D&D (2024) Toward a Theory of 6th Edition

Arilyn · Oct 28, 2017

Elfcrusher said:
Probably not. It's a general rule of the forums that all threads longer than 5 pages become debates about either metagaming or warlords. Sometimes both.

Yep. Those warlords drive me crazy with their metagaming.

Back on topic, how about armour? Should DnD have armour reduce damage, instead of making you harder to hit? Armour class, as it is now, is a hold over from miniature war gaming. It never made sense for individual heroes. F20 games almost always introduce alternative rules for this, but are then ignored. Is it worth changing the system in the core rules for our theoretical 6e? Classes could have a defense score based off dex, which slowly builds as players gain levels.

I also think heavy armour should be way too unwieldy to adventure in. Who in their right mind would go crawling around a dungeon in plate? I realize that's just a pet peeve, however. If we stripped all the silly things out of DnD, we wouldn't have a game left. Let's not go there...

Oofta · Oct 28, 2017

Stalker0 said:
By the laws of all that is holy can we please get this thread back on topic.

Sorry for contributing to the derailment of what was supposed to be a generic statement about how sometimes I'd like to have an option for a base game that assumed only mundane (although perhaps extraordinary) abilities.

Anyway, start with mundane and then add on layers of magic and supernatural.

Oofta · Oct 28, 2017

Arilyn said:
Yep. Those warlords drive me crazy with their metagaming.

Back on topic, how about armour? Should DnD have armour reduce damage, instead of making you harder to hit? Armour class, as it is now, is a hold over from miniature war gaming. It never made sense for individual heroes. F20 games almost always introduce alternative rules for this, but are then ignored. Is it worth changing the system in the core rules for our theoretical 6e? Classes could have a defense score based off dex, which slowly builds as players gain levels.

I also think heavy armour should be way too unwieldy to adventure in. Who in their right mind would go crawling around a dungeon in plate? I realize that's just a pet peeve, however. If we stripped all the silly things out of DnD, we wouldn't have a game left. Let's not go there...

I think AC bonus from dexterity is far too great as it is. Someone in armor should be much tougher to damage than someone naked or covered in a single layer of hardened leather. I can see adding a point or two to AC from dexterity and I get the trope of somebody dodging out of the way, but it was shown on Mythbusters that you can't deflect an arrow (or catch it) even if you know it's coming.

But more realism could be added to armor. Depending on the level of metalworking, chain mail was the go-to armor. But you could also have different levels of all types of armor. Mail armor could just be your upper body or could include leggings for example.

My pet peeve is that people that plate armor was heavy and cumbersome. It wasn't. I'll refer you to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's web site on the topic here.*

Modern soldiers carry far more weight than your typical suit of armor. In addition, it probably wasn't much hotter than any other armor since all armor had heavy padding to absorb blows. After all, stopping the cutting power of an enemies blade was only half the purpose of the armor, it also had to absorb the impact.

But AC is a tough issue. If you model it as damage resistance it gets fiddly, and some monsters will never do any damage. Much like HP is a horrible stand-in for physical endurance and ability to take damage, it may be the best of bad options.

*If you want to ignore what historians believe and talk about how armor is too heavy and cumbersome and people in plate should need assistance to stand from prone, feel free; I'll just ignore you.

Greg K · Oct 28, 2017

Li Shenron said:
- I would have preferred subclasses to start at 3rd level for all classes and grant abilities at the same levels

Myself, I would have preferred that they all start at 1st.

Alexemplar · Oct 28, 2017

Arilyn said:
Back on topic, how about armour? Should DnD have armour reduce damage, instead of making you harder to hit? Armour class, as it is now, is a hold over from miniature war gaming. It never made sense for individual heroes. F20 games almost always introduce alternative rules for this, but are then ignored. Is it worth changing the system in the core rules for our theoretical 6e? Classes could have a defense score based off dex, which slowly builds as players gain levels.

Unarmored defense bonus for all classes- or at least the ones expected to take attacks and have decent defenses- makes sense. There's so many settings and character concepts that don't favor armor. I still think armor should provide some kind of benefit though, as it provides incentive for some characters to actually want to wear it when/where appropriate.

I think my favorite non-AC/damage reduction approach is armor as HP. As in +1 HP per character level for lighter armors and maybe even as high as +5 per character level for the heaviest stuff. That way the guy in bigger armor could take more hits before falling, but is still not immune to being plinked by weak attacks. It'd also give Fighters/Barbarians/Paladins a kind of "unarmored defense" as they already have larger damage die than other classes. Other classes would need heavier armor just to get the level of a naked warrior, and should the warriors wear some armor, they become even more survivable.

Mephista · Oct 28, 2017

Arilyn said:
I would get rid of tool proficiencies. It is clunky having tools and skills. There is a sense that tool proficiencies are less useful, and therefore easier to acquire, but thieves tools totally fly in the face of that theory.

I think it depends on the tool and skills? I mean, when was the last time you had someone roll Perform in game? Or Investigate over Perception? How about Religion, when Arcana covers info about undead and fiends/celestials? Meanwhile, thief-style tools come up fairly often (lockpicking, disguise, poison) as part of their trades.

The issue with tools is that, fundamentally, they're mostly crafting and social games/instruments. Crafting rules are crap to the point of being discouraged, and social rules are so simplistic that non-Intimidate/Deception/Persuade rarely come up.

corwyn77 said:
More seriously, way back in the D20 days, Green Ronin came out with True 20 - three classes, Warrior, Expert, and Adept. Everything was a combination of those three.

A lot of games use this rough design as well in modern times. You can kind of see in 5e too - warriors classes with a heavy focus on fighting, dedicated spellcasters classes, and then classes that focus a lot on skills over magic or martial ability (ranger, rogue especially, traditionally bard as well).

Though, there's also some modern theory that divide classes into warrior via weapon type (sword/board, great sword/axe, lancer, fists, bows, knives), crafters (farmers, blacksmiths, etc) and casters (white mage, black mage, shaman, etc), but its a similar idea.

Arilyn · Oct 28, 2017

Oofta said:
I think AC bonus from dexterity is far too great as it is. Someone in armor should be much tougher to damage than someone naked or covered in a single layer of hardened leather. I can see adding a point or two to AC from dexterity and I get the trope of somebody dodging out of the way, but it was shown on Mythbusters that you can't deflect an arrow (or catch it) even if you know it's coming.

But more realism could be added to armor. Depending on the level of metalworking, chain mail was the go-to armor. But you could also have different levels of all types of armor. Mail armor could just be your upper body or could include leggings for example.

My pet peeve is that people that plate armor was heavy and cumbersome. It wasn't. I'll refer you to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's web site on the topic here.*

Modern soldiers carry far more weight than your typical suit of armor. In addition, it probably wasn't much hotter than any other armor since all armor had heavy padding to absorb blows. After all, stopping the cutting power of an enemies blade was only half the purpose of the armor, it also had to absorb the impact.

But AC is a tough issue. If you model it as damage resistance it gets fiddly, and some monsters will never do any damage. Much like HP is a horrible stand-in for physical endurance and ability to take damage, it may be the best of bad options.

*If you want to ignore what historians believe and talk about how armor is too heavy and cumbersome and people in plate should need assistance to stand from prone, feel free; I'll just ignore you.

Yeah, not sure if it's worth changing, but if DnD were a new game, armour would reduce damage, not make you harder to hit. Dex already helps with Armor class, unless you are wearing the heavier stuff. Not sure that damage reduction is that big a problem. Barbarians do it with no armour at all...

I don't believe heavy armour was so encumbering, warriors couldn't stand up without assistance. I don't believe anyone would want to crawl through caverns and dodge pit traps in the stuff, though. Soldiers donned armour before a pitched battle, they didn't wear it all day, every day...But anyway, let's not argue about that and derail thread again.

Armour is kind of "painted" on in DnD, anyway, so maybe game should go more abstract. Each class gets a different armour class bonus (skip damage resistance altogether), and players can decide where it's coming from. Knight in shining armour, or battered leather, but I dodge really well, or I'm so cool, I just glide out of the way. Could do the same with weapons. Each class would do certain dice of damage, no matter what they are wielding. Fluff would be up to you. Course weapons wouldn't have special qualities anymore, but 5e is pulling away from that anyway.

These are just random thoughts, so don't want anyone jumping down my throat, especially since I'm not sure they are good ideas anyway.

Arilyn · Oct 28, 2017

Alexemplar said:
Unarmored defense bonus for all classes- or at least the ones expected to take attacks and have decent defenses- makes sense. There's so many settings and character concepts that don't favor armor. I still think armor should provide some kind of benefit though, as it provides incentive for some characters to actually want to wear it when/where appropriate.

I think my favorite non-AC/damage reduction approach is armor as HP. As in +1 HP per character level for lighter armors and maybe even as high as +5 per character level for the heaviest stuff. That way the guy in bigger armor could take more hits before falling, but is still not immune to being plinked by weak attacks. It'd also give Fighters/Barbarians/Paladins a kind of "unarmored defense" as they already have larger damage die than other classes. Other classes would need heavier armor just to get the level of a naked warrior, and should the warriors wear some armor, they become even more survivable.

Yes, armour class as hp can work. Also, encompasses idea of character getting tired as extra hp from armour get eaten away. Can also simulate your armour getting battered, and requiring repairs or replacement. Does 5e still have wooden shields? Used to make me laugh how those things were indestructible...

Arilyn · Oct 28, 2017

Greg K said:
Myself, I would have preferred that they all start at 1st.

Me too.

Arilyn · Oct 28, 2017

Mephista said:
I think it depends on the tool and skills? I mean, when was the last time you had someone roll Perform in game? Or Investigate over Perception? How about Religion, when Arcana covers info about undead and fiends/celestials? Meanwhile, thief-style tools come up fairly often (lockpicking, disguise, poison) as part of their trades.

The issue with tools is that, fundamentally, they're mostly crafting and social games/instruments. Crafting rules are crap to the point of being discouraged, and social rules are so simplistic that non-Intimidate/Deception/Persuade rarely come up.

A lot of games use this rough design as well in modern times. You can kind of see in 5e too - warriors classes with a heavy focus on fighting, dedicated spellcasters classes, and then classes that focus a lot on skills over magic or martial ability (ranger, rogue especially, traditionally bard as well).

Though, there's also some modern theory that divide classes into warrior via weapon type (sword/board, great sword/axe, lancer, fists, bows, knives), crafters (farmers, blacksmiths, etc) and casters (white mage, black mage, shaman, etc), but its a similar idea.

As far as tools go, my problem is having both tool and skill proficiencies. What's wrong with just having skills? Some skills require tools, like carpentry, some don't like athletics (usually). Having performance and tool proficiency(instrument) is messy and causes confusion over which one to use. I get the difference, but when would you care about your instrument skill if you didn't have an audience?

True 20 was good system, although I never got a chance to use it. Liked the "build your own" feel.