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

[Faolyn]

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.

The bard becomes an actor, singer, or someone who manipulates others with their words. That fits no matter the setting.

Paladins don't have to be holy; they just have to be zealous. That also fits no matter the setting.

Monks... well, this is why I prefer the LU adept, but still, someone who has trained their body to a superhuman degree also fits in every setting.

 

[Reynard]

Should be some allotment for armor, but no one starts with proficiency in it. Everyone should probably start with the equivalent of Unarmored defense (I'd suggest adding PB instead of a stat) or everyone's going to be too easy to hit when combat breaks out (unless you want that for some reason).

With this being a sort of "hidden world of the supernatural", what are your plans for how spellcasting will be handled - the same as D&D or more "hidden/involved" with hermatic-type magic, occultism and rare miracles? Masque and the various historical campaign settings of 2E often made it that outside of the PCs spellcasting was basically unheard of, and in the latter multiplied casting time by 10 and/or threw in drawbacks to using magic/miracles, if at all.

Again, I am aiming for it playing like D&D plays, broadly. The PCs and the world they move in is not the world most everyone else sees, though. Generally speaking, their dungeon delving and other adventures would happen largely outside the view of regular people and modern society.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'm not sure what the disconnect here is. You seem to be concerned about realism or practicality, where I am talking about aesthetics. Your suggestions are completely counterproductive to the stated goal of the thread, also.

So I don't know what to tell you other than Indiana Jones never wore platemail.

My concern is with the interaction of the proposed mechanical aesthetics with the 'D&D' part of D&D adventures.

I understand the ideation around the impact of firearms on the setting and mechanics, but D&D adventures often take place in dungeons, and frequently feature creatures like dragons. These are locations where firearms are likely at their lowest utility and these are enemies who are the least likely to have or use guns. So a lot of that ideation seems misplaced, unless the plan is also to significantly alter how dungeons work, and what kinds of creatures inhabit them.

I get that Indy didn't wear platemail. But, he also, to the best of my recollection, didn't fight and kill demons, devils, dragons, oozes, undead, abberrations, or monstrosities. Heck, he mostly wasn't expecting the supernatural stuff that he did encounter.

So maybe Indy's gear choices aren't a good metric to use here, unless the plan would be to also cut out a lot of D&D creatures from the setting. And maybe that is also the plan.

How many creatures do you need to cut from the Monster Manual to deliver the Indiana Jones experience? When you're done, do you still have the D&D experience?

 

[Reynard]

My concern is with the interaction of the proposed mechanical aesthetics with the 'D&D' part of D&D adventures.

I understand the ideation around the impact of firearms on the setting and mechanics, but D&D adventures often take place in dungeons, and frequently feature creatures like dragons. These are locations where firearms are likely at their lowest utility and these are enemies who are the least likely to have or use guns. So a lot of that ideation seems misplaced, unless the plan is also to significantly alter how dungeons work, and what kinds of creatures inhabit them.

I get that Indy didn't wear platemail. But, he also, to the best of my recollection, didn't fight and kill demons, devils, dragons, oozes, undead, abberrations, or monstrosities. Heck, he mostly wasn't expecting the supernatural stuff that he did encounter.

So maybe Indy's gear choices aren't a good metric to use here, unless the plan would be to also cut out a lot of D&D creatures from the setting. And maybe that is also the plan.

How many creatures do you need to cut from the Monster Manual to deliver the Indiana Jones experience? When you're done, do you still have the D&D experience?

I think maybe we are having a difference in definition of what a D&D adventure looks like and that is coloring the conversation.

For the record, when i say "D&D adventures" I do not mean something akin to old school dungeon crawling. I mean shorter crawls with setpiece encounters and pulp action. I mean adventures in a more modern sense. I don't think a shift to ranged combat (using firearms) significantly changes that, other than maybe making flying opponents less difficult to deal with. I am not suggesting big rules changes that alter the way 5E plays -- hence the thought of a universal unarmored defense to keep the numbers essentially where they are in vanilla D&D without folks walking around in armor.

 

[Corinnguard]

How commonplace do you see magic items in a more modern-like setting? Would such a setting have something like Eberron's Magewright NPC class to mass produce them? While everyone in such setting might not be walking around in armor, they might possess a +1 Ring of Protection or a Broach of Shielding instead.

 

[Reynard]

How commonplace do you see magic items in a more modern-like setting? Would such a setting have something like Eberron's Magewright NPC class to mass produce them? While everyone in such setting might not be walking around in armor, they might possess a +1 Ring of Protection or a Broach of Shielding instead.

Emphatically not. The PCs would, of course, find some items during their adventures, but the world would appear to be as mundane as our own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thanks. Am I missing something or did they not make any changes regarding the interaction of firearms and armor?

They did not. Like I said, it's more for aesthetics (which you said was your priority) than anything else. MHP is concerned (to my mind, obsessed) with making sure nothing they makes interferes with the official rules of WotC 5e. They've also really bought into the whole simplicity agenda WotC has been sporting. I mean, they do have some new weapon properties, but even those are pretty darn tame.

For these reasons I have pulled back from their work. They're afraid to take risks from a design perspective, and the CEO is on record as saying he wants the game even simpler than it already is (pretty much the opposite of what I want). I don't want new stuff for 5e to be mostly about vibes and appearances; it clashes with my simulationist sensibilities. It does, however, sound like it might work for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

With this being a sort of "hidden world of the supernatural", what are your plans for how spellcasting will be handled - the same as D&D or more "hidden/involved" with hermatic-type magic, occultism and rare miracles? Masque and the various historical campaign settings of 2E often made it that outside of the PCs spellcasting was basically unheard of, and in the latter multiplied casting time by 10 and/or threw in drawbacks to using magic/miracles, if at all.

Yeah, that conceit ("magic is rare and mysterious unless you're a PC, in which case it is exactly the opposite") always annoyed me. It perpetuates what I see as the myth of PC specialness. Don't make PCs the exception to worldbuilding, I say, otherwise you're basically telling them the world doesn't matter as far as they're concerned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My concern is with the interaction of the proposed mechanical aesthetics with the 'D&D' part of D&D adventures.

I understand the ideation around the impact of firearms on the setting and mechanics, but D&D adventures often take place in dungeons, and frequently feature creatures like dragons. These are locations where firearms are likely at their lowest utility and these are enemies who are the least likely to have or use guns. So a lot of that ideation seems misplaced, unless the plan is also to significantly alter how dungeons work, and what kinds of creatures inhabit them.

I get that Indy didn't wear platemail. But, he also, to the best of my recollection, didn't fight and kill demons, devils, dragons, oozes, undead, abberrations, or monstrosities. Heck, he mostly wasn't expecting the supernatural stuff that he did encounter.

So maybe Indy's gear choices aren't a good metric to use here, unless the plan would be to also cut out a lot of D&D creatures from the setting. And maybe that is also the plan.

How many creatures do you need to cut from the Monster Manual to deliver the Indiana Jones experience? When you're done, do you still have the D&D experience?

How important are monsters to the D&D experience? Plenty of adventurers interact with humanoids regularly.

Just about all of them, in fact.

 

[Gammadoodler]

How important are monsters to the D&D experience? Plenty of adventurers interact with humanoids regularly.

Just about all of them, in fact.

That's a great question. I don't know that I have an answer really.

Personally, I think it'd be kind of weird to venture into these explicitly exotic locations and fail to encounter exotic creatures, but that might just be me.