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

[Willie the Duck]

And, like most of the other people posting in this thread almost 8 months after it died out, you're ignoring things like... further posts which correct that math.

The point is, and always have been: A sword makes a much bigger hole in the human than a renaissance era pistol ball.

Then insert three or four weeks of people harping on fluid shocks, bullet expansion, velocities, modern deaths by sword and gun attack comparisons, and the occasional "Don't bother discussing it or being curious, it's not simulationist, you fool!"

As nauseum.

I hate thread necromancy so much.

Look, if you don't want to feel beholden to answering for your comments made sometime last year, I totally get that (some other forums don't allow thread necromancy, although I think that's a reaction to botspam more than anything else). You should not feel you have to (and I think everyone would have called out the thread necromancer if they'd expected responses from individuals they quoted a year later). However, if people are insufferable for getting into the weeds/overanalysis/'realism' and insufferable for not doing so, is there just not a right way to engage in forum threads? Should we tell Morrus to just pack the whole thing up and call it a day?

Well, you likewise seem to have missed my point. I also said that guns don't "need" to do more damage than other weapons, but that if they are going to have penalties that comparable weapons (e.g. crossbows) don't have, then based on the design philosophy of D&D they should do more damage. Because D&D doesn't balance around realism, it tries to make all options viable through trade-offs. No always successfully, but that's how it works. So if:
1) Guns have factors that make them more difficult to use than the alternatives (proficiency requirements, cost, weight, rarity, loading time, etc.), and
2) You, the DM, want guns to be a balanced choice,
Then, yes, guns need to do more damage.

I think this certainly does describe how plenty of RPGs do things (D&D/AD&D has kinda been all over the map with this, as sometimes there are 'strictly best' options, depending on the edition).

One particular reason, I feel, is that often the benefits a weapon has IRL are hard to translate into in-game mechanics. Swords in general have an advantage over other weapons in that they are easier to carry as a sidearm while going about life and relatively easy to draw. That's hard to reflect in game (especially if it means creating a carry-burden or quickdraw exclusion rules for non-sword weapons that most groups will end up ignoring as cumbersome and unfun, similar to how many people ignored the WvsAC charts). So instead swords get X, Y, or Z benefit. Un-basket-hilted shorter blades like hangers and messers and fascine knives and other various things probably lumped under short swords have these traits even more than other swords, but that's be doubly hard to represent (maybe polearms and axes have a 4pt inconvenience penalty, swords a 2 pt., and 'shortswords' only 1? Is that fun?). So, instead, shortswords get something like good for tunnel fighting, or easy to use in two-weapon fighting (rapier and dagger would like to have a word...). 5e Halberds get a (with a feat) butt-end strike (which, while not completely implausible or unrepresenting in the fighting treatises, is a strange thing to focus on as a benefit of the weapon) because again, the primary benefits of a halberd are hard to model in a game.

All of this is predicated on the notion that all weapons need to see play. Some could just be worse than others (blowgun often being so in D&D, except I guess to deliver poison without doing a lot of damage), and simply not show up 99% of the time (but then again why waste the page space on the weapon at all in that case?).

 

[Vaalingrade]

And this right here is why I don’t like guns in my D&D games. It takes me out of the fantasy.

That's why I object to humans in my Fantasy.

 

[Weiley31]

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.

Clearly the most deadliest weapon, by far, is the Murder Dagger from the Dragon Age series. That thing has a hella impressive Kill Streak.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Look, if you don't want to feel beholden to answering for your comments made sometime last year, I totally get that (some other forums don't allow thread necromancy, although I think that's a reaction to botspam more than anything else). You should not feel you have to (and I think everyone would have called out the thread necromancer if they'd expected responses from individuals they quoted a year later). However, if people are insufferable for getting into the weeds/overanalysis/'realism' and insufferable for not doing so, is there just not a right way to engage in forum threads? Should we tell Morrus to just pack the whole thing up and call it a day?

Yeah, this.

I thought it was an interesting question, necro’d or otherwise, and wanted to participate. I didn’t think my attempt at contribution was disrespectful, and certainly didn’t intend it to be.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Clearly the most deadliest weapon, by far, is the Murder Dagger from the Dragon Age series. That thing has a hella impressive Kill Streak.

I mean, if we’re talking dangerous, the weapon I really want is a table saw, without any safety guards*, that I can throw at enemies. They won’t be able to hold their swords if they don’t have thumbs.

*and a really long extension cord.

 

[MGibster]

That's why I object to humans in my Fantasy.

Which seems odd given that most fantasy stories are lousy with those hairless apes.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Ya know, according to the martial artists and vets I know, they should have told you the same thing about knives.

It's been years since my knife self-defense classes, but I very clearly remember the first thing they taught us: if you want to fight back against someone with a knife, you WILL get cut, and probably stabbed.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's been years since my knife self-defense classes, but I very clearly remember the first thing they taught us: if you want to fight back against someone with a knife, you WILL get cut, and probably stabbed.

Yes, but better in an arbitrary place than in the place they are trying to cut you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's been years since my knife self-defense classes, but I very clearly remember the first thing they taught us: if you want to fight back against someone with a knife, you WILL get cut, and probably stabbed.

Yep. What I was told was, "In a serious knife fight, everyone bleeds. Don't want to bleed, find a way out of the knife fight. Period."

And unlike with firearms, bumrushing someone from 10ft away doesn't make it hard for them to aim at you before you reach them. Anyone trained to fight will stab you by accident more often than fail to stab you, in that circumstance. But for reasons I am not qualified to confidently speak on, but I know from reading are related to how our perceptions and reactions work, most shots fired at a charging assailant from within about 10-20ft miss.

A swordsman rushes a gunfighter from close range, they're more likely to both need serious medical attention, but ultimately survive, than any other result. Well, assuming either modern or magical medicine, and that neither of them are down to straight murder the disarmed and bleeding guy. With no outside interference at all, it becomes way more likely the both die, one quick and one slow.

All of which is to say, none of the things that make the two types of weapon realistically distinct in this scenario are fun or broad enough to try to satisfyingly model in 5e dnd with any reasonable level of simplicity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Tangentially (and do tangents really matter in a necro thread?) what bothers me in dnd weapons is the trident.

You're never stabbing them with all three points at the same time, with any trident I've ever seen art of in a fantasy property. The middle tine is longer, so...the killing power of a normal strike is the same as a spear.

The actual different is more points to stab with, easier glancing blows, easier locking up of an opponents weapons or limbs, and heavier end (which has benefits and detriments). It's a harder weapon to use well, with some benefits over the simpler weapon of the same length.

Hell, make the outer tines sharp on the sides with a "cut and thrust" shape like early rapiers (ie lethal point and at least serviceable cutting edge), and the added weight becomes nearly all benefit, assuming a reasonable amount of training and practice.