Why should swords and knives be better against vampires than guns?, Thoughts from playing way too much VtM Options

[Wounded Ronin]

So for the past week or so I have been kind of binging on the famous Vampire: the Masquerade Bloodlines video game by Troika. One big trope in the game is that supernatural entities are highly resistant to firearms so that in general it is more effective to attack them with swords and knives than with firearms.

To me, that doesn't make very much sense, because it is basically saying that a sharp piece of steel weighing perhaps three pounds that is swung at low speed somehow magically causes much more trauma, structural damage, and systemic disruption than a piece of lead that flies at supersonic speed, causes temporary and permanent wound cavities through the body, and tends to exit out the back of the body leaving a big exit wound.

I'm a really big enthusiast with both firearms, and also historical weapons. I've done test cutting with a variety of sharp swords on goat legs and pork legs, including bare versus wrapped in cloth, or wrapped in leather. Basically, I would say that there is no comparison between swords and firearms and that firearms will generally cause a lot more trauma much more quickly than a sword, especially a sword that is used for cutting as opposed to thrusting. It's not to say that swords wouldn't be deadly to a human, but we're talking about trying to stop a regenerating immortal being that basically lacks vital organs.

I guess this is also the Highlander fallacy. If you can only kill an immortal by decapitating them, a .50 caliber round to the head makes much more sense than trying to cut it off with a sword.

Do you feel that the atmosphere or feel of the VtM world or setting would be worse off if guns were simply generally better than swords? Is the idea that vampires have to have sword duels in the streets of downtown LA critical to the setting? Why not just have the vampires use swords back in the 1600s and then transition to rifles with hollow points in the 2000s?

I could see if a vampire had invested a lot of time in swordsmanship back in the 1600s, he might continue to practice in the 2000s or even have a historical collection of swords, but it would basically be a hobby, or as a means to practice physical coordination and skills. Maybe older vampires of a certain generation might still challenge each other to sword duels, if they grew up with that stuff and felt emotionally driven to call each other out in that way. But, if all of a sudden some vampire hunters came knocking, I wouldn't expect him to grab the sword instead of a shotgun, unless he had no other weapons handy. For me personally, the idea of a vampire defending himself with a shotgun doesn't ruin anything.

[Renard]

It depends on where you set the game. Carrying a handgun around in the US may not be a big deal, but in, say, Germany or France, its a bit harder to get your hands on them. Having a board thats set in London, its incredible how many people assume they can still openly carry guns (lets not get started on the military-grade stuff some assume they can have) in a place where not even most cops carry a gun. Which is why my stock retort has become 'this is London, not Downtown Chicago'. From an ingame standpoint, also keep in mind that modern firearms are a rather 'recent' invention and of course that some guy who is heavy on Fortitude and stamina will also have a chance to shrug that .50 to the head off (Not a big chance to completely reduce the damage to zero, but it won't hurt as bad as people would expect it to). Then consider a blade (not necessarily sword). easy to carry, doesn't need to reload, it benefits from Potence, it benefits from Celerity, God help the other guy if you have both. Blades are easier to hex with wards and spells than bullets are, giving them aggravated damage. Blades normally don't stop for ballistic vests (The same arguments make bow and arrows viable weapons too).

For me, Kindred warfare has mostly taken place in close quarters and the combat disciplines support that. If an enemy Gangrel gets the drop on you, and you won't always be able to avoid that, that Glock is a real shitty hand-to-hand weapon. That sword or knife ? Well, if you're good enough, you can parry to keep the claws out of your hide and perhaps get a few retaliatory strikes in. Reloading a firearm is able to give the other guy the pause he needs to draw something bad out of his sleeve. Sword, knife or Axe ? You're an untiring undead, you can just keep those blows coming. Again, realism (as useful as that is in a game of gothic horror). If people want to play Shadowrun with fangs, fine, do so, HMHVV is open, have fun ! The issue with firearms is, in the circumstances of the Vampire-universe and with my personal perspective on it, most available guns (mostly handguns) are simply ineffective against kindred. Fortitude is a pretty good bulletstopper if the roll works out right and as in Shadowrun, I'm restrictive if people want to load up on military gear a normal civilian wouldn't be able to get, especially because it might also lead to baaad issues with local law enforcement as well. I mean, nothing against guns, but I can have Dominate ! Presence ! Thaumaturgy ! Protean ! Animalism ! I find that and figuring out how I can use that to solve my problems more exciting than simply gunning things down.

Well, that has hopefully not degraded into a rant. What I wanted to say:

Guns can be a valuable part of the game, but they are way more useful against mortals than vampires, not at least because mortals wounds upon being shot are way more predictable than a vampire's. To make sure Anarchs can't overthrow the camarilla, I as Prince would keep my boot firmly on firearms and restrict access tightly, which leaves said anarchs, and my own people outside times of war, restrictred to more old-fashioned implements, that are readily available to train with.

For me, the focus of Vampire is not on Combat and that's a good thing. It's a game about choices and consequences and where those consequences lead you. How you weigh survival against being human. The whole humanity system quickly reaches its limit if you kill too much (the tabletop game has no warzones, obviously, you kill something, you roll for degeneration, with very few exceptions, depending how you interpret humanity and other rules) and a char can become unplayable fast that way, again something that makes the normal character want to stay out of 'real' combat as thoroughly as possible.

Would I grab the shotgun if that guy I have seen throwing motorcycles earlier comes at me with an Ax in his hand ? Of course. But if that guy thinks he can bring a blade to a gunfight and win, Im sure I'd feel like I was boned even if I had a subtactical nuke... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Stahlseele]

Easy and simple explanation why:
Consider where they came from.
Consider WHEN they came from.
Not that many guns around then and there.
So of course, blades are used instead.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Look at it this way: It's the same reason that filling a zombie full of arrows in D&D 3.5 is a fool's errand. Ballistic weapons cause most of their damage by hydrostatic shock and putting very small holes in very vital things. The problem is, a Vampire doesn't have most of those vital things anymore, or at least, they aren't nearly so vital, and they're also a lot less susceptible to hydrostatic shock.

So if you're shooting a vampire with FN 5.7x28mm armor-piercing rounds, they're going to mostly be going through him without doing him much damage. Shoot a human's lungs full of holes, he's flat on his ass bleeding out and unable to breathe. Shoot a Kindred's lungs full of holes, he's hurting, but he neither bleeds out nor needs to breathe, and all you've done is piss him the fuck off. Whereas if you had just carved his ass the fuck up with a claymore, you've caused huge amounts of gross tissue trauma, and he does need his tissues to connect to one another.

Now, that having been said, you definitely should be able to put a Vampire flat on his back with a gun - but you're going to have to hit his newly-shortened list of genuinely vital areas. Basically, you're gonna have to scramble his eggs (shoot 'em inna brain,) sever his spinal column, or shoot him inna heart. So a vampire at rest has as much to fear from a sniper as anybody else, but a vampire in motion does not. (You can also do 'em like Wild Bill Hickock and shoot 'em inna back of the head.)

Now, I will point out that guns are viable in that game, even against supernatural horrors and other Kindred, you just have to shoot them a lot, which means you need to be maxxing out your firearms skill ASAP. So you either have to become a vampire SEAL, or do other things. Celerity helps an epic shitload, because it's bullet time, of course it does.



[e]On that note, this reminded me the other day of a daydream I had.
Imagine this...

Mortal: the Augmented.
Basically, imagine Adam Jensen going head-to-head with Vampires. Sure, you have supernatural super-speed: I have wired reflexes. You have enough strength to lift and throw a giant crate? Guess what, so do I. You have a sword? I have two swords, in my arms. You have supernatural damage resistance and damage regeneration? I have subdermal armor and nanites.

[Blade]

I think this is mostly a way to allow (and even encourage) people to bring swords to a gunfight.

[Starmage21]

ShadowDragon8685 is pretty correct. Guns is all about poking holes in vital organs and delivering hydrostatic shock tearing holes in vital organs. Most rounds dont actually transfer much of their kinetic energy to the target either, so there isnt even a knockdown factor. Vampires dont have to worry so much about hydrostatic shock or poking holes because they almost literally dont need their vital organs. You might even argue shotguns are where its at, but in effect they are just larger rounds creating so much more hydrostatic shock, you get a much more spectacular effect.
Where swords and stuff are literally meant for carving up people, and in general will do grievous harm to an unarmored meat they come in contact with. Just go watch any cold-steel demo video, they love carving up meat with ancient melee weapons (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[ShadowDragon8685]

Of course, this is not to say that modern weapons are categorically ineffective against Vampires and such, it's just that firearms are very specialized for killing living things through causing damage to their vitals, of which Vampires have far fewer.

Explosives and incendiaries, for instance, are highly effective against vampires. Incendiaries are, I believe, more effective against Vampires than they are against ordinary humans, which is saying something considering just how damn effective they are against humans. So, if you want to go vampire hunting, leave the katana at home, grab the grenade launcher loaded with Willy Peter and HE.

[Sengir]

somehow magically

Well, you got your answer right there: Vampires are supernatural creatures, harmed by certain things and invulnerable to others for metaphysical reasons. Maybe it's just the fact that another living thing brings a weapon in direct contact with a victim, or it's part of their curse, or...

[Wounded Ronin]

The idea that vampires might basically avoid blowing each other away with .50 caliber sniper rifles because they want to be inconspicuous; that's actually a reasonable idea. If you basically had magic powers, you could use them and no one would suspect that you were the one behind them. But if you had a group of vampires blasting off heads with sniper rifles, that group would call attention to themselves, and one thing would lead to another, and before you knew it, it would really undermine the masquerade.

I guess that one way to think of the setting is that the groups of vampires are like little gangs that don't want to call attention to themselves. So, they can fight amongst themselves, but don't want to expose themselves to outside scrutiny by repeating the St. Valentine's Day massacre. Basically that would keep their firepower level down, given that they have other ways to kill each other that the mainstream isn't aware of.

[Sengir]

The idea that vampires might basically avoid blowing each other away with .50 caliber sniper rifles because they want to be inconspicuous; that's actually a reasonable idea. I

True, but it does not explain why somebody who flouts this implicit understanding and does use a .50 cal is far less effective against vampires than humans (at least when not using Raufoss rounds (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )

[ShadowDragon8685]

True, but it does not explain why somebody who flouts this implicit understanding and does use a .50 cal is far less effective against vampires than humans (at least when not using Raufoss rounds (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )

I already told you: for the same reason that using that .50 cal against a zombie is going to be far less effective against a vampire than against a human.

[Sengir]

I already told you

...so? Did I claim otherwise?

[ShadowDragon8685]

...so? Did I claim otherwise?

Yes.

True, but it does not explain why somebody who flouts this implicit understanding and does use a .50 cal is far less effective against vampires than humans (at least when not using Raufoss rounds (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )

Look at it this way: It's the same reason that filling a zombie full of arrows in D&D 3.5 is a fool's errand. Ballistic weapons cause most of their damage by hydrostatic shock and putting very small holes in very vital things. The problem is, a Vampire doesn't have most of those vital things anymore, or at least, they aren't nearly so vital, and they're also a lot less susceptible to hydrostatic shock.

So if you're shooting a vampire with FN 5.7x28mm armor-piercing rounds, they're going to mostly be going through him without doing him much damage. Shoot a human's lungs full of holes, he's flat on his ass bleeding out and unable to breathe. Shoot a Kindred's lungs full of holes, he's hurting, but he neither bleeds out nor needs to breathe, and all you've done is piss him the fuck off. Whereas if you had just carved his ass the fuck up with a claymore, you've caused huge amounts of gross tissue trauma, and he does need his tissues to connect to one another.

[Wounded Ronin]

I think part of this is that most people think that swords cut more than they do on meat targets. There is the idea out there of katanas and longswords being able to lop off limbs willy nilly and that's not exactly accurate. In the first place, not all cuts are crazy power cuts, especially if you are fencing with a live opponent. A lot of the types of cuts would hurt a live human a lot and likely create an opening for a lethal thrust through the lungs or something like that, but they wouldn't just sever arms or lop off heads. (Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIKMPIFJkzk , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc ) In test cutting, I've seen cuts into bone be more like a couple of inches or less, which would be horrifically painful and traumatic to a live opponent, but would probably not be a big deal for our hypothetical vampire. I suppose you could make the argument that vampires fence so they can create the opening to stab the heart, or something like that; that it's more of a sure thing than trying to get an A-box hit with a firearm on a moving immortal target that has magic powers, especially if someone has invested hundreds of years into swordsmanship but hasn't really gotten around to mastering firearms yet because they have been living in urban areas.

Now, I will say that really big hand to hand weapons, like poleaxes, are in a different class in terms of being to get huge amounts of torque when swung and crush a target on the receiving end. So if someone wanted to have a vampire running around with a maul or something like that, it would make sense to me in terms of the idea of causing structural damage.

I guess that one question is what the consistency of the vampiric body is like. Is it dry like a dessicated orange? If so it would minimize hydrostatic shock from firearms and be easier to cut. Is it moist and meaty like a human body? Or is it somehow harder or tougher than a human body, like it's made or rock or something, so you'd really want a hammer more than anything?

[ShadowDragon8685]

They're pretty clearly meaty, soft and moist, to more or less the usual degree.

But again, hydrostatic shock simply doesn't affect them as much as it affects a living person. A Vampire doesn't care if shockwaves through their body disrupt their vital organs, because they only have basically three vital organs: heart, brain, and spinal column. A vampire won't care if they get gut-shot a few times, or even take a few slugs center-mass, as long as it doesn't cut their spinal cord or pierce their heart. Remember, their hearts don't beat, they aren't vital for circulating blood for the Kindred they way they are for humans, they're more of an RPG style Glowing Weak Point. So no, even hydrostatic shock to the heart won't work, you have to hit it directly, or hit it with enough hydrostatic shock to not merely disrupt the functioning of a normal human heart, but with enough to actually rip the sucker apart!

So, Vampires should not go standing in front of autocannons, grenade launchers, automatic grenade launchers, or other things capable of ripping a human body apart.

[Iduno]

so you'd really want a hammer more than anything?

Wasn't there a sledgehammer in the game? I remember it being too long between swings to be a particularly effective weapon.

[nezumi]

Vampires are, setting-wise, a dark and mysterious danger from our bestial past. So of course, they are primarily affected by dark and mysterious weapons from our past. It's just a color question. You can do future space-vampires, but that's not the feel WW was going for, so naturally space-age weapons are similarly restricted.

However, if you want a reason, I would argue that vampires are magical. In Shadowrun, for example, you can't enchant a gun (except for clubbing, I guess) because once the bullet leaves the immediate aura of the person, it loses the power source for its magic; the individual's aura or will. Vampires, being magical, aren't vulnerable to physical threats, only spiritual ones, so weapons without a connection to an individual's will don't work.

Vampires are also creatures of death, and so are threatened by certain aspects of life; cold iron, fire, wooden stakes, etc. Bullets are usually made of formed lead or specialized materials. Modern swords are forged as well. But if you need an excuse, you can pull that in as well.

In a game that I run, one of the easiest spells is one that alters velocity. Small, fast objects have lots of velocity but little inertia, so are more easily nudged into a course that will miss. Heavier, slower bullets are harder to adjust, so hit more true. Swords and such are effectively unaffected.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Wasn't there a sledgehammer in the game? I remember it being too long between swings to be a particularly effective weapon.

Yes there was, and it was massively powerful, for the time you can get it, but as you say: waaay too long between swings. But still really powerful.

However, if you want a reason, I would argue that vampires are magical. In Shadowrun, for example, you can't enchant a gun (except for clubbing, I guess) because once the bullet leaves the immediate aura of the person, it loses the power source for its magic; the individual's aura or will. Vampires, being magical, aren't vulnerable to physical threats, only spiritual ones, so weapons without a connection to an individual's will don't work.

Except this is explicitly not the case. There ain't much less personal than a high explosive grenade, but HE will frag a vampire up royally. So, for that matter, would some kind of mechanical melee trap, like your standard-issue scything blade.

[Sengir]

Yes.

Hate to break it to you, but there are other persons on this planet than yourself. The post I was replying to wasn't yours, it wasn't talking about you, and therefore made no statement at all about what you said or didn't say. So would you please shut up your childish "but I already answered a question you were not talking about, notice me!!!" and go home?

[nezumi]

Except this is explicitly not the case. There ain't much less personal than a high explosive grenade, but HE will frag a vampire up royally. So, for that matter, would some kind of mechanical melee trap, like your standard-issue scything blade.

That's true, but I believe falls under "quantity is a quality all of its own".

[binarywraith]

Like they said above, it's all a matter of what actually constitutes damage. V:TM vampires specifically don't really care about anything that doesn't actively dismember them (lethal damage) or hurt them with magic/fire (aggravated damage).

Bullets just don't do that much mechanical damage. They're great for killing things that require their vital organs working to live, but reanimated corpses don't so much care. A machete taking off a hand is a lot more of a problem to them than 5-6 9mm rounds center mass that mostly poke holes in fleshy bits they're not using anyway.

It gets even more true once they start getting Fortitude levels, and can shrug off most things that aren't fire or explosives.

[Wounded Ronin]

In a game that I run, one of the easiest spells is one that alters velocity. Small, fast objects have lots of velocity but little inertia, so are more easily nudged into a course that will miss. Heavier, slower bullets are harder to adjust, so hit more true. Swords and such are effectively unaffected.

So that's basically like the shields from Frank Herbert's Dune.

[Sendaz]

So that's basically like the shields from Frank Herbert's Dune.

ooooohh.. can we make it so they blow up like the shield does when hit by a laser? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Stahlseele]

That sounds like the infamous SLOW Spell from WAR!

[Wounded Ronin]

ooooohh.. can we make it so they blow up like the shield does when hit by a laser? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Only for a Malkavian campaign.