It seem to me that determining damage dice is a pretty arbitrary thing to begin with. If I get stabbed in the heart with a knife, how much damage did I take? How about if I was shot in the heart with .45 auto? Is the damage from a thrown boulder from a giant that different from getting hit by a cannon ball? It seems to me dead is dead.
Now, I guess that getting an arrow through the eye would probably kill you, but a 9mm through the eye might just blow out the back of your head as well, so it should probably have a higher maximum damage. But an arrow to the shoulder probably isn't that different from a bullet to the shoulder. I don't know for sure as I have never been shot by bullet or arrow.
Granted there is system shock damage from bullets that strike at high velocity, but then that's why they do more rolled damage. Does there really need to be a formula to figure out damage dice? If so, what is the formula for figuring out how much damage a broadsword does compared to a battle ax? Or a halberd compared to a claymore?
Anyway, the whole argument about gun damage seems a bit silly to me. As long as it is close enough to realistic that you can have willing suspension of disbelief, that is good enough.
|