D&D 4E New 4E Class: Gunner?

[TwinBahamut]

TwinBahamut- No, the difference, for me at least, is that getting grazed by a sword seems a reasonable prospect for a swordfighting hero, but people mostly don't get grazed by bullets. They get shot. I can visualize a character in a duel getting minor cuts and lacerations all over his body, but avoiding getting actually impaled. But how many times, per fight, is it realistic for a bullet to do minor damage?

I'd see them as the same if there were something in the rules that said that a sword wound of over 10 damage was a stab through the torso. But that's not how it is.

Why is that the case? It is not like guns are homing weapons or anything... Why would they be able to more reliably strike a major blow against a target trying to defend himself than any other kind of weapon? Older guns are notoriously inaccurate, and even modern pistols are not terribly accurate at anything other than close range. The vast majority of bullets fired would do things like be near misses or grazing wounds, especially considering D&D is based on the idea that heroes have cinematic luck (and what move hero gets hit in the chest by a bullet very often?).

In other words, why does a wound inflicted by a gun that does more than 10hp damage have to be a shot through the chest, if a sword injury that does more than 10hp damage is not a stab through the chest? Why can't it be a near miss that forces you into a tougher situation, a shot deflected by your armor (since armor is bulletproof) that stings and leaves a nasty bruise, or even just a bullet that crashes into your thigh and sticks in your femur? I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

Besides, if real-world American presidents could have taken a bullet through the chest years before they ever entered office, and get through their lives without ever having the bullet removed, then I think even a bullet into the chest shouldn't be that lethal for people with the mythical level of might and strength that high-level D&D heroes possess.

 

[VannATLC]

Realisticly speaking, most people don't die immidiatly when shot. There is always the "shoulder wound" of some movies, where the hero gets hit and keep going, but in most of the action movies I can think of, the hero survives because he doesn't get hit. Then, of course, reality is not a good thing to base damages on since it very unforgiving, but the lethality of an old gun is probably not much higher than the lethality of an arrow. Pure speculation from my side.

Not the issue.

The issue, as history shows, is that any monkey can fire gun, well, and fast.

Longbowers had bugger all accurracy, and muscles to post in mister universe for.. at least on one side of their body.

Crossbows are ok.. in terms of damage/ease of use comparison to a musket ball, generally..

The problem, of course, is that a crossbow-bolt's momentum is transmitted very differently to a balls. A musket ball has a LOT of impulse, and the shock trauma to the rest of the body is massive. Arrows and crossbow bolts, in order to be aerodynamic, have small points of impact, as well as still being long enough for the transfer of momentum to occur.

People don't take getting hit by a musket ball, or a bullet, very well. Muskets are short ranged, but truly, truly nasty. I'll see if I can get some some figures on the stopping power of a muzzle-loading musket.
A flintlock pistol is equally vicious.

Anyway, I don't have any massive dislike of chemical projectile weapons in DND.. but having them *without* the rest that went with it? Well.. that I have problems with.

Canon, for one, were around well before pistols. Then you have real blasting powder, and chemical explosives.

I don't mind running with that sort of stuff.. but it only takes 1 genius (Like an annoying int 20 PC) to introduce new and interesting uses of chemical explosives.

Of course, if you introduce anything like modern firearms, then you need to radically increase the damage, mostly due to several rounds of firing being representative of rapid fire.
Once cased ammunition was developed, you got real automatic weapons, let alone semi-automatics..

 

[med stud]

Not the issue.

The issue was one of survivability, nothing else

I was talking about the danger of firearms, which I think is exaggerated, much due to Hollyowood.

About swords: An average swordfight lasted about 5-10 seconds before one person was out of fight, dead or handicapped. It is frightenly easy to go through flesh with a regular knife, swords must be the same thing. The flesh wound from a sword isn't much more probable than a flesh wound from a gun.

 

[VannATLC]

As I mentioned, Momentum and the trauma from a gunshot far exceeds that of a stab or a slice from a sword.

Axes and maces are different again, and that is why somebody who could wield a mace effectively was a much scarier opponent than an average swordsmen, on the battlefield.

 

[D.Shaffer]

I dunno, I think the Gunslinger could really come into his own, if we moved away from a rifle-based class to a duel-wielding, multi-target, run-and-gun Wild-West style Gunslinger.

It sucks in many ways (unless you watch it for Fanservice) but a fairly recent anime series called "Grenadier' has a character that I'd think would be a good basis for a 'more cool then accurate' style gunslinger. Just...ignore how she reloads.

 

[med stud]

As I mentioned, Momentum and the trauma from a gunshot far exceeds that of a stab or a slice from a sword.

Axes and maces are different again, and that is why somebody who could wield a mace effectively was a much scarier opponent than an average swordsmen, on the battlefield.

More momentum from a bullet, yes. More trauma, no. A sword is easily capable of cutting of a limb or cutting deep into tissue, causing more damage than just about any bulletwound (if you don't count .50 machine guns and the like).

A bullet creates a passage in tissue that is from 1,5 to about 5 cm wide in the body it hits, depending on cailber and type of jacket. A sword can cause deeper wounds than that. The human body is soft; cutting a steak is about the same as cutting in a body (I know from experience, I have done autopsies) so most energy from a bullet is "wasted" energy.

Stabs from swords is another matter, getting stabbed by a sword causes less trauma than getting shot from a gun. Axes and maces were mainly an issue when going against armour or when you needed long weapons.

 

[Gorrstagg]

I myself love blending fantasy with magic and steampunk. Always have. And for me it allows much greater freedom of storytelling. So I've included guns in my game for a long time now. In 3.5 I used a dice approach to dealing with the differences, essentially giving a guns a higher median damage, but a similar max damage when taken into context for someone using a composite bow for strength could achieve a similar parity and the way I structured it, could fire more arrows sooner than a gunner, due to feats.

Anyways, for now I'll assume I'll do something similar with 4E and continue on.

Someone else not liking a little steampunk in their fantasy is fine by me. It's opinions, and I like to see where some folks go with their gunners as it were.

 

[Emirikol]

Should be perfect for my Warhammer world 4E D&D game.

Gunz present another non-magical option..something 4E willb e lacking after the first PHB.

http://www.warhammer-historical.com/articles/low-tactics/images/indian-scout.jpg
jh