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

[Steampunkette]

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.

They're scarce in relation to the common people. But not so scarce for Player Characters.

Though having the huge range of quality is a -great- idea, and a way to give players control over their "Magic Items" when it comes to firearms at the very least... After all, guns are recent enough that I'm not going to be dropping them into Dragon Hoards or anything similar. They're not going to be a weapon used -against- the players unless they go up against wealthy folks...

So having better versions or the ability to improve a gun as a downtime activity between adventures could make them significantly more attractive to the nonmagical members of the group who can just pour gold into making them more powerful nonmagically and free up the party's spellcasters to work on other magic weapons.

That is -really- great advice, even if it wasn't intended in that way!

 

[Fenris-77]

They're scarce in relation to the common people. But not so scarce for Player Characters.

Though having the huge range of quality is a -great- idea, and a way to give players control over their "Magic Items" when it comes to firearms at the very least... After all, guns are recent enough that I'm not going to be dropping them into Dragon Hoards or anything similar. They're not going to be a weapon used -against- the players unless they go up against wealthy folks...

So having better versions or the ability to improve a gun as a downtime activity between adventures could make them significantly more attractive to the nonmagical members of the group who can just pour gold into making them more powerful nonmagically and free up the party's spellcasters to work on other magic weapons.

That is -really- great advice, even if it wasn't intended in that way!

It was in part intended that way. Guns are modifiable in ways that swords or the like aren't, so why not lean into that? Players love tinkering with their kit. The real trick will be to find a happy medium where there's enough widgets to be interesting, but not so many as to be boring or over-whelming. I'd probably start with a list of 'common' upgrades that any competent gunsmith can manage (including PCs) and add the rest in (the higher level/more rare ones) organically as story elements. You'd think that master gunsmiths would be very secretive about their craft, tools and ingredients, so the result on the player side might feel more like trying find new spells does for a mage (in a game where your can't just pick whatever spells you like of course). You want to know the secret of Al'hazar's famed long barrel rifles? Go find one or meet the man. That sort of thing. I think has promise as an idea, and is certainly far more interesting than just adding a list of firearms to the PHB.

 

[Sithlord]

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

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

Yes. I am being told I am on the wrong level for hellfire bullets. I was also told to avoid the 8th level. But when I find a hellfire pit, If I can measure the brimstone content that will help. Apparently the higher brimstone content gives a better burn or explosion. Does anyone know how this works and what affect this has on a firearm. Would it work better as a shotgun or muzzle loader. I don’t think it matters as much for pistols because I’m working with such a short ranger. Does anyone have any experience with this. I can’t find a citation on this anywhere.

 

[MGibster]

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.

Mr. Franklin was a lot of things including scientist, philosopher, publisher, musician, humorist, politician, and diplomat. But Mr. Franklin wasn't a soldier. I don't think General Charles Lee took Franklin's suggestion seriously nor do I recall the likes of Washington, von Steuben, Arnold, Gates, or Greene championing the use of the longbow.

 

[Ixal]

Mr. Franklin was a lot of things including scientist, philosopher, publisher, musician, humorist, politician, and diplomat. But Mr. Franklin wasn't a soldier. I don't think General Charles Lee took Franklin's suggestion seriously nor do I recall the likes of Washington, von Steuben, Arnold, Gates, or Greene championing the use of the longbow.

Because on a strategic level it was a very bad idea, especially when you are forming a militia, what the revolutionary army essentially was until the French helped out.
But on the battlefield a longbow was better than a musket in most cases.

 

[Steampunkette]

It was in part intended that way. Guns are modifiable in ways that swords or the like aren't, so why not lean into that? Players love tinkering with their kit. The real trick will be to find a happy medium where there's enough widgets to be interesting, but not so many as to be boring or over-whelming. I'd probably start with a list of 'common' upgrades that any competent gunsmith can manage (including PCs) and add the rest in (the higher level/more rare ones) organically as story elements. You'd think that master gunsmiths would be very secretive about their craft, tools and ingredients, so the result on the player side might feel more like trying find new spells does for a mage (in a game where your can't just pick whatever spells you like of course). You want to know the secret of Al'hazar's famed long barrel rifles? Go find one or meet the man. That sort of thing. I think has promise as an idea, and is certainly far more interesting than just adding a list of firearms to the PHB.

Worth noting, the magic system in the world specifies that some Arcane Magic is external (Wizardry) while some is internal (Sorcery, Magical Creatures). With that already in place, I could go all "Monster Hunter" on it and allow people to do things like having Dragontooth Charms or Pixie-Dust mixed into Gunpowder as a way to add magical qualities to their guns.

A Grip being inlaid with Minotaur Horn, for example, could add a Warlock Invocation Like knockback effect a certain number of times per day.

Suddenly really enjoying a tangible way for players to use a story element I had previously created. And with Heliana’s Guide to Monster Hunting on it's way out, I'll have plenty of resources to dig into!

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

The friend that did the same kind of calculation, and not supported by record? Yes, someone else doing the same thing as you doesn't improve the providence of your claim.

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.

And yet, in that test, the flintlock muskets are producing muzzle velocities in the same range as what you've sited for your study for flintlock muskets. Which means that your assumption that it's the powder making the difference would be incorrect. You can't blame modern black powder for the differences in the pistol when the same is of little difference in the musket.

"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.

Good grief, really? I 100% agree that the archers are wearing mail and coif in the painting, but that doesn't say a thing about what they actually wore, does it? Medieval art was not about accurate historical recreation -- it's primary artistic goal was not authenticity. Pointing to a painting as historical evidence of what archers at Agincourt wore is very much reducing the estimation of the seriousness of your scholarship.

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.

Yet we have documentation of what archers of that period were issued -- a bow, 2 sheaves of arrows, and 2 to 5 bowstrings per campaign. The source for this is royalarmories.org. While, yes, there are no exact records for Henry V's campaign (they are missing after 1410), the difference of 5 years and no evidence otherwise would indicate that it's extremely unlikely that they issued even brigandine to the archers at Agincourt.

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.

Yeah, already said that for the game you can do whatever you want -- it works better to do this. I'm arguing the supposed factual basis you're using for some of your claims. These ring hollow, and they're unneeded to make any point about what firearms should look like in your game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because on a strategic level it was a very bad idea, especially when you are forming a militia, what the revolutionary army essentially was until the French helped out.
But on the battlefield a longbow was better than a musket in most cases.

I find this an odd statement, given that the British Army was throughly modern and volunteer at the start of the war. Granted, they were in much worse shape than in the French and Indian war (or 7 years war), but the point is that in neither the previous large conflict nor in the Revolutionary War did one of the larger and better standing armies of the world deploy archers. Not even in specialized units. They instead had, like pretty much all armies of the time, organized around the musket and bayonet. The idea that longbows were better was academic at that time (and this). Franklin was not immune to silly ideas.

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm not interested in arguing with people who do not argue in good faith. Who start out and continue with insults and condescension, ignoring counter-arguments until explicitly pressed about them and then simply dismiss them out of hand rather than actually attempting to address them.

That's not cool.

 

[Fenris-77]

The issue with longbows isn't the effectiveness of the weapon, but the amount of training necessary. It takes years to train a good longbowman, which is decidedly not the case for crossbows or muskets. Unless you already have a culture of longbow use in enough of the population the effectiveness of the weapon is moot.