D&D 4E Gunpowder in 4E?

[Scarbonac]

I've had gunpowder weapons IMG for well over a decade, originally as long-lost tech/extra-dimensional imports, then as a part of Spelljammer (wheel-locks, blunderbusses, organ-guns, small cannon, etc). It scared the crap out of the PCs when a band of hobgoblins started firing back with superior arms...

Technically IMG it's "smokepowder", with a more extensive and dangerous to procure list of ingredients than standard gunpowder but otherwise pretty much indistinguishable otherwise.

 

[Frostmarrow]

The problem with guns is they make a lot of noise. This is a big deal. I've been in plenty campaigns of the swashbuckling kind to know how crippling it is to be a master of weapons which go boom in almost any setting characters are likely to find themselves. You can't sneak with them, you can't pull 'em out at the ball, and they always alert the guards.

That said, I like guns to be in the DMG but really - they are no good. For adventurers that is. Unless you've got silence at will, of course.

 

[danzig138]

I'm indifferent, since I have no plans on upgrading, but I don't see why they couldn't be an option in the DMG like they are now (and being there makes them core). Personally, I like them in my games as player and GM.

 

[CleverNickName]

That said, I like guns to be in the DMG but really - they are no good. For adventurers that is. Unless you've got silence at will, of course.

Or unless you are a pirate. Noise isn't so much of an issue when you are screaming obscenities across the bow of a ship, brandishing your gleaming cutlass in one hand and a flintlock in the other as you close in on the merchant vessel. Yar!

 

[Frostmarrow]

Or unless you are a pirate. Noise isn't so much of an issue when you are screaming obscenities across the bow of a ship, brandishing your gleaming cutlass in one hand and a flintlock in the other as you close in on the merchant vessel. Yar!

Pirates have all the fun.

 

[TwinBahamut]

:\

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

Because it didn't. Plate armor and guns existed side by side from the 14th century through the 17th century, a period of three hundred years. Gunpowder existed in Europe before the Battle of Agincourt, the classic battle of French knights and English archers. Plate armor lasted through Cortez's conquest of the Aztecs. Famous forms of armor, such as Maximillian-style plate armor, were not developed until the 16th century, well after the introduction of guns.

In places other than Europe, it is even more interesting. Gunpowder and gunpowder weapons existed as early as the 11th century in China. In Japan, the mass use of firearms in battle predates Bushido and the modern idea of the honorable samurai. The Moghul dynasty of India combined horse-mounted archers and cannons in the early 16th century.

Also, the simple truth is that guns were never an armor piercing weapon. Plate armor was made to resist bullets. The term bullet-proofing comes from the practice of shooting a gun at a breastplate to show that it could resist a bullet. Meanwhile, the English Longbow was just as good a weapon at fighting a mounted knight as the gun, if not better, and the common warhammer was designed to peel apart armor. As a whole, even if the supposed ability of guns to pierce armor is true, armor-piercing is certainly not unique to the gun.

Plate armor was phased out only after guns became much more powerful due to radical increases in technology, and for reasons such as the changing nature of war and the movement towards using quickly trained ordinary people as soldiers, rather than wealthy and highly trained nobles. It took the Industrial Revolution to kill plate armor, not the gun.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I personally would like to see gunpowder placed in the core-book for a variety of reasons.

1. I would LOVE to see in a D&D game a army with all the usual accompaniment of mens and arms as one would expect. However they would also have a small battalions of Carabineers, firing their carbine-muskets while advancing.

2. I personally think it would give good reason to the reason why castles and other fortifications not protected by magic can withstand attack from larger, more powerful enemies. I don't care what kind of dragon it is, a iron ball to the chest will HURT!

3. It fits with my setting Plus as has been stated before it would make swashbuckling-adventures so much more fun and perfect.

One reason as well that gunpowder could be in the 4e is to do with the fluff. The fact that some of the worlds such as Faerun are going to have a possibly 100 year jump and with the effects of the Spellplague we could see a rise of gunpowder through normal development and a replacement to magic.

My main worry when it comes to gunpowder and gunpowder weapons is the rules for it (they are overly complexed and slow currently). My other worry is gunpowder can be used in such a different variety of ways that it should be viewed differently for each, ie: hand-weapons, siege-weapons, explosives, fireworks, etc.

 

[med stud]

Plate armor was phased out only after guns became much more powerful due to radical increases in technology, and for reasons such as the changing nature of war and the movement towards using quickly trained ordinary people as soldiers, rather than wealthy and highly trained nobles. It took the Industrial Revolution to kill plate armor, not the gun.

I just wanted to expand a bit on this: Light field artillery pieces could punch through armor (and everything else) on battle fields. Before 17th century, cannons in warfare were mostly of a very heavy kind that essentially couldn't be moved after deploying. With the battle of Breitenfeld, small cannons that could be moved during battles started to take hold.

Also, well organized infantry started to take off in this period as well. Ordered infantry had been able to resist mounted charges for a long time but that kind of infantry was rare until then.

Another matter that I read somewhere I can't remember is that gunpowder weapons were cheaper and easier to manufacture (both the weapon and the ammunition) than crossbows and the ammo weighed less.

---

On topic: As long as the gunpowder parts in the first three books are short, I don't care if they are in. I wouldn't like gunpowder as a core part of D&D though.

 

[The Little Raven]

Plate armor was phased out only after guns became much more powerful due to radical increases in technology, and for reasons such as the changing nature of war and the movement towards using quickly trained ordinary people as soldiers, rather than wealthy and highly trained nobles. It took the Industrial Revolution to kill plate armor, not the gun.

The introduction of rifling was the death knell of plate armor in widespread military use. By the 1700s, it had fallen out of general use and was primarily worn by commanders.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

If it's not in the core rules, I'm houseruling it in, guaranteed.

For those who read the DMGII, I've got a player who fits the "favorite character" type of player to a dang T. He always, unfailingly, wants to play a cleric with a gun--and I think it's rad enough that he gets to do it in every game. So in my 3.5 games, guns are loud crossbows with the name crossed out. Fair damage? Check. Takes a while to load? Check. Easy to use? Check. Take Rapid Reload, and it's a decent option. I've tried the DMG gunpowder weapons, but they're expensive, require a feat, and are strictly worse than crossbows.

So I voted for having guns in core, but they'd better be handled more adequately than the 3.5 DMG guns.