How much damage does a Rifle do?

[Sims]

I saw a movie where it blew a guys head off. (Then again, he probably would have counted as a commoner with like 2d4 HP) In any case, it Sounds pretty useful, especially enchanted with Holy, and Undead Bane. (And perhaps Vorpal? :D)

My friends said the stats were in one of the books. (To bad they can't be Composite)

[Yora]

I saw a movie
Here's your answer. I saw in a movie how a space station blow an entire planet up. And a man surfing through space on debris of his exploded spaceship.

[Volthawk]

DMG puts hunting rifles at 2d10, and automatic rifles at 2d8.

[Mastikator]

A Great Crossbow *deals 2d8 damage 19-20 x2, which is about as powerful as a 9mm hand gun. A hunting rifle should be a bit more powerful since it has a higher caliber and longer pipe, I'd put it at 3d8 19-20 x3. An assault rifle hits weaker per bullet than a hunting rifle, but still more than a hand gun, so that'd be at 3d6 19-20 x3, or maybe x2.
Then there are higher caliber guns than the 9mm, a desert eagle should also probably be around 3d8, or something like that.

I'm not an expert on guns though.



*I don't have the actual stats on the GC

[KillianHawkeye]

Keep in mind that a shot to the head almost certainly represents a critical hit.

[Yora]

Keep in mind that a shot to the head almost certainly represents a critical hit.
Makes sense. You can survive them.

[Spiryt]

I just saw a movie and I've seen a bear taken out by the RIFLE not just a guy..... :smallconfused:

Are you sure you're talking about THE RIFLE? True RIFLE forged out of thousands layers of folded steel and that can sever a flower bloom if shoot under water from a waterfall? :smallconfused:

[Sims]

I just saw a movie and I've seen a bear taken out by the RIFLE not just a guy..... :smallconfused:

Are you sure you're talking about THE RIFLE? True RIFLE forged out of thousands layers of folded steel and that can sever a flower bloom if shoot under water from a waterfall? :smallconfused:

Hey, I don't know! XD I just saw a guys head explode and thought it was cool!

[dspeyer]

IIRC, a modern rifle will kill a tiger in one shot but not a grizzly bear. This suggests a damage between 45 and 51 hp.

[Yora]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a bear take out a man with a rifle.

[Goober4473]

I'm pretty sure a sword will also kill someone pretty easily. A longsword to the head will probably be instant death. And how many sword swipes does it take to kill a tiger or bear in real life?

The main advantage of guns is that they're easy to use and long range. Hitting a tiger with a longsword is going to be difficult and dangerous, but if you do it, I'd guess that tiger is as dead, if not more so, than being shot with a rifle.

[Swordguy]

Guns are...weird, when it comes to quantifying damage. It is entirely possible for a dinky little .22lr to kill someone in a single shot, whereas I have personally witnessed an insurgent being hit by about a dozen 5.56mm rounds, giving the shooter the finger, and walking away.

There's just so many factors that go into the damage a bullet does and all of them have a massive impact on the final result. Range, bullet calibre, bullet weight, whether the round is tumbling or not, presence or absence of hydrostatic shock, what the target is wearing, and dumb freaking luck (and that's just for starters).

The hard part here, then, is modeling a system wherein a bullet can kill or disable in a single hit, but also one that can model a person taking several hits and surviving with no real lasting damage. One interesting way I've seen it done for d20 is that bullets don't deal "damage", they force Constitution checks (with larger calibres at a penalty to the roll, and smaller ones at a bonus) or immediately drop a person to "-1 and Bleeding" (a big enough margin of failure on the roll means instant death). Passing the Con check means no effect (or a simple 1HP of damage; I can't recall right now).

That's a fairly quick and reasonable accurate way of modeling them within the current rules system - thus avoiding having to bolt on another patch to an already dangerously-creaky and tempermental system. The larger the creature (and thus typically the higher it's Con score), the less a single bullet is going to do to it - which is actually about right. You either need to riddle the target with LOTS of rounds (to increase the odds of failing the Con check) or use a pretty big round (which will increase the odds of failing the check via the penalty).

System in a nutshell

This is all IIRC:

Guns are Ranged Touch Attacks.

Common Pistol Calibres
.22 Short, .25 ACP calibre: +3 bonus to Con Check
.22 LR, .32 calibre: +2 bonus to Con Check
.380 ACP, .38 Special calibre: +1 bonus to Con check
9mm (all types), .357 calibre: +0 to con check
.40 S&W, .45 ACP: -1 penalty to Con check
.44 Magnum: -2 Penalty to Con Check

Common Rifle Calibres
.22 LR calibre: +2 bonus to Con Check
5.56mm/.223, 5.45x45mm, 5.7mm calibre, .30 Carbine: -1 to Con Check
7.62x39mm, .243 calibre: -2 penalty on Con Check
.270, 6.5mm Arisaka calibre: -3 penalty
7mm Mag, .303 British, .30-30 Win: -4 penalty
.30-06, 7.62x54R, 8mm Mauser: -5 penalty
7.62x51 NATO, .308 Win: -6 penalty
.444 Marlin, .45-70 Government: -7 Penalty
.50 Beowulf: -8 Penalty
.50 BMG: -9 Penalty

A confirmed critical hit on the attack roll gives a -5 penalty to the Con check.

All Con rolls are auto-failed on a "1", and auto-passed on a "20".

-"Light" Category armor gives no modifier to the Con Check
-"Medium" Category armor gives a +1 bonus
-"Heavy" Category armor gives a +2 bonus
-Modern (soft) Kevlar body armor gives a +4 bonus against pistol fire, +1 against Rifle fire (.22LR is treated as a pistol round).
-Plates inserted into the Kevlar give an additional +2 against pistol fire, and an additional +3 against Rifle fire (for a total bonus of +6/+4). However, it will only affect the first two hits, and then the Plate bonus is lost. A critical hit bypasses the Plates completely, negating the bonus.



It's not "game balanced" in that players will be upset about having anything that can force instant death (in fact, I'm willing to bet there'll be some people here who will be upset at such a proposal). But it's more true-to-life than just a flat "XdY damage". In my experience, having such rules makes players far more cautious when they know they can be killed by a single bullet - I consider that a good thing.

And if you want, you can just use the 2d6/2d8/2d10 HP of damage rules from the DMG. It's boring, and stops modeling firearms well at all once you get past about 5th level...but it's RAW. If that matters to you.

[Mastikator]

I'm pretty sure a sword will also kill someone pretty easily. A longsword to the head will probably be instant death. And how many sword swipes does it take to kill a tiger or bear in real life?

The main advantage of guns is that they're easy to use and long range. Hitting a tiger with a longsword is going to be difficult and dangerous, but if you do it, I'd guess that tiger is as dead, if not more so, than being shot with a rifle.

A bullet doesn't create a neat little hole that only punctuates the organs it pierces, the speed of the bullet creates a wake that obliterates nearby organs completely. There are guns that are so powerful that you can be killed just by the bullet flying next to you.

[awa]

sure dnd does not model fire arms well but i don't really think it models any weapon that well in general i would assume that getting hit in the torso by a two handed sword would deal more damage then a bullet if only because its striking a much larger area and the odds of hitting something vital are bigger.

And of course you have to decide what kind of rifle you are depict early rifles should probably do damage similar to a heavy crossbow.

(note although i say dnd does not model damage well i mean it does not do so realistically from a game perspective its fast, easy and intuitive)

[Siosilvar]

I think a decent firearm stat line would go along the lines of 2d8 piercing, 20/x4 crit. Doesn't ignore armor (Breastplates could "block" musket balls, and there's a reason military troops wear body armor).

That's an average of 36 damage on a crit, in case you're wondering.

The statlines in d20 modern have 2d6 to 2d12 damage and usually 19-20/x2 crits, but d20 modern also uses a much lower massive damage threshold (take damage above your Con score and fail a Fort save and you're at -1).

[tyckspoon]

And if you want, you can just use the 2d6/2d8/2d10 HP of damage rules from the DMG. It's boring, and stops modeling firearms well at all once you get past about 5th level...but it's RAW. If that matters to you.

It stops modeling sword, axe, fire, and all other kinds of lethal-injury-inflicting implements well too, so that's ok. It's one of the few things that is fairly consistent about 3.5; no matter what you do with it, HP and damage doesn't model anything real, and if you try to force it to it won't make sense.

Edit:

There are guns that are so powerful that you can be killed just by the bullet flying next to you.
[citation needed]

Alternately, yes, we call them artillery.

[Spiryt]

Guns are...weird, when it comes to quantifying damage. It is entirely possible for a dinky little .22lr to kill someone in a single shot, whereas I have personally witnessed an insurgent being hit by about a dozen 5.56mm rounds, giving the shooter the finger, and walking away.

There's just so many factors that go into the damage a bullet does and all of them have a massive impact on the final result. Range, bullet calibre, bullet weight, whether the round is tumbling or not, presence or absence of hydrostatic shock, what the target is wearing, and dumb freaking luck (and that's just for starters).


Well that's indeed pretty streamlined, by does sorting it by caliber/size really makes that much sense?

Today it's discussed pretty much everywhere that bigger caliber doesn't really increase lethality as much as other things.

I would say that overall KE/velocity would be also pretty easy, and more to the point.

After all, mentioned 5.56 fired out of 20 inch barrel of M16 will pretty much fall apart in average body, completely ruining it, while fired out of some smallish pistol, it indeed can cause psycho/drugged target only to behave in a non protocolar way. :smallwink:

[lightningcat]

There are guns that are so powerful that you can be killed just by the bullet flying next to you.

[citation needed]



The only example of this that I have seen, involved a ground squiral and an elephant gun. The theory is workable, but not so much for any game system that I would want to play in.

[dspeyer]

I think a decent firearm stat line would go along the lines of 2d8 piercing, 20/x4 crit. Doesn't ignore armor (Breastplates could "block" musket balls, and there's a reason military troops wear body armor).

A steel breastplate could often stop a musket ball, but generally not anything rifled. Modern armor is made of more exotic materials. How this applies to a dragon's scales (not dragonskin(tm)) is anyone's guess. I realize DND armor is *very* simplified, but this point was of military importance.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a bear take out a man with a rifle.

Just bearly.

[Spiryt]

Just bearly.

Yet I miss him dearly. :smallfrown:

[Swordguy]

Well that's indeed pretty streamlined, by does sorting it by caliber/size really makes that much sense?

Today it's discussed pretty much everywhere that bigger caliber doesn't really increase lethality as much as other things.

Well...it does increase lethality, I mean, would you rather get hit by a .22 LR or a .50 BMG?

But you're correct in that delivered KE is probably the better way to sort the list. Delivered KE does, however, tend to go up as the rounds get bigger, though (overpenetration aside).

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I would say a rifle would deal 2d10 damage and cost 50gp (about $2500).

[Sir_Chivalry]

Dragon Magazine, in an article about firearms, values the rifle the same as the musket (1d12) but it has a range of 200ft.

[lightningcat]

I not going to say how realist the numbers are, but d20 modern's firearm system would work for a starting point for any d20 or D&D based game. Personally, I would go with a 19-20/x3 crit range instead, but to each their own.

[Spiryt]

Well...it does increase lethality, I mean, would you rather get hit by a .22 LR or a .50 BMG?

But you're correct in that delivered KE is probably the better way to sort the list. Delivered KE does, however, tend to go up as the rounds get bigger, though (overpenetration aside).

By .22, because it will generally have times lesser energy. :smallwink:


Anyway, no point of arguing, as it's as you mentioned, very complicated thing, but, generally, in case of smaller and faster projectiles transfer of KE to target will be much more efficient generally (much more violent to speak normally). Although shape of bullet also plays huge role.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45ACP%20230gr%20FMJ.jpg


http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg

[awa]

personally i never liked the 19-20 x3 it seems much more powerful to me than 18-20 or x4 damage

[Cog]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a bear take out a man with a rifle.
I didn't even know that a bear could wield a rifle.

[Frozen_Feet]

There's just so many factors that go into the damage a bullet does and all of them have a massive impact on the final result.

The same applies to sword cuts, blunt traumas, impalement-be-spear, etc.

They're modeled by the random component of the damage roll. Going outside that basic system within the context of D&D is overworking yourself.

There are spells that are basically high-grade artillery. Characters not only survive, they're expected to survive those after a certain point of progression. D&D is fantasy; D&D characters past level 5 are superheroes by any other name. At low levels, where you could argue D&D models reality to some extent, a bullet that does 2d8 damage will drop characters a significant amount of the time. You hardly need to get closer than that.

[Shyftir]

I didn't even know that a bear could wield a rifle.

And Cog wins the thread. Have a cookie!

[The Big Dice]

D&D is fantasy; D&D characters past level 5 are superheroes by any other name. At low levels, where you could argue D&D models reality to some extent, a bullet that does 2d8 damage will drop characters a significant amount of the time. You hardly need to get closer than that.
I always thought D&D being fantasy was a poor excuse for characters eventually being able to ignore falls from certain death heights, being able to swim in lava (which is actually hot enough to evaporate human flesh) and to survive other things that they shouldn't be able to.

And saying "People survive those kind of things in real life" isn't a good excuse. The reason we talk about people who survive falling out of planes or being shot point blank in the head is because those kind of situations are rare.

But then, I guess that line of thinking was part of the rationale behind E6 :smallsmile:

[randomhero00]

avg* hunting rifle (like a 30 30), dmg 3d6 20x4
avg* military sniper rifle (7.62x51mm) 3d12 18 20x4
avg* assault rifle (7.62x51 NATO or 5.56x45mm NATO) dmg 3d12 or 2d10 20x4

effect on hit: bleed 1 hp per round until a DC 15 heal check
special: Aim- take one round, uninterrupted,and increase
the crit range by 5, and give +5 to hit.

Now you'll notice my crits are x4, that's because a "crit" to the head should kill almost certainly. A well placed shot (crit) means game over for pretty much anything up to an elephant. Which is CR 7 I think. So it should have the chance on a crit to one shot up to a CR 7 elephant.

(I didn't calculate the numbers but I think that's close. A full crit would be over a 100 or so).



*American

[lightningcat]

avg* hunting rifle (like a 30 30), dmg 3d6 20x4
avg* military sniper rifle (7.62x51mm) 3d12 18 20x4
avg* assault rifle (7.62x51 NATO or 5.56x45mm NATO) dmg 3d12 or 2d10 20x4

effect on hit: bleed 1 hp per round until a DC 15 heal check
special: Aim- take one round, uninterrupted,and increase
the crit range by 5, and give +5 to hit.

Now you'll notice my crits are x4, that's because a "crit" to the head should kill almost certainly. A well placed shot (crit) means game over for pretty much anything up to an elephant. Which is CR 7 I think. So it should have the chance on a crit to one shot up to a CR 7 elephant.

(I didn't calculate the numbers but I think that's close. A full crit would be over a 100 or so).



*American

:smallconfused: Are you assuming the assult rifle on either a burst fire or full auto? because 7.62 mm is .30 cal. and 5.56 is effective a .22 cal. although with a lot more powder.

[awa]

Increase crit range by 5? why? you can aim with other weapons you know. I seriously doubt a rifle bullet to the head should do that much more than a cross bow bolt to the head. also why bleeding? unless you plan to add bleeding damage to every weapon that puts holes in people it makes no sense.

personally i think the odds of surviving a single bullet to the chest are greater then taking a two handed sword to the chest

[Frozen_Feet]

I always thought D&D being fantasy was a poor excuse for characters eventually being able to ignore falls from certain death heights, being able to swim in lava (which is actually hot enough to evaporate human flesh) and to survive other things that they shouldn't be able to.

And saying "People survive those kind of things in real life" isn't a good excuse. The reason we talk about people who survive falling out of planes or being shot point blank in the head is because those kind of situations are rare.

But then, I guess that line of thinking was part of the rationale behind E6 :smallsmile:

Just being fantasy might not be much of an excuse, but D&D is a specific kind of fantasy - one where character can conceivably go from a normal person to a hero to a legend to a god. E6 was creation of people who didn't like the last two parts, so they cut them out. There's nothing wrong with that; I can see perfectly well the appeal of low-power game.

But core D&D was made to be a game where characters eventually become anything but mundane. It's a game revolving around those "rare" situations. Falling for orbit and brushing it off might not be appropriate for John Doe the Commoner, but it's very much in line with the likes of Sun Wukong or Superman, who the PCs will eventually come to rival.

[awa]

this comes up every so often but i might as well throw in with the crowd that say level 6+ characters are Beowulf not Robin hood and think its acceptable that a level 20 character can survive a fall from orbit because in my opinion it makes more sense and second because otherwise you have stuff like the dm house ruling that the level 20 barbarian jumped down 30 feet and broke his leg and not letting him knock down a brick wall because its more "realistic" but the wizard can use wish, gate, shape change ect because it's "magic"
(note don't get me wrong i like realism in my game but level 6+ character in my opinion exceed mudanes whats realistic for someone like that is impossible for everone else)

[randomhero00]

:smallconfused: Are you assuming the assult rifle on either a burst fire or full auto? because 7.62 mm is .30 cal. and 5.56 is effective a .22 cal. although with a lot more powder.

Yeah, they usually are in combat. I'm not going to assume the most accurate possible situation to base stats on, gonna use the most common.


Increase crit range by 5? why? you can aim with other weapons you know. I seriously doubt a rifle bullet to the head should do that much more than a cross bow bolt to the head. also why bleeding? unless you plan to add bleeding damage to every weapon that puts holes in people it makes no sense.

Because bow and arrows don't have scopes or visual fields like modern weapons do. Hence, the likelyhood of hitting a vital area. Crossbows and arrows stick in you, they stem the tide of blood to an extent, hence no bleeding effect. A bullet on the other hand will reek all sorts of havok on your arteries and veins and vital organs.

[awa]

swords don't stick in you. scopes in dnd allow you to ignore range increments I believe not make your weapons super deadly.

[Mastikator]

Increase crit range by 5? why? you can aim with other weapons you know. I seriously doubt a rifle bullet to the head should do that much more than a cross bow bolt to the head. also why bleeding? unless you plan to add bleeding damage to every weapon that puts holes in people it makes no sense.

personally i think the odds of surviving a single bullet to the chest are greater then taking a two handed sword to the chest

A bullet to the head goes out the other side and takes out most of the content with it. Like I've said, the wake of the bullet obliterates surrounding tissue.
A bolt or arrow does not, it'll kill you if it hits the brain or something else vital, but a bullet only needs to come close to something vital.

Edit- Imagine it's like the difference between being stabbed with a knife, and being stabbed with an exploding knife.

[randomhero00]

A bullet to the head goes out the other side and takes out most of the content with it. Like I've said, the wake of the bullet obliterates surrounding tissue.
A bolt or arrow does not, it'll kill you if it hits the brain or something else vital, but a bullet only needs to come close to something vital.

Edit- Imagine it's like the difference between being stabbed with a knife, and being stabbed with an exploding knife.

Exactly. When the bullet hits all sorts of ballistics happen. The bullet starts to flatten, and some bits shatter, and it transfers a huge amount of kinetic force and often continues through, making an even bigger hole on the way out.

An arrow has less energy and creates a small hole. I've seen people survive broken golf clubs through the head, iron rail road spikes through the head, etc. But its rare for someone to ever survive a hollowpoint to the head, assuming sufficient caliber (although .22 is still pretty damn deadly, some say more so because it'll bounce around in side the skull. Not sure if thats an urban myth or not.)

The senator surviving a 9mm to the head is incredibly miraculous.

Also, PS some of you are also forgetting that aiming a rifle is easier, and more precise than a bow. With a scope, a rifle butt, and a possible a rest, the accuracy goes way way up. Hence the +5 to hit after a round of preparation.

[awa]

And how is getting the head chopped off by a great sword less damaging?
also people survive getting shot all the time bullets are not magic disintegrating weapons that destroy every thing around them sure when the bullet fragments it will do more damage than a crossbow but not nearly as mush as you are suggesting.

if were talking hollow points that's a different story but how good is a hollow points penetration i was under the impression it was less good against armor

[randomhero00]

And how is getting the head chopped off by a great sword less damaging?
also people survive getting shot all the time bullets are not magic disintegrating weapons that destroy every thing around them sure when the bullet fragments it will do more damage than a crossbow but not nearly as mush as you are suggesting.

if were talking hollow points that's a different story but how good is a hollow points penetration i was under the impression it was less good against armor

Well ammunition would depend on target. I'm assuming acceptable ammunition. And hollow points penetration depends on their kinetic velocity and what its penetrating.

Also, well look at the scythe. Its crit screams head chopped off. It has x4 too I believe. Now why do bullets still do more damage than a huge blade meant to cleave your neck? Because guns are easier to use. They can't be dodged, depending on the armor the target's wearing it may even be considered a sneak attack (if it goes through armor and you can't use dex to dodge...they're basically flat footed. Even if they do know where the shots coming from. No one is Neo from the matrix except maybe an epic monk build.)

So maybe instead of the +5 to hit, it should be touch attack, and flat footed, if medium or below armor. And heavy should be considered flat footed.

[MeeposFire]

And a dagger an kill if you stab somebody once in any of several different places on the body. Hit points are meant to be a bit abstract so keep that in mind. Arguing over "realism" leads to some silly arguments and stuff so really just decide on how much more powerful you want guns to be than bows and crossbows and go from there.

[randomhero00]

And a dagger an kill if you stab somebody once in any of several different places on the body. Hit points are meant to be a bit abstract so keep that in mind. Arguing over "realism" leads to some silly arguments and stuff so really just decide on how much more powerful you want guns to be than bows and crossbows and go from there.

And a single dagger can kill most with a coup de grace. A bullet is essentially a coup de grace everytime. Except it only takes a standard action to fire a gun. Though possible a move action to aim.

[MeeposFire]

And a dagger does not need a situation like coup de grace to kill somebody in one stab in real life. That is just the easiest way. HP are abstract there is no way around it. A bullet is not a coup de grace every time. First that attack is assumed on a helpless target and even in melee if a target is not expecting an attack and never see it coming (like a bullet) it still is not a coup de grace. If you want that sort of power you could easily have guns have an aim option for an auto critical hit (usable only with a scope at very long range with a target that does not know you are even there) give it a respectable damage die and give it a x4 critical. That way a gun makes for some powerful but not much better than other weapons on a standard hit but is devastating when hitting in the right place (just like some weapons). Bows have x3 crits so they too are nasty and guns would be just a slight bit nastier.

Of course if somebody feels like they need to make a rifle be godly then you can too. Not too useful generally in a game of D&D but hey you can.

[randomhero00]

And a dagger does not need a situation like coup de grace to kill somebody in one stab in real life. That is just the easiest way. HP are abstract there is no way around it. A bullet is not a coup de grace every time. First that attack is assumed on a helpless target and even in melee if a target is not expecting an attack and never see it coming (like a bullet) it still is not a coup de grace. If you want that sort of power you could easily have guns have an aim option for an auto critical hit (usable only with a scope at very long range with a target that does not know you are even there) give it a respectable damage die and give it a x4 critical. That way a gun makes for some powerful but not much better than other weapons on a standard hit but is devastating when hitting in the right place (just like some weapons). Bows have x3 crits so they too are nasty and guns would be just a slight bit nastier.

Of course if somebody feels like they need to make a rifle be godly then you can too. Not too useful generally in a game of D&D but hey you can.

Well I'm just trying to make stats off realism, not balancing. The other thing is that the assault rifles would be attacking 3-5 times a hit (so 6-10 times once your bab is +6/+1

[The Glyphstone]

Well I'm just trying to make stats off realism, not balancing. The other thing is that the assault rifles would be attacking 3-5 times a hit (so 6-10 times once your bab is +6/+1

Your accuracy will suck though at full auto like that, which is why D20 Modern has the Autofire rule - you don't roll to hit on Autofire, it forces a Reflex save vs. area damage instead.

[MeeposFire]

If you want realism then you really do not want to use an HP system. They are just too abstract to do realism in any significant degree.


You probably do not want a weapon that makes 2-3 attacks per "attack" from BAB. That really bogs the game down. It would be better to just jack up the damage in that case.

[Doug Lampert]

I always thought D&D being fantasy was a poor excuse for characters eventually being able to ignore falls from certain death heights, being able to swim in lava (which is actually hot enough to evaporate human flesh) and to survive other things that they shouldn't be able to.

And saying "People survive those kind of things in real life" isn't a good excuse. The reason we talk about people who survive falling out of planes or being shot point blank in the head is because those kind of situations are rare.

But then, I guess that line of thinking was part of the rationale behind E6 :smallsmile:

Falling out of an airplane is rare, yet at least 4 people have survived it. Surving isn't all that rare, it makes the news for a couple of days when it happens, EXACTLY THE SAME as when it kills someone. This isn't man bites dog rare.

I'm only aware of two cases of someone falling into lava, they both survived with only minor injuries. (The surface layer isn't that hot, and lava is MUCH denser than water, you don't actually sink into it and its not that good a heat conductor.) People walk across molten lava all the time, and it doesn't even neccessarily ruin ordinary street shoes.


If you want that sort of power you could easily have guns have an aim option for an auto critical hit (usable only with a scope at very long range with a target that does not know you are even there) give it a respectable damage die and give it a x4 critical.

The target has to be NON-MOVING for that to work, even with a modern rifle the flight time for a long shot is quite long, and people don't move consistently enough to be easily lead. Even then, the drop per 100 yards increases SUBSTANTIALLY as range increases, without a laser range finder your sniper probably has 10 or 20 inches of error on his vertical offset. Then there's wind.

Just say no. Guns are not magic wands of instant death. They are weapons. Much like almost all other weapons they are NOT built with massive overkill vs. their intended target, if a lighter bullet will do then people use a lighter bullet and CARRY MORE and fire faster since they have less recoil to worry about. For anything lighter than a .50 the intended target is people. Same as for crossbows, and slings, and muskets, and.... Guns do damage in line with other weapons.

DougL

[randomhero00]

Falling out of an airplane is rare, yet at least 4 people have survived it. Surving isn't all that rare, it makes the news for a couple of days when it happens, EXACTLY THE SAME as when it kills someone. This isn't man bites dog rare.

I'm only aware of two cases of someone falling into lava, they both survived with only minor injuries. (The surface layer isn't that hot, and lava is MUCH denser than water, you don't actually sink into it and its not that good a heat conductor.) People walk across molten lava all the time, and it doesn't even neccessarily ruin ordinary street shoes.



The target has to be NON-MOVING for that to work, even with a modern rifle the flight time for a long shot is quite long, and people don't move consistently enough to be easily lead. Even then, the drop per 100 yards increases SUBSTANTIALLY as range increases, without a laser range finder your sniper probably has 10 or 20 inches of error on his vertical offset. Then there's wind.

Just say no. Guns are not magic wands of instant death. They are weapons. Much like almost all other weapons they are NOT built with massive overkill vs. their intended target, if a lighter bullet will do then people use a lighter bullet and CARRY MORE and fire faster since they have less recoil to worry about. For anything lighter than a .50 the intended target is people. Same as for crossbows, and slings, and muskets, and.... Guns do damage in line with other weapons.

DougL

Sooooooo not true. An army sniper (hey not even USMC) held a position with buddies (in Iraq). The targets were 700 yards or so away. They would try to run across a part of the road the sniper was covering. He led by like 6 millimeters. And hit. every. one. He got some award for it.

PS red, glowing lava totally melts shoes.

[The Rose Dragon]

If you want realism then you really do not want to use an HP system. They are just too abstract to do realism in any significant degree.

No, D&D's hit point system is too abstract. There are at least two hit point systems that are not nearly as abstract as that.

Then again, what else do you expect from D&D? :smalltongue:

[The Big Dice]

Just being fantasy might not be much of an excuse, but D&D is a specific kind of fantasy - one where character can conceivably go from a normal person to a hero to a legend to a god. E6 was creation of people who didn't like the last two parts, so they cut them out. There's nothing wrong with that; I can see perfectly well the appeal of low-power game.
Actually, the only edition of D&D that let you become a god was BECMI. The I standing for Immortal, which were the gods of that iteration of the game. And you could become one.

And yet, mortals stopped getting hit dice at 9th level. The other 27 levels you got a fixed amount of hit points based on your class. But not more than 3 per level. So yes you were tough, but you never even came close to the sheer ridiculosity that is 3.5 hit points.

But core D&D was made to be a game where characters eventually become anything but mundane. It's a game revolving around those "rare" situations. Falling for orbit and brushing it off might not be appropriate for John Doe the Commoner, but it's very much in line with the likes of Sun Wukong or Superman, who the PCs will eventually come to rival.
Actually, no. Sun Wukong is a monkey god, a trickster who pigged out on the food of the gods and became immortal because of it. Superman is the last son of a dead planet and both are more powerful and more limited than you will ever be in an RPG.

Older editions of D&D were meant to take you from zero to hero. You went from farmboy to king of the world. 3.5 has you doing much the same stuff at 20th level as you did at 1st, just with level appropriate threats meaning the dungeons are bigger and the things you fight are tougher. The whole Dominion thing, as well as things like the War Machine are simply cut out and replaced with a feat.

4th edition D&D skips the zero part completely.

[Tvtyrant]

I would make them relatively low on damage and then have a gigantic crit mod, so something like 1d6 pistol with x6 for crits and 2d4 rifle with x8 on crits. If it hits a vital organ it does tremendous damage, and if not meh.

[DwarfFighter]

Hey, I don't know! XD I just saw a guys head explode and thought it was cool!

Then a flat 1000 points of damage should be sufficient!

-DF

[profitofrage]

ok, i dont play DnD in fact i play Dark Heresy, a game where a well placed shot will kill you till your above 5th level.
The only reason im posting, is because of this whole "bullets shouldnt do all that much more damage then an arrow or crossbow bolt"

This is pretty much rediculous...Arrow volley's and crossbow bolts were used mainly to SOFTEN the attacking force..or to defend on fortifications when stabbing wasnt available. Soften...as in INJURE the attackers, not cause wide scale death. you get hit with an arrow to the brain...yea you die...just like a needle to the brain would probably kill you...or a cat to the exposed heart.
You get hit with an arrow in the arm? almost certainly survive it...indeed your more likely to die from the treatment of said arm. Crossbow bolt? bit nastier but still doesnt compare to a modern firearm.

Theres a reason billions upon billions of dollars have been spent increasing weapons technology....guns work better. A modern 50 calibur round fired past a certain velocity is (i may be wrong, as i was informed of this by a weapons savy friend) a war crime...since it can rupture organs even if it MISSES the target.
People keep talking about people surviving shots to the head e.t.c...I assure you...the (people hit by a bullet and died)/(people hit and survived) ratio is still very VERY VERY in favor of the people dying.
so please....stop all the "guns shouldnt be to > then crossbows" nonsense...its like comparing modern artilary to the ballistic missle...there totally different calibur of weapons.

[Gullintanni]

For perspective:

A few broad statements, that are generally true:

1 - Swords do inflict more damage than bullets against unarmored foes, despite a lower kinetic energy, owing to the much larger surface area affected by the blow.

2 - HP in DnD is an abstraction representing Luck, Expertise (parrying, weaving in and out of blows), Speed, and Toughness.

3 - Guns are more useful than Swords not for their raw damage dealing ability, but for their piercing, and ranged capabilities and general versatility.

Based on these statements we can extrapolate the following (keep in mind the following is arbitrary for comparison purposes and doesn't account for varying ammunition, caliber, muzzle length etc.):

Gun Base Damage: 1d8
Sword Base Damage: 3d8

From here, apply mitigating and aggravating factors:

Gun Base Damage: 1d8
+ 1d8 due to projectile velocity. This negates skill as a factor in avoiding blows.
+ 1d8 due to armor piercing capacity. Even if you are fast enough to raise your shield, or tough enough to withstand blow after blow, the bullet's going to go through you with exactly the same efficacy, rendering toughness moot.

Result: 3d8

Sword base damage: 3d8
- 1d8 due to Expertise. If you're fast enough, you can parry, weave in and out of blows, and position yourself to receive a hit you know you can't prevent in order to mitigate damage to yourself.
- 1d8 due to Toughness. If you have a particularly thick hide, or exceptional conditioning, you can shrug off flesh wounds to a degree.

Result: 1d8

The reason guns are no more lethal than 3d8 is simply that they're not any more physically damaging than an unmitigated attack from a sword. The gun, however; ignores many of the mitigating forces that a sword faces, enhancing its usefulness. In an abstract world of DnD hit points, 3d8 represents enough damage to render a level 1 commoner unconscious or dead in the majority of scenarios. This approximates well enough to real life for what DnD is trying to accomplish.

[Frozen_Feet]

A bullet to the head goes out the other side and takes out most of the content with it. Like I've said, the wake of the bullet obliterates surrounding tissue.
A bolt or arrow does not, it'll kill you if it hits the brain or something else vital, but a bullet only needs to come close to something vital.

Edit- Imagine it's like the difference between being stabbed with a knife, and being stabbed with an exploding knife.
Yes. In D&D, such differences between weapons are modeled by larger damage dice, and maybe higher crit dam or range. You know, like a dagger's damage die of 1d4 is lesser than that of a greataxe's 1d12.

Making a whole new model for gunfire is needless.



This is pretty much rediculous...Arrow volley's and crossbow bolts were used mainly to SOFTEN the attacking force..or to defend on fortifications when stabbing wasnt available. Soften...as in INJURE the attackers, not cause wide scale death. you get hit with an arrow to the brain...yea you die...just like a needle to the brain would probably kill you...or a cat to the exposed heart.
You get hit with an arrow in the arm? almost certainly survive it...indeed your more likely to die from the treatment of said arm. Crossbow bolt? bit nastier but still doesnt compare to a modern firearm.

Modern infantry gunfire is mainly used to keep the enemy infantry's heads down and keep them from advancing. A single bullet is not expected to kill, which is why double shots are encouraged. People can and do survive grazing bullets all the time. People can survive bullet wounds from military assault rifles and keep on going.

In addition, arrows shred tissue near them. They get stuck in wounds, cause infection and are a bother to remove. Bolts and arrows are made to spin in the air, causing them to make wide wound channels and making the target bleed to death.

There's a difference between gunshot wounds and arrow wounds, yes. But it's hardly as big as you make it out to be, certainly not large enough to warrant a subsystem of its own within d20.


Theres a reason billions upon billions of dollars have been spent increasing weapons technology....guns work better. A modern 50 calibur round fired past a certain velocity is (i may be wrong, as i was informed of this by a weapons savy friend) a war crime...since it can rupture organs even if it MISSES the target.
People keep talking about people surviving shots to the head e.t.c...I assure you...the (people hit by a bullet and died)/(people hit and survived) ratio is still very VERY VERY in favor of the people dying.
so please....stop all the "guns shouldnt be to > then crossbows" nonsense...its like comparing modern artilary to the ballistic missle...there totally different calibur of weapons.
Infantry firearms have stayed largely the same for better part of a century now. AK-47 is an old design, yet it's still the most common; that's because you don't get much returns from "more advanced" weaponry in actual infantry fights. Sure, there are some highly advanced sniping rifles, but their advantages over bows are mostly about range, not killing power. In d20, they would be modeled by much greater range increments.

Furthermore, with all guns, just like with bows, much depends on the skill of the wielder. Maybe less so with guns, but still: a trained sniper would likely have half-dozen ranged feats to increase his effectiveness. These would account as much for his lethality as the weapon.

Just for contrast, compare what a level 1 commoner with a shortbow can do to what a level 6 Fighter with a composite longbow can do. Rinse and repeat with d20 equivalents with firearms.


Older editions of D&D were meant to take you from zero to hero. You went from farmboy to king of the world. 3.5 has you doing much the same stuff at 20th level as you did at 1st, just with level appropriate threats meaning the dungeons are bigger and the things you fight are tougher. The whole Dominion thing, as well as things like the War Machine are simply cut out and replaced with a feat.

There's a point where increase in quantity becomes an increase in quality as well; D&D 3.5 characters start fighting mythical beasts that were appropriate challenges to demigods of RL myths by the times of level 7 or so. That the characters will be achieving even more incredible feats by level 15, or 20, should be no surprise. The point still stands - past the first fourth or third of the game, D&D stops being a gritty low fantasy game, and becomes a game about superheroes by any other name. Complaining that they can suffer "unrealistic" amounts of damage too easily is somewhat moot.

[Mastikator]

Yes, which is why I stated my opinion on what the dice should be in a post previous to the one you quoted. In case you missed it.
A small caliber handgun deals 2d8 19-20 x2, a large caliber handgun deals 3d6 19-20 x3, a hunting rifle deals 3d10 19-20 x3, an assault rifle deals 3d6 19-20 x2 per bullet (and allows multiple bullets to fired without iteration penalty).
A light machine gun would probably be 4d6 19-20 x2 per bullet, a heavy machine gun (stationary that is) deals 4d12 19-20 x2.

Guns that fire multiple rounds per second should get a (large) circumstance bonus that at least some of the bullets hit.

An assault rifle can easily take out an entire room of people. Heavy machine guns fire though thick concrete. And is comparable to mid or high level blasting magic.

And we haven't even gotten into sniper rifles, full metal jacket rounds, hollow point, rocket launchers, plastic explosives, nukes. Face it, when we compare the mightiest of spells to technology we surpassed it decades ago!

[PretzelKing]

if you're going to model firearms after "realism" and jack the damage way up you had better start asking your DM for more hit dice at each level. if you're going to use something that does a crazy amount of damage without regard to level progression you should expect your DM's baddies to have access to the same stuff! i'd hate to play in a campaign where i'm constantly re-rolling characters because some mook got off a lucky shot at my character.

[Achernar]

if you're going to model firearms after "realism" and jack the damage way up you had better start asking your DM for more hit dice at each level. if you're going to use something that does a crazy amount of damage without regard to level progression you should expect your DM's baddies to have access to the same stuff! i'd hate to play in a campaign where i'm constantly re-rolling characters because some mook got off a lucky shot at my character.

I think armored Knights and Samurai both sympathize with you when the arquebus turned up. Except they didn't get any re-rolls that I was informed of.

That said, there's a lot of work already out there on firearm homebrew. Just be advised that most guns should do two dice of damage, due to the number spread being more reliable.

[The Big Dice]

2 - HP in DnD is an abstraction representing Luck, Expertise (parrying, weaving in and out of blows), Speed, and Toughness.
Unless you're getting set on fire. Or falling. Or anything else that causes hit point damage that isn't combat. At that point, hit points become an exact representation of how much punishment you can take.

Which is it? It can't really be both, and yet it is.

The thing is, guns are being compared to swords. Which were a backup weapon and a status symbol for most of the cultures that used them. The description I heard being, issuing a medieval army with nothing but swords would be like issuing a modern army with nothing but pistols.

A sword is very unlikely to do much against a well armoured target. It doesn't have the penetrating, cutting or blunt trauma force required to do damage through plate armour, and can be effectively resisted by chain.

And ultimately, if muscle powered weapons are so awesome, why did they get relegated to ceremonial rather than battlefield roles?

[Gullintanni]

Unless you're getting set on fire. Or falling. Or anything else that causes hit point damage that isn't combat. At that point, hit points become an exact representation of how much punishment you can take.

Hardly. Level 20 characters are more fire resistant than Level 1 characters. They also fall really really well. :smallbiggrin:


The thing is, guns are being compared to swords. Which were a backup weapon and a status symbol for most of the cultures that used them. The description I heard being, issuing a medieval army with nothing but swords would be like issuing a modern army with nothing but pistols.

A sword is very unlikely to do much against a well armoured target. It doesn't have the penetrating, cutting or blunt trauma force required to do damage through plate armour, and can be effectively resisted by chain.

That's blatantly false. Swords were ubiquitous. They were a part of every culture's tactical strategy for a very good reason. They were lightweight, easy to produce, easy to learn, and effective weapons. It wasn't until chainmail became a widespread phenomenon that swords began to lose effectiveness. Even then, they were useful for piercing. Chainmail didn't resist thrusts half as well as people like to think it does. Moreover; Chainmail was NOT that widespread for the majority of the Viking age as it was expensive to make, bulky and very labour intensive...a sword was a modestly effective stabbing weapon vs. chain mail, although it was useless as a slashing weapon.


And ultimately, if muscle powered weapons are so awesome, why did they get relegated to ceremonial rather than battlefield roles?

The thing is, technology made swords obsolete. That being said, they saw continued use for a long time alongside firearms that were so inefficient to reload, that you'd be cut down before you could successfully accomplish the feat. Witness the widespread use of bayonets until WWI. Muscle powered weapons have played a vital role in the majority of human warfare.

And once again, the point I was making is that for raw damage against an unarmored target, sword > gun. This is not a tactical discussion or discussion about armor. It's about what a gun will do versus what a sword will do to an unarmored, stationary target that is not resisting. The raw damage potential is better for the sword. It's hard to leave a 4 inch deep gash from shoulder to waist with a single 9mm, 5.56 or 7.62 round.

That being said, I recognize that a gun is more efficient, more versatile, and requires less training in ACTUAL combat...but in terms of theoretical damage potential, defined as the ability to maim the unprotected human body, sword has it.

EDIT: Note that the above is true only when debating the relative efficacy of swords vs. the standard issue military sidearm. Once you start introducing special purpose equipment, you're drifting beyond the scope of this debate as I'm discussing it. A 30mm automatic Grenade Launcher, for example, falls outside the scope of this debate as it's theoretical limit of power is obviously well above that of any small rifle or melee weapon.

[Spiryt]

H

That's blatantly false. Swords were ubiquitous. They were a part of every culture's tactical strategy for a very good reason. They were lightweight, easy to produce, easy to learn, and effective weapons. It wasn't until chainmail became a widespread phenomenon that swords began to lose effectiveness. Even then, they were useful for piercing. Chainmail didn't resist thrusts half as well as people like to think it does. Moreover; Chainmail was NOT that widespread for the majority of the Viking age as it was expensive to make, bulky and very labour intensive...a sword was a modestly effective stabbing weapon vs. chain mail, although it was useless as a slashing weapon.
.

That's...... Pretty much as incorrect as it can get.

Swords were generally not easy to produce, actually up to relatively modern times, they were way often than not pieces of status and sign of a warrior class.

They weren't easy to learn at all too, sword was always more 'advanced' weapon, even in it's more simple incarnations.

As mail goes, it was very very widespread, among the Roman legionaries, for example, to not search long. Witch were also probably only army ever, that had used swords as one of the main weapons consistently.

Mail being widespread or not had approximately 0% of correlation with swords being used as main weapon or not.


Not that it has much to do with the topic, but it's anyway not very specific one. :smalltongue:



The raw damage potential is better for the sword. It's hard to leave a 4 inch deep gash from shoulder to waist with a single 9mm, 5.56 or 7.62 round.

It's also hard to do it with sword, especially one that isn't purely optimised for a cut, for untrained person.

Anyone can empty a magazine against unresisting target.

Finally, against unresisting, stationary target worst damage will be clearly done with splitting maul, chainsaw or something, so I'm not sure where such comparison should lead.

[Tvtyrant]

Swords are incredibly ineffective against armored targets, and were from the dawn of time relegated to back up or prestige weapons. Examples of effective army equipment almost never includes swords as a primary weapon, with the singular example of Rome. Historically you get:

1. Spears, we all love them. Greeks, Persians, Chinese, Japanese, Vikings, every generalized (as opposed to specialized) army relied on spears until the gunpowder revolution.

2. Javelins, the oldest weapon in the human arsenal after clubs. Bronze age or low technology iron age armies tended to be centered around these, as in Mycenaean Greece, Zulu South Africa, Old Kingdom Egypt, etc. Accompanied by large, sometimes figure 8 shields.

3. Bows. Examples of bow centered armies include Huns, Mongols, English, certain eras of China and Japan, early Ottomans, etc. Keeps the enemy huddled behind shields and can wither their armies.

4. Pikes. Macedonia, Swiss, Tercios, etc. Probably the best melee weapon, needs extremely well trained troops to be effective. Macedonia and the Swiss are the best examples of well trained pikemen dominating the battle field.

5. Specialized armies like the Hussites, the Romans, etc. Usually dominate a specific era of time and then are replaced due to enemy adaptation. Swords as a primary weapon fall into this category, along with war wagons and bill hooks.

[Gullintanni]

Not that it has much to do with the topic, but it's anyway not very specific one. :smalltongue:




It's also hard to do it with sword, especially one that isn't purely optimised for a cut, for untrained person.

Anyone can empty a magazine against unresisting target.

Finally, against unresisting, stationary target worst damage will be clearly done with splitting maul, chainsaw or something, so I'm not sure where such comparison should lead.

Well...I'm not going to debate the history with you other than to say that I agree with only the fact that chainmails widespread use had nothing to do with the widespread nature of the sword. I didn't really suggest otherwise. The rest comes down to comparing cultures. Vikings had lots and lots of swords. Lots of axes and spears too. The Japanese had fewer, because they were genuinely difficult to make. The Romans had lots of chainmail...but they were a rich and decadent empire. Your region of the world determines the accuracy of any of our given statements.


That being said, I'm untrained, at least in the sense that I've never had any formal training. But I've used a sword and I could do ridiculous damage to a stationary target with one...I'm not debate what is the more effective, easy to use, versatile weapon. I'm just saying that a sword's maximum damage is higher than a guns against an unprotected target.

You'll note in my original comparison of the two, my conclusion resulted in the gun having higher effective damage, despite the sword's better damage potential. Please don't take me out of context...and yes, I agree...maul > sword.

[Spiryt]

The rest comes down to comparing cultures. Vikings had lots and lots of swords. Lots of axes and spears too. The Japanese had fewer, because they were genuinely difficult to make. The Romans had lots of chainmail...but they were a rich and decadent empire. Your region of the world determines the accuracy of any of our given statements.



Why the notion that Vikings had a lot of sword? And why Vikings?

As far as any burial from Europe of Dark Ages go, swords would be in huge minority compared to any other weapon.

And I'm not sure what wealth or 'decadency' or Roman Empire would have to do with simple soldier that would have to buy his armor to survive the battles, and his most decadent deeds would be standard plunders, rapes and cards. :smalltongue:


Swords are incredibly ineffective against armored targets, and were from the dawn of time relegated to back up or prestige weapons.

From the dawn of the time, extremely few targets would be armored in 100, or even 50 %.

So most swords as pretty precise weapons could be still quite a bit effective indeed.

[Tvtyrant]

From the dawn of the time, extremely few targets would be armored in 100, or even 50 %.

So most swords as pretty precise weapons could be still quite a bit effective indeed.

Not to derail this any further, but the people who owned swords tended to be the ones who wore the armor. I cannot think of a single instance of unarmored soldiers armed with swords before the gunpowder era; it is inevitably spears or farm implements.

Anyway I still think having a relatively low damage (like a normal bow) and then a really high crit would represent a guns damage best.

[Gullintanni]

Why the notion that Vikings had a lot of sword? And why Vikings?

From the dawn of the time, extremely few targets would be armored in 100, or even 50 %.

So most swords as pretty precise weapons could be still quite a bit effective indeed.

Vikings have a reputation as swordmakers...blacksmiths and craftsmen really. Artisans. Vikings inherited pattern forging from the Middle east, and are today regarded as making some of the most durable swords throughout human history.

Also, vikings are fun. :smalltongue:

Getting briefly back into chainmail, and feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong, but chainmail was actually pretty rare throughout history. At least by comparison to leathers and the like. What was MUCH more common was the chain hauberk. Unless I'm mistaken, when you mentioned the romans, the chain hauberk was what you were discussing?

[The Glyphstone]

Hollowpoint ammunition would be better rendered as a special ammo of some sort (or enchanted ammo) anyways, since not all guns fire it.

Anywhere from 1d6 for a 9mm bullet to 2d6 for a .44 magnum, with a x4 crit modifier (or even x5, if warranted) to represent the devastation of a vital-areas or head-shot. A bullet to the head isn't going to kill you any worse than a flanged warmace to the head, after all.

[Spiryt]

Vikings have a reputation as swordmakers...blacksmiths and craftsmen really. Artisans. Vikings inherited pattern forging from the Middle east, and are today regarded as making some of the most durable swords throughout human history.

Also, vikings are fun. :smalltongue:

Getting briefly back into chainmail, and feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong, but chainmail was actually pretty rare throughout history. At least by comparison to leathers and the like. What was MUCH more common was the chain hauberk. Unless I'm mistaken, when you mentioned the romans, the chain hauberk was what you were discussing?

Patterned blades were known in Europe for a long, long time, not sure if they had really necessarily came from "East". Not to mention that most of swords weren't really pattern welded.

They were making swords as the rest of the medieval Europe was doing, and I've never really heard about 'durability" to be honest.

Scandinavia was pretty big centre of blade making, but so was realms of France or Italy...

As far as mail goes, it was as 'rare' as metal, complicated armor can be.

Depending on place, more or less people would afford it, but still feudal age would be known as "the age of mail" after all.

Romans had professional army since about 100 BC, thus all soldiers would be armored. Mostly in mail, later segmentata would become pretty popular too.

I don't get the part about hauberk. Hauberk is later term for shirt of mail, usually about knee lenght. Roman mails were usually shorter, but I'm not sure what's the point here.


At least by comparison to leathers and the like

Again, there's not real sources at all about leather being used as armor in Europe. :smalltongue:

Deep in Asia - quite much of this stuff, but not in Europe.


Not to derail this any further, but the people who owned swords tended to be the ones who wore the armor. I cannot think of a single instance of unarmored soldiers armed with swords before the gunpowder era; it is inevitably spears or farm implements.

Yes, dunno how it corresponds to my point that very few suits of armor trough history (even in 15th century) would cover 100% of body. Mostly much less.

And unarmored soldiers with sword - Celtic warriors often wore swords without any real armor, so would Germanic tribes.

Many other examples could be find, although it would depend on what you mean by 'armor'.

It would be hard to find someone without at least gambeson and helmet since about 1000 AD, with sword, and that's definitely armor.

But again, complete beggars rarely were going to the war in medieval. :smallwink:

[Tvtyrant]

Yes, dunno how it corresponds to my point that very few suits of armor trough history (even in 15th century) would cover 100% of body. Mostly much less.

And unarmored soldiers with sword - Celtic warriors often wore swords without any real armor, so would Germanic tribes.

Many other examples could be find, although it would depend on what you mean by 'armor'.

It would be hard to find someone without at least gambeson and helmet since about 1000 AD, with sword, and that's definitely armor.

But again, complete beggars rarely were going to the war in medieval. :smallwink:
...Celtic tribes invented chain armor, and fought with spears as their primary weapon. They used swords as a status symbol, not a primary weapon. Which was my point in my original post.

The Germanic tribes also wore mail form the beginning, and only noblemen wore either the armor or the swords, so again point proven. The Romans were the only army to use swords as their primary weapon, and it wasn't for nearly as long a period as people make it out to be. Compared to the spear or bow the sword is inferior, and was used as a "backup or prestige weapon."

[Spiryt]

...Celtic tribes invented chain armor, and fought with spears as their primary weapon. They used swords as a status symbol, not a primary weapon. Which was my point in my original post.

The Germanic tribes also wore mail form the beginning, and only noblemen wore either the armor or the swords, so again point proven. The Romans were the only army to use swords as their primary weapon, and it wasn't for nearly as long a period as people make it out to be. Compared to the spear or bow the sword is inferior, and was used as a "backup or prestige weapon."

They invented it, as still obviously not every warrior was wearing much mail.

While a lot of them were wearing swords, as pretty serious weapon.

"Primary" or not is pretty hard to say, we're not talking about regulated armies.

And Germanic tribes, again, would very rarely have any armor, while swords, or at least big war knives, would be often employed. Either made for warrior, or very often, looted from Celts, for example.

Romans adopted swords and big shields, as pretty common, effective tactics used in those times. On Iberian Peninsula for example. It's not that they invented a light bulb or something there.

Here some interesting discussion (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18443&highlight=cherusker)

With reconstructions (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18788&highlight=cherusker)

Sword is not 'inferior' or anything to spear, it's just different weapon. :smallconfused:

[randomhero00]

"the sword should do more dmg vs gun debate":
The thing you all are forgetting is that if you piercing a vital organ its death either way. It doesn't matter if the sword made a bigger slash and a bigger mess. If both hit a vital organ then = dead.

The other thing with the sword that can bring its average damage down (that I haven't seen mentioned) is that its easy to do wide gashes...which mean nothing immediately fatal. Especially badly sharpened swords. So the slash is 2 foot long and 1 inch deep gash across your chest? if it didn't hit anything vital then who cares? Whereas a .22 could do more damage than the previous sword slice if it hit a vital organ. Hence the really high crit mods for guns.

A sword chops off someones head = death
a .22 hits the brain stem = death

The latter is a much smaller wound than the former, but they both equal death.

[The Glyphstone]

"the sword should do more dmg vs gun debate":
The thing you all are forgetting is that if you piercing a vital organ its death either way. It doesn't matter if the sword made a bigger slash and a bigger mess. If both hit a vital organ then = dead.

Exactly the point I was making earlier.



The other thing with the sword that can bring its average damage down (that I haven't seen mentioned) is that its easy to do wide gashes...which mean nothing immediately fatal. Especially badly sharpened swords. So the slash is 2 foot long and 1 inch deep gash across your chest? if it didn't hit anything vital then who cares? Whereas a .22 could do more damage than the previous sword slice if it hit a vital organ. Hence the really high crit mods for guns.


And a .22 that doesn't hit a vital organ can do exactly as little damage - a little slug like that could punch all the way though, say, someone's upper arm and they might not even notice it until the battle adrenaline fades. So this point isn't as valid, because you're comparing a non-crit to a crit.

[The Big Dice]

Romans adopted swords and big shields, as pretty common, effective tactics used in those times. On Iberian Peninsula for example. It's not that they invented a light bulb or something there.
Your classic Roman tactic was, open fire at about 400 meters using ballistae and scorpion to throw javelins at the enemy. Close to about 50 meters under cover of this artillery fire. At which point the slingers on the left of your formation start raining rocks on the enemy. At about 30 meters, the first salvo of pilum comes.

The pilum wasn't designed to get stuck in the enemy shield, as some claim. It had that diamond shaped tip to punch through a shield, and the long iron neck was narrower than the tip. This allowed the pilum to punch a hole in your shield, then slide through to punch a hole in you.

Anyway, the first pilum gets thrown, the army breaks from a fast march into a charge and the second pilum gets thrown at about ten meters. Draw gladius, which was uniquely sheathed on the right hip, not the left like Rory had his on Doctor Who. And engage in close combat.

The overall strategy being, you're opening fire from further than your enemy can attack you. You then use missile fire to disrupt his formation as your troops close. The pilum was a final ranged salvo to break up shield walls and other formations that had managed to hold until battle was joined in person.

The gladius wasn't a cutting weapon, either. The classic attack with it is to lift the shield, blocking your opponent's line of sight and protecting yourself at the same time. Then stab for the groin or the inner thigh. Hit the femoral artery and it was a guaranteed kill. And for torso blows to be lethal, a stab is more effective than a slash. The Roman armies were known as The Barracuda With A Thousand Teeth because of the gladius.

This wasn't perfect, the Romans did suffer defeats. BUt it did allow the Legions to punch way above their weight, and is about the only historical army I can think of where the sword was considered the primary weapon.

[Spiryt]

Your classic Roman tactic was, open fire at about 400 meters using ballistae and scorpion to throw javelins at the enemy. Close to about 50 meters under cover of this artillery fire. At which point the slingers on the left of your formation start raining rocks on the enemy. At about 30 meters, the first salvo of pilum comes.

The pilum wasn't designed to get stuck in the enemy shield, as some claim. It had that diamond shaped tip to punch through a shield, and the long iron neck was narrower than the tip. This allowed the pilum to punch a hole in your shield, then slide through to punch a hole in you.

Anyway, the first pilum gets thrown, the army breaks from a fast march into a charge and the second pilum gets thrown at about ten meters. Draw gladius, which was uniquely sheathed on the right hip, not the left like Rory had his on Doctor Who. And engage in close combat.

The overall strategy being, you're opening fire from further than your enemy can attack you. You then use missile fire to disrupt his formation as your troops close. The pilum was a final ranged salvo to break up shield walls and other formations that had managed to hold until battle was joined in person.

The gladius wasn't a cutting weapon, either. The classic attack with it is to lift the shield, blocking your opponent's line of sight and protecting yourself at the same time. Then stab for the groin or the inner thigh. Hit the femoral artery and it was a guaranteed kill. And for torso blows to be lethal, a stab is more effective than a slash. The Roman armies were known as The Barracuda With A Thousand Teeth because of the gladius.

This wasn't perfect, the Romans did suffer defeats. BUt it did allow the Legions to punch way above their weight, and is about the only historical army I can think of where the sword was considered the primary weapon.

That's thrilling story, but I'm not sure what is it's point, to be honest?

[Narren]

Hollowpoint ammunition would be better rendered as a special ammo of some sort (or enchanted ammo) anyways, since not all guns fire it.

As far as I know, all guns will fire hollowpoints (not sure about heavy machine guns), they're just not always loaded. If I was going to make special rules for them, I would increase damage slightly but make them less effective against armor. Hollowpoints don't have as much penetration.

But honestly, why bother? There are infinite weapon variables that D&D already ignores. Guns really aren't that much better than blades when it comes to the damage they cause. In fact, MOST people survive gunshot wounds, even to the torso. This may not be true in a war zone (I have no idea) but it is the case in America, at least. The advantage of a gun is range, speed, large ammo capacity, and light weight ammo. I also don't think a gun is inherently easier to use than a blade. Unskilled shooters rarely hit their mark...most usually make the same mistake of jerking the weapon and causing more damage around the target.

[DeltaEmil]

Unless you're getting set on fire. Or falling. Or anything else that causes hit point damage that isn't combat. At that point, hit points become an exact representation of how much punishment you can take.Hit Points are also divine favor (someone's watching over you), plain luck (you actually fell on something rather soft, or it was only your hair that got burned slightly, which is a narrative tool that is the right of the player), plain bad-assery, and other abstract things. It's all that at the same time, in a narrative way as the player wants to see it.
It's not perfect, it's perhaps even too abstract for many, but for many others, it works and is simple enough, and they understand that hp are whatever you need them to be.

[The Glyphstone]

That's thrilling story, but I'm not sure what is it's point, to be honest?

That swords can be effective primary weapons, I believe. Granted, for a small relative time period by one faction, but there's a reason Rome ruled a gigantic empire on the strength of its legions, and fell apart when that strength wasn't there anymore.

[awa]

you do realize that their is a thing called bullet proof vests bullets don't ignore armor.

edit also swords were kinda rare historically while spears and axes were far more common and part of that was the amount of metal needed to make a viable weapon spears the most common weapon required the least amount of metal and were therefore the cheapest.
other groups have also used swords as a primary weapon the Romans are just the most famous but they are in the minority.

[The Glyphstone]

you do realize that their is a thing called bullet proof vests bullets don't ignore armor.

Bulletproof vests block bullets - they are not representative of all armor, and definitely not D&D armor (at least not the nonmagical armors). The reason people stopped wearing metal armor in real life is because bullets...punched through their armor.

[awa]

their was armor that could stop bullets the problem was that the amount of money you needed to get armor good enough to stop a bullet. guns were dirt cheap armor that could stop guns was massively expensive.

and logical all the armor in the world would not protect you if an elephant stepped on you but an elephants attacks or a dragons claws aren't touch attacks.

in dnd where you have magic and adamantium armor bullets completely ignoring armor makes even less sense

[The Glyphstone]

their was armor that could stop bullets the problem was that the amount of money you needed to get armor good enough to stop a bullet. guns were dirt cheap armor that could stop guns was massively expensive.

and logical all the armor in the world would not protect you if an elephant stepped on you but an elephants attacks or a dragons claws aren't touch attacks.

in dnd where you have magic and adamantium armor bullets completely ignoring armor makes even less sense

Now that you mention it...has anyone in this entire thread even proposed ignoring armor? We've been finagling about damage dice, crit range, crit ratings, and sometimes auto-crits, but who's mentioned the armor besides you?

[MeeposFire]

It has been mentioned to make it a touch attack. Though should it peirce magical force? Crazy sized natural armor? Magical armor with tremendous values? Adamantine? Remember they did make armor that can stop bullets it just was too heavy/expensive to be fielded so with magic and the like can we really say what it can and cannot pierce without complicated rules?

[Narren]

It has been mentioned to make it a touch attack. Though should it peirce magical force? Crazy sized natural armor? Magical armor with tremendous values? Adamantine? Remember they did make armor that can stop bullets it just was too heavy/expensive to be fielded so with magic and the like can we really say what it can and cannot pierce without complicated rules?

Another factor is that even if a bullet will punch through armor, that doesn't mean it provides no protection. There is a chance (even if slight) that the armor will deflect the bullet if it hits right.

Even "bullet-proof" armor isn't bullet proof. Kevlar vests are actually called "bullet resistant." They not common, the can fail to protect from small calibers. And even if they stop the bullet, they cause considerable damage to the tissue beneath. Some people have even been killed from bullets that never got through the vest.

[Knaight]

Theres a reason billions upon billions of dollars have been spent increasing weapons technology....guns work better. A modern 50 calibur round fired past a certain velocity is (i may be wrong, as i was informed of this by a weapons savy friend) a war crime...since it can rupture organs even if it MISSES the target.

The sheer capacity of a weapon in the hands of the very capable has never been a primary concern of large armies, and the damage inflicted by a single successful hit is a poor indicator of the capacity of a weapon.

On the first point, the vast majority of soldiers can only get fairly minimal training. As such, development has gravitated towards weapons in which basic competence can be quickly achieved. The sling fell out of favor for the bow, as its easier to use the point and shoot action of a bow than the aim while firing action of a sling, the bow fell out of use amidst early firearms -most of which were less effective upon a hit, had a lower rate of fire, and had far lower accuracy in the hands of an expert- because pointing and shooting is really easy, without worries about the strength needed to operate bows. The later big developments kept making things easier, packaging the actual bullet along with the gunfire needed to fire the thing, standardizing parts, reducing the time to reload, and so on and so forth. How dangerous the guns were was also improved, but it wasn't the impetus to switch to guns.

On the second point, how lethal bullets are varies. People can get shot through the torso without trouble, as long as nothing important is hit, but they can also get killed by a single shot to an extremity. There are cases of people taking dozens of bullets to kill, and there are cases of people getting killed by recoil. Its highly variable, and the bow and crossbow comparison is valid.

That said, a modern assault rifle out ranges a bow massively, is easier to carry, is easier to aim, has a higher rate of fire, and has all sorts of advantages that aren't looked at in examinations of one bullet hitting or one arrow hitting.

Looking at D&D, higher damage covers many of these fairly well, a longer range increment is also suggested. Given how completely inaccurate the armor system is elsewhere (things much bigger than you really don't care what armor you have, among others), the hit point system is, and for that matter D&D is as a whole that should be plenty.