stratigo

I think you are missing the importance difference between PoE and a DnD set game. In seeking Tabletop fidelity, the IE DnD games had a lot of the same imbalances built into it that made it so that there were no tanks. DnD games have no tanks, everyone had the ability to avoid or mitigate damage (or they were decidingly unoptimal and taking them was a bad idea). In PoE, the same cannot be true. A mage cannot magic himself into immunity in PoE and still nuke everyone with a fireball (or a meteor strike) like you could in BG. Thus, you have a need for an aggro mechanic.

I want what NWN and NWN2 had. NWN2 multiplayer has gone badly stale and a lot of us still there are desperate for a game that replaces it. But the modern market sensibilities don't do multiplayer like that anymore and retro sensibilities like PoE scorn multiplayer of any type. It is intensely depressing for the small number of folks who found true joy in Neverwinter nights persistent worlds, knowing that NWN and NWN2 is the only thing we have. There is nothing else that facilitates roleplaying in the way a NWN server does. It has nothing to do with Co Op (though D:OS did Co Op amazingly.). It is essentially just giving players access to a toolset, a dm client, and the ability to set up multiplayer infrastructure.

A well made arquebus is MUCH cheaper then a well made sword. Guns are a hollow iron tube with a small hole for powder attached to a wood stock (sometimes). Now the wheel lock mechanism is fairly hard to produce as it is essentially clockwork. But your bog standerd match fired arquebus is incredibly cheap It is about as easy as maintaining any other metal weapon While the near faceless mass combat of the late 17th and entire 18th and early 19th centuries is ineed damaging to the idea of the warrior ethos, the time bordering that is not. Albeit the gunslingers of the mid 19th century are of a different character then the medieval warrior. But a knight on horse back is still a, if not the, dominent force of an open battlefeild for the entire 15th century, and most of the 16th. And even into the 17th. Battles usually came down to cavalry to decide them as pike and shot formations would lock horns and whomever won the cavalry fight would be able to turn ones flank. This means you need a skilled and elite cadre of cavalrymen. The death of the warrior ethos in Europe was a centralisation of power choking out a lot of the nobility, so they were just less noticeable. And in Japan it was the fact that the nation underwent several centuries of peace. You don't need samurai when there's no one to fight. Also, in the early days of fire arms, the high quality plate was proof from shot. In fact a pistol would usually be discharged at close range into a breast plate to prove it. As guns got better, this became less true (Which is why heavy cavalry abandonned full plate in favor of heavy breastplates), but at the presumed time era of PE, this will still be the case. In fact, wearing super heavy full plate makes FAR ore sense in a society were early guns are common (enough), because you really don't need that much armor to stop a sword, axe, or arrow.

They became quite popular for shooting large stone balls at castle walls. The time of the hand cannon was fairly breif, and militaries transitioned relatively rapidly to matchlock weapons, and from there quickly organizing into pike and shot formations. A matchlock is superior to a crossbow in every way except when it rains. A crossbow of any serious pull (EG able to penetrate knight plate at any range beyond you dangling off his lance) takes longer to reload then a gun. Yes. You have to set it down and hand crank it. Which takes a looooong time. Any other kind of crossbow (especially hand drawn) would mostly be laughed off by anyone with the most rudementary of armor. Also they can't be used in formation as easily as guns. If you were an adventurer, well you turn to magic doodads, but at the heart of it, a gun is going to serve you far better then any crossbow ever made. Even the crudest of hand firearms would be better then any crossbow beyond the heaviest arbalest. Also a spanish tercio would slaughter welsh longbows. Pikes in close formation actually deflect arrows surprisingly well and most men would have some sort of armor that'll stop arrows from the extreme ranges they have in advantage over matchlocks. Also an arrow doesn't kill that fast.

Well, to be fair, it was mostly because it's much easier to use and required far less training than a bow. And, of course, pentrated armour better. Well, to be fair, it was mostly because it's much easier to use and required far less training than a bow. And, of course, pentrated armour better. If this was the only reason, everyone would have used crossbows. Guns also tended to kill much better then arrows, bigger and meaner wound channels. They were also superior for using behind cover, such as castle walls and earthworks that were common in seige

I actually think that musket-level firearms (with relatively reliable flintlocks and starting to introduce rifled barrels) would already be a little too advanced. I'm hoping for super-primitive flintlocks, pre-flintlocks (hand-cannon with fuses), emplaced cannon, wheellocks and blunderbusses with zero ranged accuracy but a great deal of one-off damage potential. Also, maybe something like a Chinese fire lance: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Fire_lance Most of all, I'd like to see some amazing gunpowder/spell effect combinations! I actually think that musket-level firearms (with relatively reliable flintlocks and starting to introduce rifled barrels) would already be a little too advanced. I'm hoping for super-primitive flintlocks, pre-flintlocks (hand-cannon with fuses), emplaced cannon, wheellocks and blunderbusses with zero ranged accuracy but a great deal of one-off damage potential. Also, maybe something like a Chinese fire lance: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Fire_lance Most of all, I'd like to see some amazing gunpowder/spell effect combinations! Specifically the early mass fire arm was a matchlock based arquebus. Wheel locks also existed, but never became common because of the difficulty of making the wheel based firing mechinism, and usually was reserved for pistols weiled by nobles on horses. Though perhaps a bit past the intended time period as this would mark the transition from knights to carocals.

The primary method of european warfare from the 15th century to the 17th century was a pike and shot formation mix. The primary seige weapons in european warfare were cannons from the 14th century on. Guns and gun powder are common historically. In fact I want to see my tercios represented in lore. Sick of the brain bug that guns were useless junk. Every society pretty much dropped the bow in favor of the gun as soon as possible because in almost every way, even a primitive fire arm is flat out better then the best made long bow or crossbow. Especially in mass combat