D&D 4E Gunpowder in 4E?

[CleverNickName]

So in my 3.5 games, guns are crossbows with the name crossed out and changed. Fair damage? Check. Takes a while to load? Check. Easy to use? Check.

A lot of gunpowder-related equipment could be added rather easily, now that I think about it. A powder keg bomb would have the same cost and effect as scroll of fireball, for example.

 

[Imp]

I like the way gunpowder is handled now, as a rules option, though muskets & such could stand to be a little more powerful for the cost & character investment.

 

[jasonbostwick]

I run a Ptolus campaign (and hope to convert it to 4e), so guns and related technology are a huge part of my game. While I can see them not being included in the PHB weapons section, I really hope to see a page or two of alternate weapons in the DMG so that I don't have to rig them up myself.

If the ideas of Fighters that wield different weapons having significantly different powers is true, the first thing I homebrew will probably be a talent tree relating to firearms use.

 

[WayneLigon]

I would like to see a basic system of gunpowder equipment and associated rules (something more detailed than we got in the DMG) presented as an option.

 

[Ahglock]

I have no problem with the guns, and would be indifferent to its inclusion in the rules. I'm not sure I would let it in my game because of all the fun with explosives stuff I would be dealing with. Every problem would be handled with a bomb. And I'd get sick of figuring out what a keg of powder did to the cave/building/bridge/ship etc.

 

[CleverNickName]

I have no problem with the guns, and would be indifferent to its inclusion in the rules. I'm not sure I would let it in my game because of all the fun with explosives stuff I would be dealing with. Every problem would be handled with a bomb. And I'd get sick of figuring out what a keg of powder did to the cave/building/bridge/ship etc.

I agree; the rules for gunpowder have been a little shady and quite complicated in past books. I am all on board for an easier way of dealing with those "let's make a bomb!" gamers.

I wouldn't worry too much about gunpowder bombs. If a fireball spell doesn't cause structure collapse or cave-ins in your campaign, then there is no reason why a powder keg should either. The way I see it, gunpowder is just a fireball effect that you buy in a keg, instead of scribed on a scroll.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I have no problem with the guns, and would be indifferent to its inclusion in the rules. I'm not sure I would let it in my game because of all the fun with explosives stuff I would be dealing with. Every problem would be handled with a bomb. And I'd get sick of figuring out what a keg of powder did to the cave/building/bridge/ship etc.

It only gets worse when more of the group than not has experience with the real stuff and start pulling every exploit possible to get the most out of it. I was willing to run with it at first but after freight-wagon truckbombs and primitive claymores showed up I had to just ban it. The last straw was when they suggested filling a captured enemy airship with powder kegs and sticking a helm of brilliance on the prow then crashing it into the Captain-General's Keep (the capital of a sky island) using a dominated enemy soldier.

 

[The Little Raven]

I agree; the rules for gunpowder have been a little shady and quite complicated in past books.

Complicated? You must be reading an entirely different 3e/3.5e DMG than I am, since the Renaissance firearms rules don't even take up half a page of description and have no unique mechanics associated. In fact, the only reasons that really stop people from using them are (a) no desire for technology above medieval or (b) they're weak.

I am all on board for an easier way of dealing with those "let's make a bomb!" gamers.

"No."

That normally works for me.

 

[delericho]

Well, they could sick it in the DMG as an optional rule. However, my preference would be to hold it back to a later PHB, and spend more than the single column or so that the DMG1 could probably spare - and thus cover the subject properly.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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.

Though it's worth pointing out that that would have happened regardless of the introduction of rifling.

At that point the social nature of the military had changed. In prior armies a substantial portion of the military could afford their own armor. Or had direct sponsors who could afford to armor them.

After the early modern military revolution this was only true of a portion of the officers and most of the military was so poor they couldn't afford to feed themselves and the militaries were so large that governments could barely afford to feed them either.

Also worth pointing out that when armor did come back for the common soldier in WWI many units resisted wearing it, despite knowing its proven efficacy, simply because they considered it bad for morale.

People don't always do things for any more rational reason than either that's what everyone is doing or that's the way we've always done it.