Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 7803757" data-attributes="member: 15700">Couple things. A 7.62 IS a .308 for all intents an purposes, just like a .223 is a 5.56. I’m being pedantic, I know lolAlso, a .308 isn’t more damaging than a sword, or axe, or mace. As Morrus was inferring, and I was also saying, there are a lot of factors. Location being one of them. A sword can take your head off (or another limb). A .308 can shatter bones and cause a wound channel bad enough you might as well have had your head decapitated, but it isn’t more damaging. The armor thing certainly is a worthy topic, and one we’ve all had. With that, I’d say because we already ignore how a bodkin arrow or spear or thrusting sword make mail armor obsolete, (we still give the target full AC value), then it’s not unfair to do the same with firearms. Well, in 1e Gygax accounted for it, but we quickly found out how most gamers ignored that chart. Therefore, it’s fair to assume players shouldn’t get caught up with firearms either if they want to be consistent. And if you do want to account for it, just give a bonus to hit against armored targets. For you last question, it’s because you need way less training with a firearm, and you have a much greater effective range. That’s said, when I was in the military in the 90s, we were still very much trained in hand to hand combat with things like bayonets because you run out of ammo</blockquote>