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

[Ixal]

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.

The bayonet was needed so you could ditch the spearmen next to you who was only there to intimidate enemies into not coming too close. And don't forget that before them you had literal gun swords (-axes, -shields, etc.). But the more firearms advanced the less useful melee weapons became.

Not so in D&D. Especially the escalating HP in D&D fundamentally alters the role of firearms and ranged weapon in general as it is simply not possible to kill an enemy with one attack once you are past level 1 no matter how good you are and what you do which removes the main advantage of ranged weapons.

 

[Fenris-77]

I just wanted to say hydrostatic shock. That is all.

 

[Steampunkette]

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?

More or less, yes.

But it also more or less evens out. The misses you should have had for shooting moving targets are added to your sniper attempts!

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.

The bayonet was needed so you could ditch the spearmen next to you who was only there to intimidate enemies into not coming too close. And don't forget that before them you had literal gun swords (-axes, -shields, etc.). But the more firearms advanced the less useful melee weapons became.

Not so in D&D. Especially the escalating HP in D&D fundamentally alters the role of firearms and ranged weapon in general as it is simply not possible to kill an enemy with one attack once you are past level 1 no matter how good you are and what you do which removes the main advantage of ranged weapons.

Bayonets (And Gun-Axe-Blades and other stuff) were invented for the express purpose of making a very expensive Club into a more lethal weapon. Because when your gun jams, or runs out of ammunition, it becomes a club. And a spear is just a better weapon than a club in nearly every situation because you can also use it -as- a club.

As to the role of Firearms and Ranged Weapons in general... nah. All weapons exist to try and kill your opponent in one shot. Sword, axe, gun, club. All of them are about increasing your force and lethality to try and get that one-shot kill. Or, at least, one-shot disable.

The benefit of ranged weaponry is to do so while away from the enemy so they don't get the chance to try it on you with -their- force and lethality increasing tools.

I just wanted to say hydrostatic shock. That is all.

Science says: Nah.

(PDF) Determining the wounding effects of ballistic projectiles to inform future injury models: A systematic review

PDF | Penetrating wounds from explosively propelled fragments and bullets are the most common causes of combat injury experienced by UK service... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

And since I agree with science and gameplay I'm just gonna go with my "Guns are Crossbows that are loud, gang, you can have as many of them as you like and/or can afford."

 

[jasper]

I just wanted to say hydrostatic shock. That is all.

Is that when Static Shock powers up in his Adult life????
jasper innocently whistles and ducks.

 

[Ixal]

Bayonets (And Gun-Axe-Blades and other stuff) were invented for the express purpose of making a very expensive Club into a more lethal weapon. Because when your gun jams, or runs out of ammunition, it becomes a club. And a spear is just a better weapon than a club in nearly every situation because you can also use it -as- a club.

As to the role of Firearms and Ranged Weapons in general... nah. All weapons exist to try and kill your opponent in one shot. Sword, axe, gun, club. All of them are about increasing your force and lethality to try and get that one-shot kill. Or, at least, one-shot disable.

The benefit of ranged weaponry is to do so while away from the enemy so they don't get the chance to try it on you with -their- force and lethality increasing tools.

Thats a rather simplistic view.
Bayonets were invented because of the low firing speed of guns which allowed enemies to charge between volleys. At the beginning you had dedicated spear or pikemen with you for protection but as guns got better the amount of melee troops was ever more reduced, simply because they were just protection and otherwise of minor effectiveness. Thats especially true when firing drills were more widely used meaning that troops could keep enemies away for longer. The bayonet made additional troops for protection superfluous.
Thats of course for large scale troops.

But on a small scale too guns became better, mostly their accuracy. Gun axes and similar weapons existed because you were only supposed to shoot once and then wade into melee, the shot being more of wild swing which might or might not hit anything and for intimidation. But again as time progressed guns became actual weapons which could be aimed and for some became main weapons. The problem with the slow reload remained which is why people either carried several of them and a backup melee weapon or had to mobility to disengage. Or their were hunters who only had one shot anyway.

Killing the enemy from far away was not just a benefit, it is the entire point of ranged weapons. And that does not exist in D&D and will also not change as otherwise melee characters had to sit out combats from time to time.

 

[Fenris-77]

Actually, science says that hydrostatic shock is a part of why guns do some much damage. You might notice that pushing a 50 cal round through your arm by hand is one thing, while getting shot with that same round tends to just blow the arm right off? Hydrostatic shock is part of that. It's the part of the reason reason arrows don't leave big dinner plate sized exit wounds while a large caliber handgun does. It's not wacky, just part of the effect of high speed impact on semi-liquid objects.

Also, I too can cite internet evidence. If that's how we're feeling.

 

[grimslade]

Late to this discussion, but thanks to all who have provided historical evidence with citations especially Doug McRae. It is fascinating.
It has fudge-all to do with D&D except tangentially. Combat is so removed from reality that injecting facts just muddies the argument. Having firearms do massive (for a weapon) damage is a bit off-putting but is to give some benefit to be a viable choice for characters. I prefer if firearm attacks became like martial cantrips. You start with 1d8 and it adds another die at level 5, 11 and 17. It is no worse abstraction than the large dice upfront and doesn't step on the Master Archer because it is one shot per round. You can make an Athos or Porthos who excels at the sword and still will fire their musket occasionally.

 

[Steampunkette]

Thats a rather simplistic view.
Bayonets were invented because of the low firing speed of guns which allowed enemies to charge between volleys. At the beginning you had dedicated spear or pikemen with you for protection but as guns got better the amount of melee troops was ever more reduced, simply because they were just protection and otherwise of minor effectiveness. Thats especially true when firing drills were more widely used meaning that troops could keep enemies away for longer.
Thats of course for large scale troops.

But on a small scale too guns became better, mostly their accuracy. Gun axes and similar weapons existed because you were only supposed to shoot once and then wade into melee, the shot being more of wild swing which might or might not hit anything and for intimidation. But again as time progressed guns became actual weapons which could be aimed and for some became main weapons. The problem with the slow reload remained which is why people either carried several of them and a backup melee weapon or had to mobility to disengage. Or their were hunters who only had one shot anyway.

Killing the enemy from far away was not just a benefit, it is the entire point of ranged weapons. And that does not exist in D&D and will also not change as otherwise melee characters had to sit out combats from time to time.

1) Bayonets were invented to turn a gun into a Spear. Full stop. They might have had slow reload speeds back then, but as you noted you could just draw a sidearm and fight with that, rather than make your gun into a spear. It worked for archers for centuries to carry a side-sword. So why make a gun into a spear with a side-piece attachment that takes a few moments to put onto it rather than -just- carrying a different weapon that can be drawn easier? Because if you do not turn the gun into a spear the gun is a club.

2) I did not say "A Benefit". I said "The Benefit". Singular. The only important thing. All weapons are made to swiftly dispatch your enemies. THE benefit of ranged weapons is to do it while the enemy is far enough a way to not do it to you first.

Actually, science says that hydrostatic shock is a part of why guns do some much damage. You might notice that pushing a 50 cal round through your arm by hand is one thing, while getting shot with that same round tends to just blow the arm right off? Hydrostatic shock is part of that. It's the part of the reason reason arrows don't leave big dinner plate sized exit wounds while a large caliber handgun does. It's not wacky, just part of the effect of high speed impact on semi-liquid objects.

Also, I too can cite internet evidence. If that's how we're feeling.

Citing evidence is "How we're feeling"? It's, like, the basis of an earnest debate!

However, we're also not talking about 50cal weaponry. We're talking about old, slow-firing, slow-loading, slow-traveling, lead balls. Somewhere in the 250m/s range. Not barely sub-sonic modern weapons. Hydrostatic shock is not a component.

Late to this discussion, but thanks to all who have provided historical evidence with citations especially Doug McRae. It is fascinating.
It has fudge-all to do with D&D except tangentially. Combat is so removed from reality that injecting facts just muddies the argument. Having firearms do massive (for a weapon) damage is a bit off-putting but is to give some benefit to be a viable choice for characters. I prefer if firearm attacks became like martial cantrips. You start with 1d8 and it adds another die at level 5, 11 and 17. It is no worse abstraction than the large dice upfront and doesn't step on the Master Archer because it is one shot per round. You can make an Athos or Porthos who excels at the sword and still will fire their musket occasionally.

Thaaaaat... is actually a really cool concept for single-shot weapons that keeps their comparative lethality high as you level up while still holding things to your 5e action economy. That could probably work really nicely for a lot of campaigns!

 

[Fenris-77]

Citing academic articles about modern weaponry is apparently fine for someone else, but me mentioning larger caliber modern weapons isn't? Maybe pick one and we'll roll with it.

 

[Ixal]

1) Bayonets were invented to turn a gun into a Spear. Full stop. They might have had slow reload speeds back then, but as you noted you could just draw a sidearm and fight with that, rather than make your gun into a spear. It worked for archers for centuries to carry a side-sword. So why make a gun into a spear with a side-piece attachment that takes a few moments to put onto it rather than -just- carrying a different weapon that can be drawn easier? Because if you do not turn the gun into a spear the gun is a club.

2) I did not say "A Benefit". I said "The Benefit". Singular. The only important thing. All weapons are made to swiftly dispatch your enemies. THE benefit of ranged weapons is to do it while the enemy is far enough a way to not do it to you first.

Drawing a side arm didn't really work for archers. Especially as the main threat for them comes from cavalry and a sidearm is rather bad when fighting against them.
Thats why you had mixed spear and ranged troops for centuries and in the times before that stationed them way behind and hoped that your cavalry can keep their cavalry away.
The invention of the bayonet, especially the ring bayonet, meant you could do away with the troops stationed there for protection and have more guns instead.