The Clockwork Mansion

This QfR has me wondering how far traditional explosion driven firearms have progressed.  Are they at the level of cannons?  Muskets?  The first hand-held pistols (like those popularized in Westerns)?  I'd personally prefer the latter. >:3

Also, if creatures tend to shrug off damage from non-enchanted weaponry, then surely there's at least one adventurer out there who's gotten the bright idea to enchant bullets.

It also makes me wonder if there are magically driven projectile weapons.  Who knows?
There could be a magical equivalent of a Gauss Gun that could fire enchanted bullets much faster than even the most powerful traditional guns.
There could be specialty bullets that change trajectory in mid-air, seeking out specific targets, or just simply staying in the air longer to increase sniper range.
They could have specific curses put on them to create all sorts of nasty effects on impact that go well beyond the damage an ordinary bullet could do.
There are so many possibilities when it comes to combining magic and projectile weapons. :mwaha

But I digress, I definitely see Amber's point in firearms often causing a lot of criticism.  After all, there was an entire lengthy discussion started over one little bullet that was drawn improperly in Project Future.  That certainly proves that there are people on this forum that know a heck of a lot more about firearms than Amber probably does.

EDIT: And now I have a question for any artists who have drawn guns before:

If you're trying to draw a specific model of gun, should you mention the model?  If you do, people will inevitably point out how your gun and the way its being operated doesn't match that model.  But if you don't, would people start arguing over their guesses of which model you tried to draw?

Wonderful. Absolutely wonderful.

Hmm, makes me wonder about grenade launchers.
How would the creatures react to a grenade in the gut or the face? (or for that matter several)

Seems to me grenade launchers would be more popular in a world with tough creatures.
Instead of shrinking down to rifles the canons would have stopped as grenade launchers/portable canons.

I know that there are firearm enthusiast in the audience as I am one of them.  
My advice is look for references.  If you want bullets then look at a bullet manufacturer, Hornady (http://www.hornady.com/) has a tendency to show pictures of the bullets they make as well as live ammunition they load.
Gunbroker (http://www.gunbroker.com/) is a firearm auction sight, most auctions have pictures (a lot of pictures) so that should be helpful.
Interestingly enough these sources also require you to have an idea what you are looking for, when in doubt Google it.

I can understand why many people do not know about firearms, the media tries to use firearms as a scape goat for society's problems, as a result firearms are misrepresented.

On a different note, chapter 30 is two chapters away!   :mwaha


I think MacGyver is shaking his head somewhere.

Quote from: psilorder on November 21, 2011, 01:15:47 AM
Hmm, makes me wonder about grenade launchers.
How would the creatures react to a grenade in the gut or the face? (or for that matter several)

Seems to me grenade launchers would be more popular in a world with tough creatures.
Instead of shrinking down to rifles the canons would have stopped as grenade launchers/portable canons.

Two words, Collateral Damage. (See Also: Using Fireball on both your teammates and the targets in D&D. Expand that to EVERYTHING in the radius.)

Oddly enough, Amber's points ARE valid. I've noticed that SOMEHOW, guns are a "geek" thing. (Then again, there's also a fair amount of geeks in the military... I can name three four in the IRC off the top of my head... Basilisk, Ghostwish, RAM, and Railock...)

In addition to that, there's a MAJOR can of worms that would be opened, ratings-wise. You see, guns are considered by many to be the EPITOME of a symbol of violence, but let me dive into the psychology a bit...

In Western culture, guns are an EMPOWERMENT. (CULTURE, guys. CULTURE.) See all those western FPS games with one lone guy and his arsenal of "I'm HONESTLY not overcompensating for something." weapons? Or the movies where the action hero grabs a gun and all of a sudden he's a badass? Yeah, it's a belief that such an object empowers a person.

In Eastern culture, however... Weapons are a TOOL. The man behind them is the one in control and uses them to complete a task. (Granted, it's usually killing somebody, but that's the whole reason why ALL weapons exist, to KILL things.)

To be absolutely brutal though... Medieval weapons were designed to rip MASSIVE holes in people. Guns simply propel a small piece of hot metal at sub-sonic or supersonic speeds through a target and rip through everything in it's path. In terms of gore IRL, the medieval weapons are going to beat MOST guns every time in terms of volumes of gore. Yet, they're a Kid-Friendly(TM) weapon.

So, really... What the heck? Yes, I'm ranting nonsensically. it's 2am and my brain has left the premises.

Quote from: ChaosMageX on November 21, 2011, 12:55:52 AM
Also, if creatures tend to shrug off damage from non-enchanted weaponry, then surely there's at least one adventurer out there who's gotten the bright idea to enchant bullets.

Sorry I can't say much about the rest of your post, but I can at least comment on this. Assuming enchanting has some sort of cost, enchanting individual bullets would be rather expensive unless the guns were accurate and the adventurer using the gun was good at using it. Otherwise, since you can't recover enchanted bullets as easily and as often as enchanted arrows, each miss would likely be a decent amount of money wasted.

Well, I am sort of a 'Gun Geek' so if anyone has any questions I could try my best to answer.

I don't know about 'empowerment'.. I guess that could be it.  The saying goes, "God made men, Sam Colt made them equal."  I don't know about tools but that may be true in Eastern depictions of medival weapons, but my only experience with guns depicted in eastern cultural contexts (when they weren't simply aping hollywood) has been as something that is equated with 'cheating'.  Someone who has a gun and a week's worth of training is just as deadly as a martial artist who's been training his whole life.

Me, I geek out about guns the way gear heads geek out about cars.  I'm fascinated by how they work, their form and function, and I occasionally go out shooting with them (though rarely, that gets to be an expensive hobby quite quickly.  There's just as much high-end engineering in a modern gun as there is in an airplane, so many people seem to forget that.

Quote from: Drayco84 on November 21, 2011, 01:55:22 AM
Oddly enough, Amber's points ARE valid. I've noticed that SOMEHOW, guns are a "geek" thing. (Then again, there's also a fair amount of geeks in the military... I can name three four in the IRC off the top of my head... Basilisk, Ghostwish, RAM, and Railock...)

Are you thinking of Brady there?  Bas is actually a medical student (though he likes his guns too).  IIRC Brady is an ex-marine.

Quote from: Drayco84 on November 21, 2011, 01:55:22 AM
Oddly enough, Amber's points ARE valid. I've noticed that SOMEHOW, guns are a "geek" thing. (Then again, there's also a fair amount of geeks in the military... I can name three four in the IRC off the top of my head... Basilisk, Ghostwish, RAM, and Railock...)

This begs the question of which is more a thrilling timed geek hobby, solving a rubix cube or assembling a gun?

Quote from: Inumo on November 21, 2011, 01:59:55 AM

Quote from: ChaosMageX on November 21, 2011, 12:55:52 AM
Also, if creatures tend to shrug off damage from non-enchanted weaponry, then surely there's at least one adventurer out there who's gotten the bright idea to enchant bullets.

Sorry I can't say much about the rest of your post, but I can at least comment on this. Assuming enchanting has some sort of cost, enchanting individual bullets would be rather expensive unless the guns were accurate and the adventurer using the gun was good at using it. Otherwise, since you can't recover enchanted bullets as easily and as often as enchanted arrows, each miss would likely be a decent amount of money wasted.

Yes, that is a valid point that you make and I completely agree with it.  Assuming enchantments can't be easily mass-produced (assembly line wizards, anyone? ;) ), then in the long run a reusable enchanted weapon like the arrows you mention or a sword or any other handheld weapon would eventually pay for itself while an adventurer who uses a gun would have to keep procuring more ammunition.

Still, when has the expense of ammunition stopped gun enthusiasts before?  If an adventurer is a skilled marksman and an avid gun enthusiast, that certainly won't stop them.  There are probably several customization options for bullets that would be just as expensive, if not more so, than enchanting.  I'm definitely not a "gun geek", but if I had to guess a few they'd be uranium tips, specialized cartridges and, custom propellant mixtures, some likely containing ammonium nitrate.  I might be wrong about the cost of some of those, but honestly there have to at least some expensive ammunition customization options out there.

And for as many natural bullet modifications, there are probably ten times as many types of enchantments that can be cast on them.  There's probably an enchantment for just about anything you can think of.  For instance, the bullet from Project Future I mentioned was specifically enchanted to capture and contain the soul of whoever was shot with it.

Just think of how useful these sorts of enchantments could be.  A professional sniper could cast a spell on someone from miles away and might never be found.  It's a lot harder to find the source of a tiny fast moving bullet than it is to find the source of the typical cumbersome, glorified light beams that accompany most ranged spells.

I'm not actually one for guns very much.  Don't really care for them except as a plot device, or for their utility in video games.  That said, and speaking strictly in the abstract, the idea of fishing for Mer with grenades does have a certain, perverse appeal to it.  It's the sort of thing I'd try to do in Deus Ex.

I don't post often, so it's easy to remember what I do. I remember my second post ever; from DMFA #1026...

"One day a creature will hurt Jyras, probably by hurting someone Jyras loves. When that day comes destruction will follow. Even then, Jyras will probably mean well when he introduces his technology to the general populous of beings. He will want them to be able to defend themselves. But suddenly, a once frightened and bullied race will have the means to exact revenge...

I just hope that it doesn't happen too soon. I like the innocence that this story portrays so far."

I don't think that I was the only one to see this coming. Hopefully, we're on chapter 2.

Guys that talk about firearms tend to forget about three things. That is, slings, bows and crossbows.

Yes, in a magical world you tend to not need firearms, gunpowder and such, because magic is easier and faster. However, non-gunpowder ranged weapons can be quite everywhere, especially for assassinations - they are silent, ammunition is relatively easy to come by, and modern real-world compound bows pack hefty punch. Slings tended to pack a punch ever since they were invented - remember Goliath - and they need almost no resources to make, with ammunition (rocks) being literally everywhere.

And for non-gun powder you have explosives, which are handy for demolution, mining, and fireworks.

P.S. And yes, blame me for all spelling and grammar errors in that text up here.

Quote from: Tapewolf on November 21, 2011, 05:06:43 AM
I'm not actually one for guns very much.  Don't really care for them except as a plot device, or for their utility in video games.  That said, and speaking strictly in the abstract, the idea of fishing for Mer with grenades does have a certain, perverse appeal to it.  It's the sort of thing I'd try to do in Deus Ex.

Well, better than trying to fish with an electric aggregate , then forget to turn it off like that russian guy who got a Darwin award.
As an aside, I guess even you'll agree that the (theoretically, it's bloody expensive) idea of an ursine being operating a mitrailleuse holding it in his hands is, for the lack of a better word , rather awesome. (Part of DnDMFA ruleset, oldie guns, that this comic has essentially blessed into actual use. Hence my excitement when this was posted)

Quote from: Drayco84 on November 21, 2011, 01:55:22 AM

To be absolutely brutal though... Medieval weapons were designed to rip MASSIVE holes in people. Guns simply propel a small piece of hot metal at sub-sonic or supersonic speeds through a target and rip through everything in it's path. In terms of gore IRL, the medieval weapons are going to beat MOST guns every time in terms of volumes of gore. Yet, they're a Kid-Friendly(TM) weapon.

So, really... What the heck? Yes, I'm ranting nonsensically. it's 2am and my brain has left the premises.

Um, Drayco... A gun wound is at least as messy if not more so than an arrow one. Close up it's even worse. Plus, stuff like hydrostatic shock that no other weapons have. Also, close up weapons such as blunderbuss, which was essentially used to fire a pawful of random shit (pebbles, chopped lead , nails) at widening close range, kinda like a nasty shotgun. 
And don't even get me started on cannons...
A slovak hist. fantasy (the book was from the time of A-H empire fighting the Turks)  author I was reading a few books from was rather apt at describing the mess gunpowder weapons make... pity I don't have it at hand for quoting.

Generally speaking one of the mechanics I do have set in place when it comes to enchanting is one needs a hands-on approach to things. It's easier to enchant an arrow because you are physically touching the arrow just before you fire it. Bullets...not so much.  And it doesn't really enchant well through another material such as the gun itself.  Swords enchant really well because you are holding them directly.    It's one of the major drawbacks I set in place for guns in that they are pretty much too difficult to enchant the ammunition due to the gun itself getting in the way.

Usually my approach to a lot of the things in DMFA is "is there a magical alternative that would likely be cheaper and easier to use?" and if there is, it means the non-magical version is usually a novelty moreso than anything.  And while I'm sure there is a way to enchant a gun so that it could conduct magic better...at that point it becomes so far removed from the initial purpose and becomes magically dependant the time/energy/effort outweighs the benefit to the average individual...and thus it becomes another novelty thing. 

Quote from: Amber Williams on November 21, 2011, 07:32:06 AM
Generally speaking one of the mechanics I do have set in place when it comes to enchanting is one needs a hands-on approach to things. It's easier to enchant an arrow because you are physically touching the arrow just before you fire it. Bullets...not so much.  And it doesn't really enchant well through another material such as the gun itself.  Swords enchant really well because you are holding them directly.    It's one of the major drawbacks I set in place for guns in that they are pretty much too difficult to enchant the ammunition due to the gun itself getting in the way.

Usually my approach to a lot of the things in DMFA is "is there a magical alternative that would likely be cheaper and easier to use?" and if there is, it means the non-magical version is usually a novelty moreso than anything.  And while I'm sure there is a way to enchant a gun so that it could conduct magic better...at that point it becomes so far removed from the initial purpose and becomes magically dependant the time/energy/effort outweighs the benefit to the average individual...and thus it becomes another novelty thing. 

The interesting bit is, cheaper and easier for whom. After all, I think it's well estabilished creatures are a rather small proportion of the overall population of Furrae.. in other words, most conflict, especially military  , would be being to being mainly.
Well.. I kinda imagine it like Warcraft III was - a bunch of creatures that can kill almost anything by themselves, and have to be taken down by focused fire, among hundreds of beings soldiers.
Never mind regular conflicts - if you meet brigands in a forest, they are most likely to be beings.
Now, guns aren't that hard  to make, and the thing that has to be factored in is, whether it's easier to teach an average being to enchant well enough to find a bow more useful than a simple gun design. Also , producing ammunition via magic means would likely be a viable economic path.

Quote from: Barhandar on November 21, 2011, 06:10:50 AM
Guys that talk about firearms tend to forget about three things. That is, slings, bows and crossbows.

Yes, in a magical world you tend to not need firearms, gunpowder and such, because magic is easier and faster. However, non-gunpowder ranged weapons can be quite everywhere, especially for assassinations - they are silent, ammunition is relatively easy to come by, and modern real-world compound bows pack hefty punch. Slings tended to pack a punch ever since they were invented - remember Goliath - and they need almost no resources to make, with ammunition (rocks) being literally everywhere.

And yet these things rely mostly on one's own power to use. A gun utilizes power from outside your own body. So in a sense it's power that is "free" in that one uses none of one's own energy resources. Relatively free power is more or less addictive, after all when it's possible to hurt or kill something with minimal effort on your own, that sort of power tends to go to one's head. That or maybe I'm reading too much satire before bed.

Quote from: VAE on November 21, 2011, 08:22:00 AM
The interesting bit is, cheaper and easier for whom. After all, I think it's well estabilished creatures are a rather small proportion of the overall population of Furrae.. in other words, most conflict, especially military  , would be being to being mainly.
Well.. I kinda imagine it like Warcraft III was - a bunch of creatures that can kill almost anything by themselves, and have to be taken down by focused fire, among hundreds of beings soldiers.
Never mind regular conflicts - if you meet brigands in a forest, they are most likely to be beings.
Now, guns aren't that hard  to make, and the thing that has to be factored in is, whether it's easier to teach an average being to enchant well enough to find a bow more useful than a simple gun design. Also , producing ammunition via magic means would likely be a viable economic path.

That implies that most creatures are the type who are going to simply sit idle and let a being run military establish.  There is a reason a lot of creatures opt to run cities rather than simply destroy them.

I should point out (cause I forgot to mention earlier and in the comic) that gun technology is at this time on par with flintlock pistols and the weaponry of that era save for one or two exceptions. (Not so spoiler alert: Yes, Jyrras is one of those)  It isn't advanced, it lacks a lot of the modern conveniences such as silencers, sniper scopes, etc.  There isn't any place that mass produces them. If someone really wants a firearm, they have to find someone who knows how to make them and have one custom built much like someone would order a sword.   There are some exceptions, but those are usually because a particular individual has come up with the advanced specifications. 

Comic-wise, and I'll prolly get scolded for going whimsical, there isn't actually a lot of being vs being conflicts that would require them to assemble together and militarize.  In the history of the comic-world, there has never been a war that actually was just beings versus beings.

This QfR is why I believe the Rock-it Launcher is the height of ballistic armaments. Who needs guns when you can shoot high speed teddy bears, dinner plates, mows at people with hilariously leather outcomes.

Quote from: Amber Williams on November 21, 2011, 07:32:06 AM
Generally speaking one of the mechanics I do have set in place when it comes to enchanting is one needs a hands-on approach to things. It's easier to enchant an arrow because you are physically touching the arrow just before you fire it. Bullets...not so much.  And it doesn't really enchant well through another material such as the gun itself.  Swords enchant really well because you are holding them directly.    It's one of the major drawbacks I set in place for guns in that they are pretty much too difficult to enchant the ammunition due to the gun itself getting in the way.

So, enchantments fade over time and have to be re-applied?
Seems to me that otherwise it'd be simple to enchant the ammunition before loading. And i dont get why it would need to be direct-contact.

Hmm, someone mentioned DnDMFA, is this something i should have read for this subject?

Quote from: Amber Williams on November 21, 2011, 09:20:10 AM

That implies that most creatures are the type who are going to simply sit idle and let a being run military establish.  There is a reason a lot of creatures opt to run cities rather than simply destroy them.

Creature run =/=> most of those fighting in it are creatures, unless am mistaken somehow. And one needs to arm the lot with something.

Quote

I should point out (cause I forgot to mention earlier and in the comic) that gun technology is at this time on par with flintlock pistols and the weaponry of that era save for one or two exceptions. (Not so spoiler alert: Yes, Jyrras is one of those)  It isn't advanced, it lacks a lot of the modern conveniences such as silencers, sniper scopes, etc.  There isn't any place that mass produces them. If someone really wants a firearm, they have to find someone who knows how to make them and have one custom built much like someone would order a sword.   There are some exceptions, but those are usually because a particular individual has come up with the advanced specifications. 

Well, and i'd go to say that even flintlocks and similar degree weapons have quite a lot of uses compared to other sorts of arms for someone who isn't an enchanter.
Fair point on the manufacture, though - anything better than a smoothbore barrel isn't that easy to make , and it seems like those who know enough magic to manufacture them in simpler ways have no need for them.

Quote
Comic-wise, and I'll prolly get scolded for going whimsical, there isn't actually a lot of being vs being conflicts that would require them to assemble together and militarize.  In the history of the comic-world, there has never been a war that actually was just beings versus beings.

Actually, this doesn't surprise me the least. If any being-being conflict started brewing up, I can immediately see a) creatures joining the cluster**** for power, profit and a boiled egg. b) an angel or another sort of a manipulative bugger puppeteering it from behind the scenes, or actually both at once, with the addition of another wide range who use it as an opportune moment to deal with completely someone else, due to need for personal vendetta or what not.
Result ... think WWI , only fuzzier.

Quote from: psilorder on November 21, 2011, 10:15:37 AM

Hmm, someone mentioned DnDMFA, is this something i should have read for this subject?

No. It is nothing official, nor somehow better informed than Ambargh herself. (because, you know, she's the writer.)

Quote from: VAE on November 21, 2011, 10:17:53 AM
Creature run =/=> most of those fighting in it are creatures, unless am mistaken somehow. And one needs to arm the lot with something.

Truth be told, most of the battles tend to be the creatures in charge versus other creatures.  The vast majority of beings aren't combat trained.  That's generally the draw to most creature run cities in the "hey. You live here and work here and behave, and we'll stomp on anyone who tries to stomp you."  In a sort of Mafia style protection racket way.  So usually it is the creatures that do most of the fighting when it comes to things that like.

Quote from: psilorder on November 21, 2011, 10:15:37 AM
So, enchantments fade over time and have to be re-applied?
Seems to me that otherwise it'd be simple to enchant the ammunition before loading. And i dont get why it would need to be direct-contact.

Part of it is the aesthetic works better in my head that way.  To me, you enchant an arrow to be full of cold-themed energy as its leaving your bow and touch and thus on impact it shatters into ice.  A bullet on the other hand...I can't help but imagine it would just backfire and explode in the chamber itself due to the pressure impact of trying to fire it.  

The other part is meta-knowledge balancing issues and my own interests.  Adding in modern weaponry complicates things because then it leads to the question of "well why would anyone use swords if people can bust out magcally enchanted  automatic pistols or sniper rifles and shoot their targets from large distances?" and other things.  As I have mentioned, I am not a combat focused person and I don't particularly care for guns.  I didn't want them to be a focus in the comic...so yes...I have deliberately nerfed them to be less effective in this particular universe setting.   They are harder to enchant, they lack the modern developments, and they aren't as effective versus creatures in comparison to magic along with most beings don't engage in as much combat with other beings to warrent large-scale creation.

[Fixed quoting glitch -TW]

Best magical gun:  Outlaw Star's Caster Gun.  Loved it.  And can totally see it working in DMFA to give a boost to the Beings... That's what it was for in the OS world, to give regular humans a chance against the magicians in the Pirate Clans.  The Caster's had their limitations, and were exceedingly expensive and rare, and the most powerful spells sucked the life out of the user.  So yeah, a really great fictional weapon and plot device!  :3

And then we must consider the perverted hermit sages on the Hot Springs planet who created the Caster shells.  As DMFA has plenty of perverts already, the sages would fit right in!   ;)

*Charline peeps out*  Perverts?  Somebody call me?

Quote from: Amber Williams link=topic=8674.msg357644#msg357644date=1321889845
A big fat sign that says PAY ATTENTION  :mowwink

I really have to agree with Amber's statement concerning balance and aesthetic. A while back, MeanyOwl ran a D&D campaign utilizing the d20 modern setting for DMFA. It portrayed a somewhat futuristic world of Furrae where technology came a long way. And it did unbalance the species a great deal. We had something like a couple of beings, an angel, a demon and a cubi. And who was the most dangerous? The being with the big gun who was, hilariously enough, modeled after Team Fortress 2's heavy weapon guy.

As for Ambaarrrg going Ambaaaaarg over her lack of ability to draw guns and vehicles and stuff, quit beating yourself you silly artist. Your strong point is character design, and holy flying monkies do you do that well! Scenery used to be your weak point, remember? Now you're doing that like a pro. Just give it a bit of time, and I'm sure you'll be doing realistic drive-by battles involving humvees and 240gs and SAWs and all that good stuff in no time.

Also, muffins.

Quote from: Amber Williams on November 21, 2011, 10:37:25 AM
Truth be told, most of the battles tend to be the creatures in charge versus other creatures.  The vast majority of beings aren't combat trained.  That's generally the draw to most creature run cities in the "hey. You live here and work here and behave, and we'll stomp on anyone who tries to stomp you."  In a sort of Mafia style protection racket way.  So usually it is the creatures that do most of the fighting when it comes to things that like.

Ah.. so instead of large-scale conflicts, most of the stuff is dealt with the "Yo mon, I seen ya f*** shit up in me 'hood." *flickers with claws* "Do it again and these'll tell ya liver 'howdy'." style.
Bloody hell, this reminds me of Vlad Taltos so damn much. And it's awesome.

Quote from: Ghostwish on November 21, 2011, 10:45:22 AM

As for Ambaarrrg going Ambaaaaarg over her lack of ability to draw guns and vehicles and stuff, quit beating yourself you silly artist. Your strong point is character design, and holy flying monkies do you do that well! Scenery used to be your weak point, remember? Now you're doing that like a pro. Just give it a bit of time, and I'm sure you'll be doing realistic drive-by battles involving humvees and 240gs and SAWs and all that good stuff in no time.

Also, muffins.

It's quite a side-point from the art side of things, but I'd say one of the strongest points is worldbuilding. Bloody hell, the races and everything are interesting, and what's more, it fits together well without breaking mouth over a plot hole every twenty meters.
Probably the main reason I like this comic so much.

I'm going to do this, since it's something I enjoy doing, and am going to say that anyone else trying to push the idea of guns any further than what Amber has clearly spelled out (i.e. arguing her points or looking for loopholes) is going to be getting a swift boot to the rear from me.  I'm glad you guys are enthusiastic about firearms and more so DMFA but it's been laid out and set, anything further is just being obnoxious and rude.

I would like to point out a discrepency in the tool vs empowerment topic.

I've always seen weapon equipment as more a 'tool' in Western culture, and a more spiritual thing in eastern culture.  Consider the Western concept of a sword vs the Eastern concept of a Sword.  A tool vs the soul of a warrior...

Also, I'd say it'd be awesome if guns hadn't gotten past muzzle-loading flintlock muskets, Amber.  Unless it's inveted by Jyrras, who has gotten all the way to energy weapons and chainguns, because he can do that. Because he's Jyrras.

Quote from: Gavinfoxx on November 21, 2011, 11:41:24 AM
I've always seen weapon equipment as more a 'tool' in Western culture, and a more spiritual thing in eastern culture.  Consider the Western concept of a sword vs the Eastern concept of a Sword.  A tool vs the soul of a warrior...

I have to disagree with your interpretation of the 'Eastern' stance on things.  What you're describing is the western interpretation of the eastern concept.  Generally, in western culture, the east is thought of and treated (and widely presented) as mystical or spiritual in comparrison.  This is actually no more true than it is of the Western World.  I assure you that there were and are folks in the Western World who have deep, spiritual ties to their weapons/tools and trades just as much as in the Eastern World.  To dress up your statement as the view of the east is to do them a great disservice, I think.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 21, 2011, 11:51:06 AM

Quote from: Gavinfoxx on November 21, 2011, 11:41:24 AM
I've always seen weapon equipment as more a 'tool' in Western culture, and a more spiritual thing in eastern culture.  Consider the Western concept of a sword vs the Eastern concept of a Sword.  A tool vs the soul of a warrior...

I have to disagree with your interpretation of the 'Eastern' stance on things.  What you're describing is the western interpretation of the eastern concept.  Generally, in western culture, the east is thought of and treated (and widely presented) as mystical or spiritual in comparrison.  This is actually no more true than it is of the Western World.  I assure you that there were and are folks in the Western World who have deep, spiritual ties to their weapons/tools and trades just as much as in the Eastern World.  To dress up your statement as the view of the east is to do them a great disservice, I think.

The Samurai's Sword versus, say, Excalibur, for example.

I have to say that I'm enjoying the world as such and I definitely like when Fluffy, Amber, or sometimes even when Amber's significant other comes to explain some of the why's and hows that might not be explained in the comic itself.

I like how technology has to find its own niches in this world. Toasters, computers it seems, drinking bird knickknacks. With all the magic in Furrae, it's more surprising that technology could find it's place and at times magic hasn't just got in the way of development...which I guess from the looks of things, it has.

I guess this would make Jyrras Furrae's Thomas Edison or maybe some well known inventor. But you can bet your money on that the creature counsel is still watching him very closely. I bet inventores like him in the past didn't go without a fatal "accident" if they didn't tip toe the line.

Quote from: Amber Williams on November 21, 2011, 10:37:25 AM
Part of it is the aesthetic works better in my head that way.  To me, you enchant an arrow to be full of cold-themed energy as its leaving your bow and touch and thus on impact it shatters into ice.  A bullet on the other hand...I can't help but imagine it would just backfire and explode in the chamber itself due to the pressure impact of trying to fire it. 

The other part is meta-knowledge balancing issues and my own interests.  Adding in modern weaponry complicates things because then it leads to the question of "well why would anyone use swords if people can bust out magcally enchanted  automatic pistols or sniper rifles and shoot their targets from large distances?" and other things.  As I have mentioned, I am not a combat focused person and I don't particularly care for guns.  I didn't want them to be a focus in the comic...so yes...I have deliberately nerfed them to be less effective in this particular universe setting.   They are harder to enchant, they lack the modern developments, and they aren't as effective versus creatures in comparison to magic along with most beings don't engage in as much combat with other beings to warrent large-scale creation.

Interesting... Does it have to be the ammunition that's enchanted? How would enchanting a gun be all that different from the challenges of enchanting a bow? Or perhaps more appropriately, a crossbow? With the realtime echantment method you describe, it would seem more reasonable to create the gun/bow as an ammunition enchanting device. After all, you'd want to put the weapon into the hands of a Being. It's not like magic-using Creatures would need them.

Most Creatures are grossly more powerful than Beings in close combat. I'd expect anti-Creature weaponry to develop in the direction of dropping them before they got into slashybitey range...

As an aside, why do Creatures tolerate Adventurer schools? Is being hunted by Beings a popular passtime or something? >:]


I do agree that guns are kind of a silly addition to this sort of sword and sorcery environment. Personal firearms developed historically because of the high ratio of deadliness to training required. After all, you could give a thousand troops a rifle each, show them how to load them and point them at an approaching army, and stuff was gonna die. Proficiency with bows or swords, by contrast, demanded years of training. But it took centuries to develop firearms accurate enough to be useful against a single, fast moving target (like a Creature), and the skill required for that is probably on the same order as mastering the bow or blade.

Do cannons exist in Furrae, though? Waterways must be one of the main ways of transporting goods, especially before trucks and airplanes came along. (I can't imagine legions of Gryphons hauling grain carts... Okay, I can. And they look silly. :animesweat) We've already established that gunpowder is known. The historical evolutionary pressures leading to the development of personal firearms don't exist in Furrae, but it seems the need for anti-ship weaponry would still be there.

Tez, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it sounds like you're trying to find loop holes and go beyond what she has stated.  Something I just asked folks not to do.  Please stop, or I will get stompy.  She has already explained how enchanting the bullets would work and the difficulties involved with it, and has said that at most, old flint lock pistols are what exist.  That's it.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 21, 2011, 12:12:59 PM
Tez, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it sounds like you're trying to find loop holes and go beyond what she has stated.  Something I just asked folks not to do.  Please stop, or I will get stompy.  She has already explained how enchanting the bullets would work and the difficulties involved with it, and has said that at most, old flint lock pistols are what exist.  That's it.

Sorry if my questions were misunderstood. To be honest, I'm actually not interested in firearms-related answers.

The cannons question actually relates more to ship designs than gunpowder tech, per se. My own eponmymous DMFA-inspired character has a backstory that heavily involves ships and piracy, and I'm curious as to the official word on what that looks like in Furrae. After all, ship designs changed radically after the invention of the cannon.

And I am genuinely curious to know how enchanting ranged weapons works. A lot of us do RP in this world...

The waterways and oceans are the domains of the Mer...the race which doesn't really feature in most of the comic because of the lack of major waterfronts.  It's pretty much their turf.  And much like the creatures who oversee a city, the Mer can be pretty rough to interlopers.  A lot of vessels opt deals with the Mer for safe passage across the water.  Those who don't sail at their own peril.

That said, cannons are probably the last thing pirates would want since those suckers make a bit of noise if I recall and water tends to carry sound well...and the last thing most ships want is to get the Mer's attention.  On the flipside, ships that actually had deals with the Mer in regards to travelling the waters safely would have more interest in cannons. But less as a weapon and more as a sounding device to get the Mer's attention.  By and large if someone was trying to steal via boats, they'd want to aim more for stealth and speed over a full scale assault.

But really, why have a cannon when there is likely a magical device that would work better as a sound beacon. And why use cannons as a weapon when you can cast a lightning bolt across and electrocute people?

My person quick ref. for gun-lore terminology:

bullet:  originally pronounced (bool-'ley) by it's french inventor (and mispronounced ever since by the English world) this term refers to the conical shape of the lead, designed to improve accuracy and range.

rifling:  Cutting spiraling groves on the inside of the barrel.  Originally it was intended to be used to prevent fouling, but it was quickly discovered that rifling improved accuracy and range.

fouling:  the residue left over by the chemical reaction of gunpowder and can clog the barrel of the gun rendering it extremely dangerous to fire.  Modern powders leave almost no residue so barrel maintenance, though good for accuracy, is generally not necessary in normal use.

Ball:  Term for the bit of lead that is actually fired by the gun.  It has fallen out of favor due to the overwhelming use of the bulleting process, being replaced with the term bullet.

Round:  Originally interchangeable with Ball, it has since come to be a reference to a combination of bullet, cartridge and mercury-based blast cap.

Cartridge:  Refers to anything designed to hold the powder within the gun.  The first cartridges were made of simple cotton cloth wrapped around the powder to speed canon loading.

Firing pin:  In modern firearms this refers to the small piece of metal designed to hit the mercury blast cap with enough force to trigger the reaction.

Mercury blast cap:  an extremely small piece of explosive designed to have just enough power to ignite the powder.  is virtually impossible to trigger without using a firing pin or reasonable analog.

Hammer:  a bit of metal with the firing pin attached, provides the power of the firing pin.

Now that the basics are out of the way, relative damage of a bullet:  unless the person inquestion can withstand DBZ-esque "faster than naked eye can see" speed punches, a bullet will do the job nicely.  Even if someone or something has magic "impenatrable armor," the shear force the bullet has behind it would produce severe bruising and damage.  Even our mordern armors that are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to take a bullet have been unable to prevent this.  Magical negation of this principle would almost require a fae level of magical aptitude, power, and speed.

The more likely event, however, is that something requires certain events or triggers to die, but even these things would STILL be wary of bullets because though it may not kill them, it can knock them down long enough  for those events or triggers to take place.

Quote from: Amber Williams on November 21, 2011, 12:39:07 PM
That said, cannons are probably the last thing pirates would want since those suckers make a bit of noise if I recall and water tends to carry sound well...and the last thing most ships want is to get the Mer's attention.  On the flipside, ships that actually had deals with the Mer in regards to travelling the waters safely would have more interest in cannons. But less as a weapon and more as a sounding device to get the Mer's attention.  By and large if someone was trying to steal via boats, they'd want to aim more for stealth and speed over a full scale assault.

Thanks for the clarification! :mowcookie Now I'm picturing the preindustrial sailing craft of Furrae as leaning more towards the late medieval designs geared more towards repelling boarders than anti-ship combat (high sides with heavily fortified fore and after castles, and so on).


It's interesting (and actually somewhat surprising) that wielding enchanted arrows requires actual skill in magic. Would I be correct in assuming that most formally trained Adventurers do have some magical education? There's been some evidence in the comic to infer as much (e.g. comments by Merlitz's buddies and "Cid" suggesting that Adventurers can sense magic), but those guys aren't necessarily a representative sample...

Quote from: Valynth on November 21, 2011, 12:54:05 PM
Now that the basics are out of the way, relative damage of a bullet:  unless the person inquestion can withstand DBZ-esque "faster than naked eye can see" speed punches, a bullet will do the job nicely.  Even if someone or something has magic "impenatrable armor," the shear force the bullet has behind it would produce severe bruising and damage.  Even our mordern armors that are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to take a bullet have been unable to prevent this.  Magical negation of this principle would almost require a fae level of magical aptitude, power, and speed.

The more likely event, however, is that something requires certain events or triggers to die, but even these things would STILL be wary of bullets because though it may not kill them, it can knock them down long enough  for those events or triggers to take place.

I'd have to disagree with this a bit.  We've seen a paladin put up a shield against other spells for example that, if it were persistent, would likely stop any incoming bullets.  I don't think this requires Fae level power to do at all, and it is likely why such weapons aren't practical (at least against magic users).  Though I'm not sure that most beings would be able to sustain a shield like that, I don't think it falls to the realm of god-like creatures either.

Just about any race has the ability to learn magic.  The only exceptions were humans and Were when in human form.  Just about everything else though can learn magic. It's more about how -much- magic one is capable of using, some races have a bigger reserve of energy to draw from I guess one could say.  Training can help increase the reserve somewhat, but on average some races have a bit of an edge over others when it comes to natural magic talent.  That said, when it comes to beings one is most likely to see Adventurers using magic.  Not because non-adventurers are incapable of magic, it's just Adventurers tend to use magic and encounter magic-using creatures so their magic is flashier.  Versus say...a hairdresser who uses magic to keep her salon clean and sterile.

That also said, I think I'm done with Q&A for now. The downside to most things is that for every question answered, two more tend to happen. And I'm kind of tired fighting this particular hydra for now.  I hope this has been an informative set of posts.

Since I've recently read a crapton of books about early gunpowder:
The advantage of gunpowder weapons, until the late nineteenth century and the development of breechloader rifles, was NOT their lethality or their range or their cheapness, or anything along those lines.
The reason guns became dominant is that they were a much lesser investment in time. A longbow can kill at a good couple of hundred yards, through plate armour, ten times a minute with aimed shots. But in order to get someone that good with the longbow, they have to spend years - decades - practising.
Guns, on the other hand (especially inaccurate smoothbores) do not require nearly as much investment because muscle mass is relatively irrelevant and so is knowing the intricacies of the weapon.

So a longbow corps. in the Hundred Years War were basically as effective on the battlefield as a number of high-powered machine guns, but they took so long to train that if they were lost, it was an enormous strategic loss. By comparison, in the Thirty Years War most armies replenished their supply of musket and pike troops by grabbing civilians and forcing them into the army - you barely even need training to just blast away. Conversely, the gun is no use (against humans wearing even light armour) at more than about fifty yards as the bullet tumbles and loses too much speed.

In Furrae, with the lifespan of creatures stretching to centuries and the presence of enchantment to make bows and creatures stronger than us puny humans and yew woods can manage (yew bows were spectacular - 300 pound draws are confirmed, 900 is the upper estimate), I can see the Long bow being even more effective for a relatively small time investment on the part of the Creature.

That said, once rifling comes in there'll be one hell of a paradigmal shift. A simple ladder sight and a rifle leaps up to much longer range than the standard longbow.

And as for the ability of magical shields: Well, if a longbow is dangerous, then a bullet is more so unless shields specifically require magic to get through them. An arrow has a piercing point, but a bullet just punches in with sheer force and can do harm through armour that might turn aside an arrow (which is more susceptible to leverage since it is longer).

Quote from: Amber Williams on November 21, 2011, 01:11:01 PM
That also said, I think I'm done with Q&A for now. The downside to most things is that for every question answered, two more tend to happen. And I'm kind of tired fighting this particular hydra for now.  I hope this has been an informative set of posts.

It's very appreciated. :kittycool You know that the geeky fanboys here love any opportunity to glean a little more insight into your world.

Quote from: Saphroneth on November 21, 2011, 01:18:03 PM
That said, once rifling comes in there'll be one hell of a paradigmal shift. A simple ladder sight and a rifle leaps up to much longer range than the standard longbow.

To be honest, I'm surprised that firearms technology in Furrae has even reached the flintlock era. Barring imports from alternate universes, that implies that Beings found the more primitive forms (matchlock weapons, or for that matter simpler hand cannons) useful enough to continue developing. Given the lack of Being vs Being conflict on the scales that would make primitive firearms practical, that doesn't seem all that likely. It would however be cool to see gunpowder treated as just another alchemical product--black powder grenades, recreational fireworks, and the like...

The danger that someone like a Jyrras represents is that Furrae already has the industrial capacity to produce (even mass produce) rather advanced firearms, skipping a lot of the stages that were limited by smithing technology. Factories that machine car parts and airplanes could easily be retooled for making assault rifles, if only it occured to someone to invent such a wild and crazy device... (for farming purposes, of course >:])

I understand the mechanics and physics of a bullet and an arrow, thanks.  I find it quite likely that, given the flexibility of magic, a shield against projectiles (this includes bullets) would be quite possible.  Initially  it might not be the most common thing, but it wouldn't take the creatures and/or magic users long to figure it out.  Let's not forget the thought based shapeshifting of cubi (there's those dbz shields that were mentioned, though if they knew in advance what a gun was...) or the inherent diamond hard skin of Demons.

Sure, against your average being or unaware creature, the bullet (given that these are flintlock style pistols) at mid to close range is more dangerous.  The arrow gains back it's advantage against creatures and magic able beings though in that it can be enchanted easily which may be what is needed to defeat those shields (magic vs. magic and what not).

Quote from: Tapewolf on November 21, 2011, 05:06:43 AMI'm not actually one for guns very much.  Don't really care for them except as a plot device, or for their utility in video games.

Using a magnum to take out security cameras?

Quote from: Saphroneth on November 21, 2011, 01:44:05 PM
And as for the ability of magical shields: Well, if a longbow is dangerous, then a bullet is more so unless shields specifically require magic to get through them. An arrow has a piercing point, but a bullet just punches in with sheer force and can do harm through armour that might turn aside an arrow (which is more susceptible to leverage since it is longer).

The slow bullet penetrates the shield...

(Fear is the little death.)

I think it's entirely possible that development up to muskets (which I assume is what is being meant; you can have a flintlock hand cannon or a wheel lock rifle if you want, as the "lock" is the firing mechanism) came about because of the utility for, say, siege, signals or especially hunting.
Someone who knows their musket well can get more range out of it than normal, and a match/wheel lock to flintlock transition would be an example of one hunters would be likely to make (no betraying smoke; more reliable). And hunting with a black powder weapon permits a much smaller individual with less strength to get the same amount of impact behind the shot - mice, for instance? - whereas they'd be hard pressed to do the same with a bow.
In a similar vein, pistols were used for centuries as one-shot melee weapons (especially by cavalrymen) - basically, the gun can't do much damage or hit the broad side of a barn at any range, but if you shove it right up close to someone while they're busy holding off your sword, you can get some use from it. This is another "niche" avenue through which firearms have time to develop into flintlocks.
Matchlocks, I think, lasted longer at sea than on land because of the impossibility of firing a pre-loaded gun without the slow match lit. But that doesn't matter except in terms of signallers.
Though now I wonder. The main design pressure that led to the development of the galleon on Earth was the need for an effective gun platform (as opposed to the galleass, say). I wonder if Furrae naval technology just skipped the Age of Sail - and for that matter what the hell their naval ships look like now!

I can now more fully understand why she didn't want to bring them into the comic at all.  She so much as stated what was available and now everyone else is trying to argue what else therefore should be available and argue why they should be more prominent.

All I've done is talk about the cultural implications of it, and come up with explanations as to why they have the place they do (that is, not having turned up - hunting, signalling, pistols and siege are all areas that aren't looked into, and fair enough.).
It's an interesting topic, as is the development of firearms in general - the firearm is, broadly speaking, why Western culture was dominant for the period that it was, and the idea of a society with very little in the way of guns but otherwise a normal setting is a good contrast to our own.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 21, 2011, 04:57:08 PM
I can now more fully understand why she didn't want to bring them into the comic at all.  She so much as stated what was available and now everyone else is trying to argue what else therefore should be available and argue why they should be more prominent.

I fail to see how that's different from any other topic that has revealed this much of the workings of the setting's society - i remember other long threads, on more trivial topics.
Especially given that a rather easier (due to at least being the same species, never mind same physics)  variant of this particular topic - looking at a limited known set of facts about a bunch of people, and then trying to infer more about how they lived based on that information is what keeps a truckload of academicians employed.

If you feel academic for picking apart a fantasy story, which has a force (the writer) who can, and has stated *exactly* how things are and went... then I have no words for you.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 21, 2011, 07:38:47 PM
If you feel academic for picking a part a fantasy story, which has a force (the writer) who can, and has stated *exactly* how things are and went... then I have no words for you.

I don't, thank you very much.
My point was that doing it isn't exactly a failed endeavour, since it has worked in similar circumstances before, and worked well.

I might as well throw in my two cents  :U

As far as yet another reason guns could be a little less then useful in a magic setting, magic doesn't obey laws and rules as we here in our little universe understand. So a far as to the comments earlier regarding magical shields, well, if I was going to make a magical barrier to defend myself against any sort of ranged missile (be it arrow, rock or thrown puppies) I'd want a barrier that either absorbed kinetic energy entirely and redirected it (either into another form of energy or into a ground) or reflected it back into the object in question (so said shield absorbs the initial impact, then reflects 100% of the absorbed impact back into the object). In the event that such a barrier was a common one, cheaper, less manufactured projectiles would go a lot farther (especially in a Private adventuring setting). This is not an any way intended to be how DMFA's magic works, it's just a thought for how magic of a form could work to make guns useless.

Personally, I like the answer we've gotten, it makes a lot of sense, especially given the cultural and social structure we've seen thus far in the comic. Great job Amber!

It's not surprising guns never develop in a world of magic. From what i have read and seen about early guns, they were extremely inaccurate, dirty, and loud. They were all hand made and took a skilled craftsmen, and even then each gun could vary greatly. An accurate guns was treated as a treasure, but there was no guarantee how long it would remain accurate. Not to mention if the barrel become fouled or the metal is not strong enough it could blow up in your face. Also no standard barrel and ammo size.
As for what the gun looks like it's a different world with a variety of different beings idea of design. A tube, explosive powder, a projectile, and a method of setting it off is all you need. How it's put together is something people have been messing around with for a while. Some people make a living finding new ways to reinvent the wheel.

Quote from: Valynth on November 21, 2011, 12:54:05 PM
My person quick ref. for gun-lore terminology:

bullet:  originally pronounced (bool-'ley) by it's french inventor (and mispronounced ever since by the English world) this term refers to the conical shape of the lead, designed to improve accuracy and range.

actually the term bullet dates back as far as roman times, and was pronounced then more or less the same as it is today. the proper term for a conical bullet, with is based on the name of the french inventor and is always mis pronounced by the public, is the Minié ball. which is pronounced 'min-ay'


the original roman 'bullet' was a term for roughly spherical or ovoid lead projectiles used as sling ammunition by their local auxilaries. the term continued in use throughout the middle ages, as nearly all European and middle eastern nations employed sling formations based on the roman standard. when the early 'handgonnes' were deployed on medieval battlefeilds these small lead projectiles were used as projectiles for them as well, giving us the origin of the term bullet in reference to firearms. ('handgonnes' were little more than a metal pipe with powder and projectile, affixed to a long stick. braced on wals, trees, or on the ground with the stick tucked under one arm, they would be fired by touching a lit peice of rope or match to a touchhole. the first handgonnes fired modified crossbow bolts, but these proved to unweildy and bulky)

Quote
rifling:  Cutting spiraling groves on the inside of the barrel.  Originally it was intended to be used to prevent fouling, but it was quickly discovered that rifling improved accuracy and range.

actually rifling was invented purely for imparting spin on the projectile, back in the 15th century. the matchlocks of the time were not made with precise tolerances, and while round and bore sizes were standardized, the lack of precision tools meant that there were often wide gaps between bore size and the round inside it, causing the round to bounce around the barrel slightly when fired. this made the weapons highly inaccurate. Rifling allowed slightly larger than boresize rounds to be employed, and also ensured a tight fit when firing, reducing the loss of gas pressure and imparting spin, resulting in more accurate weapons. it remained a rare specialists feature (used mainly in hunting weapons), due to the fact that to load a rifled weapon with a normal spherical bullet (a "ball" in the terminology of the time), you had to push the round down the barrel while the ball was engaged in the grooves..a process that could take upwards of a minute or more per shot, depending on arm strength and barrel length.

the invention of the Minié ball in the 19th century allowed rifled muskets to become commonplace, as a Minié ball's conical shape and hollow base allowed the round to be smaller than the bore of the weapon, allowing rapid loading, but when fired the base expands to engage the rifling. the conical shape also tended to tumble less in flight, increasing accuracy further.

Quote
Mercury blast cap:  an extremely small piece of explosive designe to have just enough power to ignite the powder.  is virtually impossible to trigger without using a firing pin or reasonable analog.

technically this is referred to as the primer, or percussion cap. in most modern weapons this is a small copper pan filled with a impact sensitive explosive. older weapons used Fulminate of Mercury, a coumpound comprised of mercury disolved in nitric acid and ethanol. it is a whitish crystaline powder.
some of the earliest primers used potassium chlorate instead, which is a similar impact explosive. however potassium chlorate is mildly corrosive, which made long term storage of ammunition difficult.
while modern primers use a small metal pan on the casing struck by the firing pin, older weapons had a number of alternative designs. popular for a while during the 19th century were "pinfire" rifles, which used a nitrated cotton casing around the powder, and the primer glued to the base of the Minié ball. the round would be loaded into the breech, and when fired the long thin firing pin would peirce the fabric casing and the powder, striking the primer. these were effectively the first 'caseless' ammunition weapons. they proved difficult to use militarily however because the cotton casing would often not be fully burned up, which could cause explosions if care was not taken apon reloading.
the american civil war saw many smoothbore flintlock muskets retooled into rifled percussion cap weapons in an effort to equip both armies quickly. most merely replaced the flint on the side mounted hammer with a flat surface, and the pan that held loose powder with a 'nipple' which a persussion cap was placed over. pulling the trigger would cause the hammer to smash the cap down onto the nipple, setting off the primer, the explosion of which was funneled down a short tube into the breech of the weapon, igniting the black powder. this form of muzzleloader, in more modern construction, continues to be used for sport shooting and hunting to this day.
another, less common conversion used a primer sandwiched between two strips of paper glued together. instead of a nipple and cap set up, the pan was replaced by a box holding a spool of this paper, which was held in place over the tube to the breech. when the trigger was pulled, the hammer came down and hit the dot of primer. the resulting explosion was channeled into the weapon through the tube. this method reduced the need to replace the percussion cap with every firing (most had a simple mechanism by which the paper was advanced to a fresh dot of primer when the hammer was recocked), but the paper strips were more susceptable to the elements and could be set off by poor handling. most of these weapons were converted to percussion cap based systems by the end of the war. however this concept lives on today with weaker explosives optimised for making noise, in the form of noisemaking toy pistols.



-----------
honestly i prefer the lack of firearms in DMFA. rather like the Final fantasy settings, the technology that exists can be highly advanced, but only to allow the telling of the type of stories that the author wants to tell. in the Final Fantasy settings, firearms are not a common item, and are fairly limited. yet the same settings have flying airships, robots, and other high technology tropes. the entire point of not having firearms, or having firearms develop at a slower rate than other technology, is to avoid the problem of the 'arms race' we see in real life. firearms being to ubiquitous means that. to a degree, much of the 'epic' nature of the struggle in the stories vanishes. when you can just shoot dark pegasus from two miles away with a Barrett Model 82A1 with 30x starlightscope firing full metal jacked ammunition....the whole "quest to defeat dark pegasus" becomes far more mundane.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 21, 2011, 01:06:16 PM
I'd have to disagree with this a bit.  We've seen a paladin put up a shield against other spells for example that, if it were persistent, would likely stop any incoming bullets.  I don't think this requires Fae level power to do at all, and it is likely why such weapons aren't practical (at least against magic users).  Though I'm not sure that most beings would be able to sustain a shield like that, I don't think it falls to the realm of god-like creatures either.

Firstly, spells are vastly different from bullets. They can have a variety of rules that they run on.  In some fiction, for example, a simple circle of salt on the ground will negate even the most powerful spells or hexes.

Bullets on the other hand, are a manipulation of the currently existing laws of physics and if you combine that with the forces of a bullet, especially when fired from a modern gun, it would require a large amount of reality negation in order to prevent damage.  Not only that, but you have to invest power to maintain such a shield with each hit sapping vast amounts of power prolonged exposure would result in a inability to maintain the shield.  Plus as it seems in the comic most of those entities powerful enough to cast the shield might not recognize the gun as a dangerous weapon, or even they do have a shield up might not invest enough power to fully negate a hit.

All things considered.

Do you think DP gives a very rare laugh when some adventurer pulls out the ever so rare gun on him?

Quote from: Valynth on November 22, 2011, 01:48:19 PM

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 21, 2011, 01:06:16 PM
I'd have to disagree with this a bit.  We've seen a paladin put up a shield against other spells for example that, if it were persistent, would likely stop any incoming bullets.  I don't think this requires Fae level power to do at all, and it is likely why such weapons aren't practical (at least against magic users).  Though I'm not sure that most beings would be able to sustain a shield like that, I don't think it falls to the realm of god-like creatures either.

Firstly, spells are vastly different from bullets. They can have a variety of rules that they run on.  In some fiction, for example, a simple circle of salt on the ground will negate even the most powerful spells or hexes.

Bullets on the other hand, are a manipulation of the currently existing laws of physics and if you combine that with the forces of a bullet, especially when fired from a modern gun, it would require a large amount of reality negation in order to prevent damage.  Not only that, but you have to invest power to maintain such a shield with each hit sapping vast amounts of power prolonged exposure would result in a inability to maintain the shield.  Plus as it seems in the comic most of those entities powerful enough to cast the shield might not recognize the gun as a dangerous weapon, or even they do have a shield up might not invest enough power to fully negate a hit.

Ugh.
Yes, spells are vastly different from bullets, thing is , you can't infer from that how the bloody hell they work.
Say, you got  a shield up that prevents physical contact but allows you to move, right?
Fine , I use a telekinesis spell to move you, and a portion of the enviroment (so it's indirect) and make you shake-shake-a-shake it fast enough so that your insides take damage. A great way to deal with stone skin too, and one that conventional weapons can't really emulate that well.

On the other hand... bullets. Hard to stop one, right?
Except that the main problem is speed, really - you need to react fast enough. One fun thing is that you don't even need to stop one, it's enough to deflect it. And then , we come to the really fun possibilities.
Teleport it elsewhere? Disintegrate it? (matter creation isn't hard.. how hard is matter destruction) Warp space in such a way that the vector of its motion wraps around you?
As long as we don't know more about magic it's hard to tell.

Quote from: VAE on November 22, 2011, 02:11:20 PM

Quote from: Valynth on November 22, 2011, 01:48:19 PM

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 21, 2011, 01:06:16 PM
I'd have to disagree with this a bit.  We've seen a paladin put up a shield against other spells for example that, if it were persistent, would likely stop any incoming bullets.  I don't think this requires Fae level power to do at all, and it is likely why such weapons aren't practical (at least against magic users).  Though I'm not sure that most beings would be able to sustain a shield like that, I don't think it falls to the realm of god-like creatures either.

Firstly, spells are vastly different from bullets. They can have a variety of rules that they run on.  In some fiction, for example, a simple circle of salt on the ground will negate even the most powerful spells or hexes.

Bullets on the other hand, are a manipulation of the currently existing laws of physics and if you combine that with the forces of a bullet, especially when fired from a modern gun, it would require a large amount of reality negation in order to prevent damage.  Not only that, but you have to invest power to maintain such a shield with each hit sapping vast amounts of power prolonged exposure would result in a inability to maintain the shield.  Plus as it seems in the comic most of those entities powerful enough to cast the shield might not recognize the gun as a dangerous weapon, or even they do have a shield up might not invest enough power to fully negate a hit.

Ugh.
Yes, spells are vastly different from bullets, thing is , you can't infer from that how the bloody hell they work.
Say, you got  a shield up that prevents physical contact but allows you to move, right?
Fine , I use a telekinesis spell to move you, and a portion of the enviroment (so it's indirect) and make you shake-shake-a-shake it fast enough so that your insides take damage. A great way to deal with stone skin too, and one that conventional weapons can't really emulate that well.

On the other hand... bullets. Hard to stop one, right?
Except that the main problem is speed, really - you need to react fast enough. One fun thing is that you don't even need to stop one, it's enough to deflect it. And then , we come to the really fun possibilities.
Teleport it elsewhere? Disintegrate it? (matter creation isn't hard.. how hard is matter destruction) Warp space in such a way that the vector of its motion wraps around you?
As long as we don't know more about magic it's hard to tell.

Exactly my point earlier. Some are assuming that the laws of magic follow laws of physics that we are familiar with. Point is, they don't have to. Hence the idea that a barrier could simply reflect kinetic energy with a near 100% rate, making any bullet completely useless. Magic by nature in any sort of fictional setting is a universal law unto itself. Simply assuming that application of a physical law trumps magical law is bound to result in famous last words.

Quote from: Viking ZX on November 22, 2011, 02:48:46 PM

Exactly my point earlier. Some are assuming that the laws of magic follow laws of physics that we are familiar with. Point is, they don't have to. Hence the idea that a barrier could simply reflect kinetic energy with a near 100% rate, making any bullet completely useless. Magic by nature in any sort of fictional setting is a universal law unto itself. Simply assuming that application of a physical law trumps magical law is bound to result in famous last words.

Just to clarify.
The magic, most likely, FOLLOWS from what you'd call physical law in that universe. Awesome != unphysical or cheating somehow.. look at how many modern things would probably cause an inquisitor to burn you at stake for witchcraft.

Then lets rant a bit too.

We know from Jyrra's, that magic is more difficult to apply to items, the less magic was going into its creation.

Taking, that a lot of creatures use magic for defense (magic empowered defense and shildspells) partially combined with their physical bodies.

Magical shielding would therefore prevent penetrating from magic attacks (at least to a special point) duo its resilience to magic affects. (Dans robe for example wouldn't let magic effect it that easy when its made with high magical percentage in its creation. But Dan gets still blown away by the "physical" force of high power spells [DPs Attack] )

On the other hand physical projectiles that can easily be affected by magic, can therefore easily deflected/redirected by defensive magic.

That is the point, where enchantments enter the math. The enchantments empower objects with magic, that would increase the magical percentage of the item and make it less affected by other magic. Shielding would maybe block the magical effect of the enchantment (like pure magical attacks) but wouldn't be that effective at blocking the physical attack. (not being affected by magic = no magical blocking/redirecting)

Taking in account that enchantments ain't persistent and need the magical power of its user (i understand magical enchanted weapons as prepared with the enchantment that only needs to tap into its user magical power to activate, if there are "permanently" enchanted weapons) there would be 4 possible bullets for guns.

"normal" bullets: easily magical affected and therefore easy to block per magic -> not really useful against most creatures.

enchanted normal bullets: should be able to penetrate magical defense, but are a bit unpractical. Each bulled has to be loaded manually to enchant it before the shot. The user wouldn't even have a lot of time to aim, based on the durability of enchantments cut of of their powersource. (not to mention Amber's detonation in the barrel)

Fully magical created: they would pretty much ignore magical defense but aren't that easy to create. On top of that the creator shouldn't need guns for defense.

Fully natural created: Jy is still working on a precess to reach this state, but they would be able to penetrate magical defense like fully magical (http://missmab.com/Comics/Vol_1174.php). From my point of view, that would be the first step for a real evolution of the guns in Furrae. Why make better guns, when the bullets still wont get past simple defensive spells?

The other reason i see in not developing better guns: At this point, they are pretty useless. They take long to load, are inaccurate, "immobile" (try to load them while moving) and don't have the needed power to take out bigger creatures with 1 shot, even if the bullet penetrates the shielding. (I wanna see a being 1-shotting a dragon or the dragon giving the being the time to enchant a new bullet and load it into the gun)

Arrows on the other hand are able to be enchanted WHILE aiming, inflict bigger wounds, are faster to fire repeatedly, more accurate (with training) and theoretical "reload and fireable" at moving (even at the cost of accuracy)

Quote from: Valynth on November 22, 2011, 01:48:19 PM
Firstly, spells are vastly different from bullets. They can have a variety of rules that they run on.  In some fiction, for example, a simple circle of salt on the ground will negate even the most powerful spells or hexes.

Bullets on the other hand, are a manipulation of the currently existing laws of physics and if you combine that with the forces of a bullet, especially when fired from a modern gun, it would require a large amount of reality negation in order to prevent damage.  Not only that, but you have to invest power to maintain such a shield with each hit sapping vast amounts of power prolonged exposure would result in a inability to maintain the shield.  Plus as it seems in the comic most of those entities powerful enough to cast the shield might not recognize the gun as a dangerous weapon, or even they do have a shield up might not invest enough power to fully negate a hit.

Huh?

Word of goddess indicates that nonmagical bullets are easily blocked by shield spells. She first stated as much in a post on the Nice forums back in 2005 and has repeated it a number of times.

We've seen shield spells used twice in the comic, both reactively. The first time, it was thrown up to block a rain of firebolts. The second, to block a sword slash. Interestingly, both instances featured a (presumed) Being spellcaster, which suggests that it's lower level magic that Creatures could probably do better. And in both cases, the defender remained active and mobile. In the Demon attack, Glory's shield blocked an assault powerful enough to subsequently one-shot an experienced Adventurer. In the friendly duel, Wildy integrated the shield seamlessly into her magical offensive.

It's been established that nonmagical weapons are unlikely to kill (or even seriously injure) most Demons, even without extra magical protection. Unless you can somehow disable your opponent with a surprise attack, all you've really done is piss off a supernaturally strong and agile death machine who, thanks to easily activated shield spells, will be impervious to your attacks for at least long enough to hurt you back.

Centuries of technological innovation separate the innacurate, short range, single-shot boomstick that's virtually guaranteed to get you killed from the kind of high powered, rapid fire onslaught that might have a chance of overwhelming a Creature's natural and magical defences (assuming that's actually feasible in the first place). With little utility in the intermediary stages, it's quite implausible that people would even pursue that line of development.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Quote from: Spooks on November 22, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
This is why we can't have nice things.

Nah, you are mistaking it with manufacture outsourcing.

My good sir, I do believe it's time for tea.

And topic go to the heaven that is HELL!
But seriously our Lady has given her answer, trying to dig at it like a well placed nugget eventually gets old.

It left old a while back.  This has redefined stale and given us a brand new perspective on crusty.  It's downright appalling I say!  The facts were given, and then picked over like vultures on with a rotten carcass!  Rotten gobs of slimy gook, slapping and slathering all over the place and drying to the walls in disgusting rivulets!  It'd be enough to drive a person mad were they to read it!

And that, my dear little crumpets, is why you're all here.  It's because you're all mad and this is the place for the mad things.  You say mad things and talk in ways that normal folks simply can't and shouldn't read.

What about the "Dum Dum" bullets from "Who Framed Roger rabbit?"

As long as you didn't confuse them, they'd take out the target, right?

We just get back to the nice things problem. The dum dum bullets are nice things. We can't have nice things. Therefore, we can't have dum dum bullets.

We can have tea, though. Tea is good.

Oh my, am I late for tea? I just finished cleaning my top hat and everything!

There's always more tea, so you're never really late.

Yes, it seems an APF was wrong. This place is truely a realm of madness.

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 22, 2011, 09:19:54 PM
It left old a while back.  This has redefined stale and given us a brand new perspective on crusty.  It's downright appalling I say!  The facts were given, and then picked over like vultures on with a rotten carcass!  Rotten gobs of slimy gook, slapping and slathering all over the place and drying to the walls in disgusting rivulets!  It'd be enough to drive a person mad were they to read it!

And that, my dear little crumpets, is why you're all here.  It's because you're all mad and this is the place for the mad things.  You say mad things and talk in ways that normal folks simply can't and shouldn't read.

you sound just like sheogorath.

Quote from: Turnsky on November 23, 2011, 09:59:29 AM

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 22, 2011, 09:19:54 PM
It left old a while back.  This has redefined stale and given us a brand new perspective on crusty.  It's downright appalling I say!  The facts were given, and then picked over like vultures on with a rotten carcass!  Rotten gobs of slimy gook, slapping and slathering all over the place and drying to the walls in disgusting rivulets!  It'd be enough to drive a person mad were they to read it!

And that, my dear little crumpets, is why you're all here.  It's because you're all mad and this is the place for the mad things.  You say mad things and talk in ways that normal folks simply can't and shouldn't read.

you sound just like sheogorath.

Ah, but I do say, my dear sir, I do say that I detect just the slightest trace of Sanguine in his chippy, preposterous nature. Verily.

Quote from: Turnsky on November 23, 2011, 09:59:29 AM

Quote from: Mao Laoren on November 22, 2011, 09:19:54 PM
It left old a while back.  This has redefined stale and given us a brand new perspective on crusty.  It's downright appalling I say!  The facts were given, and then picked over like vultures on with a rotten carcass!  Rotten gobs of slimy gook, slapping and slathering all over the place and drying to the walls in disgusting rivulets!  It'd be enough to drive a person mad were they to read it!

And that, my dear little crumpets, is why you're all here.  It's because you're all mad and this is the place for the mad things.  You say mad things and talk in ways that normal folks simply can't and shouldn't read.

you sound just like sheogorath.

No I don't!  Except when I do.  You wouldn't like it when I do.  Confused yet?  I can see it in your face.  Well, mostly your eyes.  I like your eyes.  I may take them from you when this is all over.

Hmm... I've never been down here before. Is my hat on straight? One lump or two? And how is a raven like a writing desk?!?!? :mowdizzy

Quote from: Tezkat on November 24, 2011, 01:12:42 PM

Hmm... I've never been down here before. Is my hat on straight? One lump or two? And how is a raven like a writing desk?!?!? :mowdizzy

No, yes, these are both things I've neglected to eat.

Quote from: Tezkat on November 24, 2011, 01:12:42 PM

Hmm... I've never been down here before. Is my hat on straight? One lump or two? And how is a raven like a writing desk?!?!? :mowdizzy

That's supposed to have no answer, but a quick check online found a few attempts:

Quote
    Because the notes for which they are noted are not noted for being musical notes. (Puzzle maven Sam Loyd, 1914)
    Because Poe wrote on both. (Loyd again)
    Because there is a B in both and an N in neither. (Get it? Aldous Huxley, 1928)
    Because it slopes with a flap. (Cyril Pearson, undated)

But the real answer, to which the careers of Poe and Carroll bear ample testimony, is that you can baffle the billions with both.

*pokes topic notify*  Darn..

Well it's too bad things went this far before I found out this thread was still getting replies, guess I can't rely on topic-notify e-mails for this board anymore (will have words with ISP's spam-filter after this).

The only thing I was still wondering was...  this 'easier to enchant' business.  Mainly (if it was already covered in the swamps of quotes and replies previous I apologize) with it's implications that there are no 'Enchanted' weapons in Furrae as we, D&D loving geeks we are, understand them.

I understand fully the mechanics as-described by Ambarrrrgh for projectile enchantment, but if this is a 'Magic A is Magic A' universe then logically that would mean there are no permanently enchanted swords-axes-pokeybeatystabbydeaththings, so there is no such thing as a 'straight fighter' analog among adventurers if said adventurers ever intend to face something that needs magic to lay a beatdown upon.


On another front, the description of firearms as being commissioned weapons makes me wonder if there is a Furrae equivalent ofHolland & Holland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_%26_Holland)... some reason I keep seeing a Furrae 'Great White Hunter' out stalking the wilderness, and getting stepped on by a Griffon.

...and then, I giggle.  Tee-hee-hee, so many giggles.   :U

Ah, but don't forget items like Dan's robe that seems to block magic, even rather potent sorts of spells of the red deathray variety.

Quote from: VAE on November 24, 2011, 06:43:14 PM
Ah, but don't forget items like Dan's robe that seems to block magic, even rather potent sorts of spells of the red deathray variety.

But then we still run afoul of internal consistency issues.   Dan himself has said he hasn't messed with magic since he busted out two baby-teeth as a child, so how is it's enchantment maintained?  If it is self-sustaining then why wouldn't a quiver of arrows/box of cartridges self-sustain as well if pre-enchanted before loading ad firing?

I'm missing something here, I know it.. but what?

What is missing here is Hodgson's law. It is from a very sage show and one off the great philosophers of our times. It goes something like this:

If you're wondering how Joel eats and breathes
And other science facts
Then repeat to yourself 'It's just a show,
I should really just relax.'

Bullets are small and would hard to carve or write spells on if that was needed, and it would effect the aerodynamics.  Also bullets are destroyed on impact. More interesting uses would be tear gas canister launchers, tazzers, bean bag rounds, grappling hook launchers, perimiter flares, net launchers, rock salt. Stuff that would be hard to throw with hand or crossbow. The elderly, infermed, or other wise unable to use a weapon for self defense. Even the loud band would give some second thoughts bout causing trouble and would draw unwanted attention. And living in the country a round a shot is a quick safe way with dealing with snakes, rats, and other large vermin. So there are more practical uses for fire arms than shooting at people. Maybe the few firearms that are made are made for such niche markets. Sorry for the spelling errors and odd ramblings. It's late on a holiday night.

Quote from: Les on November 24, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
*pokes topic notify*  Darn..

Well it's too bad things went this far before I found out this thread was still getting replies, guess I can't rely on topic-notify e-mails for this board anymore (will have words with ISP's spam-filter after this).

Topic notify isn't notifying anyone. Nothing to do with your ISP, it's to do with ours; ours got DDoS'd, so mail got switched off. One of these days, we'll get around to fixing it, and then mail will start working again, but until then, all email from the forum is nonfunctional.

And have a nice day, too.

Quote from: Les on November 24, 2011, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: VAE on November 24, 2011, 06:43:14 PM
Ah, but don't forget items like Dan's robe that seems to block magic, even rather potent sorts of spells of the red deathray variety.

But then we still run afoul of internal consistency issues.   Dan himself has said he hasn't messed with magic since he busted out two baby-teeth as a child, so how is it's enchantment maintained?  If it is self-sustaining then why wouldn't a quiver of arrows/box of cartridges self-sustain as well if pre-enchanted before loading ad firing?

I'm missing something here, I know it.. but what?

I guess you are missingthat just as a nuclear powerplant isn't an airplane though they apply a lot of the same technology and principles, not all enchantments or magic likely work the same.
It very well could be that a) enchanting something permanently takes a crapload of work and is too expensive to be worth it, when for weapons, manual enchantments are both more versatile and possibly even more powerful (never mind that a weapon , unlike armour , has little need to work when you were knocked out). As ambargh seemed to imply, ones most interested in special grade weapons seem to be either adventurers or creatures, both of which generally have magic basics.
b) Metals just aren't the sort of materials that take well to the kind of magic that's needed to permanently enchant something. Hell, i mean, materials have tons of limits in the real world -  just like you can't , say, weld aluminium with flux-core electrodes, you might not be able to apply this sort of magic to anything hard and tough enough to make a decent weapon from.
c) Similarly to b) it might be simply that the types of spells that you'd want on a projectile can't quite make the cut - especially the sort that can pierce shields. Sure, you might maybe harden it magically, but the local pressure it achieves, and penetration will still be limited by top velocity.
Speaking of that,,, it might be even that the question itself (with respect to this  particular sort of enchantments) would make a trained mage facepaw... sort of like asking "Well ,but can I fire the bullet elsewhere, make it go real fast inside, and then just release it from the gun at someone?". 

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on November 25, 2011, 02:42:57 AM

Quote from: Les on November 24, 2011, 05:29:33 PM
*pokes topic notify*  Darn..

Well it's too bad things went this far before I found out this thread was still getting replies, guess I can't rely on topic-notify e-mails for this board anymore (will have words with ISP's spam-filter after this).

Topic notify isn't notifying anyone. Nothing to do with your ISP, it's to do with ours; ours got DDoS'd, so mail got switched off. One of these days, we'll get around to fixing it, and then mail will start working again, but until then, all email from the forum is nonfunctional.

And have a nice day, too.

Sorry if I had posted into a thread that had closed I had just left the thread open after the previous post I was wondering why the background changed. I haven't use any forms or looked at email in a while and had forgotten about topic-notify e-mails.
off topic sorry
eha email much garbage so fast. It seems everything online requires one and each send out 2 or 3 emails a day. Then there are groups and facebook where every posting goes to your email. Mass deleting in the morning and 50 bounced emails, by dinner because of a full inbox by dinner. And having separate emails for stuff  that might produce lots of garbage means you just have to deal with it in concentrated form. Excuse now while it try to forget about that wasteland known as email.

The thread hadn't closed. I just thought you might like to know it wasn't your end that was causing email problems, at least in this case. ;-]

Quote from: Les on November 24, 2011, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: VAE on November 24, 2011, 06:43:14 PM
Ah, but don't forget items like Dan's robe that seems to block magic, even rather potent sorts of spells of the red deathray variety.

But then we still run afoul of internal consistency issues.   Dan himself has said he hasn't messed with magic since he busted out two baby-teeth as a child, so how is it's enchantment maintained?  If it is self-sustaining then why wouldn't a quiver of arrows/box of cartridges self-sustain as well if pre-enchanted before loading ad firing?

I'm missing something here, I know it.. but what?

Your question has technically already been answered by the word of goddess:

Quote from: Amber Williams on November 21, 2011, 10:37:25 AM

Quote from: psilorder on November 21, 2011, 10:15:37 AM
So, enchantments fade over time and have to be re-applied?
Seems to me that otherwise it'd be simple to enchant the ammunition before loading. And i dont get why it would need to be direct-contact.

Part of it is the aesthetic works better in my head that way.  To me, you enchant an arrow to be full of cold-themed energy as its leaving your bow and touch and thus on impact it shatters into ice.  A bullet on the other hand...I can't help but imagine it would just backfire and explode in the chamber itself due to the pressure impact of trying to fire it.  

The other part is meta-knowledge balancing issues and my own interests.  Adding in modern weaponry complicates things because then it leads to the question of "well why would anyone use swords if people can bust out magcally enchanted  automatic pistols or sniper rifles and shoot their targets from large distances?" and other things.  As I have mentioned, I am not a combat focused person and I don't particularly care for guns.  I didn't want them to be a focus in the comic...so yes...I have deliberately nerfed them to be less effective in this particular universe setting.   They are harder to enchant, they lack the modern developments, and they aren't as effective versus creatures in comparison to magic along with most beings don't engage in as much combat with other beings to warrent large-scale creation.

What I'm guessing is that there probably is a class of permanent or very long lasting enchantments used on things like Dan's robe, but those enchantments aren't the sort that would be used on projectiles.

Like Amber said, it's more about the aesthetics than anything else.

If Dan's robe were to do something fancy like glowing or hardening or some other noticeable reaction to getting hit by spells, then the sort of enchantment put on it would probably need to be actively maintained or re-applied.

Since it hasn't done anything fancy like that as far as we've seen in the comic, we can probably assume that more energy has been put into making its enchantment long-lasting instead of flashy.  It might also be for any of the reasons that VAE listed.  Personally, I'm more inclined to believe reason A, given how valuable Dan's original robe was implied to be, but any of them are feasible.

Given enough time, I could probably come up with additional reasons for why certain enchantments can't be applied to projectiles or can't be made long-lasting, but I don't want to further contribute to the stagnation of this thread.

I'm quite pleased with the answers Amber gave in this thread, not only with an accurate description of the current technology level of fire arms, but also with her facts about the Mer race.  Writing the appearance of such an enigmatic race into my fan-fiction would be both thrilling and disconcerting, and would likely be necessary if my setting involves a port city (if Aclarntaki City doesn't already turn out to be one).  Maybe by the time I get off my lazy butt and continue it, more might be known about the Mer race, and if not, I'll save any port cities and Mer interactions for later.

And that's about all I have left to say for this topic.  Now I'll kick back and enjoy some Earl Grey and other citrus flavored teas. 8)

When will the remains of that discussion be allowed to rest in peace? >.>

I thought of saying that if Amber made up her own weapons she wouldn't have to worry about portraying them accurately, but seeing how this thread has turned out, I realize that there will always be people ready to nitpick about anything and everything.

We still need to come up with a theory of nice things that prevents the general case of nice things, but still allows tea.

Quote from: Gabi on November 26, 2011, 08:56:55 PM
When will the remains of that discussion be allowed to rest in peace? >.>

Nevar. It's the sort of discussion that has to have a stake driven through its unbeating heart, its head cut of, be doused in gasoline and set to fire on the crossroads set up on a giant wooden [DATA EXPUNGED] a steel mill and bury it in concrete.

How can you put a stake through the heart of something that is heartless.  If you cut off one head, a dozen more will take its place as with the mythical Hydra.  If you burn it to ashes, it will simply rise again like the Phoenix.  Like the Formosan termites, it can go through concrete (http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-1035/).  Like Rock and Roll, it will never die.

Or I can just delete the thread, but generally we don't like to do that.  It's way more fun to put it somewhere where we can laugh at it.  It's something we can all use a bit more of:  Laughter.  And tea.  Which is why we're here.  Well, that and because you're all insane.  I was going somewhere with this, I think.  I'm not sure where.

You appear to be lost, my good sir. But not to worry! I have just the solution! More tea!

Tea is the one thing that has allows civilisation to flourish. And as such, engineers honour it daily by differentiatiating and integrating with respect to tea every so often.

And computer scientists use it to represent types. Whenever a fellow teacher or professor mentions it, I want to drink it.

Quote from: ShadesFox on November 26, 2011, 09:32:42 PM
We still need to come up with a theory of nice things that prevents the general case of nice things, but still allows tea.

Bad tea?