Guns in D&D - A Hot Take

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sure, officers were issued pistols, but, rank and file weren't often. They were using rifles and other long guns. And always did. I'm really not sure why you would think that pistols were more commonly used. Than shotguns? Sure. They didn't issue shotguns. But, if you were pulling out your pistol in a fight, the poop had already massively hit the windmill.

I'm going to stand by my statement that in the wild west, you'd see far, far more shotguns being used than pistols. But, pistols, like the sword before it, has the air of romance about it that makes it seem so common.

I think that you two may be talking at cross purposes. You're talking military, whereas I think Sacrosanct is talking civilian Wild West.
Pistols aren't generally a military weapon. They were issued to officers for self-defence purposes - echoes of the days when a soldiers weapon was designed to threaten the enemy but an officer's weapon was designed to threaten their soldiers.

However pistols are much more a civilian weapon than shotguns. Rifles may have actually seen more actual use, but for hunting, whereas pistols were carried to use against other people. And few sources record data on how many rabbits were shot compared to gunshot wounds on people treated by doctors. Or morticians.

Certainly in America, guns in general and pistols in particular do seem to have a definite air of romance around them.

You can keep thinking that, but you’re wrong. Our targets on the pistol range for qualification in the military were 25 meters away, and you had to have your shot group in a tight center mass grouping circle to qualify. So I have no idea where you’re getting your 20m figure from. Making it up, I’m guessing. Even your own citation gives a six in grouping at 50 yards.

No, 20m sounds pretty high for the effective range of an early revolver in the middle of a firefight, particularly when used by a civilian with possibly no training.

I'm sure that you were able to achieve a higher theoretical range with a modern pistol in ideal surroundings against a stationary target that gave you time to aim. But that is not what Hussar was talking about.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Nope, the effective range for a 19th century popular revolver was much greater than 20m. His own citation he gave mentions a six inch shot group at 50 yards. It’s also a flaw to think those older revolvers were much less accurate than modern firearms once smokeless powder and metal cartridges were around. In some cases, they are more accurate because a huge factor to accuracy is barrel length, and a Colt Peacemaker is much more accurate than my issued Beretta 92F when I was in the military.

Shotguns were extremely popular among regular homesteaders because they could only afford one gun in many cases, and the shotgun was versatile. But when you’re talking about combat (both the military and gun fights), pistols were used way more frequently. Historical fact. For many reasons. So that original claim that shotguns were used way more than pistols is simply not true.

And quite frankly, I would much rather have a Navy Colt over a double barrel shotgun unless I was in a room when the fighting starts. You’ve got two shots with a shotgun, and won’t do any damage to a target past a couple dozen meters. You’ve got six shots with greater accuracy and more stopping power at range with a colt Navy revolver. I’m here to tell you from experience, when fighting starts, you want as many shots as possible.

Shotguns? Great for interior fighting and trench warfare out to 25m (once you get pump action and can load more than two rounds)

Pistols? Great for up to 50m, Fire more rounds, easy reload, easy to carry

Carbines? Great for 35-100m

Long Rifles? great for 50+m

Even if you ignore my rather extensive training and usage of firearms, historical records back this up.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Additionally, between the Navy Colt and single action army Colt (Peacemaker), over a half a million firearms were produced, most of those ending up in the civilian market. And Harrington & Richardson sold over a million revolvers in the 19th century.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I dare to bet we will the influence of last generation of videogames in the future pencil-and-dices RPGs, and the gunners will be an example of this. Haven you seen the gunner from the game "Lost Ark"? You can get a idea about this.

Other reason to not use firearms is they are too noisy for adventures in enemy zones where you don't want to be discovered. A shot and you are listened in a mile. And with a trained dog could follow you with the smell of the gunpowder.

What if an artificer gnome in Ravenloft wants to craft modern weapons from d20 Past? Some Game Masters could curse nPCs with therianthropic bulletproof traits.

 

[Celebrim]

Pistols: Not currently a military weapon but their origins are in a military weapons, specifically as weapons for cavalry and naval personnel during boarding actions. The pistols designed as military weapons are generally much larger and longer barreled than those that are used for personnel protection (such as which are issued to officers or carried by civilians). Many of the early Naval and Cavalry pistols had more kinetic energy than any pistol up until the Magnum loads of the mid 20th century. I've heard of skilled pistol wielders hitting targets reliably at up to 70m, but under 20m is more realistic and in the midst of a running fight the historical evidence is that even that distance can prove difficult. They are still plenty capable of killing someone with an unlucky shot at much further out than you are likely to be able to successfully aim.

Shotguns: Origins of the weapon is as a 'fowling piece' for hunting bird. Characteristics of the weapon are not what is generally portrayed in Hollywood or in some games. It is not an area of effect weapon, and it's not particularly good for 'clearing a room'. Depending on the choke, at 15 yards the spread might just be 4" in diameter, and on my relatively unchocked double barrel the buckshot spread at 40 yards was just under two feet. Rather than simulating them as area of effect weapons for clearing out areas, it's probably more realistic to simulate them as having a bonus to accuracy in close quarters. The shotgun gets some minor use as a military weapon. In WWI the USA issued pump action shotguns with bayonet lugs to its assault troops for use in close quarters trench fighting, since they could be fired more rapidly and handled more readily than battle rifles in close quarters. (Semiautomatic rifles at the time were very unreliable.) They were so feared by German troops that it prompted Germany to demand the weapon be considered an illegal weapon of war (this, while Germany was using chlorine gas). They still get some use as breaching tool for opening doors and the like, but have largely been superceded by submachine guns and assault rifles as close quarters military weapons.

Wild West: The most common weapon was neither the pistol nor the shotgun. It was the carbine - a comparatively short rifle designed to shoot a pistol cartridge. The iconic example is the Winchester model 1873, which was commonly chambered either for the .32-30 or .38-40 - two of the most common pistol rounds of the day. They were more accurate and powerful than pistols, and since they used the same ammunition as your 'six shooter' you only had to carry one kind.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Nope, the effective range for a 19th century popular revolver was much greater than 20m. His own citation he gave mentions a six inch shot group at 50 yards. It’s also a flaw to think those older revolvers were much less accurate than modern firearms once smokeless powder and metal cartridges were around. In some cases, they are more accurate because a huge factor to accuracy is barrel length, and a Colt Peacemaker is much more accurate than my issued Beretta 92F when I was in the military.

I think its likely that the shot grouping at 50 yards that they are talking about is under ideal conditions such as shooting at a target whist aiming, rather than an effective range in a firefight. The fact that the bullets retain killing power over much longer distances doesn't change the fact that trying to hit an actively avoiding target whilst on the run, on horseback, ducking behind cover, or otherwise actively trying to avoid getting shot yourself reduces the effective range of a pistol to considerably less than the theoretical maximum.

I'm not saying that you personally wouldn't be reliably disabling a human at 50m with a pistol in the middle of a running battle. But for the average person, who may or may not have had military training and is likely panicking a little about being at real risk of death if they stand still long enough to take good aim, I'm still going to go with the 20m effective range.

 

[Draegn]

Curious, for those who know more about firearms, how would you represent the special ammunition that are available for shotguns? Such as the dragon breath rounds.

I can imagine sneaky goblins using illusion to appear as dragonborn, firing dragon breath from shotguns at a group of humans. They leave one or two survivors who tell the tale of being attacked by dragonborn. If a war starts they then clean up after both sides expend themselves.

 

[CleverNickName]

In real life, statistics show that roughly 1 in 3 victims die from a single gunshot wound, 2/3 survive assuming they get immediate medical attention.

The average person in D&D is modeled by the Level 1 Commoner

A Level 1 Commoner has 4hp

Therefore, the bullet must average 1/3rd of hits at 4+ dmg, and 2/3rd of hits at 3 or less dmg.

Therefore the correct damage for a bullet from a modern firearm is 1d3+1.

If we only look at real-life statistics, and we assume all people are statistically equal to a 4hp commoner, then no weapon in the game should ever deal more than 4 points of damage (when the probability of death is 1). Right?

I guess another way of looking at it is, a human commoner can have up to 10 hit points, with 4 being the average. It's extremely rare, but possible, for a level 1 commoner to have 11 hit points (16 Con and max hp). Could the one-third of gunshot survivors be the rare one-third of humanity that has above-average hit points and/or above-average Constitution? If so, the base damage should be 2d4 or maybe 1d8, instead of 1d4+1.

Unless a weapon were capable of killing more than one person in a single strike--say, a grenade or grenade equivalent (fireball spell, thunderwave, etc.) And here in the real world we also have elephants and moose and other things that are bigger and tougher than humans, and we have modified weapons with which to hunt them (an elephant gun would have to deal 76 points of damage!), but that's another topic.

Sorry, I love statistics and I eat this stuff up. I agree with the original post, however: firearm damage should not be crazy, and I've seen stuff online where the damage for a firearm is absurdly high, like 3d6 and so forth. And that's just nuts.

 

[Satyrn]

Curious, for those who know more about firearms, how would you represent the special ammunition that are available for shotguns? Such as the dragon breath rounds.

I can imagine sneaky goblins using illusion to appear as dragonborn, firing dragon breath from shotguns at a group of humans. They leave one or two survivors who tell the tale of being attacked by dragonborn. If a war starts they then clean up after both sides expend themselves.

I'd probably just convert the damage from piercing into fire.

Although in my game, if you want a gun that deals fire damage, you want one made by Maliwan, and he didn't make shotguns.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think its likely that the shot grouping at 50 yards that they are talking about is under ideal conditions such as shooting at a target whist aiming, rather than an effective range in a firefight. The fact that the bullets retain killing power over much longer distances doesn't change the fact that trying to hit an actively avoiding target whilst on the run, on horseback, ducking behind cover, or otherwise actively trying to avoid getting shot yourself reduces the effective range of a pistol to considerably less than the theoretical maximum.

I'm not saying that you personally wouldn't be reliably disabling a human at 50m with a pistol in the middle of a running battle. But for the average person, who may or may not have had military training and is likely panicking a little about being at real risk of death if they stand still long enough to take good aim, I'm still going to go with the 20m effective range.

We we talk about maximum effective ranges, we're already considering those factors in combat. The maximum effective range of an M16A2 is about 300m. That doesn't mean that's as far as the bullet will be deadly, that means that the maximum range a decent shooter can effectively hit someone. Besides, the same rules apply to every ranged weapon. Why are you penalizing pistols when the same factors apply to carbines, rifles, bows, crossbows, throwing daggers, slings, etc? The heat of combat is the heat of combat, and you either aim, or you spray and pray. If you're going to put pistols at 20m effective range, you better put rifles at 50m, long bows at 35m, etc.

This is a 25m shot group from a decent (not super expert) shooter.