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

[jasper]

Why musket balls? Why muskets? The DMG just gives damage and range. Why not mime ball? Why not square bullets? Tulip shaped bullets? Little tiny katana bullets? bulette bullets? ETC?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Sigh, you're arguing about game rules again, which I've expressly said shouldn't be based on anything like realism at all. Pick a die, that one works. In real life, bullets are more likely to kill you when they hit than a sword is. This isn't something that a game like 5e handles well at all, though, so I have no idea why people keep making arguments for game rules as if it does.

Yeah, you're definitely not reading my comments... because I agree! It's not possible to reformate guns to makes sense in 5E without reorganizing attack roles and damage for other weapons (which won't happen).

Anyway, I completely disagree with you that guns are not easier to use than a bow and arrow, or a crossbow... of course they are. Anyone can pick up a gun and kill someone (happens every day by accident and on purpose), it's pretty hard for a complete novice to kill someone with a bow and arrow. This is why armies gradually shifted from bowmen to crossbowmen, then to riflemen. Every army requires training, but the amount of training necessary for well-trained ranged troops went down dramatically.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's also potentially lost almost all of it's momentum, not hitting a vital spot and so on.

Sometimes one bullet will kill you, sometimes a couple dozen will not. The real question is, what's fun for the game?

And one bullet only kills a person in the minority of cases, to boot!

Even when victims do buy the farm, bleeding out kills more of them than the actual wound, ie they die of lack of medical treatment, and thus would have died from a sword wound to the same place.

I mean the stats on gun violence are very counterintuitive in terms of lethality vs unjury.

 

[Fenris-77]

Modern stats on gun violence and mortality are pretty useless for the topic at hand, no offense to anyone in particular.

 

[Oofta]

Modern stats on gun violence and mortality are pretty useless for the topic at hand, no offense to anyone in particular.

Death from stab wounds today is also irrelevant because 99% of stab wounds are going to be from knives, not swords.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, you're definitely not reading my comments... because I agree! It's not possible to reformate guns to makes sense in 5E without reorganizing attack roles and damage for other weapons (which won't happen).

Then why are you making arguments about minimum and maximum damage on dice and comparing swords and firearms this way? I mean, if you agree it's all arbitrary and being unrealistic is best for the game, why even make those kinds of arguments?

Anyway, I completely disagree with you that guns are not easier to use than a bow and arrow, or a crossbow... of course they are. Anyone can pick up a gun and kill someone (happens every day by accident and on purpose), it's pretty hard for a complete novice to kill someone with a bow and arrow. This is why armies gradually shifted from bowmen to crossbowmen, then to riflemen. Every army requires training, but the amount of training necessary for well-trained ranged troops went down dramatically.

You're disagreeing with a ghost, not me. Guns are clearly easier to use than bows. However, easier to learn to use doesn't mean more accurate. You were claiming that speed to proficiency is the same as being more accurate, and that I disagreed with -- it's actually challenging to hit a target trying to not get hit AND kill you. I don't at all disagree that guns are easier to learn.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Modern stats on gun violence and mortality are pretty useless for the topic at hand, no offense to anyone in particular.

They really aren't, or, more likely, actually show better how lethal guns are. This is because if you get to a trauma center with your heart beating, you're more likely to live. This should be pretty even if everything else is equal -- if swords cause wounds of similar severity to guns, then this should be level. But it's not -- no where close. .

 

[Fenris-77]

They really aren't, or, more likely, actually show better how lethal guns are. This is because if you get to a trauma center with your heart beating, you're more likely to live. This should be pretty even if everything else is equal -- if swords cause wounds of similar severity to guns, then this should be level. But it's not -- no where close. .

What I meant is that they aren't useful in terms of discussing how mortal black powder wounds would be. That wasn't a comment about swords at all btw, which pretty plainly don't do the same kind of mortal damage based on historical evidence, at least not to armoured targets. That said, you'd be amazed at the number of medieval war dead that are missing hands and arms. That's down to swords and whatnot.

 

[wellis]

Honestly, it's possible that one could up the damage of blackpowder firearms or something, having them be balanced by issues like keeping the powder dry, and the difficulty it takes to reload powder, wad, and ball.

You have one shot, and after that, unless you have the time or speed to do a reload, best to use it as a club.

And in the case of pistols, just have multiple pistols loaded so you're ready for action.

Of course this is probably all at earlier levels. By later levels, I suspect a lot of weapons just aren't damaging enough to players generally unless magical or enhanced in some manner.

 

[Fenris-77]

The reload rule is probably key. If you want differentiation, up the damage, and maybe the crit range, but push the reload time to start and maybe up the fumble range as well. Just my two cents there...

In the case of an entire Black Powder setting, I'd definitely start monkeying around with the above, as well as the crit multiplier. In general, less attacks, but massive damage potential. That seems fun. Also less prone to abuse.