PDA

View Full Version : Fighter vs. Gun



Tor the Fallen
2007-04-10, 10:19 PM
I cannot stand the gun mechanics in d20, esp. the ones put in the back of the DMG. While I don't mind the nonlethality of a gun (the handful of damage they do is meaningless to a high level fighter), the fact that it can't even hit a properly armored tank really bothers me.

I recognize that guns & D&D weren't meant to be mixed, as the wounds/vitality system for d20 modern works better to model a guns lethality, I find that when trying to combine guns w/ medieval warfare, the d20 system models it poorl; a system that's supposed to integrate different setting fairly easily.

Alright, here's what I mean. A squad of soldiers finds itself in an alternate universe. Low magic, but similar to D&D, complete with the base classes (like ftr, instead of strong hero. The d10 hitdie and different skill suite better models a denizen of that world, for obvious reasons).

Strong hero vs. a fighter equipped with only mundane gear.

The fast hero is level 3, a marine, fresh from a tour of duty. He's been in combat. He gained his first level in boot camp, his next two fighting in a foreign land. He has 16 dex, weapon focus (some semitautomatic pistol), and point blank shot.

His opponent is a knight in mithral fullplate, a tower shield, and 14 dex. This gives him a total of 24 AC.

The marine, armed with pistol, has a +7 to hit. 3 from levels, 3 from dex, and 2 from feats. He only injures the knight on a role of 16 or higher. And in a six second time frame, he only gets one shot. He can use double tap to gain an additional shot, but at a -2 penalty, requiring him to role an 18 or higher.

This goes completely against all my knowledge and experience with firearms. In 6 seconds, you can practically empty the magazine of a semiautomatic handgun at a target within 30 feat with a fairly high degree of accuracy. You won't hit the bullseye, but you will fill a human-sized target up with holes.

Furthermore, bullets have awesome penetrating power. If the slugs aren't hollow point, and are fired by something larger than a .22, I can guarantee you they'll penetrate whatever medieval armor you wish to wear, especially within point blank range. The armor simply isn't curved enough to deflect the rounds, nor thick enough to slow it down before it wreaks havoc with your soft, soft flesh. I'm uncertain with the thickness of a tower shield, but I'd wager that I'd rather not stand behind it while someone shot at me with a .45. And the knight won't even be bruised by the bullets.

Back to our hypothetical situation.

Our marine sees the knight bearing down on him. Armed with only his sidearm, he gets to take only [/i]one or two shots[/i] in a 6 second time frame against a man armored so well that half the rounds will be defelcted or absorbed. The other quarter will be due to the knights ability to dodge bullets, and the remaining quarter will be due to the marine's inability to hit the broadside of a barn. The marine is better off fleeing.

Someone please explain to me where I'm reading the rules wrong.

Sabattus
2007-04-10, 10:26 PM
Having not read the gun rules in D&D at all, I have a very simple solution:

All firearms should use ranged touch AC. Oh look, the knight in full plate? Has a touch AC of 12. Bang. Hit.

Bag_of_Holding
2007-04-10, 10:28 PM
The fact that d20 Mechanic is not handling reality physics?

technomancer
2007-04-10, 10:28 PM
If you want to make firearms more lethal, it wouldn't be horrible for you to make firearms a touch attack, rather than a regular attack. Or, if you want to ensure that sufficiently armored foes (i.e. dragons, +5 fullplate knights with +5 shields, ect) still have a chance against firearms, give guns a +10 to attack roll or something. Most things will be slaughtered by guns, even in the hands of inept soldiers, but higher level threats with very high ACs will still stand a chance.

Maxymiuk
2007-04-10, 10:35 PM
If you want realism, don't play D&D.


On another note:


This goes completely against all my knowledge and experience with firearms. In 6 seconds, you can practically empty the magazine of a semiautomatic handgun at a target within 30 feat with a fairly high degree of accuracy. You won't hit the bullseye, but you will fill a human-sized target up with holes.

I'd venture to say that there's a marked difference between firing at a "human-sized target" and firing at an actual opponent who's threatening you in some way. While I haven't (thankfully) ever been in a firefight myself, I do recall seeing a recording of an attempted armed robbery of a gun store that went something like this:

Robber enters, draws gun.
Owner, surprised, but goes for his own gun.
A short, furious firefight at a range of no more than 10ft ensues.
Both participants start moving, still firing. The owner walks backwards and to the side, disappearing from camera view. The robber (probably realizing the tactical blunder he made) exits the store and runs for it.
Result: The robber gets away unscathed. The owner receives a single, non-threatening wound to his arm.

And that's from a total of a dozen and a half rounds fired in the space of several seconds at nearly point-blank range.

Innis Cabal
2007-04-10, 10:38 PM
i think the gun rules are just great since the "reality: of a fantasy game is laughable...as is lethality. I dont know how many people walk away from getting hit with a sword 3 times their lengthh, even if it does "minimum damage"

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-10, 10:41 PM
If you want realism, don't play D&D.


Oh, right, silly me. May as well get rid of all those goofy mechanics that attempt to model reality.




I'd venture to say that there's a marked difference between firing at a "human-sized target" and firing at an actual opponent who's threatening you in some way. While I haven't (thankfully) ever been in a firefight myself, I do recall seeing a recording of an attempted armed robbery of a gun store that went something like this:

Robber enters, draws gun.
Owner, surprised, but goes for his own gun.
A short, furious firefight at a range of no more than 10ft ensues.
Both participants start moving, still firing. The owner walks backwards and to the side, disappearing from camera view. The robber (probably realizing the tactical blunder he made) exits the store and runs for it.
Result: The robber gets away unscathed. The owner receives a single, non-threatening wound to his arm.

And that's from a total of a dozen and a half rounds fired in the space of several seconds at nearly point-blank range.

I'm not talking about a firefight between a small time crook and a store clerk. I'm talking about a heavily armored opponent, armed with a sword, charging a battle hardened soldier who has spent the last year of his life killing people in firefights.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-10, 10:45 PM
i think the gun rules are just great since the "reality: of a fantasy game is laughable...as is lethality. I dont know how many people walk away from getting hit with a sword 3 times their lengthh, even if it does "minimum damage"

I don't mind people walking away from a from a firefight after getting 'hit' a half dozen times. What I do mind is that primitive armor prevents them from being hit.

When you move from semiautomatic pistol to assault rifle, the discrepency is even bigger. An M16 fires about 13 rounds per second. You can empty the magazine in 3 seconds flat. Mind, you'd have bullets all over the place, but in a series of controlled bursts by a professional soldier, well, there are reasons that modern battles don't take take place between opponents at 30 ft.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-10, 10:46 PM
If you want to make firearms more lethal, it wouldn't be horrible for you to make firearms a touch attack, rather than a regular attack. Or, if you want to ensure that sufficiently armored foes (i.e. dragons, +5 fullplate knights with +5 shields, ect) still have a chance against firearms, give guns a +10 to attack roll or something. Most things will be slaughtered by guns, even in the hands of inept soldiers, but higher level threats with very high ACs will still stand a chance.

I like the idea of adding attack bonuses. I'm just uncertain of how to go about it.

TSGames
2007-04-10, 10:48 PM
Triple Post?

Kyace
2007-04-10, 10:50 PM
Try the armor as damage reduction variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm) and have all bullets ignore the first 10 or so hardness/damage reduction.

Innis Cabal
2007-04-10, 10:51 PM
well since gun's really arnt the thing to be in a low tech world the idea of someone getting their hands on one shouldnt be so game breaking

Maxymiuk
2007-04-10, 10:52 PM
Oh, right, silly me. May as well get rid of all those goofy mechanics that attempt to model reality.

Ah see, that's where people get the wrong idea. D&D mechanics aren't supposed to model reality. They're supposed to model heroic fantasy first and foremost. You know, a scenario where you bravely slay the dragon taking a minor scratch or two and walk out of its cave having stuffed its entire hoard into a single, extradimentional bag. As opposed to have become a charred smear on one of the walls.
Or where you swing your way through a battle, take a scratch or two, and go drinking with your buddies in the evening to celebrate victory. As opposed to having said scratches becoming infected due to negligence and a week later having the surgeon take off your arm before the gangrene kills you.



I'm not talking about a firefight between a small time crook and a store clerk. I'm talking about a heavily armored opponent, armed with a sword, charging a battle hardened soldier who has spent the last year of his life killing people in firefights.

If a gun store owner doesn't know how to use a gun, then what business does he have running a gun store? And note that he was the one wounded in that scenario.

Besides, you said yourself that the soldier would be thrown into a strange alien world. Where his nearest frame of reference to a knight charging a gunman would be "ZOMG! It's Ned Kelly!"

Grey Watcher
2007-04-10, 10:54 PM
Well, I also think that the stats for guns in the DMG aren't meant to reflect modern firearms. They're meant to represent the early Rennaisance weapons available when guns and canons first appeared on European battlefields, and those things weren't nearly as deadly as the ones we have today. Don't think of a modern cop's pistol, think of an American revolutionary with his musket.

Falkus
2007-04-10, 10:57 PM
I'm not talking about a firefight between a small time crook and a store clerk. I'm talking about a heavily armored opponent, armed with a sword, charging a battle hardened soldier who has spent the last year of his life killing people in firefights.Well, if you want realism, the soldier's dead. A man with a knife or sword can run thirty feet and kill a man before that man can aim and fire a gun. That's what they teach police officers.

Innis Cabal
2007-04-10, 10:58 PM
you mean a non-modern gun right?

Kyace
2007-04-10, 10:59 PM
According to wikipedia, Ned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly)'s Gang's armor stopped the bullets, it was their unprotected legs that got hurt. Funny that.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-10, 11:01 PM
Ah see, that's where people get the wrong idea. D&D mechanics aren't supposed to model reality. They're supposed to model heroic fantasy first and foremost. You know, a scenario where you bravely slay the dragon taking a minor scratch or two and walk out of its cave having stuffed its entire hoard into a single, extradimentional bag. As opposed to have become a charred smear on one of the walls.
Or where you swing your way through a battle, take a scratch or two, and go drinking with your buddies in the evening to celebrate victory. As opposed to having said scratches becoming infected due to negligence and a week later having the surgeon take off your arm before the gangrene kills you.

Haha, no no, I understand all that. +
Guns do very little HP damage in D&D, anyway. My issue is that firearms don't even get a chance to do damage vs. armor. There is no advantage to having a gun over a sword in a d20 system with platemail. None. Note here I said d20. Not D&D, not heroic fantasy.

clarkvalentine
2007-04-10, 11:04 PM
Don't think of a modern cop's pistol, think of an American revolutionary with his musket.


That's it in one. Tech levels should be roughly equal to maintain verisimilitude (as opposed to outright realism).

Late medieval or early renaissance heavy armor could stop a round from an early firearm. Even lighter armor would provides some protection (thus its smaller AC bonus). But modern firearms will get through it a lot easier.

Similarly, modern body armor provides better protection against shrapnel and lighter firearms (while even a Kevlar vest isn't going to help much against a direct hit from a high-power rifle bullet) but, from everything I've heard, it won't stop a knife blade.

I think modern firearms vs. medieval armor, I'd call it a touch attack with the armor providing a bit of DR. For early firearms, in a firearms-heavy game I ran for several years, I ruled that armor is effective against flintlocks and provides its full AC bonus. It worked just fine.

Krellen
2007-04-10, 11:06 PM
Well, I also think that the stats for guns in the DMG aren't meant to reflect modern firearms. They're meant to represent the early Rennaisance weapons available when guns and canons first appeared on European battlefields, and those things weren't nearly as deadly as the ones we have today. Don't think of a modern cop's pistol, think of an American revolutionary with his musket.
This is indeed the case. And as a further note, I clearly remember an episode (though I can't remember if it was Mail Call or Mythbusters) where the question came up whether medieval armour would serve any purpose against firearms (modern or not). Surprisingly enough, the plate armour actually stopped the bullet - not point blank, but from about a hundred feet away. No, I don't remember the calibre and such, but medieval armour isn't as ineffective as you might think.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-10, 11:08 PM
According to wikipedia, Ned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly)'s Gang's armor stopped the bullets, it was their unprotected legs that got hurt. Funny that.

Interesting.

@ Gray Watcher, et al.
I must be thinking of the 3.0 DMG where they have tables for different eras of weapons; stone age, bronze age, renaissance, modern, and future (with plasma grenades and laser rifles).

Maxymiuk
2007-04-10, 11:19 PM
Haha, no no, I understand all that. +
Guns do very little HP damage in D&D, anyway. My issue is that firearms don't even get a chance to do damage vs. armor. There is no advantage to having a gun over a sword in a d20 system with platemail. None. Note here I said d20. Not D&D, not heroic fantasy.

Well, what it seems you're doing is mixing systems here. You won't run into platemail in d20 Modern, and you're highly unlikely to encounter firearms in a typical D&D setting. Which makes the whole argument largely irrelevant, since these items were designed for different systems. I might as well try to compare a gun from GURPS to body armor from WoD.

But let's suppose that we do get the universes mixed up and the fight does happen.

First, there's the CR factor. Our hypothetical soldier is level 3, so in all fairness, he's facing a lvl 3 knight. As per the D&D WBL table, a lvl 3 character is highly unlikely to afford mithral full plate (on account of it costing 10,500gp). In fact, I have yet to see a 3rd level fighter with an AC higher than 20. But let's assume that this fighter dumped most of his money into protecting himself from physical assaults. +8 armor, +1 Dex, +4 shield. So AC 23. Still fairly tough, eh? He also takes a -2 to attack rolls since he's lugging that monster of a board around, but as we're about to see, that's largely irrelevant.

You seem to indicate that the soldier won initiative. He takes his shot at the knight, chances are he sees the bullet bounce off. Oops, big trouble. Guess he's dead.

WRONG.

He still has a move action which, like a good trooper, he takes to make a tactical retreat. Assuming he was shooting at the stated 30ft range, that now puts him 60ft away from the knight.

Oh, but the knight can only move 20ft per round, due to the heavy armor he wears. 40ft if he takes a double move or a charge action. 60ft if he takes a full-round run action, after which he can't attack.

The soldier takes a happily unencumbered run action putting 120ft between him and the knight. The knight can only hope to get within 60ft of the soldier.

The soldier takes another shot at the knight.

Repeat ad nauseum. :smallamused:

Jasdoif
2007-04-10, 11:27 PM
@ Gray Watcher, et al.
I must be thinking of the 3.0 DMG where they have tables for different eras of weapons; stone age, bronze age, renaissance, modern, and future (with plasma grenades and laser rifles).No, the 3.5 one has that stuff too (except no plasma grenades).


Anyway...my suggestion is to resolve the firearm shots as a touch attack against nonmagical armor (let them keep the enhancement bonus if it's magic). Or if you want to add more complexity, the shots do full damage if they beat the standard AC, but minimum per die if it only beats the touch AC.

If you want to expend more firepower per round...make your own iterative attack progression, instead of the standard -5.

-4? +20/+16/+12/+8/+4.
-3? +20/+17/+14/+11/+8/+5/+2.
-2? +20/+18/+16/+14/+12/+10/+8/+6/+4/+2.
-1? +20/+19...I think you get the idea.



You won't run into platemail in d20 Modern, and you're highly unlikely to encounter firearms in a typical D&D setting.D20 Modern does have an entry for plate mail, actually. It looks like more of a flavor thing then intended for actual use, of course.

clarkvalentine
2007-04-10, 11:30 PM
If you want to expend more firepower per round...make your own iterative attack progression, instead of the standard -5.

You could just use the Rapid Shot and Multifire feats included with the game, which allow for many shots per round with semi- or fully-auto guns.

(Or am I thinking of Star Wars d20?)

Kel_Arath
2007-04-10, 11:37 PM
no offence dude but your comparing apples to newly bought vehicles

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-10, 11:42 PM
Well, what it seems you're doing is mixing systems here. You won't run into platemail in d20 Modern, and you're highly unlikely to encounter firearms in a typical D&D setting. Which makes the whole argument largely irrelevant, since these items were designed for different systems. I might as well try to compare a gun from GURPS to body armor from WoD.

I thought the idea behind d20 was being able to to mix-n-match systems, as they all operate on the same mechanic. But I suppose maintaining the same level of versimillitude throughout is asking far too much.


But let's suppose that we do get the universes mixed up and the fight does happen.

First, there's the CR factor. Our hypothetical soldier is level 3, so in all fairness, he's facing a lvl 3 knight. As per the D&D WBL table, a lvl 3 character is highly unlikely to afford mithral full plate (on account of it costing 10,500gp). In fact, I have yet to see a 3rd level fighter with an AC higher than 20. But let's assume that this fighter dumped most of his money into protecting himself from physical assaults. +8 armor, +1 Dex, +4 shield. So AC 23. Still fairly tough, eh? He also takes a -2 to attack rolls since he's lugging that monster of a board around, but as we're about to see, that's largely irrelevant.

I knew someone would bring this up, and it's largely irrelevant. WBL is a terrible mechanic to run combat by. Absolutely terrible, and it should be for obvious reasons. Since when did the amount of gold you have affect the fundamental physics of your universe? Well, unless you're a wizard. Heh.



You seem to indicate that the soldier won initiative. He takes his shot at the knight, chances are he sees the bullet bounce off. Oops, big trouble. Guess he's dead.

WRONG.

He still has a move action which, like a good trooper, he takes to make a tactical retreat. Assuming he was shooting at the stated 30ft range, that now puts him 60ft away from the knight.

Oh, but the knight can only move 20ft per round, due to the heavy armor he wears. 40ft if he takes a double move or a charge action. 60ft if he takes a full-round run action, after which he can't attack.

The soldier takes a happily unencumbered run action putting 120ft between him and the knight. The knight can only hope to get within 60ft of the soldier.

The soldier takes another shot at the knight.

Repeat ad nauseum. :smallamused:

But this still doesn't address the underlying problem, which is platemail + a big board being extremely effective against a modern firearm.


You could just use the Rapid Shot and Multifire feats included with the game, which allow for many shots per round with semi- or fully-auto guns.

(Or am I thinking of Star Wars d20?)

Which leaves the marine hitting the knight on only a roll of 19 or 20, which doesn't really address the issue.

Maxymiuk
2007-04-10, 11:48 PM
I thought the idea behind d20 was being able to to mix-n-match systems, as they all operate on the same mechanic. But I suppose maintaining the same level of versimillitude throughout is asking far too much.

Ah, he learns. :smalltongue:


I knew someone would bring this up, and it's largely irrelevant. WBL is a terrible mechanic to run combat by. Absolutely terrible, and it should be for obvious reasons. Since when did the amount of gold you have affect the fundamental physics of your universe? Well, unless you're a wizard. Heh.

Ok, let's bump him up to mithril full plate. It counts as medium armor now. The fighter still has limited mobility.



And that relates to the plate armor >> modern firearms how?

Wait... what? Weren't you just complaining about how a modern soldier wouldn't stand a chance against a a fully armored knight as per the d20 rules? And didn't I just explain how this is not the case?

If I wanted to be really picky, I'd point out that a modern day soldier usually carries a couple standard issue frag grenades as part of his default loadout. Those happen to do splash area damage which does happen to ignore such trifling matters as AC.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-10, 11:50 PM
Wait... what? Weren't you just complaining about how a modern soldier wouldn't stand a chance against a a fully armored knight as per the d20 rules? And didn't I just explain how this is not the case?

If I wanted to be really picky, I'd point out that a modern day soldier usually carries a couple standard issue frag grenades as part of his default loadout. Those happen to do splash area damage which does happen to ignore such trifling matters as AC.

Not chance of winning, chance of hitting.

Maxymiuk
2007-04-10, 11:54 PM
Not chance of winning, chance of hitting.

Ok, the only reply I can think of here, is my mantra from the beginning of the thread.

And since this discussion has now officially become circular, I need to get some rest.

Good night, folks.

Dervag
2007-04-11, 12:03 AM
Haha, no no, I understand all that. +
Guns do very little HP damage in D&D, anyway. My issue is that firearms don't even get a chance to do damage vs. armor. There is no advantage to having a gun over a sword in a d20 system with platemail. None. Note here I said d20. Not D&D, not heroic fantasy.Except insofar as having a ranged weapon confers an advantage over having a melee weapon.

I'm not so sure that pistol bullets wouldn't have trouble penetrating full plate armor; I don't know, though.

However, it is a problem that D&D armor confers the same protection against both low and high velocity bullets. I'd recommend a damage reduction or touch attack system.


I knew someone would bring this up, and it's largely irrelevant. WBL is a terrible mechanic to run combat by. Absolutely terrible, and it should be for obvious reasons. Since when did the amount of gold you have affect the fundamental physics of your universe? Well, unless you're a wizard. Heh.Actually, it's a really important and useful mechanic.

Nonmagical, normal armor won't reliably protect you against being hit by an attacker using a weapon that they specialize in (like your hypothetical 3rd level Marine). It doesn't really matter whether the weapon is a gun or a sword, you're still going to get hit a nontrivial fraction of the time.

If you use armor made out of special materials, or if you use magical armor, all bets are off- but then, magic is supposed to do screwy things with the laws of physics anyway. If mithril existed in the real world, we'd probably try to make body armor out of it here, too, and it might very well resist small arms fire rather well.

However, in any system where there is a very large range in the power of available personal weapons (more than the range that exists in real life, due to magic weapons and special materials), there must be some way to control the progression so that the power of one's personal weapons increases in a linear and controlled fashion. Therefore, wealth by level or something like it is necessary.

Alternatively, we could suppress the range of personal weapons by banning magic weapons and special materials, but that makes the game less fun for a lot of people.

Also, keep in mind that your hypothetical knight's tower shield and full plate armor probably would stop a lot of small arms fire; the round would slow down and start tumbling after it punched through the tower shield, which would make it much more likely to be refused by the plate armor.


But this still doesn't address the underlying problem, which is platemail + a big board being extremely effective against a modern firearm.On the contrary, it does. The marine can reliably stay out of sword range of the knight in an open environment, allowing him to pepper the knight with bullets until he goes down. In a close-quarters environment where the marine can't keep pulling back and shooting, he will likely die- but since small arms can't reasonably be expected to penetrate a combination of a thick plank and a modest layer of mild steel plate every time, this is not unfair.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-11, 12:24 AM
Except insofar as having a ranged weapon confers an advantage over having a melee weapon.

I'm not so sure that pistol bullets wouldn't have trouble penetrating full plate armor; I don't know, though.

To be honest, neither do I. But I've shot stuff, a lot of sutff I shouldn't have been shooting at, and bullets go through it. Like car doors, engines, walls, washing machines. 'Course, these aren't made to resist penetration.


However, it is a problem that D&D armor confers the same protection against both low and high velocity bullets. I'd recommend a damage reduction or touch attack system.

I was thinking just giving fire arms a flat +3 unnamed bonus to hit.


Actually, it's a really important and useful mechanic.

Nonmagical, normal armor won't reliably protect you against being hit by an attacker using a weapon that they specialize in (like your hypothetical 3rd level Marine). It doesn't really matter whether the weapon is a gun or a sword, you're still going to get hit a nontrivial fraction of the time.

If you use armor made out of special materials, or if you use magical armor, all bets are off- but then, magic is supposed to do screwy things with the laws of physics anyway. If mithril existed in the real world, we'd probably try to make body armor out of it here, too, and it might very well resist small arms fire rather well.

In complete agreement with you.


However, in any system where there is a very large range in the power of available personal weapons (more than the range that exists in real life, due to magic weapons and special materials), there must be some way to control the progression so that the power of one's personal weapons increases in a linear and controlled fashion. Therefore, wealth by level or something like it is necessary.

The WBL chart is
a) a guideline
b) mainly for PCs.

I don't accept the economic system for controlling PC power as a method for the combat system. The two should exist largely independently. If a level 2 warrior picked up his dead captain's +2 flaming holy longsword, would it not function as a +2 flaming holy longsword in his hands? Or would he be prevented by a mysterious WBL force from picking it up?

To more accurately represent the knight's social cast, we can make him a feudal lord, with most of his wealth in land that has been used for the past 100 years to produce the armor and weapon he now wields. Level 3 aristocrat = CR2 challenge (for your standard adventurers). Bump him up to a CR3 with the extra $$. You know, handwavium.


Also, keep in mind that your hypothetical knight's tower shield and full plate armor probably would stop a lot of small arms fire; the round would slow down and start tumbling after it punched through the tower shield, which would make it much more likely to be refused by the plate armor.

On the contrary, it does. The marine can reliably stay out of sword range of the knight in an open environment, allowing him to pepper the knight with bullets until he goes down. In a close-quarters environment where the marine can't keep pulling back and shooting, he will likely die- but since small arms can't reasonably be expected to penetrate a combination of a thick plank and a modest layer of mild steel plate every time, this is not unfair.

Alright, let's say small arms fire won't penetrate the knight's armor (which is entirely acceptable). Within a six second time frame, wouldn't you think it likely that the marine be able to get off one or two shots that go through? I don't know if you've fired a handgun before, but it's not *that* hard to hit a torso sized target a couple times in a short burst of fire.

It's fair to assume that small arms fire won't penetrate the mithral armor, especially since the slugs are most likely hollow point, and they lack the velocity & mass to get through both layers.

Let's give our marine an assault rifle. Assault rifles shoot big bullets with significant penetrating power. Same problem, even more pronounced by the penalties one takes to hit with automatic weapons fire. Only getting a damaging shot in 5-15% of the time.

Dervag
2007-04-11, 05:53 AM
The WBL chart is
a) a guideline
b) mainly for PCs.It's also a guideline for equipping NPCs so that they don't present a grossly inappropriate challenge for their level. For instance, a 1st level fighter with a +5 long sword, +5 mithril full plate, and a +5 shield would be a much more dangerous opponent than any 1st level character should be; he could easily hack his way through opponents considerably higher level than himself.

Remember, powerful equipment is itself a challenge for PCs (or NPCs) to overcome. First-level fighters in tanks could mop the floor with 10th-level fighters carrying clubs. If we want to balance challenges, we have to use something like Wealth By Level, to ensure that the power of equipment scales to the designated power of the person using the equipment.


I don't accept the economic system for controlling PC power as a method for the combat system. The two should exist largely independently. If a level 2 warrior picked up his dead captain's +2 flaming holy longsword, would it not function as a +2 flaming holy longsword in his hands? Or would he be prevented by a mysterious WBL force from picking it up?Heck, no. That would be ridiculous.

However, the odds of his being allowed to keep the sword after the immediate battle are slim unless he does very well with it and ends up running the captain's former command- in which case he's probably going to earn enough XP that the sword will fall within his Wealth By Level range. There will be other NPCs who will want that sword. Other officers might give him money for it; the captain's heirs might want it, and so forth.

All these factors should be brought into play so that the DM doesn't end up creating encounters where the character's firepower is grossly out of whack with his level. D&D is a game, and if it doesn't simulate the world in an enjoyable way it isn't worth bothering with. Worlds where the DM arbitrarily decides how much firepower to equip NPCs with aren't as much fun, because there's too much risk that an NPC will end up either too powerful (and thus no longer a level-appropriate challenge) or not powerful enough (and thus a walkover).


To more accurately represent the knight's social cast, we can make him a feudal lord, with most of his wealth in land that has been used for the past 100 years to produce the armor and weapon he now wields. Level 3 aristocrat = CR2 challenge (for your standard adventurers). Bump him up to a CR3 with the extra $$. You know, handwavium.If the knight is a feudal lord with exceptionally valuable equipment, he's probably been able to afford a lot more training time than the run-of-the-mill trooper, in which case he's probably higher than second level.


Alright, let's say small arms fire won't penetrate the knight's armor (which is entirely acceptable). Within a six second time frame, wouldn't you think it likely that the marine be able to get off one or two shots that go through? I don't know if you've fired a handgun before, but it's not *that* hard to hit a torso sized target a couple times in a short burst of fire.I have not fired a handgun before. I know that it is not difficult to hit a 'torso sized target' several times in rapid succession. However, I also know that a torso is not the same as a 'torso sized target'.

There are numerous cases of people getting into gunfights where none of the bullets hit even at close range. This does not automatically involve gross incompetence on the part of the shooter. Rates of fire tend to be much lower in combat than out of combat range testing would indicate.


It's fair to assume that small arms fire won't penetrate the mithral armor, especially since the slugs are most likely hollow point, and they lack the velocity & mass to get through both layers...

Let's give our marine an assault rifle. Assault rifles shoot big bullets with significant penetrating power. Same problem, even more pronounced by the penalties one takes to hit with automatic weapons fire. Only getting a damaging shot in 5-15% of the time.When I say 'small arms', I include assault rifles too. I thought that fell into the 'small arms' category.

What are the odds of one of the marine's multiple attacks landing? How many times does he need to hit? Remember that, based on your own scenario, the marine has only the time it takes the knight to cover thirty feet to train his weapon and fire. It is entirely possible for a competent soldier to get off no shots in that time span if they are caught by surprise (and I mean tactically in the split-second sense). It is also possible for them to get off a few bursts that are very unlikely to score the kind of dead-center hits that it takes to penetrate the combination of a big thick plank and a plate of mild steel.

Roderick_BR
2007-04-11, 07:12 AM
That issue was addressed a few times here. It's contradictory that some D&D books says that firearms made armors obsoletes, while you almost can't hit an armored fighter.
As a rule of thumb, I make the attack ignore half a armor and shield's bonus (a full plate will protect more than wearing nothing, but still no much).
So, a fighter in full plate + large shield, and Dex 18, have an AC of 16 (half the armor +4, half the shield +1, limited Dex +1). Any soldier with 2 levels and Dex 15 will hit him without much problem.
Also, remember that in some games instead of AC, there are Defense rules, so armor will give a degree of Damage Reduction, instead of reducing the hitting chance.

elliott20
2007-04-11, 09:19 AM
I personally think just equating an assault rifle to a +3 crossbow with extended range increments would probably fix this problem.

storybookknight
2007-04-11, 09:25 AM
On a (maybe) related note, I gave the party sorcerer a "gun" recently. It converts arcane spell slots into damage at a rate of 1 slot per 2d8 damage, similar to the Arcane Fire arcanum of the archmage. The disadvantage is that occasionally it will overheat and/or backfire, making it not quite as efficient as Arcane Fire, but it does do slightly more damage. Thoughts?

Vik
2007-04-11, 11:59 AM
Have the guns perform touch attack if they have sufficient firepower.

And if the weapon is automatic, a full-auto burst is better resolved by a cone effect with Reflex saves for half damage, with DC equal to something+AB, where something depends on the gun you actually use.

Olethros
2007-04-11, 12:16 PM
So, as an interesting fact nugget to chew on. The newest generation of personal anti-balistic armour, which can stop a .45 from 30', Is two lawers of kevlar, samwiching a metal plating that is indistiguishable in most ways from what most people would call "scale mail" (there are more accurate names depending on location, but the generic work for this). The kevlar, incitendly, functions exactly as a mideval gambison (in fact if police officers were willing to wear 14+layers of quilted linnen they wouldn't need kevlar). So it may not be a luducris as we think for heave armours to provide protection from modern fire-arms.

That said, the only systems I have played that I felt did a good job of modeling the "reality" of a fire fight were Mechwarrior (the RPG) and Shadowrun, the latter even used archaic armour ok. Those systems solve the problem with lots of rules, LOTS of rules.

Indon
2007-04-11, 12:39 PM
Hmm. I think I found a more significant rules inaccuracy than just 'armor stops bullets' in the D20 modern rules.

I was looking through them because the original scenario involved someone firing in a standing position, which is much harder to hit accurately with than if firing from a kneeling or prone position.

So if I'm reading these modifiers right, not only does firing while kneeling or prone _not_ give you a bonus to hit, firing while prone gives you a _penalty_.

Diggorian
2007-04-11, 01:11 PM
I've played/run only slightly more D&D than I've played/run D20 Modern (being the arbiter of modern combat in D20). Indon's right, prone firing does give a penalty, but he neednt do that.

According to that ruleset, the marine can fallback 30ft. and autofire with his semiautomatic pistol. Using up 10 shots from his clip, modeling trying to fire as much as possible in a short time, he needs only hit the AC 10 of a 10ft square (easy for a third level soldier).

The 3rd level knight has to make a Reflex save versus DC 15 or be hit with one shot and take 2d6 ballistic damage. If he takes more damage than his Con score, he's gotta make a DC 15 Fort save or be reduced to -1 HP.

If the knight survives that round, the marine can do the same with his standard issue M16A2 (2d8 ballistic), until knight-fall :smallwink: .

Krellen
2007-04-11, 01:37 PM
So if I'm reading these modifiers right, not only does firing while kneeling or prone _not_ give you a bonus to hit, firing while prone gives you a _penalty_.
Not so. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone)


The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a -4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.

You have a penalty on melee attacks and can't make ranged attacks at all - except with a crossbow. A crossbow is fired exactly the same as a rifle, so if you can use a crossbow while prone, you can use a rifle, and you have no penalty.

Matthew
2007-04-11, 04:17 PM
Hey Tor. My solution for D&D Fire Arms is the same as I use for D&D Cross Bows, which is to not increase their Base Damage, but instead give them a Strength Rating that does not stack with Dexterity.

Indon
2007-04-11, 05:09 PM
Not so. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#prone)



You have a penalty on melee attacks and can't make ranged attacks at all - except with a crossbow. A crossbow is fired exactly the same as a rifle, so if you can use a crossbow while prone, you can use a rifle, and you have no penalty.

I was looking at a resource for the D20 Modern rules. Now, the source might have been wrong, but still, it's not providing a bonus to fire and it should.

Diggorian
2007-04-11, 05:24 PM
Using this source (http://www.dominion-x.net/d20-msrd/index.html), the table is mistyped. The minus sign is a dash and the 2 should be a footnote. Prone gives no bonus to ranged attacks in Modern either, and some guns cant be used prone.

In real life, being prone helps stabilize recoil. No recoil rules, no prone bonus. I've had exhaustive post discussions of this on Wizard's forums (dont make me dig it up :smallamused: ).

Back to topic, D20 rules (Modern's) show how today's guns would trump D&D armor, without even factoring how easily full plate would get swiss chessified.

Indon
2007-04-11, 06:02 PM
In real life, being prone helps stabilize recoil. No recoil rules, no prone bonus. I've had exhaustive post discussions of this on Wizard's forums (dont make me dig it up :smallamused: ).


Even with plenty of time to restabilize between shots, I'd say firing prone is easier than firing standing (though not as easy as firing kneeling, which would be between the two).

Basically, the more stable whatever you're propping the gun up against (nothing vs. your knee vs. the ground), the less the barrel moves as a result of your own inability to keep your muscles perfectly still, and so the easier it is to fire completely regardless of recoil.

Thanks for clarifying the D20 modern rule, though.

Norsesmithy
2007-04-11, 06:18 PM
Within a six second time frame, wouldn't you think it likely that the marine be able to get off one or two shots that go through? I don't know if you've fired a handgun before, but it's not *that* hard to hit a torso sized target a couple times in a short burst of fire. The whole attacks per round issue is wonky.

What anemic cripple won't be able to attack more than once every six seconds with any mellee weapon short of a steel door?

What Robinhood of an archer will get off 60 aimed attacks in a minute?

Matthew
2007-04-11, 06:25 PM
Action Points may be helpful for that sort of thing:

1 Second = 1 Action Point = 5' Movement = 1 Semi Automatic Shot = 1 Automatic Burst Fire Shot. That's the variant I have been mulling over for D20 Modern.

Falkus
2007-04-11, 10:42 PM
Let's give our marine an assault rifle. Assault rifles shoot big bullets with significant penetrating power. Same problem, even more pronounced by the penalties one takes to hit with automatic weapons fire. Only getting a damaging shot in 5-15% of the time.Why exactly is it that people complain about plate mail being as effective against bullets as it is against a melee attack, but I never see any complaints about how it's just as effective against maces and war hammers as it is against swords?

Demented
2007-04-11, 11:05 PM
Heh.

Leather Armor vs. Siege Weapon

That it provides any bonus at all is a miracle.

Olethros
2007-04-11, 11:34 PM
Again it comes down to, rules that effectivly model reality (or atleast MORE effectivly) are A, increasingly complex, and B, often un-fun.

DM. Alright Johny, we finally got your character done, ready to try your cat burglar out
Johny. shure am.
DM. ok, what do you want to do first?
Johny. well, I need some cash, so I try to sneak into a pawnshop
DM. sory johny the shopkeeper saw you and he has a shotgun
Johny. crap, I run.
DM. ouch, he shot you. Lets see, hit location role says he got ya in the chest, now I consult the "hit at point blank with 12 gauge table" looks like your dead
Johny. you didn't roll damage!
DM. What damage, you took a 12 gauge at 10' you don't have insides anymore. Want to re-roll Shaman?

Cybren
2007-04-11, 11:41 PM
Solution: don't use medieval fantasy roleplaying systems to play modern campaigns

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-12, 07:54 AM
There are numerous cases of people getting into gunfights where none of the bullets hit even at close range. This does not automatically involve gross incompetence on the part of the shooter. Rates of fire tend to be much lower in combat than out of combat range testing would indicate.

You do see that this has nothing to do with the target wearing plate & a tower shield, right?


Hmm. I think I found a more significant rules inaccuracy than just 'armor stops bullets' in the D20 modern rules.

I was looking through them because the original scenario involved someone firing in a standing position, which is much harder to hit accurately with than if firing from a kneeling or prone position.

So if I'm reading these modifiers right, not only does firing while kneeling or prone _not_ give you a bonus to hit, firing while prone gives you a _penalty_.

Whoa, that is grossly inaccurate. I did biathlon for like a season, and lying down after runing/skiing a couple klicks helps A LOT.


Why exactly is it that people complain about plate mail being as effective against bullets as it is against a melee attack, but I never see any complaints about how it's just as effective against maces and war hammers as it is against swords?

Because the amount of point-impact force you can deliver with a sword will never equal that of a high-velocity bullet.

Let me put it another way:
How many times have you been able to shove a blade through the wall of a house with the same level of ease it takes to squeeze a trigger (and end up putting a bullet through your neighbor's wall)?



Solution: don't use mediefal fantasy roleplaying systems to play modern campaigns

Should I use modern roleplaying systems to play medieval campaigns, then?

Indon
2007-04-12, 08:41 AM
Whoa, that is grossly inaccurate. I did biathlon for like a season, and lying down after runing/skiing a couple klicks helps A LOT.


Well, as was noted later in the thread, I got my info from a poorly-transcribed source; there's no penalty or benefit, which I still feel is inaccurate (since I think there should be a benefit to firing ranged weapons when kneeling or prone).

Reinboom
2007-04-12, 09:05 AM
I think the solution would be to recalculate effectively every armor and shield to provide a different bonus altogether than what they currently have.
For example, scale male or chain mail due to design of being able to more effectively spread the impact and catch around the penetrating shrapnel/ammunition would provide much higher defense than plate mail.
Figuring out natural armor may be a bit of an issue though since it's unique per monster, perhaps a quick reference table?
Magical bonuses of any kind should provide what they do in full in my opinion.
After this, give firearms an additional +3 to hit. This should make them seamingly more accurate for hitting purposes at least.

Truwar
2007-04-12, 09:09 AM
On the contrary, it does. The marine can reliably stay out of sword range of the knight in an open environment, allowing him to pepper the knight with bullets until he goes down. In a close-quarters environment where the marine can't keep pulling back and shooting, he will likely die- but since small arms can't reasonably be expected to penetrate a combination of a thick plank and a modest layer of mild steel plate every time, this is not unfair.


Actually, yes they can. That is why people do not where plate armor anymore and have not worn it in battle for over a century.

I do like the touch attack idea. A modern, fully automatic would slice some poor guy with a sword to pieces but then, modern fully automatic weapons should not really be a feature of D&D. As far as campaigns with muzzle loading fire arms, I like the touch attack idea. To make them really a viable option you might need some feats to back them up though. Maybe a type of power attack for firearms…

Indon
2007-04-12, 09:16 AM
Actually, yes they can.

Bullets can cause damage _though_ armor due to the force of their impact; this is not the same as _piercing_ armor; armor (at least, steel plate) can stop bullets.

Now, modern armor can stop both bullets, _and_ much of the force behind a bullet, meaning that you won't even neccessarily end up with broken bones when you get shot, but classic plate mail wouldn't carry so much of a benefit.

People stopped wearing plate armor because it was WAY too expensive for the limited benefit it provided. Also, something about longbows.

Maybe have a bullet deal half damage if it hits Touch AC but misses full AC?

Diggorian
2007-04-12, 09:35 AM
Well, as was noted later in the thread, I got my info from a poorly-transcribed source; there's no penalty or benefit, which I still feel is inaccurate (since I think there should be a benefit to firing ranged weapons when kneeling or prone).

Some Modern supplements include rules for weapon mounts that do give a small bonus for a stabilized firearm. Being an abstracted system, the D20 "Prone" condition includes:
Proper lying firing postion
John Woo style firing on your back one-handed left or right
Firing right-handed lying on your right side, or vice versa
Lethal Weapon style on your back in mid-crunch firing between your legs
"I just fell off a building, and am about to die, but I'll shoot ya since you think I'm dead already." position


Most of these give no realistic ranged attack bonus, many would give a penalty. If you want to stat out the various modifiers of each, be my guest. :smallamused:

As for Fanatsy armor/shields versus today's ammo, I'd just house rule that PL 2 (medieval) protections are half effective
versus PL 5 (information age) ballistic damage, which it was never designed to resist: Fullplate +4, Tower Shield +2.

Reinboom
2007-04-12, 09:51 AM
http://www.warehamforge.ca/impact.html
and
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/oles/Publications/NIJ-0108.01.pdf

are great resources actually.
notable reference from first paragraph:


Generally it was seen that if the shot hit, it penetrated. In all cases bullets punched through the metal plates creating a flange of raggedly torn edges that would have extended into the body beneath. Surprisingly, there was relatively little expansion of the lead balls upon impact, usually about 25%. Regardless, it was the opinion of all who took part in the test that if the plates had in fact been worn by a soldier he would be quite dead. The only ball that showed any significant signs of 'sliding' was the 45 cal shot at the knee cop, which struck at about a 15 degree angle to the surface. The 50 cal shot to the 18 ga plate, which hit at about a 60 degree angle to the surface, may have resulted in more damage than if it had hit square. Note that penetration alone is being evaluated here. Lead balls of the sizes tested here produce enormous shock effects to the body.

Diggorian
2007-04-12, 10:16 AM
Good reference, Rein.

I could amend the House Rule to just all ballistic damage, regardless of tech level.

Olethros
2007-04-12, 01:25 PM
So, history buff here.

Plate did stop early fire-arms. But then again, several layers of linen stoped early fire-arms. The armour was actually ditched slightly before the guns could reliably provide penetration. The problem with most of the modern test of bullets vs plates, is that they fail to take into account the quality of powder and barrel craftsmanship of the early pieces (which is to say crappy). Early fire-arms did 2 things well, scare horses, and explode. The armor was ditched not because it was actually obsolite, but because the people who could afford to wear it weren't fighting wars anymore. The nobility wised up at the beginig of the renesaince and quite charging into battle. As fire-arms got a little better, they were far more efficient at killing unarmored troups than swords, took less training than archers, and were actually getting esier to produce than crossbows.

Incidently, the longbow actually never achieved the dominance over armour that we often perscribe it. Yes an english longbow could fire a steal-tipped arrow through plate at 300 yards. But A) steal was to expensive to be waised on arrow heads, they were made of led, B) Fully armoured actually ment Plate, over chain, over a padded gambison (14+layers of quilted linen). This combination actually would stop a great many of the arrows fired at you, even steal tipped ones. Arrows were geat at killing other peasents and horses. Bad tactics and mud deffeted the french at Agincourt, the English archers killed there horses, then stabed them with knives when the arrows didn't work.

Indon
2007-04-12, 03:44 PM
http://www.warehamforge.ca/impact.html
and
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/oles/Publications/NIJ-0108.01.pdf

are great resources actually.
notable reference from first paragraph:

I hadn't realized rifles provided that much power against solid metal. Still, range is a concern; the farther the shot, the lower the chances of penetration, so ignoring armor still isn't necessarily the best option.

I seem to recall a common modification for this is to introduce a 'strength rating' for these weapons to account for how powerful the weapon is. A well-balanced strength rating would apply well to both artificial armor (overwhelming an armor bonus unless range modifiers subtracted from it), and natural armor.

Edit: And digg, that's a good point regarding the prone position. It'd be an easy matter to house-rule that if you render yourself prone (or kneeling) with a firearm (as opposed to being rendered prone), it's for the intention of firing and would give you a positive modifier; I'd say +2 for kneeling and +4 for prone.

Iron_Mouse
2007-04-12, 04:18 PM
Heavy crossbows, picks, hammers...even ballistas don't get a bonus against armor in default D&D.

So, why should firearms? :smallconfused:

All these weapons have a lot more penetrating power than a wooden club or a thrown stone, but they don't get anything to reflect that. Guns make an already existing flaw just more obvious. The D&D armor rules are very abstract system to begin with, after all.

Use a system that takes penetrating power of various weapons into account, like Conan d20. Implementing firearms should be quite easy there.

Matthew
2007-04-12, 06:19 PM
So, history buff here. Incidently, the longbow actually never achieved the dominance over armour that we often perscribe it. Yes an english longbow could fire a steal-tipped arrow through plate at 300 yards. But A) steal was to expensive to be waised on arrow heads, they were made of led, B) Fully armoured actually ment Plate, over chain, over a padded gambison (14+layers of quilted linen). This combination actually would stop a great many of the arrows fired at you, even steal tipped ones. Arrows were geat at killing other peasents and horses. Bad tactics and mud deffeted the french at Agincourt, the English archers killed there horses, then stabed them with knives when the arrows didn't work.
Lead? I don't think so. The quality of Medieval Arrow Heads is a continuing debate, but usually it is about the quality of iron and whether it was steel. Penetrating power of Medieval Bows and the effectiveness of Body Armour is also an open area of discussion.

Heavy crossbows, picks, hammers...even ballistas don't get a bonus against armor in default D&D.

So, why should firearms? :smallconfused:

All these weapons have a lot more penetrating power than a wooden club or a thrown stone, but they don't get anything to reflect that. Guns make an already existing flaw just more obvious. The D&D armor rules are very abstract system to begin with, after all.
The difference here, though, is where the energy comes from. For melee weapons the penetrating power is directly drawn from the user (Strength Bonus), for thrown weapons, drawn weapons, Cross Bows and Guns, there is no Strength Bonus involved, it's all Dexterity based. It would be more consistant to allow Drawn and Thrown Weapons to use Strength to adjust AB and for Cross Bows and Guns to have their own Strength Rating.

Use a system that takes penetrating power of various weapons into account, like Conan d20. Implementing firearms should be quite easy there.
Play Conan D20 regardless...