Point blank

You can't really dodge arrow or crossbow bolt shots at close range either. A literal nightmare to have someone draw a bow on you at point blank.

The reason melee weapons are better is when you're facing multiple opponents... and need ammo.

Honestly, I always thought pic related was fucking stupid. We just got done showing how ridiculously good at dodging people can get in this place, then she comes up beside the dude (not behind, beside) with a gun, but INSTEAD of just shooting him and quipping afterwards, she wastes a couple seconds giving the quip first and he doesn't bother to react. What, was his initiative not up yet? Did he space out for a minute?

D&D 5e

It's +2 bonus you fucking retard, read the fucking rules.

You're in the middle of a fight. They're not just standing there letting you get your weapon prepped, raised between the two of you, and aimed at them when they're right next to you.

aware vs. unaware target

there's the difference.

Also, closer the range, the less the target has to move away from the line of fire. Greater the range, the more the target has to move away from the line of fire.

> Picture of an automatic pistol

I can't even begin to emphasise what a difference it makes. Even in settings with firearms.

The automatic pistol was the last thing to properly kill the sword. Which were still seeing limited use in warfare right up to the first part 20th century.

Same, but it's a movie. 'Dodge that', past tense probably didn't have the same impact with test audiences.

You've got three to five arrows in one hand, you have to put one forward, and pull back on the string, leading to an insanely fast and gruesome death to the other person if it happens.

They have to take several steps, pull back their weapon, and swing it.

In a one on one, it's horribly disadvantageous for the melee user.

Theres a rule with guns, 20 feet I think, within 20 feet someone having a gun aimed at them has a better chance of avoiding getting shot and reaching the shooter, where they can attempt to disarm, or subdue the shooter. The reason this is so is because the closer you are to the shooter, the more difficult it is for the shooter to keep a bead on you, since close range means you can duck and dive and run at them, and against untrained marksmen, this is a pretty decent method of increasing your chance of survival. Again, it's just a chance, it doesn't end up being
>nothing personal kid *teleports behind shooter*
it's more like a mad scramble to stay out of line of fire till you can tackle the shooter or knock the gun out of the way

It's more about the shooter being nervous than about the person ducking and rolling like a ninja.

In D&D, melee range is within 5 feet for most weapons, 10 feet for weapons like spears and halberds. Unless they're using a dagger or a short sword, all they need to do to at least threaten you is take a good step and swing. Doesn't have to hit. Just needs to throw you off. You've got a bow and a handful of arrows, trying to isolate a single arrow long enough to fit it on the string, and then pull it back. While a guy is actively trying to kill you with something as simple to operate as, "swing".

Pistols are effectively the melee weapons of firearms, the obsession with balancing melee and ranged suggests that melee is somehow superior to guns as soon as you initiate; in reality its pretty hard to avoid getting killed by someone who has a finger on the trigger and is pushing the barrel right against you.

>within 20 feet someone having a gun aimed at them has a better chance of avoiding getting shot
No. The 21 foot drill is an arbitrary test that probably taught cops to take more shots based on bullshit anecdotes more than anything else. Even in this bullshit test, this is NOT a case of the gun being out and aimed. You cannot cross 21 feet before someone can squeeze the trigger.

The 21 foot drill assumes your weapon is holstered, safety on, and in a neutral stance. If the gun is out you get shot.

Hmn, my bad.

Still, point being, if a shooter is close enough to you and aiming a gun at you, theres a better chance for you to knock the gun aside or even away, allowing you to attack the shooter himself. It's not just a thing in action movies, if you've got a gun pointed a few feet or inches from your face, it's very likely you can knock it aside.

I can only rationalize this in maybe three ways. Anyone is free to disagree with me.

1: Semi-automatic pistols can malfunction when pressed against someone's body. Imagine the barrel in someone's gut and the slide doesn't slide forward all the way to seat a new cartridge into the barrel or the firing pin can't reach said cartridge.

2: There is a slim chance someone can get out of the way by moving or knocking it at the last moment. I say slim because you have to be superhuman to simply 'dodge' a speeding bullet but moving four inches is easier and faster than moving four feet when someone has a bead on you.

3: Being that close can cause the bullet to have an increased chance of passing through the body. Obviously this doesn't matter if you put two in the hat but in softer areas a through and through could cause less damage than a distant and more slower slug transferring kinetic energy into the body.

That's my two cents. Which is funny because when asked for someone else's thoughts I only offer a penny.

> If that were true Trayvon Martin would be alive

>1: Semi-automatic pistols can malfunction when pressed against someone's body. Imagine the barrel in someone's gut and the slide doesn't slide forward all the way to seat a new cartridge into the barrel or the firing pin can't reach said cartridge.
Depends on the gun, and even if the slide can't rerack you still got the first shot out.

Oh, dnd logic over real world logic.. hooray.

Very true.

which is why nobody ever bothered to use close-range weapons and all wars were fought purely with bows

Oh look, someone couldn't come up with a counterargument... hooray.

This is the board for games like D&D. If you want to talk about this kind of thing in real life, with real world logic, then this is the wrong place to do it.

there are documented events tru history where people survived massacres, latest was this Iraqi soldier who survived point blank shoot from back (it went tru his mouth or something)

Anyway, IDK what game, but it should be up there with 100 000/1+(luck x=(1~10)) chance at least

>They have to take several steps, pull back their weapon, and swing it.
Or they could just smack your wooden bow with their metal sword and fuck up your entire attack in a second?
Is this bait? I mean are you actually trying to make the argument that a medieval ranged weapon has the advantage in close quarters combat?

>stringing a bow when someone is about to swing a sword at you
>"real world logic"
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

>In a one-on-one
Learn to read with all that implying, samefag.

We are talking about train police and shooters here. People who min maxed in cop and took gun proficiency.

If you have to take time to string your bow, then why not assume the melee user has to go back to his horse for his weapon?

Of course! And against a gun he could just swat that big metal stick out of your hands with no fear because close combat implies within arms reach and not a few meters!

Thank you for having a brain, sometimes you have to think that 50% of people are stupider than the average and it's always refreshing to see that one user on the other end.

Pretty much; although speedloaders were starting to come in at the same time automatic pistols were coming in, so chances are they were on the way out regardless.

Point Blank is +30 to hit.

Melee prevents use of Basic and Heavy weapons.

Literally not a single argument you have made has been consistent or sensible. I'm almost convinced you're just baiting now.

Assuming 5e:

Because the Attack action is assumed to include loading, drawing, aiming, and firing the weapon.

Of course it's nonsense if you've already got a loaded gun, but those aren't in the PHB.

Isn't that gears more toward bows though? I've never tried, but I can't imagine they're incredibly easy to use in cqc

The 20 feet rule assumes you have to draw. If you have the gun out, you're dealing with a much shorter distance for them to run at you before you can just point and click

This. OP posted a picture of someone shooting someone else who is unprepared in the head, with a modern, already loaded handgun, and then quoted rules from a system that is built around the idea of ranged weapons being wooden tools that require re-stringing every time you shoot, against someone already trying to hit you with a sword.

Use your common sense, that's why there's a DM.

The 21 foot rule came about after testing and research found that an attacker with a knife can reach and cut an armed person before they can reasonably draw and fire.

/thread

Full penetration gives 2 holes to bleed out from. I've also never bought into the idea that you want the bullet to stop inside. Sure it transferred all its energy, but if another bullet penetrated all the way through then it had more energy, plus targets may not all be soft tissue like ballistics jell. I don't want to just brake a shoulder on a deer I shoot, I want to brake the shoulder and penetrate into the chest to hit something vital. In a self defense situation where your life, or the lives of your family is on the line it would be more important.

Are you meaning moon clips for revolvers?

>Implying any of the shit you spewed out could be considered "logic"
You must be a 2 cent comedian, huh?

The min range makes sense in systems that apply it. It's turned based, simulating a swirling melee that happens in just a handful of moments. As an archer in the SCA I can confirm that shooting a target approaching you full speed (with intent to club your face) is scary and difficult. Particularly if they're coming from your side and you have to spin to win. When they're far away you simply have more time to find your target and loose.

>dem assumptions.

If you can point out which page it says you keep arrows in your hand or half of that bullshit you spouted, I'll eat my goddamn hat.

You're full of crap.

Clearly he identified Trinity as the greater threat, like a machine, & turned to try & shoot her. It's obvious. The bullet hole on the person after transforming back is on the front of the face rather than side.

>take several steps
>implying that's point blank
wew lad

if we're talking 5e then that's for bows/xbows

why are you applying rules for one thing to another thing that isn't even actually supported by the rules? just to complain?

Yep. OP just wanted some attention.

The rules weren't designed with guns in mind and you have disadvantage on ALL ranged attacks, not just at the guy 5' from you, because he's within close combat range and you can't properly defend yourself if you're aiming a bow and arrow at someone.

Jesus christ, I'm a gun grabbing liberal and even I know that that was some retarded shit you just said user.

Hahaha okay OP

Go get some time overseas and tell me how easy it was for you to shoot a struggling opponent in arms reach, you stupid faggot

Gunless cucks should be killed

By OP's post, this is clearly a D&D thread, so in D&D is a fucking system where you, in a span of six seconds, can move 25 to 30 feet (not necessarily in a straight line), talk, make a smirk and attack with all your strength against anything.
Everyone is a super hero, user. Get over it.

Prideux Speedloaders.

Because point-blank successes typically rely on the exact situation from your gif--an element of surprise. It's not that difficult as you'd like to believe to dodge close-range projectiles. Please reference the below videos. The first shows a man using a tiny tree and some quick side-steps and ducks to dodge several shots from a semi-auto handgun. The second shows a veteran and expert shooter demonstrating that you can miss at close-range easily, even with a shotgun (skip to 30ish seconds).

youtube.com/watch?v=9tkMYoOLAhk
youtube.com/watch?v=qKk45i9DzDA

>why doesnt point blank work in 5e
I dunno, because it takes time and effort to draw and aim a fucking bow?

>OP posted a picture of someone shooting someone else who is unprepared in the head, with a modern, already loaded handgun, and then quoted rules from a system that is built around the idea of ranged weapons being wooden tools that require re-stringing every time you shoot, against someone already trying to hit you with a sword.

This.

Did you read the actual rulebook? That 5ft square is just area your character controls. When someone closes to that distance, they're actively trying to hit you. So, yeah, the person with a ranged weapon is gonna have a disadvantage to the melee guy. This is why you have the option to take an action to disengage.

I thought you couldn't Sneak Attack if you had disadvantage though.

It's only disadvantage if they know you're there and are an active combatant.

If they aren't fighting you off you'd probably get advantage, to boot.

tl;dr: read the rules.

He can move faster than a human can, agents do not have infinite speed however. He is physically incapable of escaping a point blank.

Since agents are effectively immortal however, this is an acceptable compromise between the effectiveness of the agent and the stability of the simulation.

If you're already in melee range, a person with a melee weapon won't have to take several steps. Just one. They also won't need to "pull back" their weapon to do damage unless they're using an axe, mace or blunt curbed sword, and even then a thrust would be enough to disrupt someone drawing a bow until they could get a swing in.

How to upset every HEMA practioner on Veeky Forums: The Post.

Dungeon World, I assume?

Technically, "point blank" is just close enough that you don't have to worry about bullet drop. 10ft or so would definitely be considered point blank.

The 21 feet rule only applies if the shooter hasn't drawn, yet. Only in this case the shooter is at slight disadvantage as he can get rushed.

If he has already drawn and just needs to shoot it's the entire opposite. The melee guy is at clear disadvantage as the shooter just can just shoot him.

Exception would be surprise attacks from the side or back as you cannot defend against attacks you don't see.

Pistols are more the dagger of modern combat. Rifles, carbines and SMG's are the main weapons.

Like Reid Henrichs said. The pistol is a defensive weapon. The rifle is an offensive weapon you use to fuck someone up.

>He can move faster than a human can, agents do not have infinite speed however. He is physically incapable of escaping a point blank.
Haven't individuals in the Matrix and many other movies, swatted guns pointed at them or dodged where the gun was aiming at point blank time and time again?

I'm pretty sure the possibility is higher than 0%

That's complete dumbass bullshit on so many levels, Legolas.

Anybody who has to nock and draw and loose an arrow is at an absurd DISadvantage against a guy who only needs to stab stab stabbity stab and is within arm's reach already.

Yeah, "point blank" is one of the most misused and misunderstood gun terms there is, even more than "clip". It's thought to be synonymous for "melee range" or "hand's reach" but it's not. 50 meters away is still "point blank" for most guns because all it actually means is that you don't need to adjust for the drop.

>ITT: Some retards who have never drawn a bow in their life, let alone fired one in combat, tell the rest of us how super easy it is to shoot a guy who is right next to you and actively trying to fuck your shit up
It's hard enough to shoot someone right next to you in a fucking larp, I don't even want to imagine how much it sucks to try and get a damaging shot off while dodging a real sword.

>It's hard enough to shoot someone right next to you in a fucking larp, I don't even want to imagine how much it sucks to try and get a damaging shot off while dodging a real sword.

Fat losers in dresses != trained soldiers in medieval warfare.

Eh, I think it may be the opposite.

The closer you are, the more your silhouette shows and it becomes easier to shoot center mass. The further away you are, the less your silhouette shows and the harder it becomes to hit. This also is under the impression of the length of the gun as well.

Yes, and the fat losers in dresses are harder to hit up close, as well as more dangerous to you because they can just hit your bow. Have you ever even drawn a bow, let alone tried to aim it while someone was trying to hit you? I'm not saying that you're defenseless, just that having the difficulty increase that Disadvantage represents makes sense.

>itt: Veeky Forums discusses this for several hundred more posts trying to come up with winning and losing scenarios for the shooter and victim situation. when in reality its not a matter of who draws and shoots or who is closer - its a matter of whether or not that dead-man switch in the guy's hand is actually going to go off when he drops.

This supposed to be a Morton's fork?

>police officers
>taking gun proficiency

>laughingelves.jpg

It's not based on realism, it's based on what makes for a better game. It, combined with opportunity attacks, means that characters with melee weapons have an edge in close combat.

Plus, if you walked up to them with a loaded bow, sure, it wouldn't make sense to get disadvantage, but if you have to nock and fire an arrow while there's a guy waving around an axe five feet from you, you're gonna be a mite distracted.