D&D General If you could put D&D into any other non middle ages genre, what would it be?

[MarkB]

The entire point of guns is to kill someone before he comes close. In a D&D/HP system that is simply not possible. You can set up any amount of level appropriate ranged combatants and barring environmental obstacles like cliffs you will never be able to kill someone before he can punch you in the face.
That changes the usage of guns completely compared to real life.

A CR3 Archer from Volo's Guide to Monsters fires twice per round, and deals an average of 8 damage per hit. If the person advancing on them has a low AC, which a character in a Western setting will, they can take down an average-HP character from a 3rd level party in two turns - so, unless their opponent wins initiative and is close enough to close the distance in one turn, yes they can kill them before being punched in the face.

 

[Satyrn]

In fencing, the combatants move backwards and forwards on a pieste that is 45 feet (nine squares in D&D) long.

That was one of the first examples that came to my mind.

The other example that came to mind: A wrestling ring is 15 or 20 feet square. Add in the 10 or so feet around ringside and that's 8 D&D squares by 8 for the wrestlers to move around in. Plus the vertical if we're talking a cage match. Or the balcony if it's Old School ECW.

 

[Urriak]

A CR3 Archer from Volo's Guide to Monsters fires twice per round, and deals an average of 8 damage per hit. If the person advancing on them has a low AC, which a character in a Western setting will, they can take down an average-HP character from a 3rd level party in two turns - so, unless their opponent wins initiative and is close enough to close the distance in one turn, yes they can kill them before being punched in the face.

I guess someone would counter by saying that a character would wear armor to close the difference. Meaning the rules solution to this problem is simply, make armor more cumbersome than it is (you can't close the distance as fast), or make it not as useful (the AC increase is not as good, especially compared to making yourself more dexterous).

I gotta say this thread is a little exhausting to read. Hasn't [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] already admitted that he thinks D&D can handle firearms, he just prefers different systems?

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, to me, that something is the change from "guys in plate armour with huge axes fighting big monsters" to "guys in shirts with pistols fighting other guys in shirts with pistols", but clearly your mileage may vary.

Don't be silly. No D&D based wild west game will keep the rules, character stats and class abilities exactly the same as in the PHB. Of course there will be changes.

 

[CapnZapp]

You've said basically "it won't work because any single shot should kill you". It's been pointed out time and again that the same could be said of any weapon that does damage. You've never been able to clearly state why a gun should be handled differently. Well, other than "because I said so".

On the other hand when you come up with some specific house rules for how you would handle it, feel free to start a different thread. Don't think it will ever work and we should use a different system? Then why you shouldn't be posting to a D&D board.

My entire point is I'm not saying "basically". You're simplifying to the point of insult. You either can't or won't get my point, so I certainly won't repeat them. Read my existing posts.

PS. They're not about houserules. They're about the fundamental properties of hit point based games.

 

[CapnZapp]

You mean it isn't mapped to an actual move action. It's modeled in attack rolls, however. It doesn't take six seconds to swing a sword once - let alone the full minute of a 1e combat round - there's a lot of attacking, parrying, dodging, "ducking & weaving" if you like, and movement in the course of the round.

5e lets you attack within a move action, so you can model moving-and-fighting a little more closely than in the classic game, which just assumed that any 'melee' was a mass of fighting individuals moving around and you couldn't even take aim at one of them in particular.

And, yes, all that is a big fat abstraction. Melee characters aren't /really/ meant to be interpreted literally as figures that stand perfectly still in base-to-base contact and trade thwacking great blows at six second intervals.

Certainly the melee system in some editions has led to decisions that resulted in 'static' melees where everyone tried to move no more than 5' per six-second round so as to get in their full attacks. While that was criticized, it was hardly grounds for claiming that D&D couldn't handle melee, and could be defended with visualization of more 'realistic' (if you needed realism) or 'dramatic' (if you wanted genre fidelity) movement that just netted out to that 5'/round nudging about.

Sorry but now you're rambling on about everything and anything - except the subject at hand.

I'm talking about how in a hp-based game you can* act like Conan the Barbarian and just stride up to your opponent - your hit points protect you. Actually they are there for that purpose.

*) Not saying it's always a good idea. Saying that in games with no hit points, it's significantly less often a good idea.

If you want characters to move and act "naturally", not exposed, behind cover, it is perfectly understandable to want to explore other games than hp-based ones. Games where not just the last bullet poses the threat.

Again, does that mean you can't use D&D for the Wild West? No. It just means not wanting to is a valid stance to take, that has very little to do with "realism" or "firearms should be deadlier than axes" or any other easily dismissable argument.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the main strength of 5e rules is it's ability to resolve combat quickly and with a minimum of fuss.

It's simple and friendly, yes.

I have played games with cover and action points and they are sloooooooow. Like set aside a whole Sunday for a single fight and don't expect to get home before midnight.

Some are, yes.

If you use your limited experience to dismiss *all* non-hp based games, however, you need to widen your horizons...

 

[MarkB]

Don't be silly. No D&D based wild west game will keep the rules, character stats and class abilities exactly the same as in the PHB. Of course there will be changes.

And those changes will dictate changes in tactics, some of which will address the issues you've been raising.

 

[CapnZapp]

Really? There's no other weapon in the PHB who's purpose is to kill the enemy before they get up close? Have you never played with someone who has archery style and sharp shooter?

How does it help to bring up bows and crossbows?

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure which is more out there, the denial that ranged weapons can & do kill in D&D (ask any number of imaginary orcs with imaginary elven arrows sticking out of them - the death toll over the last 45 years must have been staggering), or the denial that people /do/ close with gunmen in spite of being shot at, or even actually hit several times?

Don't encourage him. The real reasons why you'd want to switch to a non-hp based games are much more sophisticated than the simple issue of realism/lethality.