Quote from: Christopher Brady;899139It's a little high, for D&D.  Then again, I used to be one of those kids who used to think that guns were too powerful for D&D, so what the fuck do I know?

It was meant for PCs level 9+, or with a little tweaking, level 5+. NPCs could be low level class equivalents, like a martial artist being a monk sans special powers, or a street gag being equivalent to fighters. Levels ranged from 1-5 for NPCs.

Though another favorite is Boot Hill. Even though my first character had an absurd amount of Strength (the equivalent to HP) with a total of 84. and could take 12 serious wounds before dropping. They could still be killed flat out by a lucky vitals hit. One of the few games where such a chance worked.

Quote from: Krimson;899131I picked it up while I am waiting for Ultramodern5. I've always loved Modern and even had my own hack of AD&D before 3e game out. I think the 5e rules handle it quite well.

I can't find any news on it, but I am seriously intrigued. Their forum software is seriously glitching right now or I would check them out.

Quote from: Roderick;872089Someone already did a very professional science fiction conversion for 5E. You can download it here:  https://www.mediafire.com/folder/b92nwlwcu98wm/Fifth_Age
I'm toying with the idea of converting my Stars without Number campaign

Thanks for posting about this, I didn't even know this was a "Thing".

Quote from: trechriron;899187I can't find any news on it, but I am seriously intrigued. Their forum software is seriously glitching right now or I would check them out.

Ultramodern5 is the next book they are working on, as many of the mechanics are those in Amethyst Quintessence. I think I heard them say that it was likely due around Gencon.

Quote from: jeff37923;899106Not only no, but fuck no. The d20 system has yet to successfully tackle the way that modern firearms cause damage that does not destroy the concept of hit points.

That makes no sense. It doesn't handle the way that swords or arrows cause damage at all. It's all abstracted to the extreme. Why would modern firearms be any different? Are they supposed to be handled "realistically" for some reason you didn't state?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;899126I've found that a lot of people who are against D&D Modern have this argument that guns can't be portrayed accurately.  Usually, the fact that guns kill 'instantly' comes up.  But the problem is, like a knife, the gun being the ultimate killer is actually a Hollywood myth.  A gun kills just as well, and as fast as a bow, sling and crossbow, in real life.  So if a Bow/Crossbow does 1d6, then so should a pistol.  Unfortunately, Hollywood has ingrained this belief that the Gun is the ultimate weapon, and it's hard to let that myth go.

Which is odd, because we make fun of the old Katana myth now.

well yes and no if you are talking the time it takes for some one to bleed out then yes any thing else not so much.
for example we have historical accounts of men in chainmail getting riddled with arrows during the crusades and they where unharmed.
but as soon as the first fire arms came in that same armor became worth less . witch is what lead to the change and eventual abandonment of armor all together
its also worth pointing out that a bow or a crossbow are weapons of physical strength where as guns are not.
that is a big advantage  that dnd and most rpgs in general are pretty bad at showing with a bow to pull it back you need to produce enough force to pull it back and hold it as you aim .
where as a flint lock pistol can be loaded and fired by a ten year old and is just a capable of killing a man and we arnt even talking about the vast difference in range yet.

Quote from: kosmos1214;900077well yes and no if you are talking the time it takes for some one to bleed out then yes any thing else not so much.
for example we have historical accounts of men in chainmail getting riddled with arrows during the crusades and they where unharmed.
but as soon as the first fire arms came in that same armor became worth less . witch is what lead to the change and eventual abandonment of armor all together
its also worth pointing out that a bow or a crossbow are weapons of physical strength where as guns are not.
that is a big advantage  that dnd and most rpgs in general are pretty bad at showing with a bow to pull it back you need to produce enough force to pull it back and hold it as you aim .
where as a flint lock pistol can be loaded and fired by a ten year old and is just a capable of killing a man and we arnt even talking about the vast difference in range yet.

Actually, it's been discovered that full plate armour was very good against single round shots and not so hot against shotgun style weapons.

The real issue though, you nailed it.  To be a master warrior like a Knight you needed years, of not decades, of training.  The rifle, five minutes, and four of them is teaching how to reload the weapon, and you can pump out riflemen by the hundreds in days.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;900079Actually, it's been discovered that full plate Armour was very good against single round shots and not so hot against shotgun style weapons

The real issue though, you nailed it.  To be a master warrior like a Knight you needed years, of not decades, of training.  The rifle, five minutes, and four of them is teaching how to reload the weapon, and you can pump out riflemen by the hundreds in days.

can i get a link to this my under standing was that the introduction of the match lock caused it to be dumped as full plate so they could make the breast plate thicker ie no bracers on leggings ect

Quote from: kosmos1214;900082can i get a link to this my under standing was that the introduction of the match lock caused it to be dumped as full plate so they could make the breast plate thicker ie no bracers on leggings ect

The handgonne, the first rifle, was created in the 15th century (The 1400s.)  Plate harness was phased out of service during the 17th (1600s), the average musket ball wasn't quite as powerful as modern handguns are.  There's an American History Channel on weapons, and unfortunately, tend to get flagged on Youtube, so I can't link it, but the armour was proof enough until the 1600s.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;900091The handgonne, the first rifle, was created in the 15th century (The 1400s.)  Plate harness was phased out of service during the 17th (1600s), the average musket ball wasn't quite as powerful as modern handguns are.  There's an American History Channel on weapons, and unfortunately, tend to get flagged on Youtube, so I can't link it, but the armour was proof enough until the 1600s.

yes i know of the handgonne my under standing was the lack of range was the reason it didnt push armor out and if i remember right the handgonne wasn't rifled that would technically make it a musket
also you dont need to explain differences in power of fire arms i do shoot new and historical arms

Quote from: kosmos1214;900096yes i know of the handgonne my under standing was the lack of range was the reason it didnt push armor out and if i remember right the handgonne wasn't rifled that would technically make it a musket
also you dont need to explain differences in power of fire arms i do shoot new and historical arms

Fair enough.  Didn't know that.

I found a reenactment where the first round penetrates the armour, but the second just dents it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdXy0IfsWsE

They also claim that the breastplate is substandard, for some reason.  IF that is the case, then it stands to reason that it could have held up better at that range.  Also, Rifling was created (apparently) 1520, and was refined in the mid-1600s.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;900108Fair enough.  Didn't know that.

I found a reenactment where the first round penetrates the armour, but the second just dents it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdXy0IfsWsE

They also claim that the breastplate is substandard, for some reason.  IF that is the case, then it stands to reason that it could have held up better at that range.  Also, Rifling was created (apparently) 1520, and was refined in the mid-1600s.

ok let me start of by saying sorry for the long reply i haven't been on a computer where i could watch YouTube videos
now i cant speak Russian (youtube thought it was Russian)  / what ever it was so i had to watch it with auto translate.
now to be honest its an interesting video or ill say it would be but from what i can tell they dont seem to give most of the useful information.

what caliber is that gonne? what load is it using? what kind of steel is that plate made from? what era is that style from? how thick is it ect
with out this information its fun to watch but it dosnt really tell us any thing we have made huge advances in steel in the last century let alone the last 6 century's and a lot of reproductions are made from a modern steel.
 not a steel that representative of the time meany of them are also thicker and heavier then any thing some one can actually where.


with out this information is about as informative as finding out a brick wall can stop a rock thrown by hand

for example there seemed to be little smoke witch is very different then what you get out of black power witch brings it to question if there where using paradox witch is not the same as black powder it needs a higher ignition temperature and has different burn characteristics

also while the 2nd shot dident pierce the armor you need to remember that you dont need to pierce it to kill some one there are people who are shot where bullet proof vests where the vest stops the bullet and the die form the impact and concussion