D&D 5E Unarmored Defense and Surprise

[Faenor]

Actually, hold on. In your description, does ranger Rick keep fighting, or is he down too?

 

[Faenor]

Also, not sure if trolling or serious.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You may be watching too many movies. How does a gun do damage that doesn't reduce combat effectiveness immediately?

The same way swords do: they hit armor, strike a nearby piece of cover and spray you with shrapnel, or cause a flesh wound. The one that drops you to 0 may be a mortal wound (you die) or not as bad as it first looked (you don't die). The whole combat system is abstract, including what "hit" means.

 

[Ganymede81]

Shouldn't this be in the 3.5 edition forum? It sure as heck doesn't sound like 5th edition.

 

[Faenor]

Too many movies. A modern gun fires how many rounds per second? D&d combat system can't simulate combat with modern weapons mostly due to the time scale relative to human reaction times. In medieval combat, there was lots of circling and feinting.

 

[Faenor]

And a shield or wearable armor could provide protection from the force producible by medieval weapons. Modern body armor only minor protection from modern weapons, and human reaction time provides no protection at all.

 

[jasper]

Actually, hold on. In your description, does ranger Rick keep fighting, or is he down too?

In game he is a fifth level fighter so he fights on. In the movies the bullet would shatter on his armor and a splinter would lightly open a cut on his cheek. He would rattle of a one liner and in the next 40 rds blow up half of Neverwinter. Only to cry with the cute cleric babe poured moonshine ( potion of cure light wounds) on his cut.
Army Cook Jasper would never every be mention if he was just an extra or there be a social role playing scene of Jasper's funeral if he was a B+ actor.
In real life the number of rounds on target or near target are low to the number of rounds shot. And reaction time does come into. As hearing the first bullet whine by so I eat the dirt. Or I see, hear, etc something and I start diving for the dirt before I hear the round.

 

[Faenor]

There's a reason turn based rpgs are set in a fantasy or sf setting. The war games that d&d grew out of were unit based, where damage took out individuals. But to merge that with first person, 1 pc per person, and maintain suspension of disbelief, they needed to change to fantasy.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Too many movies. A modern gun fires how many rounds per second? D&d combat system can't simulate combat with modern weapons mostly due to the time scale relative to human reaction times. In medieval combat, there was lots of circling and feinting.

DnD combat can't model accurate archery for the same reason, then. I'm not even that good an archer, and I can fire off shots and much more quickly than 1-2 per 6 seconds. It takes me about 1.5 seconds per arrow, if I'm doing a full draw, and holding my arrows in my bow hand. Still just under 2 seconds if I'm using a hip quiver instead.
The woman that taught me makes me feel like a damn turtle. And hers hit more precisely. But she started when she was 7, and I started when I was in my twenties.

Point is, the game is abstract. And it wouldn't be hard to use the weapon stats to model the increased speed.

Oh. Also, an arrow that hits will cripple your combat efficacy. Period. Actual lethality aside, you are not in the fight any longer if an arrow gets into you. In fact, most modern combat deaths from things other than explosives are not immediate, and could be saved with immediate medical attention, same as medieval combat.

As for most medieval combat being fients and circling...nope. Only with some weapons. Mostly sword duels. In a melee, you get hit a lot. It is exhausting, and it hurts like hell, unless you wildly outmatch your opponents.

 

[zaratan]

It's pretty clear for everyone that d&d isn't a good system to simulate real situations. Better try GURPS or other stuff.

I think this topic distorted a little.


Enviado de meu SM-G900MD usando Tapatalk