D&D 5E Thoughts on Divorcing D&D From [EDIT: Medievalishness], Mechanically Speaking.

Medieval smedevil! For me, D&D is a fantasy game and and the introduction of automobiles, firearms, and dental insurance just sucks all the fantasy elements right out of the game. But personal preferences aside, I don't see why you couldn't make it more modern. Why not have druids or sorcerers existing in Roaring 20s setting?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And people die from being stabbed with a pen knife. The big advantages of firearms are rate of fire and ease of use.

But not being medieval isn’t the same as being modern. D&D ditched medievalism a long time ago, although various historical periods provide use inspiration. FR is a bit Renascence, Eberron is a bit 1920s, etc. There are many aspects to a society beyond weapons technology.

If magic works in a world, then it implies that Physics does not. There is no reason to suppose firearms work the way they do in our world.
I mean, sure, if that's what you want to do, but that is explicitly not what I want to do here. i want it to feel modern (for varying definitions of modern) and modern means guns.
 

The reason this thread is under the 5E tag is that I want to talk about mechanics and figure using the current rules makes the most sense from that perspective.

When I say "divorcing from medievalism" I mean building a D&D in a modern-ish assumed setting (not necessarily out Earth). Somewhere between the Industrial Revolution and WW1, technologically speaking. This doesn't have to be steampunk -- in fact, i would rather it weren't, but whatever. But remember in this thread I am more concerned with mechanical changes that help support this assumed setting than I am with thematic, lore or other fluffy changes.

First on the list, I think, is to greatly reduce or eliminate the focus on armor as a thing. Certain classes should be proficient in Defense (adding their PB to their AC).
I think 5e has already done this. Armour is already weak.
Second is to add guns and decent firearms rules. Firearms should not be overpowered. Rather, they should be considered the standard weapons, from small and simple to heavy and complex. There should be a difference between a revolver and a bolt action and a tommy gun, etc. And they should not be the purview of any specific classes. Rather, there should be simple and martial firearms just like other weapons. other weapons should not be ignored, but they take a back seat to guns.
Again, I think that 5e has already done this; ranged weapons massively overperform in oh so many ways already. We don't need to buff ranged further, merely bring the muscle powered weapons down.
Classes would need a complete overhaul. Some, in their current form, would have to go completely (Bard, Paladin, Druid, Monk and Sorcerer) and others would have to be significantly changes (Cleric, Ranger, Warlock) to fit more modern themes. Rogue, Fighter and Wizard would need some tweaks to fit.
Gonna have to disagree that the bard, paladin, and sorcerer would have to go entirely. Paladins are standard fares of Westerns with guns and less magic. But a Man on a Cause. Clerics ... I'm not sure they don't go and the druids stay. I'd call clerics with actual reliable divine power far the more medieval of the two.
 

I mean, sure, if that's what you want to do, but that is explicitly not what I want to do here. i want it to feel modern (for varying definitions of modern) and modern means guns.
No, modern does not mean guns. You can have a world that is modern in terms of society, communication, transportation, fashion, music, but does not have guns.

Or you could have a medieval society dominated by firearms. Maybe instead of machine tools, magic is used to create rifled barrels and automatic magazines. I kind of like this idea. One nation is given the secret of firearms in a fiendish pact, so all the other nations had to make similar pacts.
 
Last edited:

The wizard stays because the turn of the 20th century hermetic wizard was a real thing.

A bard is skald or minstrel. A paladin in a holy knight. A druid is an archaic priest. A monk is a kung fu hustler. They don't fit.

A journalist, a dedicated hero, and a proto-environmentalist all have places in the implied setting, but not necessarily under those old archetypes. The monk can probably stay, though, given its actual inspiration in "old west chinaman".

I was uncertain about the sorcerer when i wrote that list, mostly because the sorcerer has no reason to exist with the wizard and the warlock both existing. I would replace it with an actual psionicist if I wanted the mechanical archtype.
depends on the monk martial arts worked in pulp stories the more spectacular stuff might be able to keep up
Unless your name was Jack Churchill.
mad jack Churchill.
No, modern does not mean guns. You can have a world that is modern in terms of society, communication, transportation, fashion, music, but does not have guns.
true but gun are common in the collective imagination of the time
 


On a more serious note, Everyday Heroes does their AC calculations similar to how the monk, barbarian and similar things do their unarmored defense in 5E with a modified take. It is via a Defense Bonus(that goes up at certain levels)+their primary stat that their Class type focuses on IIRC. Armor ends up becoming more of a soak/save type deal vs a gun's Penetration value, I think.

That's probably one of the more elegant ways I've seen a 5E based product distant AC with wearing stuff like Platemail in a setting that has moved on from stuff like actual metal armor.
Seconded on using Everyday Heroes; it's done 99% of the legwork for a "modern" game, using a lot of the old d20 Modern rules.

The only thing it really lacks is a psionic/magic system - it was on their list of forthcoming books, but the whole company seems to have stalled/imploded. (But the mechanics are still very usable).
 

I mean, sure, if that's what you want to do, but that is explicitly not what I want to do here. i want it to feel modern (for varying definitions of modern) and modern means guns.

Most of D&D is actually set in the 19th century just without guns - clothing, cities, ships, professions, governments, legal frameworks, social dynamics, understanding of natural rights, currency, etc - all has more to do with the 19th century than it does with the 13th century. The 19th century is really modern.

Your thread really doesn't surprise me. I've long held the opinion that people can't really imagine anything more than about 150 years into the past, which moves the most distant era people can imagine to like the 1870s and the literature of that period. So I'm not surprised that we're seeing more and more movies to take fantasy out of the 19th century where it has been for a while and move it into the 20th century. It's certainly happening with fantasy books and literature being written today, where more and more of the setting is the 1920s or 1930s just without guns. And so it's not really surprising that we'd also see more and more people going, "Why not just have guns as well?"

And I don't really think guns are a big problem in and of themselves. You can have them in D&D and as long as you confine them to like 18th century firearms, they don't impact play very much or not in the way you'd think. The real impact of guns is it makes a 1st level fighter some degree more of a threat to a 10th level fighter than he would otherwise be. The dynamics don't change very much otherwise. A team of 1st level fighters with late 20th century firearms can take on D&D 10th level characters on equal terms provided they aren't surprised, and are generally a lot more threatening. But that's only a small problem.

The bigger problem isn't guns but stable explosives and artillery. The existence of guns implies those two things, and that really causes a problem. It's a problem if the NPCs start using them, but it's even a bigger problem once the PC's realize "Dynamite!". Most modern setting heroic literature works very heavily on narrative protection and power of plot. Think how the Bond villains never just shoot Bond, or how in Dr. Who they largely do not deal with anything like realistic weaponry. Even traditional Westerns heavily depend on plot protection. Or just think about the incoherence of simulating the comic books in a game where you have to ignore the comic books own lore to get it to work. Everyone just gets protected by the author. That's what you have to figure out how to replicate to go modern, and really I think small arms like say pistols are a small matter compared to the real problems you'll have.
 


...what? If magic became real tomorrow, you wouldn't say that physics no longer "works" you would say that our understanding of physics changed.
(Emphasis added.)
If physics actually changed over time, I would say that it may be possible to violate conservation of energy.
 

Remove ads

Top