D&D 5E (2014) Let's Talk About Guns in 5E

[payn]

If we are talking about pre modern guns, have no problem with those. It's just that they are subpar option. I liked them better in PF1. Damage wise, guns weren't better, but they targeted touch AC and had x4 crit modifier. And even then, it was subpar option. For slightly more money you could get wand of magic missile which has both range and it's autohit.

Modern guns ( as in, guns with cased ammunition, rifling) are different beast all together.

You did not unpack the full power of PF1 firearms then. Routinely, my gunslingers were doing damage that amazed casters. The targeting touch was a huge mistake. The very nature of touch was so casters could hit with magic using their lesser BAB. It basically meant that martials were kings of melee/ranged combat. Giving a full BAB fighter class the ability to target touch, hitting 95% of the time. The damage output of firearms was also truly ridiculous.

 

[Remathilis]

Huh. I wonder if that's why some people grumble about cantrips. It's too much like having arcane casters be gunslingers?

Always available magic was one of the complaints heard. It was not wandslingers per se, but the idea a caster is never out of juice while the archer had finite ammo.

 

[NotAYakk]

Colonial era warfare was generally, up until quite late stages, a matter of larger European armies defeating smaller armies possessed by economically weaker polities.

That doesn't match my knowledge.

I could be wrong. The era goes from 15th to 20th century. Lets look at 16th century colonial wars.

Spains conquest of Aztecs does not match your description.
Portugal/Malay wars: 1515 battle had 100 portugese and 500 locals defeat a fleet of 80+ ships, each with 100+ people on board.
1524 16000 Malay besieged 200 and couldn't take the fort.
1525 2 carracks and 80 invaders defeated 2000+ soldiers and 160 ships (each with 100+ crew)

Like maybe the European reports are lies. But 1500 shouldn't be "quite late stages". Mobile cannon on warships is an insane weapon, and that plus even a small number of firearm troops seems to be able to regularly defeat 10x or more enemy locals.

 

[AlViking]

What makes you believe that they are "artificially" "frozen"?
It is unknown whether most D&D worlds have reached the level of metallurgy that allows casting or boring firearms to be manufactured cheaply. Why do you feel that D&D worlds being at this level of technology is "artificial" compared to a different level of advancement?


Usually with a loud "Clang!" . . .

The PHB does address how D&D firearms impact armour: They have a chance of bypassing armour completely based on the attack roll. Given that even heavy cloth was able to stop the more advanced Napoleonic muskets, and shields were still used effectively against firearms, why do you think that they would do so differently from any other attack?


I mean the belief that bullets are "near instant-fatality machines" is just as hollywood-driven as people being able to shrug off wounds for a while, if not more so.

Dustin Theoharis was shot 16 times by police in 2012 and miraculously survived. Which is pretty amazing because it was all direct hits, which isn't necessarily what getting "hit" in D&D. On the other hand plenty of people die from a single bullet, it just depends on where you're hit and how it bounces around in the body.

Hollywood has led us to believe a lot of myths. That there is such a thing as a "mere flesh wound" that's something other than a graze, if the bullet goes all the way through it's not really that bad, that getting shot in the shoulder typically just requires a bandage. One of my favorites is that once you get the bullet out, pretty much all damage is healed - in reality they often leave the bullet because it's been sterilized by the heat of firing and removing it often causes more damage than just leaving it alone.

As far as lethality, getting your head chopped off by a greataxe is going to be as lethal as anything. PCs can survive multiple "hits" because they know how to deflect, interpose a shield or dodge out of the way. The hill giant's club doesn't hit them full force, the PCs avoid most of the damage by turning the hits into glancing blows until they don't. That and add in a heavy dose of action movie hero logic.

 

[AlViking]

That doesn't match my knowledge.

I could be wrong. The era goes from 15th to 20th century. Lets look at 16th century colonial wars.

Spains conquest of Aztecs does not match your description.
Portugal/Malay wars: 1515 battle had 100 portugese and 500 locals defeat a fleet of 80+ ships, each with 100+ people on board.
1524 16000 Malay besieged 200 and couldn't take the fort.
1525 2 carracks and 80 invaders defeated 2000+ soldiers and 160 ships (each with 100+ crew)

Like maybe the European reports are lies. But 1500 shouldn't be "quite late stages". Mobile cannon on warships is an insane weapon, and that plus even a small number of firearm troops seems to be able to regularly defeat 10x or more enemy locals.

The Aztecs were armed with stone age weaponry and armor with light armor suited to the tropics. The conquistadors had iron weapons and armor and only a few few firearms. More detail at How did the Spaniards conquer the Americas so easily? Military, Technological, Religious, and Political Factors

Spoiler: Details on the weapons and armor or the Conquistadors

... Among the technological reasons for this was the fact that Spanish conquerors possessed iron armour and weapons.

The Americans, in contrast, used copper and other softer metals – the Peruvians used a brilliant mix of gold and copper called champi. Further, Spanish swords, lances, crossbows and – although few – firearms proved to be considerably superior to the macanas (sharp, obsidian-edged clubs), spears, lances, bows, darts and slings of the Aztecs and the clubs, bows, axes, slings and javelins of the Incas.

For protection, Mexican warriors wore a strong garment that was made of quilted cotton: the ixcahuipiles. Although suited to the tropical climate (indeed, some Spaniards preferred it to their own armour), Lynch points out that the ixcuhuipiles was vastly inferior to Spanish armour in the degree of protection it provided. Similarly, the Incas used woollen or quilted cotton with wooden helmets, which, although protecting against some missiles, were far easier to penetrate than Spanish armour. Lynch and White contend that, coupled with their superior armour, Spanish swords provided the backbone of both Pizzaro’s and Cortès’s campaign arsenals.

On horseback, Spanish soldiers also used the lance to great effect. Although this is only one consideration among many, iron weaponry and superior arms undoubtedly benefited the Spanish conquerors.

As far as the Portugal/Malay wars the reference I found Melaka Falls to the Portuguese | History | Research Starters | EBSCO Research doesn't exactly match your narrative. What it says is that "The Portuguese did not have the war-waging equipment the Melakans possessed, but the once-proud, well-run government that had brought Melaka to its enviable position in the fifteenth century had given way to the perfidious rule of a despotic sultan." It doesn't make it sound like military technology was the deciding factor. As part of the article, there was a later conflict when the Portuguese were attacked by elephants, it was stabbing the elephants with lances that saved the day for them, not muskets. If you have a reference that provides more details please provide it.

In the Portuguese/Malaysian war what I see is ousting an unpopular ruler with the help of locals, followed by mixed of successes in the ongoing campaign.

In neither case do I see evidence that firearms alone were a deciding factor.