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

[Oofta]

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.
...

I never assume damage is from a direct hit. It can be from the strain of dodging out of the way, it can be a bruise under the armor that stopped the blow, it can be simple as plot armor and luck.

How many times are people shot in TV/movies and they're perfectly okay because their vest stopped the bullet? How many times do they simply miraculously not get hit while pots are exploding and bullets are hitting everywhere around them?

Heck, if you're Rambo getting shot just means you have to cauterize the wound (in a really stupid way, but that's another issue).

Google sometime how many times John McClane would have been dead or at least hospitalized in the movies. He doesn't die, doesn't suffer permanent disability because he has plot armor, aka HP.

In any case, this is way off the OP's request. If 5E rules don't work for you, then it wouldn't be the system for you. I think they work just fine for a lot of people.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

That all depends. If you want D&D but with guns, unless that system already exists (to your satisfaction), you might be forced to homebrew. If your group likes new themes but won't try new (non-homebrew) systems, you might be forced to homebrew. My group falls into the latter category.

Overall though, using a system that is intended for the type of game you want to run is solid advice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Sure, and that's a fine approach, though I feel like it breaks down for me personally because of the "additional effects" part being so extremely common in D&D (literally every attack certain monsters make will have extra effects, for example - kind of weird if every time a snake rolls a hit, it's a hit, but when an orc swings at you hits, doing damage, it's a near miss). It's not RAW (or I would argue, RAI), though, hence my point re: 5E in general. If you're already moving a bit away from 5E standards, it's certainly easier to move further.

Some implementations of VP/WP did a decent job here - in that VP damage didn't allow secondary effects (but I think there was also one, perhaps even the standard one, where it did, which was pretty silly).

It still doesn't deal with the major issue with AC though. That's a real pain for modern-day settings (hence d20 games typically taking a different approach). Oh well!

Overall though, using a system that is intended for the type of game you want to run is solid advice.

I tend to agree. I do hope one day someone surprises me with a 5E-based system which manages to address most of my concerns though. I'd consider doing it myself, I know I could manage it design-wise, but everything is so layout/visuals-centric these days and I just know I'm not interested in getting that right, which means about three people ever would look at it. Such is life!

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure, and that's a fine approach, though I feel like it breaks down for me personally because of the "additional effects" part being so extremely common in D&D (literally every attack certain monsters make will have extra effects, for example - kind of weird if every time a snake rolls a hit, it's a hit, but when an orc swings at you hits, doing damage, it's a near miss). It's not RAW (or I would argue, RAI), though, hence my point re: 5E in general. If you're already moving a bit away from 5E standards, it's certainly easier to move further.

If you try to make an absurd example out of what someone says, don't be surprised when you arrive at an absurd outcome.

Notice how I used "usually" and "might"? Not every attack from an orc will be a narrow miss, and (assuming that the poison save has no effect on a successful save) the snake can narrowly miss on a hit. Even if the poison is save for half, the snake can still miss by failing to roll high enough to hit the AC.

The narrow miss is the most common description, but we vary it up.

Also, I disagree that what I said (rather than what you suggested I said) is not RAW/RAI. RAW describes HP as being composed of a number of different factors. I believe that is intentionally so that people can describe HP loss as they like (and has been the case since pretty much the inception of the game). Narrating HP loss as a narrow miss that would have otherwise struck true is not counter to RAW.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you try to make an absurd example out of what someone says, don't be surprised when you arrive at an absurd outcome.

But it's not an absurd example. It's absolutely pedestrian example. This is something that happens all the time in D&D. Loads of creatures have every or most attack have a rider like poison or petrification or disease or whatever. I just played through a dungeon where about 70% of the monsters did. I wouldn't call the outcome "absurd". I'd call it "silly" or "a bit off". Either way it stems out of a common and normal situation.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But it's not an absurd example. It's absolutely pedestrian example. This is something that happens all the time in D&D. Loads of creatures have every or most attack have a rider like poison or petrification or disease or whatever. I just played through a dungeon where about 70% of the monsters did. I wouldn't call the outcome "absurd". I'd call it "silly" or "a bit off". Either way it stems out of a common and normal situation.

Sure, poisonous creatures aren't rare.

What was absurd was that you suggested that how I run things is that an orc would always miss on a hit, but a snake would never miss (on a hit).

Which is of course an absurd outcome, but only because you used an absurd example.

I never claimed that every attack, except those with effects, is a narrow miss. Just that that's the common way we handle it. A blow from an orc might scratch the target or bruise through armor. A effect base attack, like a push, could narrowly miss but still force the target back through the sheer force of the assault. Frequently though, an attack without effects is a narrow miss, while an attack with effects manages to connect to some degree.

Variety and making sense within the context of the narrative are both important factors to consider.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

And we have to remember about the urban fantasy with magic vs tech, and an "arm race" of players vs GMs. If one faction are gunfighters then the spellcasters will look for some trick against the machines guns, for example illusory magic as smoke grenades, summoning swarns of bugs, or creating pieces of ectoplasm to block canons. Maybe the PCs are elite soldiers in a mission in a jungle and they want to terminate the evil tribe of maneater tscho-tscho (who defend the hidden temple of doom), but they discover theses don't need bulletproof jackets when their shaman can create magic tattos with the same effect (and "economic price"). Or the firearms can't work in the capital city because the temple create an effects with its sacred power magic.

And we are talking about fantasy settings where "ordinary humans" with enough training can jump over trees like in the movie "Tiger & Dragon". Even Superman could be defeated by Naruto the ninja or fighters of Mortal Kombat.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

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.

And in real life, the vast majority of shots fired in shoot-outs between police and criminals miss their targets because gunfights are very rarely between two opponents standing within five feet of each other. Guns, and the skills of the characters, being too accurate by whatever rules are being used is a much bigger problem than the lethality of a shot actually connecting with the target.

 

[Horwath]

World/Chronicles of Darkness works a little better with HPs and modern weapons but still not great, but D&D(any edition) is just awful when it comes to firearms.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Responding to the OP, there's a modern espionage game using 5E rules called The Spy Game which ran a successful kickstarter last year. You can still make a late pledge, I believe. I've only glanced at it but it looks interesting.

It models automatic weapon fire and high explosives using the saving throw mechanic. Fail, you take full damage. Succeed, you take half damage. It's not realistic but I think it does a pretty good job of genre emulation for cinematic action.

Likewise, classes are used to model archetypes like the sniper, the hacker, the infiltrator, etc.