D&D 5E Why do guns do so much damage?

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Countdown to someone replying with some set of homebrew rules for knockouts in 5e, while also praising the system for not including them in the first place.
I’ll be the first to praise 5e for not including one needlessly nitpicky subsystem and edge case rule after another. Absolutely, if you want instant knockouts to be possible, make soemthing up or ask around where people homebrew or talk about 3pp products.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
You know, I've always found it very funny how, as soon as guns are discussed in an RPG context, everybody pulls out the history and science, usually for the purposes of making them less effective. You don't see this sort of thing for swords and bows nearly as often. I think a lot of people just don't like guns in D&D, and the "realism" argument is just an excuse.
It's almost like people seem to think that they're presented as too powerful in the context of the game space compared to the level of power people think they should be... rather than people thinking they're not strong -enough-.

Which seems... accurate to the existence of this thread!

You're right, though. I've never seen anyone post a thread that primitive guns in 5e should do more and/or bigger dice of damage and then roll out the history and science to show that to be the case. It's always comparing guns to "Standard" D&D weapons to bring them more in line.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
A big part of our problem is that when we talk about weapon damage, we talk about fatigue and wearing a combatant down until the one crucial strike that turns their birthdays off-- and whether we're talking blades or bullets, armed combat just doesn't work that way. If a knife fight or a gunfight somehow lasts longer than six seconds... well, there's the shots/strikes that end the fight and there's the shots/strikes that don't matter.

Brain, heart, lungs, spleen, liver, kidneys, spine... those will end the fight immediately, maybe lethally. Major arteries in the shoulder and inner thigh, you're dead within a minute, but you're still fighting that whole time. Bladder, bowel, intestine, those will kill you in three or four days with only a marginal decrease in your ability to sustain a firefight. (I would imagine the pain would be more of a hindrance to melee, but...)

But the defensive wounds you get all up and down your hands and forearms from a prolonged knife fight? They're not what's slowing you down. Long, shallow cuts along the outside of your forearms will never kill you, and they'll only have a serious effect on your ability to keep defending yourself if they catch the tendons in your wrists, or if you're not wearing gloves when the blood starts flowing. It's the effort of defending yourself that wears you down, and from personal experience-- years and years of personal experience-- there isn't that much difference between stiletto fighting and flamberge fighting because they're all wrestling anyway.

If you take one bullet in a vital region, you fall down and stop fighting and probably die. If you take one bullet in a non-vital region, you keep fighting and you go to the ER afterwards and... there really isn't a whole lot of in between as far as gunshot wounds go. If you take thirty bullets in non-vital areas, and nothing touches the birthday control centers, you walk to the trauma surgery yourself and you're home in time to get enough free drinks to offset your hospital bill.

D&D combat most resembles a boxing match, and the reason boxing matches last as long as they do is that the rules don't allow the means to end them faster. You can't land a knockout punch on a well-trained and well-prepared opponent until you've compromised their ability to resist you, until they can't get their hands up or their chin down fast enough to stop you.

Ironically, in the d20 Modern rules, they took the one thing that the D&D combat system actually represented well... and made it use a wholly different subsystem.
Except we're not discussing bringing a knife to a gunfight, but rather a sword. Swords have greater mass than knives, as well as being longer, meaning that the sword will generally strike with much greater force.

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with any real world accounts of anyone trying to block a sword with their arms. Maybe a machete, but I don't consider that an actual sword. It might be effective against an unarmed victim but I certainly wouldn't want to fight someone who had a real weapon made for killing if I were armed only with a machete. That said, I strongly suspect that if you were able to block a blow from a sword, you would probably not be doing so a second time. The arm would likely be disabled and probably gushing significant amounts of blood, meaning the victim might already be dead without fairly immediate medical intervention.

Moreover, I see no reason to assume that a trained swordsman couldn't get through an unarmed victim's guard in order to deal a deadly blow to an organ. I studied martials arts for quite a few years when I was younger, so I can attest that blocking even just a punch or kick from an opponent who was more skilled than myself was no easy feat. While I've obviously never tried to block a sword with my arm, I would imagine that's it's certainly not easier than blocking a punch or a kick.

D&D combat, IMO, less resembles a boxing match and more the type of fights you see on TV or in movies. Generally, no one dies at the beginning of these kinds of fights, unless they're nameless mooks. There's some shooting or clashing of blades to build tension, and eventually someone goes down. I think HP are closer to that than a boxing match.
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
A big part of our problem is that when we talk about weapon damage, we talk about fatigue and wearing a combatant down until the one crucial strike that turns their birthdays off-- and whether we're talking blades or bullets, armed combat just doesn't work that way. If a knife fight or a gunfight somehow lasts longer than six seconds... well, there's the shots/strikes that end the fight and there's the shots/strikes that don't matter.

Brain, heart, lungs, spleen, liver, kidneys, spine... those will end the fight immediately, maybe lethally. Major arteries in the shoulder and inner thigh, you're dead within a minute, but you're still fighting that whole time. Bladder, bowel, intestine, those will kill you in three or four days with only a marginal decrease in your ability to sustain a firefight. (I would imagine the pain would be more of a hindrance to melee, but...)

But the defensive wounds you get all up and down your hands and forearms from a prolonged knife fight? They're not what's slowing you down. Long, shallow cuts along the outside of your forearms will never kill you, and they'll only have a serious effect on your ability to keep defending yourself if they catch the tendons in your wrists, or if you're not wearing gloves when the blood starts flowing. It's the effort of defending yourself that wears you down, and from personal experience-- years and years of personal experience-- there isn't that much difference between stiletto fighting and flamberge fighting because they're all wrestling anyway.

If you take one bullet in a vital region, you fall down and stop fighting and probably die. If you take one bullet in a non-vital region, you keep fighting and you go to the ER afterwards and... there really isn't a whole lot of in between as far as gunshot wounds go. If you take thirty bullets in non-vital areas, and nothing touches the birthday control centers, you walk to the trauma surgery yourself and you're home in time to get enough free drinks to offset your hospital bill.

D&D combat most resembles a boxing match, and the reason boxing matches last as long as they do is that the rules don't allow the means to end them faster. You can't land a knockout punch on a well-trained and well-prepared opponent until you've compromised their ability to resist you, until they can't get their hands up or their chin down fast enough to stop you.

Ironically, in the d20 Modern rules, they took the one thing that the D&D combat system actually represented well... and made it use a wholly different subsystem.

And shields, shields are dramatically and tragically underrated. As long as your enemies are in front of you, a good stout shield is better than head-to-toe maille and gives you the option of trading your arming sword up for nice hammer or axe.
You speak precisely 0 lies.

D&D is pretty much a Boxing match, but @Fanaelialae isn't wrong, either. It's also "Cinematic Combat". Which is why one magic spell that automatically hits it's target isn't a one-shot kill. Or various "Of Death" spells don't immediately unalive people.

Definitely feel like I've made the right choice after reading this. No matter how many non-lethal strikes of a sword or shots from a gun you take, only the lethal ones -really- count unless you just slowly die. And those lethal ones will be lethal whether it's a longsword, a warhammer, or an AK-47.

Also shields -are- criminally underrated... might figure out a thing to do with that. Maybe make them also act as partial cover to a chosen vector each turn? Not sure!
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
You speak precisely 0 lies.

D&D is pretty much a Boxing match, but @Fanaelialae isn't wrong, either. It's also "Cinematic Combat". Which is why one magic spell that automatically hits it's target isn't a one-shot kill. Or various "Of Death" spells don't immediately unalive people.

Definitely feel like I've made the right choice after reading this. No matter how many non-lethal strikes of a sword or shots from a gun you take, only the lethal ones -really- count unless you just slowly die. And those lethal ones will be lethal whether it's a longsword, a warhammer, or an AK-47.

Also shields -are- criminally underrated... might figure out a thing to do with that. Maybe make them also act as partial cover to a chosen vector each turn? Not sure!
I'm actually not sure about shields. They're definitely very useful, but the +2 to AC is actually pretty powerful in a world of bounded accuracy. Not certain they need more.
 

MGibster

Legend
n a section of The Knight and the Blast Furnace (2003), Alan Williams considers some claims made by Humphrey Barwick in his "A brief discourse concerning the force and effect of all manual weapons of fire" (1590). (Barwick is also a reference for Rogers in my previous post.)
Damn, Doug. I feel like you just brutally assaulted us with math!
 


I'm actually not sure about shields. They're definitely very useful, but the +2 to AC is actually pretty powerful in a world of bounded accuracy. Not certain they need more.
+2 AC when stacked with full plate is probably as far as you'd want a shield to grant, yes. (although it still leaves the shield lacking when compared against just simple dealing lots of damage so your opponents get less attacks in the first pace.

However I think they were referring to the way a shield on its own is probably more valuable defensively than any armour up to Breastplate.
Realistically, there should probably be two separate to hit rolls, when attacking someone using a shield, but practically just a separate AC calculation is likely the way forward. Something in the ballpark of 12+Str modifier perhaps.
 

MGibster

Legend
You know, I've always found it very funny how, as soon as guns are discussed in an RPG context, everybody pulls out the history and science, usually for the purposes of making them less effective. You don't see this sort of thing for swords and bows nearly as often. I think a lot of people just don't like guns in D&D, and the "realism" argument is just an excuse.

I don't tend to think of spears, swords, and morning stars as weapons. Okay, perhaps I need to explain that second part. Intellectually, I am aware that swords are weapons and can cause a great deal of harm to someone else. But despite this knowledge, I don't think of swords as weapons. If I saw someone with a sword strapped to their hip in the subway I wouldn't be the least bit worried. Why? Because who the hell is attacked with a sword in the 21st century? (Yeah, it pops up in the news from time-to-time.) If I see a sword for sale I assume it's for decoration or part of a costume.

Guns are a modern reality in that they're currently used by our armed forces, by civilians for hunting, and depending on your location may appear in the news frequently as part of a story involving crime. Guns in D&D take me right out of the fantasy setting. That's just me though. If others want to add guns to their settings that's no skin off my nose.
 

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
I'm actually not sure about shields. They're definitely very useful, but the +2 to AC is actually pretty powerful in a world of bounded accuracy. Not certain they need more.
+2 AC when stacked with full plate is probably as far as you'd want a shield to grant, yes. (although it still leaves the shield lacking when compared against just simple dealing lots of damage so your opponents get less attacks in the first pace.

However I think they were referring to the way a shield on its own is probably more valuable defensively than any armour up to Breastplate.
Realistically, there should probably be two separate to hit rolls, when attacking someone using a shield, but practically just a separate AC calculation is likely the way forward. Something in the ballpark of 12+Str modifier perhaps.
Kind of where I'm going with it...

Half Cover provides not only a +2 AC but also a +2 to Dex Saves. It would also allow a person with a shield to function as half-cover for allies behind their shield's facing.

So it'd still be only a +2 to AC, but it would increase dex saves and be more useful to a group.
 

Remove ads

Top