Guns vs Swords/Magic
 

SInce the "best vg opening" thread has been usurped by a debate between whether guns or magic would win in a fantasy setting, I decided to make a thread for that express purpose.

My thoughts: While the fire-arms we have now would pwn swords/magic in the face, it took us a long time to get to this point. In a world where magic existed, there would be no incentive to develope alternate forms of ranged wepaonry. Therefore, it would be unlikely that firearms as we have them would occure in such a world (until someone decided to experiment with some 'firepowder' like in TWoT or Saga of Recluce). Anyone else have some thoughts?

My thoughts are more or less the same as yours.

Why would we bother using gunpowder? It's messy, takes time to reload, can misfire easily, and only serves one function. Meanwhile an experienced wizard can toss about fireballs and Magic Missiles - what would be the point when you can just spend a few years reading and practicing?

Well what about bows and arrows? In many games featuring magic as such, there's always the option to become a ranger. It's because that why there is skill and knowlege, there has to be other forms of fighting featuring physical skill and strength.

Guns would develop (eventually) if bows and arrows do exist, because, like with learning more powerful spells, the same is wanted with a more powerful ballistics. Sure the gun didn't develop from the bow n' arrow, but it would be a natural step to go from one reanged weapon to a more powerful one.

But in a world where guns and swords/magic coincided - swords and magic would kick ass. No, not because they would be more powerful, but because of the skill required to wield them as weapons - guns you can just pick up and shoot. But with a sword you could deflect bullets, slice weapons in half and so on; magic ... well magic you can do about anything.

But then again, it's like firearms vs physical contact. Sure, to be able to jump around, flip over, throw precise kicks and punches would be awesome, but it's just as easy to pick up a gun and bust a cap in the jumping karate kid. (No disrespect meant to those who practice martial arts - go MMA!)

Hmmm, it depends on the magic. Magic can be extremely powerful at times. A single person can call up a horde of creatures to fight for him, cause huge explosions, teleport, manipulate time, heal theirself, shield theirself, polymorph theirself or thier opponent, confuse his opponent with illusions, etc., etc., etc.

I wouldn't be so certain about modern weapons defeating magic. In fact, I'd say its quite one-sided in the favor of magic.

EDIT: I didn't even talk about swords, cause, really. A gun vs. a sword. Duh. Its pretty much useless.

I dunno how much use this is as an example, but Chrono Trigger's Lucca uses a gun as her primary weapon, with I believe a hammer/mallet thingy for close combat (altho' she's a much better spellcaster; her gun and Marle's crossbow have some of the weakest physical attacks in the game).

I used to think Lucca pistol-whipped creatures up close. She doesn't, but you gotta admit, that would freakin' rock.

Interesting conversation and I'll jump in headfirst.

Ray.Z, you are so very wrong on the bullet deflecting thing. So very very wrong. No amount of skill, natural or highly trained, can hone the human body to react to the speed of a bullet. Also, very little swords can stand up to being shot. Oh yes theres this video that shows a katana can slice a bullet in two. BUT both the gun and katana are lined up in a controlled test environment. Real situation though...I'd put my money on the marksman. Though that katana is obviously of superior quality a professional user trained to fight with it wouldn't stand much of a chance against a trained marksman.

BUT onto the main subject: Not everybody has the persistance and aptitude for the arcane arts. This is where compensation steps in. For a footsoldier to go up against a wielder of magic would just be stupid. Obviously something that shoots a projectile very fast with deadly results would necessitate the pedestrian soldier.

Magic on the other hand is far more versatile. For obvious reasons I'll skip ahead to something I'm more interested in.

Mixing the two. Enhancing technology with magic. Shoot a bullet far faster than mundane technology is capable of. Shoot fire/ice/lightning/[insert something else]. The best of both worlds wrapped into one. Fire a bullet that causes a miniature blackhole. Mass compression anyone? Simplicity and versatility! Boggles the mind!.....unless one were to kick in rules used in the game Arcanum. Magic screws up technology. Technology nullifies magic. etc.

Guns vs. Swords/Magic. Many I night I loss sleep to this question.

The problem of this question is, what guns? What magic? Modern weaponry vs. FF shenanigans? Or maybe period-techs best gun attempt vs. DnD? There are so many magical realms that it is hard to ask this question without being specific.

Though, I do have to say Guns do have a run for their money, until the wizzies run out of MP.

EDIT: Nevermind, I agree with the Grandmaster. The part about guns and magic teaming up, anyway.

I mean, arrows are the number one non-magical form of ranged death-dealing, yes? So, people would eventually make arrow resistant armor, or something. So then people would have to turn to an alternate form of death-delivery. The gun. But it is so weak against the tough armorses! So, tell Mr. Mage there to cast Haste on it. That'll get it through!

There is one strong arguement for guns and against magic: Magic is hard. You have to train for a long time to be able to learn magic, and that's if you're smart. Only a very low percentage of people can ever learn to cast spells of any decent power. Guns, on the other hand, are relatively easy to learn how to load, shoot, and maintain. Thus, you can afford to have a lot more trained soldiers with guns.

Swords are pretty much just right out of the equation unless you are a total badass.

Hehe, knee jerk reaction you just got there. I saw this:
And forgot about all else in the thread, just responding to it :P

I definately think guns would eventually develop in a world of magic. Maybe it'd be slower, but, like skweeb said: not everyone is a magician. The other folks need stuff to kill each other with too.

There haven't been enough games that mix the two, have there? Really, off the top of my head, I can only think of FF7. That's rather dissapointing.

Someone's forgetting about bullets :P

If we wanted to go with DnD there are several spells that would allow a caster to become ethereal, making bullets completely useless, while still allowing said caster to beat on you with spells. Hell even with the correct selection of classes and item enchantments you can have a melee character running around ethereal and still smacking things pretty damn hard with his sword.

While we are on the subject of enchantments sooner or later as firearms become more common enchanters would start enchanting armor to resist bullets. Eventually even mages would start creating spells to negate bullets. Of course the same people would be creating spells to augment bullets and guns. In the end you'd probably end up with strong mages at the top followed by riflemen in close second, and archers lagging way behind.

At least in a DnD sense you'd end up with a sort of arms race seeing you could augment, and counter, firearms the best. The end result would probably be entire schools of magic based around guns. As well as probably a few prestiege classes and at least one base class based around using guns.

Actually there is a rpg game that deals with the issue of magic vs technology.

Hmm... guns VS magic? I've always favoured magic.

Why? It's pretty simple. Any old blob or stick figure of a man can pick up a gun and shoot. One bullet is all they need to kill. They can be mentally ill and still be able to kill. Sure they would probably miss, but a stray bullet might get it. However, with magic and archery, shooting becomes about skill, precision and knowledge.
Another reason I like magic better is war. Yep, the thing that plagues us for all eternity is war. With guns, the army with the best rockets and snipers win the day. However with magic, it is a true test for dominance, as the representitives of each faction have proficience. Why, a good mage would be able to dominate an entire nation if he is good enough.
My third reason is that magic has a thing a gun could probably not have. The power to heal. Yes, the one thing I have yet to see in this thread is the fact that magic can be used for constructive purposes rather than destructive purposes.
My last reason is that generally, magic is intergender. A woman could be just as efficient at it as men, and not suffer for it. Other than pixelated sex-symbols like Lara Croft, how often do you see a girl in a game with huge bazookas that aren't under her top. Not often. Wheras magic has no specific gender... just the thought of a female Duke Nukem just makes me want to hurl... too late.

So to conclude my argument, I have to say that a good person would have the ability to defend himself in two ways. With a gun, where he could wound/kill an attacker, or with a magical barrier where he can keep himself safe without doing the wrong thing.

(I yellowed a paragraph for emphasis)

Hmm... Well there's no point in real-world comparison seeing as magic doesn't exist here... Let's go to how we see 'em.

Swords: Classic form of weaponry, adds a +5 to Badass/Hotness (Whichever applies better), +10 if it's a Katana. Oftentimes imbued with magic for whatever desired effect. Has a lot of variety in its types and fighting styles, which allows for versatility. Lacks defensive ability against guns, but some swords are "Runic" or otherwise able to absorb/ward off magic. Also, it is very short-ranged.

Guns: Long range, reaches the target much faster than the target is likely able to react to, takes much less time to learn how to use properly than swords or magic, impressive stopping power, and it gave rise to the term "Headshot!" Most variety, however, comes in the form of how long the range is and how accurate it is. It also allows NO defense except for just shooting at whatever is coming at you and hoping it does something.

Magic (et al.): By far the toughest to learn, and in many universes is only usable by a select few (Elven blood, had magic-using parents, midichlorians, etc). However, it offers the greatest variety, as magic is really meant to do ANYTHING.

So yeah... Swords > Magic > Guns > Swords. Nice little triangle there, no?

What about Samus Aran? She's covered in armour the entire time except during endings.
Or the female leads in the RE games, they generally dress somewhat appropriately, Rebecca Chambers or Jill Valentine?(Don't bring up Ada:sweatdrop ...she at least had a realistic alt in RE4)
And how many female magic users haven't had at least skimpy bonus costume. I can't think of any,female magic users who aren't stereotypes or fanservicey, at least shooters have a few realistic or not overtly-sexualised female leads. The few magic users who aren't in skimpy outfits are damsels in distress(Zelda) or love interests or villains(even then only the ugly villains).

If anything it's the reverse of what you said.
Also as far as I know women can be just as proficient in firearms as men.

You're forgetting FF8 too. You could junction magic to be dealt with your attacks giving elemental damage. They tell you this early in the game, and again tell you when you're going down below to save the garden from the missiles. Juntion Fire magic to go through the Oil based enemies easily.;)

Yeah, magitech firearms are the way to go. I'd totatly take a P90 of Unending Ammunition, or a Barret M99 of Dragonslaying. even a Five-7 loaded with Ethereal rounds would be pretty bad assed. Why bother with reagents and casting times, or muck about with fighting styles and having to get into meele range when i can take down opponents the smart way?

It depends on how powerful said magic is and how much control the user has over the magic. If the magiceer had the ability to kill someone, mearly by just blinking at them, then yeah, the magiceer could totally beat a Gunsman. There's just too many varibles to be able to say: "Yes, a magic-weilding person could beat a gunsman in a fight everytime."

However, if a person were to wield both guns and magic into one awesome blend, then it would be too stylish for the eye to behold. We can only dream.

It depends on how you look at it, I think.

For example, if you're going by pure numbers, gun/technology win. In most accounts, to properly train a mage, it takes years. To properly train and outfit a grunt so that he's a decent shot, it takes a month or two. You could train a fair number of gunmen in the time it takes to train a single mage. As such, assuming the battle/war/whatever is straight down the line, each mage would have to be worth several gunmen to win. While the individual mage is more versatile than the individual gunmen, I would suspect that many mage would have a hard time engaging several gunmen who were at range.

Of course, another factor you have to bring into this is scope. When we’re talking about guns, do we mean just the modern versions, or can we take into account sci-fi guns, since we’re talking about fantasy with magic anyways? Would it level the playing field if instead of a rifle you’re standard grunt is carrying around a rail gun? It seems a little unfair to just say “guns” as compared to magic, since magic is more than throwing energy at the other guy, whereas guns is all throwing metal at the other guy. To me, a more even debate would be technology vs. magic…but that’s just me, feel free to ignore if you want.

Well, any apprentice mage can cast magic. True it takes a while. But Magic is not a quick fix. The way you people are talking, it is like you are only talking about Hand guns. But how about Sniper Rifles. You can get someone hiding and wait for the first person to walk up. A Mage wouldn;t know what hit them until it was too late. Unless the Mage was strong enough to collapse every building/hiding spot with one spell, the Mage would lose. Guns for the win.

Unless you are using a normal Rifle or Handgun. That is the only time Swords and Mages win. All they have to do is wait for the guy to run out of Ammo.

Well....yeah. If I tie a guy up, and stick a gun in his belt, I'm pretty sure someone could kill them with a pencil too. If you stack the deck, you can make anyone win.

There's obviously times like this that the normally inferior weapon can work. Like, if two guys are standing right next to each other (one having a pistol, and one having a sword) and they suddenly get all pissy at each other, the sword guy probably has a better chance of winning.

Specialized cases, I guess. Which is why a mix is always best. But, magic is going to win out in a larger variety of situations.

EDIT: Oh really? See, I haven't played that one. Need to get on that, then.

Your still forgetting basic protection spells. If guns evolved in a world still dominated be magic there would be spells to deflect or counter act bullets. At the very least as I said before mages could move through various other planes far enough to be out of harms way but close enough to still see. To say nothing of just turning invisible or spells that make you appear to be 6 feet from where you actually are standing. Of course then there are contingency spells like in DnD that go off when a certain event happens, like getting shot/dieing. These can be enchanted into magical items.

Of course we can't forget that the general purpose of magic and general fighting in any fanatsy world is to far surpass normal human limits. For one monks, rouges and a few other classes get skills that allow them to completely evade explosion like effects. Even without that most spells, even the near instant ones like rays, have a reflex saves. Along with this whole surpassing human limits goes crazy high amounts of strength and general shall we say will to live. Combined with abilities that can make an already hard to kill combat character even harder knock, kill, or otherwise incapacitate.

Of course in all this I haven't discussed healing and buffs. Buffs making an already far above average human even farther above average. This ranges from an increase to any stat, including speed and reflexs, armor, or just plain pumping up "HP". That combined with everything else above would probably give a magic user time to heal himself, or a friend, or otherwise mount a defense/run the hell away.

Even augmented with Magic guns up to say bolt action rifles wouldn't be that much of a game breaker, in most magical settings. Now magic agumented machine guns might pose a problem. However, chances are sooner or later mages/enchanters would come up with some sort of solution. Then of course the people making/enchanting guns would find a way through and the cycle would continue. Really it wouldn't be all that different from today's world. Just replace kevlar with magic/magic armor.

As for super advanced technology thats not really any different. It has been said the sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguisable from magic. Now if you just randomly threw really high technology at magic users who've never seen it, or vice versa, there might be a slight advantage one way or the other. (That's assuming the side that was attacking had knowledge of the other side. Ie, magic users know about technology or tech users know about magic.) On an even playing field, either neither side knows about the powers of the other or they both know everything, its pretty much a toss up to strategy and venue.

Sure it only takes a month to train a guy to shoot but it takes years for him to become a veteran soldier and even longer to become one of the guys pulling up the plans of attack. Magic users would get this too but it'd be tempered by the shear volumn of crap they have to learn just to cast magic. So to make a long rambling post short magic is generally equal to any sort of technology. All that matters is the people behind it, and not always the training of said people. There is something to be said for talent and shall we say common sense and guile.

Damn, you people write a lot...

Either way, i reed most of it... just hope i dont sound repetitive now... but did everybody forget about Summons?

Get a Elite with summons, 10000 men with offensive magic, 2000 Men with defensive magic, and 500 men with healing magic and we are all set...

Remembering all the All (Materia counts?), Doubles, Triples, Walls, Regens, Cures and Lifes... and of course... Poison/Bio, Break, Blind, Confuse and Mute...

Yeah... Tech army is screwed...

This is a pointless discussion, but I'm hoping most people know that and they're just humouring each other for fun. That being said, there are always the game-breaker arguements of the mage ordering mountains to uproot and slam into their desired target area. There are also multitudes of very deadly guns, and if we include things like RPGs, well, there are always nuclear weapons that can be miniaturized to handheld size for the same effect (See: Davey Crocket Rocket).

Sure is pointless... but kinda fun to geek it out... its the same as any Vs Thread would be...

Also, Firaga Powered Chainsaws amuses me

Why stop there?

Why not an RPG that fires Flare or Meteo Spells.

I surely felt more like a geek after I responded to it...in a good way...if one can feel like a geek in a good way...^_^

Personally, I think if tech and magic existed alongside each other, it would break about even. In most cases, it's about escalation. One side creates a gun, so the other side creates a spell that can counter the gun, so the first side creates a different gun to counter the spell, etc, etc, etc. Its a pattern as old as time itself.

Give me 2 Gunblades locked together by a chain on each handle and you have a winner!

Also, combining modern weaponry with magic always sounds Sexy to me...

50 Cal vs Samurai Katana

I think that solves the sword vs gun thing. (I would love for someone to translate this video for me)

If any of you are MythBusters fans, you'll recall the myth about catchng a bullet with your teeth. The fastest human reactions range from .2 - .3 seconds. A human couldn't react fast enough to a slow-moving paintball let alone a bullet.

Guns= Winner.

Hmmm...we might have something with the whole MagiTek Gun thing going.
Do some bombing raids using bombs augmented with Ultima spells...

Knight Captain: "Don't worry, Your Highness Leona. I'll defeat this nefarious enemy and we shall be wed the very next-HOLY GOD, THE WHITE LIGHT IS EATING MY FLESH!!!"

Personally, I'd love to see a minigun take on an army with ammunition enchanted with Marlboro Breath. If the sheer rate of fire doesn't obliterate you, the endless assault of debilitating status effects won't let them get very far.

Heavily armored targets? Get me the Meltdown rounds! Vitality drops to zero, no enemies have resistance, and there's no accessories that can save you, huah ha ha!

Combine the best of all worlds, people! No one can stop a Gunblade Mage.

Yeah see in that nice lovely long post up there I addressed how once you throw in magic and a fanatsy setting all those basic human limitations things become a rather moot point. That goes even more so for swords which could be enchanted to do anything from simply being unbreakable to automatically deflecting things, such as bullets, for you. After all any melee fighter worth his salt has some sort of enchanted weapon.

Which of course leads to the arms race thing but I've been there and don't really want to go back. But basically given equal knowledge equally complex and advanced magic and technology are always equal in power. Its the humans in control that make the difference.

I'm not sure, but last I recall the idea was, "How is it in FF, they have these bipedal robots that walk and have heavily sophisticated AI, but nobody's developed a decent sidearm projectile yet?"

And I think that the idea was already solved through the fact that gunpowder is messy, unsafe, and difficult to use, and a couple Magic Missiles...well....never miss. I agree that the rest is sheer geek, (and alot of fun) but I'd like to point out that we're pretty far off topic by now.

anyway. Having said.

It really depends upon the context of magic we're talking about. Look at a couple of book series' magic style and try and compare it. The Magician by Trudi Canavan had "Magic barriers" that were completely impenetrable, except by other mages. Dungeons and Dragons carries Protection from Arrows, which is damage reduction to any ranged attack.

Asking about a fictitious magic power that is completely undefined is really hard to compare to other weaponry. I mean, hell, if we're talking Magic vs Guns, what magic are we talking about? Clerics from DND? Wizards/Sorcerors? Wu Jen from Legend of the Five Rings? The Force?

I'd prefer magic, but that's just the fantasy nerd/writer in me talking.

When we're talking about the damage done between the two, guns win just about every time, except the most powerful magic spells. Swords are never even close, because swords are close range, brutal, savage, and pretty ineffective if the person has any armor to speak of. Bullets pierce, and can more or less destroy anything they touch after being fired. Magic is too undefined to truly compare it.

Weird, I've seen videos of martial arts masters catching paintballs without breaking them. Of course it was set up like that video up there, not 5 guys in the paintball arena firing wildly at the acrobatic deflecting omni-black belt.

I simply do not believe in magic. Besides, everyone's ideas on the use, limitations and practicality of 'fantasy' magic is vastly different. So, discussion on that subject is in itself moot unless you define those terms explicitly.

So pardon me for showing a real life example instead of just saying what I believe magic to be.

Yeah except the entire point of this thread is Guns vs a combination of swords and magic. We are all, or should be perfectly aware of the fact guns beat swords in real life. This entire thread is pure mental excerise and debate on personal beliefs about magic. To that end every person argues from their favorite system of magic and we try to find a common ground.

If you don't want to discuss in term of magic why exactly are you in the thread. Not to be an ass but really was there a point other than to make the rest of us feel bad for discussing in the hypothetical? I mean really from the very first post it was pretty obvious this thread wasn't really interested in real life examples.

I my self have no real belief or faith in magic. That does not stop me from engaging in conversations regarding system and styles of magic, espicially in regards to game systems. You just came off as condescending and a bit like you hadn't actually bothered to read most of the thread. As topical as it was it was well rather off topic in context.

about any body dodging any sort of projectile, if you are talking about magic, you need to remember that Haste willl pop up somewhere down the road...

FF has plenty of gun/magic mixes. FF7 had Barret and Vincent (and will have DoC soon too, to further fluent the point), FFX-2 had the Gunslinger class, FFTA had guns in it too. FF9 had some in it as well, I believe, though none of the party used them.

This is why I like DMC. You combine Swordwielding, Gunslinging, and Magic (DTing, Quicksilver, Dopleganger, and others) into one being who kicks more ass then anyone else. :3

Now, in a real fantasy setting, guns CAN work, but are usually ignored in favor of magic. Weather this is diserved or not isn't the point, the point is that's what happens.

Wow, I posted this last night and its already almost 5 pages.....many valid points have been brought up. The fact that 'magic' is an entirely subjective idea doesn't help debate much, but hey, its already been said that this is about fun anyway.

Guns:
Pros: Require much less training to be used more or less effectively. Range. Armor piercing. Can cause great internal damage.
Cons: Limited ammunition. Requires reloading. Projectiles can be deflected off-course by wind, slanted armor, ect. Cannot be used for defense (other than "the best defense is good offense").

Swords:
Pros: Not limited by ammunition.
Cons: Takes longer to train a swordsman. Extremely close ranged. Sword attacks cause less overall bodily damage and are more easily defeated by armor than a high momentum projectile.

Magic:
Pros: Most versitile of the three (attack, defense, healing, augmentation). Harder to stop ("only magic can defeat magic," and a cookie to the first person who can guess where that quote is from). Generally has more 'flash' to it.
Cons: The hardest to master/train. Reletivlely few people have an aptitude for it (according to most fantasy settings). Limited by the strength of the mage.

Conclusion: Barring the sort of God-like wizards (Teclis, Lerris, etc.) that could decimate an entire continent by themselves, guns/technology would have the edge, because it would be easier to outift an entire army of ranged fighters. There simply wouldn't be enough mages to combat the multiudes. However, in a fantasy setting, you'd have to take into consideration that magically augmented warriors would be faster/stronger/harder to kill then normal humans. So it would come down to whether or not the tech army could kill the wizards while dealing with enhanced enemies. Add in the fact that magic could be used to break an enemies morale (it would likely be more demoralizing to see your comrades dissolved/fried/ect. by magic than to see them shot), then it gets even more complicated. In the end (again barring supermages, and superweapons likes nukes, ect.), then a pure tech army versus a pure swords/bows/magic army would still be decided by the people; strategy, morale, and training.

*OctoberRaven gets a cookie.

Let's pit armies of Mages, Gunners, and Swordsmen against each other in mass scale combat.

Guns jam/overheat/run out of ammo. Reloading takes time, enough time to get gacked.

Magic can misfire, which can take out the mage wielding the spell as well as some others. Mages also run out of 'ammo' eventually.

If a sword breaks or gets dull, it can still be used as a knife or a club. Throwing a gun at someone will MAYBE knock them out. A Mage without spells is as useful as a commoner in combat. However, swords do not have the range of magic or guns.

However, in a numbers game, the Mages have the advantage because their weapons of choice can bring their dead back to life. I'd still bet on the swordsmen though.

Also, to Sessh: Uncle from Jackie Chan Adventures.

Maybe we need to specify the discussion: It started out as a, "Why aren't guns used as projectiles?" Not, "Is every form of magic stacked on top of each other better than guns?" Swords were just dragged into it. I mean, we all know that if you put elemental magic, necromancy, summoning magic, healing magic, and any other form of magic all into a ball of awesome, it's going to be better than any gun, imbued or no.

It might be better to specify the setting before trying to make a conclusion, too. Magic varies too much as others have said, so pick a setting and figure out who wins.

I'll go with trying FF7, kind of a tough one. Guns definitely don't win. Vincent or Barret or any of the Shinra folk can't trump the swordsmen of the realm, even if some of Barret's limit breaks are pretty umm...awesome.

High end vs. high end, I say Magic wins in FF7. It comes down to Cloud's Omnislash (max 12-13 x 9999, right?) versus the best magic I can think of...Quadra Magic cast Knights of the Round with max Magic ability (12 x 9999 x 4?). Magic wins. Swords second, guns last. Next setting! :p

At the end of as many settings as possible we could tally it all up and see which seems to be better overall. Woohoo!

As far as FF settings go, swords beat guns because generally speaking the wielder is so fuck-stupidly powerful that they can just physically exert more force than any chemical reaction could ever transfer to any small lump of metal. I mean, guns? Fuck, Cloud could do more damage by throwing the goddamn bullets with his bare hands. I mean it's like saying, okay, guns vs. Superman. Hey, look at that, Superman wins! Hey I wonder how that happened, oh wait that's right, it's cause he's Superman!

Really you know why you don't see guns win in fantasy settings, is because come down to it is the whole point of fantasy settings is you don't see guns win in fantasy settings. I mean the genre largely comprises a response to industrialized modernity by carving out a fictitious space in which individual human strength and aptitude retains primacy. Going to all that bother and then letting guns win, well, shit, you might as well just stay here in reality, where the gun/magic question has been pretty definitively answered for about a hundred and twenty years now.

can we all just agree that Mustadio proves that everybody here is wrong and right at the same time?

Yeah, movie-remembreing time! He deflects so many bullets that it isn't funny...

Also, not just being specific about magic. I mean, we could say that a 50. cal barret is going to kill a magician from a concealed location, but that's obvious. So, seeing as Cloud is like a god, we need to tone down the settings a bit to a more even scale.

Anywho, a trained sniper with a Barret would easily kill Cloud. Camo + Super-gun + Unknown presence = dead FF characters.

Edit: So, all in all, the answer is circumstantial? Anyone agree?

Except he couldn't, because not even swords impaling Cloud kill Cloud. He's a dummy! Wait, maybe I should spoiler that...

And Mustadio was pretty good yeah, depending on how you deploy him in fact, he could beat any of the best heroes with Don't Move and Don't Act. Like any Versus thread is depends on the starting conditions. But on a standard Orlandu/Ramza vs. Mustadio with each in range with one move, it comes down to Mustadio landing the first Don't Move, and then shooting them to death over and over.

So perhaps in FFT, guns win. Or with those magic guns, magic and guns win! Or if Orlandu gets in range and isn't hit by Don't Move, swords and magic win!

This has been said before a number of times throughout this thread, but this is a world were magic exists. And so magic is used for destructive as well asconstructive purposes. It would seem that a magician of sorts could easily empower a human with enhanced natural talents (though this could go either way).

Ok, so people are kinda slow, but again - magic could help out. Like I said just now, enhancing natural abilities with magic, or even more so, the weaponry.

Also, if this is a marksmen vs trained swordsmen, the marksmen would be precise enough to be able to hit vital points again and again. But wouldn't the swordsmen know where these vital points are as well? What's to say that they would not cover their vital points with the sword, instead of trying to judge were the bullet is going?

But then again, the marksmen might know this as well, and aim for less vital point to throw the swordsmen off.

And may I emphasise once again - magic (and all it's uses) exists in the world as well.

Sorry to have to go back a few pages, but I have to have a chance to at least defend myself.

The odds that the bullet would hit the sword are very slim. The person wouldn't even know where the marksman is going to shoot. The human body is littered with vital points and 1 inch wide is about average for a sword.

The Buster sword might be somewhat more useful in that situation, anyone with a rapier is screwed though. Unless they can stab bullets mid-air with a thrust.....

That would be cool they should have someone do that.

if you really want to compare guns and fireaqrms, you need to do so in a setting were both exist... like Xenogears or Wild Arms... hell... even Granado Espada!

Anywho, in a fantasy setting a fancer with a rapier could probably stop bullets in mid-flight with a piercing thrust that would deslocate enough air to do so... and that would be cool

Lets reiterate the point of it being generalized (well, that was what I originally planned anyway); because as someone already mentioned, when you throw in the godly powerful god-like entities, magic/swords win cause the swordsmen can never die. To end the discussion lets take a look at some classic examples of guns vs swords/magic.

Spike vs Viscious: Basically ends in a tie. No points awarded.
Train vs Creed: Guns win.
The Samurai vs the Gatlingers in The Last Samurai: Guns win, by alot.
An Alpha Level Psyker vs Some Impirial Guardsmen: Magic(ish) wins.
Deathmaster Snikch vs anything: Swords win.

Conclusion: Because Snikch can kill anything (with the possible exception of Vash, Train, Kenshin, and Chuck Norris), including Superman (cause warpstone is green and glowy, and therefore counts as kryptonite), swords win, stupid man-things.

But the real heros generally end up with some combination of Swords, Guns, AND Magic, either ending in some magitech monstrosity of doom, or some very impressive collaboration of awesome.

For example, Urza Planeswalker from MTG is an artificer who walks around in a mech with several magitech weapons. And he just happened to use it to destroy an entire plane of creatures because they pissed him off.

KOS-MOS from Xenosaga incorporates ether-magic, blasters, blades, scythes, what have you... All to great effect. However, this could be attributed that Killer Robots > Guns, Swords, and Magic. After all, Optimus Prime could squish Gandalf.

Squall from FF8 uses magic, and a gunblade, which just happens to be someone's idea of "Gun + Sword = WIN!"

Because why else would you put bayonets on rifles?

I think I read somewhere that the gun on Squall's gunblade wasn't used for long-ranged attacks. Instead, the resonation from firing the gunblade results in a more powerful strike:

Thus, I don't think one can say that Squall is "t3h ub4r m4g3k1774r" based on "OMG h3 h45 t3h gunb4d35 lolz" alone...

Not really. Spike had been shot in the stomach, and I believe in a few other places, had just gotten done fighting his way through an office building full of mafiates, and was basically on the verge of death when he went against Vicious, who was still fresh. In fact, he couldn't even see straight. Then he still killed Vicious, before succumbing to his wounds a few minutes later.

So half-dead gunman vrs fresh swordsman, and it comes out to a draw? Yeah, I'd say advantage guns.

I don't know enough about the other characters to know if you have any other fallacies in there... but I felt the need to point that out.

Otherwise I'm kinda with the general consensus, which is that in a world that incorporates both magic and guns, you'll probably end up with both of them coming to a head.

Although magic guns > magic swords.

I agree. You know what they say: Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

Just go play Gunz online and find out who kills who with what...

http://www.gunzonline.com/

Well, true. However, the weapon still incorporates Gun-ness with Sword-ness, which is what I was attempting to argue without the use of leetspeek. However, it remains that he uses all three.

Juji's (Gungrave: Overdose) Gunblades>Squall's Gunblade. They were actually blades that had guns on the hilts. They shot bullets at guys and everything, and then Juji'd slice up whatever frackjob was around him.

In a fantasy setting, where creatures exist that can take a full clip and keep on trucking, guns don't always spell instant death for what they shoot. Do guns kill things like, say, Sin from FFX? Could a gun kill ANY of the things in DMC or Gungrave in a single bullet, like they do in real life.

A gun isn't nearly as useful if it can't kill in one hit. Especially if we're talking a fucking Behemoth charging at you at top speed, trying to crush your tiny body to a bloody goo.

What you people are forgetting is one major thing. How the magic is used/learned. Are you dancing around a circle? are you chanting a phrase? are you making arcane hand symbols? using a magic device? some combination of the above? or do you think a thought and MAGIC! if it's not the last one magic loses. Becasue If I have time to run up and cut you/bust you in the head. Your years of magic training don't mean shit. This is not to say that you might not have cast a bullet/blade deflecting spell before our encounter. But that's the same as the sniper or Ninja head stab attack, it's stacking the deck. you want to know where this discussion really would be proven? in the world of my favorite RPG that I don't own and did'nt get to finish, Skies of Arcadia. If you recall, how was magic done? say a word, make shit happen. How was magic learned? Kill shit with your weapon, with the right stone in it. Eventually you learn magic.then you use it with your weapon. skies of arcadia, beyond just rocking for being so happy and cool, had the weirdest magic system ever.

"Ohh great sage, I want to learn thunder magic."
sage: Here's a spear, kid. Go stab all your enemies, if you haven't learned how to shoot lightning from your hands by then, screw it cause you don't have anybody to shoot it at.

Sin was only defeated because of guns on the airship, remember. They blasted massive holes in him that allowed the party to attack.

As for DMC--DMCIII's Heaven or Hell mode. Everything dies to a single hit. Probably the hardest difficulty setting, unless you're using Ebony and Ivory. In which case it probably ranks around Dante Must Die, just because a single half-mistake kills your ass.

And even outside of that, there were very powerful guns in DMC1 and 3. The rocket launcher in 3, for instance, was capable of killing entire groups of minor enemies in a single shot, and Ebony and Ivory were still massively useful against some bosses--just slower than swords, as was the rifle.

Spell casting times vary. Maybe some of the more uber spells can't be cast before you get to me, but even in the slowest systems I can get one or two off to slow you down/maim you/whatever.

Definately wouldn't get off one before you shot me though. Unless its a really fast one used while you were aiming.

Also: In some worlds, a mage not having wards is like a normal person not wearing clothes. They put them up before they ever go anywhere. I do agree that its stacking the deck in most though. Really though, the wards give a mage a chance agianst even a sniper, so we could stack them if you'd like.

Well, actually, if there's a Behemoth charging at me at [rest here], I'm probably gonna want to be as far away as possible. So, yeah, they're still useful. And surely anyone going up agianst that Behemoth learned how to dodge, or run away at some point. You can shoot and run at the same time.

Oh yea, I remember now. My mistake. <.< Wonder why noone tried that earlier, eh?

I'll agree with you that guns were USEFUL in DMC, but they weren't uber like they are in real life, compared to swords anyway. A rocket launcher kills things in one shot, yes. That's that. E&I, on the other hand, couldn't kill anything in only one hit. Mind you, it could in the cutscenes, but then why didn't Dante just shoot Vergil during the final match?

Besides, which do you use more often? Swordmaster or Gunslinger?

A gunblade that shoots magic fireballs.

Owned...