D&D 4E Gunpowder in 4E?

[Mercule]

I hate gunpowder mixed with D&D, as a general rule. It absolutely should not be in the PHB. If it's a footnote in the DMG, as it was in 1E and 3E, I have no problem with it. But, that's still subtle enough for me to still consider it a "not in core" vote.

If it's in PHB2, I'd be okay with that, too. Just avoid any association with gnomes. I'm still unhappy that tinker-gnomes bled over from Dragonlance and have a standard policy of killing PC gnomes who take ranks in Engineering (or, worse, act like they have without actually doing so).

Edit: Toryx pretty well summed up my personal feelings about gunpowder in D&D. The allowances I made above are from recognition that some cretins do not adhere to my One True Way of playing D&D.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'd like to see it in the core rules, whether it be PHB1 or PHB2 or DMG1 or whatever.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I like guns to be expensive, good against armor, have high damage, be slow reload, and missfire often.

And appallingly inacurate, it wasn't until rifling that guns got anything near useful for hitting an individual. Even in the Napoleonic era when they all marched shoulder to shoulder and fired at close range they still mostly missed! The reason that, for example, 'longbows' in Britain died out was that it took a lot of training to make a good archer (Exotic Weapon any one?) but a lot less to teach someone to be OK with a firearm (martial, even basic weapon.....?)

 

[Toryx]

And appallingly inacurate, it wasn't until rifling that guns got anything near useful for hitting an individual. Even in the Napoleonic era when they all marched shoulder to shoulder and fired at close range they still mostly missed! The reason that, for example, 'longbows' in Britain died out was that it took a lot of training to make a good archer (Exotic Weapon any one?) but a lot less to teach someone to be OK with a firearm (martial, even basic weapon.....?)

As much as I'd hate to see it in the PHB1...

I would be rather highly amused if a gunpowder using ranged weapon were created with high damage (2d8 or 3d6?) and a large negative modifier for to-hit. Something like -5 to -8 would be appropriate. And horribly expensive, not just to purchase the "firearm" but the gunpowder and shot as well. With perhaps a chance of a misfire.

Then again, all those detractors would be eliminated at higher level, which puts me right back to being anti-gunpowder in the first place.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'd like to see it in the core rules, whether it be PHB1 or PHB2 or DMG1 or whatever.

I don't mind gunpowder rules, even if I never use it in all my D&D games. I'd rather you stick in the DMG as variant rules.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I would like guns and gunpowder to be an option. Maybe not in the PHB1, but either in the DMG 1, the PHB 2, or some other supplement. More importantly, I would like the rules for guns and such to be a bit more detailed and easier to integrate into the core game (so long as the ever annoying "myth of the gun" armor-piercing and other such nonsense is avoided).

I would hate for an important and valuable option to be excluded just because some people don't think it fits the feel of their game. There are a lot of games where gunpowder is essential to get the feel right in the first place. D&D should be a toolkit, and have options for a variety of games.

Besides, guns would be historically accurate for the late medieval era that D&D emulates.

 

[NewfieDave]

I have no problem with gunpowder being in the core rules. It's pretty easy to say "no gunpowder is available in my campaign." On the flip side, gunpowder can add some interesting flavor to a typical D&D campaign setting. For starters it should be rare. This makes it expensive and difficult for PCs (or NPCs) to abuse. Dwarves prize it for blasting tunnels, gnomes prize it for constructing primitive guns, and goblins just like seeing things go BANG. It's not common enough to have a major impact on play (every fighter dual wielding M-16s would be a bad thing for traditional D&D fantasy, IMO) but at least it is spelled out in the rules to be used if needed.

Edit: Another interesting option could be a world where there are no guns, but gunpowder exists and is known simply as blasting powder. A few war-minded scientists are attempting to utilize blasting powder in warfare, but the rarity/cost of the substance prevents them from fully developing high-powered weapons. Guns also lose some of their appeal as a weapon in a world with magic, so perhaps the concept of blasting powder as a weapon is ignored because magic is already more effective.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I'd like to see it in the core rules, whether it be PHB1 or PHB2 or DMG1 or whatever.

Luckily, they'll all be core in 4e.

I can do without gunpowder.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Something with such a specific flavor shouldn't be in the core rules. This is something that fits into a very small number of D&D games, and should be somewhere else.

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 ...

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I would like guns and gunpowder to be an option. Maybe not in the PHB1, but either in the DMG 1, the PHB 2, or some other supplement. More importantly, I would like the rules for guns and such to be a bit more detailed and easier to integrate into the core game (so long as the ever annoying "myth of the gun" armor-piercing and other such nonsense is avoided).

:\

So, given that guns aren't armor-piercing, please explain why the gun lead to the phasing out of plate armor.