Why are firearms so weak?

[BlueWitch]

They deal like, 2d8 max. Both in Pathfinder and Modern d20.

And a Critical is still only on a 20 and a measely x2.

--

Guns are VERY efficient at killing. Far more than any sword I'd say. Shotguns and Magnum's especially.
So why did the creators make them so weak?

Was it for balance?

I think a Magnum should be more like 4d8, 15-20 x3 Critical. Or worse. Shoot a guy in the head, and he's done.

[Silly Name]

When guns are introduced into 3.x/PF, they have to "suck", because otherwise they become strictly better than any other ranged weapon.

Yes, in real life a rifle is more efficient than a bow (except perhaps in some very specific niche cases). But this isn't real life, it's a game of fantasy where the lone gunman and the master archer coexist, and it'd really suck for the master archer to be outclassed by the gunman in every aspect.

Let's take your example: why would I ever want another weapon when there's an handheld ranged weapon with such a large crit range and that deals 4d8 damage? Every fighter would pick up one and rely on it, because, as you've pointed, it's a better killing implement than a sword or an axe.

It's about game balance and keeping the game fun, its archetypes intact. Those guns are bad by design, they're early prototypes and not as good as modern weapons.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Do remember, too, that most adults only have 4-8 hp at 1st level, and many people are in the 2-3 level range, so 2d8/x2 damage is quite lethal a good portion of the time.

Also, people frequently survive getting shot, unless they get shot in a very fragile area (ie, a crit) or the bullet bounces around inside of them (also a crit). And even then, people occasionally survive getting shot in the head (likely a combination of high hp and a low crit roll), so even that's not out of the realm of possibility.

When you're dealing with monsters who make elephants look fragile and flimsy, and elephants can survive being shot with anything but The Big Guns without some rather extreme luck, 2d8/x2 doesn't really seem too terribly off.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Also firearms do have an edge over bows and axes. They target touch AC

[King of Nowhere]

Do remember, too, that most adults only have 4-8 hp at 1st level, and many people are in the 2-3 level range, so 2d8/x2 damage is quite lethal a good portion of the time.

Also, people frequently survive getting shot, unless they get shot in a very fragile area (ie, a crit) or the bullet bounces around inside of them (also a crit). And even then, people occasionally survive getting shot in the head (likely a combination of high hp and a low crit roll), so even that's not out of the realm of possibility.

When you're dealing with monsters who make elephants look fragile and flimsy, and elephants can survive being shot with anything but The Big Guns without some rather extreme luck, 2d8/x2 doesn't really seem too terribly off.

this, mostly. it is a matter of perspective. for normal humans, firearms are the best weapons. bows can keep up in the hands of an expert, but then, bows have coexhisted with firearms for a long time, before firearms became good enough to supplant them completely.
even then, i don't think taking a longbow arrow through the chest or taking a rifle bullet through the chest would feel much different. firearms mostly win for penetration power and practicality.

but aside from that, d&d characters are superhumans. they have super strenght and super endurance. the fighter is strong enough that he can knock down a wall of stone in seconds. he is also durable enough that he can spend one minute being chewed by a tyrannosaur and still be in good shape. it's no surprise that a regular bullet will barely make a scratch on him. or that he may prefer to use a sword, that can take full advantage of his superhuman strenght, rather than a gun whose power is fixed and, to him, puny.

[Pinkie Pyro]

the lethality of modern firearms is more in the rate of fire, which DnD can't really do without making a ton of attack rolls.

oh wait, it can. have a burst attack apply modifiers to the same attack roll and resolve accordingly.

IE: 3 round burst: roll a 17 on the die, +3/-2/-7 on the burst, so the attack resolves as if you'd rolled a 20, 15, and 10 off of one roll.

[AvatarVecna]

PF early firearms have decent base damage for their handedness and have 20/x4 crits. They also target touch in close range. Even thought it's still using gunpowder at that point, a single shot is still plenty to put down the average person - a pistol dealing 1d8 means that any given hit has about a 70% chance of making any given commoner dying (depending on your damage roll and their HP roll), with a small chance of getting a crit that has an 85% chance of killing said commoner outright. Upgrade to Fighter 4 with a rifle, you're looking at 1d12+10 easily. That's a ~80% chance of killing any given commoner outright. A crit changes that to 100% for that commoner - and for basically any 1 HD creature, for that matter. You have to get pretty beefy by lvl 4 standards before a guncrit doesn't autokill you.

[Biggus]

Also firearms do have an edge over bows and axes. They target touch AC

Do they? Where does it say that?

[Drezius]

Do they? Where does it say that?

Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon.

Advanced Firearms: Advanced firearms resolve their attacks against touch AC when the target is within the first five range increments.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/firearms/

[ShurikVch]

Well, it's strongly depend on which source you're using

For example, Critical x3 is standard for firearms in the Freeport, Warcraft the RPG, and Call of Cthulhu d20 (some still got x2, but some other - x4)

For the damage above 2d8:

In the Call of Cthulhu d20, Desert Eagle .50 AE and many rifles do 2d10 damage; more powerful rifles do 2d12; buckshot from 10-gauge shotgun does 3d8 (at 1st range increment)

Dwarven HMG (from the "Greyhawk 2000", Dragon #277) does 4d8 damage

[SimonMoon6]

I think a better question is "Why are all weapons so weak?"

You can't kill the average healthy 20th level fighter with one attack from a sword or a dagger, pretty much no matter what (even with, like, 10d6 sneak attack, it's not going to happen). No single arrow will ever kill him either. So, it certainly makes sense that you're not going to kill anybody with a gun either.

It's the hit point system that makes everything so weird.

But you can still kill a 1st level commoner with a house cat, so there's that.

[ShurikVch]

You can't kill the average healthy 20th level fighter with one attack from a sword or a dagger, pretty much no matter what (even with, like, 10d6 sneak attack, it's not going to happen). No single arrow will ever kill him either. So, it certainly makes sense that you're not going to kill anybody with a gun either.
According to the "synthetic hp theory", hp aren't "meat points", but purely abstract value which is summed multitude of factors - such as luck, battle skills, fighting spirit, combat exhaustion, etc
Thus, when you hit 20th-level Fighter with a sword, you doesn't impale them - just slightly cut their side, because 20th-level Fighter is that good at dodging...
(If Fighter wouldn't dodging, it would be coup de grâce)


But you can still kill a 1st level commoner with a house cat, so there's that.
FWIW, house cats, are, actually able to kill humans: if they go all-out, victim may bleed to death before any emergency help...
Check those:
Irate Cat Trapped Couple in Home, 'Ripped' Them Up (https://abcnews.go.com/US/911-call-reports-irate-cat-trapped-couple-home/story?id=24478936)
Pet kitty named Khat attacks family and sends three people to the hospital (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607822/Breaking-cat-Pet-kitty-named-Khat-attacks-family-sends-three-people-hospital-firefighters-trapped-him.html)
Baby the Cat Attacks 7 Pit Bulls in Canada, Sending One to Vet and Dog’s Owner to ER (https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/cat-attacks-7-pit-bulls-sending-one-to-vet-and-owner-to-er/)

[The Glyphstone]

This feels like the setup to a 'KatanasFirearms Are Underpowered in D20' copypasta joke, honestly.

[Pinkie Pyro]

This feels like the setup to a 'KatanasFirearms Are Underpowered in D20' copypasta joke, honestly.

bullets are folded 700 times ect ect

[MaxiDuRaritry]

bullets are folded 700 times ect ectI didn't know they were folded in ectoplasm.

[Batcathat]

According to the "synthetic hp theory", hp aren't "meat points", but purely abstract value which is summed multitude of factors - such as luck, battle skills, fighting spirit, combat exhaustion, etc
Thus, when you hit 20th-level Fighter with a sword, you doesn't impale them - just slightly cut their side, because 20th-level Fighter is that good at dodging...
(If Fighter wouldn't dodging, it would be coup de grâce)

I've heard this theory before but there seem to be problems with it. Like how does healing magic work in this interpretation?

[Unavenger]

People have survived being shot as many as 20 times before, and just in general, being shot isn't much - if any - more lethal than being stabbed. Getting shot with a modern firearm shouldn't actually deal more damage than a sword - I'd rate my chances of surviving a GSW or two over surviving being hit with a greatsword.

[GrayDeath]

Also firearms do have an edge over bows and axes. They target touch AC

Incdeed.

@ Unavenger:

Agreed.

What Fireweapons should be, if on aims to be more or less "realistic" is much easier to handle than anything but (maybe) well made Crossbows.

Attack touch AC, and being in the proficiency reach of every class, and being able to shoot many more shots than a man makes attacks.

Not the single shot danger is it, but the combination of the above that makes Firearms superior.

[Thunder999]

Firearms in pathfinder have pretty high base damage, 1d12 with a 20x4 crit at range is fairly high, most weapons with a x4 crit have lower base damage (scythe's 2d4 for example). Now they don't scale well because they don't add anything to damage by default, just like crossbows, which is for the same reason (they don't really rely on the user's strength, an advantage in real life, but not in a world where peak human fitness is the baseline for most martials and superhuman strength comes along by mid levels).

[frogglesmash]

It's worth noting that in d20 modern, your massive damage threshold is not a flat 50, but is instead equal to your con score. Compound that with feats like double tap, and burst fire as well as the low availability of stat boosts, and firearms are suddenly serious threat at almost any level.

[KillianHawkeye]

I've heard this theory before but there seem to be problems with it. Like how does healing magic work in this interpretation?

It heals cuts and bruises, restores the effort you spent in dodging and deflecting deadly strikes into less lethal hits, and invigorates your abstract vitality/spirit/will to live.

I think the best thing that 4th Edition gave us was the concept of "bloodied" at half health. It basically means that before you're down to half, you haven't really even been scratched.

[Azuresun]

I've heard this theory before but there seem to be problems with it. Like how does healing magic work in this interpretation?

I don't know, look up one of the many, many, many, other threads that got derailed by this?

Basically, hit points work very well as a cinematic measure of ability to fight that avoids unfun death spirals or bad-luck instakills. If you choose to nitpick them to a level of detail that's just plain unnecessary 99% of the time instead of investing in slightly tougher ropes for your suspension of disbelief, they stop working.

[Elkad]

The actual difference in firearms that gets ignored isn't the damage. It's the rate of attack.

A trained user with a semi-auto can easily put 2 AIMED rounds a second in a target at moderate ranges (200 yards with a rifle), and 3-5 up close. An actual gifted shooter can do that at 3x the distance.

Even with a bolt gun, it's a round every 2 seconds.

Revolver and speed loaders out of the hands of the very best earth humans is 12 aimed rounds (including a reload) in 3 seconds.

You can get in close and shank someone with a dagger 2-3 times a second. A sword? Not so much.

[BlueWitch]

I think my biggest issue is the Crit Range.
I just feel like Criticalling with a Firearm would be a lot easier than with a sword slash.
I think Piercing Weapons should have increased Crit range too.

Getting shot in the head or chest should be a critical.

[ShurikVch]

I think my biggest issue is the Crit Range.
I just feel like Criticalling with a Firearm would be a lot easier than with a sword slash.
I think Piercing Weapons should have increased Crit range too.

Getting shot in the head or chest should be a critical.
Dwarven rifles (from the "Greyhawk 2000", Dragon #277) - both Hunting and Sniper ones - have 19-20/x3 range

In the Call of Cthulhu d20, any rifle of .50 caliber (or more) have x4 crit

[Dienekes]

The actual difference in firearms that gets ignored isn't the damage. It's the rate of attack.

A trained user with a semi-auto can easily put 2 AIMED rounds a second in a target at moderate ranges (200 yards with a rifle), and 3-5 up close. An actual gifted shooter can do that at 3x the distance.

Even with a bolt gun, it's a round every 2 seconds.

Revolver and speed loaders out of the hands of the very best earth humans is 12 aimed rounds (including a reload) in 3 seconds.

You can get in close and shank someone with a dagger 2-3 times a second. A sword? Not so much.

In fairness here a sword can make about 2-3 attacks a second as well. There’s actually a way to get three cuts in with a single ribbon movement that takes about a second to perform. Knives can admittedly be even faster.

Thing is 3.5 is really bad at modeling damage. Of pretty much any type really. Getting hit with a sword or a gun should probably all have a range of 1 to instant death. With certain weapons favoring more one way or the other. A cut with a greatsword or shot with a shotgun has a much higher chance of completely stopping the opponents ability to function immediately than say the thrust of a rapier or a handgun. But all of those weapons can make you just as dead in a single hit.

While getting engulfed in a fireball for instance shouldn’t really do that much initial damage. But you’ll be alive for a few seconds while you burn. Unless it’s supposed to be an explosion. But then most the damage should be bludgeoning/force.

The games just made that way.

[Elves]

Do remember, too, that most adults only have 4-8 hp at 1st level, and many people are in the 2-3 level range, so 2d8/x2 damage is quite lethal a good portion of the time.


NPC classes don't get max hp at 1st if you go by the MM (or maybe that's true for all NPCs?) so average 1st level commoner only has 2 hp. With a 2d8 gunshot, everything but 2 damage outcomes leaves them bleeding out in under a minute.

The real thing that's indefensible about guns in 3.5 isn't the damage figures but the lack of AC penetration. PF's rule of guns as touch attacks is pretty great for how simple it is.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

NPC classes don't get max hp at 1st if you go by the MM (or maybe that's true for all NPCs?) so average 1st level commoner only has 2 hp. With a 2d8 gunshot, everything but 2 damage outcomes leaves them bleeding out in under a minute.You do realize that most real people (at least in First World Countries) aren't commoners, yes? Modern educations see to that.

Although the point about experts not having full hp at 1st level is taken.

[Elves]

Expert should probably have d4 HD to begin with ... I don't see why a scientist, lawyer or other educated professional would be much hardier than some rando or farm worker. Possibly the HD difference is supposed to reflect better nutrition in a medieval milieu, but unconvincing at doing so given that wiz/sor also get d4 and that NPC classes are assumed to be equally functional in less impoverished settings like Eberron and Planescape.

But if anything the gun damage figures might be too lethal. Take Joe Schmoe who gets shot seven times and survives. That shows another weakness in the DMG gun rules which is lack of adequate rules for burst fire.

[Blazeteck]

Also firearms do have an edge over bows and axes. They target touch AC

i think this statement is one of the biggest takeaways for this topic. most targets you shoot at are simply gonna be easier to hit. bows don't get this advantage and to my knowledge bows don't really do any amount of damage ridiculously higher than the gun damage the op stated. also you can enchant a gun as easily as you can enchant a bow so if you have a gun enchanted with a couple small enhancements like flaming or shocking damage then that small upgrade practically doubled your output while being at ranged on easier to hit targets.

once you start optimizing a little from a game mechanics perspective they are not that weak. now obviously shooting someone with a .50 cal is going to be a different story but in the fantasy settings i don't think you're gonna have firearms that advanced, something like a colt .45 or a repeating rifle is probably gonna be the cream of the crop. and I'm sure in d20 modern there's already rules for that stuff.

id say not to worry about it too much. from a mechanics aspect they seem just as fine as a bow does. a lot of people forget that HP in and of itself is a very abstract concept that doesn't effectively translate into some raw amount of physical abuse a body can take before it gives up the ghost. i feel like this is one thing that really gets past a lot of people and starts to make them question the numbers in the wrong kind of ways.

[King of Nowhere]

also don't forget that until recent years, firearms weren't so superior that melee weapons were obsolete. world war 1 had widespread bayonet figthing that was basically spear fighting because the weapons shoot too slowly, and as late as world war 2 the italians made some cavalry charges - horsemen with sabres, against machine guns! and won some of those!

guns have many advantages. superior range, can bypass most armor (until modern ceramics became light enough to wear), can shoot many times before the guy with the sword comes close (this only in modern weapons, older weapons were slow). that's it.

[Kris Moonhand]

This feels like the setup to a 'KatanasFirearms Are Underpowered in D20' copypasta joke, honestly.Well, if you insist...That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Crossbow" bullhonkey that's going on in this thread right now. Firearms deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine automatic rifle in America for $20,000 (that's about 2,400,000 Australian dollarydoos) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even shoot through slabs of solid steel with my rifle.

American gunsmiths spend years working on a single gun and test fire it up to a million times to produce the finest weapons known to mankind.

Firearms are thrice as powerful as crossbows and thrice as accurate for that matter too. Anything a crossbow can shoot through, a firearm can shoot through better. I'm pretty sure a rifle could easily kill a knight wearing full plate with a single shot.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering America? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined US Marines and their guns of destruction. Even in World War II, Japanese soldiers targeted the men with the rifles first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Firearms are simply the best weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 3.x system. Here is the stat block I propose for firearms:

(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
4d12 Damage
15-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Range 200
Counts as Masterwork

(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
8d10 Damage
12-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Range 400
Counts as Masterwork

Now that seems a lot more representative of the killing power of guns in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Firearms need to do more damage in 3.x, see my new stat block.

[vasilidor]

a large part of why guns are so underpowered I think is due to the ignoring of different calibers and actual historical guns in favor of game balance. in most D&D or pathfinder campaigns a Musket in an adventuring party is only going to get used in the first round of combat if done realistically. This is a large part of why older guns favored larger calibers: more stopping power. Muskets from around the 17th century on were capable of out distancing the Longbow and required less training to use proficiently.

[Florian]

I've heard this theory before but there seem to be problems with it. Like how does healing magic work in this interpretation?

Is only really a problem if you take healing magic too literal. Once you understand it as "get back in shape" magic, that stuff like bardic healing or Skald fast healing aura mage more sense.

This is one of the few things that 4E handles better, actually, like introducing the "Bloodied" threshold at 50% hp, having a non-magical healer with the Warlord and such.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

When guns are introduced into 3.x/PF, they have to "suck", because otherwise they become strictly better than any other ranged weapon.

Yes, in real life a rifle is more efficient than a bow (except perhaps in some very specific niche cases). But this isn't real life, it's a game of fantasy where the lone gunman and the master archer coexist, and it'd really suck for the master archer to be outclassed by the gunman in every aspect.

Let's take your example: why would I ever want another weapon when there's an handheld ranged weapon with such a large crit range and that deals 4d8 damage? Every fighter would pick up one and rely on it, because, as you've pointed, it's a better killing implement than a sword or an axe.

It's about game balance and keeping the game fun, its archetypes intact. Those guns are bad by design, they're early prototypes and not as good as modern weapons.


a large part of why guns are so underpowered I think is due to the ignoring of different calibers and actual historical guns in favor of game balance. in most D&D or pathfinder campaigns a Musket in an adventuring party is only going to get used in the first round of combat if done realistically. This is a large part of why older guns favored larger calibers: more stopping power. Muskets from around the 17th century on were capable of out distancing the Longbow and required less training to use proficiently.

I'll throw my hat in somewhere in between these two. There is a historical point at which guns and bows are at least in some ways competitive to each other, both with their own strengths. Even early guns have much more armor penetration than even the highest draw weight war bows, they're easier to train users with and despite their short effective range under combat conditions compared to modern guns it usually still compares favorably to the effective range of bows. They're also quite bulky and take a lot of time to reload. Reloading on horseback isn't possible at all with the more powerful muskets, so a mounted combatant has to deliberately bring less effective guns or adopt the mounted infantry fighting style of a dragoon. Oh, and depending on how much you spent on extras that may or may not exist yet they might just completely stop working depending on weather conditions. Or they can just randomly misfire by themselves. This doesn't translate well into the D20 system. Combat is no fun if the six enemy musketeers fire in the surprise round, outright killing 1 or 2 party members and widely missing the rest, and then continue to either be slaughtered or put up token resistance using their sidearms or plug bayonets (which would by themselves takes at least a full round action or so to be mounted) because reloading takes anywhere between 3 (for a very well drilled person on steady ground, preferably with a later or at least shorter firearm and paper cartridges) and 10 full rounds. So the game chooses to go with a more western film style take on guns. Gets the same number of shots off as a bow, over the same range, and has lowered damage to balance it out. So now the only difference between bows and guns is their flavor.

It's probably possible to make a good RPG system where early guns retain at least some of their flavor while being used in the same setting as bows, I just don't know if it could work as an add on to any D&D system. It might require longer turns, a bigger focus on minor things you can do to keep yourself safe while reloading, extra options for formation and volley based play and possibly better rules for variable damage and grazing shots. And possibly corresponding changes on the archery side and maybe even the melee weapon side to not make it a clear case of guns getting all of the limelight. And ones you're done with that you need to scrap at least half of it again to keep the game playable.

[Florian]

Guns are VERY efficient at killing. Far more than any sword I'd say. Shotguns and Magnum's especially.
So why did the creators make them so weak?

It´s actually the other way around. Renaissance weapons are extremely deadly, but unlike modern firearms, also need a very high amount of training and personal ability to function properly.

For example, back in the days, I was conscripted and went through the mandatory 6 month of basic training, qualifying for P1, G3 and MP5. Those are easy to learn and handle, as the actual "punch" comes from your ammo, you only need to learn how to aim and handle the recoil.

Got my hunting license and started to learn how to handle a modern composite crossbow. That proved to be more difficult, but also more lethal. Modern .22 flesh cutter arrows wreak damage that is way beyond the scope of what a firearm without frangible ammo could do. Basically, if you know what you do, the target dies by system shock, even if no lethal area ist hit.

Last summer, I had the pleasure to meet a master blade smith who is also pretty competent in wielding the blades he forges. It was pretty impressive for two reasons, as he showed the effect on a protected and an unprotected target. He basically cut a dead pig in two, crushed the ribs of a pig with the equivalent of plate armor. Didn't penetrate, but was still pretty deadly.

But: That guy had 30 years of training.

[Dalmosh]

One minor way 3.5 handles the relative dangerousness of guns is that for a single Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat you know every kind of gun possible.

In a campaign where guns and ammunition are fairly common, this means that even a commoner that sinks Exotic Weapon Proficiency:Guns suddenly has a considerable amount of versatility and options off the bat. Its putting a lot more combat potential in the hands of peasants than medieval weapons allow. The same would be true for a low level wizard, rogue or bard that wanted to expand their weapon use. That's a pretty juicy option compared with sinking the same resource to gain access to a single kind of bow or crossbow.

What they lack for in mechanical superiority is partly offset by their user-friendliness.

[Max Caysey]

They deal like, 2d8 max. Both in Pathfinder and Modern d20.

And a Critical is still only on a 20 and a measely x2.

--

Guns are VERY efficient at killing. Far more than any sword I'd say. Shotguns and Magnum's especially.
So why did the creators make them so weak?

Was it for balance?

I think a Magnum should be more like 4d8, 15-20 x3 Critical. Or worse. Shoot a guy in the head, and he's done.

Well if you think a head shot should do severe damage, its should probably not have a crit range of 15-20, because that indicates its easy to crit. A head shot is difficult to land, you have got to remember that a person taking op a 5ft square means he's constantly moving. Remember to 5 Ds of Dodgeball... thats why a person is taking op 5ft. Now that you know that, you would want to gun to only crit on a 20, but probably do x4 dam!

Also, what caliber is magnum? You do know that there are multiple magnums right? Do you mean 44 magnum, 300 win mag, 358 magnum, 458 win magnum or a shutgun caliber 12 magnum... Its not really helpful, magnum only means that it fires a bigger cartridge than the caliber suggests, it does not mean that there are not larger calibers...

What you want is bigger damage the bigger caliber...

But in all fairness, being stabbed by a sword and being shot by a 9mm handgun is probably fairly equal. Getting stabbed in the heart and getting shot in the heart is equally deadly. What about getting hit by an axe... what would you rather, that I swing an axe to your leg or I shoot you in the leg... depending on caliber, I'm taking the bullet.

People hunt Moose and Elk with bows... such a hunting bow does tremendous damage with bladed serrated arrows, so you could say that a gun is not more lethal than a comp. longbow... unless its a really large caliber... The gun however, keeps that lethality for a much longer range!

I don't think the guns are that far off, when you compare them to other weapons out there... With a god blade you have actually cut through a body splitting a person in two...

[Florian]

People hunt Moose and Elk with bows... such a hunting bow does tremendous damage with bladed serrated arrows, so you could say that a gun is not more lethal than a comp. longbow... unless its a really large caliber... The gun however, keeps that lethality for a much longer range!

The difference is easy to explain.

A modern Firearm propels a relatively small bullet with tremendous force, up to the point that they actually tend to over penetrate. Basically, that means that the bullet penetrates to target with so much force, it is carried right thru (Cue to Deadpool scene of shooting three guys in a row with a bullet). Going right thru means the target is punctured, all right, but also that the lethal effect of spreading the force to the target didn't happens. Therefore, DumDum or frangible rounds.

Modern bloodletter arrows function quite differently. Two or three blades snap outwards the moment the arrow hits the target, transferring the power to the cutting edges. Unlike a 5g bullet, that makes for a wound canal with roughly 2cm diameter, causing extensive damage.

[Max Caysey]

The difference is easy to explain.

A modern Firearm propels a relatively small bullet with tremendous force, up to the point that they actually tend to over penetrate. Basically, that means that the bullet penetrates to target with so much force, it is carried right thru (Cue to Deadpool scene of shooting three guys in a row with a bullet). Going right thru means the target is punctured, all right, but also that the lethal effect of spreading the force to the target didn't happens. Therefore, DumDum or frangible rounds.

Modern bloodletter arrows function quite differently. Two or three blades snap outwards the moment the arrow hits the target, transferring the power to the cutting edges. Unlike a 5g bullet, that makes for a wound canal with roughly 2cm diameter, causing extensive damage.

Indeed... so too does a stab with a sword, stiletto, spear etc... Point is why should a small bullet do vastly more damage than a bow and arrow when it really doesn't... Sure you just up the caliber and you end op with 16" guns of the Iowa class Battleships (gorgeous ships btw), but comparing a 60 pound hunting bow with bloodletter arrows against a beretta 9mm or a hunting riffle in 223 or 243 or perhaps even 308 I would say the bow is equal.

But in D&D I assume the bullets are just small metal balls, not streamlined projectiles, so not frangible hunting ammunition. So again, I would equate bow vs firearm fairly closely to each other... again based on caliber and pull str and arrow design...

My point was simple that I don't think the damage of firearms in D&D is way off...

[Florian]

*Snip*

I think it is a little bit more complicated.

Pre-modern warfare had a distinctive rock-paper-scissors logic to it and heavily relied on the combination of massed troops and the countermeasure to them.

I actually don't know where the whole guns vs. bows thing comes from, it rather being guns vs. crossbows.

The advantage of a gun/crossbow line is easy to understand. The weapon is quite compact and can be stacked, the first row flat on belly, the second row kneeling and the third row standing, in both cases, you switch back for reloading, meaning a line of battle had to be at least 6 men deep. That's a quote impressive LOS firepower right there. Also meaning, that nothing can be in front of it.

In contrast, bows are ballistic weapons. For hunting, target shooting and such, bows work on LOS. For military applications, tho, they don't. The main point of bows is that you can saturate an area going above friends and fortifications, sacrificing individual accuracy for mass.

Basically, that changed with the invention of the machine gun and the mortar.


Indeed... so too does a stab with a sword, stiletto, spear etc... Point is why should a small bullet do vastly more damage than a bow and arrow when it really doesn't... Sure you just up the caliber and you end op with 16" guns of the Iowa class Battleships (gorgeous ships btw), but comparing a 60 pound hunting bow with bloodletter arrows against a beretta 9mm or a hunting riffle in 223 or 243 or perhaps even 308 I would say the bow is equal.

But in D&D I assume the bullets are just small metal balls, not streamlined projectiles, so not frangible hunting ammunition. So again, I would equate bow vs firearm fairly closely to each other... again based on caliber and pull str and arrow design...

My point was simple that I don't think the damage of firearms in D&D is way off...

I just used your post to point something out.

Modern firearms are attributed a near-mythical stopping- and killing-power. I just mentioned the scene from Deadpool when he shot and killed 3 guys with a regular 9mm. The counter-point would be one scene from Hitmen, when talking about the .22 Makarov, being only deadly with a point-blank shot right thru the eye.

[Railak]

Actually swords and axes do significantly more damage than a gun, they create a lot bigger wounds. Guns are just more efficient, because accuracy, range, and ease of use. That's why we've moved away from swords/axes/melee weapons as primary sources of weaponry. A sword takes years if training to become good, where a firearm you can get fairly good with it in a day or two. The bows vs firearms comes down to range, accuracy, and ease of use as well. A gun, evens handgun has a more predictable flight path than a bow, and a longer range. And like the sword to become decent with a bow takes quite a bit if time.

I believe that the guns in Pathfinder work actually the closest to the way actual guns do.. a ranged touch attack, that does a decent damage. And even a lv 1 commoner can pick up a gun and be able to actually do some damage.

Edit: I wrote this after only reading the first page of comments.

[Celestia]

People vastly underestimate the deadlines of antiquated weapons. People didn't switch to guns because they kill better. People switched to guns because they faster, easier to use, more accurate, and have better range. They are strictly better than swords, but not because swords are somehow less capable of killing than guns. In fact, low caliber guns are significantly weaker than swords. A small bullet wound is much easier to survive than being impaled on a blade.

[Zombimode]

They often mentioned notion that firearms should be touch attacks or otherwise ignore armor bonuses strikes me as misguided as well.

Ignoring armor.... think carefully about the implications. Sure, the mental image may held true for, say, leather armor or lighter chain armor. But then think about plate amor which actually does offer protection against firearms.
Then think about this thing (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery5a/44168_C5_Xixecal.jpg). It huge. Its ice carapace is extremely durable, represented by an natural armor bonus of +55. Do you really think that any kind of hand gun would simply ignore that?

You can also switch the perspective: look at attacks that would generate much higher impact and penetration than any handgun would. Do those ignore armor? Like this guy in the middle (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG121.jpg). Does his attack with his huge greatsword ignore armor? No, of course not. So why would a simple pistol?

[Elves]

IIRC, the PF rules originally gave each gun an armor penetration value instead of letting it ignore all armor, but they felt that was too complicated.

[Railak]

They often mentioned notion that firearms should be touch attacks or otherwise ignore armor bonuses strikes me as misguided as well.

Ignoring armor.... think carefully about the implications. Sure, the mental image may held true for, say, leather armor or lighter chain armor. But then think about plate amor which actually does offer protection against firearms.
Then think about this thing (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery5a/44168_C5_Xixecal.jpg). It huge. Its ice carapace is extremely durable, represented by an natural armor bonus of +55. Do you really think that any kind of hand gun would simply ignore that?

You can also switch the perspective: look at attacks that would generate much higher impact and penetration than any handgun would. Do those ignore armor? Like this guy in the middle (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG121.jpg). Does his attack with his huge greatsword ignore armor? No, of course not. So why would a simple pistol?

The problem there is more an issue with how the game deals with armor in general. The explanation they have for why you can't "hit" a creature with a crazy ac with mostly armor/nat armor/shield it, because the attack bounces off and does no damage. Usually because the attack isn't precise enough to hit a vulnerable area. Realistically something with a natural armor of +55 should be basically immune to just about any weapon, just cause the hide should be too thick or hard for anything to do any sort of actual damage. The solution would be to use the variant rule that puts armor as damage reduction. Though most creatures that have a high amount of natural armor have DR already of some sort.

Edit: the creature you also chose as an example is a CR 36 creature with a damage reduction of 20/good epic and adamantine. I guess go big or go home right? Also someone earlier stated that firearms do way better at piercing plate armor than most older weapon types. That does depend on several things like the thickness, material, etc. But really plate armor makes almost all weapons actually irrelevant in terms of damage really. A war between two countries once sent out like 20 knights each wearing full plate.. in over two hours of fighting only 3 of them had died in total.

[Florian]

@Railak:

D&D is weird for various reasons.

The concept of AC, Armor Class, was pilfered from a war-game about battleships. I mean, we talk battleships here, you can hit them as often as you like, but when you can't penetrate their armor, nothing much happens. HP was pilfered from squad-based war-games and was meant to simulate the health of a bunch of troopers.

Basically, we have the lines of defense backwards. That's not entirely bad, tho. It worked in AD&D, because that used a defined numerical space, but it break in D20.

For contrast, look at how the Dark Heresy line of games work. You test for each line of defense separately, progressing from one to the next if the attack manages to overcome it.
- Would you actually hit?
- Can the target dodge/parry the attack?
- Would a force field block the attack?
- Can the attack penetrate the armor?
- What effect would the attack have?

D&D simplifies the whole matter. An attack that can't penetrate armor doesn't have to be resolved any further.

[ShurikVch]

I should say: on this thread, people are both overestimating and underestimating firearms, but also - both overestimating and underestimating bows

Firearms
Overestimating:
Accuracy - musket have no sights; what accuracy? (But even pistols and SMG are barely useful at the ranges which archers used)
Armor-piercing capabilities: during the Siege of Osaka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Osaka), Tokugawa Ieyasu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_Ieyasu) was ambushed by Sanada Yukimura (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanada_Yukimura), and shot by musket. Tokugawa was knocked down, but otherwise unharmed - because of his elite Toledo cuirass. Thus, until the much later, armor which was made to withstand bullets, usually withstood bullets. Adrian Carton de Wiart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Carton_de_Wiart): was shot multiple times, including twice in the face - in an attack upon an enemy fort at Shimber Berris, and through the skull and ankle at the Battle of the Somme
Alexis Goggins (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/02/20/girl-shot-6-times-while-shielding-mother-from-gunfire-recovering.html): 7-year-old girl - full clip from the point blank range, including to the head
Angel Alvarez (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/harlem-shootout-gunman-lived-21-shots-broke-record-forensic-expert-article-1.203631): survived 23 bullets
Gabrielle Giffords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords#Attempted_assassination): to the head
Howard Morgan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Morgan_case): survived 28 bullets
Joe "the Mighty Atom" Greenstein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Greenstein): shot between the eyebrows from a 30' distance; the bullet did not enter his skull, but was flattened by the impact
Kenny Vaughan (http://www.cracked.com/article_18429_6-soldiers-who-survived-****-that-would-kill-terminator.html): 20 shots from a rifle only 5' away
Manfred "the Red Baron" von Richthofen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_von_Richthofen): shot to the back of the head with aircraft machine gun
Mike Day (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11503612/Meet-the-Navy-SEAL-who-was-shot-27-times-and-lived-to-tell-the-story.html): was shot 27 times
Otto von Bismarck "Iron Chancellor" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck): during the attempt to assassinate by Ferdinand Cohen-Blind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Cohen-Blind), was shot 2 times to the back, and 3 more times - to the front
Roy Benavidez (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Benavidez#6_Hours_in_hell): 37 separate bullet, bayonet, and shrapnel wounds from the six-hour fight with the enemy battalion
Saburo Sakai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabur%C5%8D_Sakai#Serious_wounds): head wound from aircraft machine gun
Simo "the White Death" Häyhä (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4): shot with explosive bullet to the face
Lawyer Dodges Bullets (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkMYoOLAhk): it's for real, and no body armor involved; lawyer was hit several times (including through the neck), but still walked away
"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill-bored (as many of them are), will strike the figure of a man at eighty yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; and as to firing at a man 250 yards with a common musket, you may just as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your target. do maintain, and I will prove, whenever called on, that no man was ever killed, at two hundred yards, by the person who aimed at him."
Meanwhile, in 1542, Henry VIII set a minimum practice range for adults using flight arrows of 220', and the longest mark shot at on the London practice ground of Finsbury Fields in the 16th century was 345'
Thus, well-trained archers are able to pepper with arrows soldiers armed with muskets (or SMG)
Underestimating:
Rate of fire - Prussian soldiers, to the end of XVIII century, were trained to make up to 7 shots per minute (with smoothbore muzzle-loaders), but in real combat, recommended to do no more than 5/minute (to avoid possible accidents). Thus, in D&D terms, 1 shot per two rounds

Bows
Overestimating:
Lethality - Marcus Cassius Scaeva (in Battle of Dyrrhachium (48 BC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dyrrhachium_(48_BC))) and Henry V of England (in Battle of Shrewsbury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shrewsbury)) were both hit with arrows (Henry - to the face, MCS - to the eye), but, obviously, survived it
Underestimating:
Range - as was said above, the longest mark shot at on the London practice ground of Finsbury Fields in the 16th century was 345'. But it's - with a longbow; in 1794, in a field outside London, the Turkish ambassador’s secretary used a Turkish bow and arrow to shoot 415 yards, partially against the wind, and 482 yards with the wind

[Biggus]

Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon.

Advanced Firearms: Advanced firearms resolve their attacks against touch AC when the target is within the first five range increments.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/weapons/firearms/

This is only in PF, yes? Not in 3.5?

[vasilidor]

Rifles out distance bows, and have since the 17th century. now I am not talking the extremes, but for average effective ranges. the average pistol range is equal to the average bow range, from what I can tell of various draw weights and calibers used in bows and pistols. looking at average shots to kill, they seem the same for bows and guns.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

also don't forget that until recent years, firearms weren't so superior that melee weapons were obsolete. world war 1 had widespread bayonet figthing that was basically spear fighting because the weapons shoot too slowly,

Much of that was trench fighting. Very cramped spaces, storming around corners where enemies could be. Getting a gun pointed straight at the guy trying to bash your head in with a shovel at the exact moment you're firing could get tricky. Also note that the supply of bullets could get pretty low. It was pretty normal for a soldier to be issues as few as 6 daily bullets.


I should say: on this thread, people are both overestimating and underestimating firearms, but also - both overestimating and underestimating bows

Firearms
Overestimating:
Armor-piercing capabilities: during the Siege of Osaka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Osaka), Tokugawa Ieyasu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_Ieyasu) was ambushed by Sanada Yukimura (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanada_Yukimura), and shot by musket. Tokugawa was knocked down, but otherwise unharmed - because of his elite Toledo cuirass. Thus, until the much later, armor which was made to withstand bullets, usually withstood bullets.

That's half the story though. Armor got a lot, a lot thicker and heavier in response to guns. This is one of the reasons why even elite troops often wore a cuirass rather than a full suit of plate. The same armor would have stopped an arrow with even greater ease.

(Although it is thrue that a properly shaped modern bullet will pierce armor better than a musket ball of the same weight and velocity.)