D&D 4E Gunpowder in 4E?

[Silverblade The Ench]

Swords and crossbows are 'specific flavor' too. I guess you mean "Something with a flavor I don't like ..."?


While I don't mind having blackpowder rules, in theory, I would think that in a world where any 1st level Wizard can create fire at a distance nearly at will, having significant quantities of blackpowder tied to your body seems pretty dumb ...

Likewise, having an "powder reserve" seems like a poor idea, considering the number of Fireballs, breath weapons, fire elementals, etc. that seem to be tossed around ...

LOL, exactly!
I'm happy with gunpowder being used in specific places, like Spelljammer, or a home brew setting, but in most campaigns, it would be suicide to carry around gunpowder.

Also, do most folk know gunpowder is one of the few materials that can spontaneously ignite, thus it used ot blow ships and magazines up (and sitll makes firework factories explode, along with the threat of spilled powder)?

WHat I did for homebrew, was to design a magically powered gun, like a large pistol, firing solid bronze or copper bolts from a magazine, powered by Telekinesis or similar effects.
That keeps magic, avoids gunpowder, but is expensive, so is kept to adventurers, rich folk etc.
Was toying with making a prestige class of wizard gunslingers, who speicialized in using/recharging/making them.

Almost every article about early firearms described them as being inferior to longbows. The reason that firearms became more prevalent in modern battle was not because they were technologically superior, but because they were much easier to use. Where it took months, maybe years to become proficient with a bow, a commoner could become proficient with a firearm in just a few days or weeks. This might not make a difference in the D&D game world, but in our own real-world history of warfare this was an enormous advantage. There is just no way to replicate that in game terms.

Actually, just make have all the non-rifled guns take a -5 to hit penalty (or worse) they were EXTREMELY innacurate. Even in the Cowboy era, folk frequently missed up close with rifled pistols because the weapon quality was poor and the users crap. The Cowboy myths are wrong, firing in anger = "buck fever extreme" so you miss, hence most folk with a brain used shotguns or rifles Also to most folk, pistols were useless, you can't hunt game with them, and were more expensive than a comparison shotgun, and had terrible range versus a rifle. Only a very few users were actually good with pistols, which were probably more accurate than all the older weapons.

Not all the older guns were rubbish, but fine ones cost a serious fortune. Thus using anything other than say, a wheelock/flintlock pistol point blank, should be suicidal in D&D

 

[Incenjucar]

I prefer it to be an optional rule, and not a default. My general experience is that history gets progressively less interesting for me as guns start coming into vogue, so I stop at "somewhere, some rich noble is exploding something as a party trick... if they only knew..."

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Actually I find that there is a brief but very fascinating part of history when both guns, swords and bows were of equal use. This is especially noticeable with for example Spain during the Imperial Wars, we have old style siege-warfare, but also cannons, muskets and trenches/sappers being used. There were even sharpshooters in the mix. Oh which I should note simply because it is quite a good movie to watch is: Alatriste (Spainish film staring Viggo Mortenson, it shows alot of interplay between guns and older-manner of fighting).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I prefer it to be an optional rule, and not a default. My general experience is that history gets progressively less interesting for me as guns start coming into vogue, so I stop at "somewhere, some rich noble is exploding something as a party trick... if they only knew..."

I really really disagree with that, to me history gets a lot more interesting around the time guns come into use. It's where things start to change a lot, empires form, and nothing remains the same as it was.

 

[Mercule]

I prefer it to be an optional rule, and not a default. My general experience is that history gets progressively less interesting for me as guns start coming into vogue, so I stop at "somewhere, some rich noble is exploding something as a party trick... if they only knew..."

And, I tend to agree with this. I actually made a metagame adjustment in my homebrew. The laws of physics are just slightly different -- just enough so that gunpowder doesn't explode quite right and is not serviceable for artillery or firearms. I've only had a couple of players try to make guns, but that house rules saves me what I'd consider a bit of pain.

But, I recognize that other groups/DMs might be quite happy with gunpowder, so I'm all good with it as an option in the DMG.

 

[HeinorNY]

Thinking better, I don't think gunpowder should be core, so it shouldn't be in PHB. Maybe not even in DMG because it would probably not receive enough attention and development to make it interesting (I like the gunpowder flavor in my D&D games, but I want great rules for it).
If gunpowder was core, there should be a class designed to favor firearms. Spells, skills, feats, powers and other character options in the PHB should be designed around the existence of firearms. All classes should have their power balanced properly with the existence of gunpowder in mind. You can't just create a table with stats for pistols, rifles and cannons and throw it into the game.
I prefer firearms as an optional rule, and not rooted to the core system, with a well developed set of options (classes, feats, powers) with the gunpowder flavor. I don't think we can have that by june. I'd rather hame some supplement in the future, with a whole campaign option about adding the gunpowder flavor to my setting.