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

[RangerWickett]

How would this look?

* AC of unarmored human 10 to 14 (Dexterity-based)
* Light armor adds up to +2 to that.
* Heavy armor negates Dexterity bonus, but can go as high as +6. You need high Strength to avoid being slowed by it.
* Light shield adds +2. Heavy shield adds +4 but you need high Strength to avoid being slowed by it.

So AC ranges from 10 to 20. A nimble tribal warrior in no armor with a light shield might be 16, equivalent to a conquistador in a breastplate with a light shield. A knight in full plate and heavy shield is 20. A spartan with high Dex, high Str, no armor, and heavy shield is also 20 with a less onerous penalty to skills.

If we include some severe penalties to Endurance based on weather, you provide a real-life reason for not trudging around in heavy armor all the time. Like, every hour in high heat make an Endurance check to avoid being fatigued (taking a -2 penalty to everything). The DC is based on how hot it is, and armor imposes a penalty to this check.



Now, as for weapons, let's say tier one is spear, mace, and sword -- all useful, but with perks in different situations. Tier two is light weapons like daggers, heavy weapons like greatswords, and double weapons like staffs - not typically ideal for warfare, but with special uses all their own. Tier three is the weird stuff: whips and other flailing weapons, weapons with hooks and tines to snag and bind, and unarmed.

How can we differentiate weapons? I think it basically breaks down into two options: we can give them bonuses to particular things, or we can provide special actions that can only be taken with them.

Simple Version - If we don't want to complicate the rules with stuff like armor-based DR.

Spears grant you a +2 bonus to AC against melee attacks by enemies who weren't able to reach you at the start of their turn.

Maces grant you a +2 bonus to your attack roll against heavily armored targets. Creatures would have to be marked as heavily armored or not (a dragon is, a bullette is, a troll isn't).

Swords should probably crit more often, since they have more angles of attack. Maybe crit on a 19 or 20.

(Axes should deal the most damage of any weapon, but that's all they're good for. Raw damage.)

Light weapons can be concealed, and you don't take a penalty to use them in a grapple.

Heavy weapons deal extra damage against creatures larger than medium. The idea here is that a huge maul hitting a person will knock them back, so some of the force is transferred into motion instead of injury; but against a large enough creature, all that force is delivered into the target's body.

Double weapons don't help you make extra attacks (two swords can go in two directions at once, but a staff has to wobble back and forth; it'd be just as fast to thwack twice with a club). Instead, they give you versatility. You can choose to get a bonus to AC (parrying), attack roll (which side's going to attack? catch foe off guard), or damage (grab it with both hands and swing really hard).

Whips, hooked weapons, and unarmed should probably all give you access to special maneuvers. Or rather, there are special maneuvers -- grab, trip, disarm, sunder -- and these weapons give you a bonus to the roll, or let you do them from afar.

 

[chaochou]

Has that been your experience with RoS?

It was quite some time ago that we played - I remember one-on-one combat being tense and visceral, but group combats being a bit of a mess. The penalties for being outnumbered, flanked etc are so steep it makes positioning critical, and I didn't feel that sort of 'melee' movement was handled well enough given the importance.

But a pretty satisfying system for duels, fights of honour, that sort of thing. I'd lift the combat system for, say, a Three Musketeers style game, or something with the flavour of Ancient Greece. Games where combat is avoided if possible and a key development when it happens.

Less good, imo, if you want group melees or fighting to be commonplace.

 

[Water Bob]

How would this look?

* AC of unarmored human 10 to 14 (Dexterity-based)
* Light armor adds up to +2 to that.
* Heavy armor negates Dexterity bonus, but can go as high as +6. You need high Strength to avoid being slowed by it.
* Light shield adds +2. Heavy shield adds +4 but you need high Strength to avoid being slowed by it.

Interesting. I think I'm more partial to the Conan RPG still, though. Many hail the Conan RPG as one of the best versions of the d20 system ever to see print.

There are three basic AC's in Conan. A character's Parry AC. A character's Dodge AC. And, the character's Flatfooted AC.

Parry AC is modified by STR.

Dodge AC is modified by DEX.

So that, right there, allows for weak, quick foes (thieves) or traditional fighter types.

Both ACs are improved by level, too (like a BAB). Thus, the barbarian class will start off strong with a Parry, but the class allows for much bigger bonuses to Dodge at higher levels. With a Soldier, it's the opposite. So, the type of class dictates which defense type grows the fastest.





Usually, a player will select the defense with the highest AC, of course, but some attacks restrict defense choice. For example, a person can only Dodge ranged weapons and Touch attacks.

And, there are special combat maneuvers that require the player to chose one defense over the other. The Dance Aside maneuver, which allows the character to immediately move 5' during the combat (which can be combined with the character's 5' step on the character's turn in order to move a total of 10' that turn) without drawing an Attack of Opportunity. This happens if the attack throw is equal to less than half the character's Dodge AC.

A shield typically increases the character's Parry AC unless the character is defending against ranged attacks, in which case the shield bonus is applied to the character's Dodge AC.




As an example, Caelis, from my game, a 3rd level Barbarian, is AC 19 on his Parry. He got that by...

+1 Base Parry Mod (barbarian 3rd level Parry bonus)
+4 STR mod
+4 from large shield.

And, Caelis is AC 13 for Dodge....

+2 Base Dodge Mod (barbarian 3rd level Dodge bonus)
+1 DEX mod



Let's say Caelis is wearing a chainmail shirt. This armor provides DR 5. On a seccessful hit, the attacker's total pen is 8.

Stronger characters who prefer to bash through armor will pick heavier weapons. DEX based fighters don't get to modifiy the pen with their STR, but they do have finess opened to them.

This helps with weapon selection.

 

[RangerWickett]

Oh I played the hell out of Conan. The melee combat system was dandy. Let me tell you of the days of high adventure . . .

. . . when we had a swashbuckler who was a master duelist, my sorcery-obsessed scoundrel who died when he tried to learn his first spell, a man who "stuck knives into things that needed knives stuck in them," and then, of course, The Hurler. He could grapple one guy, grapple another guy, smash them into each other to kill them both, use one body as a human shield, and hurl the other body as a meaty projectile.

When I brought in my new character, I had two spells: break a thing, and paralyze a bastard so you can stab him.

We became Century Slayers when we killed a hundred men who tried to set fire to the temple of Mitra. We slew a two-headed tyrannosaur in a jungle next to a field of lava, and we did it by hacking its first head off with a huge sword, then throwing that head at the other head. We battled the god-sorcerer Anuma-Sitesh who led a scorpion cult and had created the dread . . . well, we didn't have a name for them other than "scorptopus." I'll let your imagination handle that one.

We all died when The Hurler picked a fight with a Stygian sorcerer who was attended by his apprentices. Half the apprentices sided with us, seeing an opportunity to claim their master's position of power. The others fought to defend their teacher. Did you know that in Conan, when a sorcerer dies he can explode, and the power is based on how much mana he has left?

Did you know that grapplers can deal Constitution damage, and that ancient sorcerers are kinda frail?

Have you ever seen a chain reaction of exploding sorcerers?

I loved the game. I enjoyed the combat system. I just know folks would balk at it being too complicated. And honestly, for new players, it probably is.

 

[TimA]

I agree with the OP in theory.


However fun it might be for a naked barbarian to be just as effective as a full plate wearing sword and board knight though its just a little too silly for me.


When it comes right down to it the more technology advanced the heavier the soldier got because its better to be heavier. f
Spears gave way to swords because swords are better.
Naked, tattooed barbarians gave way to chain mail because chain mail is better.
Chainmail gave way to plate because plate is better.
There really aren't any objective facts that make them all balance out.



We can hand wave magic and say realism doesn't matter because, well, its MAGIC. It doesn't have to make sense. None of us have ever really seen a man throw a bolt of lightning from his hands or chant a bit and summon a demon. So its okay to say realism doesn't matter for it.


But we HAVE seen swords and spears, shields, armor and people falling off of things and getting banged up. That's why verisimilitude is so much harder to achieve (and so much more important) in game for those things. They provide a framework of relatable realism to the world that we can use as a framework to hang the craziness around.


So as fun as it may seem if I saw the system make a lightly armored fighter just as good as a heavier armored fighter it would irritate me to the point where i would houserule it away.

 

[TimA]

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.

What you want then is white wolf. either straight human characters in the basic WoD or Hunters. With both of the armory books thrown in you have various combat style merits (basically feats) that add possibilities to different weapons but dont take any away.

Its very fast and intuitive and doesnt penalize you with other weapon choices.

I know they are available online to look at. PM me if you cant find a link. But i think they would be easily adaptable to a D20 style game and fit the bill your talking about.

 

[Water Bob]

Oh I played the hell out of Conan.

I sure wish you'd told me that before I wrote all that out!

. . . when we had a swashbuckler who was a master duelist, my sorcery-obsessed scoundrel who died when he tried to learn his first spell, a man who "stuck knives into things that needed knives stuck in them," and then, of course, The Hurler. He could grapple one guy, grapple another guy, smash them into each other to kill them both, use one body as a human shield, and hurl the other body as a meaty projectile.

When I brought in my new character, I had two spells: break a thing, and paralyze a bastard so you can stab him.

We became Century Slayers when we killed a hundred men who tried to set fire to the temple of Mitra. We slew a two-headed tyrannosaur in a jungle next to a field of lava, and we did it by hacking its first head off with a huge sword, then throwing that head at the other head. We battled the god-sorcerer Anuma-Sitesh who led a scorpion cult and had created the dread . . . well, we didn't have a name for them other than "scorptopus." I'll let your imagination handle that one.

We all died when The Hurler picked a fight with a Stygian sorcerer who was attended by his apprentices. Half the apprentices sided with us, seeing an opportunity to claim their master's position of power. The others fought to defend their teacher. Did you know that in Conan, when a sorcerer dies he can explode, and the power is based on how much mana he has left?

Did you know that grapplers can deal Constitution damage, and that ancient sorcerers are kinda frail?

Have you ever seen a chain reaction of exploding sorcerers?

Man! You're speakin' my language! Yeah, yeah, yeah!

I loved the game. I enjoyed the combat system. I just know folks would balk at it being too complicated. And honestly, for new players, it probably is.

In answer to this, I'd say two things:

One: It's the most complicated game system I've ever tried to comprehend. I've been gaming a year with it, and I still don't have it down 100%.

Two: But, the game is 90% 3.5E D&D. The last time I looked, Third Edition was on of the most successful versions of the game. Complicated, yes. But, people bought it and played it--and, they're still playing it with Pathfinder. So, is it too complicated for newbies? Maybe. But, that didn't stop 'em before.

A good D&D game system won't be ignored.

 

[Water Bob]

However fun it might be for a naked barbarian to be just as effective as a full plate wearing sword and board knight though its just a little too silly for me.

Let me clarify.

Even in the Conan RPG, a barbarian in a loincloth really isn't as near as effective as a foe wearing a breastplate. I'm not saying the game should allow that to happen (although, in my zest to make the point, it looks like I am saying that in the OP). Hell, when he can, Conan wears armor in Howard's stories.

The point I am trying to make is that I'd like to see, in 5E, it be a viable alternative to not wear armor--to have a decent chance of surviving not wearing armor.

In D&D, as it stands now, a fighter could never survive long with no armor because he's be considered AC 10 (or so) and too easily damaged.

I want 5E to have a way that a swashbuckler in a cloak, a barbarian in a loincloth, and a dueler wearing a baggy pirate shirt, carrying a foil, all have a decent chance of surviving adventures. I want that type of character--the no armor character--to be a playable choice.

I don't expect the character type to be able to be as good, toe-to-toe with a heavily armored chap. But, I want there to be advantaged and disadvantages to wearing armor. If you decide not to wear armor--and the thief might--then you've still got a decent AC via the character's DEX and Dodging bonuses.

 

[Mattachine]

I see D&D as not giving armor enough disadvantages, especially in 3e and 4e. Also, in AD&D, magic armor was nearly weightless.

In my own homebrew, I do two things: one, armor penalties begin with leather (you know, stiffened leather plates) and get rougher from there (movement and skills); two, monster attack bonuses are somewhat decreased.

 

[Water Bob]

I see D&D as not giving armor enough disadvantages, especially in 3e and 4e. Also, in AD&D, magic armor was nearly weightless.

I agree.

And, I think the rules are like this in order to be as simple as possible (missed that mark! ); designed to emulate the fantasy heroes like those in Lord of the Rings; and because the rules aren't designed to allow a character to have no armor.

Armor adds weight (encumbrance) and slows the move rating, but little else. In my Conan RPG, there's a rule for sleeping in armor (it may fatigue the character), and there's an optional rule for mail wearing characters who go for more than a day wearing the armor to become fatigued.

The Conan RPG also has a method for destroying armor (besides a usual Sunder) through hits that do 20+ points of damage in a single blow.

I'd like to see this type of thing expanded. Even in the Lord of the Rings movie, Aragorn spent the majority of his time in normal leather armor, only switching to plate once he knew he would be on the battlefield. I'd be happier with D&D if this type of thing were reflected in it.