Do you want firearms in Project Eternity?

[Bloodshard]

Only if they fit the technological setting of the RPG.

[Karranthain]

Speaking of firearms, check out this topic for some thoughts on their mechanics : http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60205-weapon-mechanics/

[Scab]

Impossible to say before I know more about the setting. Instinctively... no. But I'll keep an open mind until I see what they have in mind.

[Metabot]

nope, never i want medieval setting

 

It's a fantasy world not connected to our own, its history can be completely different.

[rjshae]

I wouldn't mind seeing simple firearms of the flintlock variety; requiring a long time to reload in melee but giving dramatic effect when it is used. But I'd also hope that the designers give it a unique magic-realm twist so it can't be mass manufactured. It could be this realm's equivalent of Greek Fire, which was available in the middle ages in Europe.

[Delterius]

The danger is, they either need to go full steampunk to make it work.

 

Ever seen a hand-cannon or a arquebus?

Okay, full late-medieval.

 

Regardless of any pointless parellel one might try to trace to RL history, I'm pretty sure the pre-1400s weren't steampunk.

[KateM]

I want to be able to play as a firearms-using character, so hopefully they aren't THAT rare. I can deal with a 12-second reload time as long as they're sufficiently powerful weapons.

 

And as many have pointed out, firearms were a medieval weapon. Firearms were around before even plate armor.

[Wintersong]

If this game has magitek (as rare and limited as it could be), I'll be pleasantly surprised. And overjoyed if my character can play with any of its toys (after some hard work and ass kicking). But I do get the feeling that some people may hate the idea of magitek so I'll just cuddle my mundane firearm.

[dknight99]

I'm not a fan of firearms in a fantasy setting mainly because magic already serves as a great long range artillery force. Why bother investing in firearms when you can have magic and be throwing fireballs? Early inaccurate firearms would be very inefficient compare to magic.

[Delterius]

I'm not a fan of firearms in a fantasy setting mainly because magic already serves as a great long range artillery force. Why bother investing in firearms when you can have magic and be throwing fireballs? Early inaccurate firearms would be very inefficient compare to magic.

 

That depends on how ineffective and exclusive magic actually is.

[metiman]

Your mage can only shoot some limited number of fireballs before he runs out of 'ammo' and has to sleep. Firearms give you another long range option. I don't see any problem with them as long as it fits in with the setting as I'm sure it will.

[Nivenus]

I'm not a fan of firearms in a fantasy setting mainly because magic already serves as a great long range artillery force. Why bother investing in firearms when you can have magic and be throwing fireballs? Early inaccurate firearms would be very inefficient compare to magic.

 

The main limiting factor of early firearms was their reload time and their low penetration force (compared with rifles), not their accuracy. Most battles weren't conducted at a long enough range to make flintlocks terribly inaccurate.

[KateM]

I'm not a fan of firearms in a fantasy setting mainly because magic already serves as a great long range artillery force. Why bother investing in firearms when you can have magic and be throwing fireballs? Early inaccurate firearms would be very inefficient compare to magic.

You could say the same thing of siege weapons, but those are still common in fantasy settings where there are wizards with the power to pull down walls bare handed. Early firearms also aren't nearly as innaccurate as people believe them to be. Rifling was a 15th century invention.

 

Not fussed either way on this, so long as bows and arrows still have a place. They could just make guns do more damage, yet be unreliable in some way; for example, a lower chance-to-hit, a small chance of exploding in the user's hand, or longer time between shots to reload.

I don't like the idea of having my weapon randomly explode in my face. That's not something that commonly happens anyway or nobody would have used them. The point of your weapopn isn't to kill yourself with it, after all. A longer load time is acceptable to me. A skilled user can load, aim and fire a musket in 12 seconds. A bow, maybe four. 3x longer to load for 3x more damage would be fair.

[Shevek]

If you have firearms in the world, then there would be no need for bows/xbows. I have never seen depictions of American Colonists fending off the British with wooden longbows. Why? Well, they had guns.

 

I prefer bows/xbows in my fantasy games.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Shevek

[KateM]

If you have firearms in the world, then there would be no need for bows/xbows. I have never seen depictions of American Colonists fending off the British with wooden longbows. Why? Well, they had guns.

 

I prefer bows/xbows in my fantasy games.

Bows and crossbows were still used commonly up until the 17th century. And even during the American Revolution, the colonists fought off British-aligned natives with bows.

 

Are you named after the character from The Dispossed?

[Carcosa]

it's not like firearm and ammunition factories spring up overnight. we don't have dwarf slave caravans kidnapping elven children so their dainty little fingers can fit inside the barrels of mass-produced guns to clean out the rifling or anything.

 

i hesitate to put words in the developers mouths and everything, but it seems fair clear to me that the 1) guns are super uncommon and either a luxury or some barbaric implement viewed with suspicion at best and revulsion at worst and 2) it's not like the SS John Moses Browning is rolling up Geiran's Grasp and off-loading tens of thousands of machine-guns to be handed out across the nation. there's no way that a rare, most likely strange and possibly mysterious weapon will be produced in such quantities as to reduce the necessity of all other long-ranged weaponry. it's outrageous.

 

regardless, people will like what they like and nothing i can say will change it. i just hope Obsidian sticks to their guns on this one.

[Shevek]

Ya, love that book.

 

To your point, if I was a colonist and some SOB handed me a longbow, I'd pass it to the next guy till I got a gun.

[Drakxii]

Yes, but I love steampunk and warhammer dwarfs.

[Nivenus]

Ya, love that book.

 

To your point, if I was a colonist and some SOB handed me a longbow, I'd pass it to the next guy till I got a gun.

 

English longbows were superior to early guns in certain qualities. They had better range and accuracy, for example, in addition to reloading more quickly. Crossbows I'll grant you though - they're essentially low power guns.

[JWestfall]

I have nothing against firearms being in the setting, especially since nothing more is really known at this point. A setting can be great, boring, inspiring, rediculous, cliche or unique with or without firearms. I assume Obsidian already has a vision for their setting, and that firearms are there because they fit that vision.

 

Besides, how awesome would it be to cram a Musket Of Divine Retribution +4 into a Lich's stinking face and pull the trigger until it goes "boom"?

[Xantomas]

Yes, but like lots of other people only if they are rare, crude, and have downsides. A little steampunk is fun.

[DCParry]

Ya, love that book.

 

To your point, if I was a colonist and some SOB handed me a longbow, I'd pass it to the next guy till I got a gun.

 

English longbows were superior to early guns in certain qualities. They had better range and accuracy, for example, in addition to reloading more quickly. Crossbows I'll grant you though - they're essentially low power guns.

 

Well, lower power is relative. A crossbow will still kill you, and often will punch through armor. Crossbows have the advantage of both the point and click interface (heh) and being easier to reload than a firearm. In some ways it is the easiest ranged weapon to use, and maybe this could reflected in the mechanics somehow (1 proficiency level to become competent in the crossbow as opposed to 3 or 4 for the long bow - these could either be in separate trees with their own boni [i.e. more points in crossbow increases armor penetration or reduces reload time, while more points in long bow increases range or some such] or a generic ranged talent with branching trees [that is not to say all crossbow users could eventually become long bow experts, but one might assume if you are accustomed to firing a long bow, you might have a slight advantage in the use of a crossbow - understanding things like range, wind, better depth perception and so on - than someone who has never shot anything in their life.

[Shevek]

Ya, love that book.

 

To your point, if I was a colonist and some SOB handed me a longbow, I'd pass it to the next guy till I got a gun.

 

English longbows were superior to early guns in certain qualities. They had better range and accuracy, for example, in addition to reloading more quickly. Crossbows I'll grant you though - they're essentially low power guns.

 

Ok, thank wikipedia for this, but apparently here is the history.

 

1. Arquebus - early 16th century, sucked, only good in large vollies, bow/xbow = better

2. Musket, ok, better than bow and xbow @ 16th century in most situations

3. Rifle, way better, bow/xbow = useless

 

Quote: "The cost of gunpowder also gradually fell. By the 16th century the handheld firearm became commonplace, replacing the crossbow and longbow in all advanced armies"

 

If you have guns, then all bows/xbows are useless in the world (or should be). The arquebus was quickly improved. Sucky guns were only around for a short time. Best not to have them at all unless you want to trivialize bows/xbows.

[TheVrolok]

In a word; no.

[Nivenus]

 

English longbows were superior to early guns in certain qualities. They had better range and accuracy, for example, in addition to reloading more quickly. Crossbows I'll grant you though - they're essentially low power guns.

 

Ok, thank wikipedia for this, but apparently here is the history.

 

1. Arquebus - early 16th century, sucked, only good in large vollies, bow/xbow = better

2. Musket, ok, better than bow and xbow @ 16th century in most situations

3. Rifle, way better, bow/xbow = useless

 

Quote: "The cost of gunpowder also gradually fell. By the 16th century the handheld firearm became commonplace, replacing the crossbow and longbow in all advanced armies"

 

If you have guns, then all bows/xbows are useless in the world (or should be). The arquebus was quickly improved. Sucky guns were only around for a short time. Best not to have them at all unless you want to trivialize bows/xbows.

 

Except in your own words, bows were better than arquebuses and occasionally (and situationally) better than muskets.

 

My point is, yes, guns were altogether, taken as a whole, an improvement in technology over longbows. But they didn't phase them out or obsolete them completely. Nor did they eliminate the (much more inefficient) yumi in Sengoku era Japan. Different tools for different purposes.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Nivenus