D&D 5E D&D 5E - What I'd like to see.

[Water Bob]

Mages have all these cool and exciting options. Traditionally, fighters, don't. Unearthed Arcana in 1E AD&D brought in a few things, like weapon specialization. Then, in 2E AD&D, supplemental books brought in shield bashes and differences in fighting styles.

3E really did the most for fighters, via the Feat system. And, as 3E progressed, we started to see more, like the combat maneuvers (disarm, sunder, trip, and the like). The Conan RPG has tons more.

What I'd like to see in 5E is this type of thing taken even further. I'd like to see the differences (in a mechanical way) in fighting with a spear vs. a short sword.

Yeah, I know, there's stuff in the game already that speaks to this area, but I'd like to see more, cleaner, rules central to the game. I'd like it when I see a fighter to see different types. I'd like it to be a viable option to not wear armor (and I'd like to see more realistic armors in the game--the old Paladin in Hell illustration with the knight in full plate armor needs to stay in the older editions).

I don't think the Codex Martials has it completely "right", but I like where it was going. Each weapon has a different modifier for onset range, regular melee, and defense.

So, some weapons are great for offence but not so much for defense. Reach, weapon weight, and maneuverablity play a part.

But, I don't want to see the game get bogged down--I'd like these ideas implented in a fun, intuitive, easy-to-play way.

I'd like the rules to allow for specialized fighters with the half naked, barefooted barbarian from the jungles of Chult, using a primitive spear and knife chipped from obsidion to be just as effective as the sabre wielding pirate who just jumped off the ship wearing a steel breastplate.

I'd like there to be pros and cons to using weapons. And, I'd like to see some stat requirements for weapons, so that the player will match the character with the best type of weapon for him--based on his skills and stats. I don't want to see weakling characters using two-handed swords. And, I want to see a character making the most out of the weapon best suited to the character's ability--and that weapon may not be the one that delivers the most damage.

This is pretty much how I play my Conan RPG campaign now, but I'd jump for joy if I saw that 5E were going to take this ball and run with it.



Part of the fighter game could be about figuring out how to fight a foe. I want to see more along the lines of the feint and demoralize options. I want to see knockdowns and situations where the best option is to drop your sword and grapple your foe. If the thing I'm fighting has long reach tentacles, then the best method to counter this type of attack that my character knows is to do X. But, when I'm fighting the little halfling thief that wields two daggers, I'll use combat stance Y.

You get the idea.

I want combat in the game to be fun and engaging with lots of options and specializations--where the player has to think a bit more about tactics than just rushing in and engaging the enemy in melee.

No more I-swing-you-swing-and-our-hit-points-go-down. What I want to see is player tactics and strategy, using the characters best features, but not allowing all fighters to be everything to every type of fighting with all weapons.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I'd like the rules to allow for specialized fighters with the half naked, barefooted barbarian from the jungles of Chult, using a primitive spear and knife chipped from obsidion to be just as effective as the sabre wielding pirate who just jumped off the ship wearing a steel breastplate.

I was pretty much with you until this sentence.

I'm not at all sure I want the rules to allow for this. You see, I want the choices I make as a player to matter, and there's a reason half-naked barbarians with primitive spears and obsidian knives get absolutely pwned by sabre-wielding pirates wearing steel breastplates. Because sabres and steel breastplates are better than obsidian knives and loincloths.

And I say this as a guy who is currently playing a half-naked barbarian character.

I mean, I like options. I want to be able to play a half-naked barbarian if that's what I feel like. I'm just not sure I want the rules to make it an equally effective choice, unless by "effective" you're including considerations such as speed, skill check penalties, maximum Dex bonuses to AC, or whatever.

My half-naked barbarian is faster than the other fighter-types in the party (both because he's a barbarian and because he's not slowed by armor). He suffers no penalties to skill checks due to armor. And in exchange for those advantages, he gets hit more often. I consider that "equally effective," because there are tradeoffs.

So if that's all you meant, I'm with you. What I would hate to see are rules that make wearing armor and not wearing armor "equally effective" with regard to getting hit, while still providing other advantages of armorlessness.

It's a difficult balancing act to perform, is what I'm saying. I want a system that offers different advantages and disadvantages to the various choices I make as a player, so that in some situations the sabre and steel breastplate are going to be the clearly superior choice, while in others the obsidian knife and loincloth may be better. (Though in general, the sabre and steel breastplate should probably be the better choice, just as they would be in real life.)

 

[Water Bob]

I mean, I like options. I want to be able to play a half-naked barbarian if that's what I feel like. I'm just not sure I want the rules to make it an equally effective choice, unless by "effective" you're including considerations such as speed, skill check penalties, maximum Dex bonuses to AC, or whatever.

My half-naked barbarian is faster than the other fighter-types in the party (both because he's a barbarian and because he's not slowed by armor). He suffers no penalties to skill checks due to armor. And in exchange for those advantages, he gets hit more often. I consider that "equally effective," because there are tradeoffs.

I like the way the Conan game does it, so what I mean is that I'd like something akin to that. In the Conan RPG, it is a viable choice to wear no armor at all. Armor absorbs damage, not make you harder to hit.

The two 3rd level barbarians in my game right now have Dodge AC 13 and AC 14, and their Parries are even better, with shields, at Parry AC 19 and Parry AC 18.

Both of them (right now) are shirtless. One wears an animal skin kilt. The other, leather breeches. One wears animal moccasins, and the other leather boots. Besides their shields, that's all the armor and clothing they're wearing.

So, the game makes it viable to run around in a loin cloth and get into all kinds of scrapes.



Now, if either of them wore armor, it would not affect their ACs at all. But, if they got hit, the armor would absorb some damage. The trade being, as you say above, slower speed and AC check penalties.


5E doesn't have to copy that, but I'd sure like that to be possible in 5E.

Plus, in Conan, weapons have a penetration value that is compared to the armor. This kinda goes down the road I was talking about above.

A war hammer's damage ain't great, but it has a great penetration. This means it's a good weapon to use against armored foes. The cutlass, on the other hand, does good damage, but its penetration ain't great.

That's why the war hammer will be seen on a huge battlefield of armor mercenaries but probably not on a ship full of pirates (who typically fight unarmed foes). Pirates like cutlasses for the same reason.



What I'd like is to see stuff like that enhanced for 5E.

(Though in general, the sabre and steel breastplate should probably be the better choice, just as they would be in real life.)

I'd agree with that. My point above was to say that the barbarians with primitive weapon do still post a real threat. The guy in the breastplate with the cutlass should be better, one-on-one, if his skills are also there. But, I don't want unarmored barbarians to be AC 10 and super easy to hit. I want it to be a viable choice that a swashbuckler or a barbarian (or, really, anybody) can go through the game and be expected to survive without wearing armor.

There needs to be trade-offs. Armor will keep you from losing hit points, but it also makes you tired. You can't wear it that long. You can't move well in it (not like you can without it).

When considering armor, the trade off needs to be giving up mobility.





Now, I still want armor in the game, of course. But, I want to see more realistic choices. Lots of chain mail variations. Brigadine. Leather, soft or boiled. Flexible stuff (yeah, I know, the boiled leather ain't that flexible).

Full plate needs to be reserved for mass combat on the field when giant armies clash. Otherwise, a steel plate breastplate combined with flexible armor everywhere else should be the pinnacle protection for most adventurers.

 

[Leatherhead]

I want combat in the game to be fun and engaging with lots of options and specializations--where the player has to think a bit more about tactics than just rushing in and engaging the enemy in melee.

No more I-swing-you-swing-and-our-hit-points-go-down. What I want to see is player tactics and strategy, using the characters best features, but not allowing all fighters to be everything to every type of fighting with all weapons.

Well, the problem with this, is that specializations preclude options. When you specialize in something, you are more or less stuck doing that one thing forever. Well until you fight in an encounter where you specialization isn't useful, then you end up being dead weight. But even if the game is set up so that your specialization is useful in every situation (like tripping cubes), you still end up doing the same thing over and over.

Therefore, I want them to completely remove specialization from the fighter. Allow the fighter to use EVERY fighting maneuver, and not just the one they brought up to snuff by blowing 10 or more feats on. I also want fighters to effectively use any weapon they can get their hands on, instead of relying on basic attacks or unboosted attack actions. By allowing everything, they can do anything. This enables dynamic and reactive combat, allowing the fighter to pick what they can do each and every round, instead of once at character creation.

I want this, because the alternative is boring and unbalanced. If the fight is determined by your character build, there are no options after the fact. If the fighter is stuck using one type of weapon, the are a hindrance to balance because they cannot adapt.

 

[Water Bob]

Well, the problem with this, is that specializations preclude options. When you specialize in something, you are more or less stuck doing that one thing forever.

A specialized fighter doesn't have to be as specialized as what you are saying. It would be more like being very, very good at something.

And, players like that, at least in my experience, when their character is very, very good at something.

In my game right now, a player is building his character, slowly, as the feats become available, to be very good at throwing things. So far, for Feats, he's picked Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, and Precise Shot (3rd level character in a 3.5 based game). With another player, they've worked out a tactic to where the other moves forward, acts as a tank, stops the enmey, while this character throws his javelins or hand axes or whatever he has. Then, this character moves up to flank the baddie.

These guys (players) like what they're doing. And, that's what I'm saying--more of this kind of stuff.

I'm not talking about a character so specialized with a spear that he can even touch a short sword.

And, I think their should be a generalist option, too--a guy that's pretty good with a wider range of weapons, but not as good with those weapons as a specialist would be.

Therefore, I want them to completely remove specialization from the fighter.

This, I would find boring. The 1E AD&D fighter was like this. The only limitation, iirc, was the number of weapon proficiency slots.

Allow the fighter to use EVERY fighting maneuver, and not just the one they brought up to snuff by blowing 10 or more feats on.

But, there is some merit to this. The Conan RPG is like this. It's a fighter based game. Not only does the fighter get the usual Feats, but there are a ton of Combat Maneuvers that ANY CHARACTER can use as long as that character has the prerequistes (and not all Combat Maneuvers have prereqs). Combat Maneuvers can be anything, like the basics of Sunder, Charge, Bull Rush, Bull's Charge, Trip, Disarm, and the like. But it also covers more specialized maneveuvers like Dance Aside, Pantherish Twist, Cat's Parry, and many, many more.

So, if that's what you're talking about, I'm all for it.

 

[chaochou]

What I'd like to see in 5E is this type of thing taken even further. I'd like to see the differences (in a mechanical way) in fighting with a spear vs. a short sword.

Yeah, I know, there's stuff in the game already that speaks to this area, but I'd like to see more, cleaner, rules central to the game. I'd like it when I see a fighter to see different types. I'd like it to be a viable option to not wear armor (and I'd like to see more realistic armors in the game--the old Paladin in Hell illustration with the knight in full plate armor needs to stay in the older editions).

So, some weapons are great for offence but not so much for defense. Reach, weapon weight, and maneuverablity play a part.

I'd like the rules to allow for specialized fighters with the half naked, barefooted barbarian from the jungles of Chult, using a primitive spear and knife chipped from obsidion to be just as effective as the sabre wielding pirate who just jumped off the ship wearing a steel breastplate.

I'd like there to be pros and cons to using weapons. And, I'd like to see some stat requirements for weapons, so that the player will match the character with the best type of weapon for him--based on his skills and stats.

I'm convinced that the game - or at least combat system - you want is The Riddle of Steel.

It has a very granular, hightly detailed, hghly tactical and very lethal combat system which goes as far as any system I've seen in making mechanical distinctions between melee styles.

A swashbuckler has different moves from a fencer who is different from a spearman is different from a knight. All with their own strengths and weaknesses. You have to find the right balance between attack and defence, the right attacking moves and the right defensive moves, at the right times, to win.

Much like real combat it also has a severe death spiral - take anything more than a scratch and the pain, shock and fatigue catch up sooner or later unless you get insanely lucky.

TRoS is OOP now, but probably still obtainable. There was an expansion which added more fighting styles and weapons as well.

 

[Water Bob]

I'm convinced that the game - or at least combat system - you want is The Riddle of Steel.

I've heard it's got many of the features I like, but that it's done in a persnickety, time-consuming way.

I want mechanics that flow, are easy to use, and are fun.

I don't want to ponder options in a combat encounter that moves at a snails pace.

And, I don't want my players focussed on stats and dice. I want them living the action, visualizing it, hearing their heartbeat in their ears, tasting the sweat and having it sting their eyes. That's why I got rid of the Active Defense roll and went back to a static AC--to get my players' minds off of dice throws and onto the drama and experience of the combat.

I haven't played, or really read, RoS. But, from what I've heard, combat is detailed---but a price is paid for that detail. So far, the Conan RPG comes closest to what I want, from what I've seen (and I haven't seen RoS).

Has that been your experience with RoS?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I like the way the Conan game does it, so what I mean is that I'd like something akin to that. In the Conan RPG, it is a viable choice to wear no armor at all. Armor absorbs damage, not make you harder to hit.

Armor as DR is at odds with the HP system. It makes perfect sense from a simulationist standpoint at first glance but then you have to contend with fitting it into an abstract combat system.

Armor DR goes hand in hand with active defenses and fighters without large piles of hitpoints. GURPS does a great job of this system and I absolutely love it for gritty detailed combat action.

The only problem is thats its not D&D. Combat in D&D has always been abstract even though the last couple editions have made it too complex for my tastes.

I want D&D to remain D&D. There are many games to choose from and very likely some really cool ones that have yet to be written. D&D got a critical success in 1974. We don't need to fumble in 2012.

 

[Water Bob]

Armor as DR is at odds with the HP system. It makes perfect sense from a simulationist standpoint at first glance but then you have to contend with fitting it into an abstract combat system.

It works pretty doggone good in the 3.5 d20 based Conan RPG. I have no problem with the abstract AC and HP combat rounds and the way armor soaks up damage. Works good--probably the best d20 DR method I've seen.

The only problem is thats its not D&D. Combat in D&D has always been abstract even though the last couple editions have made it too complex for my tastes.

I agree that 3E and 4E are a long way away from 1E AD&D, and I feel the same about the meaning of classic D&D dwindling and morphing into something else.

I think a compromise can be found and the "feeling" of D&D maintained.

 

[Water Bob]

It makes perfect sense from a simulationist standpoint at first glance but then you have to contend with fitting it into an abstract combat system.

(Snip)

The only problem is thats its not D&D. Combat in D&D has always been abstract...

I should point out that even 1E AD&D mixed an abstract combat system with simulationist aspects.

In 1E AD&D, melee is completely handled in an abstract way. If you hit with your dagger in melee, doing 3 points of damage, that could mean you hit one time for the full 3 points. Or, it could mean that you landed three separate scratches for 1 hp each. Or ,it could mean that you did 2 points of damage and your foe did another 1 hp of damage stretching a muscle when deflecting your blow. Or, it could mean that your foe threw up his shield, blocked your dagger thrust, but the point of your dagger skidded across the shield and stabbed him in the arm, the result being 3 points of damage--it could mean a lot of things.

But, ranged weapons in 1E AD&D are simulationist. Where, in melee, a successful attack throw does not necessarily mean a successful swing, with bows, a successful attack throw does mean exactly one arrow found its mark. This isn't abstract at all. This is one arrow per attack--simulationist.

In 1E AD&D, though the attack is simulationist, the damage is not. Because we're tallking about Hit Points.

It's a mix of abstract and simulationism--exactly what you said didn't mix well.