New Artificer Weapons

[SilentRunning]

I'm not sure of the time or coding required to put this into a working thing in DDO, but I would like to see more weapon choices for an artificer.

You see artwork of Artificers using Pistols or Rifles of a sort.

Is it feasible to add rifles or pistols to DDO? I like repeater crossbows and the inquisitive universal tree but would really like to see magic enhanced firearms. a rifle or pistol version of the Magefire Cannons, or that would fire magic missile effect or something similar it would be quite thematic with Eberron.

For those who will say we have Rune-Arms already that cover this aspect, keep in mind that not all artificers in any of the campaign settings use them.

[Uska]

We don’t need them they add nothing and would waste dev time IMO

[SilentRunning]

Well a one liner response from you doesn't say much, but then I'm more waiting for a dev to see this and give an official response of some kind.

[C-Dog]

Well a one liner response from you doesn't say much

Honestly, it says all that needs to be said.

If you want them to put a diff skin on a repeater for your rifle/pistol, then it's pure cosmetics - and changes nothing in the game.

If, otoh, you want them to create entirely new weapon mechanics, then that's a huge investment of time for an "option" that isn't really needed, and either (if balanced) would change little or would require (re-(re-))balancing so it doesn't change much.


TL,DR? We don’t need them, they add nothing, and would waste dev time. IMO.

[SilentRunning]

I understand where you are coming from, but you at least bothered to go into why you didn't think it would be a good idea instead of the "We don’t need them they add nothing and would waste dev time IMO" kind of response from Uska.


Which is quite the typical of him/her.

[C-Dog]

It's why we have words like "verbose" and "terse" (neither of which are particularly "positive" in their connotation).

GL!
o/

[Uska]

Well a one liner response from you doesn't say much, but then I'm more waiting for a dev to see this and give an official response of some kind.

Longer response would have just been babbling

[SilentRunning]

Uska

Quote Originally Posted by SilentRunning View Post
Well a one liner response from you doesn't say much, but then I'm more waiting for a dev to see this and give an official response of some kind.

Longer response would have just been babbling

Typical response.

[Pandjed]

Well a one liner response from you doesn't say much, but then I'm more waiting for a dev to see this and give an official response of some kind.

To tell you all in just one line
is really hard, though it looks poor.
You may notice the incline
that most users need so much more.

But seriously, giving 3 informations in one sentence is very practical and gets a thumbs up for efficiency.


If the OP wants to learn what introducing guns as a new weapon type probably means, it's:
* A lot of animator time, as crossbows and rifles have to be held differently, while the firing could probably be shoehorned to just swap the position of the hands and arms, the walking animation would need to be greatly reworked, as holding the rifle in a 45° angle downward is plain weird. Double this because of rune arms, which would on the other hand may make a need to shrink the rifle, because holding a long barreled weapon in on arm without looking goofy and--even more important--without clipping all the time, would take a long time to figue out. Make it more than double the work for pistols, as even the shooting animation would need to be entirely new. Then each of them would need to be tweaked 2 times for the genders times the number of races (currently 30). Why do you believe the devs were really cautious with changing bow animation and how the feedback caused them to only do the smallest change possible?

* While I don't know how much DDO has to follow the rules of the original rule set (D&D 3.5e), there are some things they can do and things they can't, so I can't tell if SSG can derive from firearm rules of said edition much. If we sum firearm rules up in 3.5e, it's either: Too slow that anyone wants to use them, or so good, that it would make all other weapons obsolete (like 2d6 with 19-20/x3 crit). If we move within the "permitted" range for ranged weapons, we end up with... what bows and crossbows already do. We could add elemental damage as default, but that's also done by specific named weapons already...
Otoh, there are many weapon-types that are part of the usual D&D lineup, which didn't even got their own weapon group, like spears. Why do throwing hammers exist, but not spears that have a thrusting animation? Or any other melee two-handed piercing weapon?

* Eberron is just one world of DDO, and Eberron changes with every edition, and 5e introduced the idea of artificer using firearms as something remotely regular (even then wandslinging is more encouraged fluff-wise). DDO moves more in-line with the 3.5e definition with own twist while exploring the medieval D&D-settings on top, so having gun-wielding characters would seem a bit strange. Btw, Runearms as a general artificer tool is a DDO original. So having them kinda defines DDO.

* Artificers already support two weapon types (x-bows and one-halfers) and spellcasting, spreading the class even further (which imo already suffers from too much ideas into one class) may be counterproductive. Especially given that the already mentioned inquisitive more or less does give the feeling of Rambo with a strange DDO-twist.


So in conclusion:

"We don’t need them they add nothing and would waste dev time IMO"

Uska 2022

[unbongwah]

Keith Baker - the guy who created Eberron - had this to say about firearms:

How do firearms fit into Eberron? There’s a number of different gunpowder related classes and rules out in the world; Unearthed Arcana even included a version of the artificer with a Gunsmith archetype. So, how do firearms fit into the setting?

The short and simple answer is they don’t. From the very beginning, Eberron was designed as a setting where arcane magic was the foundation of civilization. The core idea is that in Eberron people wouldn’t pursue the development of firearms and gunpowder, because they have a different tool for creating explosions and hurting people at a distance… so they’d refine that magical tool instead of pursuing something entirely different.
. . .


The basic principle of Eberron is that people are finding ways to solve the problems we’ve solved with technology by using magic. Instead of using telegraphs or cell phones, they have speaking stones and sending. Thus, the idea that’s most in keeping with the setting is to develop a magical analogue to the firearm. Wands, staves, and rods are tools that can hold and channel mystical power. In third edition, it wasn’t feasible to use wands as personal sidearms; they were too expensive and also entirely disposable, and it was hard to imagine a unit of soldiers equipped with such a tool. But we took steps towards this by introducing the eternal wand, which had fewer restrictions on who could use it and which recharged every day. While statistics were never presented for it, in my novels I also presented the idea of the siege staff, Khorvaire’s answer to artillery. The idea’s simple: if a wand holds a little power and a staff can hold greater power, then a staff made from a tree trunk could hold greater power still, dramatically amplifying the range and radius of a spell effect to fill the same role as cannons in our world.

I'm still waiting for dual-Runearms to be a thing.

[SilentRunning]

I've read the article, and I can see what is being said, however He does say:

But… isn’t another core principle of Eberron If it exists in D&D, there’s a place for it in Eberron? So: there’s a gunslinger class and I’ve got a player who really wants to use it… what do I do with it?

In any situation like this, the most critical question is: WHY do you want to add this thing into Eberron? What is the story you are trying to tell, and do you need to change the world to tell it? Does your story absolutely require the existence of some form of gunpowder analogue… or could you take the same basic idea and reflavor it to work using magical principles instead of gunpowder?

These weapons could be powered by a dragonshard.

But… isn’t another core principle of Eberron If it exists in D&D, there’s a place for it in Eberron?

I'm also not talking Eberron as the only place either. Artificers were also found on Toril, mostly in Lantan, and seeing as we are already in Faerun anyway when we go off to Cormyr.

I get what people are saying, perhaps it is too much work for the devs to create things of this nature, As it may not be possible, then maybe when they have time, they could give us weapon skins. I mean we do have Cosmetic armor and outfits and such.

[droid327]

I'll give specifics since the op keeps asking for them...

- doesn't fit into the aesthetic of ddo. We're firmly pre-gunpowder even in Eberron. Some editions of D&D may have included black powder weapons, but DDO doesn't. The burden of justification is on you to argue why they should be added, not on us to argue why not...

- you haven't defined a mechanical role they'd fill that is distinct enough from existing ranged weapons. How is their play style different? If they're just a reskin of inqui, that doesn't justify the dev time it would take to deliver it

- why would an arti use a gun and not a repeater? They'd have no feat support and super limited named options...And if arti won't use it, who would?

[SilentRunning]

droid327
I'll give specifics since the op keeps asking for them...

- doesn't fit into the aesthetic of ddo. We're firmly pre-gunpowder even in Eberron. Some editions of D&D may have included black powder weapons, but DDO doesn't. The burden of justification is on you to argue why they should be added, not on us to argue why not...

- you haven't defined a mechanical role they'd fill that is distinct enough from existing ranged weapons. How is their play style different? If they're just a reskin of inqui, that doesn't justify the dev time it would take to deliver it

- why would an arti use a gun and not a repeater? They'd have no feat support and super limited named options...And if arti won't use it, who would?

Actually, it's for SSG to decide whether or not it fits the asthetics of DDO, not you, so you can continue to respond all you want. I'm not looking for agreement from anyone here.

It's also up to the devs to decide whether or not it justifies their time, not You.

It doesn't have to be a mechanical role, and clearly you are just using as many strawman arguments as you can to say what SSG would or would not do.

You also seem to want to gloss over anything that doesn't fit Your idea of what should or shouldn't be in this game, again it's not up to you, let the devs decide if something is worthwhile on their own.

[C-Dog]

Actually, it's for SSG to decide whether or not it fits the asthetics of DDO...

No, actually it's up the owners of the name D&D, WotC atm, to whom SSG is beholden by contract. There have been numerous similar instances where the answer to such questions is "because (WotC says) it's not in the (current) D&D canon" - and SSG has no say in that at all.

I'm not looking for agreement from anyone here.

From the responses, seems like that's a convenient position to take for all concerned.