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

[Thunder Brother]

Kind of where I'm going with it...

Half Cover provides not only a +2 AC but also a +2 to Dex Saves. It would also allow a person with a shield to function as half-cover for allies behind their shield's facing.

So it'd still be only a +2 to AC, but it would increase dex saves and be more useful to a group.

Doesn't a person already benefit from half cover when behind an ally?

Adding more shield types would be interesting though.

Buckler: +1 AC but can be doffed/donned as a free action. Accessible to rogues, for thematic reasons.
Heater shield: standard +2 AC
Tower shield: +3 AC but slows you down and has a STR requirement.

 

[Steampunkette]

Doesn't a person already benefit from half cover when behind an ally?

Adding more shield types would be interesting though.

Buckler: +1 AC but can be doffed/donned as a free action. Accessible to rogues, for thematic reasons.
Heater shield: standard +2 AC
Tower shield: +3 AC but slows you down and has a STR requirement.

-Ostensibly-. But most people don't treat it that way for the purposes of Fireballs or Dragon's Breath or things of that nature. At least not in my experience, mostly because it would probably benefit enemy NPCs more than it would players, since a fireball placed in the center of a unit of soldiers would only hit those in adjacent squares without the benefit of half-cover, then the next line out with half cover, and the next line with either 3/4 or Full cover, and then Full Cover.

Instead of 20ft of fireball in all directions you'd get 5ft, then bonuses to the save would start racking up quickly. Until the fireball deals no damage 'cause everyone else has full cover.

Tying it specifically to a shield as a benefit, though? Players are more likely to specifically call it out to each other. Get that whole "Get behind me!" moment where the fighter blocks the dragon's breath weapon to make sure the people behind them can avoid being burned.

But yeah... Bucklers, Heater, Tower... could be nice? Maybe have the tower shield be a thing that you specifically place as 3/4 cover, -then- you make your action and it just provides a +2 AC to all other vectors?

'Cause that'd be +5 AC and Saves to one direction. That' be very much worthwhile, I think!

 

[Stalker0]

So it'd still be only a +2 to AC, but it would increase dex saves and be more useful to a group.

That's what 4e did, shields gave a bonus to reflex defense (aka dex saves)

 

[Stalker0]

-Ostensibly-. But most people don't treat it that way for the purposes of Fireballs or Dragon's Breath or things of that nature.

The reason is the clause in Fireball that says it "spreads around corners". This suggests that its more like a gas, it just fills up every bit of space in an area that there is any opening to. So this implies that nothing can really protect you from it unless it has completely covered you....hence cover doesn't apply.

As far as I know it is the only effect in the game that technically does that. Normally for area effects, you have to be able to find a straight line between the origin of the area and a square you want to target, so normally a large wall for example would completely block most effects. In theory a 20 strength fight could just slap down a nice 40 lb large metal slab in front of a dragon and just tank the breath weapon...but couldn't do the same with a fireball.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

As others have said, I think it's a game reason. As no one addressed on the first couple pages (someone probably has on a later page but I'm not going to read them all to see), I'm going to address what I think that reason is.

In the case of the Renaissance era firearms, the rules are presumably designed to encourage swashbuckling adventures where guns are the ranged weapons of choice. At the same time, they are also present in places like the Forgotten Realms or Spelljammer where using them instead of bows is an exception rather than the rule.

Guns appear at a higher than average tech level, are significantly more expensive to use given the costs of ammunition and especially gunpowder/smokepowder, have inferior range, but do more damage.

Making them more expensive with low ammunition availability explains why few people use them in a place like the Forgotten Realms. Just giving them the same stats as crossbows with those drawbacks would guarantee that nobody uses them.

Giving them higher damage potential explains why they are more common than crossbows in a Renaissance setting where they remain expensive but are easily available. In such a setting you also consider NPC troops to be proficient and apparently nobles are rich enough to outfit at least elite squads with them. The cost is still an issue and might be better reduced in a Renaissance setting, but PCs are rich enough that they are likely to pay it anyway so they can fit the theme by wielding a pistol and get damage in exchange for the drawbacks. If you simply refluffed crossbows into firearms then pistols would rarely get used because hand crossbows are only good for specialized builds, and we want most dashing adventures sporting a pistol as backup for their rapier.

In short, the stats are designed to encourage or discourage using weapons most appropriate for a setting, just like all the weapon stats are. For me, that's actually a bigger concern than accuracy.

 

[Steampunkette]

Which makes plenty of sense, @Sword of Spirit, but I'm intending to make them more available to players, particularly at lower levels and bring them into the setting for stylistic purposes.

So having them be roughly equivalent to Crossbows of either kind is probably better.

That said, Sharpshooter and Crossbow-Expert with the Archery fighting style? chef's kiss 5 attacks in a round, action surge, add dex to the damage of all nine of them, add +10 to the damage of all of them, and still be far enough away to avoid most melee attackers.

It'll be even better in Advanced 5e.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Which makes plenty of sense, @Sword of Spirit, but I'm intending to make them more available to players, particularly at lower levels and bring them into the setting for stylistic purposes.

So having them be roughly equivalent to Crossbows of either kind is probably better.

That said, Sharpshooter and Crossbow-Expert with the Archery fighting style? chef's kiss 5 attacks in a round, action surge, add dex to the damage of all nine of them, add +10 to the damage of all of them, and still be far enough away to avoid most melee attackers.

It'll be even better in Advanced 5e.

If you make them Simple weapons, that removes the major barrier to their use by PCs compared to hand crossbows.
You could not allow the loading property to be bypassed to prevent the CE, SS cheese, and drop the range is needs be.

The balancing act would be to make them better than cantrip/weapon damage to mean they get used at all, but not so good that they are the only weapon considered worth using. 5e does not do movement and combat very well, so there is little incentive to shoot/throw a weapon before piling into melee.

 

[Steampunkette]

If you make them Simple weapons, that removes the major barrier to their use by PCs compared to hand crossbows.
You could not allow the loading property to be bypassed to prevent the CE, SS cheese, and drop the range is needs be.

The balancing act would be to make them better than cantrip/weapon damage to mean they get used at all, but not so good that they are the only weapon considered worth using. 5e does not do movement and combat very well, so there is little incentive to shoot/throw a weapon before piling into melee.

Honestly, I don't mind the CE use. I do mind Sharpshooter, and GWM, being what I consider unbalancing feats.

I use the Proficiency Houserule. Meaning with Sharpshooter/GWM you can remove your Proficiency to attack rolls to add double Proficiency to damage with these feats. That way it scales with level and in the early game, where most D&D is played, lately, it starts out at a +4, which is pretty strong but not insane, and it winds up capping out right around +8 damage when most pre-written adventures close out.

It's worked pretty well, so far. And the rest of the functions of Sharpshooter, plus Advanced 5e's Combat Maneuvers, make it pretty great. Especially for a Battlemaster.

 

[Cadence]

Tangent warning: Is the base chance of hitting with a missile weapon too high in D&D when the target is someone who is actively defending by dodging or weaving and the shooter isn't laying in wait, and too low against a stationary target when the shooter is able to take time?

 

[Samloyal23]

There's a reason no one uses swords and other weapons in modern warfare and combat anymore, because guns are easier/faster to use than other ranged weapons, and the farther away you are from someone that's attacking you, the less likely they are to hit. D&D can't properly model this, because your Armor Class and Hit Points are the same whether you're 5 feet away from someone with a hunting rifle than if you're 80 feet away from them. D&D doesn't properly model this, even when accounting for Long Range, Cover, and other factors (especially if you just take Sharpshooter to ignore both of those things).

And yet someone took the time to invent the bayonet, which turns your rifle into a more effective mêlée weapon by adding a short sword-like blade to it.