Horwath
Hero
Logan story short: game designers need a diet heavier in Jet Li and Jackie Chan and lower in Johns Wayne, Woo and Rambo.
Logan story short: game designers need a diet heavier in Jet Li and Jackie Chan and lower in Johns Wayne, Woo and Rambo.
I just want to slightly correct this, as I agree that guns are better at killing, but a major part of this is that guns can be used at range and with accuracy while swords can't. Sure, bows and crossbows exist, but guns require less strength to use and are generally easier to aim with.Guns do more damage than sword as guns ARE BETTER at killing people than swords, that is why we invest so much research in guns last 500 years and not so much in melee weapons.
I found gun damage underwhelming, considering the followingSo a Flintlock Pistol in 5e D&D deals 1d10 damage. A longsword deals 1d8 damage, 1d10 if you hold it with both hands.
But if you've ever seen what a sword can -do- to a human body, you know that the damage difference is incomparable!
Yeah, a bullet can be really effective at killing a person by catastrophically randomizing a narrow line through their body. If you hit something vital, death is assured in fairly short order, and if you don't hit something vital there's a decent shot the person will still bleed out over the course of the next hour or two, depending on their activity during that time and lack of medical care.
If you hit something vital with a sword, your target will -also- die in very short order. But if you don't strike something vital they will STILL DIE IN VERY SHORT ORDER. This is because a Sword catastrophically randomizes a very large area of the human body on each strike. At least when compared to something like a Pistol.
Depending on your ammo type a gun is going to put a fairly small hole in the front of your target and a moderately larger hole out of the back of your target with a relatively straight line between the two. With the appropriate training, a sword will completely eradicate your ability to have intestines that remain both inside your body and intact.
Take a look at this video if you can/care to (TW: Dead Animal, Fake Blood, Violence)
This is a Kilij. Roughly the same shape as a scimitar, it's got a slightly weighted tip to increase percussive force. It would not be out of place in most D&D campaign settings. It cuts -through- that pig on the first strike. And the second. The third sets it spinning and the fourth cuts through, again.
Compare that to a single hole running through your torso.
You could of course argue that that was a fairly small pig and thus the sword could easily pass through it. But upscale that pig and the damage would -still- be significant even if the sword didn't manage to pass through the bones. And all the internal organs in it's very wide, very deep, path would be randomized and compromised.
Now I'm not saying that pistols aren't deadly. They flatly and -absolutely- are deadly. But compared to the damage that a -sword- can do? It's not even in the same ball park. And that's not even getting INTO things like two-handed swords, axes of any variety, or spears...
Now you could argue that they do so much damage because HP is an abstraction and it shows how well they punch through armor... but you still make the same attack roll with the same bonuses and the same AC to overcome. And AC is -itself- an abstraction accounting for both the deflecting and cushioning effects of a piece of armor between you and oncoming metal.
And it only gets worse when you get into Revolvers and Rifles that jump up to the 2d8 and 2d10 damage range.
All things considered... I just feel like guns should do damage in-line with the rest of the weapons available. 1d6 for a pistol, 1d10 for a rifle. Basically a Hand and Heavy Crossbow for all intents and purposes. And then making them repeating weapons or whatever should just increase the number of shots before you have to spend an action reloading. I think the designers, and many players, overwhelmingly inflate just how much damage a gun does to a human being compared to the weapons, and monsters, D&D characters face.
That's my take, anyhow.
that is a problem of trying to balance two systems that essentially cannot be balanced together.I found gun damage underwhelming, considering the following
The gun user gains +1 point of damage in exchange for a more expensive, shorter ranged weapon. A light crossbow +1 is on average the same price and will hit more often at a longer range.
- they have the ammunition and reload properties
- if you are using the Renaissance guns, they are more costly - that pistol costs 10x the price of a light crossbow
- short range - that pistol has about 1/3rd the range of a light crossbow
true, but in the end, only thing that matters, is that it works better.I just want to slightly correct this, as I agree that guns are better at killing, but a major part of this is that guns can be used at range and with accuracy while swords can't. Sure, bows and crossbows exist, but guns require less strength to use and are generally easier to aim with.
If we are speaking of the Renaissance guns (per the OP - flintlock pistol) they do not need to be worse than they are.that is a problem of trying to balance two systems that essentially cannot be balanced together.
For gameplay reasons, swords(melee weapons) need to be too good or guns need to be far worse than they are.
Then why does sneak attack work?Speed absolutely matters. As Bruce Lee said, “Take a piece of lead the size of a rock and throw it at someone. Now take the same piece and shoot it out of a gun.”
The ballistic energy of a bullet is crazy, and if anything, damage is underrated.
the shot on the left is from a .22LR, and the shot on the right is a 9mm, both low energy rounds, and look what they did. A bullet wound is not just a finger wide hole. Imagine what a musket ball does, or a high velocity round like a 5.56 or 7.62 round.
View attachment 137800
Guns didn't end knights by punching through armour. Plate armour was literally "proofed" by firing a close-range pistol shot into it.I think to simulate how gunpowder helped end the era of armored knights in our timeline. Because D&D doesn't use armor as damage resistance, you have to make guns more powerful.
In a different system they would do similar damage but with a higher Armor Piercing rating.
Firstly, I wouldn't bother increasing damage much for a higher-tech firearm. If it actually gets into your body with a high degree of velocity, lead musket balls are as deadly as most bullets of equivalent power. - More modern firearms represent better ranges and rates of fire.I'm bringing this all up because I'm considering using firearms in my campaign setting... but literally just making them into Crossbows for mechanical purposes.
Hand-Crossbow for Pistol. Heavy Crossbow for Rifle. Complete with the Crossbow Expert feat, because I sincerely feel like the amount of damage they do to a person is quite similar.
Plus I love the image of a swashbuckler with rapier and pistol because c'mon... that's -classic-.