[D20M] Is the way d20 handles guns actually bad for d20 Modern?

[Luccan]

To put it another way, I often see people complain about the way the d20 system tends to handle guns (and rightly so, from a realism standpoint). Many of the solutions I see proposed either make using them far more complicated and deadly for realism sake or make them so powerful there would never be a point to not using guns (and d20 Modern still likes to encourage melee). But given the conceits of d20 Modern (essentially a "modern" heroic fantasy system or action movie simulator), is the way guns are handled actually bad for the game itself?

[noob]

In real life guns are awesome for close quarters and rifles are awesome for mid and long range(not too much bad at close quarters if you have a bayonet but you might still have problems using a rifle in close quarters).
D20 modern try to have a setting more similar to real life than other d20 systems so it is quite normal that it have quite deadly guns(gaining levels make them less deadly).
The fact soldiers often still have a knife is due in great part to how useful as a tool it is and not because they will frequently stab someone with it.
Whenever it is a problem that people use guns or not is only a matter of preferences.
Maybe some people prefer rocket launchers and would like to play d20 modern with rocket launchers only and some people would like to use a long knife in a gun fight.

[Zanos]

I don't understand why people think guns should be special in the damage system. If you can believe someone getting shot with an arrow or crossbow bolt living and continuing to fight, why not a gun? HP is an abstraction.

[noob]

I don't understand why people think guns should be special in the damage system. If you can believe someone getting shot with an arrow or crossbow bolt living and continuing to fight, why not a gun? HP is an abstraction.

They are special in the damage system that in real life guns are made to kill its target quickly.
If there was a lot of people who were tough as bears or elephants then most regular military would try to get elephant guns or gun tech would improve to make guns more deadly.
Now if some people get to be as tough as a thousand whales then very high explosive weapons(like rocket trucks) would be needed on all the front lines.
Modern weapons can be made to fit the target while you could not in the medieval era have a sword that hurts 30 times more.

[Zanos]

They are special in the damage system that in real life guns are made to kill its target quickly.
If there was a lot of people who were tough as bears or elephants then most regular military would try to get elephant guns or gun tech would improve to make guns more deadly.
Now if some people get to be as tough as a thousand whales then very high explosive weapons(like rocket trucks) would be needed on all the front lines.
Modern weapons can be made to fit the target while you could not in the medieval era have a sword that hurts 30 times more.
Handgun wounds, intermediate rifle wounds and knife wounds have about the same survival chance when treated.

Yeah, an anti-material rifle should probably do more damage than a bow, but I always see people fall back into thinking that nobody should be able to survive a shot from x-weapon in d20 modern despite not having an issue with it for non-gun weapons of similar impact. A fragmentation grenade only does 4d6 damage.

[Remuko]

People seem to overlook in D20 modern that the massive damage rules are different and guns can pretty consistently force massive damage checks which can down someone even if the HP dmg they do is insignificant.

[Nifft]

People seem to overlook in D20 modern that the massive damage rules are different and guns can pretty consistently force massive damage checks which can down someone even if the HP dmg they do is insignificant.

I did not know that!



Massive Damage

Any time a character takes damage from a single hit that exceeds the character’s massive damage threshold, that damage is considered massive damage. A character’s massive damage threshold is equal to the character’s current Constitution score; it can be increased by taking the Improved Damage Threshold feat. When a character takes massive damage that doesn’t reduce his or her hit points to 0 or lower, the character must make a Fortitude save (DC 15). If the character fails the save, the character’s hit point total is immediately reduced to –1. If the save succeeds, the character suffers no ill effect beyond the loss of hit points.

Creatures immune to critical hits are also immune to the effects of massive damage.


http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/combat/death.dying.healing.php

Huh, that does change the threat profile.

[noob]

People seem to overlook in D20 modern that the massive damage rules are different and guns can pretty consistently force massive damage checks which can down someone even if the HP dmg they do is insignificant.
Somehow in dnd 3.5 most stuff I meet triggers 1 or 2 saves against massive damage per turn(or even just cause save against death) and somehow I do not consider the adventures to be super deadly.

[Luccan]

People seem to overlook in D20 modern that the massive damage rules are different and guns can pretty consistently force massive damage checks which can down someone even if the HP dmg they do is insignificant.

I totally forgot about that too... Yeah, looking at it, the majority of guns could outright kill (well, knock unconscious. It's interesting massive damage rules don't auto kill you in d20 modern, like in 3.5) most low-mid level characters not focused on Con on a good roll. In fact, I can only find three handguns that can't do it with a Con of 9 or more (some can do it with a Con of up to 16). You have to have a 13 or better to completely avoid it with the low-powered rifles. And that's assuming no one crits, of course.

And the Melee weapons match up pretty well, as does the compound bow, since they all get your strength bonus to damage.

[Luccan]

Somehow in dnd 3.5 most stuff I meet triggers 1 or 2 saves against massive damage per turn(or even just cause save against death) and somehow I do not consider the adventures to be super deadly.

To be fair, once you can reliably make a DC 15 Fortitude save, it isn't as much of a threat. Of course, by that point in d20 modern, you're probably around level 10 (unless you're focused on Con).

[frogglesmash]

People also forget to mention that the double tap feat adds a die of damage to your attacks and burst for let's you add two dice of damage. Combine this with massive damage rules and guns are suddenly very lethal.

[Remuko]

I totally forgot about that too... Yeah, looking at it, the majority of guns could outright kill (well, knock unconscious. It's interesting massive damage rules don't auto kill you in d20 modern, like in 3.5)

In 3.5 you have magical healing, in base D20 modern you dont have that. So even just dropping to -1 is a decent chance at death. With the lower massive threshold they probably felt having it drop to dying was good enough. Still threatening but you have a chance to survive and feel badass.

[daremetoidareyo]

I did not know that!



http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/combat/death.dying.healing.php

Huh, that does change the threat profile.

I might steal this for normal 3.5.

[Nifft]

I might steal this for normal 3.5.

For normal 3.5e, I'd want the DT to scale a bit with level.

Maybe something like Con + (2 x BAB) -- or maybe something based on your HD size, maybe (HD/4) so Wizards got +1 each level, and Barbarians got +3 each level.


I'd also do special stuff for front-liners like:

- Barbarian: while Raging you do automatically succeed on massive damage saving throws.

- Monk: add your Wisdom bonus to your Fortitude save when making massive damage saving throws.

- Rogue's Defensive Roll special ability might be replaced by with: You may add your Dexterity bonus to your Fortitude save when making massive damage saving throws; if you succeed on a massive damage save, you can make a free Hide or Bluff check to play dead.


Wounding / Sharpness / Vorpal weapons might have mechanics that treat the target's massive damage threshold as lower, or penalize the target's Fort save, or both.

[noob]

- Barbarian: while Raging you don't automatically succeed on massive damage saving throws.


Barbarians already fail the save against massive damage on a 1.
Believe me when you are on the front lines you get many occasions to roll a save against massive damage and so you will roll a 1 from time to time(like every few encounters at high level).

[chainer1216]

Asking for realism in a system with HP that increases at each level is dumb.

Yes getting shot once is debilitating and often lethal, but so is getting stabbed with a sword.

Why is it immersion breaking when it takes 9 gunshots to kill a npc but not when it takes getting stabbed/slashed 9 times?

[frogglesmash]

Asking for realism in a system with HP that increases at each level is dumb.

Yes getting shot once is debilitating and often lethal, but so is getting stabbed with a sword.

Why is it immersion breaking when it takes 9 gunshots to kill a npc but not when it takes getting stabbed/slashed 9 times?

The difference is that D&D is a world of of fantasy and magic, a place where the impossible isn't, and the improbable is commonplace. D20 modern on the other hand, is trying to model the real world -or something very similar to it- and in the real world getting shot or stabbed 9 times will almost always kill you. Personally I think that D20 modern does a decent of job of making combat plausible without it becoming a meatgrinder. I get the impression that a lot of people who think otherwise have overlooked some or all of the following:
A) The change to massive damage rules that some people have pointed out.
B) That saves scale slower than in D&D, thus ensuring the aforementioned massive damage rules remain relevant longer.
C) That the scarcity of magic limits how high characters can pump their ability scores and saves, effectively accomplishing the same effect as B.

[Grod_The_Giant]

They are special in the damage system that in real life guns are made to kill its target quickly.

You know what else was made to kill its target quickly? Pretty much every weapon ever made. That's the whole point of a weapon.

3.5 doesn't need more intense massive damage rules, I'd say. Setting aside for the moment the "this really only hurts martial type characters" thing (though it does, and melee types already have enough problems), the game is already rocket tag-y at most levels you play at. Monster damage keeps pace (or outstrips!) hit points pretty effectively.

[Nifft]

Barbarians already fail the save against massive damage on a 1.
Believe me when you are on the front lines you get many occasions to roll a save against massive damage and so you will roll a 1 from time to time(like every few encounters at high level).

Ah, the "don't" was from a previous edit -- I had been intending to buff Barbarians, not nerf them.

Edited to reflect original intent.



3.5 doesn't need more intense massive damage rules, I'd say. Setting aside for the moment the "this really only hurts martial type characters" thing (though it does, and melee types already have enough problems), the game is already rocket tag-y at most levels you play at. Monster damage keeps pace (or outstrips!) hit points pretty effectively.

Lower massive damage threshold could be a buff to Martials, if you do it right.

I mean, their big weapons kinda gain a save-or-die effect, if they can breach that threshold on a monster reliably.

It does bring some power to damage-dealing, and damage-dealing is one area where martial types are able to contribute.

[Zanos]

Monsters tend to have inflated fortitude saves constitution scores, and damage reduction for their CR compared to PCs.

And martials don't really have problems killing stuff they can hit in 3.5. Gonna agree with Grod that the game doesn't really need any more rocket tag.

[noob]

You know what else was made to kill its target quickly? Pretty much every weapon ever made. That's the whole point of a weapon.

3.5 doesn't need more intense massive damage rules, I'd say. Setting aside for the moment the "this really only hurts martial type characters" thing (though it does, and melee types already have enough problems), the game is already rocket tag-y at most levels you play at. Monster damage keeps pace (or outstrips!) hit points pretty effectively.

The difference is that you could make a rifle that is a little bit heavier than the current rifles and that impacts ten times more(why it is not done is that there is no need for that: you can not make a dead target deader in real life(and you do not need to)) while you can not make a sword that hurts ten times more than a medieval one.

Current guns are made to kill as quickly as possible regular humans which means that having a weapon light enough for being pointed quickly at the target and have a little bit more firepower than needed to debilitate or kill in one shot and the most accurate possible.

Now if there was super tough humans we would make weapons that optimize more the firepower part at the cost for example of mass(make a tougher chamber and cannon and then load more gunpowder and huger bullets) or by making the use of spiraling bullets(bullets that spirals into the person on impact dealing a wound as huge as possible: it is awesome(really scary but it is Geneva compliant) and it is used in Russian guns) more common.
You can not make a sword that hurts ten times more when it hits even if you make an heavier sword or try to improve the metal it have(you can make it more solid but you will not have a ten times more deadly sword).
The thing is that technology kept progressing and now we have stuff that can kill giant rolling chunks of metal instead of just having a weapon that can kill an human wearing a chunk of metal.

[Jack_McSnatch]

People seem to forget, d20 modern ISN'T aiming for realism. It's action movie simulator. Die Hard would be a pretty lame movie if John McClane got shot once in the gut, and spenrt the rest of the film slowly dying of septic poisoning. People who try to make guns deadlier are missing that very crucial point. D20 modern characters aren't regular people, they're action heroes. The gunplay rules aren't supposed to simulate real guns, which can be fatal regardless of where you get shot, they're supposed to simulate action movie guns, where getting shot is an inconvenience more than anything else. To that end, I think they do fine.

[Nifft]

You can not make a sword that hurts ten times more when it hits even if you make an heavier sword or try to improve the metal it have(you can make it more solid but you will not have a ten times more deadly sword).

Well, you could.

It just wouldn't be medieval.

You'd have some of it made from a highly toxic metal, perhaps comprising the blade if it's strong enough to penetrate armor yet also leeches into water; perhaps engraved on the blade if it's not.

Or a metal that reacts violently on contact with water.


If you're allowed to add motion & mechanical parts while retaining the shape, then an explosive charge somewhere could improve the penetrating power of a sword, at the cost of needing to replace part of it.


If you're allowed to change the nature of the sword while retaining the shape, then consider a light saber.


Swords are not some kind of evolutionary dead-end. They're just where we were when we stopped caring as much about melee weapons at all.

[noob]

Well, you could.

It just wouldn't be medieval.

You'd have some of it made from a highly toxic metal, perhaps comprising the blade if it's strong enough to penetrate armor yet also leeches into water; perhaps engraved on the blade if it's not.

Or a metal that reacts violently on contact with water.


If you're allowed to add motion & mechanical parts while retaining the shape, then an explosive charge somewhere could improve the penetrating power of a sword, at the cost of needing to replace part of it.


If you're allowed to change the nature of the sword while retaining the shape, then consider a light saber.


Swords are not some kind of evolutionary dead-end. They're just where we were when we stopped caring as much about melee weapons at all.
If you want a good melee weapon the shape of a sword is not good.
Try a blade spun by a motor(it is a good melee weapon): you can accumulate kinetic energy and then deal scary impacts(and even often slice stuff).
A sword with explosive would probably be too much inconvenient(have to recharge and not blow yourself up: remember you are using explosive in close range).
If you can do a light saber you can make a long range weapon that have the same firepower.
poisonous metals are a safety hazard to the users and make it not easy to carry around.
A metal that reacts violently to the contact of the water have a lot of problems when there is rain.

[Jack_McSnatch]

You'd have some of it made from a highly toxic metal, perhaps comprising the blade if it's strong enough to penetrate armor yet also leeches into water; perhaps engraved on the blade if it's not.




If you're allowed to add motion & mechanical parts while retaining the shape, then an explosive charge somewhere could improve the penetrating power of a sword, at the cost of needing to replace part of it.

Swords actually can't pierce armor very well to begin with. Even chainmail is a bitch to puncture. If you're looking to go through armor you want an axe, or a hammer, with a spike on the back, called an "armor spike." Toxicity in that case woukdn't matter at all, cause the guy will probably die of septic poisoning, or by drowning in their own blood and vomit. And an exploding sword sounds more dangerous to the wielder than anybody else.

This goes back to my earlier point about misguided realism. Tabletop isn't SUPPOSED to be real, it's supposed to be fun make believe stories, where full plate mail is useless against some shmuck with a longsword, and that longsword can explode without needing to be reloaded, because its running on the rule of cool more anything else.


Try a blade spun by a motor(it is a good melee weapon): you can accumulate kinetic energy and then deal scary impacts(and even often slice stuff).


Also a bad idea for the same reason people don't use chainsaws in combat. Chainsaws don't cut through things in one smooth motion, it's slow, gradual cutting away. It'd be very time consuming in battle.

But again, rule of cool, not realism.

[noob]

Swords actually can't pierce armor very well to begin with. Even chainmail is a bitch to puncture. If you're looking to go through armor you want an axe, or a hammer, with a spike on the back, called an "armor spike." Toxicity in that case woukdn't matter at all, cause the guy will probably die of septic poisoning, or by drowning in their own blood and vomit. And an exploding sword sounds more dangerous to the wielder than anybody else.

This goes back to my earlier point about misguided realism. Tabletop isn't SUPPOSED to be real, it's supposed to be fun make believe stories, where full plate mail is useless against some shmuck with a longsword, and that longsword can explode without needing to be reloaded, because its running on the rule of cool more anything else.


Also a bad idea for the same reason people don't use chainsaws in combat. Chainsaws don't cut through things in one smooth motion, it's slow, gradual cutting away. It'd be very time consuming in battle.

But again, rule of cool, not realism.
If you want a motor based melee weapon that can damage metal I am sorry but the weapon I mentioned is what is used right now.(in battlebots and similar things where guns are forbidden because melee weapons are way less useful than cannons and rifles)
the thing is that it is similar in no way to a chainsaw: a chainsaw rotate continuously while the weapon I was thinking to basically accelerate as much as possible a blade(not a sharp blade: it is more important for it to be solid) by rotating it and then it can hit stuff hard.

[Nifft]

(deadlier sword problems) I didn't say they'd be better. Just deadlier, which was the criteria.

Gunpowder was also not trivially better than melee. Muskets exploded; ship magazines exploded; petards exploded wrong. We found ways around those issues. If we had an interest in making swords deadlier (and better), we'd find ways around your objections.

We don't currently care about swords, so that's not going to happen, but it's not because swords are some kind of evolutionary shark-like cul-de-sac. It's because we stopped caring about improving the deadliness of melee weapons.



Also, I'm not sure we are trying to maximize deadliness of firearms. For example: many of the deadlier kinds of ammo are frowned upon.

[Jack_McSnatch]

If you want a motor based melee weapon that can damage metal I am sorry but the weapon I mentioned is what is used right now.(in battlebots and similar things where guns are forbidden because melee weapons are way less useful than cannons and rifles)

That's battlebots, my friend. It's still very time consuming. Trying to use the same tactic in full blown battlefield situations is like asking someone to run up and stab you in the neck while you're trying to saw through a guy.

[noob]

That's battlebots, my friend. It's still very time consuming. Trying to use the same tactic in full blown battlefield situations is like asking someone to run up and stab you in the neck while you're trying to saw through a guy.

Which is why people use rocket launchers or cannons or bombs to hit big chunks of metal in the first place.

[Jack_McSnatch]

Which is why people use rocket launchers or cannons or bombs to hit big chunks of metal in the first place.

Yes, realistically. But in a game, you would use a chainsword because FUK YAH CHAINSORD! It's a CHAINSAW that's also a SWORD! The only way to make it more manly would be to add a GUN, an automatic liqour dispenser and a piece that lights your comically oversized cigar for you!

Which is my point. In real life, you fire a rocket, boom, dead, move on. In a game, you have a climactic chainsword duel on top of the empire state building while explosions rain all around you.

[Necroticplague]

And martials don't really have problems killing stuff they can hit in 3.5. Gonna agree with Grod that the game doesn't really need any more rocket tag.

What's wrong with rocket tag? A short, deadly fight where every action matters is a lot more interesting than the opposite.

[Nifft]

4e and 5e have some interesting rocket-tag solution ideas.

For example:

- You can't fail deadly saving throws (including saving throws vs. spells) until you've lost _____ % of your max HP.


Or maybe:

- PCs and "named meat" NPCs automatically succeed on the first 3 deadly saving throws each encounter.

[Zanos]

What's wrong with rocket tag? A short, deadly fight where every action matters is a lot more interesting than the opposite.
It makes investing in defensive qualities a zero sum game, and there's enough rocket tag already without massive damage. I rarely see fights last more than 5 rounds without it.


The difference is that you could make a rifle that is a little bit heavier than the current rifles and that impacts ten times more(why it is not done is that there is no need for that: you can not make a dead target deader in real life(and you do not need to)) while you can not make a sword that hurts ten times more than a medieval one.
You might want to actually read up on ballistic properties. The reason they don't make rifles that are a "little bit heavier that impact ten times more" is because of over penetration, recoil, ammunition weight, ammunition cost, and magazine capacity. There are trade offs to more powerful rounds. You can't reliably burst fire a handheld .50 caliber rifle. 5.56 is plenty lethal to the majority of targets and provides reliable volume of fire. Not that 5.56 is instantly lethal to all targets. There are simple, and relatively cheap(as in, cheaper than a rifle) body armor systems that will reliably defeat rounds of up to 7.62 armor penetrators, and even without armor most people do survive being shot with 5.56 rounds, at least in civilian incidents. The reason every soldier isn't armed with a high power rifle is because the vast majority of engagements happen at ranges where an intermediate cartridge is ideal, and weapon lethality hits diminishing returns because of terminal ballistic properties. A rifle that delivers 15,000 joules of energy isn't 15 times as lethal as one that delivers 1,000 joules of energy.

You can sure as hell make a sword that hurts ten times more than a medieval one if you mount it on a tank and drive it into someone, which in practice is what they do with guns, too.

[Luccan]

I think the argument rests on the idea that we'd have much deadlier guns if everyone was as strong as PCs, but even the d20 modern core rulebook rests on the idea that PCs are fairly unique (although their examples of "normals" are too strong, in many instances). Really, most people would have 8-12 in each stat and probably never get past level 3.

[noob]

You might want to actually read up on ballistic properties. The reason they don't make rifles that are a "little bit heavier that impact ten times more" is because of over penetration, recoil, ammunition weight, ammunition cost, and magazine capacity. There are trade offs to more powerful rounds. You can't reliably burst fire a handheld .50 caliber rifle. 5.56 is plenty lethal to the majority of targets and provides reliable volume of fire. Not that 5.56 is instantly lethal to all targets. There are simple, and relatively cheap(as in, cheaper than a rifle) body armor systems that will reliably defeat rounds of up to 7.62 armor penetrators, and even without armor most people do survive being shot with 5.56 rounds, at least in civilian incidents. The reason every soldier isn't armed with a high power rifle is because the vast majority of engagements happen at ranges where an intermediate cartridge is ideal, and weapon lethality hits diminishing returns because of terminal ballistic properties. A rifle that delivers 15,000 joules of energy isn't 15 times as lethal as one that delivers 1,000 joules of energy.
I already told that there was no reason to do it in real life(due to unwieldiness and to the fact that guns already kill people and so that there was no benefit into having more firepower on them) I just said that it was possible to make rifles that kills super tough stuff.
If you read my whole post you would have seen that I was already aware that making higher firepower guns had no benefit in real life.
But here if there is somehow people as tough as elephants suddenly military will try to make some elephant guns that can be wielded conveniently.(heck even without that as a reason french did make a cannon that could be carried as a rifle(trust me you do not want to shoot it like a regular rifle: it would break your arms))
You know for the recoil problem you can put your gun on the ground(or on a barricade or a wall) and not have the kinetic energy of the recoil delivered to you(often done when using anti tank rifles).
I never said that you would be standing up and shooting with this rifle in your hands.

[Zanos]

I already told that there was no reason to do it in real life(due to unwieldiness and to the fact that guns already kill people and so that there was no benefit into having more firepower on them)
There are benefits because intermediate cartridges aren't perfectly lethal, it's just the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. 7.62 rounds are significantly more lethal per bullet, but they aren't more useful in combat overall.


I just said that it was possible to make rifles that kills super tough stuff.
You can, but you will lose in volume of fire and other aspects, which will reduce usability against softer targets. They do actually make rifles for killing elephants and other big game, but the power of the cartridge is usually too much for any kind of semi-automatic action to be reliable.


If you read my whole post you would have seen that I was already aware that making higher firepower guns had no benefit in real life.
But here if there is somehow people as tough as elephants suddenly military will try to make some elephant guns that can be wielded conveniently.(heck even without that as a reason french did make a cannon that could be carried as a rifle(trust me you do not want to shoot it like a regular rifle: it would break your arms))
You know for the recoil problem you can put your gun on the ground(or on a barricade or a wall) and not have the kinetic energy of the recoil delivered to you(often done when using anti tank rifles).
I never said that you would be standing up and shooting with this rifle in your hands.
Okay then, we're not talking about a rifle. We're talking about a canon, or maybe a mortar, which already exist, and I think d20 modern has rules for them.

[atemu1234]

Huh, that does change the threat profile.

There actually is a 3e/3.5e equivalent, IIRC. But massive damage was much greater and nonscaling, something like 50 damage, and most 'big' enemies - like aspects of elder evils, mostly - were immune to death from massive damage.

Though tbh scaling it probably works better, to something like [BAB + Con mod]x3 damage triggering the save at DC 15. That way, your 20th level fighter won't need to be making a fort save every round of combat.

[Necroticplague]

There are benefits because intermediate cartridges aren't perfectly lethal, it's just the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. 7.62 rounds are significantly more lethal per bullet, but they aren't more useful in combat overall.
There's also the fact that lethality isn't necessarily a desired outcome for a gun. After all, if you kill a man, you remove one combatant from the theater. Shoot a man such that he's badly wounded, but needs attention, you remove not only him (as a casualty), but you temporarily remove the people needed to haul him out of the line of fire, and whoever needs to patch him back up. Dead people are a poor source of info. People who are too hurt to fight back, but breathing, are somewhat better sources.

[Nifft]

There's also the fact that lethality isn't necessarily a desired outcome for a gun. After all, if you kill a man, you remove one combatant from the theater. Shoot a man such that he's badly wounded, but needs attention, you remove not only him (as a casualty), but you temporarily remove the people needed to haul him out of the line of fire, and whoever needs to patch him back up. Dead people are a poor source of info. People who are too hurt to fight back, but breathing, are somewhat better sources.

Also relevant for law enforcement: having an injured suspect to question is hopefully preferable to having a corpse to explain.

D&D games can be like war, but they can also be investigation-based.

[Luccan]

Also relevant for law enforcement: having an injured suspect to question is hopefully preferable to having a corpse to explain.

D&D games can be like war, but they can also be investigation-based.

Perhaps more relevant, all the d20 modern proposed settings are about investigators who also fight monsters. You could do war, but you'll almost certainly be some kind of special unit that needs to interrogate on occasion, rather than foot soldiers on the battlefield.

[Mato]

Yeah, looking at it, the majority of guns could outright kill (well, knock unconscious. It's interesting massive damage rules don't auto kill you in d20 modern, like in 3.5) most low-mid level characters not focused on Con on a good roll.The average of a 12-guage shotgun blast deals nine damage and firing five bullets at your target with an uzi deals twelve damage. Meanwhile, the guy with a large sword deals thirteen damage for hitting you with it.

Most low-to-mid level characters not focused on Con will die on a good roll irregardless of the weapon used. D&D is a lethal game and all Modern's fragmenting projectiles hurled at inhuman speeds does is serve as a reminder of this in case you forgot.

[Luccan]

The average of a 12-guage shotgun blast deals nine damage and firing five bullets at your target with an uzi deals twelve damage. Meanwhile, the guy with a large sword deals thirteen damage for hitting you with it.

Most low-to-mid level characters not focused on Con will die on a good roll irregardless of the weapon used. D&D is a lethal game and all Modern's fragmenting projectiles hurled at inhuman speeds does is serve as a reminder of this in case you forgot.

Yeah I hadn't thought of that. Most of those will kill you outright regardless of if you make your save if you aren't a Tough hero. I'm beginning to see why the lowest hit die in Modern is a d6. Even at max HP, everyone who isn't in one of the physical hero classes gets downed on a good hit until level three or four.

[Gullintanni]

Yeah I hadn't thought of that. Most of those will kill you outright regardless of if you make your save if you aren't a Tough hero. I'm beginning to see why the lowest hit die in Modern is a d6. Even at max HP, everyone who isn't in one of the physical hero classes gets downed on a good hit until level three or four.

That's just it. If your game is trying to model combat realistically, it's worth noting that a wound from a handgun is no more lethal than the wound from being run through with a sword, or stabbed with a knife, or shot with with a crossbow, and is in some cases, less dangerous. Guns have two primary advantages over swords and other melee weapons:

1. Ease of use - they require fairly little training in order to effectively use them; and,

2. The ability to apply lethal damage at range.

Were I building a system that was trying to model guns accurately, the damage dealt would be fairly similar to that of most medieval melee weapons; however, attacks would likely ignore certain types of AC.

[Luccan]

That's just it. If your game is trying to model combat realistically, it's worth noting that a wound from a handgun is no more lethal than the wound from being run through with a sword, or stabbed with a knife, or shot with with a crossbow, and is in some cases, less dangerous. Guns have two primary advantages over swords and other melee weapons:

1. Ease of use - they require fairly little training in order to effectively use them; and,

2. The ability to apply lethal damage at range.

Were I building a system that was trying to model guns accurately, the damage dealt would be fairly similar to that of most medieval melee weapons; however, attacks would likely ignore certain types of AC.

To be fair, you can still kill someone low level with a knife pretty easily in d20 modern (maybe not a Tough hero, but that's the point). Again, the average person should have at most a 12 in CON, so unless the aforementioned hero is their class, stabbing them twice is basically an instant fatality. A more dedicated melee build or with a weaker opponent, you could probably pull it off in one attack.

Edit: Also, killing low-mid level dudes with a sword in Modern is pretty easy.

Additionally, you can probably think of it like, in an up close fight they have a higher chance to at least partially avoid your knife than if you're further away and have a gun. So crit with a knife is when you hit exactly where you intend, whereas just a high damage roll represents that for a gun.

[Gullintanni]

Additionally, you can probably think of it like, in an up close fight they have a higher chance to at least partially avoid your knife than if you're further away and have a gun. So crit with a knife is when you hit exactly where you intend, whereas just a high damage roll represents that for a gun.

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion you suggest. Setting aside that HP is an abstraction, assuming we're speaking strictly about physical damage, a handgun and a knife have very similar damage potential.

For example:

A headshot with a gun might represent a critical hit in the same way that a slash across the carotid artery would be a critical hit for a knife.

Similarly, a bullet through the forearm, has the potential to glance off of bone and create relatively superficial damage, or to shred muscle fibre or damage arteries causing crippling damage. The consequences of knife wounds exist more or less within the same range.

If a handgun deals 1d6 damage, then I'd wager a knife should deal the same. The primary difference between a handgun at effective ranges vs. a knife in melee is that the knife wielder is going to have a harder time landing a hit. This could be modeled as guns having higher critical threat ranges, or as guns having increased chances to hit, but speaking strictly in terms of the wounds produced by handguns vs. knives, the damage potential isn't significantly different, regardless of the weapon.

Gunshots and knife wounds are both likely to be lethal when striking critical biology, and both likely to be survivable when striking extremities.

Shotguns, on the other hand, are far more damaging than knives, as would be flamethrowers, grenades, artillery, rockets and all manner of more powerful weaponry.

If damage is meant to be a measure of lethality, then handguns should enjoy no special advantage over lethal melee weapons - except in the ease of applying that damage, which is exactly why crossbows, and firearms, eventually became the standard.

[Luccan]

*snip*

Yeah, I didn't really think it held up well, but it was a thought. Honestly, I'm a lot less bothered by the damage differential. Really, most things intended for killing one thing at a time are about as good at killing a person in the right circumstances as any other such implement, so you could probably argue most weapons ind d20 and 3.5 should have more similar damage.

[Gullintanni]

Yeah, I didn't really think it held up well, but it was a thought. Honestly, I'm a lot less bothered by the damage differential. Really, most things intended for killing one thing at a time are about as good at killing a person in the right circumstances as any other such implement, so you could probably argue most weapons ind d20 and 3.5 should have more similar damage.

Agreed. In reality, a cut from a blade is a cut from a blade. Lethal is lethal. I don't mind the damage differential either, I just see the differential as existing for gamist reasons rather than because the game is trying to model reality.

If you're willing to accept game logic as the driving decision making factor for game rules, then I don't think it problematic that one weapon is more lethal than another as long as there's some sort of internal balance within the system.

[Axel_690]

People seem to overlook in D20 modern that the massive damage rules are different and guns can pretty consistently force massive damage checks which can down someone even if the HP dmg they do is insignificant.

THIS!

D20 Modern isn't attempting to model real-life, it's attempting to model action movies. The firearms/explosives rules are written the way they are to keep them relevant at high levels. Otherwise the BBEG would be able to shrug off tactical nukes at level 20, and laugh at everything below that.