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

[TimA]

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.

IMO the way to do that is armor as DR and active defenses.

A parry defense thats an opposed attack roll and a dodge defense thats rolling a reflex save versus the attack.

That way if a lightly armed character would have a decent chance of avoiding being hit by an attacker with equal skill and a great chance against a lesser opponent.

I've never understood why D&D doesnt use a system like that though honestly. Its how i usually houserule 3.5 games and its worked out great for years.

 

[Water Bob]

IMO the way to do that is armor as DR and active defenses.

A parry defense thats an opposed attack roll and a dodge defense thats rolling a reflex save versus the attack.

I disagree. I just came off a year of using Active Defense. I was excited about the concept. I thought it would add to the game.

What it really did was focus the players' attention on dice throws and stats and game mechanics, which is not what I want them thinking about at all in a combat scenario.

I want my players to live the action--visualize the scene. Smell the stinking breath on their foes.

Using Active Defense in my game has given me a healthy respect for the good old standard static AC.

That's the way to go to keep games more visual and exciting. The GM rolling behind a screen, keeping his numbers hidden, and static ACs.

That way the information of what happens in the combat encounter is not transmitted by the numbers on the dice throws. The players have to wait and hear it from the GM. And, when GM describes it in a visual way--that's how the players are getting the information of whether they hit or not, or whether they were hit or not.

It's a much better way of doing things.

Its how i usually houserule 3.5 games and its worked out great for years.

I've very intrigued with the Codex Martialis mod for d20 games, but I wouldn't use it for the reasons I cite above.

 

[Greg K]

Personally, I'd love to see armor as damage resistance provided it was a static number and not some random roll (as Mearls used in Iron Heroes).

Parry, Dodge stuff could all be done to modify the difficulty of hitting the target with an options for both active defenses and static bonuses.

 

[drothgery]

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.

Well, D&D as it stands now is 4e, and that's a pretty viable choice. Pick a Dex or Int primary class (or play a Slayer with Melee Training (Dex)) -- or a class that has some other way of adding its primary stat to AC, take unarmored agility, wear cloth (granted, will need to be magic cloth 'armor' as you go up in level). You'll be fine.

 

[Water Bob]

Personally, I'd love to see armor as damage resistance provided it was a static number and not some random roll (as Mearls used in Iron Heroes).

Parry, Dodge stuff could all be done to modify the difficulty of hitting the target with an options for both active defenses and static bonuses.

Yep, that's the way it's done in the Conan RPG, and it works great.

I'll give you an example from yesterday's game.

The situation was one 3rd level Barbarian PC wearing a breastplate and using a war sword (Conan RPG version of a bastard sword) vs. two 5 HD Giant Mantids.

The barbarian is STR 18 with 28 hp. The war sword does 1d12 +6 damage, because the barbarian is using it with two hands.

The mantids' full attack includes two claws doing 1d6 +2 each plus a bite that does 1d8 +1 damage. The mantids have 32 hp each.

That should have been a fight heavily weighted to the buggies side, but the armor saved the PC's arse.

Here's how it works--





Each weapon is assigned a Armor Piercing value. Armor has a Damage Reduction number.

DR reduces damage placed on the character.

If the AP equals or is greater than the DR, then DR is halved.

If the AP is less than the DR, then DR stays the same.

That's it. Simple as that.





Character: The war sword has AP 3, which is increased to AP 7 because of the charcter's STR. This character's breastplace has DR 7.

Mantid: The claws are AP 3 and the bite is AP 2. The Mantid's carapace provides DR 2 to the bug.



This means, when the character hits, he takes a -1 on damage (because his AP 7 exceeds the bug's DR 2).

This also means that, when the bug hits, damage is reduced by 7 points (because neither the claws or bite can penetrate the character's armor).

This is a simple calculation you make at the beginning of the fight. You don't have to refigure it each round. Just know, when you play the fight, the the bug has -7 damage and the character has -1 damage, then play out the encounter normally.

 

[Zustiur]

Well, D&D as it stands now is 4e, and that's a pretty viable choice. Pick a Dex or Int primary class (or play a Slayer with Melee Training (Dex)) -- or a class that has some other way of adding its primary stat to AC, take unarmored agility, wear cloth (granted, will need to be magic cloth 'armor' as you go up in level). You'll be fine.

Agreed. As much as I don't like 4E, it made this work.

 

[Water Bob]

Agreed. As much as I don't like 4E, it made this work.

Works good in the Conan RPG, which is a d20 3.5 game.

 

[TimA]

I disagree. I just came off a year of using Active Defense. I was excited about the concept. I thought it would add to the game.

What it really did was focus the players' attention on dice throws and stats and game mechanics, which is not what I want them thinking about at all in a combat scenario.

I want my players to live the action--visualize the scene. Smell the stinking breath on their foes.

Using Active Defense in my game has given me a healthy respect for the good old standard static AC.

That's the way to go to keep games more visual and exciting. The GM rolling behind a screen, keeping his numbers hidden, and static ACs.

That way the information of what happens in the combat encounter is not transmitted by the numbers on the dice throws. The players have to wait and hear it from the GM. And, when GM describes it in a visual way--that's how the players are getting the information of whether they hit or not, or whether they were hit or not.

It's a much better way of doing things.







I've very intrigued with the Codex Martialis mod for d20 games, but I wouldn't use it for the reasons I cite above.

See I had a totally different experience using active defenses. Our combat rounds usually go something like....

me
"the orc stomps towards you, sliding his hands on his axe to grip it lower down and comes at you with huge looping swings (power attacking), you hop over the first, slide to the side as he tries to cut you from head to nuts but he turns it into a spinning swing at your stomach at the last minute.

Do you try to block it or hop out of the way (dodge or parry)? K, roll em. "

Then we both roll in the middle of the table in front of everyone. No fudging. I dont use screens and everything is out in the open.

"(succesful parry) CLANG, you slam your shield against the blade and force him back and off balance, open to your attack as he scrambles to recover. Roll em"

I use that particular wording because in my active defense system the power attack does more damage but because it reduces attack rolls it also reduces your parry defense. So he's open to an attack after taking his own.


IME as long as your players arent complete morons who have to recalculate their attack bonus every single roll (for some mysterious reason I have seen some players who assume its somehow different then it was for EVERY FREAKING COMBAT TURN SINCE THE LAST TIME THEY LEVELED UP) but in that case just mark it down on your notes somewhere prominent and remind them so i goes fast.

I've found it creates a much more engaging atmosphere with every player directly involved in the outcome when something is happening to them.

Static AC's are so dull to me. I would never go back to that.

 

[Water Bob]

"the orc stomps towards you, sliding his hands on his axe to grip it lower down and comes at you with huge looping swings (power attacking), you hop over the first, slide to the side as he tries to cut you from head to nuts but he turns it into a spinning swing at your stomach at the last minute.

Do you try to block it or hop out of the way (dodge or parry)? K, roll em. "

Then we both roll in the middle of the table in front of everyone. No fudging. I dont use screens and everything is out in the open.

"(succesful parry) CLANG, you slam your shield against the blade and force him back and off balance, open to your attack as he scrambles to recover. Roll em"

Yep. That's how ours went, too. And, it's not bad. It works. I rolled out in the open like you did as well.

But, see, you say "roll 'em", and what's the player doing? Thinking about what it feels like to battle that orc? Visualizing the experience?

No. What he's doing is focussing on that die roll you just told him to make.

Active Defense takes focus out of the experience of the game and places it on dice rolling, game mechanics.

And, once he knows that he parried the orc's blow, you saying "Clang, you slam your shield against the blade and force him back and off balance, open to your attack as he scrambles to recover," has a lot less impact than if the player knew nothing and was hanging onto every word.

In other words, with Active Defense, the cat gets out of the bag too early. The player knows the outcome.

With static Defense (normal AC), the player learns what happens by experiencing it--through hearing your description.

When you say, "Clang, you slam your shield against the blade and force him back and off balance, open to your attack as he scrambles to recover," it's a hell of a lot more dramatic if the player lives through that attack by listening to what you say than by learning he wasn't hit because of a dice throw.

Think about it. Watch in your game next time. When your PCs are being attacked, your players are thinking about rolling that damn dice, beating your attack number.

Do you really want them thinking about that? Or this...

"CLANG! You SLAM your shield against the orc's blade. You force him back! He's off balance and breathing hard, but it's not over yet."

To me, that's a no brainer.

 

[TimA]

Yep. That's how ours went, too. And, it's not bad. It works. I rolled out in the open like you did as well.

But, see, you say "roll 'em", and what's the player doing? Thinking about what it feels like to battle that orc? Visualizing the experience?

No. What he's doing is focussing on that die roll you just told him to make.

Active Defense takes focus out of the experience of the game and places it on dice rolling, game mechanics.

And, once he knows that he parried the orc's blow, you saying "Clang, you slam your shield against the blade and force him back and off balance, open to your attack as he scrambles to recover," has a lot less impact than if the player knew nothing and was hanging onto every word.

In other words, with Active Defense, the cat gets out of the bag too early. The player knows the outcome.

With static Defense (normal AC), the player learns what happens by experiencing it--through hearing your description.

When you say, "Clang, you slam your shield against the blade and force him back and off balance, open to your attack as he scrambles to recover," it's a hell of a lot more dramatic if the player lives through that attack by listening to what you say than by learning he wasn't hit because of a dice throw.

Think about it. Watch in your game next time. When your PCs are being attacked, your players are thinking about rolling that damn dice, beating your attack number.

Do you really want them thinking about that? Or this...

"CLANG! You SLAM your shield against the orc's blade. You force him back! He's off balance and breathing hard, but it's not over yet."

To me, that's a no brainer.

LOL dude i hate to break it to you but if you think the player NOT knowing the number he needs to beat affects his thinking about the math your deluding yourself. Players either ALWAYS have the math in mind or NEVER have the math in mind. And 90% of which way they go has more to do with their personality then anything mechanically going on.

Your not "letting the cat out of the bag" your making the entire combat flow faster with a more active feel and everyone involved.

If i had to i would say your way is more like poker. You look at your hand, make what you think is the best move and hope the dealer tells you that it worked.

My way is more baseball. You see the ball, you know you have to hit it with the bat and when you swing you know whether you nailed it or not. No sitting around waiting on an answer.