D&D 5E 5th Edition Modern or Near Future Rules

[UngainlyTitan]

I think that in terms of modern fire arms one has to completely abandon any notion of HP as meat. It is totally plot armour. However, there would have to be added to the game, new status effects like suppression and some kind of morale system. The biggest issue is that the tactical movement scaling is well off for firearms. 300 meters is a perfectly good range to open fire at.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Even at close range, even with trained combatants, the majority of shots miss in combat situations. I can dig some up and post them for you if you don't believe me, but they're not difficult to find.

This is a red herring, and more importantly, not actually reflected in any d20-based RPG I've ever seen. Even if we move to the less-realistic sphere of action movies and thriller novels and so on, D&D just can't cut it, and the games that base themselves tightly on D&D don't typically try to cut it.

Even if you do miss more often - you also hit more often. This is why modern weapons are designed the way that they are. That's undeniable. If it wasn't a massive advantage to be able to fire a lot of rounds very quickly, then guns wouldn't be designed that way, and we'd all be charging into battle with sabres and double-barreled shotguns or something.

I could, however, create firearms rules for my own group because I know them. We've played plenty of enjoyable games using the system from various editions of D&D that focused on guns as the primary weapons of choice.

Specifics, please. I've played tons of successful D&D games where flintlock weapons were involved (or more primitive weapons), or d20 games where flintlock or similar weapons were the primary weapons of the setting, and it worked. Largely because they can only be fired as fast as or more slowly than other weapons in the setting.

Where modern firearms were? No. It all just gets really silly really fast unless you completely abandon HP as anything but plot armour (as @ardoughter suggests). I seem to recall that Spycraft 2E attempted something similar to what you're suggesting re: multiple shots/attack, but I forget the actual mechanics, and I think it translated to just not tracking ammo and having bad rolls force you to reload or something. Spycraft 1E and d20 Modern were just completely terrible for this, and got silly pretty much the first time a gun was used in combat.

I mean, I tell you what, you say you could do this, I'm not going to challenge you to put your money where your mouth is, but can you even find a game that has successfully done it? Further, can you find a game that uses the d20 or 5E rules to its advantage, and does a better job simulating action movies or TV series or the like than a game actually intended to do that?

I've played loads and loads of games where the rules were "plausible" enough. I don't have exacting standards. But D&D has a peculiar set-up which is particularly bad for this sort of thing. This is a D&D problem specifically, not an RPG problem in general.

 

[Oofta]

I strongly suspect there is practically no such thing as a "flesh wound" when it comes to swords and spears either (apart from, as you say, the movies).

I remember reading somewhere that most deaths from battle wounds used to be from infections and long term effects. Getting a deep cut is dangerous if you don't get proper treatment, infections are deadly without antibiotics.

Sure, but that's only one of the problems. HP don't represent being "stabbed through the heart", anyway, which is part of the issue.

With a knife, it's very plausible to say you got a shallow cut or gash for that 4 HP you took, or they stabbed your chain repeatedly and couldn't get through but you're going to have bruises and are a bit winded. With a 7.62mm rifle bullet? Um. You basically end up getting "Tintin'd" constantly "Oh the bullet just grazed me. Oh the bullet just grazed me. Oh the bullet just grazed me." and so on, and it's a lot inherently sillier than melee weapons which are easier to explain. If they're wearing armour, it's like the plates end up being bullet-magnets as suddenly they keep being hit and causing bruises.

Modern firearms just an absolute ton of problems on top of the existing problems D&D has with immersion-breaking stuff. And whilst YMMV, for my money, they smash that immersion to pieces.



Have you actually tried action movies (not SF movies or Star Wars, note) in a version of D&D, or even a close relative? Because I have. I've tried a bunch of systems. And the results are awful. This is because of a few things:

1) AC derived from DEX and armour and so on doesn't work in action movies.

2) D&D doesn't, by default, have any kind of "that didn't happen" mechanism to prevent one-shots and so on (whereas most good action movie RPGs do).

3) Rising HP with levels makes little sense in an action movie or action-TV scenario. PCs should start with a lot of HP-equivalent.

4) HP which assume you get hit make zero sense in an action-movie scenario in most cases. VP/WP can work though it has a whole bunch of problems of its own.

5) Guns firing a single time (even if it is supposedly multiple times) per attack just raises tons of questions and feels very un-action-movie-esque.

6) Guns doing more damage than melee doesn't make any sense at all in an action-movie context, because melee is extremely effective in virtually all action movies.

Can you fix all this? Maybe, but you're building something pretty far from 5E, as I said.

AC could derive from being a protagonist and so on, rather than armour.

You could add a whole subsystem which let players say "Ok I didn't get shot in the head!".

You could start with like 30+ HP and not have them go up much, if at all (instead the subsystem above could increase).

You can replace HP with something like VP/WP (a system with problems of it's own), but history relates that this is not an easy thing to get right. At the very least you probably need rules equivalent to CDGs for kill-shots and the like. Which may involve a whole separate subsystem and economy of "kill points" or whatever.

You could make all firearms have multiple attacks but whatever way you do this its going to be tricky to make work with 5E's action economy, and it's likely to mean you end up simulating on specific subset of action movies, rather than "most" action movies (which is fine, but you need to be clear about it).

You can make guns not do more damage than melee, but the whole notion of damage gets pretty fraught and complicated even when compared to D&D (which already has enough problems with "meat points" and so on).

And maybe you end up with a game that has a Proficiency Bonus, Advantage/Disadvantage, six stats, and uses d20 rolls + stat + proficiency as the main mechanic, but it's sure not going to be 5E or remotely 5E compatible.

And some game which didn't even try to do all this nonsense, but had a fundamentally different mechanic is just going to laugh at this house of cards you've built, because why not use the right tool for the job?

I simply think you're overthinking it. D&D does not model reality, a grazing wound from a bullet is the same as a grazing wound from a claymore. That bullet that hits between the eyes is just as deadly as that claymore that takes off your head.

It takes a moment or two for most people to line up a proper shot in most cases, especially if you are personally in danger. I guess in theory (depending how closely you track ammunition and reloading) you could say that the first level fighter bangs off a half dozen rounds on his turn but only 1 matters.

But yes, I play a bad fight simulator all the time. It's called D&D.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I simply think you're overthinking it. D&D does not model reality, a grazing wound from a bullet is the same as a grazing wound from a claymore. That bullet that hits between the eyes is just as deadly as that claymore that takes off your head.

It takes a moment or two for most people to line up a proper shot in most cases, especially if you are personally in danger. I guess in theory (depending how closely you track ammunition and reloading) you could say that the first level fighter bangs off a half dozen rounds on his turn but only 1 matters.

But yes, I play a bad fight simulator all the time. It's called D&D.

The issue is that I'm speaking from experience, rather than just thinking about it. This isn't theoretical. I'd absolutely love to find a d20-based, particularly 5E-based game that was at least good enough at maintaining immersion in these situations that it didn't seem outright silly in a bad way (rather than a fun way) almost immediately. I tried tons of stuff in 3E, but it all gravitated around the same few failed mechanical designs (most of which had you firing a single round every six seconds at level 1, or maybe 2 with some sort of penalty if you had the right feat).

I can envision designs that could work, as I said, but you have to go so very far from 5E to do that, at least with what I've come up with, that it's unclear why you'd be using 5E at all, not PbtA (which handles this sort of thing extremely well), or a bunch of other systems (all of which handle this better than 5E). Familiarity is only useful if you don't have to change many rules.

 

[Oofta]

The issue is that I'm speaking from experience, rather than just thinking about it. This isn't theoretical. I'd absolutely love to find a d20-based, particularly 5E-based game that was at least good enough at maintaining immersion in these situations that it didn't seem outright silly in a bad way (rather than a fun way) almost immediately. I tried tons of stuff in 3E, but it all gravitated around the same few failed mechanical designs (most of which had you firing a single round every six seconds at level 1, or maybe 2 with some sort of penalty if you had the right feat).

I can envision designs that could work, as I said, but you have to go so very far from 5E to do that, at least with what I've come up with, that it's unclear why you'd be using 5E at all, not PbtA (which handles this sort of thing extremely well), or a bunch of other systems (all of which handle this better than 5E). Familiarity is only useful if you don't have to change many rules.

How many shots are fired at the typical action hero in movies and TV? How many times are they fatal? Even in sci-fi such as Star Trek, half the bridge crew should have been dead a dozen times over. They aren't because they have HP.

That's the level of reality that a game needs to mimic. That may not work for you, which is fine.

 

[jayoungr]

Can anyone lead me to any 5th Edition Modern or Near Future Rules? Looking to set up a game with a modern setting where aliens, fantasy creatures, vampires, etc. could be worked in at various times. Sort of and X-Files feel.

This looks like exactly what you're looking for:

Amazing Adventures 5E RPG

A multi-genre Role Playing Game using the 5th Edition rules set. From zombie horror to sci-fi, from pulp to modern. It's all here!

www.kickstarter.com

I backed the Kickstarter, and I already have my PDF. I suspect they're waiting for physical books before opening it up for sale to to the general public, but it's looking like that will be within a matter of weeks.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is a red herring, and more importantly, not actually reflected in any d20-based RPG I've ever seen. Even if we move to the less-realistic sphere of action movies and thriller novels and so on, D&D just can't cut it, and the games that base themselves tightly on D&D don't typically try to cut it.

Even if you do miss more often - you also hit more often. This is why modern weapons are designed the way that they are. That's undeniable. If it wasn't a massive advantage to be able to fire a lot of rounds very quickly, then guns wouldn't be designed that way, and we'd all be charging into battle with sabres and double-barreled shotguns or something.



Specifics, please. I've played tons of successful D&D games where flintlock weapons were involved (or more primitive weapons), or d20 games where flintlock or similar weapons were the primary weapons of the setting, and it worked. Largely because they can only be fired as fast as or more slowly than other weapons in the setting.

Where modern firearms were? No. It all just gets really silly really fast unless you completely abandon HP as anything but plot armour (as @ardoughter suggests). I seem to recall that Spycraft 2E attempted something similar to what you're suggesting re: multiple shots/attack, but I forget the actual mechanics, and I think it translated to just not tracking ammo and having bad rolls force you to reload or something. Spycraft 1E and d20 Modern were just completely terrible for this, and got silly pretty much the first time a gun was used in combat.

I mean, I tell you what, you say you could do this, I'm not going to challenge you to put your money where your mouth is, but can you even find a game that has successfully done it? Further, can you find a game that uses the d20 or 5E rules to its advantage, and does a better job simulating action movies or TV series or the like than a game actually intended to do that?

I've played loads and loads of games where the rules were "plausible" enough. I don't have exacting standards. But D&D has a peculiar set-up which is particularly bad for this sort of thing. This is a D&D problem specifically, not an RPG problem in general.

@Oofta already covered what I would have said. However, since you ask, we've played with modern or futuristic guns primarily, when we have guns at all. It's possible that flintlocks existed in some of our games, but I don't recall them specifically.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How many shots are fired at the typical action hero in movies and TV? How many times are they fatal? Even in sci-fi such as Star Trek, half the bridge crew should have been dead a dozen times over. They aren't because they have HP.

That's the level of reality that a game needs to mimic. That may not work for you, which is fine.

But HP don't mimic that all. The crew aren't dead because they almost never get hit. This is exactly what I mean. You're making my point for me, frankly!

If you change HP to plot armour, which stops you being hit at all in most cases (rather than getting nickle-and-dimed as you are in 5E), then suddenly you have something that looks a bit closer.

This is exactly what I'm saying re: AC and HP. Wearing armour in action movies and Star Trek and so on does not make you get hit less. But it does in D&D. And people generally just don't get hit in these sort of movies/shows, and if they do, it tends to be bad - often real bad. This is what VP/WP was trying to mimic (with limited success).

If we change where AC comes from, into like Rank + (Class-based Stat Mod), and change HP so that they aren't "you got hit but it didn't matter" to "you didn't get hit yet", then we're getting somewhere at least, at least for a Star Trek-type game. For an action-movie type game, level 1 is just never going to work. No action movie character has that little plot-armour, nor do they gain so much in their career. So you also have to change HP scaling. But that's a less issue, maybe, if you start with 30 HP and only gain 3HP/level or something (no CON mod, because HP are plot armour, not CON - CON instead maybe lets you survive injuries that get past HP better).

We still haven't solved the gun problem. With Star Trek, with no ammo, and phasers blazing, it's not a big issue. Yes we can just say you might have missed a few times. If you rolled a 1, one of your misses maybe caused a problem (not necessarily a farce-type problem).

With a modern gun situation, in an action-movie context, it's a bit trickier because some people in these movies fire single accurate shots, and some don't. Not sure what the best solution is re: ammo, but maybe we have some classes have a special ability to only use 1 round/attack with guns that normally use multiple rounds/attack. And some guns only fire once/attack, but others fire multiple times. And rolling 1 probably means you ran out of ammo.

Anyway, point is, you need to change some basic assumptions to make it work well.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But HP don't mimic that all. The crew aren't dead because they almost never get hit. This is exactly what I mean. You're making my point for me, frankly!

If you change HP to plot armour, which stops you being hit at all in most cases (rather than getting nickle-and-dimed as you are in 5E), then suddenly you have something that looks a bit closer.

This is exactly what I'm saying re: AC and HP. Wearing armour in action movies and Star Trek and so on does not make you get hit less. But it does in D&D. And people generally just don't get hit in these sort of movies/shows, and if they do, it tends to be bad - often real bad. This is what VP/WP was trying to mimic (with limited success).

If we change where AC comes from, into like Rank + (Class-based Stat Mod), and change HP so that they aren't "you got hit but it didn't matter" to "you didn't get hit yet", then we're getting somewhere at least, at least for a Star Trek-type game. For an action-movie type game, level 1 is just never going to work. No action movie character has that little plot-armour, nor do they gain so much in their career. So you also have to change HP scaling. But that's a less issue, maybe, if you start with 30 HP and only gain 3HP/level or something (no CON mod, because HP are plot armour, not CON - CON instead maybe lets you survive injuries that get past HP better).

We still haven't solved the gun problem. With Star Trek, with no ammo, and phasers blazing, it's not a big issue. Yes we can just say you might have missed a few times. If you rolled a 1, one of your misses maybe caused a problem (not necessarily a farce-type problem).

With a modern gun situation, in an action-movie context, it's a bit trickier because some people in these movies fire single accurate shots, and some don't. Not sure what the best solution is re: ammo, but maybe we have some classes have a special ability to only use 1 round/attack with guns that normally use multiple rounds/attack. And some guns only fire once/attack, but others fire multiple times. And rolling 1 probably means you ran out of ammo.

Anyway, point is, you need to change some basic assumptions to make it work well.

Only if those didn't already match your basic assumptions. My group usually plays that a hit is actually a narrow miss. In the case of additional effects there might be a minor injury. Which is probably why we don't have issues with using modern guns.

 

[Dr.Nik]

I think y'all have an interesting premise that I disagree with.
It seems that y'all are equating a blow in combat that inflicts HP damage = an actual strike on the target.

To me, HP are an abstraction of the PC's capability in combat. When you view HP as abstraction, the reduction of the players HP indicates fatigue and maneuvers that are used to prevent that disabling/killing blow.

When the players reach 0 HP, that's the blow that lands and takes out the character.

If you view HP as an abstraction, then blows are not disabling strikes until you reach that 0 HP marker. the type of damage inflicted over the course of a battle (gunfire, melee, magic) is inconsequential.


I also think that most of the arguments here are heavy on the custom/house rules reliance, which is always a last ditch option for me. if a system doesn't support the style of play you are looking for, try a different system before changing up the game too much.