D&D 5E Why do guns do so much damage?

[Coroc]

The last site I was on suggested that a really good soldier could manage 6 rounds a minute, which is essentially a shot shot per round. Average was closer to three, so every other round. I might even go to a two round reload if I were making the weapon list from scratch, but add in abilities by level to cut that down. In all those cases accuracy was mostly junk past about 100 yards (a very loose and general number). So maybe something like 100/300 with a -3 to hit at long range. Again, abilities could cut that at higher levels.

I'd rather an adventurer have a musket and a brace of pistols than have to faff about trying to make people happy with starting reload times for the long gun.

I got a colleague who did the exercise with historical weapons and he estimated that you could manage do load a musket within 10-15 seconds

 

[Coroc]

So another way we could look at this, in a more dnd context.

Again, dnd heavily simplifies mechanics. We have a 6 second round, and in that round numerous attacks are occurred, which is then simplified due to a single attack with a single damage number.

So we keep comparing what a single bullet wound vs a single sword wound would do, but maybe the better question is:

How much damage would a musket do in 6 seconds vs a longsword in 6 seconds. Aka if we accept that a musket does more damage per shot, but the longsword can get in several swings....would the longsword overtake the gun in damage over the course of several swings?

Your analysis is precise and therefore i give you a like, but the definition of that 6 second round, resulting in a hit or a miss with a sword is, as you stated, an exchange of blows - with the hit being the count for damage (whether it was the one big hit amongst many misses within that 6 seconds or several less impactful hits summarized).

At least that is how i read it somewhere.

 

[Steampunkette]

Do we have an equivalent for swords?

I looked up some youtube videos as far as swords used on ballistics gel. I only found one of note, and the sword did far far less than what the notes above describe, though the person was using the blade 1 handed for the most part. But the video is not exactly scientific.

Ballistics Gel is not a proper testing medium for swords and other edged weapons. It's too soft for that use because it doesn't have the surface tension of human flesh requiring 4lbs per square inch of pressure to break, functions as a primarily stable liquid, and has no resistance whatsoever to draw cuts, which are the appropriate way to inflict damage with a sword, of course. Which is why the above video uses wet newspaper and why I basically never use Skallagrim as a good example of weapon use. He just kinda whacks with his sword. Appropriate for an axe, not for a sword.

Ballistics Gel works for bullets to demonstrate penetration and cavitation because bullets have such a high psi that the skin just doesn't -matter- for any test involving them. It just kind of averages out the density of the human body, rather than displays the exact imparting of force and damage because any testing medium is going to be imperfect until we can just -make- disposable human bodies.

That's why a pig is a better example for the use of edged weapons. Specifically a fairly young pig which has a similar skin thickness to a human being, as opposed to an old boar with a skin thickness that is -massively- higher.

 

[Oofta]

If you've never seen Forged in Fire (was on History channel, most recent season on Netflix), all I can say is I never want to get hit with a sword. Skip ahead to the 5 minute mark to see the equivalent of all the ballistic jell vs bullet videos:

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But what material should be used to accurately model plot armour?

 

[Fenris-77]

But what material should be used to accurately model plot armour?

Cheetos

 

[MGibster]

But what material should be used to accurately model plot armour?

Whatever paper they print scripts on.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The speed isn't important. It's the amount of damage done that matters.

A bullet puts a finger sized hole in your body. A battleaxe will put a hole you can fit your ENTIRE HAND IN.

The speed of the bullet is how it punches that hole in the body, but it's the size of the hole and the amount of damaged material that matters.

That is not a complete understanding of reality. I small object moving very fast can do more damage ( more force) than a large object moving slow

 

[SkidAce]

I enjoy "?" reading about kinetic space weapons.

 

[Flamestrike]

That is not a complete understanding of reality. I small object moving very fast can do more damage ( more force) than a large object moving slow

This has been pointed out to her repeatedly; the amount of energy contained in that bullet (which is transferred to the body via terminal ballistics) doesn't just 'punch a small hole' in someone.

Coupled with the destructive force of a bullet is the incredible ease of hitting a vital organ with one (you point and fire) as opposed to a sword, where the likely outcome of a sword swing is nothing more than a (nasty) defensive wound to your opponent.

Can a sword hack off an arm or a head? Clearly it can (see the above video of falchion v pig). But that's a restrained animal carcass dealt a full wind up 'power' swing with a large heavy sword.

In DnD terms, it's a 'power attack' vs a helpless target (so an automatic critical hit).

Firearms OTOH just hit those vital areas (abdomen, torso and head) reliably without the need for a helpless target.