So I had a thought about firearms in colonial times. They are the predominant ranged weapon of the day. But why? Then think about that in well, D&D terms. The bow is faster shooting and does just about as much damage. So again why firearms? Well I've come up with some rules/ideas about why. Without making firearms super death machines. First is range. Accurate range on a firearm is greater than a bow. Armor penetration. So in game terms (at least in my New World setting) firearms ignore a certain amount of DR. Pistols ignore 3 DR while rifles ignore 4. Blunderbuss/Dragon ignore 2 DR.
.png)
2 comments:
Hey Ronin, nice blog! And good post. I'm no expert but here's my 2cp.
To the best of my understanding, the rise of firearms had little to do with battlefield superiority and everything to do wth simplicity of use, and the rise of professional armies under central, national, kingly authority (Divine Right and all), while heavy armor was gradually abandoned as infantry and mobility gained precedence because of breech-loading firearms, rather than any inefficacy against firearms (I read once that armorers would demonstrate their merchandise to customers by "bullet-proofing" firng a small-caliber handgun at a cuirass.
In any case, your rules do a good job of emulating the myth, which may be just as good. :)
Thanks. And thanks for the comment. I agree with what you say. I tried looking at through a "D&D" rules lense. Really rules wise there's no reason to ever do away with the bow. So had to make a reason, so to speak. So the myth wins.
Post a Comment