D&D 5E Firearms help needed please

[robus]

If you're going to make firearms deal the same damage as archaic weapons, why even have firearms at all? That kind of defeats the point doesn't it?

This is exactly why I want them in my Curse of Innistrad campaign. I want the PCs to be able to blow away some baddies before having to resort to other weapons to finish things off. Guns have a big punch but then cost resources to use again (and do come with some risk as you say). Just like in the Napoleonic wars, the fighters lead with their pistols/carbines and then switched to swords when they no longer have time/safety to reload.

 

[Satyrn]

No, the protagonists in movies survive because they have the most powerful magical armor of all. Plot armor.

Aye. Hit Points.

 

[Ancalagon]

The point that he's missing, or is too stubborn to acknowledge, is how firearms factor into a game with such an abstract damage and wound system. With HP, there's a fairly plausible narrative to someone "hitting" someone with 6 sword attacks but not killing him. Glancing blows and superficial cuts rule the day here -- all wounds that don't cause people to wonder how they are still alive after the fact (not strictly realistic, but *plausible*).

Firearms change that dynamic because there's no good way to narrate how a bullet wound doesn't result in massive damage or death within a few rounds. You can't dodge bullets and any "superficial" gunshot wound is the result of pure and insane luck that might be seen once in a doctors' career. ANY hit with a bullet is potentially fatal, and most result in a bleed out time or collapsed lung of about 20 seconds. At one point he even mentioned how swords often result in severed hands and stuff, but without also recognizing that the body can actually control the bleeding in sudden amputations much more effectively (through muscle contractions) than something that just clips an artery.

Basically, there's very little room within the HP mechanics to represent multiple gunshot wounds because multiple gunshot wounds can't be narrated the same way as superficial cuts and some arrows sticking out of a person. As a result, firearms have to "do more damage" within the HP mechanics to compensate.

I think you have a point, but you are perhaps pushing it too much. Survival rate for single shot by firearm are around 70%, and most pistol are incapable of causing hydrostatic shock (high velocity riffles though, other story!). However, survival rate does drop dramatically for multi-hit firearm wounds, in the 30-40% range (more shots means more bleeding and more chance of hitting a critical spot).

I would posit however that there is going to be a *lot* of missed shots. It's hard to hit a moving target, esp one shooting back. That is the best avenue for a solution to the narrative problem you mention.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't see the problem with guns having insane damage compared to a bow. They DO have insane damage compared to a bow. An entire Seal team can be taken out with surprise and four well placed bullets. Wielded by children, if they're trained well enough.

Yeah, but in D&D terms, the "arrow to the eye" requires a crit or a rogue or someone with the sharpshooter feat. Or opponents with very few hit points.

So does the "bullet to the eye". In D&D terms.

The point that he's missing, or is too stubborn to acknowledge, is how firearms factor into a game with such an abstract damage and wound system. With HP, there's a fairly plausible narrative to someone "hitting" someone with 6 sword attacks but not killing him. Glancing blows and superficial cuts rule the day here -- all wounds that don't cause people to wonder how they are still alive after the fact (not strictly realistic, but *plausible*).

I think the point that you're . . . not getting, is that firearms attacks can be incorporated into such an abstract system. There is a fairly plausible narrative to someone "hitting" someone with 6 pistol shots but not killing them.

Firearms change that dynamic because there's no good way to narrate how a bullet wound doesn't result in massive damage or death within a few rounds.

Sure. A bullet wound from a powerful enough firearm that strikes the head or into a vital area on the body is going to do that.
But assuming that all firearm "hits" in the D&D system are so severe, whilst also maintaining that sword "hits" can strike superficial areas, just cause grazes etc, is a bit of a double standard.
If your group runs with a "HP are meat" basis, and PCs are capable of bouncing axes off their faces with only superficial damage and fighting an orc horde with 20+ arrows embedded in them, absorbing firearm fire probably isn't too much of a stretch.
If your group runs with a "HP aren't meat" and that HP loss from sword "hits" doesn't automatically mean actual wounds, then losing HP from barely-missed or lucky deflections of firearm fire rather than actual wounds are no more of a stretch than crossbow bolts.

This is exactly why I want them in my Curse of Innistrad campaign. I want the PCs to be able to blow away some baddies before having to resort to other weapons to finish things off. Guns have a big punch but then cost resources to use again (and do come with some risk as you say). Just like in the Napoleonic wars, the fighters lead with their pistols/carbines and then switched to swords when they no longer have time/safety to reload.

That works pretty well with firearms of that era, but the OP is talking about modern weapons, with rapid rates of fire and large capacities. D&D already plays rather fast and loose with weapon speeds in terms of bows and crossbows.

Bluntly, if a group is playing in a setting where they are actually using modern military weapons capable of 30+ shots per combat round, they arte going to need some heavy house rules, or a system more suited to those parameters.

 

[Imaculata]

I would presume that HP also represents shots that missed by just a hair, and not just direct wounds. They can represent how your luck is running out.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I would presume that HP also represents shots that missed by just a hair, and not just direct wounds. They can represent how your luck is running out.

Yes. I thought this was a given? Though the 5E PHB simply states they represent how tough the character is in combat and other dangerous situations. I guess what makes someone tough is open for internet beard-scratching. AD&D described them as both representing how much damage and 'a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors.

Back to armor tho - there's this video of some rednecks/fine folks taking shots at a plate helm with 9mm rounds from a handgun- and failing to penetrate. Obviously this is totally sciency though it does (pun incoming) reinforce (pun deployed) the idea that plates of metal are rather nifty at protecting against, if nothing else, small arms fire, at least partially.

Personally I'd be very concerned with the danger of potential ricochets when firing upon folks clad in plates of metal and the like.

 

[Imaculata]

Yes. I thought this was a given? Though the 5E PHB simply states they represent how tough the character is in combat and other dangerous situations. I guess what makes someone tough is open for internet beard-scratching. AD&D described them as both representing how much damage and 'a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors.

Back to armor tho - there's this video of some rednecks/fine folks taking shots at a plate helm with 9mm rounds from a handgun- and failing to penetrate. Obviously this is totally sciency though it does (pun incoming) reinforce (pun deployed) the idea that plates of metal are rather nifty at protecting against, if nothing else, small arms fire, at least partially.

Oh, it would definitely not surprise me if 9mm rounds have difficulty getting through plate mail, since 9mm are designed to penetrate flesh, not metal. But then again, a sword doesn't pierce plate mail either. DnD has never taken these attributes of armor into account, and it doesn't have to. There are other better systems for that, that more accurately simulate the effects of armor.

I think whenever a monster in DnD succeeds in hitting a paladin in full plate with a sword, they are not actually piercing the armor, but they managed to strike a weak spot not covered by the armor. AC makes it more difficult to strike a hit on those few exposed areas. But I suppose you could give whatever narrative explanation to it that you feel fits the bill. I also like the idea that HP represent the number of lucky near misses a person can survive until they take a deadly blow. In regards to Firearms, this could mean that the PC is like John Mclane in Die Hard. Most bullets may miss, but some could have hit, if it weren't for your damn luck. Eventually that damn luck runs out, and you take a nasty wound.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The point that he's missing, or is too stubborn to acknowledge, is how firearms factor into a game with such an abstract damage and wound system. With HP, there's a fairly plausible narrative to someone "hitting" someone with 6 sword attacks but not killing him. Glancing blows and superficial cuts rule the day here -- all wounds that don't cause people to wonder how they are still alive after the fact (not strictly realistic, but *plausible*).

Firearms change that dynamic because there's no good way to narrate how a bullet wound doesn't result in massive damage or death within a few rounds. You can't dodge bullets and any "superficial" gunshot wound is the result of pure and insane luck that might be seen once in a doctors' career. ANY hit with a bullet is potentially fatal, and most result in a bleed out time or collapsed lung of about 20 seconds.

People routinely survive GSWs, if they get fairly prompt medical care - and no, we're not talking a few six-second rounds, we're talking an ambulance to the ER or even hours.

Modern firearms aren't death-rays, that's a reality-isn't-real trope we can blame on westerns and the like, where, paradoxically, having someone decorously drop dead instantly is less damaging to our kiddies than seeing some blood & suffering.

Basically, there's very little room within the HP mechanics to represent multiple gunshot wounds because multiple gunshot wounds can't be narrated the same way as superficial cuts and some arrows sticking out of a person. As a result, firearms have to "do more damage" within the HP mechanics to compensate.

First of all, that's a very bad 'result' - you have a mechanic meant to model the 'plot armor' and general, improbable, survival of heroes in fantasy (or in this case, action) genres in a remotely balanced/playable way, but because you have a failure of immagination, you 'must' just make a certain weapon wildly overpowered?
Secondly, there's no need for hp damage to come only on 'hits' nor for 'hits' to require physical contact. Our Hero's white hat gets shot off, that was some hp damage. The super-spy dives under the spray of machine-gun fire, a little DoaM.

Hps are a surprisingly good little sub-system, if you don't challenge their profound abstraction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

, if a group is playing in a setting where they are actually using modern military weapons capable of 30+ shots per combat round, they arte going to need some heavy house rules.

One I've used is to simply make a full-auto 'spay' like that an AE. Make a DEX save.
Another is push or prone on a miss - imposing the dive for cover bit w/o requiring a reaction.

Another possibility is resolving a burst with a single attack roll. Miss* by a little, do less damage, but with something to spare, inflict more.






*or, if you can't handle that, take an attack bonus, but do reduced damage if you hit due to the bonus.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

I think part of the issue people have is that they are comparing say, D6 handgun damage to D6 short sword. But if you were to tell a person that doesn't know a short sword does D6 damage then they wouldn't have any issues with the D6 damage of a handgun. So the solution can just be to make all the guns damage the same as the old weapons, Short/Long Bows ect. and simply not have the old weapons exist at all, so they cant be compared, so they cant complain.

But if you want to mix and match old/modern/futuristic weapons, and keep it simple, Just have the old weapons like short bow deal damage at Disadvantage. and futuristic weapons get the extra damage, or have them damage at Advantage.