D&D 5E “What if…” (combat idea)

[Bill Zebub]

The parallel being: depending on the situation/equipment/enemy, you need to use a different ability score to make your attack.

Does that simplify the concept and/or make it more flexible? Or is that muddling the premise?

That's basically it.

Sometimes the fighter can't get through the heavy carapace, so he's gotta try to hit the weak spots between the plating.

Sometimes the rogue can't get an opening; he's just gonna have to try punch through the armor.

I mean, the basic idea is similar to what casters do in trying to target weak saves.

 

[Oofta]

That's basically it.

Sometimes the fighter can't get through the heavy carapace, so he's gotta try to hit the weak spots between the plating.

Sometimes the rogue can't get an opening; he's just gonna have to try punch through the armor.

I mean, the basic idea is similar to what casters do in trying to target weak saves.

But we already make the decision of hitting hard or targeting weak spots now when PC builds are either strength based or dex based. I understand what you're trying to do, I just don't think this hits the mark. While the tropes and depictions of fighting that we've all absorbed may not be particularly realistic, they generally fall into two categories of the brute or the acrobat, maybe with a few other oddball exceptions here and there like depicting Sherlock Holmes using intelligence to predict opponent's moves.

But as is? I just see an extra layer. How would people know which to choose? If I've maxed out 1 attribute to 20 and tanked the other so it's 8, there would have to be massive difference in effectiveness of the two choices because otherwise I'm just going to stick with the one I'm good at. That and it only affects people that rely on martial attacks, it's kind of a nerf for them because they can't focus in one over the other while spellcasters still just have to focus on 1 attribute.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But we already make the decision of hitting hard or targeting weak spots now when PC builds are either strength based or dex based.

That’s the problem I’m trying to solve. At least, I see it as a problem: you make one decision during chargen, then dump the other stat and never think about it again.

But as is? I just see an extra layer. How would people know which to choose?

That’s kind of the point. You don’t. It’s a decision point.

If I've maxed out 1 attribute to 20 and tanked the other so it's 8, there would have to be massive difference in effectiveness of the two choices because otherwise I'm just going to stick with the one I'm good at.

Right. If you’ve min-maxed like that it would be a rare situation where the monster had so much daylight between ACs (and/or vulnerabilities to one of the attack types) that you would choose your weak stat.

But maybe if the system worked this way you wouldn’t have min-maxed. That’s really the point. And by itself it would probably be insufficient to achieve that goal, but it’s a starting point for a conversation.

 

[Oofta]

That’s the problem I’m trying to solve. At least, I see it as a problem: you make one decision during chargen, then dump the other stat and never think about it again.



That’s kind of the point. You don’t. It’s a decision point.

Not knowing which ability to attack would be annoying. It's very rare that creatures are totally immune to specific spells or damage types, when they are it's usually broadcast somehow.

Right. If you’ve min-maxed like that it would be a rare situation where the monster had so much daylight between ACs (and/or vulnerabilities to one of the attack types) that you would choose your weak stat.

But maybe if the system worked this way you wouldn’t have min-maxed. That’s really the point. And by itself it would probably be insufficient to achieve that goal, but it’s a starting point for a conversation.

Then there's not enough to go on to convince me that A) the gain you would get would be it's worth the extra complexity and B) that it wouldn't just mean that martial types wouldn't then just feel like they had to max out both strength and dex.

I just don't see how this would work. I have my own issues with the dominance of dex, especially when it comes to ranged attack options. My suggestion for ranged was multiple. That everyone can throw as many javelins as they want in a turn (trading short range for option of a shield), bows are versatile and use dex or strength were the ones I actually implemented. The other option I've thought about but not used was that your bonus to damage from dex is limited to your strength mod times 2 (minimum 1).

Some other general options tossed around have been limit damage to strength bonus only, but I think that goes too far. I don't know that there's a better option, other than probably getting rid of rapiers altogether or just make them D6 damage and make them piercing while making short swords slashing or something.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I didn’t post this in the 5.5 forum because there is, of course, no way this would ever make it into One. Heck it’s not even D&D so maybe I should post in TTRPG General?

Anyway, imagine if all creatures had TWO defensive values: an Armor Class and a “Dodge Class.” Attacks are either Str based against the target’s AC, or Dex based against its DC. PCs and some NPCs/monsters could choose which attack mode, and other NPCs/monsters would only have one mode. No finesse weapons, but Heavy weapons can only target AC.

And further, some monsters might have special vulnerabilities against one form or the other.

Sooo….?

(I’m sure there have been RPGs that have done this I just know any.)

I like that's it's AC/DC. Rock on!

That said, I feel like this weakens martial characters without adding much in the way of interesting choices.

Best case scenario, the martial is capable of both attacks. They either intuit the best one to attack or try both to determine the best. After that, they just stick with the best one. You basically end up with a golf bag fighter.

Worst case, they only have access to one of the two and are therefore less effective against half the foes they face. Maybe they're more effective against the other half? However, you probably don't want to go too much more effective than normal because of characters based on the best case scenario (otherwise, those characters are simply have that much easier a time than the default). However, if it's not effective enough, most players will probably just ignore it and use whichever type they prefer.

In 4e, there were four defenses so it wasn't anywhere as easy to target the weak defense. Also, the targeted defense was determined by the power you used, as opposed to the weapon you wielded, so it wasn't quite so straightforward a choice even if you did know the low defense.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not knowing which ability to attack would be annoying.

Is it very annoying that you don't know what saves to target when casting spells?

And it's probably not hard to figure out in a lot of circumstances. The slow thing with lots of armor? The nimble guy with light armor? Just hit him really hard. (Sure, we can quibble about the 'realism' of that...the nimble guy is going to dodge your 2H sword, at least in the movies, but again this isn't a simulation.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

That said, I feel like this weakens martial characters

That's true, unless it were just one aspect of a bunch of changes intended to make everybody more MAD and have to make more decisions.

 

[Mort]

I like that's it's AC/DC. Rock on!

That said, I feel like this weakens martial characters without adding much in the way of interesting choices.

Best case scenario, the martial is capable of both attacks. They either intuit the best one to attack or try both to determine the best. After that, they just stick with the best one. You basically end up with a golf bag fighter.

Worst case, they only have access to one of the two and are therefore less effective against half the foes they face. Maybe they're more effective against the other half? However, you probably don't want to go too much more effective than normal because of characters based on the best case scenario (otherwise, those characters are simply have that much easier a time than the default). However, if it's not effective enough, most players will probably just ignore it and use whichever type they prefer.

In 4e, there were four defenses so it wasn't anywhere as easy to target the weak defense. Also, the targeted defense was determined by the power you used, as opposed to the weapon you wielded, so it wasn't quite so straightforward a choice even if you did know the low defense.

Yeah, my issue is this weakens martials and either doesn't really affect or even strengthens casters (since they can use magic to target weaknesses and often even bypass the AC mechanic entirely). To me, anything that FURTHER widens the divide is a negative.

 

[dave2008]

I didn’t post this in the 5.5 forum because there is, of course, no way this would ever make it into One. Heck it’s not even D&D so maybe I should post in TTRPG General?

Anyway, imagine if all creatures had TWO defensive values: an Armor Class and a “Dodge Class.” Attacks are either Str based against the target’s AC, or Dex based against its DC. PCs and some NPCs/monsters could choose which attack mode, and other NPCs/monsters would only have one mode. No finesse weapons, but Heavy weapons can only target AC.

And further, some monsters might have special vulnerabilities against one form or the other.

Sooo….?

(I’m sure there have been RPGs that have done this I just know any.)

I don't know if other systems do it, but I am doing something similar in my 5e "Immortals Rules" update. In the "I" of BECMI, Immortals had another set of three abilities scores called "Talents" derived from the standard six scores. What does that sound like? Well, to me, it seemed like the precursor to Fort, Reflex, and Will (They are just called Greater, Intermediate, and Lesser talents in the Immortals Rules). Anyway...

Immortals in my 5e update don't have AC. You attack one of their three defenses. For physical attacks you attack Fort (just shrugging off the attack) or Reflex (dodging the attack). The target gets to choose which one they use for defense (generally).

 

[Fanaelialae]

That's true, unless it were just one aspect of a bunch of changes intended to make everybody more MAD and have to make more decisions.

Possibly.

I think the direction I would go with something like this would be to use Fighting Stances, rather than weapon. Martials would start with at least two stances, and gain more as they level.

For example, a dervish inspired Cyclone stance might allow you to target DC, and build up Momentum points to make bonus attacks. Light weapons might build up Momentum more quickly than Heavy weapons, but you could use either one in this stance.

You might want to switch your stance to deal with different enemies (using Landside stance to target AC against a lightly armored but quick enemy), which also might require a different tactical approach. Plus, it largely avoids the golf bag issue, since you can use a stance with any weapon (even if certain weapon types favor certain stances).