but bullets aren't just piercing weapons they are also designed to flatten out/expand after hitting and gouge out more flesh as they do so. Also it depends on the caliber/size of the bullet which would adjust the potential damage. Musket balls were actually pretty big. and the damage done was probably close to pike damage, they killed many a men with one shot on the battlefield.
One-shot kills have always been, and remain, extremely rare. The majority of
modern gun shot wound victims survive, including the majority of torso shots, and a very large percentage that I can't find ATM but was posted upthread last year when this thread was current, of head shots also survive.
Before modern medicine and ambulances, most gun shot wound victims died hours or days after being shot, from things like infection and sepsis.
incorrect plate armor was made to resist slower arms like arrows and swords and usually wasn't as thick as you might think due to weight. it wasn't like modern day thickness of steel. A bullet due to its velocity to size could usually pierce and kill its occupant much easier than you would think. Hence why armor saw less and less use on the battlefield after firearms became prevalent on the scene.
It seems a bit out of line to make your, what, 2nd post on these forums, a rude reply to a post from last year wherein you make quite clear that you didn't bother reading the thread rather than just the OP and a few more recent posts.
Just a thought.
And breast plates were in common use for quite a long time after guns became commonplace in European armies. For a reason. Maybe read the posts upthread that dig into the actual math and materials science of the topic, in detail.
I just want people to have equally stupid and needlessly realistic arguments about stilettoes, picks, and lances.
Why only just ruin one type of weapon?
Oh come on. The same folks have definitely ruined rapiers, at least.
Using your analysis All weapons should do the same damage, afterall a dagger to your vitals is going to kill you too and a knife slice across your belly is also effective in spilling your intestines
Well, yeah. Using damage die to differentiate weapons has always been extremely abstract.
Clever Nick, just a thought (not rebar, the weapons comment): In my karate class, they taught us how to fight a knife wielder (and a club wielder, which was like 90% the same). When we asked about a gun-wielder, the answer was "Give him what he wants. Unless you're willing to die to prevent losing it (like a loved one). If that's the case..." then showed us how to "win", but with the understanding that we would be shot in the process.
Ya know, according to the martial artists and vets I know, they should have told you the same thing about knives.
Now imagine the knife blade is 3+ feet long and the person wielding it actually knows how to use it.
But "you can win in this scenario, but you will get injured in the process" is entirely within the realm of what dnd characters do every day, so to me this is all a great argument for guns not needing to be outside the power level band of the PHB.
Primary issue with firearms is "ranged weapon", followed by "speed", and "ease of use". Whether in a modern age or a historical one. Throw that into a game system with "HP" and "AC", and no one can agree how to model it!
I mean, heavy crossbows have magical easy reloading in 5e, and it's fine.
Why assume it’s renaissance era? Or that it’s charcoal/sulfur/potassium nitrate propellant? Renaissance craftsmen didn’t have magic, (functioning) alchemy, or imaginary alloys at their disposal.
Look, if you don’t like firearms then give them undesirable stats. If you like them, give them good stats. All these arguments about physics, and what makes a bigger hole, seem to be missing the point of the game.
You seem to have missed the point of the OP.
Guns don't need to do more damage than other weapons. There is just as much argument for the deadlier melee weapons to do more damage, and at the end of the day they all kill you so it's really not that important what the specific numbers are.
Seriously if you're going to quote an OP who has made it clear they don't care to rehash an argument they already had almost a year ago when this thread was posted, at least read a decent amount of it before needlessly quoting them.
whereas swords would still be...swords.
Well, no. Not really.
We literally are better at making swords than pre-modern peoples were. Our steel is vastly better, and we have alloys that are just vastly superior to most steel.
The only real difference is that swords would be improved in ways that aren't really fun to model, or are already assumed as part of the game. That is, they wouldn't break nearly as much, would be vastly more consistent, and would be lighter and better able to hold a very sharp edge through heavy use.
