D&D 4E Gunpowder in 4E?

[Holy Bovine]

Slap the blackpowder and laser guns in a couple of pages in the DMG and I'll be happy.

Yup my feelings exactly (although I'd vote for 6-8 pages). If it is popular enough a later supplement could be made (Complete Gunslinger?)

 

[Ranger REG]

Gunpowder?
Yes
Why?
It's cool!

Meh. I'm more into sword porn than into gun porn.

I love that personal, close-up, silent killing.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I like the mental picture of gun-toting dwarves. I also like the appearance of occasional bits of technology and even SF in my D&D, but it's not something that I feel I HAVE to have in the core rules.

 

[Ranger REG]

I like the mental picture of gun-toting dwarves. I also like the appearance of occasional bits of technology and even SF in my D&D,

Get Dragonstar.

It is so frustrating that such a good thing is being shelved by a company who have absolutely no idea how to market it.

 

[Orius]

I wouldn't mind seeing it. It was handled pretty well in 3.0, in the DMG with primitive firearms as an option for DMs that wanted to use it, instead of the silly "smoke powder" stuff from core 2e. If they don't include it and I want to use it, I'll just adapt the stuff from 3e. Besides, I too like the idea of an occasional gun-totin' dwarf (need a dwarf to make it dangerous, no one takes gnomes seriously).

I'm surprised too that many people take this view. I thought there'd be lots of gun haters.

 

[CleverNickName]

I wouldn't mind seeing it. It was handled pretty well in 3.0, in the DMG with primitive firearms as an option for DMs that wanted to use it, instead of the silly "smoke powder" stuff from core 2e..

Remember the oddball rules for cinabar-whatever stuff in the Savage Coast campaign setting? Talk about silly...

 

[Holy Bovine]

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.

Well nearly 43% of people actively want guns in D&D according to the poll (of a sampling of about 350 people) and 27% are indifferent leaving only 30% who don't want/use guns. Guns have been in the core rules before without destroying the game for everyone else so I don't think your argument holds water.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I wouldn't mind seeing it. It was handled pretty well in 3.0, in the DMG with primitive firearms as an option for DMs that wanted to use it, instead of the silly "smoke powder" stuff from core 2e. If they don't include it and I want to use it, I'll just adapt the stuff from 3e. Besides, I too like the idea of an occasional gun-totin' dwarf (need a dwarf to make it dangerous, no one takes gnomes seriously).

I'm surprised too that many people take this view. I thought there'd be lots of gun haters.

Guns are just cool. My old Warhammer FRP game had all of the PCs with some kind of firearm. It was usually used in the first round of combat (as were the enemies if they had them) and then forgotten. Archers with longbows were more of a problem for the group as they could fire at 3 times the rate of the gunslingers.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Without rifled barrels, guns don't work except as massed units firing upon eachother. The reason is that they simply don't shoot straight. The bullet bounces around through the barrel, and heads off in a random trajectory, definately not straight ahead. It was useless to try to hit a specific target; if sniping had been possible officers would not have ridden on horseback in brightly colored uniforms.

A pistol might be useful at point blank range, but at ten paces (such as a duel) you could count on missing because you don't even know which direction the bullet would be heading in.

Muskets do in fact shoot straight-ish. You can hit a human sized target, the one you are aiming at up to 100 yards. Different shaped loads and wadding and you get different performance from a musket. Duffers and folks using miliatry quick loads would be hard pressed to hit a specific target over 80 feet away.

Officers wore bright uniforms and rode on horseback so their own troops could see them during the heat of combat. Snipers did in fact shoot officers, it wasn't always considered "fair" or "sporting" . Officers could be identifed as such at extreme yards during the first years of WW1...that prooved to be foolhardy when common arms were accurate at many hundreds of yards.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Muskets do in fact shoot straight-ish. You can hit a human sized target, the one you are aiming at up to 100 yards. Different shaped loads and wadding and you get different performance from a musket. Duffers and folks using miliatry quick loads would be hard pressed to hit a specific target over 80 feet away.

Out of curiosity, what muskets in particular are you talking about? Muskets have a very long history, and have changed a lot over that history. Remember, for the purposes of D&D we are more likely talking about hand-cannons and matchlocks rather than flintlocks and rifled muskets.