That's pretty much how I feel about it, yeah.D&D absurdly overvalues firearms, particularly late medieval and early Renaissance firearms. Plate Armour exists to counter firearms, the conquistadors were staggering around with breastplates on while they had guns. The utility of early firearms was in their ability to be used enmasse. A single person wielding a blunderbuss wasn't actually that deadly.
I was referring to the poster ignoring the discussion about D&D weapon values and instead throwing off an off-topic catchphrase about knives and gunfights.That kind of sinks real-world descriptions of how weapons work, though. We are left with game-balance and narrative-needs reasons.
As to game balance and narrative needs... that's ultimately what I'm looking at, here. They're out of balance with comparable weapons and if they're meant to be in the setting there's no need to make them do damage significantly out of line with conventional weapons for D&D characters. It just seems senseless, to me.
D&D -does- use Armor as Damage Resistance. And also Deflection. That's why AC is treated as an abstraction and a Monk or Barbarian, wearing no armor, gains just as much protection from firearms as someone wearing Full Plate armor.I think to simulate how gunpowder helped end the era of armored knights in our timeline. Because D&D doesn't use armor as damage resistance, you have to make guns more powerful.
In a different system they would do similar damage but with a higher Armor Piercing rating.
That's what I'm thinking.Because people think guns should be deadlier than swords