Weapons

[hell bovine]

The empty-handed guy wins, because he's a cave wizard.

 

[DraQ]

Whoever picks desert life-jacket* as his armour won't win, but will ensure that no one else does either.
Probably unarmed guy, because he has nothing to lose anyway.

*) equipped with a dead man's switch.

 

[Chippy]

Depends on the size of the room, the build and capability of the combatants and how determined they are. You'd think the SMG guy would win, but if you've got a sumo wrestler in there proficient in kendo - he'd probably grab the nearest soyboy as a human shield, charge the SMG guy and pulverize him, and the hack everyone else up with his Katana.

Might take a few hits, but really doubt he'd notice.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Do you think shooting someone in the shoulder, arm or leg would take them out of the fight?

 

[typical user]

Well a rifle since it has larger caliber so it has best chances to punch through thick leather or metal or something.

Otherwise it's a mexican stand-off of course after gunning down losers without any ranged weapons.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Handgun statistics say, that the target generally goes down in less than two hits, no matter the caliber. But they also say, that it is hard to hit someone with a handgun if they aren't in your face.

With the introduction of the M16, an often heard complaint was: "Those drugged Vietnamese keep on coming after you pump them full of lead! This gun sucks!" Of course, that is more a question of inertia and time going very fast during a gunfight. That target is going down. It was just, that the previous .30 guns made a big mess out of everything they hit. It was instantly clear that the target wasn't human anymore. The M16 made it much easier to hit that target on full auto, but it wasn't as spectacular.

That same complaint is often heard about any gun that makes it easy to hit a target with many bullets. The bullets have to be small and fast, so it isn't immediately apparent that something happened. Especially with armor-piercing bullets, as those make small holes. If you make it easy to hit that target, that doesn't mean that you have to hit it more often before something happens. It mostly means, that it is easy to hit that target many times before something happens.

If it is hard to hit something, but the result is spectacular, people will think it is a great gun: "He just, Exploded!". But actually it is a really crappy gun. The easier it is to hit, the better the gun. Any hit will have a severe impact.

Then again, this is all considering that the average distance in most gunfights is less than 50 meters. 100 meters is far. And if you go beyond that, you want a semi-automatic rifle, with a scope. Aim before firing. At that distance, hosing the target down isn't going to work. Or a handgun.

 

[Neanderthal]

Conan wins.

 

[Beastro]

Let's say you have a big, empty room and six combatants. They are armed with at most a single weapon. The first with nothing, the others with a knife, sword, pistol, SMG and assault rifle. And all the ammo required. They can all don whatever armor they like. And they all have average stats.

Who wins?

Using nothing as a weapon.....

Sounds very existential.

 

[Citizen]

The First Guy hits Player with Nothing! Critical Hit!
Damage: 100d100x100
Additional effects: Universe doesn't exist anymore!

 

[Barbalos]

Wait, will this be using the Baldur's Gate III system? In that case nobody will miss so the rifle user probably takes it with one shot one kill per target.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

Does the room have doors or windows? If so, I'll go with the unarmed man. He'll have the agility and speed to escape, let the weapon wielders kill each other, then he can either flee or go back in and loot the place to his heart's content.