Avatar Battle Royale Discussion Thread XXV: The Future (Imperfect) is...Soon

[Squark]

Yes, the flaming/Frost/Sonic/Corrosive/Shocking/Psychokinetic* enchantment. Sorry if that sounded sarcastic.



*So that last one's psionic. same difference.

[Shades of Gray]

Rapidwhatnow?

[Tiffanie Lirle]

@Tiff. Remember Outlaw Star? Perhaps magical ammunition is the key.

Was one of the first things that came to mind, but I have no idea how that would work.

[memnarch]

http://www.rapidshare.com/

[Lyinginbedmon]

Was one of the first things that came to mind, but I have no idea how that would work.

Presumably the same way you can enchant arrows to be flaming, rather than enchanting the bow (Which, by the rules, a flaming bow is actually more expensive than 50 flaming arrows)

[BRC]

Presumably the same way you can enchant arrows to be flaming, rather than enchanting the bow (Which, by the rules, a flaming bow is actually more expensive than 50 flaming arrows)

Well, is there a reason you couldn't enchant the guns. I imagine that many guns are enchanted, even if it's just +1 so they can get through Protection from Arrows spells. For example, most handheld automatics are probably enchanted in some way.

[Shades of Gray]

sent it via rapidshare.

[Mina Kobold]

I got an idea to the gun-enchantment topic (why swords are still used)

Maybe a lot of enchantment spells are supposed to make swords sharper or arrows pointier and has thus no positive effect on guns, and/or maybe the magical energy (especially with flaming arrows spells) makes the explosives go off at the wrong time in which case doing it would be stupid.

[Felyndiira]

I don't see a reason to ban magic enchantments on guns, admittedly. We could treat them in the same was as bow/arrow or a repeating crossbow (BAB attack, provoke AoO, and such), so they won't really be all that broken compared to a sword.

[Mina Kobold]

I don't see a reason to ban magic enchantments on guns, admittedly. We could treat them in the same was as bow/arrow or a repeating crossbow (BAB attack, provoke AoO, and such), so they won't really be all that broken compared to a sword.

The discussion was to find a reason why people still used swords which they didn't even when guns where even worse than these in real life, thus having the guns be able to be enchanted just as good would make the use of swords illogical, or something.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Wait...these are basically WW1 guns right?

Have we considered that they're just not as reliable as the modern guns we're all thinking of?

They could jam, misfire, etc.

[Tiffanie Lirle]

Wait...these are basically WW1 guns right?

Have we considered that they're just not as reliable as the modern guns we're all thinking of?

They could jam, misfire, etc.

Weren't we going by WWII weapons?

While I can see jamming/misfires as possible, I doubt it's really something you'll have to worry about. Unless you want your weapon to jam/misfire for whatever reason.

[Lyinginbedmon]

While I can see jamming/misfires as possible, I doubt it's really something you'll have to worry about. Unless you want your weapon to jam/misfire for whatever reason.

We're in a world where there is a god of directing storylines.

I'd say that's a possibility.

[-skimmer-]

The discussion was to find a reason why people still used swords which they didn't even when guns where even worse than these in real life, thus having the guns be able to be enchanted just as good would make the use of swords illogical, or something.

Well, there are dragons, magical beasts, ghosts and other supernatural creatures which just wanders around + atleast 1 of 6 mages can summon undead. Think you can destroy single skeleton before he gets you just with a gun? I don't think so.
When magic's involved, medieval weapon always comes handy

[Mina Kobold]

Well, there are dragons, magical beasts, ghosts and other supernatural creatures which just wanders around + atleast 1 of 6 mages can summon undead. Think you can destroy single skeleton before he gets you just with a gun? I don't think so.
When magic's involved, medieval weapon always comes handy

Have you considered that guns fire way longer than arrows which can hit you from 200 meters away? If the guy summons undead then I either shoot him (it could make them stop and at least cut off reinforcements) or just keep going back while shooting them one by one, a sword would put me in danger (especially since it would require training whereas a gun wouldn't) and a bow only shoot one arrow before I need to load (guns shoot far more bullets and a bow require training too) and neither of those weapons are anything worth against dragons without being magical, a gun could be used to shoot it in the eye even without magic and if it's magical then the former points are still valid.

[Felyndiira]

Have you considered that guns fire way longer than arrows which can hit you from 200 meters away? If the guy summons undead then I either shoot him (it could make them stop and at least cut off reinforcements) or just keep going back while shooting them one by one, a sword would put me in danger (especially since it would require training whereas a gun wouldn't) and a bow only shoot one arrow before I need to load (guns shoot far more bullets and a bow require training too) and neither of those weapons are anything worth against dragons without being magical, a gun could be used to shoot it in the eye even without magic and if it's magical then the former points are still valid.

A easy solution, then, would be to outlaw lead bullets (or any of those expand with contact ones). An iron bullet, when fired, will plausibly do about as much damage as an arrow, and with people notching 3-4 arrows (manyshot and co.) per volley and hitting all of them at very good accuracy, I don't think the firing rate of the gun will be a problem. It will be, essentially, a longer range bow (with the range being questionable since most people can't hit very accurately at 200').

An iron bullet does less damage than a sword, too. Ye olde sword can hit people without too much training, and if you hit someone in the abdomen, you have a good chance of just cleaving them in half with decent arm strength (or, at least, cut a decent-sized hole). If you hit someone in the abdomen with an iron bullet, the opponent is quite likely not dead. An arrow, in comparison, can shatter and ricochet within the body, which can cause quite a bit more damage than just an entry wound.

If we're considering D&D rules, of course, that just means that the gun has the same weakness as the bow and arrow - namely, firing is a standard action, and running is a full. Thus, unless if we're all packing automatics, I fail to see the problem with handguns and co.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Or we could just go back to the D&D ruling and fair sense and say they pack swords to counter Protection from Arrows affecting them just as well.

[-skimmer-]

Have you considered that guns fire way longer than arrows which can hit you from 200 meters away? If the guy summons undead then I either shoot him (it could make them stop and at least cut off reinforcements) or just keep going back while shooting them one by one, a sword would put me in danger (especially since it would require training whereas a gun wouldn't) and a bow only shoot one arrow before I need to load (guns shoot far more bullets and a bow require training too) and neither of those weapons are anything worth against dragons without being magical, a gun could be used to shoot it in the eye even without magic and if it's magical then the former points are still valid.

1. I guess most of fights in FI will be inside of buildings and on the streets, so range is trivial matter there...

2. I figured undead would be mainly counter attack against toxic gas which peacekeepers use to ambush resistance, which means summoner would be either hidden somewhere else or use the gas itself as cover (if used gas has some kind of color and summoner has appropriate protection, of course).
So it's unlikely you would even see his face, let alone shoot him down.

3. We're not talking about slow zombies. Faster undead minions like skeletons can run as fast as you do, they're cheap and they don't fear bullets

4. We're just 15 years after FFF, most of people are more familiar with swords and bows, and use of any firearm needs training too.

5. I doubt bullet in the eye can hurt a dragon...

[BRC]

Also, they've been making magic swords and bows for X thousand years. They've had about 15 years to make magic guns, so if you're looking for magic weapons, it's much better to go with the older stuff.

[Grim ranger]

Also, they've been making magic swords and bows for X thousand years. They've had about 15 years to make magic guns, so if you're looking for magic weapons, it's much better to go with the older stuff.

And of course, if everything else fails, the sword users can throw their weapons. Everyone knows it works 100% of the time with instant kills

[Mina Kobold]

A easy solution, then, would be to outlaw lead bullets (or any of those expand with contact ones). An iron bullet, when fired, will plausibly do about as much damage as an arrow, and with people notching 3-4 arrows (manyshot and co.) per volley and hitting all of them at very good accuracy, I don't think the firing rate of the gun will be a problem. It will be, essentially, a longer range bow (with the range being questionable since most people can't hit very accurately at 200').

An iron bullet does less damage than a sword, too. Ye olde sword can hit people without too much training, and if you hit someone in the abdomen, you have a good chance of just cleaving them in half with decent arm strength (or, at least, cut a decent-sized hole). If you hit someone in the abdomen with an iron bullet, the opponent is quite likely not dead. An arrow, in comparison, can shatter and ricochet within the body, which can cause quite a bit more damage than just an entry wound.

The longbow shoot a maximum of 30 arrows a minute (compared to a crossbow which shoot maximum 3 bolts a minute that's fast) a gun can shoot far quicker, even a revolver could shoot several shots before a bowman can shoot one. A sword also needs to be in melee range which a gun doesn't so I bet using it ain't a good idea if you are too long away. The outlawing of lead bullets and the like is a good idea since it would make the resistance much more powerful (they don't care if it's legal) so let's stick with it

And by the way, this is compared to a handgun, a riffle or the like is much more powerful and a sniper-riffle can kill you before you can see the sniper.

I just can't see guns and arrows be as good as guns in war.

EDIT:

1. I guess most of fights in FI will be inside of buildings and on the streets, so range is trivial matter there...

2. I figured undead would be mainly counter attack against toxic gas which peacekeepers use to ambush resistance, which means summoner would be either hidden somewhere else or use the gas itself as cover (if used gas has some kind of color and summoner has appropriate protection, of course).
So it's unlikely you would even see his face, let alone shoot him down.

3. We're not talking about slow zombies. Faster undead minions like skeletons can run as fast as you do, they're cheap and they don't fear bullets

4. We're just 15 years after FFF, most of people are more familiar with swords and bows, and use of any firearm needs training too.

5. I doubt bullet in the eye can hurt a dragon...

1. So? A gun is still better than a bow and can be used to knock down people if their swords looks too dangerous.

2. That was plan a, plan B is to blow up the place when you have the time, the gun is to get that time

3. So by using a gun against them so that you can at least run a little instead of fighting close to them (bad idea if there's many of them, you can't parry all attacks you know) is bad why?

4. It still take 10 years to train using a bow, I think using a gun would be far easier for the youngest ones at least, as said it's at least as good as a bow (which also takes about 10 years to make)

5. Ever tried getting sand in your eye? Imagine that but the sand is shot at high speed into your eye. Besides what can a sword do to the dragon without magic? It's scales are supposed to be really though.

@BRC: I was arguing for that guns are best on equal terms and that we needed a way that they don't over power swords too much, people not being used to enchant guns are a good reason for that

[Felyndiira]

The longbow shoot a maximum of 30 arrows a minute (compared to a crossbow which shoot maximum 3 bolts a minute that's fast) a gun can shoot far quicker, even a revolver could shoot several shots before a bowman can shoot one. A sword also needs to be in melee range which a gun doesn't so I bet using it ain't a good idea if you are too long away. The outlawing of lead bullets and the like is a good idea since it would make the resistance much more powerful (they don't care if it's legal) so let's stick with it

And by the way, this is compared to a handgun, a riffle or the like is much more powerful and a sniper-riffle can kill you before you can see the sniper.

I just can't see guns and arrows be as good as guns in war.

I thought we're using semi-D&D rules, where your number of attacks/firing rate are equal to some imaginary BAB.

Even if it isn't - a real-life longbow user can shoot an average of 30 per minute, true. However, what about the bow users with manyshot? Since fantasy heroines are quite often seen firing multiple arrows at once (with precise accuracy, too), they can plausibly fire four arrows at once and up that rate to 120 per minute while losing little accuracy.

A gun user, however, is limited to one shot per fire. Granted, there are such things as multiple-barreled guns and SMGs, but we can easily waive that by saying "those do not exist" or apply an inverse firing rate/accuracy ratio in practice. Thus, that archer firing four fiery burst arrows at once can compare quite well with that gunner shooting four bullets per two seconds with similar levels of accuracy.

A rifle is more powerful than a handgun, sure, but I haven't seen very many people that can firing it with any effectiveness while running in the opposite direction (it has a lot of recoil, after all). A sniper rifle requires precise aiming and is easy to break, which means that you're probably not going to be running around with it in open battle. Both are very situational weapons that would not be suitable for everyone's combat styles, and unless if we veer toward the automatics, neither has a very high firing rate.

And, of course, not being able to enchant guns brings up another problem - if situations requiring magical weapons (DR) comes up often, then no one that matter would invest in a gun as opposed to an enchantable bow and arrow. If situations requiring magical weapons are rare, then a gun would still be better than that +5 flaming soul-drinking bastard sword (unless if magical weapons can deflect bullets, in which case anyone that matters would have said swords and guns would become obsolete once again).

[Mina Kobold]

I thought we're using semi-D&D rules, where your number of attacks/firing rate are equal to some imaginary BAB.

Even if it isn't - a real-life longbow user can shoot an average of 30 per minute, true. However, what about the bow users with manyshot? Since fantasy heroines are quite often seen firing multiple arrows at once (with precise accuracy, too), they can plausibly fire four arrows at once and up that rate to 120 per minute while losing little accuracy.

A gun user, however, is limited to one shot per fire. Granted, there are such things as multiple-barreled guns and SMGs, but we can easily waive that by saying "those do not exist" or apply an inverse firing rate/accuracy ratio in practice. Thus, that archer firing four fiery burst arrows at once can compare quite well with that gunner shooting four bullets per two seconds with similar levels of accuracy.

A rifle is more powerful than a handgun, sure, but I haven't seen very many people that can firing it with any effectiveness while running in the opposite direction (it has a lot of recoil, after all). A sniper rifle requires precise aiming and is easy to break, which means that you're probably not going to be running around with it in open battle. Both are very situational weapons that would not be suitable for everyone's combat styles, and unless if we veer toward the automatics, neither has a very high firing rate.

And, of course, not being able to enchant guns brings up another problem - if situations requiring magical weapons (DR) comes up often, then no one that matter would invest in a gun as opposed to an enchantable bow and arrow. If situations requiring magical weapons are rare, then a gun would still be better than that +5 flaming soul-drinking bastard sword (unless if magical weapons can deflect bullets, in which case anyone that matters would have said swords and guns would become obsolete once again).

I didn't mean that a bow is bad just that a gun is more practical (who has the 10+ years it would take to learn that trick anyway ) while shooting more arrows would be better you would still have to use time to put them on the bow while a gun only after 20+ bullets needs to be loaded, and you can use two guns (or a rocket launcher for that matter) besides shooting more than one arrow with high accuracy is unrealistic (doesn't mean we can't do it in ABR though)

You've seen people fire a riffle in combat? I don't know that much about guns but a sniper-riffle can kill from miles away, so having guns for close range and a sniper-riffle would be effective.

I don't think DR is a problem in FI (we are fighting regular humans not monsters) and even if magical weapons could reflect bullets then we again need overhuman abilities to use that (in real life you can't move that fast) and since even black-powder 17th century guns can penetrate metal armor I don't think a mook's weapon is good enough to do it anyway (so it's at least effective against them)

[-skimmer-]

The longbow shoot a maximum of 30 arrows a minute (compared to a crossbow which shoot maximum 3 bolts a minute that's fast) a gun can shoot far quicker, even a revolver could shoot several shots before a bowman can shoot one. A sword also needs to be in melee range which a gun doesn't so I bet using it ain't a good idea if you are too long away. The outlawing of lead bullets and the like is a good idea since it would make the resistance much more powerful (they don't care if it's legal) so let's stick with it

And by the way, this is compared to a handgun, a riffle or the like is much more powerful and a sniper-riffle can kill you before you can see the sniper.

I just can't see guns and arrows be as good as guns in war.

Given how many ways a mage have to outsmart bullets, I still think sword is equal to a gun there as most fights will end in close combat anyway.

EDIT:



1. So? A gun is still better than a bow and can be used to knock down people if their swords looks too dangerous.

2. That was plan a, plan B is to blow up the place when you have the time, the gun is to get that time

3. So by using a gun against them so that you can at least run a little instead of fighting close to them (bad idea if there's many of them, you can't parry all attacks you know) is bad why?

4. It still take 10 years to train using a bow, I think using a gun would be far easier for the youngest ones at least, as said it's at least as good as a bow (which also takes about 10 years to make)

5. Ever tried getting sand in your eye? Imagine that but the sand is shot at high speed into your eye. Besides what can a sword do to the dragon without magic? It's scales are supposed to be really though.

@BRC: I was arguing for that guns are best on equal terms and that we needed a way that they don't over power swords too much, people not being used to enchant guns are a good reason for that

1. Do I have to mention you'll need a whole factory to make bullets while arrows can be crafted from what you'll find in forest? Guns are here not even a 15 years, I doubt there's enough bullets to spare for proper practice training. So the best long range wariors are still among archers, which means they're also much more accurate at longer ranges than guns.

2. There's always enough magic to spare for few protections for arrows, then the long range combat changes into close combat massacre really fast.

3. If you're not fighter or mage then all you can do is run.....but what if somebody arms skeletons with bows, huh? I wonder if they could use guns as well.....

4. 10 years to make a bow? Isn't that.....um....too much?

5. Sneak to sleeping dragon, find a spot where two scales are connected to each other, and then push the sword in as hard as you can......if you did it right, then you killed a dragon. If not, then you're just not strong enough....

[Mad Mask]

^Dragons in D&D don't work like that. A gun would penetrate its DR like a hot knife through butter.

Maybe the hypothetical fantasy archer can fire a lot of arrows, a gunshot is a lot more deadly than an arrow shot and has a lot more range. It's also easier to use, especially since FI-era peacekeepers were about 5 or 10 at the end of Fat Fish Fury, didn't have to live in the "sword and bow" era and subsequently could easily be trained to use guns. And most people aren't fantasy archers in Avbaroy, so the gun is the more logical choice, being more powerful, faster (2 shots/round versus 1 shot/round for the bow, D&D rules-wise), easier to use and more accurate.

There's also the fact that the ALF doesn't have access to a lot of spell-casters and treasures its remaining ones. Should one of them arrive at the scene, elite Peacekeepers with automatic rifles will be dispatched (if he's really powerful), or the regular peacekeepers will shoot grenades at him, which he has absolutely no chance of surviving.

[Squark]

Coments on Undead vs. Guns-

Zombie headshot vulnerability aside, anything short of An Obscene amount of More Dakka (We're talking Modern Miniguns here) is not very effective against undead. You shoot a human in the arm, he's lost much of the use of that arm. You shoot a zombie in the arm, the zombie just has a bit of lead in its arm. And as for skeletons...


Its a bunch of bone, for crying out loud! With not vital tissues to damage, the only was do destroy it with a gun is to shoot it into tiny little peaces with a BFG.

Also, in WW1, melee combat was still an important part of trench warfare, even if it usually involved hitting the other guy with your shovel*.




*As All Quiet on the Western Front points out, aside from setting against a charge, a shovel is a much better weapon than a bayonet. Not only can you cut with the sharp edge, but its heavy enough to crack open someone's skull or kill a feral rat.



Ultimately, I think we should take a Star Wars: Saga Edition stance on balance here. In terms of base damage, nothing beats the 3dice damage of a blaster. Slugthrowers, Sonic Weapons,** suitibly enhance melee weapons, and lightsabers deal 2 dice of damage, and more primitive weapons, like unenhanced swords, maces, batons, etc. do 1 dice of damage. The catch is this- Yes, a lightsaber or a vibroblade does less BASE damage than a blaster, but a melee fighter can make up for that with his strength bonus and various abilities that make melee combat the equal of ranged combat.



**Sonic weapons are useful in that lightsabers can't deflect them

[Mad Mask]

Although FI has roughly World War I tech, it does not have trenches and other World War I settings, since there is no big war between nations with a lot of soldiers and weapons. It's more urban/guerilla warfare.

EDIT: A grenade or a rocket will take care of the skeleton rather easily. Let's not forget that the Peacekeepers have more than just rifles and revolvers.

[Threeshades]

Although FI has roughly World War I tech, it does not have trenches and other World War I settings, since there is no big war between nations with a lot of soldiers and weapons. It's more urban/guerilla warfare.

EDIT: A grenade or a rocket will take care of the skeleton rather easily. Let's not forget that the Peacekeepers have more than just rifles and revolvers.

But grenades and rockets are at least to my knowledge a bit to expensive and heavy to carry to just carry them around as your standard defense against a Lich's army.

[Squark]

True. Also, cramped quarters are not good places to use explosives, unless you want to be covered in ceiling.

EDIT: Also, considering both sides do have access to magic, carrying explosives would be a bad idea, since I'm pretty sure fireballing someone carrying grenades would trigger a chain reaction...

Also, when you think about it, a frag grenade isn't all that useful against the aforementioned skeleton.

[Mad Mask]

But grenades and rockets are at least to my knowledge a bit to expensive and heavy to carry to just carry them around as your standard defense against a Lich's army.

Armies of undead (and even lone ones) aren't exactly common in Avbaroy, even in FFF-era. If that threat did come up the UNA would either carpet-bomb them, use tanks or use Sovice units.

EDIT: ^ Grenade may accomplish the same things and have a superior blast radius.

And concussion grenades are both great in enclosed spaces and deliver the same through explosive power alone, making them useful against skeletons.