The issue with generalizing what firearms did to armor to their impact on the entire scope of D&D is we’re talking about at least three different things- what bullets do to sheets of metal whose thickness is measured in millimeters, what bullets do to a house sized magical creature with scales whose thickness is measured with centimeters, and what bullets do to a magical creature whose body is sturdy enough to support human proportions at 20 ft tall. Even allowing for specialized “big game” guns and ammo- which really isn’t covered by 5e- there’s countervailing factors if we’re breaking things down by real world mechanics.
Those things are in no way different for swords, or arrows, or for that matter fireballs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The issue with generalizing what firearms did to armor to their impact on the entire scope of D&D is we’re talking about at least three different things- what bullets do to sheets of metal whose thickness is measured in millimeters, what bullets do to a house sized magical creature with scales whose thickness is measured with centimeters, and what bullets do to a magical creature whose body is sturdy enough to support human proportions at 20 ft tall. Even allowing for specialized “big game” guns and ammo- which really isn’t covered by 5e- there’s countervailing factors if we’re breaking things down by real world mechanics.
Those things are in no way different for swords, or arrows, or for that matter fireballs.
Which was my point; saying guns would somehow massively threaten large portions of the setting doesn't hold up until you're getting into the circa 1900's stuff at the earliest, particularly in regards to man portable equipment.
Which was my point; saying guns would somehow massively threaten large portions of the setting doesn't hold up until you're getting into the circa 1900's stuff at the earliest, particularly in regards to man portable equipment.
In that case I .. rephrased your point for you. For simplicity.
You're welcome =D
No, my point - even if it aligns with yours - is that in a world of abstract damage and abstract ability to sustain damage, there's literally no reason to differentiate. What you want is for combat to work, not for it to reflect the difference between ... say, a sword, a rifle, a rocket launcher and a plasma cannon. It's just ... irrelevant. Because that could just as well be a sword, a magical sword, Thor's Hammer and the Bane of Creation sword that no one's ever heard of.
It's just different labels for the damage you do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Those things are in no way different for swords, or arrows, or for that matter fireballs.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Which was my point; saying guns would somehow massively threaten large portions of the setting doesn't hold up until you're getting into the circa 1900's stuff at the earliest, particularly in regards to man portable equipment.
In that case I .. rephrased your point for you. For simplicity.
You're welcome =D
No, my point - even if it aligns with yours - is that in a world of abstract damage and abstract ability to sustain damage, there's literally no reason to differentiate. What you want is for combat to work, not for it to reflect the difference between ... say, a sword, a rifle, a rocket launcher and a plasma cannon. It's just ... irrelevant. Because that could just as well be a sword, a magical sword, Thor's Hammer and the Bane of Creation sword that no one's ever heard of.
It's just different labels for the damage you do.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I think I may just give my players access to an ICBM in this case. Really spice things up.
How much damage would that be, like 12 D12s? 20, maybe?
And what skill would be used to test if it hits? I'm thinking DEX modifier makes the most sense.
Better, yet. Call it Magic "Inter-Continental Ballistic" Missile spell. It launches three missiles and they get 3 D100s of damage.
There’s a technical term for that scenario. It’s called “Rock Falls, Everyone Dies”
I’ve played Fallout enough times and survived dozens of mini-nuke explosions. So I don’t know if “everyone dies” in that scenario.
I mean, if you want something that’s actually balanced for the system instead of just doing whatever, just use Meteor Swarm
Balance left the game when the players opted to bring the peasant railgun into the conversation
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChunkySalsaRule
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Have fun guys
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.