Gunslinger in core?

[Ahnehnois]

Setting aside the reasons why, the gunslinger dynamic is a niche within the PF community, and not at all essential to D&D.

I want them to create a system that works for all genres, so I'm fine if they take a hack at it later on (and hopefully do a better job than PF did).

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Even being inclusive, they've got to draw the line somewhere.

I'd like to have that line drawn here. Hopefully it's one of those things WOTC pledges to "look in to" as an option, but they never get around to it.

 

[Lanefan]

Gunslinger-as-class - no.

Gunpowder-based firearms carried by PCs and their enemies - no.

Gunpowder-based artillery defending castles and the like - no.

Gunpowder-based artillery on ships for naval battles - hells yeah!

My problem is that I can't think of a way to allow the last one without logically having to allow at least one of the other three.

Lan-"on the uproll - FIRE!"-efan

 

[Oni]

I wasn't really sure what to vote in the poll. I don't have a problem with firearm rules if they are well done and simple, but definitely don't see the need for a gunslinger class. Basic firearms rules I'm a little ambivalent about though, if they can include them it's great as it allows for a greater range of setting support in the core rules, but if that space could have been used for to include another class, or something else more broadly useful well I'd rather they do that instead. I just don't consider them that core to the D&D experience. Though if they do include them, I want rules for laser pistols too, as they frankly have more of a history in the game IMHO.

 

[Mercule]

I'm strongly opposed to gunpowder in stock D&D. It has absolutely no business being in the core three. It has no business being in a "Complete Fighter" or "Arms and Equipment" type of general supplement.

If, on the other hand, they wanted to put out a steam-punk (or otherwise technomagical hybrid) source book, I'd have no problem with it. I might even purchase and use it. I want it isolated, though, so it's crystal clear it is a serious deviation from stock assumptions.

 

[Mercule]

Gunpowder-based artillery on ships for naval battles - hells yeah!

My problem is that I can't think of a way to allow the last one without logically having to allow at least one of the other three.

Aw, heck. I've had ships that mounted various types of modified wands on them, since 1E. It gives a darn good reason for including wizards in the crew of a warship.

It was also a ton of fun the first time I introduced them as a creation of "the enemy". That figurehead of a dragon's maw might actually breath fire.

 

[Mokona]

4th edition already supports gunslinging. Take a wizard, reskin at-will attacks as firearms, and proceed. Take an invoker, reskin at-will attacks as firearms, and proceed. Etc.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Over 100 responses votes yielding less than 5% yes votes. Seems like gunslinger is unwelcome to the core rules.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Over 100 responses votes yielding less than 5% yes votes. Seems like gunslinger is unwelcome to the core rules.

You are downplaying how thoroughly the "maybe in a later splat book" option is thrashing both the yes and no options.

 

[Lanefan]

You are downplaying how thoroughly the "maybe in a later splat book" option is thrashing both the yes and no options.

While you may be downplaying the "maybe" part...

Lanefan