D&D 5E Why do guns do so much damage?

OK. We know some basic facts about guns:
  • Guns were relatively easy to use. This is very much overrated as a reason for their adoption IMO.
  • Guns were slow. Good Napoleonic infantry might be able to fire four shots a minute but three was more normal and earlier guns took longer.
  • Guns were powerful. There's a reason armour was advertised as being bullet proof. Much sword-stopping armour wasn't (and guns basically turned chain links into ready made shrapnel and wooden shields into flying splinters).
  • Guns have a narrow penetration but cause damage outside that channel. Meanwhile sword thrusts don't cause much damage outside that channel - and sword cuts were a bad plan against armour because you had to cut through so much more metal - which is part of why long curved edges correlate with little armour in a society (other than the cavalry charge version of curved stabby swords working with the momentum of the horse).
  • Guns had a long range and massive amount of accuracy compared to bows with most of the attempts to claim otherwise comparing area fire from bows (aim at 45 degrees into the air and the arrows will land in the rough area if the target unit is big enough) with accurate gunshots.
  • There's a reason that basically every archery culture from the Mongols to the Native Americans switched to guns as the dominant weapon within a single generation when they became available.
  • Two inventions were gamechangers with respect to guns and revolutionised warfare; the bayonet and the breach loader or repeating rifle.
In warfare before the bayonet there was a standard counter to guns - the cavalry charge. You'd wait until the guns had fired, charge from out of their range, and hack them down while they were reloading - and swords were sidearms and not very good protection against armoured horsemen who could kill you with lance or swords. But horses aren't suicidal and won't charge onto close-packed spikes (like spears) so charging spears or pikes from the front is not going to happen. This is why arquebuses and early muskets needed pikes to defend themselves in the pike and shot era (while the muskets could shoot the pikemen on the other side because they moved more slowly). The bayonet changed that, turning the musket into effectively a third rate spear. But a third rate spear can still make a wall of spikes so horses couldn't charge muskets with bayonets either and they didn't need pikes to protect them. Skirmishers were still dead meat against cavalry and close order was needed.

Repeating and muzzle loading rifles on the other hand meant that even if you had fired you could fire again and again before what was left of the cavalry reached you so you didn't need to be shoulder to shoulder to create the unbroken wall of spikes. They were a gamechanger in another way too; in order to reload a muzzle loader you need to stand up to pour the powder down the muzzle of the gun (meaning that you're actually less able to use cover than an archer) while with repeaters and breach loaders you can lie down. And if you can do that accuracy suddenly becomes important because you aren't firing at huge densely packed blocks of troops.

Getting back to it, guns in modern D&D with six second combat rounds are nothing like muskets - and remember that the Three Musketeers were explicitly musketeers but did most of their fighting with swords. No one has time in a melee for a 20 second reload, and the closest to realistic pre-American Civil War guns I've seen in any system was in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay where a couple of characters had a pistol or two or a blunderbuss that they'd fire in the first round of combat as a nasty one shot weapon before drawing their sword. D&D guns if anything don't do enough damage but have reload speeds that put them starkly into the realms of fantasy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Getting back to it, guns in modern D&D with six second combat rounds are nothing like muskets - and remember that the Three Musketeers were explicitly musketeers but did most of their fighting with swords. No one has time in a melee for a 20 second reload, and the closest to realistic pre-American Civil War guns I've seen in any system was in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay where a couple of characters had a pistol or two or a blunderbuss that they'd fire in the first round of combat as a nasty one shot weapon before drawing their sword. D&D guns if anything don't do enough damage but have reload speeds that put them starkly into the realms of fantasy.
I always end up headcanoning the D&D Renaissance firearms as breech loaders for this reason.
 



Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
Statistically, no, they don’t. Not reliably at all. If they did so reliably, the vast majority of gunshot victims would die.
Now, now... As far as we know the vast majority of gunshot victims -do- die, because they don't have access to the medical treatment to keep them alive. We should look at -real- data, rather than our immediate reactions.
More than 32,000 persons die and over 67,000 persons are injured by firearms each year.
Oh. Look. About 1/3rd of all people shot in the US die while the remaining 2/3rds survive. Welp. That settles -that- debate...

Oh. Wait. That's not even the full picture. Of those 32,000 killed by firearms, 24,432 committed suicide by firearm in 2018.

So 7,568 deaths as a result of interpersonal gun use in the US that year. Compared to 67,000 survivors. Yeesh. Suddenly firearms are looking VASTLY less deadly on average.

Huh... I wonder how many bullets it took to get those 7,568 kills. I'm going to bet "Much more than 7,568"
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Now, now... As far as we know the vast majority of gunshot victims -do- die, because they don't have access to the medical treatment to keep them alive. We should look at -real- data, rather than our immediate reactions.

Oh. Look. About 1/3rd of all people shot in the US die while the remaining 2/3rds survive. Welp. That settles -that- debate...

Oh. Wait. That's not even the full picture. Of those 32,000 killed by firearms, 24,432 committed suicide by firearm in 2018.

So 7,568 deaths as a result of interpersonal gun use in the US that year. Compared to 67,000 survivors. Yeesh. Suddenly firearms are looking VASTLY less deadly on average.
Yep. Guns are deadly, mostly because of range and the fact the target can’t do much once they’re targeted, and the fact most people don’t wear body armor, etc. Most hits don’t hit vital organs.

Meanwhile, swords aren’t knives!
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
Yep. Guns are deadly, mostly because of range and the fact the target can’t do much once they’re targeted, and the fact most people don’t wear body armor, etc. Most hits don’t hit vital organs.

Meanwhile, swords aren’t knives!
And are almost never wielded by people D&D would consider "Proficient". Even guys who hold themselves as authorities, like Skallagrim, just kinda "Whack" targets with a sword rather than making any attempt to create a draw cut, even when they -talk- about making draw-cuts and demonstrate it on specific targets (Usually Tatami)
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
And are almost never wielded by people D&D would consider "Proficient". Even guys who hold themselves as authorities, like Skallagrim, just kinda "Whack" targets with a sword rather than making any attempt to create a draw cut, even when they -talk- about making draw-cuts and demonstrate it on specific targets (Usually Tatami)
Yeah it’s very frustrating to watch pop media about swords and see abysmal form in their use.

And the thing is, if someone whacks your forearm with a sword, you’ll recover from that, but you aren’t using that arm in the same fight. So the “nasty defensive wounds” that certain posters want to dismiss are literally wounds that take people out of a fight. Which is what HP is!
 

ECMO3

Hero
. Meanwhile your 20mph feels pretty slow... at only 8m/s.

Still. Even at 8m/s it comes out to 10.9kgm/s. Higher than the Musket Shot. Hrrrmm...
You are correct. Dealing with metric and english units at the same time inverted the conversion from kgs to lbs. A 3lb sword with 300J of energy would be traveling 47mph
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
You are correct. Dealing with metric and english units at the same time inverted the conversion from kgs to lbs. A 3lb sword with 300J of energy would be traveling 47mph
So by the look of it, a sword carries -massively- more momentum than any of the Musket or Pistol bullets we might take a look at.

Even the .69 caliber Brown Bess traveling at a blistering 414m/s (44m/s faster than Wikipedia's speed range for muskets) would only impart 13.248 kg·m/s. That's less than half what the sword imparts at 27.82kg·m/s.

Crazy that the musket would have so much -less- stopping power than the sword. And that's not even dealing with overpenetration and "Wasted" momentum.

And in case anyone thinks 47mph is out of order for a sword swing speed... http://swordstem.com/2018/08/22/how...tting surface of the,at approximately 70 km/h. People already did tests to find it.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top