D&D 5E “What if…” (combat idea)

[Tales and Chronicles]

A wacky idea would be to remove attack rolls and just make everything saving throws.

Slash weapons triggers Str saves
Blunt weapons triggers Con saves
Piercing weapon triggers Dex saves

or

You triggers a save from the same ability you use to attack.

Armors give some kind of DR, Shields could either give more DR or a bonus to saves.

 

[Mort]

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).

I always thought stances would have been a better/cooler way to go (for martials) than the fighting styles we got (or even a combination of both) - certainly ripe for 3rd party add ons.

 

[Oofta]

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.)

As I said, much of the time it's broadcast for spells, especially if it's resistance or immunity. But that's only one complaint - if it's just a matter of the defenses being higher for strength vs dex attacks, you're still going to get people that max out both strength and dex. It also has zero impact on casters which you seem to be ignoring.

I gave some thoughts on some alternatives. If you want to give more details, discuss options and alternatives, have a discussion that's fine. If you're just going to defend your position without adding anything else (which I totally understand) there's not really much of a reason to respond. If you want real feedback try some players willing to test it out for you. Good luck.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you're just going to defend your position without adding anything else (which I totally understand) there's not really much of a reason to respond. If you want real feedback try some players willing to test it out for you. Good luck.

Sorry if that came across as overly defensive.

I think there are some totally valid criticisms (such as the one that has been brought up about penalizing martials, or, for those who care about simulation/modeling, that it’s not really modeling anything.). Your criticisms puzzled me, though. Re-reading them, it seems we may just value/like different things.

(And I wasn’t really looking for testers…I doubt I will even test it myself. It was just throwing an idea out there for discussion.)

 

[Oofta]

Sorry if that came across as overly defensive.

I think there are some totally valid criticisms (such as the one that has been brought up about penalizing martials, or, for those who care about simulation/modeling, that it’s not really modeling anything.). Your criticisms puzzled me, though. Re-reading them, it seems we may just value/like different things.

(And I wasn’t really looking for testers…I doubt I will even test it myself. It was just throwing an idea out there for discussion.)

No worries - it's difficult to have conversations on these message boards at times.

 

[GMMichael]

My school of thought is that something should be modeled - otherwise you're just writing code. The point of RPGs is that you get a story or a scene that you experience with other people, not rules for rules' sake.

. . . 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. . .

My game does a version of this, so I can tell you how that system goes. Characters can try to avoid the dex/parry side, but the str/armor side is generally required defense...

Attackers can carry heavier weapons or specialize with their weapons to punch through armor (deal more damage). And/or they can increase their skill/ability/speed to hit "between the plating."

Defenders can use actions to parry which avoids all damage. All unparried or successful attacks have to go through armor, which reduces damage, but not down to zero.

Does this create a meaningful decision point? Indeed. Opponents with heavy armor must either A) get hit with bigger weapons or B) get hit a lot. Opponents who parry well must be surrounded/blocked or defeated quickly (before their friends arrive). It doesn't hurt for someone in the party to have a blunderbuss, which doesn't do all that much damage, but at least it can ignore armor (along with mental attacks . . . ).

A key difference from the OP suggestion is that opponents can't completely ignore one approach or the other - the GM can't say, "too bad you put all your points in strength. Now this opponent is going to require Dex only." Both attackers and defenders have decisions to make, and it always helps to have allies.

 

[Steel_Wind]

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.)

This is just a gloss on the Vardy Combat System for AD&D 1st ed. It was published in 1979 in Different Worlds #6.

The expanded version of that system, differentiating between weapons used and type of armor worn provided the basis for Peter Fenlon's Arms' Law as his house rule for Vardy, which he published a few years later. All of that ultimately became Rolemaster.

There is nothing new about this. We've gone down this road many, many times...

 

[Bill Zebub]

My school of thought is that something should be modeled - otherwise you're just writing code. The point of RPGs is that you get a story or a scene that you experience with other people, not rules for rules' sake.
.

I think that’s a little limiting. Rules can generate narrative richness without modeling a game-world process.

For example, what is being modeled when a non-magical ability can be used 1/day? It’s purely gamist, but it gives the player an opportunity to narrate why he/she is using the ability in one situation but not another.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is just a gloss on the Vardy Combat System for AD&D 1st ed. It was published in 1979 in Different Worlds #6.

The expanded version of that system, differentiating between weapons used and type of armor worn provided the basis for Peter Fenlon's Arms' Law as his house rule for Vardy, which he published a few years later. All of that ultimately became Rolemaster.

There is nothing new about this. We've gone down this road many, many times...

I’ll admit I only skimmed the first few pages, so maybe I didn’t get to the part you were thinking about, but I’m not seeing the parallel. Why does this seem like a “gloss” on the Vardy system to you? What seems similar?