Should guns cause more damage than 'heavy' weapons?

[CrazyCrab]

Hi everyone,
just wondering about something and I really can't get it off my mind. I was considering a somewhat modern campaign, but the worry is that guns vastly out damage all other weapons. That said, should it really be the case if we look at the damage actually caused? On page 268, DMG a standard pistol deals 2d6 damage, as much as a Great-sword.
Now, I don't know the exact physics behind this, but am I wrong in thinking that if I got shot once with a pistol in the leg I could still somewhat wobble along? With that said, if I get chopped with a Great-sword, one of the Landsknecht over-sized ones, I'm pretty sure I am not going to go anywhere. Pretty sure I'll be missing a leg as well. Would a massive, English longbow to the body really deal 1/2 the damage of a revolver? While the guns' dpr is surely vastly superior as you can just shoot over and over, isn't the individual damage not going to be as massive, especially against creatures like monsters with a huge body mass? From what I gather a gun is really deadly to a human because of the 'hydrostatic shock', but will that be anywhere near as effective when shooting a huge monster?

[Gastronomie]

While the guns' dpr is surely vastly superior as you can just shoot over and over, isn't the individual damage not going to be as massive, especially against creatures like monsters with a huge body mass? From what I gather a gun is really deadly to a human because of the 'hydrostatic shock', but will that be anywhere near as effective when shooting a huge monster?How about seeing it this way?

While an archer shoots once during a single round, the gunslinger shoots twice. Each attack roll "counts for two shots", and thus it inflicts 2d6 damage (the damage of two bullets) per "hit". I think that idea might get things smoother.

And the main problem when you're shot is not the "piercing" damage, but rather the fact that the bullet propels through flesh in a "twisting" fashion, so that it minces the meat around it, severely damaging the vital organs and/or muscle in the shot area. Hit Points isn't just physical damage, it's also connected to morale and mental vitality. The pain caused by a gun wound isn't exactly something that you can ignore while fighting.

[Cybren]

Now, I don't know the exact physics behind this, but am I wrong in thinking that if I got shot once with a pistol in the leg I could still somewhat wobble along?

You're wrong. Early pistols were probably .40 to .60 caliber. Google ".40 caliber wounds" if you want to see what modern firearms do to people. Then remember that earlier firearms aren't typically going to over-penetrate, as they're generally round balls made of a soft material like lead. You will absorb all the kinetic energy of the projectile rather than have a large portion of it pass through and out of your body.

[Doug Lampert]

How about seeing it this way?

While an archer shoots once during a single round, the gunslinger shoots twice. Each attack roll "counts for two shots", and thus it inflicts 2d6 damage (the damage of two bullets) per "hit". I think that idea might get things smoother.

And the main problem when you're shot is not the "piercing" damage, but rather the fact that the bullet propels through flesh in a "twisting" fashion, so that it minces the meat around it, severely damaging the vital organs and/or muscle in the shot area. Hit Points isn't just physical damage, it's also connected to morale and mental vitality. The pain caused by a gun wound isn't exactly something that you can ignore while fighting.

Actually, from what I've seen in links posted by others over the years Department of Defense studies have pretty consistently failed to find any sign of wound impairment prior to collapse from shock. (Partial exception for loss of mobility from a leg wound.)

Adrenaline will in fact let you ignore even obviously fatal damage (like a destroyed heart of lungs) for a little while.

So yea, you can ignore the pain from a gunshot.

And I defy anyone to seriously claim that a typical bullet does anything like the damage of a battleaxe to the face.

Guns have a high rate of fire, but using that attack accurately is HARD. Allow a modern semi-automatic handgun 1d6+dex of damage and state that you can shoot the gun as a bonus action and swap magazines as an object interaction. Done.


You're wrong. Early pistols were probably .40 to .60 caliber. Google ".40 caliber wounds" if you want to see what modern firearms do to people. Then remember that earlier firearms aren't typically going to over-penetrate, as they're generally round balls made of a soft material like lead. You will absorb all the kinetic energy of the projectile rather than have a large portion of it pass through and out of your body.

Those early pistols also were often subsonic almost from firing. Musket balls (.75 and faster to start with) went subsonic within 20' of the gun.

One reason for all those heavy buff coats made of wool was that there was actually a chance that they'd STOP BULLETS from early firearms.

Prior to miniballs guns are simply less effective than bows.

[Forum Explorer]

Actually, from what I've seen in links posted by others over the years Department of Defense studies have pretty consistently failed to find any sign of wound impairment prior to collapse from shock. (Partial exception for loss of mobility from a leg wound.)

Adrenaline will in fact let you ignore even obviously fatal damage (like a destroyed heart of lungs) for a little while.

So yea, you can ignore the pain from a gunshot.

And I defy anyone to seriously claim that a typical bullet does anything like the damage of a battleaxe to the face.

Guns have a high rate of fire, but using that attack accurately is HARD. Allow a modern semi-automatic handgun 1d6+dex of damage and state that you can shoot the gun as a bonus action and swap magazines as an object interaction. Done.



Those early pistols also were often subsonic almost from firing. Musket balls (.75 and faster to start with) went subsonic within 20' of the gun.

One reason for all those heavy buff coats made of wool was that there was actually a chance that they'd STOP BULLETS from early firearms.

Prior to miniballs guns are simply less effective than bows.

Pretty much this. Gun's power comes mostly from their ease of use, ease of production, range, reliability, and penetration power. For sheer physical damage a sword is actually much more devastating. But you have to get close, it's hard to be good at a sword, it's hard to make a really good sword, and you have to get right up in their face, when they are shooting from hundreds of meters away and will go through whatever armor you have like butter.

So to increase their power? I'd have them ignore all AC and resistances beyond dodging ability.

[Cybren]

Those early pistols also were often subsonic almost from firing. Musket balls (.75 and faster to start with) went subsonic withi

One reason for all those heavy buff coats made of wool was that there was actually a chance that they'd STOP BULLETS from early firearms.

Prior to miniballs guns are simply less effective than bows.

Certainly muzzle velocity is important, but the data I can scrounge on my phone seems to indicate an early 17th century wheellock has one of 400+ m/s, and a muzzle energy greater than many 9mm. You're vastly underestimating the wound an early firearm inflicts

[Reaper34]

primative firearms- slow firing, muzzle loaded smooth bore guns were in accurate prone to misfires in even damp weather (FOG) got a lot worse in rain. did massive damage at close range due to decent muzzle velocity and a large projectile (.75) ball. some eairler guns used round stones. problem with large round projectiles and smooth bore is they are very inaccurate at longer ranges and projectile velocity drops quickly. armor is still some what effective against these. look at army tactics of the time line up and march toward each other fireing occasionally and eventually charging with baonets.

rifling- groves in the barrel extends accurate range of primative firearms.

Cap and ball- reduces damp weather misfires.

modern (cartrage) weapons- fast firing, accurate, rare misfire, small shaped projectile. does little accual damage in the most common military calabers. the most common is between .22 and .23. most damage is done from damaged organs. high penatration civilian rounds can be stopped with speciality armor. milatary rounds can punch through light vehicale armor.

hollow point- made to expand doing simular damage to miniballs. heavy damage per size poor penatration.

soloid shot- will flatten some but less damage for mor penatration.

full metal jacket- low damage high penatration round.

obviously the larger the round the more damage.

shotguns and full auto weapons are the only guns that do simular damage to a target as a sword or ax. the difference is a sword or ax has a hard time hitting organs. a bullet does not.

[SLIMEPRIEST]

I think you should give them 2d8 damage. Ignore 6 points of armor. Short range 30 ft. But, they take 5 rounds to reload. they are a great one shot pop especially for someone without high dex or strength. They can be used by a large number of nobody commoners to take down a heavily armored threat. This flavor fits the firearm well I think. Skilled warriors are always gonna use bows because they have a higher fire rate and these warriors have the skill to use them.

[R.Shackleford]

A hit doesn't mean a solid hit in D&D. Using a gun and hitting the AC of an enemy may cause you to graze the enemy, narrowly miss the enemy but damage their luck (seriously, HP is made up of luck), or even cause them to dodge in such a way that it tires then out.

So a gun shouldn't do more than any other weapon.

Guns are about ease of use more than anything, it wasn't until relatively recently (mid to late 1800s if I recall correctly) that the gun was a better weapon than a bow. It takes a lot less time to get decent with a gun than it does other weapons.

Weapons don't make a lot of sense in D&D when compared to the real world so it's best not to mix real world logic with D&D logic.

The fact that you can kill enemies without ever landing a solid blow on then is proof enough about how... different... things work.

[georgie_leech]

A hit doesn't mean a solid hit in D&D. Using a gun and hitting the AC of an enemy may cause you to graze the enemy, narrowly miss the enemy but damage their luck (seriously, HP is made up of luck), or even cause them to dodge in such a way that it tires then out.

So a gun shouldn't do more than any other weapon.

Guns are about ease of use more than anything, it wasn't until relatively recently (mid to late 1800s if I recall correctly) that the gun was a better weapon than a bow. It takes a lot less time to get decent with a gun than it does other weapons.

Weapons don't make a lot of sense in D&D when compared to the real world so it's best not to mix real world logic with D&D logic.

The fact that you can kill enemies without ever landing a solid blow on then is proof enough about how... different... things work.

I don't think I've ever seen someone say you can kill someone without a solid hit in D&D. The closest I've seen is the argument that a level 20 fighter isn't taking 20 battle axes to the face, but is barely dodging or getting glancing blows from 19 and the 20th actually hitting them in the face for the killing blow.

[R.Shackleford]

I don't think I've ever seen someone say you can kill someone without a solid hit in D&D. The closest I've seen is the argument that a level 20 fighter isn't taking 20 battle axes to the face, but is barely dodging or getting glancing blows from 19 and the 20th actually hitting them in the face for the killing blow.

I've seen it plenty of times.

Between causing a creature to tire itself to death (once or twice it was a heart attack) to having an "unfortunate accident", such as falling down a trap, when no one really pushed for that unlucky situation to happen .. You can see this in movies and in the game.

It would happen more if people would read the HP rules and if people would stop being so one dimensional with adventures.

Typically in D&D the last hit is considered a solid blow, at least that's how Gygax in visioned it, and represents the sword going through you or the hammer to the face.

Really, weapon damage shouldn't be based on the weapon itself, but who is wielding the weapon.

But yeah, D&D rules don't follow real world logic.

[Vorpalchicken]

One way of looking at it is that HP are a hero's way of avoiding damage more so than a way of withstanding damage. A character with high hit points isn't taking a whole pile of solid hits, he or she is turning those big hits into scrapes and bruises. Since bullets are very difficult if not impossible to dodge, HP are less meaningful and therefore bullets effectively do more damage.

Not that I want to put guns into a D&D game any way.

[Legendairy]

A few small things to add and I want to note I am away from books right now. You said modern game right? Also a modern pistol is a wide range of weapons that can include desert eagles up to .50 round and to the revolvers that fire even larger rounds. The deagle at mid range has enough force behind it because of its muzzle velocity to penetrate a vehicles engine block.
Think if that hits in a thigh of a person it can definitely do as much if not more damage than a greatsword. Not saying it will but the potential is there. Muzzle velocity is a thing. Also most older firearms didn't have the velocity to tear into someone but they still shattered people's skeletal structure. They were ungainly and unreliable initially but as was mentioned when barrels were rifled the improved started pretty quick.
Many situation with older firearms would absolutely favor the melee user in a lot of ways.
As for modern firearms I was somewhat skilled in the Rangers as a scout sniper and anti-sniper marksmen. A .50 barret sniper rifle hitting at 1000meters without actually breaking into the details is like a small sedan hitting you at 1000mph. When it comes to flesh the barret within 600m also it's armor piercing capability range for LaV, can actually remove limbs from a target because of the velocity without a solid connection and in some cases passing close enough to the target.
That may be an extreme example. So let's look at another. The Remington model 700 is a 308 or roughly a 7.62 for our purposes. It has a Mac effective range of roughly 1000m but actually goes much further. Within that range it has the muzzle velocity to cause serious damage and death.
Now back to hand guns for a small scenario when I was younger we tried to hunt boars with spears, they treed us and we did no damage with our two handed thrusts into them and I imagine using a sword would have yielded worse results, later in life my friends now hunt them with either 22-250s(rifle)or 44 magnum revolvers the revolver at closer range can shatter a boars skull and deliver an instant killing blow, something any bladed weapon would have a rough time at doing I wager. The 22 rifle has a very high muzzle velocity and is amazing at piercing the skull so two prime examples the revolver has less range but more stopping power but the rifle has much greater range and accuracy but more piercing power. Sorry for the rant it's late and probably doesn't make sense...just my 2copper.

[Christian]

"Ease of use", indeed. Longbowmen trained continuously to stay physically conditioned and to keep up their speed and accuracy in using their weapons. Where Haley's arrows come from is not the biggest suspension of disbelief (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0904.html) issue I have in this comic. More like a high-level fighter picking up a longbow and attacking with his full BAB (remember 3rd Edition?) when he hasn't touched one since 1st level, that's just weird.

This game is really good for a lot of things. Simulation isn't one of them.

[Lombra]

I think that if wars now are fought with guns, there's a reason.

Anyways, from a mechanical rpg perspective, it depends how you want to implement fire arms. You can say that they're rare and have just been developed (late reinassance musket) or maybe in your setting guns are already mass produced (far west and beyond). For the former, I'd say that guns should be rare and expensive, and pretty powerful, while for the latter I'd just refluff the current ranged weapons in fire-arms, just to keep the balance in the game.

[R.Shackleford]

I think that if wars now are fought with guns, there's a reason.

Anyways, from a mechanical rpg perspective, it depends how you want to implement fire arms. You can say that they're rare and have just been developed (late reinassance musket) or maybe in your setting guns are already mass produced (far west and beyond). For the former, I'd say that guns should be rare and expensive, and pretty powerful, while for the latter I'd just refluff the current ranged weapons in fire-arms, just to keep the balance in the game.

Mostly, simplicity of use.

There are many other reasons but simplicity is the number one factor in why we have guns and use guns. Guns turn child of 12 into a lethal killing machine whereas without them... Not so much.

D&D isn't a simulation game, it is an emulation game, the damage that weapons do isn't really simulating much in the real world.

Daggers would be a d12 weapon, seriously, out of all the weapons to go up against a full plated knight the dagger is probably what is actually going to kill the knight if we start simulating.

[Cybren]

Mostly, simplicity of use.

There are many other reasons but simplicity is the number one factor in why we have guns and use guns. Guns turn child of 12 into a lethal killing machine whereas without them... Not so much.

D&D isn't a simulation game, it is an emulation game, the damage that weapons do isn't really simulating much in the real world.

Daggers would be a d12 weapon, seriously, out of all the weapons to go up against a full plated knight the dagger is probably what is actually going to kill the knight if we start simulating.

Firearms overtook other weapon systems for simplicity of use as the standard infantry weapon between the 15th and 16th centuries, yes. Firearms are ubiquitous on the modern battlefield today because they are the most effective weapon an individual can be outfitted with today.

[Waffle_Iron]

Firearms overtook other weapon systems for simplicity of use as the standard infantry weapon between the 15th and 16th centuries, yes. Firearms are ubiquitous on the modern battlefield today because they are the most effective weapon an individual can be outfitted with today.

Nearly. Firearms are ubiquitous on the modern battlefield due to an effective balance of lethality, shortness of learning curve, and possibly most importantly: comparative ease of logistics.

[R.Shackleford]

Mostly, simplicity of use.

There are many other reasons but simplicity is the number one factor in why we have guns and use guns. Guns turn child of 12 into a lethal killing machine whereas without them... Not so much.

D&D isn't a simulation game, it is an emulation game, the damage that weapons do isn't really simulating much in the real world.

Daggers would be a d12 weapon, seriously, out of all the weapons to go up against a full plated knight the dagger is probably what is actually going to kill the knight if we start simulating.


Firearms overtook other weapon systems for simplicity of use as the standard infantry weapon between the 15th and 16th centuries, yes. Firearms are ubiquitous on the modern battlefield today because they are the most effective weapon an individual can be outfitted with today.

I never said that there wasn't other reasons. But the number one reason, even today, that we use guns is simplicity.

[georgie_leech]

I never said that there wasn't other reasons. But the number one reason, even today, that we use guns is simplicity.

Eh... considering the extensive training modern militaries undergo, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it the number 1 reason. It seems that tactical flexibility and lethality would be much higher concerns on the proverbial battlefield.

Most small arms also happen to be easy to use, which is why they're used by the untrained as well. But even with some sort of super program like in the Matrix that can instantly teach soldiers Kung Fu/swordfighting/whatever, I'm pretty sure that firearms would maintain their current dominance.

[Spiryt]

Firearms overtook other weapon systems for simplicity of use as the standard infantry weapon between the 15th and 16th centuries, yes. Firearms are ubiquitous on the modern battlefield today because they are the most effective weapon an individual can be outfitted with today.

I really don't think that that early firearms were particularly easy to use. Be it matchlock, wheel lock, there was a lot of fooling around with relatively unreliable and fragile mechanism. While spinning around rather heavy pipe of metal with a lot of wood.

Firearms were taking over because they were offering mighty kinetic energy compared to what bows and crossbows can produce, together with much flatter trajectory.

People then obviously weren't yet familiar with the terms, but they could simply see the arrow in flight, not so with the bullet, and they could see it shatter stuff more than muscle powered projectiles could.

So for all the shortcoming, they kept on getting upgraded and taking over.

[krugaan]

A few small things to add and I want to note I am away from books right now. You said modern game right? Also a modern pistol is a wide range of weapons that can include desert eagles up to .50 round and to the revolvers that fire even larger rounds. The deagle at mid range has enough force behind it because of its muzzle velocity to penetrate a vehicles engine block.
Think if that hits in a thigh of a person it can definitely do as much if not more damage than a greatsword. Not saying it will but the potential is there. Muzzle velocity is a thing. Also most older firearms didn't have the velocity to tear into someone but they still shattered people's skeletal structure. They were ungainly and unreliable initially but as was mentioned when barrels were rifled the improved started pretty quick.
Many situation with older firearms would absolutely favor the melee user in a lot of ways.
As for modern firearms I was somewhat skilled in the Rangers as a scout sniper and anti-sniper marksmen. A .50 barret sniper rifle hitting at 1000meters without actually breaking into the details is like a small sedan hitting you at 1000mph. When it comes to flesh the barret within 600m also it's armor piercing capability range for LaV, can actually remove limbs from a target because of the velocity without a solid connection and in some cases passing close enough to the target.
That may be an extreme example. So let's look at another. The Remington model 700 is a 308 or roughly a 7.62 for our purposes. It has a Mac effective range of roughly 1000m but actually goes much further. Within that range it has the muzzle velocity to cause serious damage and death.
Now back to hand guns for a small scenario when I was younger we tried to hunt boars with spears, they treed us and we did no damage with our two handed thrusts into them and I imagine using a sword would have yielded worse results, later in life my friends now hunt them with either 22-250s(rifle)or 44 magnum revolvers the revolver at closer range can shatter a boars skull and deliver an instant killing blow, something any bladed weapon would have a rough time at doing I wager. The 22 rifle has a very high muzzle velocity and is amazing at piercing the skull so two prime examples the revolver has less range but more stopping power but the rifle has much greater range and accuracy but more piercing power. Sorry for the rant it's late and probably doesn't make sense...just my 2copper.

TLDR: the main difficulty here is that DnD models AC as a rough estimate of "hittableness" where actual weapons are more about penetration, energy transfer, and the trauma.

So yes, a pistol attacking plate mail should do much more damage than, say, a greatsword, but against unarmored foes
it becomes a tossup.

[R.Shackleford]

TLDR: the main difficulty here is that DnD models AC as a rough estimate of "hittableness" where actual weapons are more about penetration, energy transfer, and the trauma.

So yes, a pistol attacking plate mail should do much more damage than, say, a greatsword, but against unarmored foes
it becomes a tossup.

It isn't even that easy, D&D doesn't really go into good detail about AC, HP, and what a "hit" represents.

Based on their rules, you don't have to physically touch the enemy once for it to die from your weapon attacks. Just one of those emulation things that is "don't think about it".

[smcmike]

The problem with asking "which weapon is the most lethal" is that basically every weapon that exists can be lethal with one shot.

A battle axe to the head can kill you. So can a sword or a knife or an arrow or a baseball bat or a bullet or a rock.

The ODDS that a particular attack is lethal may vary depending on the weapon, but it also varies on the situation.

[krugaan]

The problem with asking "which weapon is the most lethal" is that basically every weapon that exists can be lethal with one shot.

A battle axe to the head can kill you. So can a sword or a knife or an arrow or a baseball bat or a bullet or a rock.

The ODDS that a particular attack is lethal may vary depending on the weapon, but it also varies on the situation.

Also true.

To get back on topic, yes, I think guns should do more damage than 'heavy' weapons on average.

[Doug Lampert]

I think you should give them 2d8 damage. Ignore 6 points of armor. Short range 30 ft. But, they take 5 rounds to reload. they are a great one shot pop especially for someone without high dex or strength. They can be used by a large number of nobody commoners to take down a heavily armored threat. This flavor fits the firearm well I think. Skilled warriors are always gonna use bows because they have a higher fire rate and these warriors have the skill to use them.

American Civil War guns were MUCH better than earlier weapons, large caliber minie-ball rifles. Artillery was even more lethal (the round is both faster moving and even for grape shot much bigger and heavier). But better than 5 in 6 of the people wounded in the American Civil War lived. That's with surgeons who's solution to almost everything was "amputate, without anesthetic, and without sanitary instruments". And given that artillery is more lethal than bullets, that 5 in 6 overall means that the bullets were killing even fewer than 1 in 6. Any damage for a gun that makes it more likely than not to kill a level 1 character who goes untreated in one shot is WAY too lethal.

Nor is there any reason to give guns special anti-armor rules, it wasn't guns that killed armor, it was mass armies and artillery. Guns just made the mass armies practical since it allowed a barely trained fighter an effective weapon. Detailed Napoleonic miniatures rules tend to have the ONLY effect of cuirassier armor be that muskets inflict fewer casualties. The armor is actually treated as worthless against both artillery and hand to hand weapons (the armor didn't cover the limbs where most hand to hand wounds were inflicted, but it was still being worn centuries after guns became common specifically because it was effective against muskets).

Black powder muskets are basically a very slight upgrade on the heavy crossbow. Just use the heavy crossbow stats, it's close enough for gaming (or to be more precise, the inaccuracies in load time and the like are similar).

Modern pistols are lower damage (faster moving bullets, but usually much smaller to keep recoil down), but get faster attacks than anything in the game (I'd just go with giving a bonus attack and reload a full magazine as an object interaction).

Guns as magic killing machines isn't realistic, and it isn't good for the game as a game.

[Cybren]

Nor is there any reason to give guns special anti-armor rules, it wasn't guns that killed armor, it was mass armies and artillery. Guns just made the mass armies practical since it allowed a barely trained fighter an effective weapon. Detailed Napoleonic miniatures rules tend to have the ONLY effect of cuirassier armor be that muskets inflict fewer casualties. The armor is actually treated as worthless against both artillery and hand to hand weapons (the armor didn't cover the limbs where most hand to hand wounds were inflicted, but it was still being worn centuries after guns became common specifically because it was effective against muskets).


If armor was effective against firearms it would have been worn. It was not, so it was not. Firearms are very good at penetrating thin sheets of metal.

[Easy_Lee]

There's a YouTube video where someone gives Skalagrim a boiled, thick piece or leather. He took many different medieval weapons to it, basically everything besides a lance on horseback. None of them were particularly effective. But his shotgun was.

People don't realize just how terrifyingly effective modern firearms are.

That said, for the sake of game balance, firearms shouldn't deal more damage than other ranged weapons. Treat a revolver like a hand crossbow which holds six bullets, and a bolt action rifle or powder musket like a longbow or heavy crossbow.

[krugaan]

There's a YouTube video where someone gives Skalagrim a boiled, thick piece or leather. He took many different medieval weapons to it, basically everything besides a lance on horseback. None of them were particularly effective. But his shotgun was.

People don't realize just how terrifyingly effective modern firearms are.

That said, for the sake of game balance, firearms shouldn't deal more damage than other ranged weapons. Treat a revolver like a hand crossbow which holds six bullets, and a bolt action rifle or powder musket like a longbow or heavy crossbow.

Gamers don't realize how effective modern firearms are. Most other people do and are rightfully scared to death of them.

[Easy_Lee]

Gamers don't realize how effective modern firearms are. Most other people do and are rightfully scared to death of them.

Hollywood seems to be convinced that a bullet in the shoulder, leg, arm, or butt is no big deal.

[krugaan]

Hollywood seems to be convinced that a bullet in the shoulder, leg, arm, or butt is no big deal.

I was about to agree with you, but recently, I haven't seen many action movies where this is the case. (to be fair, the last movies I've seen with gunfire all involve superheroes).

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Been thinking on this a while. Perhaps make Gun damage values similar to crossbows, but firing them is a Dex Save instead of an attack roll. Armor doesn't help you a lot there now, does it?

[georgie_leech]

Been thinking on this a while. Perhaps make Gun damage values similar to crossbows, but firing them is a Dex Save instead of an attack roll. Armor doesn't help you a lot there now, does it?

Cover probably should though, does that grant a bonus to DEX Saves? I know it does for AC.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Cover probably should though, does that grant a bonus to DEX Saves? I know it does for AC.

Advantage for half and 34ths cover, auto-success for Full cover. Simple enough.

[Easy_Lee]

Been thinking on this a while. Perhaps make Gun damage values similar to crossbows, but firing them is a Dex Save instead of an attack roll. Armor doesn't help you a lot there now, does it?

If it didn't, no one would wear armor. Any armor you see people wearing is effective against the weapons they expect to face.

[Reaper34]

for modern firearms anything short of kevlar or power armor and the round will punch through it and cause more damage than if you hadn't been wearing it. even with kevlar you would take half blugening damage from the kenetic shock. getting shot with a .38 feels like getting kicked by a hourse in the chest when wearing kevlar. a .50 over the heart can stop a person's heart just from the shock. and fmj rounds will punch through kevlar. so will almosty all percing weapons like knives.

[Sigreid]

You're better off sticking with what is in the DMG in my opinion. For a few reasons. The damage that a a round does is dependent on it's size, velocity, how hard the target is, etc. In fact the M1911 is such an effective pistol because it's a large, slow(ish) moving round that causes hydro-static shock in fleshy targets, but has very poor penetration.

That being said, Hitpoints aren't just meat, and the challenge of minimizing or avoiding meat damage from a round that is on target would be significantly higher than for a sword, etc. so you could look at it as not getting high velocity led poisoning drains you more than turning a sword blow into a glancing blow that does no real damage.

[Easy_Lee]

You're better off sticking with what is in the DMG in my opinion. For a few reasons. The damage that a a round does is dependent on it's size, velocity, how hard the target is, etc. In fact the M1911 is such an effective pistol because it's a large, slow(ish) moving round that causes hydro-static shock in fleshy targets, but has very poor penetration.

That being said, Hitpoints aren't just meat, and the challenge of minimizing or avoiding meat damage from a round that is on target would be significantly higher than for a sword, etc. so you could look at it as not getting high velocity led poisoning drains you more than turning a sword blow into a glancing blow that does no real damage.

Trouble is that if guns are that much better, there's no reason to use anything else. Realism has beaten balance.

[Legendairy]

Pretty much, if it's a balance thing then just go with the values of other ranged weapons but remove the reloading properties and maybe MAYBE the disadvantage at range.

A side note about Kevlar and the like, it's not at all effective against a .50 and semi effective at range against a 7.62 standard AK 47 round, even most magnums of significant caliber punch through them at close range. The US military IBA vest and modular sappy plate design is good for maybe 1 7.62 round before the plate shatters and becomes useless.

Modern firearms are a terrible thing. There is more to them than muzzle velocity and feet pounds of pressure at target. A modern M4 or AR that sports the .223 or 5.56 cartridge is a tumbling round, it can hit you in the belly and it starts to somersault and can actually exit a body in the upper back or side or even leg, this is more so if it hits a piece of bone.

One of the reasons we use this type of round is because it's devistating, the M14 the precourser to the M4 was a 7.62 round which was pretty much as accurate within 600m so a bigger round with more punching power and almost the same accuracy, the problem was when it made contact with a persons soft bits it went right through them, it didn't stop most enemies who were high as kites on various chemicals and adrenaline, a shot could go right through them and they could continue to fight and it may not even be fatal, the 5.56 .223 hits and acts like a pinball (or is supposed to) to absolutely destroy internal organs, that's why center mass is your target every time.

About knight and daggers actually daggers didn't fair well against most armored knights and the like UNLESS you didn't wear armor and just tackled them to the ground then you could just pierce the soft bits until your hearts content.

I could be wrong been a bit since I looked it up but I thought the civil war casualties were much much higher but it was due to infection and horrible medical practice, may have read your post wrong tho.

The reason we have the saying of "don't shoot til you see the whites of their eyes" is because firearms of the era were inaccurate and kicked up a TON of painful smoke so you literally waited til you knew they were close enough that volley fire would shred the lines. This is assuming you aren't that cowardly swamp fox shooting from behind cover with a more defensible position and manouvering! Preposterous!!!!

[MrStabby]

An interesting thread. A lot I didn't know about weaponry here.

One thing I had believed is that modern weaponry was designed to be less lethal and that lower calibre bullets were intended for use in the late 20th century. The thought being that if your troops shot someone and the target survived they would still be unable to take part in the battle but they would also take someone else out of the battle to provide them with medical attention. Is there any truth to this?

[krugaan]

An interesting thread. A lot I didn't know about weaponry here.

One thing I had believed is that modern weaponry was designed to be less lethal and that lower calibre bullets were intended for use in the late 20th century. The thought being that if your troops shot someone and the target survived they would still be unable to take part in the battle but they would also take someone else out of the battle to provide them with medical attention. Is there any truth to this?

I doubt this is the case at all. Most civilian rounds are decidedly "more" lethal, i think, because they all expand to prevent over-penetration. War rounds are all jacketed because of the hague convention (geneva convention? whatever) to be "less cruel", but i doubt it was meant to tie up enemy resources. Virtually all major wars in the modern age put a very low premium on troop survival and a high premium on lethality.

[djreynolds]

Do you get to add your ability modifier to the damage from a gun? In D&D?

If you limit that, that might help out the whole realism thing, if say all you get is the weapon damage period.

[JackPhoenix]

Trouble is that if guns are that much better, there's no reason to use anything else. Realism has beaten balance.

Lower range, much more expensive and rare ammunition, only one shot a round (Crossbow Expert doesn't apply to firearms), if we're talking about default DMG guns. Add things not mentioned, like unreliability (import missfire from Pathfinder), and powder ruined by rain or wet conditions, and suddenly it's much harder decision

[Cybren]

Lower range, much more expensive and rare ammunition, only one shot a round (Crossbow Expert doesn't apply to firearms), if we're talking about default DMG guns. Add things not mentioned, like unreliability (import missfire from Pathfinder), and powder ruined by rain or wet conditions, and suddenly it's much harder decision
Indeed, but D&D does abstract away weapon and armor maintenance as being never-occurences. I'd also imagine many players would become very upset if suddenly they had to manage logistics of things like "don't get the powder wet". Though to be honest that's my favorite kind of game. (As an example, learning we had to explore some very rough wilderness I promptly bought 399lbs of equipment & rations for the journey to put in the as of yet empty bag of holding we had)


Do you get to add your ability modifier to the damage from a gun? In D&D?

If you limit that, that might help out the whole realism thing, if say all you get is the weapon damage period.

It would be hard to justify not adding ability score modifier to damage on firearms when crossbows do it.

[Sigreid]

Trouble is that if guns are that much better, there's no reason to use anything else. Realism has beaten balance.

Well, yeah. That's why historically guns took over. That doesn't mean that the take over will happen right away. If you allow guns in your campaign then what will determine how wide spread they are will be the number of gunsmiths and quality of the metals available in a given area, and availability of gunpowder. They could easily be so expensive they are only available to the very rich. And if they are that expensive, ammunition will be harder to come by as few merchants will stock items they almost never sell.

[smcmike]

An interesting thread. A lot I didn't know about weaponry here.

One thing I had believed is that modern weaponry was designed to be less lethal and that lower calibre bullets were intended for use in the late 20th century. The thought being that if your troops shot someone and the target survived they would still be unable to take part in the battle but they would also take someone else out of the battle to provide them with medical attention. Is there any truth to this?

This is the theory behind antipersonnel land mines, as I understand it. I don't think it applies to weapons designed for active combat.

[Legendairy]

The lethality vs troop detriment i.e. The medic scenario isn't true, as said that IS the case with most anti-personal explosives and the like. In our training we were told to shoot from the rear to the front of a formation (excluding high value targets) so that the enemy would keep coming not realizing the numbers have vastly dwindled. Think old movie tropes where the big bad gets to the hero and with his best bravado claims "we are many and will kill/hurt/maim you!" Then looks back and all his mooks are laying on the ground groaning and holding their extremities.

Modern warfare is an ugly ugly thing. Firearms are accurate, easy to get a base knowledge to hit a target at 300m with some regularity and extremely potent. Barring training and accuracy there is also the "spray and pray" method with modern firearms. A group of pc's walk into a narrow ally way or a "fatal funnel" and mook 1 steps out of a doorway and fires 30 rounds in their general direction within 6 seconds. Something is more than likely going to hit.

As far as balance or more powerful, yes modern firearms IMHO should be stronger than heavy weapons. Does it add too much realism again my opinion but yes that's why in our games we avoid all but powder era brass bes and pistols and whatnot.

Although hiding in brush in a ghillie suit with a cheyanne tacticle .408 at just under two miles from a necromancer in the midst of his undead hoard and pink misting his a#* is a cool image to me.

EDIT: Geneva convention at a troop based level is what is required of you as a soldier and what the rules of engagement or ROE dictate. Things like you must provide medical care to civilians injured as part of an firefight etc. not always observed and the ROE as in can't fire until fired upon or M2 butterfly trigger vehicle mounted (mostly) .50 machine gun being too much firepower in heavily civilian trafficked areas, warning shots with shot guns or rifles having to be fired down and away and the rules of escalation, like wave them off, verbal warning, warning shot, disabling shot and into lethal force it all depends on the situation and ROE concerning them.

Something else that was said is stay away from artillery and the like as well or treat it like wizards running around with meteor swarm on a consistent bases. An AC 130 gunship with the 30mm Vulcan or the 40mm option that also has the "semi automatic" 105 arty can in two passes cover every inch of a football field (American football) with a round. That is pure devistation and that's not even getting into paladin shelling or battleship shelling or bomber support. Also avoid guided weaponry like MLRS and the like just so much no. Bright side is napalm is considered inhumane anymore but white phosphorus is the new go to so one evil for another I suppose.

[Legendairy]

Honestly it boils down to this, modern weaponry has replaced the sword for multiple reasons mentioned here, they dominate a battlefield and any military lacking them does not fair well in open conflict, what is your world how available are munitions if you make them common they may start to push melee weapons to the sidelines, so up to you. All depends on setting and you may have to either homebrew or consider what you have read here and make an educated guess and use what feels right in your gut.

Edit: Personally imho they should hit harder, watch what Indiana jones does to the guy with the scimitar. But this is dnd and I prefere my realism to stay in reality and not mess with fantasy game. So recap: yes powerful, bad inclusion without a lot of thought and everyone's aggreance.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, if you really want to include guns and make them different, here's something to consider. When guns first replaced bows, they had inferior rate of fire and the limitation of firing in a straight line (couldn't fire over a hill or whatever). Some thought bows were the better weapon. However, bows take more training, more physical strength (a 100 pound war bow is not easy to draw), and arrows are bulky and expensive compared to iron balls and powder (assuming historical availability). Most importantly, it's much easier to train someone to fire a gun. It's not that there isn't skill to it. However, those old muskets weren't very accurate by today's standards. It would be reasonable to say that anyone proficient (as in significantly trained and experienced) with a musket is about equally likely to hit a distant target. Kind of like how any proficient driver can drive on the highway just fine.

You could increase guns' base damage and either give them a fixed Dex save and require proficiency to use at all, make an attack roll using a fixed bonus, or add dexterity only to the attack roll and not to damage. Dealing a fixed damage of something like 1D8+3 would be equivalent to a Longbow fired with 16 Dexterity, which is much more effective than a standard D&D soldier would pull off with a longbow.

[Legendairy]

Longbows also weren't historically accurate weapons, they are very flighty at range but great to get 100 friends to pepper an area. I thought the OP asked about modern firearms or am I just daft?
The big issues with historic firearms was the rate of fire and expense at first, I mean other than upkeep, smoothbore, weight, misfires, exploding in your hand (most were actually hip fired, even after the stock was made to shoulder cause well flames and face and eyes and whatnot.)

Atlatl and javelins were pretty boss too. Most ranged weapons were short range or mid range at best meaning within 25m so roughly 75 feet, so seems ok as is.

The strength to draw a bow also isn't in the rules anymore, great for simplicity bad for realism and damages and accuracy.

[djreynolds]

Interestingly, some graves in England were unearthed during an archeological dig, and the bowman's skeleton was examined and his left radius and ulna bones were thicker than his right ones due the strain used to keep the bow in place as they archer drew back with his right arm. Pretty cool

[Doug Lampert]

Interestingly, some graves in England were unearthed during an archeological dig, and the bowman's skeleton was examined and his left radius and ulna bones were thicker than his right ones due the strain used to keep the bow in place as they archer drew back with his right arm. Pretty cool

That probably wasn't graves, that sort of data mostly comes from the Mary Rose salvage effort. (Google for more details, I'm working from memory.)

Back in the 90s I remember being repeatedly told by self-proclaimed "experts" at archery both at game stores and on line that stories about 150lb war bows were nonsense, no one could possibly draw such a bow often enough to be useful, and that real bows would have been 60lb draw or so, certainly no higher than 80lb; and further that a modern could learn to shoot a realistic longbow without needing the "start with his grandfather" that King Edward had specified because moderns are bigger and stronger due to better nutrition.

Then they started salvaging the Mary Rose which went down with a large number of archers and bows aboard. The archers weren't all that small and showed skeletal adjustments not seen on modern archers or athletes because moderns don't train that hard starting that young. They found hundreds of bows, and IIRC EVERY SINGLE ONE that's been examined in detail was estimated to have had a draw of over 100lb when new, high end bows were over 180lb IIRC, so even higher than the "outrageous" claims in stories and chronicles.

Moderns are bigger and stronger than most peasants were, but a yoeman was of a class just one small step below a knight or full armored man-at-arms. Typically landlords, not farmer workers.

[djreynolds]

Yes. That's it. They "happened" upon their resting place. Very cool. Sad too.

[Sigreid]

Interesting stuff Doug. I actually think it's part of our natural need to feel we're better than our ancestors at work on those experts. I can't count the number of history shows and documentaries I've seen where trained "experts" discount accounts of how something was done or used because "There's no way they could have figured that out."

An example is the sun stone. A crystal type that Norse legend maintained could be used to magically navigate when you couldn't see the sun due to cloud cover. Turns out a trick of how the sun stone interacts with reflections of the not visible sun within it can be reliably used to tell where the sun actually is. Several experts in the documentary I watched claimed they could not have known this...despite it being called a sun stone and all the legends saying you could use it to navigate when the sun wasn't visible to the naked eye.

[Forum Explorer]

If armor was effective against firearms it would have been worn. It was not, so it was not. Firearms are very good at penetrating thin sheets of metal.

We have armor today, though admittedly, it's still not all that great against firearms. Just as a different kind.

[Cybren]

We have armor today, though admittedly, it's still not all that great against firearms. Just as a different kind.
That post was not in reference to Kevlar

[JackPhoenix]

IIRC, English stopped using longbows not because guns were better, but because they ran out of yew trees, not just in England, but in most of the Europe (they had to import it after 13-14th century, as they drove it to extinction on British Isles by that time).

[CrazyCrab]

Thanks for all the comments, I've learned quote a bit of interesting stuff here. :)

Hmm, I've given it some more thought and well, I'd appreciate some more feedback... maybe a bit of background info could be useful.
The campaign I have in mind is a bit like 'Twin Peaks' (or 'Stranger Things', 'Gravity Falls' if you watched these shows) where the party is just normal people who, via some way or another, end up discovering a secret organization who is gathering all kinds of evidence - think 'Finding Big Foot', but infinitely more dangerous. It turns out that monsters and other weird things are real (who would have guessed! In a DnD game!) but telling the government or the media will probably get you quietly dealt with. Eventually the organization gets raided by the FBI, the building gets burned to the ground, all the evidence is destroyed. The party then discovers some clues and other stuff and is doomed to go on without the support of their friends. Then they travel all around the place, discovering conspiracies, chasing monsters, etc.

So, I figured, for the rules that the part that is going to be the most crucial is that they are civilians (at least at the time, soldier background could still mean soldier WW2 background etc.), so they won't have easy access to the heavy caliber weapons. Also, explosions attract the police etc, meaning that slashing the monster is much more subtle.

It's the 70s / 80s, so mobile phone are 'satellite phones', aka massive bricks and there is no internet - spells like comprehend languages are still useful. Classes can be easily reflavored (clerics can worship pagan gods to get their powers, ranger are well... rangers... actually most classes translate pretty well) and the guns... well, I guess I can limit them? Unless the party gets into the black market they won't have the massive assault rifles or rocket launchers, right? I really don't know much about just how easily accessible guns are (and were) in the US, but i figure this makes sense... right? Also, going with the whole cheesy 70s / 80s setting I guess taking a shot or two is somewhat conceivable if you're an action-movie hero.

[smcmike]

That's a fun setting idea. I don't know if D&D is really the best system for it, but, hey, why not, just go for it.

In such a setting, though, I would not worry about guns out damaging other weapons. Guns are the weapon of choice in modern society, so it would be kind of odd if your characters looked at their options and decided "nope, I'm going with a greatsword." Aesthetically, guns just make sense.

You can certainly limit their availability in a variety of ways, though. Maybe a character just doesn't have any exposure to guns, and is non-proficient. Maybe they have a felony record, and can't buy them legally. Maybe the only gun shop in town is being watched by the FBI. Maybe, like Sam Spade, they simply hate guns. Maybe ammo can be the limiting factor - throw the characters into a mess without much preparation, and watch them run dry.

Also, magical ancient weapons might outclass modern weapons.

[CrazyCrab]

Also, magical ancient weapons might outclass modern weapons.

Haven't thought of that, it makes a lot of sense. I guess I could go with a 'technology vs magic' thing, so that you cannot have magical guns... it will maybe make people look at other weapons too.

I'm guessing guns will have the same melee penalty as other ranged weapons, right? So maybe with monsters jumping and grappling some knives and other weapons won't be too useless.
Though what do you think, should a shotgun have a melee penalty?

[smcmike]

I dunno about melee.

Another option is resistances and immunities for the enemies that the characters fight. Common modern in modern era fiction usually have some sort of resistance or protection from firearms. Werewolves and vampires are obvious, but zombies too, both in th "headshot" requirement and their ammo-sapping numbers. Demons and Devils also have resistances.

[krugaan]

Haven't thought of that, it makes a lot of sense. I guess I could go with a 'technology vs magic' thing, so that you cannot have magical guns... it will maybe make people look at other weapons too.

I'm guessing guns will have the same melee penalty as other ranged weapons, right? So maybe with monsters jumping and grappling some knives and other weapons won't be too useless.
Though what do you think, should a shotgun have a melee penalty?

I imagine wand of magic missle would be a reasonable analogy: easy to use, *never misses out to 120'*, potentially lethal to commoners.

Sure, the rate of fire kind of sucks, but you never need to reload, never run out of ammo, never miss, and it's easily carried in your pocket.

Hmmm, I guess that actually makes it an excellent personal defense weapon.

Imagine how many real-world gun problems would be nullified if wand of magic missle replaced handguns! Mass shootings would be far less lethal (low ROF), law enforcement officers could easily be protected by brooches of shielding, etc etc.

OMG ALL WE NEED IS MAGIC IRL TO SOLVE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS

[Legendairy]

Well a few things, 70-80s soldiers could also be Vietnam vets, Korean War vets and some of the smaller conflicts all over the world. I personally don't think firearms would suffer from the close range thing, smaller barreled weapons are easier to use in melee range, maybe things like long barreled rifles and machine guns and most assault rifles. Shotguns to make it simple without getting into the type of barrel and rounds I would say do less damage at range as most will be using a pellet type of round.

Depending on when you have it or if you follow real world politics firearms are pretty easy to get, this does depend on the characters tho, most middle class American families aren't trading with shadier types to get assault rifles and the like. Shotguns and rifles and even pistols are fairly easy to get.

As for the melee weapons vs firearms remember a few other factors it is easy to conceal a hand gun or sawed off shotgun in the right clothing, not so much a greataxe, longsword or maces. So walking down the street with a .357 in your pocket won't draw as much attention as strolling down the road with a katana strapped to your back or side.

Feel free to message me here if you have more questions, I don't mind posting on here either just messages are easier lol.