Gunslinger in core?

[Dausuul]

I voted "option at a later date." Inclusiveness is a wonderful thing, and I quite like the idea of a firearms module, but take it from a software developer: Scope creep is Satan incarnate. Get the standard quasi-medieval fantasy stuff done first. Then start adding special setting modules.

Hmmm. Taking D&D back to it's roots probably doesn't involve core rules for using firearms. And please, don't point out any tables from the 1e DMG to me, I know what's in there...I'm just saying, guns are not the essence of D&D.

Well, if you really want to go back to D&D's roots, there should be laser guns a la Blackmoor.

 

[kitsune9]

While I like the gunslinger class, it makes sense for campaigns like Zeitgeist, Iron Kingdoms, and Golarion. Not sure if a core campaign setting would fall along those lines.

 

[Aeolius]

Feel free to tote your six-guns, but my campaign setting of choice is the World of Greyhawk, where gunpowder "doesn't work". Mind you, I would not stop a PC from blowing themselves up trying to invent the stuff.

 

[tlantl]

My home brew setting is very steam punk, a little wild west, and a lot of sword and sorcery. I would love for there to be something concerning firearms early in the development of D&DN.

I don't think there needs to be a specific class that uses them to the exclusion of the other classes, though. I actually consider guns to be simple weapons usable by everyone.

With that being said I could see specialized classes, or if themes cover things that should be the purview of classes then, there aught to be something that is specific to their use.

 

[The Little Raven]

Ditto.

Firearms are a weapon, not something that should be restricted to a single class. Either include them in the DMG or a later weapon related suppliment.

This.

If your campaign uses firearms, the existing classes should be able to handle them without scads of special rules/feats/whatever. I like the idea of a gunslinging ranger better than a dedicated gunslinger.

 

[the Jester]

I'm all for an add-on that includes firearms and a gunslinger class (base or prestige).

However, I think there's enough that's going to go into the core as it is.

 

[JeffB]

Firearms never have had a place in my games. I love S&P laser pistols and swords, but gunpowder totally rubs me the wrong way for some reason.

Maybe in the optional Boot Hill rules module

 

[Spatula]

I think it should be core in 5E to prove that WotC is actually serious aboot 5E being as inclusive as possible.

Even being inclusive, they've got to draw the line somewhere. But beyond that, I don't see much of a mandate for incorporating a class (that is often banned from games) from a splatbook for a 3e variant into the "core" of 5e.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

I voted "at a later date". While I am definitely for including rules for classes and races from as many PHBs as possible, I just have a hard time with guns. I don't have a problem with guns in D&D, but I think they belong in a campaign variant rather than with race and class variants. Therefore, I would rather see them in the DMG, since the majority of players will not being using them. However, if a DM wants to say, Gun Mages and Sniper Rangers for all!, be my guest. Heck, I would totally play in a gun campaign.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, I don't want a gunslinger class. Nor do I want a "swordsman" class, or a "jouster" class.

Assuming they have rules for firearms in core D&D, which would not be new, since both the 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide and the 2nd Edition PHB included them, the use of a gun doesn't require its own class. The proper class name for all of the above is "Fighter".

Guns don't work all that well with the attritional style of combat in D&D anyway.

In addendum, the inclusion of the Gunslinger in Pathfinder is popular in some quarters, but it's also very controversial. It's not been embraced with open arms by the community. This has to do with both tone, and rules. The Pathfinder firearms rules are really bad, specifically the rule of them using touch attacks.

I agree with this...with the exception of the boldfaced text. (Edit mine.)