speaking about the importance of velocity I was speaking about the characteristics of the projectile, and I should have specified that I was speaking about it relative to mass.
I am in no way suggesting that it is the only thing to take into account, there are a large number of variables that go into ballistic performance and transfer of energy.
It is also important to note that a higher energy projectile does not automatically mean greater lethality.... but I am getting off topic, and I do not wish to hijack a thread.
Which is why we have wonderful designs like hollow points that drastically change the shape of the object upon impact which leads to more transfer of energy.
When I was speaking about the importance of velocity I was speaking about the characteristics of the projectile, and I should have specified that I was speaking about it relative to mass.
I am in no way suggesting that it is the only thing to take into account, there are a large number of variables that go into ballistic performance and transfer of energy.
It is also important to note that a higher energy projectile does not automatically mean greater lethality.... but I am getting off topic, and I do not wish to hijack a thread.
Thread hijacking is fun.
I was just pointing out something. You said that F=M*V2 which is incorrect. What you should have said was F=M*A or F=M*V'
Thread hijacking is fun.
I was just pointing out something. You said that F=M*V2 which is incorrect. What you should have said was F=M*A or F=M*V'
Sorry for any confusion, I crossed up my Force and Energy equations while trying to simplify.
Hopefully we don't start talking about energy weapons because electricity/magnetism equations are a pain in the ass.