How would you have both guns and swords in the same game without one being significantly better than the other or both being mechanically identical?
Formal sword duels are an extremely important tradition in the society focused on and so social conflicts are always in danger of turning into a duel to first blood or even death, depending on the challenge. Bringing a gun to a swordfight might be a great way to assassinate someone but you'd better hope you didn't need any respect as anything but a ruthless scoundrel.
Two ways that I always fall back on:
-Standard enemies are bestial and monstrously tough, and want to close to melee range. If all you have to defend yourself with when they get there is the butt of your gun, you're liable to get eaten.
-Tech level is such that percussion cap revolvers are a highly advanced piece of weaponry. Guns in general take a lot of time to reload, time which could be spent cutting the enemy's face off with a sword.
Limit guns in terms of Available ammunition and or reload speed.
In a magic-friendly system, swords are easily enhanced with magic, while guns are either very difficult to magically amplify, or are very volatile if you use magic on them.
Not quite like that, I mean swords for fighting people since they all have personal shielding, guns for fighting monsters, because they don't.
But hey, if you want your interpretation, go for it.
One of the best ways to start is to not fall for the myth of personal firearm hyper-deadliness.
Being shot with a firearm is not more deadly than being hit by a sword, knife, arrow or crossbow bolt.
What made firearms the preferred personal combat weapon is ease of training combined with being more compact less bulky. Firearms overwhelmed the bow and crossbow in ranged combat and were less useless in close combat meaning that the sword was less necessary in melee.
By making it like real life, where guns were adopted as soon as they became viable battlefield weapons in the 1500s, and where close combat weapons are still issued and used for close-quarters fighting on a regular basis.
Guns are not magical bullshit. The only reason it could seem like you need magical bullshit for close combat weapons to be able to beat guns is if you think guns are magical bullshit themselves. People with guns are regularly killed by people with knives, etc. Police are highly trained gun users often going up against incompetent retards with kitchen knives and those retards pose a grave threat. A competent swordsman in a building who knows the police is coming is a sufficient threat that you must send in a SWAT team to realistically take them out. Set the table just right and hey, all of a sudden it takes multiple highly skilled military-grade firearms users to overcome one guy with a sword. Even then if he wants to kill more than he wants to live he can probably kill at least one.
The only place where guns decisively beat close combat weapons with no chance for close combat weapons to fight is on an open pitched battlefield, WHICH IS A SHIT GAME ANYWAY even if you use only guns.
You can make shooting and cutting coexist easily. Strict realism gives a lot of advantages to a sword a gun won't have in the right circumstances. A level of unrealism makes them entirely comparable and good in any way you want. The only way to make them unfair is to apply magical bullshit to guns and insist on swords being realistic, which is exactly like the wizard-and-fighter Pathfinder-grade faggotry except somehow it's never questioned.
Guns became only superior to melee weapons once cased ammunition became the standard. Black powder weapons were very slow to load. For cavalry men, two revolvers meant 12 shots and most likely no chance to reload in combat. For the rest of the combat you had to rely on saber. Infantry men usually could fire a few volleys and then had to rely on their bayonet. On the open field, massed firearms units have the edge, but in forests or urban environments, melee weapons would have a slight edge.
This. You can be fatally stabbed just as easily as shot. A crossbow will easily put a hole through you. Guns are just really convenient given their ease of use. They're great weapons, but they're not magic kill lasers.
Game mechanically, I've seen games give people with ranged weapons significant penalties when pressed. This makes having a melee backup important in any situation where enemies can get close or start close, which will be pretty often. This is also fairly realistic. If ammunition is scare there's incentive not to waste it, so melee has some appeal. Pistols are also far less accurate than most people think, so you could make them inherently inaccurate. If the guns are primitive, they're good for single shots. If the guns are revolvers, they're good for several shots, but then have a reload time.
As the whole Olliver Cromwell bits in history have taught us, the weapons are only a part of the equation, armors are equally important.
Swordsman wore heavy half-plate, which protected them from melee weapons, arrows, and bolts, but worthless against bullets.
Archers wore mail-shirts that helped deflect blades a bit, but didn't hinder their mobility.
Riflemen, at the most, wore pic related iron cuirass, though most didn't wear that till the mid 16th century. Pretty much meant to just protect vitals, while providing the most mobility (which they'd need considering reload time).
Knights had training over the riflemen (besides the high misfire rates), though they'd never "kill them with a knife" considering their weight and speed, they were martial experts who'd see riding up on hourseback and slaying with a weapon on first pass as child's play.
There is a natural equalizer inherent in real life, the actual problem with firearms was that you can put a rifle in every peasants hands and have a rifleman, but you can't just put a sword in anyone's hands and have a knight/swordsman.
>Swordsman wore heavy half-plate, which protected them from melee weapons, arrows, and bolts, but worthless against bullets.
What year are we talking about here? Because plate armor, bows, crossbows, guns and melee weapons coexisted for at least a couple centuries.
Gun bullets do not magically phase through armor. Pic related.
I'm mostly thinking late 14th/early 15th, but I might be mistaken, it's been awhile since my osprey/mount&eblade research-mania. I know full-plate knights pre-guns is a misnomer, but I thought half-plate was at least 50% used at the time.
The only thing I'm positive on is that whatever the contemporary armor for knights were at the time, it wasn't cutting it, historically, with bullets.
But against, let me clarify that I'm an enthusiast not an expert, and I fully admit that I could be highly mistaken.
Oh, I'm completely ignorant on that technology. I only studied up til the very beginning of gun use in europe (back then I was only interested in pre-gun warfare). I mean, I did study Oliver Cromwell specifically, but that was tied to a Celt study (Gallic war, rome v britons, etc), but artillery is a big blind spot for me.
>The only thing I'm positive on is that whatever the contemporary armor for knights were at the time, it wasn't cutting it, historically, with bullets.
Well, like every means of offense and defense, they were in an evolutionary arms race, but generally, before the invention of rifling, most suits of metal armor were capable of stopping most gun bullets at medium and long range.
Italian and German armorers (considered the best in Europe) often shot at their own suits of armor, like in >>43458776, and left the dent there to prove to the buyer that the plate could deflect a bullet.
That's where the term "bulletproof" comes from: the proof of deflecting a bullet.
So, to go back to OP's question, just don't make the mistake i see a lot of people making when thinking of guns in medieval/fantasy games: "guns are magical death wands that phase through armor and instantly kill anything they're pointed at."
Guns of the time were expensive, slow, clumsy, inaccurate, noisy, performed badly (or not at all) in wet weather and, while they were better at armor penetration than most bows or crossbows, they didn't automatically invalidate plate armor.
Of course, they had their advantages, too: it was easy to train someone in their use, they were shocking to man and horse alike, and they were generally more damaging and dangerous, on a successful hit, than an arrow or a quarrel.
Mechanically, in most systems I'd render them as relatively short-ranged, high damage, with maybe a small bonus to penetrating armor (at short range, if applicable), with a severely long reload time.
Encourage your PCs to fight swashbuckler-style, striding into battle with a few loaded weapons, firing them and then discarding them immediately, without bothering to reload, and then switching to a melee weapon. It works and it looks cool.
Guns appeared in Europe in the late 1300s, by the end of the 1400s, they were widespread.
By the time full-plate could be produced outside of singular instances, it had already become purely ceremonial/obsolete.
Full suits of plate started to appear on battlefields in the early 1400s and its creation had taken on an assembly line process by the end of the War of the Roses.
The 21 foot rule only applies to drawing your firearm.
Partial suits of plate were appearing by the second phase of the Hundred Years War, the latter part of the 1300s. It seems like you're talking specifically about Gothic and Maximilian armor.
Sukiyaki Western Django. It has Tarantino in it. It's that kind of movie.
Honestly I think some of those are worse than being shot by a firearm. Arrows and bolts in particular, since they were intentionally hard to remove.
Yeah, but it turns out you don't actually have to remove them most of the time. You can just patch it up and you'll be fine. The whole "the bullet must be removed!" trope is Hollywood.
But an arrow? That's bigger and more troublesome and attached to a shaft of wood sticking out of you.
Hey, a mace or a chair leg is also a melee weapon!
Light mercenaries with commando speed could probably survive a single volley to deliver a death blow.
Personally, I actually like DnD 5es approach, though it doesn't really fit realism, it's not really realistic to walk off a sword wound eithet. You don't get proficency with a firearm unless you take it as a feat or through training due to being new. They do a good amount, but not instant kill levels of damage, and they were clumsy and hard to fight with in melee. Maybe an accuracy penalty or ignoring some AC would be better, but then the crossbow has nothinh fot getting through AC, and most fights happen within fifty feet anyway.
Also, no million failure tables. Yes, early firearms were unreliable, but they're going to fire more than not.
Literally every source of info out there says they weren't in common use the mid 16th century, and nobody claimed they didn't exist before hand, like the late 1300s and guns in Europe. They existed in rare forms before becoming more common.
Best character. Prove me wrong.
>By the time full-plate could be produced outside of singular instances, it had already become purely ceremonial/obsolete.
>Guns appeared in Europe in the late 1300s, by the end of the 1400s, they were widespread.
Because mass produced full plate was in common usage during the 15th century.
Yes, in the 16th century full plate was no longer in common usage, dropped in favour of half plate, but it was still in usage during the 15th century.
Yes, they were used on the field, in the late 15th century, but they then, rifles already had been floating around. Both Japan and Europe both switched to the more superior munition armor in the beginning of the 15th.
Guns have really, really low damage. Like, disappointingly low. They are effectively equivalent to longsword fighting at a short distance. To compensate for this lameness, they effectively ignore most armor. (Source: pathfinder)
Combat is improbably cinematic, and most fights take place in locations with short lines of sight, preventing players from just sitting back 300 yards out of the engagement, unless they are specifically built for that, in which case the game master is permitted to have ninjas attack their sniping position. (Source: Feng Shui)
Melee weapons have *way* more special moves attached to them than ranged ones. And those special moves range from ending a fight in one blow to mowing through a crowd of enemies in one turn.
thing is thats not really the reasons guns and swords have diffrent advantages . there are a lot more interested factors.but you'd know that if you actually read the thread insted of barging in and assuming you knew everything
For a really long time, guns and swords co-existed. Guns were for range, swords were for close-quarters stuff. Think boarding actions; a brace of pistols if you could afford it, and a cutlass.
Make all melee weapons capable of cleave or whirlwind style attacks, and give them defensive bonus, maybe they can oppose an attack roll to parry. The key here is to give more options instead of taking some away.
You're right about the swat team thing, but only because clearing a building is retardedly dangerous. Switch the scenario around and suddenly the gun defending the house from a swat team of expert swordsmen wins every time. Guns are superior in every way except amount of ammunition.
Pike and shot is the only real option unless you just have melee weapons as sidearms, like American Civil War.
Fire and Sword setting sounds amazing.
I believe you're talking about guns and swords co-existing in a fantasy setting, so:
First, treat firearms as realistic as possible: they need to be aimed, reloaded, can jam and damage is limited. Make guns useful against humanoids. Firearms specifically designed to kill huge monsters have to be extremely difficult to handle: imprecise and heavy as fuck, so much that adventurers prefer to hit dragons with lances and swords.
Second, go nuts with swords: make flashy combat styles that allow swordsmen to parry bullets (but don't give this ability to a normal goon, though) and cleave giant creatures in twain with one strike.
I think this is the best way to balance things without making them the same shit.
Literally just go play SoS. Guns and Swords weren't identical, but they weren't really better or worse than each other except situationally.
You have a missile weapon that can kill at range, but which is easily defeated with cover, concealment, heavy armor, or even just luck and rapid closing. You must find a good firing position and not engage enemies up close. Also, God help you if there are multiple enemies.
You have a melee weapon that can kill close-up with little chance of being defeated, but which has no ability to attack at range. You must rely on either not getting hit through cover or surprise, or you must be so heavily armored that you can be hit and still close with the enemy. Multiple enemies? As long as they don't have melee weapons themselves, you should be fine.
you can blend guns and swords together very well by just doing it in a vaguely realistic fashion in the right setting (ie, GURPS is, unsurprisingly, a good example, as early firearms like muskets can take upwards of 30 turns to re-load, but have a lot of power behind them)
guns are slow to reload and inaccurate, but powerful and reasonably versatile.
whereas a swordsman can style all over somebody for however long they like, but have to actually get there first
it's not too different to representing crossbows/bows vs swords in the end, except that bows and crossbows are typically faster than guns.
the main problem comes when you want to have modern firearms, although even then i'm currently running a GURPS campaign where one of my players is wielding a fucking halberd against modern-tier soldiers, and is getting a good amount of the team's kills and disables, and in some cases is even better at killing than the rest of the team's guns (partially due to range penalties on guns, requiring gun-users to either take aim or start shitting out as many bullets as possible to make up)
In my setting i did it that firearms are expensive to manufacture, relatively new and rely on magic as an ammo sauce.
Mages are able to power the guns themselves using their own magic, but they quickly become weak due to the mass amount of magic it would take to fire fatal shots
The average person would purchase manacrystals which are like magic batteries which can 'recharge' the gun.
Due to this, swords, bows and crossbows were still used due to reliability, and the fact you don't need magic to use it.
>tfw when you're adored as a ruthless scoundrel
I remember fallen earth where some guy with close combat build only a few lvls above me could run at my 3 man group from 30m away, soak up the damage and run around us with 2m distance doing slashing motions and killing us all in no tieme at all.
i stopped playing after that happened for the second time.