Bang!

[James Ruhland]

I don't mind if it's ahistorical: No Gunpowder weapons in Cerilia.
>
> Oftimes I'm in agreement with Trizt, this time I'm not. Cerilia should
have
> at least bombards to fit in with its late middle ages feel. Gunpowder
bombards
> for siege use were widespread by 1350, with really monster models and
hand
> weapons appearing by 1400.
>

[Denakhan]

Just figured I'd toss in my few coppers. :)


- -----Original Message-----
From: John Campbell
To: 'birthright@MPGN.COM'
Date: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 5:34 PM
Subject: RE: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Bang!


>If you are going to consider the use of cannons and guns, keep in mind that
>historically it heralded the end of armor and castles as represented in
>this fantasy setting. Cannons and mortars end sieges real quick.

This was true in real life; however, Birthright is a fantasy rpg.

"BOOM!"
..."dang, that mortar thing keeps puttin' holes in my tower walls! Mr.Mage,
please lightning-bolt it."
"ZAP"
..."There. No more mortar thing (but boy, was that a BIG explosion, what,
with all that blackpowder around it)... Oh, when you have the time, cast a
Wall of Stone to patch those holes up. Thanks."

;-)

As for the end of armor....well, I doubt that would be the case in AD&D.
With all the heroic personas, devine intervention, unbelievable luck (re:
mid to high level characters HP's...), etc, that musket-user had better make
the first shot count...cause if he doesn't, well, I bet a 8th level fighter
with a +4 th and +7 damage with his long sword +3 will make that musket look
REALLY pathetic.
The damage that spells and characters who know what they are doing, simple
put, far outweighs the benifits of a single musket or even a cannon. Now,
for an army to have, say 50 muskets, well, there is an advantage....however,
with all the clerical and other magical healings and protections, a gun
powder weapon just wouldn't be any more effective than a crossbow or bow.


>
>Once you introduce gunpowder you will have a lot of pressure to allow other
>advances in technology. Your choice, of course, but watch out for all the
>worms! :-)

This is the more dangerous part. However, if you do look at the
'effectiveness' of gunpowder weapons vs. 'normal' weapons (let alone magic
spells and such), why would a Lord of the land put much effort into
developing more? Sure, a patato that is thrown at you real fast will hurt,
but when I have a rock, do I really need to find a better way to throw a
patato?

As for the defensive part...

"Protection from Normal Missiles"
"Dispel Gunpowder"
"Gunpowder to Sand"
"Fireball"

;)

>
>John


Denakhan the Arch-Mage.

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

The end of the armoured, mounted knight was the return of the phalanx in
the form of the Swiss Pikemen. The end of the armoured footman was caused
by the superiority of combat in formation over individual combat tactics.
Cannon created a new kind of fortification, the trace Italliane, as seen
in the great sieges of the c17 and c18. The only advantage of early
arqubuses is that in D&D terms there is no non-proficiency penalty.
Anyone can use them and there is no to-hit progression. Bob the bartender
is as good with firearms as High Lord Charles the Mighty, 10th level
fighter. Secondly, fire arms score four kinds of hits- miss, light wound
(maybe d12 damage), severe wounds (maybe 9d4), and kills (save vs death
magic to suffer merely 50 hps damage). You will note that nobles stopped
fighting in the c16, and started commanding the Bob bartenders of the
army. A lifetime of combat training is meaningless in the face of a 75
calibre ball of lead with your name on it.

Attempts to make firearms conform to more familiar D&D weapons is to
reduce the arqubus into a sling in which the stone is projected not bu
centrifical force, but by chemical propellant. In short there not
firearms as the c16 knew them, but mechanical slingshots. Get yourself a
crossbow.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu
[Whose campaign rejects the scientific world I know in favor of the world
known to such men as Girolamo Ruscelli, Alessio Piemontese, and Nicholas
of Poland.]

[Trizt]

On 08-Jan-98, Denakhan (pming@klondike.com) wrote about Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] -
Bang!:

- ->>If you are going to consider the use of cannons and guns, keep in mind that
- ->>historically it heralded the end of armor and castles as represented in
- ->>this fantasy setting. Cannons and mortars end sieges real quick.

- ->As for the end of armor....well, I doubt that would be the case in AD&D.
- ->With all the heroic personas, devine intervention, unbelievable luck (re:
- ->mid to high level characters HP's...), etc, that musket-user had better make
- ->the first shot count...cause if he doesn't, well, I bet a 8th level fighter
- ->with a +4 th and +7 damage with his long sword +3 will make that musket look
- ->REALLY pathetic.

It's not question of what a handful elves and demielves can do, it what the
masses can do. Before you will find an unit where all has +7 damage with +3
longswords the shadow lords will have taken over the whole world. It will be
cheaper to get 100 musketeers with unlimited number of shots than 100
mages/magicians which may not have more than at top 2 magic missiles per day.
Don't forget that BR is quite lowe magic world, the number of mages/magicians
is less than in Waterdeep (FR). So when gunpoder enters BR, it will be the day
when magic and armour dies.

What would you hero say when he one day meets the sweet Orog with a "hand
canon", BOOM, where is that damn hero, I only see his shoes.

//Trizt of Ward^RITE

-

[Denakhan]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Trizt
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 3:59 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Bang!


>On 08-Jan-98, Denakhan (pming@klondike.com) wrote about Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] -
>Bang!:
>
>->>If you are going to consider the use of cannons and guns, keep in mind
that
>->>historically it heralded the end of armor and castles as represented in
>->>this fantasy setting. Cannons and mortars end sieges real quick.
>
>->As for the end of armor....well, I doubt that would be the case in AD&D.
>->With all the heroic personas, devine intervention, unbelievable luck (re:
>->mid to high level characters HP's...), etc, that musket-user had better
make
>->the first shot count...cause if he doesn't, well, I bet a 8th level
fighter
>->with a +4 th and +7 damage with his long sword +3 will make that musket
look
>->REALLY pathetic.
>
>It's not question of what a handful elves and demielves can do, it what the
>masses can do. Before you will find an unit where all has +7 damage with +3
>longswords the shadow lords will have taken over the whole world. It will
be
>cheaper to get 100 musketeers with unlimited number of shots than 100
>mages/magicians which may not have more than at top 2 magic missiles per
day.
>Don't forget that BR is quite lowe magic world, the number of
mages/magicians
>is less than in Waterdeep (FR). So when gunpoder enters BR, it will be the
day
>when magic and armour dies.

I agree with that. Getting +3/+7 should be rare (dang rare), but I was
talking about a single heroic character (8th level fighter), where that
+3/+7 isn't so rare.
Don't even bring in the FR. Bleech. Sorry if this offends all the FR
fans out there, but the current FR is sickening to me. If you take the 6
highest level NPC's form that world, and toss them into BR, and you now have
a world that is ruled by 6 NPC's.
As for the 100 musketeers vs. 100 mages with 2 Magic Missiles
each....the musketeers still have to hit their targets (which better be very
close; IIRC, a musket isn't very precice), whereas the mages are pretty much
guarenteed 2 kills each (assuming they use both their MM spells (=4 magic
missiles). But, again, I wouldn't expect to see 100 mages all gathered
together as a fighting force (well, except maybe FR ;)
The one thing that I think will keep the gunpowder weapons from
becoming too 'nigh-omnipotent' would be one simple fact: they would be in
the AD&D game system. The AD&D game system doesn't work that well when you
concider gunpowder weapons. There are no 'instant death' or even 'critical
hits' in the core rules. In order for a musket, for example, to be worth
spending the GP's for, it would have to do a lot of damage...like 2d6 or
more. Even with this, the person still has to hit his opponent; and that
would typically be less than 50% of the time. Then, when he does hit, he
does his damage. Most likely this will kill his opponent (assuming about
6hp). However, if he doesn't kill his opponent, his opponent can still
shoot back. There are no 'pain incapacitation' rules in AD&D. So,
technically, a musket would be about at useful/good as a bow....except that
it would be more expensive, be harder to equip, harder to upkeep and be more
dangerous to use. Hmmmm. Also, lets not forget the ROF. A bow has 2 per
round and a musket 1 per 2 rounds. So, while the musketeer is reloading,
his opponent gets to try to get him with 3 shots from his bow.


>
>What would you hero say when he one day meets the sweet Orog with a "hand
>canon", BOOM, where is that damn hero, I only see his shoes.

Or the other version:
Your hero beets the sweet Orog with a "hand canon", BOOM!...."Oh
damn." says the Orog as the fighter turns and proceeds to attack
him.."swish!...swish!"....ker-plonk!(the sound of the dead Orog hitting the
floor).

Not very realistic, I know, but then again, this is AD&D we are talking
about. :)

>
> //Trizt of Ward^RITE


Denakhan the Arch-Mage.

[Denakhan]

- -----Original Message-----
From: John Campbell
To: 'birthright@MPGN.COM'
Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Bang!


>What about that +5 musket with Lead balls of seeking? :-)


Now we're talking! This is what would probably happen. All sorts of
spells and stuff would be poppin up that enhanced and defended against
gunpowdered weapons. Now, in real life, we didn't have magic to do this,
so.....good bye armor and castles. But, in BR, we DO have magic (and
characters that can take 7 musket shots to the head and still be dishing out
the death and destruction).

>The reason Muskets changed the balance was because of the destructive
>effect that could be given to troops with a fraction of the training. And
>In BR we ARE talking about wars.

I would agree with this. This would be the biggest benifit....but would
it really outweigh training your troops to use a bow or crossbow?
Maybe...but not by much in AD&D terms.

Denakhan the Arch-Mage.

[Trizt]

On 08-Jan-98, Denakhan (pming@klondike.com) wrote about Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] -
Bang!:

- -> I agree with that. Getting +3/+7 should be rare (dang rare), but I was
- ->talking about a single heroic character (8th level fighter), where that
- ->+3/+7 isn't so rare.
A few heros will not do any difference when the majority will have access to
gunpowder weapons, and you can always use that "boomstick" as an club if you
would happen to miss and your enemy is to close. You will even be able to
replace the musket if it would break, but an magical item you don't just go
and get anotherone.

- -> Don't even bring in the FR. Bleech. Sorry if this offends all the FR
- ->fans out there, but the current FR is sickening to me.

I only use FR as an bad example how wrong things can go... so sorry, I will
use it alot more

- ->technically, a musket would be about at useful/good as a bow....except that
- ->it would be more expensive, be harder to equip, harder to upkeep and be more
- ->dangerous to use. Hmmmm. Also, lets not forget the ROF. A bow has 2 per
- ->round and a musket 1 per 2 rounds. So, while the musketeer is reloading,
- ->his opponent gets to try to get him with 3 shots from his bow.
While the musketeer are reloading, his friends forms another line and fires,
and then it's the musketeers lines turn to shoot while his other buddies
reloads. As with x-bows, the musketeer don't need as much training as the
archer, the musket will make a far much dangerous damage when it hits than a
english longbow, even more than a turkish (spl?) shortbow (this one beats that
longbow in every point) and even the x-bow. The question should not be about
one on one, but in how it effects the mass combat, muskets will change that
alot and if we start talking about canons, then we have taken another step
forward to shadowrun. It should *never* happen that official BR supports any
kind of firearms, as soon after we will be talking about if every farmer has
an WC or is it only 2 of 3, IMO a fantasyworld should keep it's technical
level between the dark ages to the crusaids, it was then when men where real
men and not whimps like later.


- -> Or the other version:
- -> Your hero beets the sweet Orog with a "hand canon", BOOM!...."Oh
- ->damn." says the Orog as the fighter turns and proceeds to attack
- ->him.."swish!...swish!"....ker-plonk!(the sound of the dead Orog hitting the
- ->floor).
More likely:
The mighty Orog misses the paladin. The mighty paladin smiles at his foe and
says, "I'm your doom". SMASH!!, the mighty paladin falls dead on the ground
and the Orog reloads his metalic club.


//Trizt of Ward^RITE

-

[Neil Barnes]

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998 c558382@showme.missouri.edu wrote:
> The end of the armoured, mounted knight was the return of the phalanx in
> the form of the Swiss Pikemen. The end of the armoured footman was caused
> by the superiority of combat in formation over individual combat tactics.

D'oh. I knew I forgot something.

> Secondly, fire arms score four kinds of hits- miss, light wound
> (maybe d12 damage), severe wounds (maybe 9d4), and kills (save vs death
> magic to suffer merely 50 hps damage).

Shurley Shome mishtake

The same thing can be said for any weapon - early arquebuses being less
horrific than (say) a heavy Crossbow. If you want a system that has a
'realistic' damage handling mechanic, you're playing the wrong game.

neil

[Neil Barnes]

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Trizt wrote:
>
> It's not question of what a handful elves and demielves can do, it what the
> masses can do. Before you will find an unit where all has +7 damage with +3
> longswords the shadow lords will have taken over the whole world. It will be
> cheaper to get 100 musketeers with unlimited number of shots than 100
> mages/magicians which may not have more than at top 2 magic missiles per day.
> Don't forget that BR is quite lowe magic world, the number of mages/magicians
> is less than in Waterdeep (FR). So when gunpoder enters BR, it will be the day
> when magic and armour dies.

Hardly. As Kenneth pointed out, it was changes in infantry tactics which
signalled the end of heavily armoured knight. The real heyday of the
Knights charge was during the Crusader period, when the standard armour
was Chain Mail, with Plate Mail being a relative innovation. If I
remember my sources correctly, in just about every battle in which the
Crusader knight could charge the Muslims, they won, even if outnumbered
10-1. If the terrain or conditions prevented them from charging, they
were generally outnumbered & lost.

On a battlefield Cannon were pretty ineffectual until about the period
of the English Civil War IIRC. Cavalry were still in use until the First
World War, when they were made redundant by the introduction of the
machine gun.

I've heard that in the Charge of the Light Brigade, when the Light
Brigade reached the Cossacks they were attacking, despite taking
horrendous casualties from the artillary fire, they decimated the
Cossacks so badly that for the rest of the Crimean War the Cossacks
avoided English Cavalry like the plague. Any one know any more?

Basically I like to think of Cerilia as being a dynamic world.
Technology & Society advance , rather than holding the world in an
artificial stasis with Medieval technology & suprisingly liberated
society. IMC a Cerilian age of exploration is likely soon. The future is
up for grabs.

> What would you hero say when he one day meets the sweet Orog with a "hand
> canon", BOOM, where is that damn hero, I only see his shoes.

The nice thing about the AD&D damage paradigm is that the hero would
have lept to the side at the last minute, pick him(or her)self up and
grunted 'It's only a flesh wound.' Hey the idea survives into the modern
world in Bruce Willisn films. :)

neil

[DKEvermore]

In a message dated 98-01-08 15:03:12 EST, you write:

> So why don't other missile weapons do damage like that? Ever consider the
> cross sectional force of a metal tipped arrow? I know deer that have.
> You do this for guns you gotta do it for all missals
>
Crossbows negate armor at close range in BR (-5 to AC). Long bows do, too, at
- -2 AC and you still fire at 2/rnd. I think what you mention is already in our
BR setting....

good ole BR. Everybody loves BR. ;)
- -DKE

[Tim Nutting]

[Samuel Weiss]

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:

>
> The same thing can be said for any weapon - early arquebuses being less
> horrific than (say) a heavy Crossbow. If you want a system that has a
> 'realistic' damage handling mechanic, you're playing the wrong game.
>

The D&D system is abstract. It needed tinkering. But it is very good a
representing a certain kind of combat- men at arms vs men at arms.
Armored warriors fighting one another is handled very well in the core
rules. The fighters sup and the BR rules add to that. The real defect in
the system is the fight between lightly armored rouge types and heavily
armored warrior types. For a while this just kind of irritated me, but
thieves in my campaigns have tended to be skulkers, I never devoted myself
to finding a solution.

With the advent of the Brechts and their preference for light armor and
weapons I had to deal with or never satisfy myself with Brecht-Anurian
combat. Now I felt forced to resolve the problem. Eventually I settled on
a two level approach.

1) I stole the Italian and Spanish fightingn styles from the renaisance
era sup (the name of which eludes me just now) and re-named the Brecht
fight style and Berghagen fighting style. Its a type of weapon
specialization.

2) A revised armor class system that produces all the familiar armor
classes (warrior in plate, w/shield=2, thief in leather=8, mage=10) but
was based on a combination of class and armor type. My armor class
calculation goes like this:

Start at 10, just like the core rules.
The following AC table supercedes the standard one:

Armor Armor Class
None 10
Leather, Padded, Hide, Studded 9
Ring, Scale, Splint 8
Brigandine, Chain, Banded, Plate 7
Dwarven Plate 6

A shield increases AC by 1

Character AC
Class modifier
Wizard 0
Rouge -1
Bard -2 (and a few Rouge kits as well as some Priest types)
Priest -3
Warrior -4

All monsters use their Monsterous Manual AC's

According to this system:
a mage with no armor is AC 10
a thief in leather is AC 8
a warrior in plate mail and shield is AC 2

however,
a warrior with no armor is AC 6
a bard in chain is AC 5
a warrior with no armor parrying with a fireplace poker has AC 4

Furthermore, armors absorb some damage:
armor slash pierce bludgeoning
Banded Mail 3hp 1hp 1hp
Brigandine 2hp 1hp 0hp
Chain Mail 3hp 1hp 0hp
Hide armor 2hp 1hp 1hp
Leather armor 1hp 0hp 1hp
Padded armor 0hp 0hp 0hp
Plate Mail 3hp 3hp 2hp
Ring Mail 1hp 1hp 0hp
Scale Mail 1hp 1hp 0hp
Splint Mail 2hp 1hp 1hp
Studded Leather 2hp 1hp 0hp


Brecht Fighting Style: (replaces One-Handed Style for those trained in it)

Costs one proficency slot. Character must have rapier or saber proficeny.
Brecht Style grants one AC benefit per level of proficeny. One may be taken
upon starting out. Additional slots can be purchased once per three levels;
eg. a second at 3rd, a third at 6th level &c. These bonuses rely on evasion
and movement and hence are allowable only when the normal dex bonus is. The
character must be fighting with a saber, rapier, dagger, or be unarmed to get
this benefit. Available for fighters, rouges, and some priests (Nesirie, Sera,
Eloéle).

Berghagen Fighting Style: (replaces Sword and Shield Style)

Costs two proficency slots. Character must have rapier proficency. The
Berghagen Style teaches the swordsman to mirror his opponent's posture and
guard, making it impossible to attack without first shifting position or
attacking the defender's blade. Therefore, a Berghagen Style swordsman cannot
be attacked with a small or medium weapon of weight 4 or less in my revised
weight system, in any round in which he has the initiative. Also, using
Berghagen Style gives the practitioner one free parry. In order to parry some
type of protection must be employed for the left (off) hand. In addition to a
buckler, a second weapon (of smaller size) a leather glove, cloak, or floppy
felt hat are all common. If an attack hits the character, they roll to hit
against the attacker's AC. If successful, the attack was parried and no
damage is taken. If not successful, normal damage is taken. Available for
fighters, rouges, and some priests (Nesirie, Sera, Eloéle).

For characters with both Brecht and Berghagen Styles:
Only one can be employed at once. This must be declared before initiatve is
rolled. If no mention is made, the previous round's style is still in effect,
or on the first round, Brecht Style is assumed.

When using a weapon with a speed of 4 (or 5 on horseback) or less, a critical
hit allows a second free attack, rolled normally.

On a fumble against an opponant with a rapier, a fumble may mean a broken
blade. Roll a saving throw vs crushing blow (succedes on a seven or above)
failure indicates a broken blade, now possessing the characteristics of a
dagger.

***
This system is abstract. But it satisfies my demands for a sence of who
should beat whom in combat, and how often. I also demand Endurance
proficency checks after 15 rounds of combat (for a rested character), or
20 rounds for characters with the Endrance proficency. PC's without the
prof check at -5, as always. Failure gives you a -2 for all rolls. The
exaustion rules come into effect here. Dwarves have staying power.

Whether its a judo competition, boxing, what have you, scoring is somewhat
abstract. What counts is not the realism of the system, but the
reasonability of the results.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[DKEvermore]

In a message dated 98-01-10 07:13:16 EST, you write:

> I personally don't think that gunpowder as Randal Porter mentioned
> (bombards and matchlocks) would unbalance the game hinging on one
> condition: THE PLAYERS DON'T INVENT IT!
>
Hmm... Invented in Aduria? That's scare the pants off 'em..
hehehehehehheheh

[Neil Barnes]

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, James Ruhland wrote:
> it'd be interesting to see someone monekying around with primitive steam
> engines and clockworks (steam power and clockworks were known in
> hellenistic times, but was just used for "toys" like opening and closing
> temple doors, and raising and lowering fancy thrones.)

This is something Aubrae (my 18 intelligence Mage PC) thinks of a lot.

Her current plans involve using giant prisms & lenses to split light
into lots of different colours & duplicate a Prismatic Ray spell.

The only problems so far are:
a) Cost (she doesn't have 100+ GB to spare)
b) portability - complex arrays of mirrors & prisms & lenses are quite
fragile & heavy.

But one day. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

:)

neil

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

In his highly respected book, _The Military Revolution_, Geoffrey Parker
writes (pp. 17-18):

"The performance of these early firearms, however, still left much to
be desired: a well trainedarcher could discharge ten arrows a minute, with
reasonable accuracy up to 200 meters, but the arquebus of the earlier c16
took several minutes to reload and was accurate only up to 100 meters.
And yet, for all that, the gun remained attractive because it required
virtually no training for use. As J.F. Guilmartin put it: 'Where a few
days and a good drill sergeant might suffice to train a reasonably good
arquebusier, many years and a whole way of life were needed to produce a
competent archer.' Undoubtedly the introduction of the musket in the
1550's, begining with the Spanish regiments in Italy, accelerated the
process, since the new weapon could throw a 2-ounce lead shot with
sufficient force to penetrate even plate armor 100 meters away. Gradually
the musketeer became master of the battlefield and drove off most other
military specialists. The first to go were the broadswordsmen, whose skill
with their double-handed claymores had struck terror into most enemies:
there are few references to them after 1515. The halberd vanished shortly
afterwars and for a time, even cavalry became relatively scarce.
Crossbowmen had largely disappeared by the mid-century, and even England
finally dropped longbows in favor of handguns during the 1560's.
Although a rearguard action was fought in favor of the longbow by some
armchair strategests, their case was not generally heeded: in Robert
Barret's _Theory and Practice of Modern Wars_, a military treatise of 1598,
a 'gentleman' reminded 'a captain', that Englishmen in the past had done
well enough with the longbow; to which the captain witheringly replied,
'Sir, that was then and now is now. The wars are much altered since the
fiery weapons first came up."

Hans Delbruk, in his fourth volume of _The Art of War_, (pp. 39-40) notes
that competitive shooting was being held as early as 1430, and that by this
time front and rear sights had already been invented. Furthermore, he
states, "The advantage of the new weapon over the bow and crossbow was its
great penetrating power and its long range. At the shooting tournaments
toward the end of the c15 shots were made with firearms to distances of
230 to 250 paces, whereas the range for a crossbow amounted to only 110 to
135 paces." He adds that this is with smoothbore firearms, rifled barrels,
though already invented, were "unsporting". He goes on to state that the
heavy knightly armor remained superior to the soft balls of the arquebus,
but that the musket's 2-ounce ball made armor superflouos. Du Bellay
writes of the musket in 1523.

J.R. Hale in his landmark _War and Society in Renaissance Europe, 1450-
1620_ wrote, (p. 46) "After a century-long apprenticeship portable firearms
and artillery came radically to effect the conduct and conditions of war.
For the soldier they changed the weapons he carried, the formations, the
nature of his wounds, for they broke bones and led to the loss of limbs
from gangrene." He too mentions the superior "hitting power" of firearms,
noting (p. 51) "From the 1540's the heavier musket, supported by a rest
stuck into the ground, gained acceptance because, in spite of its longer
loading time, it could piercwe all but specially reinforced siege armor at
200-240 paces."

It is clear that the scholarship of military history finds archery inferior
to firearms by the early c16, and absolutely outdated by the mid-c16.
It is also important to remember that PC's will not chose the military
models designed for a higher rate of fire, but will tend toward sporting
types with rifled barrels and higher acccuracy. Firearms cannot be compared
to pre-gunpowder weapons in a D&D campaign, without making all other
weapons obsolete, as occured in Europe, or watering the weapons down quite
a bit. DM's could introduce the earliest forms of the weapons, but might
then be forced to prevent their development artificially. In Birthright,
where a regent can say to his lieut. with the alchemy proficency, "Research,
good wizard. For I need a better fiery weapon."

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Kinigget]

Guns SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN BIRTHRIGHT I'm an army ranger and I would much
rather sword fight then use my A1 M16 to fight some one. Even it there where
only cannons allowed they would still make castles obsolite and make a mockery
of realm spells like raze. If you want guns play some civil war game!

[prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co]

Ken G writes:

It is clear that the scholarship of military history finds archery inferior
to firearms by the early c16, and absolutely outdated by the mid-c16.
It is also important to remember that PC's will not chose the military
models designed for a higher rate of fire, but will tend toward sporting
types with rifled barrels and higher acccuracy. Firearms cannot be compared
to pre-gunpowder weapons in a D&D campaign, without making all other
weapons obsolete, as occured in Europe, or watering the weapons down quite
a bit. DM's could introduce the earliest forms of the weapons, but might
then be forced to prevent their development artificially. In Birthright,
where a regent can say to his lieut. with the alchemy proficency, "Research,
good wizard. For I need a better fiery weapon."

While this is accurate, it's not quite precise. As the historical examples
given show, the "earthly" record leaves considerable room for debate. (If it
didn't we wouldn't need historians! ;))

It's certainly true that it was much easier to train a recruit in the use
of "vile gunpowder" than the bow. What does this mean for BR? Archers should
take longer to muster? Handgunners should be cheap? How to make this fact fit
into the existing system would take some work.

Unless you alter Cerilian history in your campaign, firearms aren't going to
overtake bows for quite some time. On earth, the first handgunne appeared
between 1325 and 1365. Again, the matter is open for debate- I certainly lean
toward the latter. The Spanish musket of the 30 years war is 250 years away.
If you can get a BR campaign to cover that amount of time, and the
corresponding sweep of Cerialian history, count me in as a player! Most early
fiery weapon development occured in the area of siege weapons. It should be a
long time before your players can find or develop a hand cannon that's worth
the trouble for adventuring. At a seige, sure. Tromping through the sleet and
snow of Vosgaard to attack the ice troll's lair, no.

I don't think you'll have to artifically retard firearm development in any
"normal" campaign. Try for the feel of late hundred year's war. A few crude
bombards that we need to develop rules for as to how they affect castles will
add to the flavor of BR. I don't think Elizabethan-quality firearms would.
Unless of course you like my Cerialian Age of Exploration campaign kernel-
"Watch out evil empires of Anduria! The exiles of Cerilia are back with a
Vengence!- and ship mounted cannon *Kerboom!*.

Randax

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

I would agree with Randal Porter on both his counts, firstly that bombards
are not a serious problem until the mid c15. Before that they were used
much like old style artillery, to destroy buildings, more than against
walls. Second that introducing gunpowder next week into your campaign
(rather than as an existing feature) gives the DM a long time to use it as
a curiousity, while it remains comperable to the existing weapons. What
Delbruck esp. pointed out, was that the sporting versions of these
weapons, became superior by the mid c15, a full hundred years before their
domination of the battlefield.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Trizt]

On 13-Jan-98, c558382@showme.missouri.edu (c558382@showme.missouri.edu) wrote
about Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Bang!:
- ->I would agree with Randal Porter on both his counts, firstly that bombards
- ->are not a serious problem until the mid c15. Before that they were used
- ->much like old style artillery, to destroy buildings, more than against
- ->walls. Second that introducing gunpowder next week into your campaign
- ->(rather than as an existing feature) gives the DM a long time to use it as
- ->a curiousity, while it remains comperable to the existing weapons. What
- ->Delbruck esp. pointed out, was that the sporting versions of these
- ->weapons, became superior by the mid c15, a full hundred years before their
- ->domination of the battlefield.

Things happens much faster in a campagin than it would have happned if it had
been a real world. don't foget that when we are in introducing new things like
firearms, then it will be as easy to introduce other new things like the
compass (done in the brecht module) binoculars, windows of glas in every house
and so on. BR is already quite close renessance, look on brechtur, it's quite
long from the Hansa as I would liked to have it.
IMO if firearms would appear in BR it should only be some optional "rule" and
now books/adventures/modules would be written using it, this for it's much
easier to add something new than remove it, a good e.g. is Elminster and his
sisters for they are refereed to in every FR module. I fear that will happen
too when firearms are introduced to BR.
As so many has already pointed out (I have done this before), if you want to
have a RPG with firearms, go and buy one which has that already and not try to
change BR.


//Trizt of Ward^RITE

-