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

[Tonguez]

Using your analysis All weapons should do the same damage, afterall a dagger to your vitals is going to kill you too and a knife slice across your belly is also effective in spilling your intestines

the issue is the HP abstraction takes in so many different factors thats it leads to Damage escalation of which guns are a prime example.

the trick is making damage reduction and defensive skill more explicit

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Halp! I'm still trying to differentiate all the polearms.
I feel so left behind.

Glave Guisarme Volge? Though I always prefered the Bohemian Ear Spoon.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The weird thing is, if we're going to go by the most deadly thing in pop culture, you'd think the weapon that did the most damage in D&D would be a piece of rebar.

How many characters have we seen over the years done away with via being launched onto a piece of random rebar? I was actively terrified of exposed rebar as a kid because of this.

 

[CleverNickName]

The weird thing is, if we're going to go by the most deadly thing in pop culture, you'd think the weapon that did the most damage in D&D would be a piece of rebar.

How many characters have we seen over the years done away with via being launched onto a piece of random rebar? I was actively terrified of exposed rebar as a kid because of this.

So true. And as a civil engineer who often does construction inspections, I am still terrified of exposed rebar.

 

[rmcoen]

Clever Nick, just a thought (not rebar, the weapons comment): In my karate class, they taught us how to fight a knife wielder (and a club wielder, which was like 90% the same). When we asked about a gun-wielder, the answer was "Give him what he wants. Unless you're willing to die to prevent losing it (like a loved one). If that's the case..." then showed us how to "win", but with the understanding that we would be shot in the process.

Primary issue with firearms is "ranged weapon", followed by "speed", and "ease of use". Whether in a modern age or a historical one. Throw that into a game system with "HP" and "AC", and no one can agree how to model it!

 

[CleverNickName]

Primary issue with firearms is "ranged weapon", followed by "speed", and "ease of use". Whether in a modern age or a historical one. Throw that into a game system with "HP" and "AC", and no one can agree how to model it!

I think it's even simpler than that. A gun will kill you just as dead as an arrow, a knife, or (shudder) piece of exposed rebar will. (Rebar worst of all, since you won't even see it coming.) But for whatever reason(s), people today perceive the gun to be "better." And so to match that perception, they give them more damage, and more range, and more Whatever, so that they will be clearly better than the others.

At the end of the day, both a D&D rifle and a D&D crossbow will put you in the same coffin, and will do it in more or less the same way from the same distance. (I can't remember the last time we had a D&D battle that took place more than 100 feet away.) So I just give them the same stats and move on. A rifle is just a really loud, fiddly, and expensive Heavy Crossbow at my table.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A rifle is just a really loud, fiddly, and expensive Heavy Crossbow at my table.

Caveat: the following argument assumes you want guns in your D&D. I don't.

The "fiddly" part, and maybe even the "expensive" part, is why it should do more damage in D&D, based on the design philosophy of the game. In D&D there is and always has been an attempt (sometimes in vain) to balance weapons and armor with various trade-offs, and if all other things are equal, the weapon with the most damage is the "best" weapon. If a 2H firearm does the same damage as a 2H crossbow, but is more expensive, noisier, and more "fiddly", then it's an objectively bad choice.

TL;DR: D&D is not a simulation.

 

[Cadence]

So, Bows vs. Crossbows vs. early Guns.... Bows are faster. Crossbows and guns are less training, and guns have cheaper ammo?

Longbow was used through the mid-1600s? (wheel-lock was early 1500s, first true flintlock was early 1600s?)

 

[CleverNickName]

Caveat: the following argument assumes you want guns in your D&D. I don't.

The "fiddly" part, and maybe even the "expensive" part, is why it should do more damage in D&D, based on the design philosophy of the game. In D&D there is and always has been an attempt (sometimes in vain) to balance weapons and armor with various trade-offs, and if all other things are equal, the weapon with the most damage is the "best" weapon. If a 2H firearm does the same damage as a 2H crossbow, but is more expensive, noisier, and more "fiddly", then it's an objectively bad choice.

I can take them or leave them, honestly. If the player really needs to have a musket for his character's idiom--maybe they want to be a swashbuckling pirate or a Musketeer--I'll happily reskin a crossbow for them to use. I won't invent an entire new category of weapons.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I can take them or leave them, honestly. If the player really needs to have a musket for his character's idiom--maybe they want to be a swashbuckling pirate or a Musketeer--I'll happily reskin a crossbow for them to use. I won't invent an entire new category of weapons.

Yeah, if it's truly "reskinned" (same cost, same weight, same range, same drawbacks) then the damage should also be the same.