I know way, way more about like, 1400-1850ish than I do about the "medieval" period because more interesting stuff happened in it. It's also when the longsword/sword&buckler styles I fight in were actually in vogue. Unless you really, really love viking swords, the sword you think is cool is from this era. You get cool tactical stuff too; like, all the way up through the American Revolution a dude trained with a bow is just better than a guy with a gun in terms of actual effectiveness, but it's easier to train people on how to use guns effectively. There's way more room for serious ideological diversity among your cast of characters. Tinkers/Alchemists/Artificers make more sense thematically. The early modern period rules!
i like snakes and a free palestine
- he/they
- v3launchunit.neocities.org/
aside from the aforementioned affection towards snakes, i also hold a great deal of fondness in my heart for hollow knight (i am extremely normal™ about collector), rain world (miros birds are the best creature i will not be accepting criticism on this), command and conquer red alert 2 (kirov reporting), in stars and time (one must imagine sisyphus stuck in a time loop), and about a million other things.
i played through slay the princess and spent the whole game pretty much completely ignoring her in favor of dicking around with the narrator (there is no good ending because the narrator always dies) and the voices (contrarian is the best one), which probably says a lot about me (i am aromantic asexual (this will not stop me from rebugging horny™ shit that i am tangentially interested in)).
fuck it i'm a girl now (still he/they tho)
i also like to draw and make games & shit.
my neocities
v3launchunit.neocities.org/my goblin.band
goblin.band/@vmy tumblr
v3launchunit.tumblr.com/my dreamwidth
v3launchunit.dreamwidth.org/You must log in to comment.
in reply to @DeusExBrockina's post:
I have a suspicion that D&D and co. are a lot more Early Modern than they let on. not in interesting ways though just in a "pop culture collapsing everything from 400 AD to 1600 AD" way. absolute monarchy is a good example, it's a 15/1600s idea that everyone thinks is medieval
in reply to @smuonsneutrino's post:
I have read differently about bows vs guns
Finally, this sort of analysis helps to explain why gunpowder weaponry was viewed as desirable, especially against armored infantry – particularly in Europe – even though it was less accurate and slower-firing than bows. This question is a frequent one from students, in light of the low rate of fire and poor accuracy of early arquebuses. By the 15th century, guns were already delivering much higher impact energies (500-1,000J; by the 16th century, this was 1,300-1,700J) than any bow and while a bullet requires (because of its shape) more energy to penetrate, even then, the lethality of firearms quickly eclipsed bows, especially against armored targets. Given a choice between five shots which might wound a target and one shot which would definitely disable him, it’s not hard to see why the preference for the latter developed.
https://acoup.blog/2019/07/04/collections-archery-distance-and-kiting/
There is also the "loud bang" argument, but that comes from *spit* grossman and fuck that guy
so like. Once everyone stopped wearing armor in combat because it won't stop a bullet, the archer suddenly became way more effective again, hence my comment about the Amerian Revolution. Much of smaller-scale combat (as we see in ttrps) would have been performed unarmored even before that, where the archer would also have seen great effectiveness.
(Most longsword techniques, even, are designed to be used by and against an unarmored opponent. Both in melee and at range your choice of weapon changes based on whether your foe is armored. In a TTRPG, you probably want to capture the vibes of these arrangements rather than the exact literal truth of it, ofc.)