making firearms more deadly (deadlier?)

[GlassJaw]

if you wan to keep the WP/VP system: Use a MDT that when failed converts the WP to VP!

I think you mean VP to WP but I like this idea a lot. Failing a MDS won't instantly drop you but it will represent a definite physical wound. I must ponder this - great idea!

 

[mmadsen]

That's cool if it's what you want for your game, but it doesn't really jibe with reality.

There's a lot about D&D that doesn't jibe with reality. After all, knowing you cannot be killed by a dozen musketballs doesn't jibe with reality.

If we have two armored swordsmen squaring off, AC and hit points seem to work; we have no problem suspending disbelief. The hit points reasonably reflect partial parries, rolling with the blow, etc. Once a fighter's exhausted, the other can land the killing blow.

If we have two southern gentlement squaring off with pistols though, we expect them to either hit or miss, and we expect a hit to have a very high probability of killing a man -- even a "high level" one.

Bullets are not automatically lethal. When a person gets shot, the possible effects range from "nearly nothing" to "instant death."

Very true.

But it's a much cleaner wound than what you'd get from being hacked by a sword or perforated by a crossbow bolt.

Exit wounds are not clean at all. A sword wound can be quite clean, and a shallow sword cut can be quite bloody but easily survivable (which is why the Romans tried to stab for vital organs).

Here's what the famous Martini-Henry .450 rifle did to the Zulus at Rorke's Drift:

“Some of the bullet wounds were very curious. One man’s head was split open as if by an axe. Another had been hit between the eyes, the bullet carrying away the whole of the back of his head, his face was perfect as though it was a mask, only disfigured by a small hole made by the bullet…”​

 

[takyris]

Given that in d20 Modern, at least, an ordinary handgun does base damage equal to a claymore (the greatsword, not the explosive), it seems odd to want them to do more. Most people are about equally afraid of taking a hit from a claymore as they are of being shot by a handgun. If they aren't seeming dangerous enough, that could be an issue with flavor text -- you're describing 11 points of damage from a greatsword as a graze, but 11 points of damage from a gun is a shot to the shoulder, which should feel like more.

If you want to make them more dangerous, you could do any of the following:

1) Allow heroes to make more expensive guns that add Dex bonus to damage as well as to hit -- the equivalent of making mighty bows.

2) Make Double-tap a combat maneuver, not a feat (ie, anyone can fire two shots with a semiautomatic weapon, doing an extra die of damage but taking a -2 to hit).

3) Drop the massive damage threshold to 10, as others have noted.

I don't like giving them any other special bonuses, like removing the ability to use your Dex bonus against them and such. You can't dodge bullets, but Dexterity is just as much about getting into the right position and staying moving as it is "reactive leaping". And I don't think that a gunshot should be worse than getting hit with a claymore. The cool thing about guns is not that they do more damage than swords. The cool thing about guns is that you can do about what you do with a sword, except that you can do it from 20 feet away.

 

[Fenris]

Which is why in my upcoming Grim Tales game set in South Africa right after the Zulu Wars, I have the Martini-Henry's pegged at 2d10. Not bad for a breechloader, that ought to pop a few MDTs And they had reliable distance as well, sighted to 1450 yards.

Wait until the PCs run up against Zulus with Martini-Henrys instead of assegais

 

[mmadsen]

Which is why in my upcoming Grim Tales game set in South Africa right after the Zulu Wars, I have the Martini-Henry's pegged at 2d10. Not bad for a breechloader, that ought to pop a few MDTs

You may need to allow a "cleave" effect, if this is true:

Considering bullet weight and velocity, it is probable that many rounds fired from 200 yards or less went through one Zulu Warrior, and possibly onto a next, severely wounding or killing him as well.​

 

[TheAuldGrump]

That's cool if it's what you want for your game, but it doesn't really jibe with reality.

Bullets are not automatically lethal. When a person gets shot, the possible effects range from "nearly nothing" to "instant death." The bullet's speed and force of impact can cause it to pass through a body, or bounce around inside. Sometimes it hits things on the way through, and sometimes it just doesn't.

But it's a much cleaner wound than what you'd get from being hacked by a sword or perforated by a crossbow bolt. The sword will lay you open something fierce (have you really thought about what it would be like to get hacked with a 4-foot long blade?), and the crossbow bolt won't pass through you -- it'll have to be pulled out, causing even more damage and a lot of bleeding.

And in RL a person is more likely to bleed out from a knife wound than a gunshot. Though a gunshot is more likely to do permanent organ damage.

Bullets do not ignore armor. Proofed armor was being made in the 16th - 17th centuries, proofed means that the armor has been tested against firearms, and has a lead splotched dent to prove it.

A compromise is to offer half protection from nonproofed armors, and full to proofed (masterworked) solid armors such as breastplate, half plate. and full plate. Which is what I do. I also grant it for some armors that exist in my world that aren't in the standard D&D rules, Placart was fairly common in the 17th century, which is the period I emulate for my setting.

Specialized ammos for crossbows and composite longbows grant the same armor penetration to those weapons.

The Auld Grump

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I wonder though if it's really needed at all. I mean is there anything about a gun that makes it deadlier than a crossbow or a sword?

Yes, but it isn't:

Does the bullet travel faster than a crossbow bolt?Does it inflict more damage? Is there anything in the "real world" to justify that a firearm would (or should) have a mechanical advantage in-game?

The fact that anyone can pick up a firearm and be deadly proficient with it.

I would recommend two things:

1) First, classify firearms as Ballistic-type damage (alongside Slashing, Piercing, and Bludgeoning). From there, you can start to make all sorts of tweaks, such as:

2) Ballistic damage, like Falling damage, always forces a Massive Damage save.

Personally, I would modify this to say,

3) Any Ballistic attack that does any lethal damage at all forces a Massive Damage save.

But then, I use the far superior Armor as Damage Conversion, while you are still stuck on Armor as Damage Reduction, which requires a LOT more changes to implement.

I am not sure that making firearms super deadly is necessarily going to make for a better game, though. You will end up with a simulation very close to Shadowrun (not altogether a bad thing) where the game devolves into a contest to see (a) who can shoot first and (b) who can not get shot.

But that sort of game invalidates all sorts of otherwise interesting character concepts, because it's just no fun to (a) not shoot first and (b) get shot and killed.

 

[Falkus]

I am not sure that making firearms super deadly is necessarily going to make for a better game, though. You will end up with a simulation very close to Shadowrun (not altogether a bad thing) where the game devolves into a contest to see (a) who can shoot first and (b) who can not get shot.

Or (c), who can make the cybered up troll who shrugs off autocannon rounds to the forehead.

 

[CarlZog]

I am not sure that making firearms super deadly is necessarily going to make for a better game, though. You will end up with a simulation very close to Shadowrun (not altogether a bad thing) where the game devolves into a contest to see (a) who can shoot first and (b) who can not get shot.

But that sort of game invalidates all sorts of otherwise interesting character concepts, because it's just no fun to (a) not shoot first and (b) get shot and killed.

It seems to me one of the goals of making firearms more deadly -- not necessarily "super deadly" -- is to compel a change in tactics in the game. You're right, it's not fun if everybody is too scared to come out of hiding and do anything, but it's also no fun if characters can just charge in blazing with little fear of return fire.

Personally, I'd like to encourage more stealth, speed, and tactical thought -- particularly in modern games.

Carl


Carl

 

[GlassJaw]

Personally, I'd like to encourage more stealth, speed, and tactical thought -- particularly in modern games.

That's exactly the feel that I'm going for. My problem isn't with the firearm damage per se, it's how the players respond to firearms in-game. Even with a MDS, firearms don't instill fear IMO. A knife wound or greatsword to the head is just as deadly but you can run away from those opponents. It's tough to dodge bullets. So sure, the fact that anyone can pick up a gun and inflict damage at range makes guns scary but it's still just that - hit point damage.

The more I mull this over, the more I realize I'm trying to capture the Shadowrun feel with the d20 ruleset. Scary.

Or (c), who can make the cybered up troll who shrugs off autocannon rounds to the
forehead.

Not in SR3.