Gun balance - Page 3 - Myth-Weavers

Notices


GM Workshop

A community-created and maintained place for Game Masters of all systems to bounce ideas around. It's a place for inspiration and sharing tips.


Gun balance

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avianmosquito View Post
This isn't about D&D, this is about games in general.
Oh yeah. Well, I think that even makes what I said more apt.
The kind of person interested in manipulating or outright creating a game is probably the same person who'd care about the details?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOasysMaster View Post
Oh yeah. Well, I think that even makes what I said more apt.
The kind of person interested in manipulating or outright creating a game is probably the same person who'd care about the details?
Well, I should hope, you know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avianmosquito View Post
No it won't. Gunshot wounds, especially from modern firearms, are relatively small and deal almost no structural damage, these wounds are seldom capable of physically stopping a target on the first attempt. Unless the weapon is extremely large, the shot is unusually precise or the target stops themselves in response to their injury (in which case it's likely any significant injury will do), a gunshot wound will only stop something the size of a human being after multiple attempts or several minutes of bleeding.

Gunshots have the greatest stopping power when striking bones and stiff organs (such as the kidneys, liver and brain). In the former case it's fairly random whether they break it or bounce off and in the latter case it's because the shock of a high-velocity impact (which does very little to soft tissue, despite how impressive the "temporary wound cavity" looks in depictions) causes a large amount of tearing and ruptures blood vessels throughout the stiffer organs.

Meanwhile, sword wounds are massive and in the case of slashes deal extremely severe structural damage. Swords easily sever limbs, something only the largest of firearms is capable of doing, and when striking the torso tend to cut deeply enough to reach vital organs and major blood vessels in addition to severing entire systems of muscles. Even these wounds do not *reliably* stop a target, but they do a lot more than a hole through them would.

And if you want to improve lethality (at the expense of stopping power), you can always thrust with a sword, which leaves a larger and deadlier wound than a bullet does. It has less of a shock to it, sure, it's less likely to break bones on its way through and it doesn't get bonus damage from the impact when striking stiff organs, but it's still extremely lethal to have a sword-sized hole through your vital organs.

The advantage to firearms is not damage. It never was, and it never will be. The advantage of firearms is range, accuracy and ease of use. For modern firearms, rate of fire as well. These make them far better weapons, and make their lack of damage a minor issue in most circumstances.
Hmmm, I think armour complicates this analysis, but in terms of the base damage you have a good point. Less damage but more penetration makes sense then. For DnD its complicated any-ways by AC representing either armor or evasiveness, so a higher damage output in a gun could simply be representing the accuracy.

Perhaps even more variable damage would make sense. So while a greatsword might be 2d6, and gun could be 1d12. So can do more damage, but is less reliable in doing so.

I think realism in a HP based RPG is difficult anyways, as you are inherently making them super human as you level up. Most systems I play where guns are involved are wound based systems or non-scaling HP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avianmosquito View Post
I've yet to see a single tabletop game that managed to have firearms in it without them either being massively underpowered, massively overpowered, or at least having that be the common consensus in the community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avianmosquito View Post
They have to. If melee weapons exist in a sci-fi setting as anything but a backup weapon, they need some explanation as to why. And if it's going to be anything other than a knife or a bayonet they seem to think it can't just be a backup weapon. (Nevermind that swords in particular were already a backup weapon, even in the medieval period, so clearly yes they friggin' can be.) And they also can't just be better because A: That makes no sense at all, and B: If they were, everybody would use them.
I believe you've answered your own question:
If your own point of departure is "firearms have to be so much more powerful than melee weapons that the latter are relegated to being strictly a backup", then of course you're going to wind up with firearms that are massively overpowered compared to melee weapons - if that's not the case, there's no reason for melee weapons to be a backup weapon.


As a side note: if swords were a backup weapon in the medieval period, what was a primary weapon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikul View Post
I believe you've answered your own question:
If your own point of departure is "firearms have to be so much more powerful than melee weapons that the latter are relegated to being strictly a backup", then of course you're going to wind up with firearms that are massively overpowered compared to melee weapons - if that's not the case, there's no reason for melee weapons to be a backup weapon.
That is absolutely not at all what I said in the slightest. I don't have the foggiest notion how you got that out of what I wrote.

Quote:
As a side note: if swords were a backup weapon in the medieval period, what was a primary weapon?
Polearms and missile weapons. There were a few circumstances where swords were used as a primary weapon, but always with a shield, and even then spears tended to be the first choice. (The zweihander is the only exception to that, as a sword used by itself as a primary weapon, for its one niche role for a brief period in history.)

On the penetration being a factor, I recall that in GURPS that the damage for penetration attacks was lower, but the damage done to the body was increased by the fact it was penetrating. So while cutting had a higher damage increase, which at high levels of strength it did outpace guns, but the damage the gun/bow/xbow did was more, efficient, I guess I am saying. Especially if it damaged a vital organ. If you just stabbed/shot their foot, then they probably live, especially with medical care, but can't walk again, or for awhile, unless magic was used, depending on the level of medical care available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avianmosquito View Post
That is absolutely not at all what I said in the slightest. I don't have the foggiest notion how you got that out of what I wrote.
I must've misunderstood something.
Were you not saying that unless a sci-fi setting has some sort of specific explanation, melee weapons should take the role of a backup weapon?
Or are you expecting melee weapons to take that role of a backup weapons while being of comparable mechanical power? If so, why would they?







 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Last Database Backup 2018-05-20 09:00:12am local time
Myth-Weavers Status