Guns (long)

[Tim Nutting]

"Yeah, but then you just cast a Chain Lightning and all the gunpowder explodes."

*ahem* - to be accurate, the statement was intended for a 5th level wizard to cast a lightning bolt per PHB with the
originating point being at one end of a line of bombards and the angle casting the bolt through the line. Read the spell.

While that *might* certainly be possible, that was not the gist of my argument, nor was the intent there to make this world
like the Forgotten Realms. For Haelyn's sake the last thing I wanted was that insanely illogical crap, "smoke powder".
Anyone care to explain why the sulfer compound that makes up gunpowder doesn't work in that little crystaline sphere
floating in the pink goop called the Forgotten Realms?

Take a realistic look at it.

Faced with an obvious means for eliminating 200+ soldiers from your enemy's battle lines, equipped with weapons such as a
line of muskets, or perhaps even bombards, what would you do? How about fry every living sucker over on that end and make
the obviously volatile material they are using ignite in an uncontrolled fashion. Or, in less magical terms, go for a
magazine critical hit. *boom*

Is that not the most brutally efficient way to cripple your enemy? Is there some reason why a wizard should refrain from
such activity? I say no. This is war, and anyone who can't make the muster doesn't get the chance to sit on the rusty
couch.

Yes, technology does advance, but to assume that it would advance in an identical fashion to the advance here on Earth is, I
apologize, not looking at the whole picture. Unless someone can undoubtably prove it to me with hard science, there never
was any ability to lob balls of fire across the battle field, nor could any single soldier in any engagement on the planet
from the 12th century to the 20th century call down magical bolts of electrical energy. Magic WILL affect technology, and a
volatile compound like gunpowder has that one significant weakness that can, and WILL be exploited by any mage with an INT
above 8.

I am not sure about chain lightning as compared to a musket, but to look at it in the atypical combat environment, chain
lighting has a shorter range (an effect not accounted for by battle spells), and second, I don't think (not sure) that it is
a battle spell. However, should a mage cast a CL on a group of musketeers, each of them would have to make a saving throw
versus magic or suffer the full damage. If they make the save, they are fine and have been mostly missed. Otherwise, each
victim failing the save must also have all equipment on them pass an Item Saving Throw (read about them in the DMG), and if
each item fails, then the character's goods are gone. I have never tried to expose black powder to a running electrical
current, I have not been that stupid, but I believe that a high amperage electrical current, grounded through a person,
should be about enough to discharge unprotected black powder.

Now the invention of rubber (technological advancement) effectively nullfies this little, highly exploitable weakness,
insofar as the powder is susceptible to discharge via electrical current. However, it does very little to protect it from
the heat of a fireball (certainly a battle spell). The "exploding gunpowder" spell I mentioned was intended to show an
intelligent wizard who would determine that his normal compliment of spells were unable to allways achieve the desired
effect, so he or she spends the time and money to advance his or her trade, magic, up a notch and make it better than this
new technology, or lose the edge in favor of the peasant.

As another weakness of muzzle loading weapons is their loading times, I would suggest that any unit so equipped NOT be
allowed to make the standard two missile attacks in a round when they are stationary, and in fact, that a musket equipped
unit must be stationary to be able to fire, and may not fire on the move, as may archers. However, this is easily countered
by the need for crossbowment to crank back those 1200 lb. warbows of theirs.... (the actual weight of a late medieval heavy
cross-bow)

Later guys and gals!

Tim Nutting

[James Ray]

LOL - I'll take a poke at some of your arguments

- ----------
> From: Tim Nutting
> "Yeah, but then you just cast a Chain Lightning and all the gunpowder
explodes."
>
> *ahem* - to be accurate, the statement was intended for a 5th level
wizard to cast a lightning bolt per PHB with the
> originating point being at one end of a line of bombards and the angle
casting the bolt through the line. Read the spell.
>
> While that *might* certainly be possible, that was not the gist of my
argument, nor was the intent there to make this world
> like the Forgotten Realms. For Haelyn's sake the last thing I wanted was
that insanely illogical crap, "smoke powder".
> Anyone care to explain why the sulfer compound that makes up gunpowder
doesn't work in that little crystaline sphere
> floating in the pink goop called the Forgotten Realms?

Probly cause if it DID, everybody and there brother would be mixing
gunpowder and blowing up bad guys with crude hand grenades and such LOL.
By requiring a "magical substance", I think a DM gets some measure of
control over its use.

> Faced with an obvious means for eliminating 200+ soldiers from your
enemy's battle lines, equipped with weapons such as a
> line of muskets, or perhaps even bombards, what would you do? How about
fry every living sucker over on that end and make
> the obviously volatile material they are using ignite in an uncontrolled
fashion. Or, in less magical terms, go for a
> magazine critical hit. *boom*

They DO have "critical strikes" in Spells & Magic", one of those Players
Options books...

>weakness that can, and WILL be exploited by any mage with >an INT above
8.>

LOL - I GOT that one :)

> I am not sure about chain lightning as compared to a musket, but to look
at it in the atypical combat environment, chain
> lighting has a shorter range (an effect not accounted for by battle
spells), and second, I don't think (not sure) that it is
> a battle spell.

IMAGINE that Battle Spell conversion, though... I mean, Magic Missile
becomes "Rain of Magic Missiles", etc. "Electrical Hurricane", maybe? LOL

>
>
> As another weakness of muzzle loading weapons is their loading times, I
would suggest that any unit so equipped NOT be
> allowed to make the standard two missile attacks in a round when they are
stationary, and in fact, that a musket equipped
> unit must be stationary to be able to fire, and may not fire on the move,
as may archers.

If you use the stats for guns (et al) in Combat & Tactics, the fastest they
can be fired is once every 15 rounds (for a light cannon). The heavy
cannon can onnly be fired once every 30 rounds... A wizard wouldnt need
Chain Lightning, just a couple of Fireballs, as he would probly have PLENTY
of time.... The fastest listing for hand held firearms is 1/2 rounds, and
quite a few have rates of 1/3. They also misfire frequently, and present a
host of other problems. I still have my hands full keeping tracking of
which units got disbanded this month so the Regent could bribe somebody,
let ALONE keep track of how many charges of gunpowder they have. If you
like guns and stuff, though, go ahead and use 'em, by all means.
Incidentally...would they do damage to creatures that can only be affected
by magical weapons? I dont think it would be possible to enchant the
actual projectile (cause items to be enchanted have to specially made, from
the finest materials, etc), but certainly the firearm itself could be
enchanted to improve the "to hit" probability, but that still doesnt answer
my question, so, I will sign this one off, now :)

James

[TheMotive@aol.co]

In a message dated 8/26/98 4:56:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, zero@wiredweb.com
writes:

[Pieter A de Jong]

At 09:13 AM 8/26/98 -0400, TheMotive wrote:
>In a message dated 8/26/98 4:56:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, zero@wiredweb.com
>writes:
>
>(of which I mentioned earlier), wizards really did not like technology--it
>made them less "cool". The whole basic philosphy was: "Hey, look, mage-boy. It
>takes years and years of study to cast lightning bolt--it only takes us a few
>months to build a cannon and train people to use it. Why should you have all
>the cool powers? Why shouldn't peasants be able to defend themselves *just* as
>well as you?"
>
>With that a lot of wizards disagreed, and a lot died. Sure, magic can effect
>technology--but peopl wouldn't stop running with a "good thing" just because
>one wizard stopped them before.
>
>Say, for example, a unit of cannons had taken over a dozen provinces and laid
>siege to an entire castle. Then, a court wizard comes out and destroys with it
>a lightning bolt. Do you think the generals of the army that possessed the
>cannons would say "Ooh, well, that didn't work at all. Better go back to
>infantry units and cavalry."? I think they would simply be more careful next
>time, and probably try to improve the design.
>
>Have you ever considered that maybe people would advance *FASTER* in an
>attempt to outdo the snooty, self-righteous mages?
>
Considering the investment they must have put in to that unit of cannon,
they would likely figure that hiring their own mage is more cost effective.
Humans have a tendency to take the easiest short term path, and if magic
works, technology would see a *lot* less investment. And the only way
technology advances is on the back of ridiculous amounts thought and
experimentation.

Pieter A de Jong
Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

[TheMotive@aol.co]

In a message dated 8/26/98 12:11:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
pad300@mail.usask.ca writes:

>

And magic doesn't?

- - The Motive

[Pieter A de Jong]

At 12:23 PM 8/26/98 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 8/26/98 12:11:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>pad300@mail.usask.ca writes:
>
> technology advances is on the back of ridiculous amounts thought and
> experimentation. >>
>
>And magic doesn't?
>
Try comparing assorted rules for the development of new spells compared to
the development times for changes in technology. In most rules I have seen,
even accounting for unsuccesful tries, developing a customized spell takes
one individual much less than a year. Technological advances take 1000's of
man-years to complete from concept to applyable device. Comparitively, it is
much easier to do something with magic.

Pieter A de Jong
Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

[Tim Nutting]

[Gary V. Foss]

Tim Nutting wrote:

>

[Jim Cooper]

Tim Nutting wrote:
> Yes, I have considered that others would try to outdo the mage with tech, but then you intrude on other social factors as well. Who would seek to spite the mage? Priests have their own power and don't necessarily need to advance the technology. However, the thieves and the fighters could certainly see the benefit, for the most part, but then who are the noble lords in Anuire? The fighters. What do they gain from allowing thier populace to be more independant? A republic. Not good.> Brechtur is allready mostly republican states ruled by merchant princes, increased profits mean increased power. Slowly but
surely the advance of technology would fall to them above all others.

[Jim Cooper]

Someone who shall remain anonymous wrote:
>This is the crux of the matter to me. I don't think people would investigate technology the way they did in Earth history.
> Why? Because magic exists. The earth "wizards" who did the research into technological advancement are actual wizards in AD&D.

[Gary V. Foss]

Jim Cooper wrote:

> Someone who shall remain anonymous wrote:

IT WAS ME!!! :-)

> >This is the crux of the matter to me. I don't think people would investigate technology the way they did in Earth history.
> > Why? Because magic exists. The earth "wizards" who did the research into technological advancement are actual wizards in AD&D.
> Now this I must speak up on - I would say this statement relies on the
> supposition that magic would be available to all Cerilians, where in
> fact it is not (at least IMO).

Actually, I don't base it on the supposition taht magic would be available to all Cerilians. I base it, however, upon the supposition
that it is available to those who would actually be doing the research. That is, domain rulers. Technological research of the kind that
I see people talking about here (not just building a better mousetrap or finding a new way to bring in a harvest, but actually paying
people to experiment with chemistry to develop gunpowder) would most likely be paid for by domain rulers. Guilds maybe, though big
corporate R&D expenditures is really a product of the last 150 years rather than the medieval period. The point is that people who fund
research would have access to magic, and therefore, would find that a much more logical

> In fact, I would argue that magic is
> even rarer than bloodlines - less than 1% of the population of Cerilia
> has access to magic and therefore, why *wouldn't* Cerilians find other
> means to improve their lives. IMHLO, technology is a much more
> pertinent factor in BR - moreso than it has been in any other AD&D
> knockoff - and magic is relegated back to where it belongs: a thing of
> wonder and superstitious fear (along with elves).

I've argued in a previous post that I think the existence of magic is enough to negate technology as something that people would spend a
lot of time researching. What I really mean by that is that researching magic would become the technological research in such a world.
Magic dominates technology in a magical world by definition. Alchemy is more powerful than chemistry, metaphysics more accurate than
physics, and astrology truer than astronomy. That's just the way it is. It's the basis of the setting.

That doesn't mean that guns can't exist. It just means that a gun would be a magical thing in a magical world, powered not by the
physical force of rapidly expanding gases ignited by an exploding primer, but by the magical force of a controlled explosion in a
carefully constructed and enchanted device. Throwing gunpowder into the mix just doesn't make sense, as there is a simpler and easier
way to accomplish the same thing using magic.

> Heck, wasn't there an
> huge arguement a few months back on this list about this very thing -
> that only about 150 true wizards existed in ALL of Cerilia? Cripes,
> that's less than ~0.00004% of the population of Anuire, much less of all
> of Cerilia ... !

Argh! Ack! Gah! It hurts ussss! It hurtsss usssss!!! Stabbed again by that one freaking line in the Rulebook! I am cut to the
quick, my friends! Please, hear these, my dying words:

The line from the rulebook goes like this: In all of Cerilia, there are no more than six or seven score true mages; less than half that
number are regents capable of wielding realm magic.

First of all, it's a vague statement. Six or seven score? What is that? There may be 120, there may be 140. It's not a real number,
folks. It was just thrown in there as an off the cuff statement to show how magic is more rare in Cerilia than in other campaign worlds.

I just did a quick scan through the RoE, CoS, TotHW and RH books (I can't find my copy of the Brecht stuff right now....) and I counted
the following numbers of regent wizards:

Anuire: 25
Rjurik: 7
Khinasi: 26
Vos: 13
For a subtotal of: 71

Now, I'm suspecting there is at least 20 in Brecht lands, which makes for 90 mages. This is only from a cursory scan of those books, so
I'm quite sure I missed several. I did count the magic using awnsheghlien, but I don't think that would lessen the number as I did NOT
count a few of the collaborative mages like the Three Brothers, or the five court mages of Min Dhousai. It also does not include the
blooded mages like the Wizard or the Chamberlain of the Imperial City who don't control sources. Nor does it include the ten wizards who
are the "deans" of the College of Sorcery, or any of the non-source controlling wizards in the Book of Magecraft. Just as an impression
here, I'm going to have to say we've got more than 140 mages in these books, and then there are the many mages running around in the
various BR adventures, and acting as lieutenants in the published materials or those in the sourcebooks who are mysterious figures,
background characters, court mages or just wandering mages.

The short version of this is that there are more than 140 wizards in Cerilia! There are more than that in the published materials, man!

Sorry about that.... End of rant.

Gary

[Jim Cooper]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
> Actually, I don't base it on the supposition taht magic would be available to all Cerilians. I base it, however, upon the supposition
that it is available to those who would actually be doing the research.
That is, domain rulers. Technological research of the kind that I see
people talking about here (not just building a better mousetrap or
finding a new way to bring in a harvest, but actually paying people to
experiment with chemistry to develop gunpowder) would most likely be
paid for by domain rulers. Guilds maybe, though big
corporate R&D expenditures is really a product of the last 150 years
rather than the medieval period. The point is that people who fund
research would have access to magic, and therefore, would find that a
much more logical. Magic dominates technology in a magical world by definition. Alchemy is more powerful than chemistry, metaphysics more accurate than
> physics, and astrology truer than astronomy. That's just the way it is. It's the basis of the setting.<

That is true - but it is also a world where the *clear majority* of the
people don't understand *how* it works - and from my experience, when
people don't understand something, they shun it, put it down and fear it
... not except that which they cannot grasp. Why would fantasy magic be
an excepted part of everyday life? What would it be like for someone to
live in a world where magic exists, but its so rare that it is a thing
of wonder, and not a ho-hum FR style gaming aspect?

Actually, if I may say so, I believe a part of the basis of the BR
setting is to explore this very question. This question hasn't been
fully explored in any other TSR world; I don't think that BR should be
played with the idea that I've got magic in my blood, so that means I'm
special and therefore I can rule the world.

> That doesn't mean that guns can't exist. It just means that a gun would be a magical thing in a magical world, powered not by the
> physical force of rapidly expanding gases ignited by an exploding primer, but by the magical force of a controlled explosion in a
> carefully constructed and enchanted device. Throwing gunpowder into the mix just doesn't make sense, as there is a simpler and easier
> way to accomplish the same thing using magic.

[Tim Nutting]

>>That doesn't mean that guns can't exist. It just means that a gun would
be a magical thing in a magical world, powered not by the physical force
of rapidly expanding gases ignited by an exploding primer, but by the
magical force of a controlled explosion in a carefully constructed and
enchanted device. Throwing gunpowder into the mix just doesn't make
sense, as there is a simpler and easier way to accomplish the same thing
using magic.

[Gary V. Foss]

Tim Nutting wrote:

> >>That doesn't mean that guns can't exist. It just means that a gun would
> be a magical thing in a magical world, powered not by the physical force
> of rapidly expanding gases ignited by an exploding primer, but by the
> magical force of a controlled explosion in a carefully constructed and
> enchanted device. Throwing gunpowder into the mix just doesn't make
> sense, as there is a simpler and easier way to accomplish the same thing
> using magic.
> You propose Smoke Powder?
>
> Why doesn't it make sense to have gunpowder? I should like to see (within
> the rules of AD&D) this "simpler and easier way to accomplish the same
> thing..." so that the common man can use it.
>
> This may seem like I'm recanting earlier arguments, but again, I don't
> oppose guns, I only say that they have some nasty weaknesses in Cerilia.

I'm afraid I don't know anything about Smoke Powder, except for what I've read
about it for the hippo-guys in the Monster Manual. My impression is that it is
just gunpowder that is supposed to be magically (alchemically) created, isn't
it? I suppose that is OK, as far as it goes, though I don't see why magic
should mimic technology as closely as that.

I don't think commoners would be able to use guns, magical or otherwise, at any
time within the next several centuries in Cerilia. Sorry. They just don't get
them whether you use technology or magic as the basis of the campaign. I think
the across the board categorization of certain Cerilian cultures as early
Renaissance is a little overstated. Ever play MegaTravellor? They had this
really cool way of rating the technological advancements of the worlds by
breaking them up into medicine, shipbuilding, fusion technology, etc. Worlds
were often noted with the highest rating in their Universal Planet Profiles. I
think the Brechts are like that. Early Renaissance in shipbuilding. Late
Medieval in weapon manufacture. (That's just an impression. I'm spitballing
here.) Unfortunately, people have read that Brechts are at the early
Renaissance level of technology and assumed that since guns existed in the
early Renaissance, the Brechts must have guns!

The only way I see the magical equivalent of firearms being developed in an
AD&D universe is in combination with magic. That is someone hits upon the idea
of putting a delayed blast fireball in a bell-shaped hunk of metal and pressing
it up against a castle wall during a siege in order to breech it. After a few
years somebody else would recognize the concussive effects and the number of
people killed among the besiegers by the bell hurtling off the wall, and turn
the thing around and launch the bell shaped metal thingie at the wall. After a
bit, somebody would figure out that you could put a cup at the base of a spear,
put that in a tube and fire it at opponents. Somebody else might come up with
specifically "explosive" spells that could have a special duration that would
fire upon command. Magic "guns" start getting smaller and easier to use. Over
the centuries these spells could be perfected so that they would be the
equivalent of a 140 grains of gunpowder. This lesser spell could be 1st or 2nd
level and within the reach of non-blooded spell casters.

But commoners making these weapons? I think that's pretty unlikely. Very few
people in our world load their own ammunition, for instance. Big corporate
entities do that, in large factories. Eventually, there could be some wizardly
equivalent of Edison in a magical world who had a whole group of mages
researching spells and magical items. Perhaps a "factory" a la the late 19th
century would not be too far behind. But that's about a thousand years down
the line in the setting.

I have heard people equate wizards in AD&D to computer programmers on this
message board. This is a bit of projection, if you ask me, since most of the
people around here are computer users, so programmers are the most likely
choice in that small little section of life. I see wizards, however, as being
much more like engineers. Mechanical, biological, aeronautical, etc. They are
interested in influencing the outside world directly, and manipulating it to
serve their purposes. It would, therefore, make more sense for them to be the
guys that would control "technological" advancement.

The way I really see technology advancing, however, is in the spells
themselves. Here's the long-winded argument.

Part of the problem is that the ways spells exist in levels does not lend
itself much to research and "technological" improvement. As written, they seem
very static and unchangeable. Eventually, however, wouldn't they become easier
to cast, more powerful and longer lasting? Surely, that is the kind of
research and technical improvement that would take place. So the way I REALLY
see "technology" improving is in the power and speed of magic. In fifty years,
maybe a guy will come up with a version of Magic Missile that has a faster
casting time. A century after that somebody invents a version of that does
1d6+1 damage per missile. Another fifty years down the line a guy figures out
how to do it with only somatic components. After another hundred years another
guy improves that spell so that its creates 1 missile/level of the caster.

By the AD&D equivalent of the 20th century a mage can cast it upon a prepared
wand and hand it off to a police officer who can use it the same way RL ones
have handguns. Of course, gang members would have AK-Fireball rifles and
MAC-10 Lightning Bolt Pistols, woefully outgunning our men in blue, but that's
a social issue. Remember: Wands don't kill people. People kill people.

Gary

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Gary V. Foss


>I don't think commoners would be able to use guns, magical or otherwise, at
any
>time within the next several centuries in Cerilia. Sorry. They just don't
get
>them whether you use technology or magic as the basis of the campaign. I
think
>the across the board categorization of certain Cerilian cultures as early
>Renaissance is a little overstated. Ever play MegaTravellor? They had
this
>really cool way of rating the technological advancements of the worlds by
>breaking them up into medicine, shipbuilding, fusion technology, etc.
Worlds
>were often noted with the highest rating in their Universal Planet
Profiles. I
>think the Brechts are like that. Early Renaissance in shipbuilding. Late
>Medieval in weapon manufacture. (That's just an impression. I'm
spitballing
>here.) Unfortunately, people have read that Brechts are at the early
>Renaissance level of technology and assumed that since guns existed in the
>early Renaissance, the Brechts must have guns!
>
Actually, there are other clues. You can read that the Brechts are the
early Renaissance level of technology. And that they favor light armor.
And they have well developed styles of fancy fencing, and favor rapiers and
light blades. All of which track with the development of firearms, which
came about around the early Renaissance, caused heavy armor to be obsolete,
and lead to the development of fancy fencing styles. There has to be some
explanation for why the Brechts do these things, because their fencing
styles, while neat, just don't match up with a big Anuirean knight with a
heavy bashing sword charging at them, and thus wouldn't have been developed
because something demonstrably better still exists.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Gary V. Foss]

Daniel McSorley wrote:

> Actually, there are other clues. You can read that the Brechts are the
> early Renaissance level of technology. And that they favor light armor.
> And they have well developed styles of fancy fencing, and favor rapiers and
> light blades. All of which track with the development of firearms, which
> came about around the early Renaissance, caused heavy armor to be obsolete,
> and lead to the development of fancy fencing styles. There has to be some
> explanation for why the Brechts do these things, because their fencing
> styles, while neat, just don't match up with a big Anuirean knight with a
> heavy bashing sword charging at them, and thus wouldn't have been developed
> because something demonstrably better still exists.
>
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

That's true. Though I think most of those things can also be explained just by
the seamanship culture of the Brechts. That alone implies lighter or no armor,
as one might have to jump into the water or climb about in the rigging. Lighter
armor all by itself makes Brechts more apt to develop the fencing styles. Put
the big Anuirean knight on a boat and have him try to compete with the lightly
encumbered Brechts and he'd be as out of place as the Brechts would be in the
middle of a battlefield.

Gary

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Gary V. Foss

>That's true. Though I think most of those things can also be explained
just by
>the seamanship culture of the Brechts. That alone implies lighter or no
armor,
>as one might have to jump into the water or climb about in the rigging.
Lighter
>armor all by itself makes Brechts more apt to develop the fencing styles.
Put
>the big Anuirean knight on a boat and have him try to compete with the
lightly
>encumbered Brechts and he'd be as out of place as the Brechts would be in
the
>middle of a battlefield.
>
But then, why wouldn't they use the heavier stuff when on land? But they
don't. I think it is a big pointer towards guns, myself.
There is another option. The crossbows of BR are made more damaging, the
rulebook says it is because they are more powerful than those in other
worlds, I think the designers just finally got a clue. Bows don't hold a
candle in terms of firepower compared to crossbows. Their rate of fire is
drastically better, but they don't have nearly the penetration that
crossbows have.
Now, in real life, neither bows or crossbows could penetrate good plate,
like that used in armors (The History channel had a good show on about this
kind of thing recently, they had demonstrations too). Plus, the armor was
designed to deflect, so even a weaker plate could still stop the bolts from
a rather massive crossbow. You would feel the impact, but it wouldn't
puncture. However, they showed that even an early model gun would blow
clean through this plate they were using, which had stopped longbow and
windlass-driven crossbow shots (and in fact, broken most of the arrows shot
at it).
Now, if you don't want guns, it would be easy to say that in BR, the
crossbows are even more penetrating, and can penetrate plate. There would
then exist a super-heavy class of crossbows, probably used by pairs of men,
that would ignore armor and non-magical protection, dexterity and magic
would still apply I guess. The reason we never reached this stage
historically is because guns came around, if they hadn't, these crossbows
would probably have existed before too long. So, this could be a nice
middle ground that is already partially hinted at in the printed stuff.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[James Ray]

I *THINK* (im STILL not an expert...) that firearms didnt develop until
Marco Polo had travelled to China, and returned with "gunpowder".
Incidentally, I cant remember WHEN Mr Polo did that :) My question is
fairly simple - by bringing all this "gun" stuff up, are you trying to
convince the powers that be at TSR to "officially" introduce firearms to
BR, or are you just swapping ideas with others who feel they shoud be
introduced? My impression has always been that the "something better" you
mention (towards the end of your post, which I have thoughtfully included
and edited :) was TRADE. Their experience with imperialism (against the
Vos - OUCH) taught them that warfare is just not their thing. They see
themselves as "gentlemen" (others probly view them as "dandies" :), and
fighting as an art. For the Brecht, trade IS war. If they fight, its
personal, and hence the fencing. No street fights or tavern brawls for the
civilized Brecht. (actually, tavern brawls are probly a different matter
entirely :) They cross rapiers in arranged duels and such, with all the
trappings one might expect from a Renaissance-era type. Why, the "winner"
may not even get bragging rights outta the deal, if his "style" wasnt good
enough to impress the onlookers. OUCH, im going off too long with this,
and this only applies to MY Brechts, anyway :) The BIGGEST problem with
introducing firearms to BR is in mass land warfare. The CURRENT rules
revolve around the one week War Move. I dont think it (the one week War
Move) lends itself very well to using artillery. As mentioned earlier, one
5th level Mage can cast 7 Fireballs in that space of time. The higher the
level of the Court Mage, the less effective the bombardiers become (as the
length of their battlefield life expectancy grows shorter and shorter :)
For my part, the reason firearms dont normally develop in fantasy worlds,
is because there are usually wizards. Its a lot easier and cheaper to have
the Court Mage throw a fireball at the enemy, than to outfit ONE member of
your military with a firearm, let alone an entire unit. I mean, come on -
a little sulfur and some bat guano versus worked metal and gunpowder?
ESPECIALLY when you are ALREADY paying for the Court Mage. I think thats
why they have the "battle spell" rules, too, to provide the Mage with an
alternative to casting individual spells at military units for a whole
week, but I have misgivings about THEM, anyway, so I wont go THERE :) .
All that said, however, there IS a compelling argument for the inclusion of
firearms in the AD&D game. The problem is that there are too many systems
out there to use. AD&D doesnt have one single, unified system that it has
given precedence to above all others. Coupled with BR's rather vague rules
about castles and fortifications (what are the differences between the maps
of a Castle (2) and a Castle (3), for instance?), and you see the weakness
inherent in our (BR's, rather) warfare system. Now im going off AGAIN, so
Im gonna sign this one off, LOL. If you've read to this point, though,
then this is probably a problem we should REALLY get down to brass tacks
on, and work out a solution to. Hmm...who wants the job of reading all
that mail, though, I wonder...

- ----------
> From: Daniel McSorley
> >
> Actually, there are other clues. You can read that the Brechts are
the early Renaissance level of technology. And that they favor light
armor. And they have well developed styles of fancy fencing, and favor
rapiers and light blades. All of which track with the development of
firearms, which came about around the early Renaissance, caused heavy armor
to be obsolete,
> and lead to the development of fancy fencing styles. There has to be
some explanation for why the Brechts do these things, because their fencing
styles, while neat, just don't match up with a big Anuirean knight with a
heavy bashing sword charging at them, and thus wouldn't have been developed
because something demonstrably better still exists.
>
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
.

[James Ray]

- ----------
> From: Daniel McSorley
There is another option. The crossbows of BR are made more
damaging, the rulebook says it is because they are more powerful than those
in other worlds, I think the designers just finally got a clue. Bows don't
hold a candle in terms of firepower compared to crossbows. Their rate of
fire is
> drastically better, but they don't have nearly the penetration that
crossbows have.>

Not at a distance, man. Crossbows are "direct fire" weapons, and bows are
"indirect fire" weapons. Arrows on the battle field were fired at an area,
not necessarily at individuals. Everybody in that targetted area was
extremely likely to get "hit". Crossbows were designed to be fired at
individuals. They used the same basic "lever" principle as bows, but a
mechanical crank was used to pull the string back, rather than raw muscle
power. Since a bows arrows followed an arc to their target, they generally
struck with the same amount of force that they left the bow with. Crossbow
bolts did not strike with the same additonal impact force provided by the
acceleration of gravity. They followed a fairly straight (line of sight,
almost) trajectory, and dipped earthward at about 10 meters a second per
second, so you really HAD to be close to your intended target to hit it.


> Now, in real life, neither bows or crossbows could penetrate good
plate, like that used in armors (The History channel had a good show on
about this kind of thing recently, they had demonstrations too). Plus, the
armor was designed to deflect, so even a weaker plate could still stop the
bolts from a rather massive crossbow.

Again, this is partially due to the projectile's trajectory. The shape of
the individual piece of armor would also have helped serve to deflect the
blow. The BEST way to pierce plate armore with an arrow would be to strike
at as close to a 90 degree angle as the armor's shope would allow.

You would feel the impact, but it wouldn't puncture. However, they showed
that even an early model gun would blow clean through this plate they were
using, which had stopped longbow and windlass-driven crossbow shots (and in
fact, broken most of the arrows shot at it).

Thats due, mostly to the explosive force of gunpowder :) BOOM

> Now, if you don't want guns, it would be easy to say that in BR, the
crossbows are even more penetrating, and can penetrate plate. There would
then exist a super-heavy class of crossbows, probably used by pairs of men,
that would ignore armor and non-magical protection, dexterity and magic
would still apply I guess.

Actually, such weapons DID exist at one time, in the AD&D game (im not an
expert, and cant say whether they existed in the Real World :), and they
were called "ballista". Ballistae (mangonels, scorpions) fired heavy spear
like projectiles. Their hits did 2d6 damage to S/M sized opponents, and
3d6 to L-sized opponents. With a crew of 4 men, they fired 1 shot every
other round, and a crew of 2 men allowed one shot every fourth round.
Chapter 8 of Comabt & Tactics changes this dramatically, however.

James

The reason we never reached this stage historically is because guns came
around, if they hadn't, these crossbows would probably have existed before
too long. So, this could be a nice
> middle ground that is already partially hinted at in the printed stuff.>

> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
>
>> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
line
> 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[TheMotive@aol.co]

In a message dated 8/30/98 3:58:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mcsorley.1@osu.edu writes:

>

The official TSR explanation was always that since the Brechts make their
lives on the water, they need light weaponry. I mean, if you fall overboard,
you can't have that bastard sword weighing you down...

But I don't like that answer. =)

- - The Motive

[Darryl Willis]

> Not at a distance, man. Crossbows are "direct fire" weapons, and bows
are
> "indirect fire" weapons. Arrows on the battle field were fired at an
area,
> not necessarily at individuals. Everybody in that targetted area was
> extremely likely to get "hit". Crossbows were designed to be fired at
> individuals. They used the same basic "lever" principle as bows, but a
> mechanical crank was used to pull the string back, rather than raw muscle
> power. Since a bows arrows followed an arc to their target, they
generally
> struck with the same amount of force that they left the bow with.
Crossbow
> bolts did not strike with the same additonal impact force provided by the
> acceleration of gravity. They followed a fairly straight (line of sight,
> almost) trajectory, and dipped earthward at about 10 meters a second per
> second, so you really HAD to be close to your intended target to hit it.
Gravity isn't quite THAT effective. A crossbow bolt with no kinetic
energy(i.e. stationary) will fall at the 10m/sec/sec rate. But one fired
from a crossbow now has oogobs of energy to burn off. gravity will affect
it, no doubt there. But not so effectively as that. It's a formula with
lots of sin(x) and stuff, but it's gotta burn off some enegry that the bolt
got when it was fired. Otherwise, Firearms in real life would SUCK.

>
>
> > Now, if you don't want guns, it would be easy to say that in BR, the
> crossbows are even more penetrating, and can penetrate plate. There
would
> then exist a super-heavy class of crossbows, probably used by pairs of
men,
> that would ignore armor and non-magical protection, dexterity and magic
> would still apply I guess.
>
> Actually, such weapons DID exist at one time, in the AD&D game (im not an
> expert, and cant say whether they existed in the Real World :), and they
> were called "ballista". Ballistae (mangonels, scorpions) fired heavy
spear
> like projectiles. Their hits did 2d6 damage to S/M sized opponents, and
> 3d6 to L-sized opponents. With a crew of 4 men, they fired 1 shot every
> other round, and a crew of 2 men allowed one shot every fourth round.
> Chapter 8 of Comabt & Tactics changes this dramatically, however.

Yeah, they were real. I don't know the exact damage, but they were real.

Darryl Willis

[Darryl Willis]

> The official TSR explanation was always that since the Brechts make their
> lives on the water, they need light weaponry. I mean, if you fall
overboard,
> you can't have that bastard sword weighing you down...
>
> But I don't like that answer. =)
>

Why not? It's practical! IRL, did you ever read about "Blackbeard,
fearson Claymore pirate"? No. Large weapons were not practical on ships
becasue of weight, yes, but more importantly, space. You can't be swingin'
that big two-hander, cutting through rigging AND shipmates, mind.

- -Darryl Willis darryl42@gate.net

[Tim Nutting]

Sorry, I have seen real battle crossbows - history channel or no.

A hand crossbow - 150# pull and not hand held (you had to put your foot in
the stirrup to pull it back)

A battle crossbow (what D&D rates "heavy crossbow") had a pull of up to
1500# at 8" from the tip, and you had to use a windlass with weight
reduction pulleys to get it to work. These people (RW) were not stupid.

With 2000 years of experience forging steel, they KNEW how to make the
weapons very well. Tech was primitive, but primitive does not mean
unrefined.

If I may - "designed to deflect" armor, and the refinements to get it
there, did not appear till the Maximillian style plate armor (through
which a pin could not drive in between joints) and its immediate
predecessors. Chain mail will not stop a crossbow, and a flat plate in
the way of one of these bolts is not going to help. I would ask if a pick
axe is going to hit with more force than that 1200 to 1500# crossbow? Yet
these picks and hammers certainly made mincemeat out of a knight in field
plate.

Later

Tim Nutting

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Tim Nutting

>Sorry, I have seen real battle crossbows - history channel or no.
>
>A hand crossbow - 150# pull and not hand held (you had to put your foot in
>the stirrup to pull it back)
>
>A battle crossbow (what D&D rates "heavy crossbow") had a pull of up to
>1500# at 8" from the tip, and you had to use a windlass with weight
>reduction pulleys to get it to work. These people (RW) were not stupid.
>
>With 2000 years of experience forging steel, they KNEW how to make the
>weapons very well. Tech was primitive, but primitive does not mean
>unrefined.
>
>If I may - "designed to deflect" armor, and the refinements to get it
>there, did not appear till the Maximillian style plate armor (through
>which a pin could not drive in between joints) and its immediate
>predecessors. Chain mail will not stop a crossbow, and a flat plate in
>the way of one of these bolts is not going to help. I would ask if a pick
>axe is going to hit with more force than that 1200 to 1500# crossbow? Yet
>these picks and hammers certainly made mincemeat out of a knight in field
>plate.
>
They showed a crossbow, said it had a rather large pull (I'm thinking
1200 pounds, but I'm not sure). It was a windlass one. They shot it
straight on at a piece of armor plate, so that it would hit dead on, 90
degree angle. And it did not penetrate. It left a mark on the plate, but
it bounced off and broke.
These guys, by the way, were weapons experts from the Royal Armory museum
in London. So they would probably know what they were talking about.

Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Sindre Berg]

Daniel McSorley wrote:

> From: Tim Nutting
>
> >Sorry, I have seen real battle crossbows - history channel or no.
> >
> >A hand crossbow - 150# pull and not hand held (you had to put your
> foot in
> >the stirrup to pull it back)
> >
> >A battle crossbow (what D&D rates "heavy crossbow") had a pull of up
> to
> >1500# at 8" from the tip, and you had to use a windlass with weight
> >reduction pulleys to get it to work. These people (RW) were not
> stupid.
> >
> >With 2000 years of experience forging steel, they KNEW how to make
> the
> >weapons very well. Tech was primitive, but primitive does not mean
> >unrefined.
> >
> >If I may - "designed to deflect" armor, and the refinements to get it
>
> >there, did not appear till the Maximillian style plate armor (through
>
> >which a pin could not drive in between joints) and its immediate
> >predecessors. Chain mail will not stop a crossbow, and a flat plate
> in
> >the way of one of these bolts is not going to help. I would ask if a
> pick
> >axe is going to hit with more force than that 1200 to 1500#
> crossbow? Yet
> >these picks and hammers certainly made mincemeat out of a knight in
> field
> >plate.
> >
> They showed a crossbow, said it had a rather large pull (I'm
> thinking
> 1200 pounds, but I'm not sure). It was a windlass one. They shot it
>
> straight on at a piece of armor plate, so that it would hit dead on,
> 90
> degree angle. And it did not penetrate. It left a mark on the plate,
> but
> it bounced off and broke.
> These guys, by the way, were weapons experts from the Royal Armory
> museum
> in London. So they would probably know what they were talking about.
>
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley.1@osu.edu
>
> ***********************************
> ***************************************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
> I am not an expert at this field, but I know that the TSR book "Arms
and Equipment
guide" has a paragraph detailing the power of the longbow.

My historical encyclopedia (Aschehoughs Verdenshistorie) says this about
bows and crossbows. An english longbow had a pull of 45 kgs (about 95
pounds), it had a range of 250 meters and could penetrate platearmor at
half the distance, if it hit it at 90 degrees. The crossbows were
heavier and had a 100 meter longer range. Because of their enourmous
penetrating power they were banned by Pope Innocens II in 1139.

Another thing is the english killed hundreds of french khnights in the
Hundred Years war, this was mainly because of the english longbow. The
battle at Crecy in 1346 is a good example.

Though the book says later that the firearms was the ther real "killers"
of the knights on the battlefield...(though then we are talking
1400-1450 and out)

Sindre

[Darryl Willis]

> Another thing is the english killed hundreds of french khnights in the
> Hundred Years war, this was mainly because of the english longbow. The
> battle at Crecy in 1346 is a good example.
>
> Though the book says later that the firearms was the ther real "killers"
> of the knights on the battlefield...(though then we are talking
> 1400-1450 and out)

Hmm....Same as the battle of Agincourt, if I'm not mistaken. But, and this
is a big "but", the reason the English longbow was so devastating to the
French knights was not the extreme penetrating power, but the fact that the
knights were riding horses. Horses are killed by arrows rather quickly,
just like an unarmored human. The knights were pretty well protected from
the longbow. Their horses, however, were not.

Darryl Willis
darryl42@gate.net

[Sindre Berg]

Doyle (Dubhghaill) wrote:

> Sindre Berg wrote in reply to Daniel McSorley;
>
> > Though the book says later that the firearms was the ther real
> > "killers"
> > of the knights on the battlefield...(though then we are talking
> > 1400-1450 and out)
> You got that bit from an encyclopedia ???
> 1415 was the year that Henry V whipped the French at Agincourt -
> with
> longbow, I recall no use of firearms, with the possible exception of
> cannon. There were also Swiss cross-bowmen present, but that's
> another
> story.
>

What the books says is this...First cannon known 1326/27 english
illustration of a cannon shooting arrows. "Light cannons" was used in
the naval battle of Sluys 1340, defense of Quesnay and Tournai 1340 and
the siege of Calais 1346. But the author mentions that they had problems
with cannon tubes braking apart. Later came brass cannons and better
gunpowder. By the year 1400 there was large cannons weighing 4-5 tons,
with cannon balls of 130kg, the "Bombards". In the last field battles
firearms started making an effect. The english general Talbot fell in
1435 from a "culverines" bullet.Though he sums up with the great
breakthrough coming in 1470s with improved guns.
Hope this helps...

> Mid 1500's, field plate was still being used (check out Henry Niii's
>
> suit that he wore while campaigning in France), over the next century,
>
> it's use did dwindle out for a number of reasons. Historians did
> assume
> for many years given the evidence like so many breastplates with no
> other mark on them but a single bullethole. Sounds like a reasonable
> assumption, doesn't it? Museums (as they do), collected a lot of this
>
> stuff, shiny -as-new breastplates with a single hole (identifiable as
> that caused by a musket ball), and several very used breastplates with
>
> many dents. I don't recall who, but someone, this century, decided
> that
> this looked a little odd and got hold of the records from a company
> that
> rolled out bulk breast-plates during the time of Cromwell (late 1600
> or
> early 1700, I think) and found that each plate upon finishing was
> placed
> against a sandbag and were fired at with a musket from a certain
> yardage. If they were pierced by the shot, they were rejected, if
> not,
> they were proven as saleable!
>
> This was followed by Darryl Willis;
>
> Hmm....Same as the battle of Agincourt, if I'm not mistaken.
> But, and this
> is a big "but", the reason the English longbow was so
> devastating to the
> French knights was not the extreme penetrating power, but the
> fact that the
> knights were riding horses. Horses are killed by arrows
> rather
> quickly,
> just like an unarmored human. The knights were pretty well
> protected from
> the longbow. Their horses, however, were not.
> Ouch! Horses of the time wore barding, in the case of the French
> nobility (and don't forget the high percentage of titled French on the
>
> field that day), the barding was of the same type as the armor that
> the
> rider wore.
> Penetration power: bodies have been dug up from that field (not
> every
> corpse was placed in a mass grave, or carted home for burial in some
> family plot), and there are several examples of where a single arrow
> has
> pierced several layers of such armor. The most relevant to this
> discourse is where an arrow had passed through both sides of a full
> greave (lower leg armor), the leg bone, the PLATE barding of the horse
>
> and out the other side.
>

This is the incident I think the "Arms and Equipment Guide" refeers to,
(I borrowed the book to my girl-friend so I can't check now).

> I'll get off the soapbox now and be quiet again now shall I ?
> ;-)
>
> Regards all,
>
> > Dubhghaill (Doyle)
> > Victoria, Australia, 613 9563 5085
> > enq@completesystems.com.au
> >

Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb

[Sindre Berg]

Darryl Willis wrote:

> > Another thing is the english killed hundreds of french khnights in
> the
> > Hundred Years war, this was mainly because of the english longbow.
> The
> > battle at Crecy in 1346 is a good example.
> >
> > Though the book says later that the firearms was the ther real
> "killers"
> > of the knights on the battlefield...(though then we are talking
> > 1400-1450 and out)
>
> Hmm....Same as the battle of Agincourt, if I'm not mistaken. But, and
> this
> is a big "but", the reason the English longbow was so devastating to
> the
> French knights was not the extreme penetrating power, but the fact
> that the
> knights were riding horses. Horses are killed by arrows rather
> quickly,
> just like an unarmored human. The knights were pretty well protected
> from
> the longbow. Their horses, however, were not.
>
> Darryl Willis
> darryl42@gate.net
>

This "encyclopedia" states that the heavy armored riders (i.e. knights)
were fighting on foot, because they (mostly the french) suffered
grevious losses to the english soldiers on foot (says nothing about
armament) in the battle in Courtrai 1304 og against the archers at Crecy
1346.
Though you still got a point though, but the question is rather how
tight this armor was ? Was it plate mail or field plate ? At last the
first got some weak spots where arrows easily can penetrate...But wait
I'm killing my own argument..

Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb