>giant heavy chunk of sharp steel swung by a mighty warrior

What happened to the Bernie pic you've used to spam?

Because that bullet is travelling in excess of 1400ft/s and is focusing all of that force straight through whatever it hit. Also, enchanted bullets.

>>52558626
>What happened to the Bernie pic you've used to spam?
Um... the quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments, sweetie.

Why are you bitching about guns being OP when the wizard can do the exact same thing to everything within a 20-ft radius at ranges exceeding 600ft.

>>52558601
k = (1/2)(m)(v^2)

>>52558601
What system you talking about?

https://youtu.be/dQfcRLT18IY
Old guns vs breastplate. Flintlock dents but the rifle goes through both sides like butter.
https://youtu.be/PcXd3upAF8A
Sword versus thin plate armor. 30 seconds long. Just watch.

>>52558783
>armor piercing = damage
Wow, so THIS is the power of purposeful misrepresentation of an effect

>>52558821
Tell me why a sword should do more damage than a gun.

>>52558996
more damaged tissue, larger permanent wound cavity

>throw a huge boulder at your enemy
>improvised weapon, 1d4 damage
>smack someone with a scroll
>improvised weapon, 1d4 damage

>>52559026
So what you're saying is against unarmored opponents and things without natural armor the sword will do more damage?

Kinetic damage is significantly higher when concentrated into a smaller area.

It's weird, but getting hit by the tip of a golf club would be worse than a board, for example.

>>52559136
That isn't how armor works in D&D

>>52558699
Because some of us don't play high magic systems

File: 1474766799955.gif (1MB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x213px

>>52558601
>>52559121

Why is D&D so black and white with its rules?

Is this how all games are or is it the DM's fault?

>>52559393
Because the "people" who designed the modern versions are unintelligent

>>52559393
For the second one that is clearly a DM fault, the system suggests that it is x but you can easily say "it's a fucking boulder that shit is gonna do at least three times as much depending on size."

>>52559393
>Why is D&D so black and white with its rules?

That's the players fault, as in early D&D the DM was supposed to do this stuff on the fly. Problem is you had to trust your DM not to be an asshat, and increasingly players refused to and insisted that everything be covered in the rule book, and the DM just there to facilitate the rules, not interpret or adjust them -- this is 3e onwards, basically.

>Plays a broken system that doesn't make sense
>Complains that something doesn't make sense
What did you expect?

Why do you think we use guns today instead of swords?

>>52559445
You're neglecting that this started to happen only after the company that makes magic the gathering which is by nature entirely black and white bought D&D

>>52559458
Because firearms do not require strength and endurance to wield. This is why they are called "the great equalizer". It has nothing to do with the fact that swords do more damage.

>>52559445
To be fair, "trust X person not to be an asshat" is never a system that works well.

>>52559486
You forgot that a gun will put a hole straight through you while a sword causes flesh wounds. Also if we are talking modern firearms you can easily shoot 4+ bullets per second in automatic firearms.
What's more lethal? A 2" deep 11" long 1/2" wide cut on the leg or a 1" wide hole blown through the kneecap?

>>52559534
In medieval times? Both are probably going to kill you. A bullet through your gut will kill you about as well as a blade through it. The advantages of rifling and armor piercing don't come in until much later. Same with fire rate.

Bullets, contrary to what media would lead you to believe, aren't actually death rays, especially for earlier firearms.

>>52559136
Not him but I always thought it should work that way. A bullet to the gut wouldn't do as much damage as being disemboweled with a sword.

I think swords should do more damage but bullets are better against armour and can crit better.

>>52559717
So when will you be disembowling peasants instead of fighting Dire cave bears with hide tougher than chainmail?

>>52559530
>Isn't that the basis for most games where people gather with their friends to have fun?
>remembers we're on /tg/

Oh. Nevermind.

>>52559741
Is argue that a gun would be even worse against a bear with hide that thick. At that point you want a big metal lever to distract and control its movements with, rather than a tiny pellet which will or he in its hide or bounce off its skull and do nothing

>>52559778
Please type this again when you aren't having a aneurysm.

>>52559814
>I'd argue that a gun would be even worse against a bear with hide that thick. At that point you want a big metal lever to distract and control its movements with, rather than a tiny pellet which will or he in its hide or bounce off its skull and do nothing

Was it that hard to figure out?

>>52559741
Somehow I don't see a bullet made for fighting humans would even be able to crack the skull of such a thing and the tiny pellets would be more of an infection risk than being immediately lethal to something of that size.

The bigger the enemy becomes the more appropriate it seems to become that bullets cause less damage than a sword thrust into it.

>>52559849
>lodge in its hide

Okay, my bad. Phones are gay. Still wasted way too much time on this

>>52559852
If bullets couldn't penetrate its hide then there's no way in hell a sword will.

>>52559987
That was the other guy. I said skull, not hide. But what you said isn't true anyway. A knife can go through some protection a modern civilian bullet can't because you can just keep pushing while a bullet expends all it's energy on impact.

>>52559987
The difference is a sword or a spear can apply continuous force over a longer period, and having an actual edge will make it more likely to penetrate

>>52560055
>A knife can go through some protection a modern civilian bullet can't because you can just keep pushing while a bullet expends all it's energy on impact.
That's because modern armor is designed to stop bullets and not pocket knives. Military grade armor feels like peanut butter in a plastic bag but stops high caliber bullets flat.
>>52560074
A bullet can have a 1mm wide tip for penetration and if you can't even pierce the thing with a 1 ounce slug there's no way in hell a relatively slow moving sword with a wide edge will ever get through.

Momentum and velocity play a big part

>>52558601
You're using the wrong system mang. Also:
>>giant heavy chunk of sharp steel
>>1d8+4 damage
>greatsword/axe having any damage dice with a maximum below 12
Also 2: electeic boogaloo:
>early firearms
>6d6

>>52560135
Yeah, that might be true. I don't know enough about the properties of monster skin to make a real argument.

>>52560135
I don't know why you're assuming modern rifles when any remotely fantasy setting is going to have musket balls at best.

I mean, Elephants are so resistant to bullets that they had to invent a specific kind of rifle just to hunt them, and yet a bunch of Romans defeated the one Hannibal brought. By your logic, that should be impossible, since something that resistant to bullets should be immune to swords and spears.

>>52560267
>You can only shoot wonky balls of lead
>But enchanted flaming 50lb unobtanium greatswords are perfectly fine.
Enchanted bullets.

>>52560315
>Use magic to make a round bullet pierce better
>Use magic to make a sword swing faster

I don't see how that goes against the idea that they should be doing similar damage and fucking people and monsters up about as much.

>>52558679
Kek. No, but seriously?

>>52560315
Who mentioned magic greatswords? I was contesting the idea that bullet resistant animals were somehow immune to swords

>>52560403
Bullet resistant animals would also be sword resistant. Otherwise known as DR 5(or 10)/-. Good thing bullets do way more damage as a baseline.

>>52560552
You're still missing the point. Those animals wouldn't necessarily be more resistant to swords than bullets, especially from early firearms. Which is also yet another reason why Bullets shouldn't be doing more damage than swords in the first place.

Are you seriously trying to argue that shooting an elephant once with a musket will do more than hacking at it with a battle axe?

>>52559458
This.

>>52560623
You assume I only shoot it once.
Are you assuming that swinging a hand axe at a raging 10,000lb creature will do more than a bullet?

>>52560748
>You are assuming I only shoot it once

Yeah, because that's how you would typically determine how much damage a single bullet does

>Are you assuming that swinging a hand axe at a raging 10,000lb creature will do more than a bullet?

About the same really. Might have some advantages in causing a larger gash and therefore more blood loss, but it certainly isn't going to be a fraction of damage in comparison.

>>52560822
You say I shoot it only once but say that the dude is hacking at the thing.

>>52560839
If you think I was implying multiple swings, that wasn't my goal.

I'm trying to point out how the gap isn't nearly as large as you're suggesting. I would think a big old two handed axe would do far more with a swing into one of the thing's legs or its side than a bullet might due to the sheer bulk of the thing.

I mean, under the stats OP gave, you probably deal more damage to a Tree or an Ent with a gun rather than an axe. Is that remotely sensible?

>>52560912
Ents and Treants have like DR 15(or 15)/slashing. An axe would deal more damage.

>>52559530

Worked fine in every game I ever enjoyed since the 80s. The big exception is D&D 3e, its rules are intended to insure your DM can't legally be an asshat, and I thought it sucked hard.

>>52560975
The Srd lists it at DR 10. With the 6d6 OP gave, that's still 11 on average, which is about what your expect from someone with a two-handed axe and good strength slamming into it.

And that's for something that's specifically weaker to axes than other weapons.

That's why bullets don't need to do insane amounts of damage relative to other things. It just throws other stuff out of whack. A creature like that which should basically be immune to them just like arrows is still going to have chunks blasted off.

>>52560912
I dunno, I'd bet more on a single musket shot with a large powder charge and large projectile than a single swing of an axe. You're dead either way, but the musket shot might miraculously hit its eye or something.

>>52560267
Weren't the elephants used by the Carthaginians a smaller kind of elephant? Plus the goal was to scare the elephant. Thousands of guys throwing javelins around is different than a lone hunter or a few hunters with an elephant gun which would've been used for bigger game.

>>52561073
Here's the thing. A gun, especially the rifle that can shoot those 6d6 bullets, could only fire at about once every other round. So the axe guy gets at least 2 attacks in (not counting extra attacks at later levels or haste) by the time the other guy can fire his rifle. It also costs a lot of money to shoot a gun.

>>52561144
>I'd bet more on the musket shot

Considering the accounts of needing something in the ballpark of 30? Long odds.

>You might get lucky and hit an eye

And the axe might hit the eye and a lot of other soft tissue in the face.

It's almost like they deal similar amounts of damage or something, and that the main advantage of the gun is not having to be within stomping distance of an elephant.

>>52561207
A elephant is over 11' tall. How the hell are you going to hit its eye?

Wouldn't you have far far higher chance of survival against an elephant if you were firing at it from a distance instead of right next to its powerful stomping legs?

>>52559465
I don't play MtG so I could be wrong but isn't there red, green and blue too?

>>52558601
>I'm strong but muh supa-sharp sord won't go through this plate armour!
>meanwhile this tiny little ball goes right through it and kills the guy inside!
>why le fuck is this realistic bullshit allowed in my powerwank fantasies? XDDDDDD

KYS x1000.

>>52559458
Because range is a thing, and guns are a skill which can be learned quickly. Using a sword takes years of training, and learning to use one is a waste of time if you just end up getting shot to death before you are close enough to swing.

>>52561243

6ft warrior with a 5ft axe.

NOT SO CUNTING SMUG NOW ARE YOU, SWEETIE?

>>52561477
Are you telling me that you swing an exe by the very base and that an elephant never lifts its head? Also you've got an angry elephant to swing around instead of firing at it from a safe range of at least 100 feet.

>>52561243
>an elephants eyes are on the top of it's head

>>52559616
I don't think anyone is claiming a bullet is a deathray. But a .60 caliber ball isn't a joke either.

File: 1439004675509.jpg (38KB, 600x545px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x545px

Lets assume rifling is rare, and minnie bullets are expensive and sort of reserved for pros, but a thing.
A sword will sort of gently peirce, it's the nature of "cutting". Same goes for arrows.
A lead ball will force it's way through and almost drag everything in front and behind it with it.
Even if it only dents armour, hello bone fractures and deep bruising, coupled with your breastplate sticking 3 inches into your shattered collarbone.

An axe or warhammer will dent armour and cuase fractures but will not leave the nasty exit wound or leave a toxic metal inside the body to be removed.

Rifled minnie guns (the epitome of new technology) will go completely through bones, shattering them or leaving a neat little hole....whatever. Goodbye limb!!

So yea, a bullet may pass through only muscle tissue and do fuck all, but a hole in your leg tissue is just as incapacitating as a cut, assuming everything missed the femur, in which case you're fucked either way.

Swords, pikes, spears, axes and arrows will ALWAYS be cheaper and easier to produce.
But muskets will always be easier to train.
And even with bayonettes I'd say CC will always favour an actuall CC weapon.


As for the bear hide, if a bullet can't concuss the cunt then why would an axe or hammer?
And even if pointy sharp is the way to go piercing thick hide, fuck you, fuck your sword, fuck your spear, I'd like my musket I can hide in a tree with plzKthx.

File: 1488084654867.jpg (21KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 576x432px

>>52561328
>his system can only represent armor penetration through increased damage

>>52561749
6D6 damage would turn someone into pink mist.

File: 1408980529119.gif (3MB, 400x220px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x220px

Rolled 5 + 4 (1d8 + 4)

>>52561884
Or kill about half a dozen peasants in a single shot

File: level 20 archer.gif (1MB, 260x197px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 260x197px

>>52561884

>>52558601
Stat Tony Harrison.

>>52561297
I waited a long time for someone to say this and when you finally did I was disappointed in myself for thinking it was going to be funny

File: shot.gif (1014KB, 500x363px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 500x363px

Rolled 5, 4, 1, 6, 1, 6 = 23 (6d6)

>>52562044
steamin/10

>>52561915
>>52562147
Precisely

>>52558601
Because you play abad game and should feel bad.

Where does it say that a bullet does 6d6 damage? I need a source damn it!

>>52562467

Bullets are half as good as katana. Katana do 12d6 damage, so bullets should do 6d6.

>>52562616
It's "katanas", dumbass. You're probably one of those idiots who says GHEE OH TEEN

>>52562835
>GHEE OH TEEN

Is the correct pronounciation in English.

>>52562835
Do you mean guillotine?
Ghil-o-teen?

>>52562940
Go back to Candyland

File: Banter.jpg (19KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 320x240px

>>52563001

>Go back to Candyland

The sword connects full force and probably doesn't even sever a limb, doing only skeletal muscle damage and skin damage. The bullet slips right into the concentrated center of all the vital organs and explodes there, rendering probably multiple organs almost completely dysfunctional.

>>52564307
The bullet grazes the outermost exterior of the skin doing painless cosmetic damage while the sword instantly crushes the skull, cleaves through the brain and brainstem killing the target instantly

>>52558601
I got one better. The DMG has antimatter weapons, whose damage is listed as "necrotic".

I'm keep thinking of a sci-fi campaign where the battleships have undead plating against antimatter torpedos.

Just imagine, the Enterprise covered in moaning layers of rotting flesh.

>>52565581
>anti-matter
>necrotic
FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK I HATE WIZARDS OF THE COAST

FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

>>52564307
>sword hits arm
>bullet hits gut
>bullet is also explosive

really fair comparison there

>>52559026
/thread