Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8589181" data-attributes="member: 6704184">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.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.Oh come on. The same folks have definitely ruined rapiers, at least.Well, yeah. Using damage die to differentiate weapons has always been extremely abstract.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.I mean, heavy crossbows have magical easy reloading in 5e, and it's fine.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification