4E DMG: No guns?!?

[GoodKingJayIII]

Just out of curiosity, what is it about the crossbow stats that prevents them from being reskinned as firearms?

 

[MrFilthyIke]

That's funny, because I swear one of the tidbits we got last year for 4E was that gunpowder would be in the PHB as part of the default setting. Hopefully we see them soon. They should also put Giff in the same book, since they're the race most closely associated with guns.

What thundershot said, because Giff are fun.

 

[greatamericanfolkher]

No, and I think most DMs haven't either, nor have most DnD players ever seen that.

I don't think guns in DnD are inspiring. They don't really belong.

The players in my SpellJammer game would tend to disagree.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I've had all sorts of cross over stuff in the past. Not so much in 3e, but certainly before that.

I hope we do get some decent firearms rules. It would be nice to use the 4e rules for a more Steampunk style game.

I would point out though that they yoinked pretty much ALL equipment from the DMG - magic items, and all. So, it's not a huge surprise that guns didn't make the cut. I could easily see it being in the Adventurer's Vault or in a later supplement.

One of the points the Devs were very adamant about was only including elements that actually worked. No half assed chucking in random stuff that sort of worked. ((Now, whether they succeeded at that is a different issue)) So, I can understand why they wouldn't include firearms until such time as they do it right.

 

[Mercule]

While, it isn't in the DMG. I wouldn't be surprised if they will appear in the Adventurer's Vault (most likely if they do appear there will be lots of good alternative rules and such for firearm-oriented D&D).

That would be my expectation, as well. There are enough people that are interested in them to warrant their inclusion in an early supplement.

That's funny, because I swear one of the tidbits we got last year for 4E was that gunpowder would be in the PHB as part of the default setting.

Then I'm very glad that's a promise they failed. I don't mind guns existing in an official D&D book, or even in an appendix/alternate section of core. I do not want to see them in the default setting/assumptions.

Really? Never? You never had space marines accidentally crash land on your D&D world? You never threw in high tech treasure and reveal at the end of a campaign that the "fantasy world" was really a post apocalyptic earth? You never armed illithid with technobabble arcane instruments because they were fifth dimensional invaders from the dark between the stars?

No. Never. In fact, I'd be tempted to walk from a game that did any of those things. It's not that they are "wrong". It's that they are indicative of such a difference in thematic styles and expectations that I don't think I'd particularly enjoy the game.

One thing I hate with a passion is tech in my fantasy. No guns. No space ships. No collapsed technologically advance precursors. No aliens. Really, even the Far Realms are too sci-fi for me and I dislike them. I also tend to avoid aberrations, especially aboleths and beholders. I expect my disdain for both Spell Jammer and Planescape originate here.

I don't mind urban fantasy (e.g. WoD) or fantasy in my sci-fi (Shadowrun). And, strangely, I kinda like Eberron, though I minimize both Sharn and the warforged. But, when I sit down to play "Fantasy", I expect to never see anything that would require advanced chemistry or physics knowledge.

I did include the printing press in one campaign, but that was a pretty big sign to me that the setting had aged too long and I either needed to shelve it or have an apocalypse. My home brews always have an explicit meta-game ruling that the natural laws of the universe function just different enough from ours that gunpowder or any proxies would not function.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I understand the spirit of your complaint, but in an edition that, supposedly, broke so many other traditions, is there really any surprise they did away with weapons that I've never heard of anybody ever using?

I'm assuming this is your first week on the Internet, then, since they're in a large minority of games.

 

[TerraDave]

Its true, technically each previous version of (A)D&D had some kind of gun powder weapon. In 2E, at least one was in the PHB, some others in Spell Jammer and FR. (with an interesting "exploding die" mechanic).

I know someone at WotC does not like "tech" in D&D...Rich Baker, Chris Perkins...one of them said something like "you will not see a Return to the Barrier Peaks". Don't know if that rules out firearms.

 

[Imaro]

I understand the spirit of your complaint, but in an edition that, supposedly, broke so many other traditions, is there really any surprise they did away with weapons that I've never heard of anybody ever using?

No, and I think most DMs haven't either, nor have most DnD players ever seen that.

I don't think guns in DnD are inspiring. They don't really belong.

Well, gonzo D&D has its place. You're right, though, that it's not everybody's kind of thing.

Sam

I guess none of you guys ever played in the Iron Kingdoms setting, guns and more gritty and grim than "gonzo".

 

[Reynard]

Just out of curiosity, what is it about the crossbow stats that prevents them from being reskinned as firearms?

And the award for missing the point by the most goes to...

it's not an issue of having stats or not, not at all. It just struck me as odd, even emblematic of the specific focus and limited scope of 4E relative to previoous editions, 1E and 3E in particular.

 

[Scribble]

The world actually being Earth thousands of years in the future after a cataclysm schtick has been a favorite of mine since I was a kid... So guns "kind of" had a place... I never liked them as a common element though.

I think it's important to remember that weapons are "different" now in more ways then just damage. If they included guns it would lmost seem nessesary for them to also include new weapon groups and powers that made use of them in special ways.