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

[Steampunkette]

Yeah I’m over-generalizing a bit, since a flintlock ball is pretty bad at cutting through stuff compared to a modern bullet, but that calculation you did wasn’t getting into edge geometries either. But I honestly think that video just isn’t telling us anything all that useful. They’re using a chopper, not a more traditional sword, they’re hitting the hood at the perfect angle for chopping, and it’s not a test of penetration, the way a bullet would, but a weird sort of hacking. So we don’t know how much energy is left behind.

But here’s my bigger question: Why pursue this sword trutherism? Like do we really think swords have been unfairly maligned and shelved by Big Gun? The house rules you laid out above seem like a great way to deal with them in the specific setting and system you’re using. But even if flintlock guns are scary, they have tons of problems that make melee weapons still super-viable.

Yeah, we'd have to agree on Blade Geometry, Width, Depth, Taper, Striking Surface... I actually did a bunch of quickie calculations and came up with a sword having about 10psi of force (9.88, but rounding for ease) and the flintlock pistol coming out to around 90psi.

But once you're over about 8psi you can get through most of the body's tissues, and the rest of the psi are essentially wasted. Part of why a sword won't cut through a human body all the way on most swings (drag) and a ball will blast right through (higher psi to drag ratio)

But then you have to get into the use of lateral friction as a cutting force with a sword while a bullet doesn't have that and... it's just way too much calculation.

In the end I'm just gonna stick with the Crossbowguns.

As to the reason... It's just always bugged me that guns are presented in high fantasy as far more lethal than swords and axes, when at most they're comparably lethal but have secondary benefits. Having them do more damage in game terms just didn't sit right with me.

@Flamestrike

A flintlock barrel is about 7/16ths of an inch in diameter. Translating that into millimeters you get 10.9. I was able to find their weight by looking into British Flintlock Pistol Balls coming in at 34 to the pound and translating that to Kilograms to get 0.013kg. The only muzzle velocity of a period firearm loaded in the appropriate manner I could find was 414m/s for a period flintlock musket. Much larger than your average pistol and probably with significantly more powder.... These were the measurements I used in my calculations.

5.6 Newtons of Force, 90psi.

So if we use a Kinetic Energy calculator based on Mass and Velocity (weighing in at 0.013kg and going 414m/s) we arrive at 1,114 Joules.

Using the 1.5kg weight of a sword and the 21.4m/s speed of a baseball bat, we wind up with 343 Joules. So roughly 1/4 the overall force.

However since we know that the psi is significantly higher for the ball, it's going to impart less of it's overall force to the target, and still have enough force to enter and pass through a second target. Meanwhile the sword is going to impart -all- of it's overall force to the target as the blade comes to a stop.

That ball is going to use up a little more than 1/3rd of it's force passing through a target, so let's call it 2/5ths and say it'll go through two men and wound a third. That means it's going to impart about 445J onto the first target, 445j on the second target and 222J on the third target.

But if you're only going to hit one target, that's a whole lot of wasted kinetic energy... And the difference between the sword's larger surface area for striking and the pistol's greater force is... 102 Joules of Force.

Nice.

 

[Steampunkette]

Oh hey! Wait. The actual muzzle velocity of a flintlock pistol, on average, was 253 m/s. I got a message from a friend about it!

That drops the pistol shot down to a mere 416 Joules and 3.28 Newtons. About 60psi.

Nifty!

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, we'd have to agree on Blade Geometry, Width, Depth, Taper, Striking Surface... I actually did a bunch of quickie calculations and came up with a sword having about 10psi of force (9.88, but rounding for ease) and the flintlock pistol coming out to around 90psi.

But once you're over about 8psi you can get through most of the body's tissues, and the rest of the psi are essentially wasted. Part of why a sword won't cut through a human body all the way on most swings (drag) and a ball will blast right through (higher psi to drag ratio)

But then you have to get into the use of lateral friction as a cutting force with a sword while a bullet doesn't have that and... it's just way too much calculation.

In the end I'm just gonna stick with the Crossbowguns.

As to the reason... It's just always bugged me that guns are presented in high fantasy as far more lethal than swords and axes, when at most they're comparably lethal but have secondary benefits. Having them do more damage in game terms just didn't sit right with me.

@Flamestrike

A flintlock barrel is about 7/16ths of an inch in diameter. Translating that into millimeters you get 10.9. I was able to find their weight by looking into British Flintlock Pistol Balls coming in at 34 to the pound and translating that to Kilograms to get 0.013kg. The only muzzle velocity of a period firearm loaded in the appropriate manner I could find was 414m/s for a period flintlock musket. Much larger than your average pistol and probably with significantly more powder.... These were the measurements I used in my calculations.

5.6 Newtons of Force, 90psi.

So if we use a Kinetic Energy calculator based on Mass and Velocity (weighing in at 0.013kg and going 414m/s) we arrive at 1,114 Joules.

Using the 1.5kg weight of a sword and the 21.4m/s speed of a baseball bat, we wind up with 343 Joules. So roughly 1/4 the overall force.

However since we know that the psi is significantly higher for the ball, it's going to impart less of it's overall force to the target, and still have enough force to enter and pass through a second target. Meanwhile the sword is going to impart -all- of it's overall force to the target as the blade comes to a stop.

That ball is going to use up a little more than 1/3rd of it's force passing through a target, so let's call it 2/5ths and say it'll go through two men and wound a third. That means it's going to impart about 445J onto the first target, 445j on the second target and 222J on the third target.

But if you're only going to hit one target, that's a whole lot of wasted kinetic energy... And the difference between the sword's larger surface area for striking and the pistol's greater force is... 102 Joules of Force.

Nice.

How does that wasted kinetic energy against unarmored folks translate to armor penetration? Reading above I thought I saw they didn't do any better against armor, but this makes it sound like it should. Does armor have a large benefit against the mass volleys from far away where much of the energy is spent, but much less from closer?

 

[Ixal]

Because all the real advantages of guns can't be used in RPGs like D&D.
Ranges are short because it has to fit on a battlemap, you can't kill anyone in one hit because of the HP system and fatigue is not simulated at all.
Even compared to other ranged weapons firearms would get the shaft in D&D because ammunition is usually not tracked and even if it is the PCs can carry unreasonable amounts of arrows which are available everywhere.
So in a D&D system guns would be a very bad weapon. Thus in order to compensate they increase the damage or give it ahistorical properties like them being armor piercing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

An interesting system that a friend of mine created for a modern game he ran was to assign 3 ranges to each gun. One of the ranges was the gun's wheelhouse, which dealt additional damage, one range increment realty normal damage, and one dealt reduced damage.

For a handgun short range would be the wheelhouse, mid range was normal, and long range was reduced. Rifles were the opposite. I think carbines were normal/wheelhouse/reduced.

It created an interesting dynamic where your choice of gun heavily influenced how you played. But that was a gun-centric game.

 

[Steampunkette]

How does that wasted kinetic energy against unarmored folks translate to armor penetration? Reading above I thought I saw they didn't do any better against armor, but this makes it sound like it should. Does armor have a large benefit against the mass volleys from far away where much of the energy is spent, but much less from closer?

It doesn't -exactly-. When it comes to a ball striking armor the thickness of the metal and the amount of kinetic energy it can absorb is much less important to the amount of kinetic energy it can deflect.

See how the center of the breastplate isn't rounded off or flat like a human chest would be? That's not a mistake on the armorer's part, it's an intentional design choice to deflect bullets, arrows, crossbow bolts, melee weapon thrusts, and other attacks. That medial ridge down the torso increases the chances that something coming directly at you is going to get deflected to one side or another. Same with the helmets all having that sort of ridge or crest down the middle.

By deflecting the attack away from center of mass, where anyone is going to tell you to aim, you increase the likelihood that the attack doesn't penetrate because it's trajectory is skewed.

That's not to say it didn't -ever- happen. But even at short ranges, plate armor could provide protection against musket fire. Take a look!

Musket vs. Medieval Armor

Knights met firearms on the battlefield for over 200 years. Was their armor strong enough to stop bullets?

www.pbs.org

Your results will, of course, vary, based on the type of musket used, the size of the ball, the amount of powder... Lots of variables.

But it wasn't a cut and dry "Musket always wins!" type situation.

Here's an example of a Pistol -and- a Musket being fired at a single breastplate. Once the pistol dents the medial ridge, the musket punches right through the flattened out metal.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

I honestly love how ultramodern 5 did it.

Modern Weapons are comparable to traditional weapons, but the class you take makes you do things with the firearms that make you incredibly deadly.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OP could not be more wrong comparing terminal ballistics and the lethality of a handgun bullet and the lethality of a sword.

Bullets don't just 'put holes in you' - they literally destroy organs and cause immense internal bleeding as rhe bullet tumbles through you.

That statement is so over broad as to simply be effectively false. Some calibers tumble internally, but by far the majority of gunshot wounds are survived, and when they aren’t it’s due to lack of medical care. Relatively few single gunshot wounds actually kill people. Most fun deaths are either suicide, or multiple gunshots, or gunshot+lack of medical care.

Don't bring a sword to a gun fight. You'll lose.

The same is literally true of a bow. Range wins.

There's definitely a lot here to digest from both sides of the argument. I know from my studies of history that @QuentinGeorge is -absolutely- correct that armor was effective against firearms to varying degrees, but not economically viable. Particularly after Napoleon began the era of insanely huge armies on the field of battle as opposed to the much smaller armies of earlier eras.

Agincourt, for example, saw an incredibly massive 25,000+ Frenchmen lose to 10,000+ Englishmen... But Napoleon marched around Europe with almost 700,000 Frenchmen just 350 years later.

On the other hand, I had not considered the hydrostatic lateral pressure from a bullet. And while I still do not think it comparable, it is something to consider. The reason being that the example clay shot used 78 grains of modern 300 Blackout powder which is very different from the 50-60 grains of much lower quality gunpowder that would've been available in the early renaissance. Primarily due to relative chemical purities and varying levels of mixture without laboratory equipment providing precise measures.

For now, what I think I'll do is:

1) Make Pistols and Rifles available for players to purchase but otherwise largely have them in the hands of the well off.
2) Treat all these Pistols and Rifles as Breach-Loading weapons rather than ramrod.
3) Define all ammo for such as paper-cartridge shots that are very susceptible to water damage.
4) Make that ammo -dirt- cheap.
5) Get rid of any Misfire chance. Seriously, that's not remotely fun for anyone. If a gun blows up it should be for narrative effect, exclusively.
6) Assign them damage equivalent to Hand and Heavy crossbows for Pistol and Rifle, respectively, along with proficiency and feat-interactions.
7) Give them the same load/ammunition qualities as the respective crossbows.
8) Make their fire audible from 100ft away for pistols, 300ft for rifles (mirroring Thunderclap and Thunderwave)
9) Make them simple weapons that someone with the "Noble" background can start with in place of a ranged weapon from their class)
10) Change their Damage Type to Bludgeoning.
11) Have a great time.

All weapon damage in the game is, after all, an abstraction placed behind a further abstraction. A combination of luck, mettle, and morale rather than a measure meat being destroyed

Probably won't use Mercer's Gunslinger... Though I might make a Rogue or Ranger subclass that does gun-tricks as a fun option.

That makes sense. The Battlemaster makes a better gunslinger anyway.

Most of my thoughts on this topic have been covered, but one significant factor or early firearms is being missed.

When gunpowder was first used in combat saltpeter (a main ingredient) was quite expensive and difficult to amass in large quantities. On the other hand, the first time people were exposed to the loud noise and smoke blackpowder creates it was effectively magic. Some of the first cannons were used more for that effect or as flame throwers than damage.

So in a world where even low level mages an cast firebolt or make thunder, there's questions in my mind if people would have pursued the development. Of course that depends on how ubiquitous magic is in your world, but there were centuries of development of gunpowder before we had any hand-held weapon.

Of course people would pursue mundane explosives, and thus eventually firearms. In a D&D world, alchemists fire isn’t even that expensive, as well, so it’s possible that alchemy (ie chemistry and other laboratory sciences) is more effective in D&D than IRL.

But even if we assume IRL medieval science, you’d have to make offensive magic incredibly ubiquitous to eliminate the strong incentive to develop deadlier weapons that normals can use, not to mention one that can be used with only weeks of training, rather than years.

If magic is not ubiquitous, and not evenly distributed, the incentive to develop mundane armaments increases, it does not decrease.

 

[Flamestrike]

As to the reason... It's just always bugged me that guns are presented in high fantasy as far more lethal than swords and axes,

Firearms ARE more lethal!

If you were standing 3 feet from me and I had a choice of a wheel-lock pistol firing a .75 cal ball, or a sword, I'm taking the gun.

You get shot in head, abdomen or the the chest, and you go down nearly instantly and die very soon after; you're in no position to be fighting after a shot to the chest or head at point blank range. Firearms have incredibly high lethality, and stopping power far in excess of a sword strike (lunge or hack).

Presuming someone was fighting back, even unarmed against a sword user, the unarmed person would likely wind up with several defensive cuts of varying severity before an incapacitating blow could be delivered (likely smashing down on an arm breaking bone and severing nerves and muscle, or potentially even the entire limb if forceful enough) which in turn would open the victim up for a killing blow to be delivered (likely a thrust through the chest or abdomen).

Most victims of sword attacks died hours or days later from blood loss or critical organ failure from a destroyed organ.

Getting hit with a single musket ball and you're probably going to die seconds after. It's a lot easier to hit a critical area with a gun (the chest or head) than it is with a sword, the damage it causes is generally far worse than what a sword can do with a thrust through those areas, and the stopping power is far greater (a sword thrust hurts now, and kills you later, a bullet generally stops you then and there). You generally need to be literally hacked to death with a sword or similar edged weapon, receiving multiple blows for the same lethality you get from a firearm.

Pull a gun on someone with a sword. If they dont back down, I know where my money is going.

 

[MattW]

This is a Kilij. Roughly the same shape as a scimitar, it's got a slightly weighted tip to increase percussive force. It would not be out of place in most D&D campaign settings. It cuts -through- that pig on the first strike. And the second. The third sets it spinning and the fourth cuts through, again.

Compare that to a single hole running through your torso.

So, it would appear that you're actually asking the wrong question.

As you've shown, a sword can cut someone in half. So we should be asking the following>

Why does a sword only use a single die to calculate damage? Why not dozens? How in God's name does anyone survive a combat?

Answer: The designers of the game made a choice. Very few Fantasy RPGs are even vaguely realistic (ESPECIALLY if they involve levels and hip points). If these games were realistic, it would result in players being depressed if/when their PC's fought a peasant who was wielding a quarterstaff - and it quickly resulted in the PC getting their skull smashed in, or their arm broken, or ribs fractured, etcetera, etcetera. "Oh, you have a magical longsword? That's about 3 feet long and....Well, I have 6 feet of solid well-seasoned oak!" (cue sound effects of thwack/crunch/scream)

D&D players do not realise - and do not wish to consider - how deadly combat could be if the participants are using sharp/pointy/heavy things, but they do have an understanding that guns are dangerous. Therefore, the designers made a choice which they hoped was appropriate and as plausible as anything else.

That's it. That's the whole boring answer.