Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lannon" data-source="post: 342302" data-attributes="member: 7171">It simply is not true that a wound caused by a gun is going to be as damaging or less damaging than one created by an arrow or bolt.  The wound channel and damage effects of a firearm are considerable more terrible than those caused by a bow or crossbow.  This is due to the mushrooming effect of the bullet (especially soft lead bullets like those used in the past).  A wound channel for an arrow may look like this.========A wound channel caused by a firearm will show obvious signs of the mushrooming of the missile and may look something like this.====  ====     ====  ========The damage and shock caused by bullet wounds is significantly greater.  Damage listing in the DMG are very very far off what they should be.  Bows are NOT good ranged weapons.  This is why guns eventually replaced them on the battlefield.  The problem with introducing guns or really combat into the core rules system has to do with the way that they handle damage from weapons.  AC and HP make the system unusable for any accurate portrayal of actual physical damage.  After all, how is it that you SHOT a man only to have him still dodge or shrug off your shot because he has hit points left?  More problems arise from the use of AC.  Guns have this affect of partially, under the core D&D rules system, of removing the heroic feel of the system.  It is suited for handling blows that the combatants can see coming not for handling effectively invisible flying missiles with low trajectories.  Lannon</blockquote>

Verification