Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ledded" data-source="post: 1429367" data-attributes="member: 12744">I see.&nbsp; You are trying to compensate for d20's inability to deal with penetration in any shape or form by upping the damage.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Well, I agree with your statements in principle, i.e. most people shot with smaller caliber weapons do not immediately 'die' on the spot, I still disagree with your damage ratings vs. melee weapons for it.&nbsp; If it works for you, that's great, but I think you should apply the same scale to many of your melee weapons (which is more my point).&nbsp; Data like you are collecting can be collected for 'short swords' and a variety of historical weapons, albeit with more difficulty.&nbsp; Basically, I'm not so much disagreeing with you on the actual damage as much as how it is scaled against most melee weapons.&nbsp; Plus the fact that other than reducing someone to below 0, most d20 games have little in the way for accounting for bleeding wounds, shock, or mental reactions to being hit with gunfire;&nbsp; often later bleeding, infection, improper care, or just shock on the scene will cause a gunshot victim's death moreso than the direct effects of the actual-on-the-spot gunshot.&nbsp; These arent modelled in d20 very well, and probably shouldnt be unless you really want that level of complexity.&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, this is true to a great extent, but I would take a look into more real-life resources on this subject like ballistic gelatin tests, etc for establishing variance between energy transfer, penetration, wound channel distribution, and the various other factors that can be measured instead of just relying on a gaming source (that is, if you havent already).&nbsp; Still, for gaming purposes, the aforementioned methods are sufficient for most folks, and while I may disagree somewhat it still sounds like you've done some actual homework, so I'll agree to disagree with you <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> &nbsp;&nbsp;Sorry there <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> , I was just joking as I mistakenly assumed you had scaled most of your handguns to the d20 Modern model, which you probably have not considering your stats for the .44.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ledded, post: 1429367, member: 12744"] I see. You are trying to compensate for d20's inability to deal with penetration in any shape or form by upping the damage. Well, I agree with your statements in principle, i.e. most people shot with smaller caliber weapons do not immediately 'die' on the spot, I still disagree with your damage ratings vs. melee weapons for it. If it works for you, that's great, but I think you should apply the same scale to many of your melee weapons (which is more my point). Data like you are collecting can be collected for 'short swords' and a variety of historical weapons, albeit with more difficulty. Basically, I'm not so much disagreeing with you on the actual damage as much as how it is scaled against most melee weapons. Plus the fact that other than reducing someone to below 0, most d20 games have little in the way for accounting for bleeding wounds, shock, or mental reactions to being hit with gunfire; often later bleeding, infection, improper care, or just shock on the scene will cause a gunshot victim's death moreso than the direct effects of the actual-on-the-spot gunshot. These arent modelled in d20 very well, and probably shouldnt be unless you really want that level of complexity. Yes, this is true to a great extent, but I would take a look into more real-life resources on this subject like ballistic gelatin tests, etc for establishing variance between energy transfer, penetration, wound channel distribution, and the various other factors that can be measured instead of just relying on a gaming source (that is, if you havent already). Still, for gaming purposes, the aforementioned methods are sufficient for most folks, and while I may disagree somewhat it still sounds like you've done some actual homework, so I'll agree to disagree with you :D Sorry there :) , I was just joking as I mistakenly assumed you had scaled most of your handguns to the d20 Modern model, which you probably have not considering your stats for the .44. [/QUOTE]

Verification