D&D 5E Elements in a new official setting

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Most of the terminology in the poll needs explanation or definition.

 

[ph0rk]

The negative, perhaps obviously, are the racism and misogyny that pervaded the genre in the 1930s through the 1980s. These need to be ass-kicked into touch and replaced with positive role models of ethnicity, sexuality, gender, ability and more.

This isn't any harder for this genre than it was for general fantasy.

 

[Parmandur]

Most of the terminology in the poll needs explanation or definition.

Yeah, the poll options are a bit fuzzy. What I would look to see are more broad genre types, like the office comedy of Acquisitions Incorporated, the Magipunk of Ravnica, 20's pulp of Eberron, Greek Myth of Theros, or Horror of Ravenloft. So maybe something like the Surrealist fantasy of Silverlock or Through the Lookong Glass, the talking animal fantasy of Redwall or Narnia, honest to goodness fairy tale material, and such like.

 

[GuyBoy]

This isn't any harder for this genre than it was for general fantasy.

Fair point. The one area of Sword & Sorcery that might require a deeper clean than more general fantasy is perhaps the legacy of the 1930s influencers (Howard and Lovecraft in particular) who were pretty racist and misogynist. Maybe it says more about the era than the genre?

 

[Mind of tempest]

okay out of the magor results what combinations that are compatible could we make?

 

[Laurefindel]

There are many settings ideas I’d like. However, there are only so many that would work with the present D&D material and the “if it exists in D&D, there is a place for it in this setting” design philosophy for official settings, which inevitably lean toward kitchen sink settings.

but I wouldn’t mind a high-adventure skyland pirate/swashbuckler with airships and earth-bergs of various size.

 

[ph0rk]

Fair point. The one area of Sword & Sorcery that might require a deeper clean than more general fantasy is perhaps the legacy of the 1930s influencers (Howard and Lovecraft in particular) who were pretty racist and misogynist. Maybe it says more about the era than the genre?

The mythos that formed the core of modern fantasy were as xenophobic as it comes (and it is quite hard to argue that Tolkein isn't thinking of things from a racial essentialism angle, either).

Is Le Morte d'Arthur misogynistic? Of course. Is it racist? Probably also yes.

The preceding works, Chivalric Romance? Well, pretty hard to imagine that not ticking both those boxes too.

Just because a handful of fantasy books published in the last 15-20 years are less racist or misogynistic than their predecessors doesn't somehow absolve the genre or make it have a less checkered past than other adjacent ones.

 

[Yaarel]

1) No armor to speak of.
2) Daring combat maneuvers.
3) Positioning meaning much more.
4) Different fighting styles that represent entire schools of thought rather than a simple +2 to damage rolls.
5) Low-tier Firearms that are fun and engaging.
6) More ship-combat options.
7) LOTS of Social Mechanics so your character can be super witty and offer remarks as cutting as their sword, and so your reputation has a tangible weight on the narrative.
8) Lots of Physical Maneuverability and Environmental interactions. Chandeliers for swinging -and- dropping on your enemy's head.
9) Did I mention ship-combat? Not just -on- a ship with 3d movement up into the rigging or over the railing of the forecastle, but also ship-to-ship.
10) Environmental Combat Effects. The heroes are fighting single opponents in deadly battles while surrounded by a chaotic barfight which they sometimes interact with.
11) Mechanics for daring escapes that just straight up end the possibility of a chase sequence, like cutting a bell-tower rope you're holding onto in order to get yanked up safely to the tower-peak while the bell destroys the stairwell.

Just so much more...

I think the most important one is really that heavy armour being best needs to take a long walk off a short pier. You'll also need some narrative stuff to avoid things turning into a farce - i.e. fate points or whatever to allow PCs to lightly assert fiction, or at least do stuff like give rolls minimum values and the like. And some sort of system to encourage, rather than discourage, stunts and so on in combat. Right now, the fewer risks you take, the better. That's like, the opposite of swashbuckling.

I appreciate these descriptions. They contributed to a feeling of, I didnt know that I liked this genre.

I am thinking about how D&D 5e can work to some degree toward a swashbuckler setting already. Then try to look for ways to encourage the feel further.

No armor. Perhaps D&D 5e already favors light armor. No armor is mainly only for Dexterity concepts. (Including high Dex Wizard in Mage Armor.) 5e tends to favor Dexterity builds with no or light armor, consonant with a swashbuckling theme.

Combat scenes with moving parts. Swashbuckling involves complex combat, where "environmental combat effects" are part of the challenge. A personal duel could be happening in the midst of a bar fight. Also, two ships could be bucking against each other in a storm, a fight could be happening across a narrow ledge across a cliff, chase scenes across rooftops or airships, or so on. This has less to do with character building mechanics and more about encounter building mechanics. I suspect 5e can do this, I have special terrains and legendary lair mechanics in mind. Additional environmental mechanics seem doable. I vaguely remember 4e making a point to make combat scenes complex, such as with special trap mechanics, so some examples might come from there.

The main "social" mechanic in D&D 5e is Inspiration. It relies on DM discretion and is highly subjective. A DM can make a point to employ it to reward players who roleplay wittiness and social style, and in this away modify dice rolling successes. To employ Charisma and Intelligence bonuses seems appropriate, but I would like to do it in a way that encourages roleplaying thoughtfulness. Skill mechanics also rely on DM discretion. For example, I never say, roll Charisma Persuasion to see if you persuade them. The player has to try to do something specific, such as give an incentive to or address some concern of an NPC, and only if that effort seems plausible would I ask for a skill check, and often enough such an effort succeeds automatically because I know that NPC would respond positively to such an overture. Current 5e social mechanics can work effectively to encourage narrative roleplay, but only because of a style that as a DM opt into. A swashbuckling setting can recommend ways a DM can use mechanics to encourage and reward certain player activity that express the daring-do of the setting.

I would like to see social skill checks to do social "stunts" during combat. (Actually, I routinely allow the Arcana skill to do spell "stunts", doing a skill check to modify a spell in some way, sometimes for combat tactics, such as using a spell to push a target creature without dealing the damage.) I love skill stunts, and encourage my players to do them, and the mechanics rewards them to look for opportunities within the narrative.

D&D 5e already can do much to evoke a swashbuckling feel.



In my eyes, the greatest difficulty against evoking a swashbuckling feel, relates to the ability scores themselves.

I have for very many years found it frustrating to split up all of the athletic stunts − mobility, running, jumping, falling, tumbling, climbing, balancing, etcetera − into two separate ability scores, both Strength and Dexterity. This BAD-ness of needing to invest in Both-Abilities-Dependencies, and its corresponding opportunity cost, undermines and erodes the feel of a stunt-action campaign.

There are various ways to achieve the goal. One way is to make Strength more agile, including balance and falling. Oppositely, an other way is to make Dexterity beefier, including pulling up ones own weight and making long-distance jumps. I ideally, I want to see a fundamental reorganization of the ability scores, so that the Athletic skill and the Acrobatics skill become the same skill, called Athletics. And. Strength and Dexterity disambiguate with definitions that make it obvious that Athletics belongs to one ability and not the other.

I get it, some will suggest, just have one skill called, Athletics, and sometimes one uses Strength for it, and sometimes one uses Dexterity for it. However, in this case, I precisely view this BAD-ness as the problem that needs fixing in the first place.

The best way to create a swashbuckling setting is to tweak and clarify D&D. There are plenty of precedents that already validate a solution, such as using Strength to wield a sword agilely and precisely. Strength is agilely competent, and can inherently include balance and precision for any athletic physical stunt.

If Strength is for agile body stunts like swinging from vine to reach a cliff to scramble up it, and Dexterity is for steady, cautious, sensitive checks like aiming a bow or a gun and like stealth, the disambiguation helps players invest in Strength as the swashbuckling ability score.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In my eyes, the greatest difficulty against evoking a swashbuckling feel, relates to the ability scores themselves.

I have for very many years found it frustrating to split up all of the athletic stunts − mobility, running, jumping, falling, tumbling, climbing, balancing, etcetera − into two separate ability scores, both Strength and Dexterity. This BAD-ness of needing to invest in Both-Abilities-Dependencies, and its corresponding opportunity cost, undermines and erodes the feel of a stunt-action campaign.

Whilst I think you may be treating some of the other issues a little lightly (Inspiration doesn't cut it, I speak from experience, you need something sturdier, and I think better social guidelines), this is absolutely spot-on and often overlooked!

I get it, some will suggest, just have one skill called, Athletics, and sometimes one uses Strength for it, and sometimes one uses Dexterity for it. However, in this case, I precisely view this BAD-ness as the problem that needs fixing in the first place.

I think that is actually the right solution. What you're suggesting just makes STR into DEX, and I thinks it's both more justifiable by the fiction (as many things which require strength also require dexterity - very little Athletics or Acrobatics does genuinely only requires one or the other. I do think the "Treat it like a Finesse weapon" strategy is best - as you say, go with Athletics, and use STR or DEX, whichever is higher, and treat them as intermingled to some extent.

 

[Yaarel]

Ideally I would like all of the D&D abilities themselves to disambiguate. So Strength-Dexterity Athletics blurriness, or Intelligence-Wisdom Perception-Investigation blurriness or Nature-Survival blurriness, or Wisdom-Charisma will-power personality-force blurriness, etcetera, would all clearly disambiguate.

In the meantime, I could live with a kluge, such as choosing the preferred ability for Athletics.

Now, if Strength is agile and athletic, which it is, then it is also responsible for DODGING. In other works, I want to see Strength grant the AC bonus instead of "steady" Dexterity, or, at least, Strength grant an AC bonus in addition to Dexterity. Compare the Monk Wis bonus to AC if unarmored. Probably this Strength AC would help actualize the no-armor flavor of swashbuckling.