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

[Ovinomancer]

Per the OP, the reason you might consider having guns do more damage is that they are flat out more lethal than any muscle powered weapon you'd like to consider. The examples of the lethality of swords in the OP, for instance, rely on the target being entirely passive so that the attacker can wind up their attack perfectly. This wind up, though, would leave an actual combatant in a fight vulnerable. Like a haymaker punch, if it lands, it's bad, but it's hard to land such a blow against a ready and reasonably capable foe. The counterpoint to the sword attacks claimed in the OP is putting the muzzle of the gun to the base of the skull behind the ear, with a slight upward angle, and pulling the trigger. The damage in perfect, non-combat situation is roughly equivalent -- the target dies.

In combat, though, where you're attacking a person that's trying to not get hit and do you harm, you're much more likely to survive a sword or knife blow than a gunshot. There's a lot of evidence for this, in that even in the rarer attacks with knives or swords, people rarely die, whereas guns routinely kill at a much higher percentage. If you assume that you're facing an opponent that is actively trying to not get hit, but you have landed a blow anyway, the odds that the blow is lethal with a sword is much lower than the odds of a lethal blow with a firearm, even a flintlock one.

Does this mean you need to make firearms do more damage in D&D? No. Of course not. It's a game, and you should choose an option that makes the game best for your table. However, citing anything real world for the argument that swords do as much damage as a gun is silly -- there's tons of real world examples that showcase the opposite. Heck, the normal result for being shot in a limb with a flintlock, if your survived, was to lose the limb. This isn't the case with a sword, where that was a possibility, yes, but not the normal expectation. The musketballs traveled at enough speed that impact and subsequent hydrostatic shock shattered bones and liquified muscles, connective tissues, and blood vessels. Sword might sever muscle and break bones, yes, but angle of attack could very easily protect arteries, so a blow from a sword to the arm would be unlikely to cause arterial damage. This is critically important because you can heal a broken arm and severed muscles with bloodflow to the area. It wasn't until modern medicine and the ability to repair damaged arteries that gunshots became less lethal, and we live in that world. It's hard to intuitively grasp what combat with firearms was actually like when the opponent was likely to be armed with a sword -- it was horrible and brutal and getting shot was maiming if not lethal. And all of that makes for a very specific kind of game appeal, so it's usually elided and you get a d8 for a flintlock pistol in 5e.

 

[Fenris-77]

I didn't bring up muzzle velocity to be difficult, just to try and get a sense of what people are going for in terms of firearms damage and design impetus. A lot of people design firearms rules mostly in relation to the existing weapon rules and not as much as a strict representation of historical firearms. It can be done both ways, but they are very different projects.

In terms of adding firearms to the existing D&D weapon list, the trick is far more about how to make them even peripherally desirable as an individual weapon load out. From a functionality standpoint, assuming they are both options, there's no particular reason to pick a musket over a longbow or crossbow for a given PC. An easy design option there is to increase the damage to offset some kind of loading rule and call it a day. Essentially guns as embiggened crossbows where there's at least some differentiation from other ranged weapons. Not very historical, but it gets the job done.

Designing black powder weapons as the core weapon set for a D&D game, when you're assuming that bows are no longer a common weapon, nor are halberds and spears common infantry weapons, is a much different beast. More interesting too IMO, although I'm happy to have basic black powder in my fantasy games.

 

[Steampunkette]

Good grief, no. The spear was the premiere weapon for general troops throughout history. It's versatile, easy to use/train, and effective. Spears have a longer reach than side blades and work in formations (which are critical if you're being charged, especially by cavalry). When they used to station guards with archers, they didn't arm the guards with side swords, they armed them with spears. Giving your ranged troops a spear lets them double as light foot when needed -- meaning you get effective melee troops that can also deliver a devastating volley of fire.

Also, you're back of the napkin guesstimate for flintlock muzzle velocity isn't controlling, especially when @Doug McCrae provided actual research references that list a flintlock pistol at 385 m/s.

"Period Accurate Study" equals "Back of the napkin guesstimate" I guess... Sure. Maybe also look into the study McCrae posted. In which they used a variety of firearms from the 1500s onward (Good choice, honestly) using Modern Grade Gunpowder... Therein lies the problem. Here, I'll give you the specific quote from the research paper:

All shots were fired with weighed charges of standardized modern gunpowder. The powder used was hunter's black powder "Kôln-Rottweil Nr. 0" grain 0.3-0.6 mm.

1988 standardized gunpowder has minimal impurities compared to more contemporary gunpowder for the time period. And a -far- more precise balance of chemical components than what were being produced in the 1500s to 1800s.

The Side-swords (and other various weapons) were for the Archers, not their guards. Because once the spears are down, or melee is joined in general, the bow is no longer useful.

I'm absolutely FLOORED that this is a point of contention for this thread.

No, the order was "If the pike men fall surrender or run", but that wasn't really needed, the archers did that on their own.
Also, they were not given their weapons, over most part of history they had to bring them themselves.

You also fall into the trap of thinking that the sword is a good weapon. Especially against cavalry, the main danger for archers as they can otherwise simply run, a spear is a thousand times more valuable than a sword.

The sword is a good weapon. Not great against cavalry, obviously. But there's a reason nearly every culture in the world has some variation of "Small handle, long blade!" to go along with their "Long stick, small blade!"

And yeah. It wasn't great against Cavalry. Which is why there were spear-men on hand in formation trying to protect the archers against charges. And also defensive stakes, as previously noted.

And while I'd absolutely agree that at the Battle of Hastings it was a "Bring your own weapon" affair with the bowmen largely poor commonfolk bringing their own bows from home that had been used for hunting. They also often wore nothing but light cloth and generally no pants so they could run faster... At Agincourt the bowmen are armored. Meaning someone paid to put them in metal. Meaning someone wanted that money back. Meaning "Surrender so they take your armor" is much less reasonable.

I didn't bring up muzzle velocity to be difficult, just to try and get a sense of what people are going for in terms of firearms damage and design impetus. A lot of people design firearms rules mostly in relation to the existing weapon rules and not as much as a strict representation of historical firearms. It can be done both ways, but they are very different projects.

In terms of adding firearms to the existing D&D weapon list, the trick is far more about how to make them even peripherally desirable as an individual weapon load out. From a functionality standpoint, assuming they are both options, there's no particular reason to pick a musket over a longbow or crossbow for a given PC. An easy design option there is to increase the damage to offset some kind of loading rule and call it a day. Essentially guns as embiggened crossbows where there's at least some differentiation from other ranged weapons. Not very historical, but it gets the job done.

Designing black powder weapons as the core weapon set for a D&D game, when you're assuming that bows are no longer a common weapon, nor are halberds and spears common infantry weapons, is a much different beast. More interesting too IMO, although I'm happy to have basic black powder in my fantasy games.

Oh, I didn't think you did. It's cool.

My big thing on having guns included is the idea that guns are largely held by the wealthy and the unique, rather than being common. A society in which industrialization of the gunmaking process isn't done for REASONS. And instead they're largely seen as an alternative, but not a replacement, for other weaponry.

Especially in a world where Dragons and Mindflayers and such still exist.

Less a "Core Weapon" of the setting and the battlefield more a "Narrative Alternative" for players.

Besides. When you've got a College of War Mages (My setting has 4 of those) cantrip-combat is at least as effective, if not moreso, than firearms.

 

[Ixal]

In terms of adding firearms to the existing D&D weapon list, the trick is far more about how to make them even peripherally desirable as an individual weapon load out. From a functionality standpoint, assuming they are both options, there's no particular reason to pick a musket over a longbow or crossbow for a given PC. An easy design option there is to increase the damage to offset some kind of loading rule and call it a day. Essentially guns as embiggened crossbows where there's at least some differentiation from other ranged weapons. Not very historical, but it gets the job done.

For long periods of time the longbow was the better weapon than a firearm. There is a reason Benjamin Franklin suggested longbows for the revolutionary army instead of muskets.

The problem is that D&D is heavy melee centric. All the advantages firearms over bows do not apply to adventurers (harder to use) or are not simulated at all (ammo cost and carrying capacity, exhaustion). And both firearms and bows suffer from D&Ds hit point inflation which removes the primary benefit of ranged weapons and have every archer fight like movie Legolas in close combat as there is zero chance to kill anything before it reaches you.
And while (some) people can accept ridiculous fighting scenes like Legolas imagening that someone who uses muzzle loaders does the same gets even harder,

 

[Sithlord]

So my question is when u fire a 50 calibre with hellfire modifications how much damage does it do if the fire is from the third plane of hell. Now I’m certain some pits are different than other. But just a generalization of the third level would be nice. We don’t have a portal to the other levels yet.

 

[Steampunkette]

So my question is when u fire a 50 calibre with hellfire modifications how much damage does it do if the fire is from the third plane of hell. Now I’m certain some pits are different than other. But just a generalization of the third level would be nice. We don’t have a portal to the other levels yet.

I would imagine "Not much" since Minauros is a Poison Hellscape rather than a Burning Hellscape.

.... I'll see myself out. >.>

 

[Ovinomancer]

"Period Accurate Study" equals "Back of the napkin guesstimate" I guess... Sure. Maybe also look into the study McCrae posted. In which they used a variety of firearms from the 1500s onward (Good choice, honestly) using Modern Grade Gunpowder... Therein lies the problem. Here, I'll give you the specific quote from the research paper:

Let's be clear. You took a "period accurate study" value for a flintlock rifle, and then made some assumptions about what a flintlock pistol would be like and came up with your number. That doesn't, at all, bring the imprimatur of "period accurate" to your hasty assumption and quick math.

The only actually quoted period accurate study in the thread has a value for various flintlocks that align with your source AND a value for a flintlock pistol listed at 385 m/s. If you want to claim studies as support for your position, why are you relying on your assumption and extra step math rather than actual study data if not because your number supports your argument while the other does not?

1988 standardized gunpowder has minimal impurities compared to more contemporary gunpowder for the time period. And a -far- more precise balance of chemical components than what were being produced in the 1500s to 1800s.

The Side-swords (and other various weapons) were for the Archers, not their guards. Because once the spears are down, or melee is joined in general, the bow is no longer useful.

Archers were not issued these. Any side weapons an archer had were brought from home, which made it rather unlikely to be a sword, despite the fanciful artistic depiction of archers at Agincourt. Archers got bows, if lucky (many had to bring their own -- look up how conscription armies worked in feudal times). If an army actually had good archers, they protected them. The reason the archers were on their own at Agincourt was that the English could not provide the manpower to protect them, instead needing every man to stand against the vastly more numerous (and better equipped) French army. The actually winner at Agincourt was French hubris and mud.

I'm absolutely FLOORED that this is a point of contention for this thread.

The sword is a good weapon. Not great against cavalry, obviously. But there's a reason nearly every culture in the world has some variation of "Small handle, long blade!" to go along with their "Long stick, small blade!"

And yeah. It wasn't great against Cavalry. Which is why there were spear-men on hand in formation trying to protect the archers against charges. And also defensive stakes, as previously noted.

And while I'd absolutely agree that at the Battle of Hastings it was a "Bring your own weapon" affair with the bowmen largely poor commonfolk bringing their own bows from home that had been used for hunting. They also often wore nothing but light cloth and generally no pants so they could run faster... At Agincourt the bowmen are armored. Meaning someone paid to put them in metal. Meaning someone wanted that money back. Meaning "Surrender so they take your armor" is much less reasonable.

What's your source on this? Everything I've seen on the archers at Agincourt suggests they were pretty typical for their time period, which means many probably had a metal helmet of some kind (usually just a cap) and most probably wore a quilted gambeson, but the odds of even brigandine were very low and probably rare amongst them. Quite likely a number of them didn't even have armor at all. They most certainly clad in mail or plate -- outside perhaps Henry's personal archers (which he had).

Oh, I didn't think you did. It's cool.

My big thing on having guns included is the idea that guns are largely held by the wealthy and the unique, rather than being common. A society in which industrialization of the gunmaking process isn't done for REASONS. And instead they're largely seen as an alternative, but not a replacement, for other weaponry.

Especially in a world where Dragons and Mindflayers and such still exist.

Less a "Core Weapon" of the setting and the battlefield more a "Narrative Alternative" for players.

Besides. When you've got a College of War Mages (My setting has 4 of those) cantrip-combat is at least as effective, if not moreso, than firearms.

You should look at the rates of production of mail and arms during the late medieval/early renaissance. This most definitely wasn't at all industrialized nor did it look like production line manufacturing, but a few large forges were able to turn out staggering amounts of armor for foot -- such that large armies could be clad in steel relatively easily. Now, this was foot armor, mostly -- the proofed armors for nobles that could take a musketball to the breastplate at a reasonable range was still very expensive and time consuming to make. But the amount of armor and weapons and early firearms that were actually produced using distinctly non-modern approaches is still staggering. It's easy to assume that older peoples weren't as industrious as they were because we can do the same much easier and cheaper, but this is a mistake. Just look at the building projects people undertook with bronze as the best tools! What forges were able to actually make was far greater than any assumption that you have a master smith at the village forge turning out a masterpiece while the apprentices make a few horseshoes.

 

[Fenris-77]

The reasons to equip infantry with muskets instead of longbows is much the same as the rationale for crossbows - they both require significantly less training then the longbow. That doesn't apply to individual adventurers at all however, so yeah, up to a point, I also tend to treat firearms as a narrative thing.

 

[Steampunkette]

Let's be clear. You took a "period accurate study" value for a flintlock rifle, and then made some assumptions about what a flintlock pistol would be like and came up with your number. That doesn't, at all, bring the imprimatur of "period accurate" to your hasty assumption and quick math.

The only actually quoted period accurate study in the thread has a value for various flintlocks that align with your source AND a value for a flintlock pistol listed at 385 m/s. If you want to claim studies as support for your position, why are you relying on your assumption and extra step math rather than actual study data if not because your number supports your argument while the other does not?

Archers were not issued these. Any side weapons an archer had were brought from home, which made it rather unlikely to be a sword, despite the fanciful artistic depiction of archers at Agincourt. Archers got bows, if lucky (many had to bring their own -- look up how conscription armies worked in feudal times). If an army actually had good archers, they protected them. The reason the archers were on their own at Agincourt was that the English could not provide the manpower to protect them, instead needing every man to stand against the vastly more numerous (and better equipped) French army. The actually winner at Agincourt was French hubris and mud.



What's your source on this? Everything I've seen on the archers at Agincourt suggests they were pretty typical for their time period, which means many probably had a metal helmet of some kind (usually just a cap) and most probably wore a quilted gambeson, but the odds of even brigandine were very low and probably rare amongst them. Quite likely a number of them didn't even have armor at all. They most certainly clad in mail or plate -- outside perhaps Henry's personal archers (which he had).

You should look at the rates of production of mail and arms during the late medieval/early renaissance. This most definitely wasn't at all industrialized nor did it look like production line manufacturing, but a few large forges were able to turn out staggering amounts of armor for foot -- such that large armies could be clad in steel relatively easily. Now, this was foot armor, mostly -- the proofed armors for nobles that could take a musketball to the breastplate at a reasonable range was still very expensive and time consuming to make. But the amount of armor and weapons and early firearms that were actually produced using distinctly non-modern approaches is still staggering. It's easy to assume that older peoples weren't as industrious as they were because we can do the same much easier and cheaper, but this is a mistake. Just look at the building projects people undertook with bronze as the best tools! What forges were able to actually make was far greater than any assumption that you have a master smith at the village forge turning out a masterpiece while the apprentices make a few horseshoes.

Yeah... No. I had the 414m/s information and then was keyed in to the 253m/s by a friend looking for the same material, a fact which I posted in this thread before revising the values using the online calculators to handle the math. Cool, though, that you skimmed the thread.

And I'll notice that the problem I raised, and have continued to raise, with McCrae's study, is the gunpowder. Which you've ignored, again, and declared the 385m/s more accurate than the period-appropriate test. That's cooool... It's almost like you're not actually reading what I'm typing and just responding off the cuff.

"Pretty Typical". At Hastings in 1066 Archers were poor farmer conscripts. By 1415's Agincourt they were -paid- 6 pennies per day. 9 pounds a year. Not enough to get themselves helmets in short order much less the Maille and Coifs they're clearly wearing in the 15th century artwork I previously provided. Look a bit closer.

Spoiler: Repost of Art

By the 16th Century Artistic License had definitely crept in. Here's the Archers wearing Plate. No Side-Swords, though.

And yes. There -had- to be some sort of large forgeworks to supply these armies with all the mail and metal they are shown to wear. I'm not remotely disputing that. I'm only saying that it still cost enough money and that the 6p per day archers probably wouldn't have been able to afford it on their own. So the "Bring your own gear" thing was pretty accurate at Hastings, but vastly less so at Agincourt.

The reasons to equip infantry with muskets instead of longbows is much the same as the rationale for crossbows - they both require significantly less training then the longbow. That doesn't apply to individual adventurers at all however, so yeah, up to a point, I also tend to treat firearms as a narrative thing.

It's definitely a thing. To get into the deeper REASONS that I previously noted?

In the Ashen Lands settings Sorcerer-Kings have held power for thousands of years. Bloodlines ordained by the Gods, as well as Dragons and other Entities, have ruled over different parts of the world through their magical primacy. Wizards became a thing as people studied the Sorcerers and learned how to interact with Arcane Magic.

But those Sorcerer-Kings wanted to retain power, and since Magic was the core of their power, they did their best to control how it was disseminated through control of Colleges and Academies of Magic to ensure only the wealthy, connected, or noble would have access to that power. In this world, anyone smart enough to read the texts or learn the gestures and funny words can perform magic. So this was the only way to contain it.

Though the Sorcerer-Kings have been deposed at this point, for the -most- part, the nobility is still doing it's best to control power that might wind up in the hands of the People and allow them to upend society into a more democratic situation. So to retain power they're using the Magic Schools and such to ensure their superiority over the common man. So Guns, and to a lesser extent crossbows, are kind of a big deal since a minimally trained force armed with enough of either could revolt successfully, even against the Warmages.

But they also haven't gotten to a point where they need armies of the hundreds or even tens of thousands, due to the preponderance of Adventurers to handle problems like Dragons or fight small proxy-wars that have much less collateral damage.

So for now, mass production of such weapons just isn't a thing, yet.

 

[Fenris-77]

The setting in question, as in your example, is at least as important as the actual firearms rules being used, perhaps more important. It needs to make sense, whatever that looks like for the setting. I'd look at that before the actual rules. In a setting like the one you describe, I'd be fine pumping up the power of firearms based on their scarcity and to highlight why they are restricted the way they are. If, for example, they just did the same d8 as longbows but with crappier range and reloading, there's not much obvious reason to restrict them, narratively speaking. If firearms are rare, and produced mainly for the nobility, I can treating them as master crafted items somehow, perhaps bordering on minor magic items, at least in terms of impact or by comparison to the humble bow.

However, in a fully Black Powder fantasy game, I'd approach it much differently. Guns are common and there's a huge range of quality.