D&D 5E Why do guns do so much damage?

[Weiley31]

I honestly don't care what firearm rules you come up with: Just let me have my Pepperbox doing 1D10 like usual and I'm happy.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think the reason guns do so much more damage in D&D than swords do, is because D&D was written in 1974.

At that time (and still today) guns are the weapon that people are most afraid of, so they made it the most damaging weapon category in D&D. Since we can't imagine weapons getting less dangerous in the future, we make fictional, "futuristic" weapons even more powerful.

If D&D had been written in 1174, longbows and crossbows would be the top-damage weapons, and firearms would match them in the "futuristic weapons" category.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I honestly don't care what firearm rules you come up with: Just let me have my Pepperbox doing 1D10 like usual and I'm happy.

This reminds me of the only argument against firearms developing that I really take seriously.

If magic can be put into manufacturing, you can probably make a better crossbow than the equivalent firearm, using gunpowder.

What I mean is, imagine a crossbow with a barrel, and a revolving chamber for arrows (yes, arrows. Most crossbows shot arrows, not “bolts”.) something like this:

Now IRL there are reasons this would be hard to develop, and very little reason to do so. It’s not like pistol crossbows were any good before modern materials science.

But material science is better in D&D than IRL Medieval Europe, and so we have effective pistol bows. The revolving chamber just necessitates a shorter arrow or longer weapon, or both. I did some back of the envelope design years ago with a 9 inch short-fletched arrow, and it should work.

Anyway, now put alchemists fire inside the arrow. Or something that creates a fume, or just explosives and make the arrow in a way that it will splinter into flechettes when it blows, etc.

Instead we have no guns and crossbows that don’t do anything special apart from being easier to reload and having better power than RL handcrossbows.

Im sorry but in a world where some armies have spellcasters and others don’t, the mundane war tech will improve faster than it did IRL.

 

[Weiley31]

This reminds me of the only argument against firearms developing that I really take seriously.

If magic can be put into manufacturing, you can probably make a better crossbow than the equivalent firearm, using gunpowder.

What I mean is, imagine a crossbow with a barrel, and a revolving chamber for arrows (yes, arrows. Most crossbows shot arrows, not “bolts”.) something like this:View attachment 137841

Now IRL there are reasons this would be hard to develop, and very little reason to do so. It’s not like pistol crossbows were any good before modern materials science.

But material science is better in D&D than IRL Medieval Europe, and so we have effective pistol bows. The revolving chamber just necessitates a shorter arrow or longer weapon, or both. I did some back of the envelope design years ago with a 9 inch short-fletched arrow, and it should work.

Anyway, now put alchemists fire inside the arrow. Or something that creates a fume, or just explosives and make the arrow in a way that it will splinter into flechettes when it blows, etc.

Instead we have no guns and crossbows that don’t do anything special apart from being easier to reload and having better power than RL handcrossbows.

Im sorry but in a world where some armies have spellcasters and others don’t, the mundane war tech will improve faster than it did IRL.

You know, the Nerf Rebelle line of Nerf Guns actually looked pretty cool.

 

[Steampunkette]

Actually, its based on its kinetic impact, which is speed. A hollow point will expand and stop in the body, transfering the energy, and doing more damage.

I mean you are correct to a point, a narrow tipped bullet at high velocity will pass through a body, doing less damage (assuming its not hitting a bone or holing a vital organ.)

But I just noticed this is a 1st page post, so someone has likely mentioned this already.

Kinetic Impact is Speed and Mass compared to Resistance. I actually mathed out the Joules of a Lead Ball from a Flintlock Pistol at around 400 while a longsword hits at about 300, in the thread. So it's really not -that- different. But the PSI -is- different, at a whopping 60 compared to about 10. Which means the Flintlock ball is going to pretty much pass through you while the sword will stop due to resistance and drag. Which means the sword imparts more of it's kinetic energy (All of it).

An archaic muzzle load ball is not a hollow point.

And, again, muzzle load rounds were big. They did a hell of a lot more damage than 9mm or 5.56 bullets do (at distances they were lethal at, but not much combat in 5e happens at ranges where firearms have a tactical advantage).

They also had a much slower fire rate, of course.

British Flintlock Balls were 10.9mm in diameter and weighed 1.3g. They also traveled a lot slower, as the muzzle velocity for a Flintlock is around 253m/s while a 9mm (only slightly smaller and infinitely more bullet-shaped) can clock in at over 400m/s.

Man, I can imagine a messed up version where it goes like this if they held it against a poor guy shot 30 times without the health insurance card:

"Oh you don't have Health Insurance?" kicks him back out on the sidewalk while spitting on his horribly wounded body.

Well, y'know. He was in Canada. They'd have just made him wait a bit longer and probably bleed out.

 

[Ixal]

This reminds me of the only argument against firearms developing that I really take seriously.

If magic can be put into manufacturing, you can probably make a better crossbow than the equivalent firearm, using gunpowder.

What I mean is, imagine a crossbow with a barrel, and a revolving chamber for arrows (yes, arrows. Most crossbows shot arrows, not “bolts”.) something like this:View attachment 137841

Now IRL there are reasons this would be hard to develop, and very little reason to do so. It’s not like pistol crossbows were any good before modern materials science.

But material science is better in D&D than IRL Medieval Europe, and so we have effective pistol bows. The revolving chamber just necessitates a shorter arrow or longer weapon, or both. I did some back of the envelope design years ago with a 9 inch short-fletched arrow, and it should work.

Anyway, now put alchemists fire inside the arrow. Or something that creates a fume, or just explosives and make the arrow in a way that it will splinter into flechettes when it blows, etc.

Instead we have no guns and crossbows that don’t do anything special apart from being easier to reload and having better power than RL handcrossbows.

Im sorry but in a world where some armies have spellcasters and others don’t, the mundane war tech will improve faster than it did IRL.

Still has all the same disadvantages of crossbows. Uses muscle power to load, thus tires out the user and making arrows is time consuming.

 

[Sithlord]

I honestly don't care what firearm rules you come up with: Just let me have my Pepperbox doing 1D10 like usual and I'm happy.

With exploring dice when u roll 10 damage ?

 

[Flamestrike]

Most gunshots to the chest aren’t lethal. Most successful hits with nearly any weapon of war are.

That choice would be fairly foolish, for two reasons, assuming you aren’t changing the parameters from what I stated before. That is, that you within close sprint-and-lunge distance of eachother.

1) Handguns are not very accurate in a fight, even in the hands of experts, and shooting someone who is rushing you is extremely difficult. The sword fighter is going to win that fight 9.9 times out of ten.

2) If they are pulling a gun on you, they mean to kill you. Calling off your attack likely gets you shot while you stand there.


So did the version of him who got stabbed in the head with a sword and had to rely on pre-modern medicine.

In the hypothetical 3 feet away sword v gun, both combatants can be assumed to be in fighting positions.

I.e - I'm holding the gun pointing it directly at him, 'him' bring 3 feet away from the barrel.

 

[Steampunkette]

In the hypothetical 3 feet away sword v gun, both combatants can be assumed to be in fighting positions.

I.e - I'm holding the gun pointing it directly at him, 'him' bring 3 feet away from the barrel.

That's about as equal of fighting positions as starting a race with him on the starting line and you at the finish line.

But I think you knew that.

Still. Pull your wheel-lock trigger, have your gun turned aside and your single bullet wasted, and then die. 1.4 seconds is plenty of time to affect that change.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In the hypothetical 3 feet away sword v gun, both combatants can be assumed to be in fighting positions.

I.e - I'm holding the gun pointing it directly at him, 'him' bring 3 feet away from the barrel.

Ah yes, the scenario where everyone is standing still and everyone just gets calmly into position before the scene starts.