Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Delvesdeep 02-24-05, 11:43 PM	In the PH they have a section on FireArms in futuristic settings. The damage can get quite substantial more than swords or other weapons. I struggle with this idea. I may be approaching this all wrong but in my mindset a longsword being trust through your stomach would do more damage that a bullet :confused: Instead of increased damage to firearms I believe characters should gain pluses to hit instead to allow for the comparitive simplicity of use and ease at striking an opponent. Similiarly, a crossbow should also have bonuses to hit that exceeds a normal bow considering the ease in which a person can aim and fire such a weapon. Reloading such weapons aside, crossbows and firearms take little training to use compared to a longbow or fighting with a sword in hand to hand combat. So what are your views - Should crossbows and firearms recieve more bonuses to hit rather than just damage? Delvesdeep:b:
Super Chris 02-25-05, 12:12 AM	My first suggestion? Grab d20 Modern. That should have everything you would want for implementing guns and other modern weapons. Furthermore, after reconciling the few differences between d20 Modern and D&D (specifically, massive damage, and feat names and effects) I have had no problem whatsoever using the two systems together in the same game. That being said, the only rule change I have ever made, and will ever make, for the sake of realism involved guns. The worlds best nonmagical platemail isn't going to do anything to stop a bullet, so I ruled that guns hit on a ranged touch attack. Then I reduced the damage dealt by guns by one die so that melee fighters can still hold their own (not a realism, but a balance change to cope with improving the hit rate on guns) and then gave guns very high critical multipliers so they remain quite lethal. I can understand where the writers come from in making guns do 2d whatever damage - while someone swinging a longsword has a higher minimum damage than the person with a gun (since the guy swinging the longsword gets to add his strength bonus to damage), a bullet put in the right place will be at least as lethal as a sword, if not moreso. Also, while anyone can fire a gun, you still need *some* training at least to be able to fire with any degree of accuracy in a fight. So a weapon proficiency feat would definitely be required - hence, the Personal Firearms Proficiency feat in d20 Modern.
SD 02-25-05, 12:35 AM	Reloading such weapons aside, crossbows and firearms take little training to use compared to a longbow or fighting with a sword in hand to hand combat.Correct! Crossbows should require less training than longbows to use efficiently. Luckily, the system has come up with a clever little device to regulate this. Are you familiar with "simple weapons" and "martial weapons"? See, crossbows don't get a bonus to hit for characters proficient (read: trained) in using them, but characters not proficient in them do receive a -4 penalty. Thing is, lots more people get crossbow proficiency than longbow proficiency. I've found a dagger easier to use than a greatsword. Due to this, should everybody worldwide gain a bonus on hitting with daggers?
Nom 02-25-05, 02:54 AM	That being said, the only rule change I have ever made, and will ever make, for the sake of realism involved guns. The worlds best nonmagical platemail isn't going to do anything to stop a bullet, so I ruled that guns hit on a ranged touch attackActually, this is incorrect. A lot of it depends on the energy behind the bullet and how accurately it hits. Someone wearing platemail will survive a glancing blow much better than an unarmoured target. Further, lightweight firearms (eg an air rifle, or a flintlock pistol) will be less effective against platemail than a crossbow or longbow would. You probably haven't heard of Ned Kelly, but he's a very famous bushranger (outlaw / robber) in Australia, who lived in the late 1800's (he was hung in 1880). Ned is most famous for building armour out of ploughs, which rendered he and his gang largely immune to the firearms of the day. He was finally captured after a major shootout at Glenrowan. Surrounded and outnumbered, Ned emerged in his armour and began shooting every cop he saw. The police couldn't penetrate the armour with their guns; they only brought him down when they shot at his unarmoured legs instead. Consider too that a modern flak vest can stop quite high-powered bullets. Admittedly, it's custom designed for that purpose, while plate and mail is more designed to stop melee weapons, but it does show that armour can be quite effective against bullets. If you really want to model this, introduce an "armour piercing" property, which either ignores a certain amount of "armour" AC bonus (eg 2-3 points) or reduces the target's armour and natural armour bonuses by 1/2 or 1/3. Whether it's worth the effort is a different matter.
weasel fierce 02-25-05, 03:02 AM	D20 modern basically treats modern guns as high damage crossbows. Not to be recommended. Crossbows should propably have a hit bonus compared to a bow (archery is fiendishly difficult against a single target, especially sinec most characters ar eunlikely to be "professional" archers). The dagger vs sword analogy is flawed though, since a sword IS easier to hit with, than a dagger, due to greater reach, as well as heavier armour penetration and blunt impact (which in D&D figures into hit rolls, as that roll incorporates the penetration of the targets armour) Thus, a fighter with a dagger must: Defeat the enemy's longer reach without getting clobbered Hit a vulnerable spot as he has virtually no armour penetration and blunt trauma Hit said spot enough to seriously hurt the other guy Withdraw without getting clobbered All of the above being easier with a sword of any decent length.
Welcome 02-25-05, 03:18 AM	Actually, once you get close enough to the opponent, the dagger-wielder has the advantage because the sword-wielder can't hit him effectively (usually you want to strike with the first third of the blade from the tip, which is hard if you're tangoing with a close-up dagger freak). Figure that in in your calculations if you care, I'll just go with the rules. :P
weasel fierce 02-25-05, 03:33 AM	Most long battle sword techniques involve plenty of hilt-smashing, as well as gripping the blade with your (hopefully mailed!) hand to reverse a blow, or parry / smash. of course, there's always an armoured gauntlet to the face, to deter your enemy :) Im not saying there should be a particular difference, since D&D combat is so abstract and generalized, just that daggers are not actually easier to use in a fight, than a sword is. If you really want to get into it, use the AD&D1 rule. Longer weapon strikes first in a charge. Or just make it an initiative bonus or some such
Super Chris 02-25-05, 09:10 AM	Actually, this is incorrect. A lot of it depends on the energy behind the bullet and how accurately it hits. Someone wearing platemail will survive a glancing blow much better than an unarmoured target. Further, lightweight firearms (eg an air rifle, or a flintlock pistol) will be less effective against platemail than a crossbow or longbow would. You probably haven't heard of Ned Kelly, but he's a very famous bushranger (outlaw / robber) in Australia, who lived in the late 1800's (he was hung in 1880). Ned is most famous for building armour out of ploughs, which rendered he and his gang largely immune to the firearms of the day. He was finally captured after a major shootout at Glenrowan. Surrounded and outnumbered, Ned emerged in his armour and began shooting every cop he saw. The police couldn't penetrate the armour with their guns; they only brought him down when they shot at his unarmoured legs instead. Consider too that a modern flak vest can stop quite high-powered bullets. Admittedly, it's custom designed for that purpose, while plate and mail is more designed to stop melee weapons, but it does show that armour can be quite effective against bullets. If you really want to model this, introduce an "armour piercing" property, which either ignores a certain amount of "armour" AC bonus (eg 2-3 points) or reduces the target's armour and natural armour bonuses by 1/2 or 1/3. Whether it's worth the effort is a different matter. I'll grant that my knowledge of this is limited to only some reading I did as a teenager, but the impression I was given was that the worlds best armors were doing nothing to stop bullets for centuries after guns were invented, until kevlar was invented, and that's why most armies went totally unarmored for a long time. Anyway, I know modern armors will stop a bullet - for that, my group decided to use the armor as damage reduction variant for modern armors. Especially since, as we are given to understand, while the ceramic plates in a kevlar vest will help protect somewhat from a dagger thrust, the kevlar itself is useless against most bladed weapons. At least, that's the understanding we have.
Judging Eagle 02-25-05, 09:36 AM	In the PH they have a section on FireArms in futuristic settings. The damage can get quite substantial more than swords or other weapons. I struggle with this idea. I may be approaching this all wrong but in my mindset a longsword being trust through your stomach would do more damage that a bullet :confused: Instead of increased damage to firearms I believe characters should gain pluses to hit instead to allow for the comparitive simplicity of use and ease at striking an opponent. Similiarly, a crossbow should also have bonuses to hit that exceeds a normal bow considering the ease in which a person can aim and fire such a weapon. Reloading such weapons aside, crossbows and firearms take little training to use compared to a longbow or fighting with a sword in hand to hand combat. So what are your views - Should crossbows and firearms recieve more bonuses to hit rather than just damage? Delvesdeep:b: You've either never shot a gun of any kind, nor a crossbow. For starters guns are 'easier' to shoot, but only if you know the correct stance(s), how to sight on the fly and how to pull your trigger without losing your sight (yes, people still do that, you gotta pull smoothly on the trigger, not slow, smoothly). Usually you'd use a weaver stance (for handguns, rifles are a different animal and although similar you can make many mistakes using one if all you've used is handguns) since it's stable, sights with your eyes and is the best method to handle most handgun recoil, but it fatigues your arms after a good 30 minutes). As for crossbows. Unless you have a 1000~ lb pull crossbow (ie. impossible) you'll never acheive the sort of speed and flat trajectory that a firearm can. Crossbows are just as likely to dip the further you target is, at around 100 yards your shot will dip 1 inch below where you targeted, just like a normal bow; meaning that the only difference between a bow and a crossbow is that the crossbow is simply a bow that you don't have to kept held. On the same token a bow can be reloaded faster. Neither of the two weapons (guns and x-bows) are any 'easier' to shoot with. If anything a bow is pretty handy and the training for all three is relatively the same (that is, the time taken to teach you to be proficient with any of the three is the same, you just need a good teacher).
Draco Strang 02-25-05, 11:14 AM	*deleted*
otomik 02-25-05, 11:49 AM	crossbows are badass, so badass the Pope banned them during the Peace of God movement and said they could only be used against infidels. Long Bows can have draw weights around 50lbs Crossbows (manually operated without pulleys) can have draw weights around 150lbs. they also fire smaller projectiles, that means a faster, shorter time of flight, giving you more accuracy. They are forbidden during the archery season in many states, I think that is suggestive of a noticeable increase in performance. They had to be nerfed for game balance and bows have been shown more emphasis because they have a greater mystique. I don't think an armor piercing property is necessary, adamantine tipped arrows do that well. tweek the adamantine rules if you feel like it.
Inigo Carmine 02-25-05, 01:39 PM	crossbows are badass, so badass the Pope banned them during the Peace of God movement and said they could only be used against infidels. They're incredibly easy to use as compared to bows. They were probably banned for the same reason I dislike guns. It makes it way to easy for any unskilled person to kill another person with little risk to themselves. This is why everyone thinks the crossbow was some mega weapon that could penetrate 500 armor-plated knights in a row before slowing down (over-exageration, yes). Its ease of use revolutionized warfare. Instead of needing expensive professional trained warriors, you could train joe schmoe the farmer to have a good shot at killing the enemy, and do it for a fraction of the time and resources. This is represented in game by making it a simple weapon, whereas longbows are martial weapons. Long Bows can have draw weights around 50lbs Crossbows (manually operated without pulleys) can have draw weights around 150lbs. they also fire smaller projectiles, that means a faster, shorter time of flight, giving you more accuracy. Crossbows have more draw-weight, true. They have to though. They are "pushed" by the string on a crossbow for a significantly less period of time (thus imparting MUCH less energy into the bolt when compared to its draw-weight). If you made a crossbow with only the same draw-weight as a bow, the bolt would practically just fall to the ground in front of the crossbow user when he pulled the trigger. This site (http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html) has some information and is written by someone more organized than myself. They are forbidden during the archery season in many states, I think that is suggestive of a noticeable increase in performance. Hunting from a canoe is also illegal in many states. It's not because firing a gun from a boat gives you +10 to hit/damage. I'm told the reason is because its too "peaceful" and therefore takes little skill to get close to the animal. Its unsportsman like. The bow is similar to the crossbow in that its more peaceful (no bang), but that at least the bow takes more skill to use. They had to be nerfed for game balance and bows have been shown more emphasis because they have a greater mystique. If anything, I think they got the difference between bows and crossbows pretty good with martial/simple weaponry and comparable range/damage (in fact, giving x-bows a major bonus in the rate of reload area to make it a viable weapon in a world where things have hitpoints), and that people have too much mystique for the almighty crossbow (and the katana, but thats another matter).
Cyric 02-25-05, 06:19 PM	Firearms operate on a simple physics equation: force = mass x acceleration. A bullet will tear up your insides, much like a sword, but when the bullet hits it is also expending a certain amount of force on your body. Kevlar is designed to spread that force out to prevent the bullet from penetrating. Todays firearms would have no problem penetrating yesterday's armor. Should you get a bonus to hit for using firearms or crossbows? Sure, if you take your time to aim, slowly squeeze the trigger and all that, which you can also do with a bow (minus the whole trigger squeezing of course).
Tony Vargas 02-25-05, 07:50 PM	In the PH they have a section on FireArms in futuristic settings. The damage can get quite substantial more than swords or other weapons. I struggle with this idea. ... Instead of increased damage to firearms I believe characters should gain pluses to hit instead to allow for the comparitive simplicity of use and ease at striking an opponent. In d20, hit points represent more than native toughness, a lot of it is also a matter of avoiding damage through experience, luck, skill, or even divine intervention. When 4hp character takes 6hps of damage from a sword-thrust, he's run through, a 60 hp character tagged by the same sword-thrust, might twist so he's only scratched, parry it, recieving no more damage than a slight strain to his wrist, or whatever. I guess the idea of guns doing more damage, is that they're both easier to use to inflict a lethal wound, and harder to dodge or otherwise minimize damage from.
Razoreface 02-25-05, 09:14 PM	They're incredibly easy to use as compared to bows. They were probably banned for the same reason I dislike guns. It makes it way to easy for any unskilled person to kill another person with little risk to themselves. That's exactly why.. it has nothing to do with them being better at killing. They simply made it too easy to kill, something the church was afraid of. Crossbows have more draw-weight, true. They have to though. They are "pushed" by the string on a crossbow for a significantly less period of time (thus imparting MUCH less energy into the bolt when compared to its draw-weight). If you made a crossbow with only the same draw-weight as a bow, the bolt would practically just fall to the ground in front of the crossbow user when he pulled the trigger. I'd like to welcome you both to the modern world, actually to the dark ages first. Most old crossbows fall into the light class, they're about the size of a short bow but stiffer.. the draw weight difference has always been an issue with some people, but it's really not much of one. Old wood bolts tended to weigh a fair bit less than a 30" arrow shaft did. They had a heavier draw weight back then, but that was also a lot due to the fact that it's very hard to draw and aim a bow with a natural pull of 70+ pounds. With a crossbow, you can easily pull back 70 pounds and lock it in place.. no more strain on you after that. But not anymore. A modern compound bow and a compound crossbow can both have release force in excess of a 200 pound draw weight, but the weight of pull is less than a quarter of that. An 80 pound draw comp bow typically has about a 15 pound actual pull on it.
Kulthos 02-25-05, 11:40 PM	Ranged touch for firearms and crossbows makes sense in RL, where plate armor afforded little protection from either. D&D is not RL however, and is set up for balance, not reality. Barbarians can go skydiving, take dozens of bullets at point blank range and still run faster then a normapl person, and whatnot. For some magic and realism mixes, you could say that adamantium or +3 and above armor counts for "Bullet AC", but not mundane steel. I personally would make bullets ranged touch, just so people have a reason to use them.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 02-25-05, 11:46 PM	For starters guns are 'easier' to shoot At the ranges we're talking about, they have a flat trajectory and the target won't move while the bullet's in flight---that makes guns much easier to hit with. Unless you have a 1000~ lb pull crossbow (ie. impossible) you'll never acheive the sort of speed and flat trajectory that a firearm can. Heavy medieval crossbows exceeded 1000lbs draw weight, requiring cranks to recock. They were woefully inefficient in transferring energy to the bolt, though (heavy bow arms), and so were no more powerful than the 150lb-pull longbows of the day, which still launched projectiles at 15-25% the velocity of a modern handgun. Crossbows are just as likely to dip the further you target is, at around 100 yards your shot will dip 1 inch below where you targeted, just like a normal bow If by "100 yards" you mean "5 yards", then yes. At 60m/s---fast for either a type of bow---the missile will drop an inch after 14 feet, and a foot after about 50 feet. meaning that the only difference between a bow and a crossbow is that the crossbow is simply a bow that you don't have to kept held. This is very useful for ambushes or hunting, but probably not so much in open combat.
otomik 02-26-05, 11:51 AM	Crossbows have more draw-weight, true. They have to though. They are "pushed" by the string on a crossbow for a significantly less period of time (thus imparting MUCH less energy into the bolt when compared to its draw-weight).ah, you are correct sir. good link. some subtle advantages the crossbow has: -slightly better range and damage -simple weapon, easier to train an army with -ammo is lighter and concievably you could use bow arrows in a pinch (even bullets with double string types) -all types can be used mounted -the 19-20 threat range is nice for keening purposes -the more versatile weaponsmith craft is used to make crossbows rather than the bowmaking skill which is much more limited.
Silverblade The Enchanter 02-27-05, 10:45 AM	-Wounds from edged weapons are more likely to kill you, especially assuming SHARP piercing wounds to the thorax (arrows and bolts). Bullets cause blunt force trauma, it's hell of a shocking, can immobilize you right off, but the bleeding caused by edged weapons is far worse and more likely to kill you. 90% of bullet energy is expended in travel or the ground behind the target..they go right through... -Armour increases the chance of deflection, bullets can and have bounced off folk's skulls... -Firearms require less skill, less danger (range), are very accurate, and can be fired multiple times. -Bullet penetraiton is caused by high speed with a small cross section, it's not magical, this means the impact energy cna't be spread out and absorbed by a whole area, so it punches through. Kevlar etc over ocme this, so may mithril and adamantine (super tough alloys/elements) -Edged weapons don't run out of ammo. -Bulelts go through car and house doors like paper, rifle bullets can go through 2 brick walls, and trees dont' count for squat unless they are 3' thick or more.
quaiven 02-27-05, 11:15 AM	-Bulelts go through car and house doors like paper, rifle bullets can go through 2 brick walls, and trees dont' count for squat unless they are 3' thick or more. Just a little nitpick here, you must be talking about high caliber rifles here because your average rifle (.22 cal/5.56mm) wont penetrate that far. Speaking from personal experience, an AK-47 Assault rifle 7.62 mm, at a range of 15 feet will not penetrate 1/4 inch of glass. Let alone brick walls.
Razoreface 02-27-05, 12:48 PM	That's some bad 7.62x39... it should be able to penetrate two pieces of sheet steel close out to it's maximum effective ranges. A decent .22 LR will go through one side of a car door, but it likely won't have enough energy left to go through the plastic moldings on the other side. A good pellet gun should be able to visibly damage glass, though not safety or most tempered glass. Very few rifles, though, can go through brick with one shot. There's some excessively strange army tests on how to best shoot through walls, and 5.56 actually does better at shooting divots than 7.62 does. It was something like 8 shots to penetrate brick vs 11. From personal experience, which only goes up to .375 H&H, nothing I've seen using standard ammunition will penetrate more than eight inches of solid wood. It takes about fifty rounds of 5.56 to shoot over a tree that's about five inches thick.
Vahenir 02-27-05, 01:23 PM	The idea of giving any mundane (i.e. nonmagical, non-masterwork) weapon a bonus to hit assumes way too much. That's just a fact. You're assuming by giving that bonus that the person they're aiming at is wearing armour - and the bullet will have less of a hard time getting through the armour. But why give a bonus to hit against the guy with a 72 Dex (exaggeration, of course)?! A bullet is no more likely to hit that guy than a sword. Fine.. you want to give crossbows and guns a bonus to hit because it's "easier' to use them? Let's ignore the concept of simple versus martial weapons which already covers this concept - now you have to give heavy edged weapons like shortswords, longswords, greatswords, axes - eventually more than half of the weapons in the PH - a bonus to damage. Why? Because those weapons will, on average, do a hell of a lot more grievous damage to a person than a single bullet will. Even with today's modern medicine.. you're far more likely to survive a bullet in your chest than you are to survive a sword-blade in your chest. And there's your problem.. you can't compare attack capacity without comparing damage capacity. The entire concept you're working with simply falls apart in D&D. Simple as that. And some sidenotes: Guns and crossbows were not the sole reason armour fell into decline and thus should not be attributed as the reason - and thus armour's ineffectiveness is not a valid argument here. The Pope banned crossbows for a reason - and it wasn't because they were 'too dangerous to armoured men.' The reason was that they were too easy to use (i.e. Simple Weapons). Anyone with the most minute amount of training could now kill trained soldiers. Crossbows were blurring the line between the peasant and the career soldier. That goes against the teachings of the Church, which, at the time, said that not all men were equal and to respect the class you were born into. Peasants don't wantonly kill noblemen. With crossbows, they could. Before crossbows - you needed to either train for a LONG time in the use of a traditional bow.. or train even longer to learn how to fight really well with a hand-weapon. And even then, you need armour and a -good- weapon to survive. And the Pope wasn't the only person to see the blurring of social boundaries as a bad thing. Two other rulers during that era also banned the use of Crossbows in warfare of any kind. Anyway... guns and crossbows are easier to learn how to use effectively than a sword. That's a fact. Sure gun-enthusiasts will tell you all about the other stances and all that good stuff. But the fact is.. in D&D that stuff is better represented by Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization. What we mean by 'effective' use is just that - you know the generalities of the weapon and how to use it -effectively-, that doesn't mean you know the intricate details of its use..... just that you could hit someone with it if you had to - without danger to yourself or too much chance of missing entirely. Guns and crossbows would be simple weapons - swords and axes are martial weapons. The ruling is as simple as that.. no bonuses or penalties necessary.
Ranger REG 02-27-05, 01:39 PM	So what are your views - Should crossbows and firearms recieve more bonuses to hit rather than just damage? Meh. Crossbows and Firearms are invented for the sole purpose of superseding the bows in terms of longer range and greater damage. The ease of using these weapons does not translate making them very accurate weapons, unless theyr'e equipped with a scope or a sight. As with all ranged weapons, they're simply use to soften/weaken the target before they close in for a melee/close-quarter combat. Achieving that, then it's a case of "mopping up" for the final kill.
Kursk 02-27-05, 02:35 PM	[QUOTE=Delvesdeep]In the PH they have a section on FireArms in futuristic settings. The damage can get quite substantial more than swords or other weapons. I struggle with this idea. I may be approaching this all wrong but in my mindset a longsword being trust through your stomach would do more damage that a bullet :confused: I've seen what .357 does when it hits you in the stomach. Your intestines tend to spill out of the exit wound in your back. Potentially more damage than a sword thrust...
Titan W 02-27-05, 03:16 PM	Not al swords were thrust, for example the katana, a japanese curved longsword of about 8 pounds, and sharpened for about 3 years before use (No lie), is readily capable of slashing open your stomach and allowing all of wahtever is inside it to spill out, similar to the impact from a gun, and you have the advantage of being able to cut out a wide girth with a deep impact as well, and it has similar effect regardles of impact area, similar to that of the gun, overall they are about the same on power level, but a gun is easier to use, and specialized bullets (I.E. hollow tipped and incindiary) can deal massive damage, but your standard FMJ round will probably deal similar damage, oh and if you stab someone once you remove the sword they will likely bleed to death and become imobilised due to the wound.
weasel fierce 02-27-05, 03:23 PM	Most swords were slashing swords. This also has the added bonus of utilizing the length of the weapon to add additional force, as well as the blunt trauma even if armour is not penetrated. Most modern military weapons are designed to wound and incapacitate, rather than outright kill. Compare to accounts of Franco-Prussian or American civil war ammunition. Getting a spinning, slow travelling 15mm chunk of lead in your chest is a quick way to discourage your military career choice
quaiven 02-27-05, 03:33 PM	That's some bad 7.62x39... it should be able to penetrate two pieces of sheet steel close out to it's maximum effective ranges. A decent .22 LR will go through one side of a car door, but it likely won't have enough energy left to go through the plastic moldings on the other side. A good pellet gun should be able to visibly damage glass, though not safety or most tempered glass. It was standard quarter inch thick windshield glass, and I can send you one of the three slugs I pulled out of it if ya want.
Razoreface 02-27-05, 09:55 PM	Most modern military weapons are designed to wound and incapacitate, rather than outright kill. Mostly ammunition, not the firearms themselves. Expanding projectiles and multiple projectile weapons aren't permitted to be used in war, because they're "inhumane" but it's really because they're better at killing. That's why militaries use FMJs, and cops use JHPs. It was standard quarter inch thick windshield glass, and I can send you one of the three slugs I pulled out of it if ya want. It's not that I don't believe it, it's just very odd. Yellowjacket .22's will go through windshield glass more often than not. Usually a Rusky 7.62 takes in the neighborhood of an inch of three layered armor glass to stop. oh and if you stab someone once you remove the sword they will likely bleed to death and become imobilised due to the wound. That's basically typical of any wound.. a good handgun bullet will make temporary cavity in you that's four or five inches wide and a foot deep. Swords and guns don't really do that disimilar damage, it's just that some of the sword damage comes from the strength of the user. But why give a bonus to hit against the guy with a 72 Dex (exaggeration, of course)?! A bullet is no more likely to hit that guy than a sword. For emphasis. The reason no normal weapons get bonuses to hit is that not all weapons work as well against armor as they do against flesh, and getting a bonus to hit an unarmored monk is silly. If you want modifiers for it, go dig up AD&D and look up armor modifiers by type.
IceFractal 02-28-05, 01:11 AM	If you want to model armor piercing, I've developed a system for it. Basically, certain weapons have a "Penetration" value. Picks have a penetration of 2 (light) or 4 (heavy), but have their critical dropped to compensate. You can buy special crossbow bolts with a penetration of 2 also. Firearms are the main sources of penetration, ranging from 2 (early firearms) to 10 (modern high-velocity firearms). What penetration does is ignore a certain amount of armor and/or natural armor bonus to AC (or DR, if using the armor as DR rules). So for instance, a carbine with penetration 5 used against someone in full plate would means that they only got +3 AC from the armor (8-5). However, you can't penetrate more than what's there, so using it against someone in leather armor would ignore their +2 AC from the armor, but wouldn't grant any extra bonus to hit. Penetration can't breach magical bonuses to AC either, so +1 leather armor would always grant at least +1 to AC. Armors made from special materials (like mithral and adamantine) ignore penetration. Natural armor of creatures that have DR X/adamantine ignores penetration also. This does make firearms a superior choice against armored targets, but this can be balanced by high prices and/or misfire chances in a setting where they've just been invented. In a modern setting, there's nothing wrong with them being the prefered choice, as they generally are. If you want to go into detail, I've also got some rules for special bullet types: Armor-Piercing: +2 penetration, damage goes down a step Fragmenting: no penetration, damage goes up a step Canister (having a compartment inside that holds something, such as explosives or poison, only available with advanced technology): no penetration, damage goes down a step. I also put them in their own proficiency group, which to people who've had general experience with them counts as simple weapons, but to people who've never seen one counts as exotic (but the whole group is learned at once). This is to model the fact that while they're simpler in practice than, say, a sword, they could also be totally perplexing to someone with no experience of that kind of technology (how to load them, how to aim, etc).
MadScientist!! 02-28-05, 02:24 AM	I don't really know if I understand how an AK-47 round could not go through windshield glass. It should be around the same power as a 5.56 round, which should easily go through the glass. It could be possible there was something wrong with the powder? :confused: But anyway, Firearms don't need any new rules. If you want AP ammo, just give it a +2 versus opponents with 2 or more AC coming from armor. Simple as that.
Rulebook 02-28-05, 03:06 AM	if you guys are gonna get technical on how sharp sword edges were, you should know that a good sized chunk of midevil weaponry wasnt that sharp. at least not the swords. the broadsword for instance, wasnt very well sharpened at all. it was designed to bludgeon the enemy to death, while hopefully hacking of chunks of him. the dull blade design meant you could crack it up against armor and try to bend the armor into the person wearing it, if not split it open outright. a sharp blade would be wasted in such a persuit and its not like you NEED a sharp blade to greiveously wound somebody. a dull-ish blade will still hack clean through a person's arm or leg just about as easily as a razor sharp sword can.
Inigo Carmine 02-28-05, 03:39 AM	if you guys are gonna get technical on how sharp sword edges were, you should know that a good sized chunk of midevil weaponry wasnt that sharp. at least not the swords. the broadsword for instance, wasnt very well sharpened at all. it was designed to bludgeon the enemy to death, while hopefully hacking of chunks of him. the dull blade design meant you could crack it up against armor and try to bend the armor into the person wearing it, if not split it open outright. a sharp blade would be wasted in such a persuit and its not like you NEED a sharp blade to greiveously wound somebody. a dull-ish blade will still hack clean through a person's arm or leg just about as easily as a razor sharp sword can. Thats another common misconeception. While the blades were not kept "razor sharp" (like katanas often were, being they were made to cut flesh/light armor, not metal armor), they were still sharp. There is almost no reason at all to use a sword if its not sharp. A hammer (or even a dull axe) accomplishes what you are describing many times better than a dull sword.
Vahenir 02-28-05, 01:49 PM	Not al swords were thrust, for example the katana, a japanese curved longsword of about 8 pounds, and sharpened for about 3 years before use (No lie), is readily capable of slashing open your stomach and allowing all of wahtever is inside it to spill out Actually... most swords were cut-and-thrust. Only a marginal amount of swords (and mostly those from eras after the Middle Ages) were only thrusting weapons. The katana was NOT sharpened for 3 years. That's not sensical, practical, or even useful as that kind of intense sharpening would destroy the weapon. Katana were not 8 pounds. They're 4 pounds or less. Just about every cutting sword from a falchion to a two-hand sword are capable of what you describe. Even some purely thrusting swords are capable of that (with a thrust-and-drag technique). if you guys are gonna get technical on how sharp sword edges were, you should know that a good sized chunk of midevil weaponry wasnt that sharp. at least not the swords. the broadsword for instance, wasnt very well sharpened at all. it was designed to bludgeon the enemy to death, while hopefully hacking of chunks of him. the dull blade design meant you could crack it up against armor and try to bend the armor into the person wearing it, if not split it open outright. a sharp blade would be wasted in such a persuit and its not like you NEED a sharp blade to greiveously wound somebody. a dull-ish blade will still hack clean through a person's arm or leg just about as easily as a razor sharp sword can. Misconceptions and modern inaccuracies galore. Fact: Medieval cutting swords were very sharp. I repeat, all Medieval cutting swords were SHARP weapons made for shearing through FLESH. The Medieval smith made a great balance between making a sword very sharp, without making it so sharp that the edge was consistently in danger of being damaged during a fight. Because: Fact: A sword that is TOO sharp (like some katana) will chip and damage far too easily due to the thinness and weakness of the edge. Fact: Anyone who considers weaponry for even a MOMENT will realize how stupid the concept is that swords were not sharp. A sword's function is to be sharp. If you want a bludgeoning weapon - hammers, bec-de-corbins, and even axes would do a FAR better job of bludgeoning someone to death than a sword -ever- could. A blunt sword is USELESS. Swords for battle were very sharp. Fact: There is no such thing as a broadsword. The term is a misnomer originally invented to describe "older" swords during the time when extremely thin weapons such as the smallsword were popular. The term was coined by fencers who believed (without ever handling one) that medieval swords were too heavy and clunky and ungraceful. They called them all broadswords because they were, in fact, broader than the swords of the era. And thus, broadswords, as a weapon, don't exist. Broadsword is a blanket term for all pre-rapier swords. An arming sword is just as much a broadsword as a basket-hilt arming sword, as a two-hand sword. They're all 'broadswords.' Fact: Again... dull swords were not used in battle. Fact: A sword, dull, sharp, or inbetween, could not bend or crap plate armour. Except perhaps the falchion (designed for that purpose) or larger two-hand swords (the kind that you wouldn't really use in a fight anyway). And if dealing with a mail-clad opponent, a sharpened weapon is much more likely to do damage than a blunted sword. So again it comes to the -fact- that a dull sword is virtually useless. Fact: I assume "split it open" refers to plate armour. No sword except maybe the two mentioned above could split plate armour open... whether dull or sharp. And if it refers to the rings of mail.. a sharp sword is more likely to damage mail.. but even then, it's iffy. A dull sword, STILL, is useless. Fact: A dull sword will NOT hack through a body part. Sometimes a properly sharpened sword won't do it. A dull sword could deliver some blunt trauma to a limb.. but that's all. But then.. so does a sharpened sword - the sharpened sword is doing more damage.. by cutting and delivering trauma at the same time through the force applied to it. So again - a dull sword is virtually useless and the only jobs a sword could do dull are done FAR BETTER by other weaponry that was created FOR THOSE PURPOSES. Fact: One more time - a proper medieval sword would never be dull for combat. Fact: No sword was razor sharp.. ever. Even a properly sharpened katana should not be 'razor sharp.'
jasper 02-28-05, 02:08 PM	Just make firearms simple light weapons. Then everyone can use them but it takes an adventurer to get multiple shots off during a round.
Ranger REG 03-01-05, 05:05 AM	[QUOTE=Delvesdeep] I've seen what .357 does when it hits you in the stomach. Your intestines tend to spill out of the exit wound in your back. Potentially more damage than a sword thrust... IIRC, once the bullet penetrate the flesh, it start to "tumble" and "roll" with that forward momentum, kinda like being stabbed with a very small pocket knife and twist the knife inside the wound to cause greater damage, only it continues to "roll" forward/deeper, unless it is deflected by one of your major bones (a rib?), and the bullet may change direction and continue to tumble and tear more of your organs inside.
Naeron 03-01-05, 01:10 PM	I'll grant that my knowledge of this is limited to only some reading I did as a teenager, but the impression I was given was that the worlds best armors were doing nothing to stop bullets for centuries after guns were invented, until kevlar was invented, and that's why most armies went totally unarmored for a long time. Untrue historically. Against early firearms shot-proof plate armour was quite effective so during the transitional period, say the early to late 16th century, where bows/crossbows/firearms were used together the nobility had access to plate that would protect them from gunfire. However this armour was expensive and so out of reach of the common soldier. You have to remember that early firearms usually fired quite soft lead balls which had poor aerodynamic properties and with low muzzle velocities so at ranges even a breastplate had a decent chance to mitigate a glancing shot. As firearms improved and became more commonplace on the battlefield such plate became prohibitively heavy and expensive and so became the breastplate and helm and then ceased being used altogether until modern materials became available. Meh. Crossbows and Firearms are invented for the sole purpose of superseding the bows in terms of longer range and greater damage. The ease of using these weapons does not translate making them very accurate weapons, unless theyr'e equipped with a scope or a sight. Crossbows and Guns were not invented to beat a bows range (considering that Muskets in the napoleonic era where unreliable over 75 paces - which is why massed volleys were used), you can see that they did not beat a longbows range, damage or rate of fire in the hands of a trained soldier. Early firearms were horrendously innacurate and short ranged when compare to the longbow and firearms and crossbows had a far inferior fire rate. They took over because they did not require the high level of physical fitness that the bow required. In battle a bowman needed the physical stamina to draw a weight of anywhere between 50 and 125lbs rapidly and repeatedly. That required strength and training. A crossbowman might draw the same weight but would normally do so using both hands on the string and a foot stirrup, heavier weights usually involved a crank. Arquebus or musket armed troops needed even less physical fitness.
weasel fierce 03-01-05, 01:53 PM	[QUOTE=Kursk] IIRC, once the bullet penetrate the flesh, it start to "tumble" and "roll" with that forward momentum, kinda like being stabbed with a very small pocket knife and twist the knife inside the wound to cause greater damage, only it continues to "roll" forward/deeper, unless it is deflected by one of your major bones (a rib?), and the bullet may change direction and continue to tumble and tear more of your organs inside. It does depend a little upon the ammunition in question. IIRC, 5.56 NATO rounds (M16 etc) are more likely to tumble, whereas one of the main criticisms of the AK47 rounds is that they tend to penetrate
Watchman 03-01-05, 05:19 PM	It depends entirely on how the actual bullet is constructed, AFAIK. The "tumblers" are built to deform in such a fashion that they do a cartwheel in semi-liquid material such as human flesh. Given that most of them are under six milliters in diameter (the NATO standard is 5.56mm, the modern Russian one used in AK-74 onwards 5.45mmm; the older Soviet round used by AK-47 is 7.62mm, but has smaller propellant charge and hence less energy) and have very high velocities this is rather useful if you want to actually kill the target and not just blow a hole in him. I don't really know how common "tumblers" are in military use - the 5.45mm Russian one is AFAIK such as standard, but I don't know about the NATO service round. It'd make a lot of sense for it to be, though, nevermind any moral principles. As a rule of thumb it has always been quite possible to give soldiers a decent amount of protection from enemy firearms - but whether it has been cost-effective to do so is a whole different matter. After all, for the whole post-Medieval period right until the last century it was perfectly normal for armies to lose more men to disease, starvation and other noncombat causes that ever fell in battle, making the effort of shielding them from enemy fire somewhat moot. And besides the financial expense of issuing decent bulletproof armour there were the logistical considerations; during the Thirty Years' War, for example, heavy full-coverage "cuirassier" armor was eventually almost entirely abandoned in favor of just a bulletproof breastplate and helmet for the simple reason that the latter could be worn by the trooper on the march while the former had to be hauled in the baggage train. And as cavalry was the only arm that in any case could operate effectively with the additional encumberance of of "proofed" armor (the infantry pikemen had to make do with thinner plate sufficient against sword and pike but not guns), them having to rely on the hideously slow baggage train to transport their combat equipement would have meant giving up their long-range mobility. And in a war that dragged on for three decades and saw armies crossing the breadth and width of entire Germany, the speed of the cavalry was found out to be fairly important. In any case, the mass armies of the Early Modern era eventually entirely stopped armoring their soldiers. This wasn't because it was impossible to do so, except perhaps financially, but because the whole ethos of war changed. Gone was the age-old dream of elite warriors being turned into nigh-invulnerable killing machines (the European knights actually got reasonably close) or simply of soldiers being able to withstand the blows of the enemy; in an era of massed musket volleys and crushing artillery fire, aspiring to that would've been somewhat pointless anyway. The new ideal was to stoically accept the casualties, fill the gaps in the line, and soldier on. Body armor did eventually make a return in the late 1700s in the form of heavy shock cavalry called cuirassieurs; they were around until at least mid-1800s and in small ceremonial guard units until the end of WW1. Reintroducing them seems to be credited to Frederick the Great of Germany (dunno which part), who found out giving elite cavalry a solid steel breastplate and helmet enabled them to charge home through musket volleys with less casualties and greater chances of success, and gave them an edge in cavalry clashes. By Napoleon's time pretty much every major European army was using the concept to some extent. The trench fighting of WW1 also saw some body armor being issued - medieval-looking affairs of solid steel, used by snipers, sentries and machine-gunners to increase survivability against long-range fire, and by storming parties to give an edge in the brutal trench asaults. One gets the impression those breastplates stopped pretty much everything short of a rifle shot at close range, a major advantage when you think the primary weapons for trench fighting were pistols, grenades, bayonets, later submachineguns (which used pistol ammo) and assorted often pretty medieval-looking melee weapons...
weasel fierce 03-01-05, 05:33 PM	Some French cavalry still wore chest plates in the Franco Prussian war, though it proved woefully inadequate against volleys of needlegun fire
Razoreface 03-01-05, 09:11 PM	I don't really know if I understand how an AK-47 round could not go through windshield glass. It should be around the same power as a 5.56 round, which should easily go through the glass. It could be possible there was something wrong with the powder? :confused: Firearms are one of the biggest freak-occurence factor objects of the modern world. I've had a .22 pistol go through three pieces of sheet steel at fifty feet, something I've been unable to replicate with the same caliber rifle at less than twenty feet, firing all kinds of ammunition. Fact: A dull sword will NOT hack through a body part. Sometimes a properly sharpened sword won't do it. A dull sword could deliver some blunt trauma to a limb.. but that's all. There's a difference between blunt and dull.. a dull sword will still cut, I've got a scar that'd prove that, it went pretty far and I was only lucky that it wasn't swung very hard. It wasn't sharp, in an it'd take work to cut through rope kind of way, but it still cut. Enough force, they still cut like a too-light dullish axe. Which were also pretty sharp. Dull axes are only a little better than dull swords. I don't really know how common "tumblers" are in military use - the 5.45mm Russian one is AFAIK such as standard, but I don't know about the NATO service round. It'd make a lot of sense for it to be, though, nevermind any moral principles. They're really not very... the 5.56mm was never really designed to do it, it simply did. The newer Rusky round was designed with it in mind but it wasn't the focus either. Rounds like the 5.7x28 and 4.6x30 were, but they're light (stupid, overhyped) primarily AP bullets, with noses that are a bit heavy, so they actually will tumble before even hitting anything (which is obviously great for their ability to penetrate armor). A lot of the 5.56mm bullets also tend to break up more than they should, and more than you'd think they're capable of looking at them. But the light bullets like that aren't in as big a favor as they used to be... in the decades when they were designed, people thought they were the wave of the future, light, fast, good penetration and light recoil made it easier to train soldiers, and you could fire more for the weight, but fighting in Africa and the Mid-east proved they can be extremely ineffective, because they're so small and light, and that Mikhail K did more right than make a near indestructible rifle. And so comes the 6.5mm PPC that the US is looking at.. Plus without a big active war they can train troops to aim. One round of .30 in the gut is a lot better than three of .223 into the air. The trench fighting of WW1 also saw some body armor being issued - medieval-looking affairs of solid steel, used by snipers, sentries and machine-gunners to increase survivability against long-range fire, and by storming parties to give an edge in the brutal trench asaults. One gets the impression those breastplates stopped pretty much everything short of a rifle shot at close range And they were heavy mothers, too. Nothing stops a bullet like a 3/8" sheet of steel. :)
Delvesdeep 03-02-05, 12:42 AM	Thankyou Super Chris for your first post and your suggestions in it. Also thankyou to the person (I'm sorry I don't remember exactly who it was:() who pointed out to me about the simple vs martial weapon profiency. I actually forgot I bagan this thread before today and was amazed when I checked this forum at some of the posts. It is amazing how many people love to try and put other people down and try and belittle others using unsubstantiated facts, theories and opinions. Does it really matter. The question was answered really in the first couple of responses. Most (not all) of the proceeded posts seemed to be an attempt by people to prove they know more than everyone else. Why?? I haven't actually posted on these 'high turn-over' forums for quiet some time and I remember why now. I apologise to those who legitimately were attempting to help me and others with your comments but to the others go vent your hostilities to the world elsewhere. All it does it make for a very negative, confrontation and unproductive place. Once again thankyou to those who tried to help. Delvesdeep:b: P.S. :rant: :headexplo :blush: Sorry about that. I feel better now. :cloud9: How about we just :pint: