Firearms

I know it's somewhat controversial, but one of the things that bothered me about 4e was the fact that I couldn't use firearms in my game if I wanted to.  I know it's not for every game, but in the editions of D&D that I played before (AD&D 2e and 3.x) at least had the options for adding weapons that were beyond the typical medieval fantasy setting.

It should 100% be a modular thing, but I'd like to see support for firearms in the PHB or DMG. 
I want canons, not musketeers in my campaigns. I certainly do not want gunslingers since breech loading wheel guns just cause huge problems. Not the last of which is it instantly narrows the hero advantage to the common man.


That's perfectly fine, as long as the rest of us can have the firearms rules for the campaigns that we want too.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Yeah, this is somewhat misleading. Your reinactors are using modern blackpowder that is machine made, and probably a modern replica of a long rifle flintlock as well with a perfectly sized ball. It represents the best case scenario, not the average one. I do not want guns that good in my campaigns.


It comports with historical accounts of bullets vs. armor. 

I want canons, not musketeers in my campaigns. I certainly do not want gunslingers since breech loading wheel guns just cause huge problems. Not the last of which is it instantly narrows the hero advantage to the common man.


Which is why we're all talking about guns as an insertable module.  YOu just would not insert it. Everyone's happy.
I don't even understand why it needs to be a module. Just present it and let the DMs sort it out. I understand certain sets of rules packaged as modules, but stuff like equipment might vary based on the setting anyway. Do we also need a Stone Age module? And Bronze Age module? If you don't like it, you tell the players "no guns".
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
The 3e (I know, dirty word) DMG pages 162-164 give the DM pointers on including anything from muskets to antimatter rifles. It seems to me with a few pages of support you can have whatever you want. Maybe the guide could also discuss the different ways guns and whatnot could be presented stylistically? By which I mean the gun-fu, cinematic, simulationist approaches and the differences between them.
The 3e (I know, dirty word) DMG pages 162-164 give the DM pointers on including anything from muskets to antimatter rifles. It seems to me with a few pages of support you can have whatever you want. Maybe the guide could also discuss the different ways guns and whatnot could be presented stylistically? By which I mean the gun-fu, cinematic, simulationist approaches and the differences between them.



We know, but they were laughably bad. Like they didn't even try to make them work.

I don't know if the "different ways" to handle them would work, these require a lot of testing and balancing or they are worthless. I prefer a single "style" that do not break the game or makes guns joke weapons.
The 3e (I know, dirty word) DMG pages 162-164 give the DM pointers on including anything from muskets to antimatter rifles. It seems to me with a few pages of support you can have whatever you want. Maybe the guide could also discuss the different ways guns and whatnot could be presented stylistically? By which I mean the gun-fu, cinematic, simulationist approaches and the differences between them.



We know, but they were laughably bad. Like they didn't even try to make them work.

I don't know if the "different ways" to handle them would work, these require a lot of testing and balancing or they are worthless. I prefer a single "style" that do not break the game or makes guns joke weapons.




Then you must have more experience with them; I never used them. I only meant to point out that there is a precedent for giving these options some support in the DMG. In fairness to the designers I wouldn't expect them to do much testing on something like this. Its purely optional and not necessarily part of their published settings. That said, if they include a similar section in the 5e DMG I would expect it to take the communities reaction to their last attempt into account.
I don't even understand why it needs to be a module.


That's how modules have been described. Optional rules packages within the rules that DMs can opt int or out of.
Some interesting discussion here. I'm glad to see Amethyst mentioned; I've been using that in my games since it was released, and it saw a fair bit of use once we started an more mage-tech setting, reflavoring firearms and other ranged weapons as we saw fit. I'd really like to see a module like that in 5th.

Really, I look at it in two different lights. The first one being that we've already got stuff for High Seas (In the form of things like Stormwrack, Spelljammer, Elemental Planes/Chaos, and other places, across various editions). To this end we've had a fair number of Pirate/Swashbuckler type content, and small handguns on par with crossbows do quite well visually if that's your thing. I sort of roll things like Eberron into that as well - Airships and magitech basically fit quite well with the concepts of firearms, whether reflavored or not. Second of all, theres a fairly common tradition of Magic vs Technology in many fictional settings, and what about people who would like to play a game like that? I mean, thats the core of Amethyst right there. I realize, of course, that its not for everybody, but isn't that the whole point of having modular rules? I'd probably use em, certainly, if they were similar to Amethyst's balanced system, if we were using a setting that supported the idea.
And in pathfinder they have a chance to misfire too, because they were not crappy enough, apparently.

Probably because Paizo is attempting to acquiesce to the "eww guns" purists, without realizing those purists just ban guns entirely when DM-ing and whine about them when playing.




I was even looking the gunslinger in the srd and... Wow, he is bad like... Bad... He has to spend grit even to do things that other character do normally (like attacking locks), and "Dead Shot" is just a full-attack that is a bad version of a full-attack... That's how I don't want firearms handled in D&D.

If you want a gunslinger, just stick to the ranger and do "pew pew" noises everytime you shoot you bow... Nobody will question your actions...

That's first glance. The Gunslinger doesn't look very good when you first see it, but in play it's actually pretty fun.
I play a pistol packing wizard/rogue character in our Ebberon game. It's just a crossbow that shoots alchemical and magical ammo. I also have a silver handled walking stick as a staff and a gold pocket watch of protection. 'cause that's just how an Aundarian pimp-daddy secret agent rolls. Cool


It would be cool to see a gun mage class.
Sign In to post comments