D&D 5E Dynamic Defenses

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. I've been thinking of ways to make D&D more dynamic, and one thing I've always been frustrated with is players' inaction when it's not their turn. Reaction-based abilities help here, but not everyone has them. Add this to "rolling dice is fun", and maybe we can come up with something a little more active.

The first part of my idea is have everyone roll dice for attacks and defenses. When you make an attack roll or cast a spell, you roll to attack/cast. When you're defending against an attack, you roll to defend or save. AC becomes a defense bonus.

The other half is to have most attacks allow a choice of defenses. Against a weapon attack, you can dodge (actively avoiding or allowing your armor to deflect the hit) or parry (blocking with your weapon or shield), potentially with different consequences for success and failure. Against a spell, you choose which ability score to defend with (maybe against a fireball, you can make a dexterity save to move in some fashion, or a constitution save to hold your breath and brace yourself).

Functionally, the math could be the same, you just need to decide who breaks ties. Since base AC is 10+mods, and you hit if you hit, then I think attacker should have the tie advantage.

Such a system could also allow for complications. Maybe if you fail by a certain amount (proficiency bonus maybe?) you can suffer a complication in order to avoid the brunt of the attack. If you fail a parry roll, you can be disarmed instead of taking the hit. If you fail to dodge a fireball, you end up prone and lose your reaction.

These changes would be pretty big. Possibly too big to implement in 5th Edition, but I think such a system would make a game far more dynamic.

What do you think?

 

[MarkVIIIMarc]

That is a wild cool idea.

It seems like a big deal to implement....

So right now a very basic armor class is 10.....
Lets say the "average" attack roll is 10...
Gives you a ~50% chance to hit depending on how we deal with ties.
If your armor class was 16 you'd have +6 on defense so the average attack only as a 4 in 20 (20% chance of hitting).

I like this train of thought. Almost reminds me of some hex wargames which I like.

 

[Li Shenron]

The first part of my idea is have everyone roll dice for attacks and defenses. When you make an attack roll or cast a spell, you roll to attack/cast. When you're defending against an attack, you roll to defend or save. AC becomes a defense bonus.

This is easy.

If your players like rolling dice a lot, they'll like this variant.

If you think it slows down the game too much, you can have the monsters not roll for attack but instead assume a roll of 10.

The other half is to have most attacks allow a choice of defenses. Against a weapon attack, you can dodge (actively avoiding or allowing your armor to deflect the hit) or parry (blocking with your weapon or shield), potentially with different consequences for success and failure.

Normal AC includes a combination of Dex bonus (representing dodging and parrying) and armor bonus (including shield), so it kind of assumes you do a bit of everything to avoid getting hit.

That said, I wouldn't start using different AC even with your variant system of choosing what kind of defense to use, because then you'll have two different levels of control at the same time. It might get overly complicated, and open up some tricks to powerplayers. Personally I am not even missing the difference with "touch AC" and "flatfooted" condition of 3e!

So in brief, I'd keep the AC the same, whether you choose to dodge or parry.

Against a spell, you choose which ability score to defend with (maybe against a fireball, you can make a dexterity save to move in some fashion, or a constitution save to hold your breath and brace yourself).

This is also easy to implement, but you need to consider the consequences.

If the target can choose which ability score to use, they'll always use their best. So at the very least, make this option spell-dependent so that it's always up to the DM to allow using a different ability score, nothing is granted in advance.

So for example, you can decide to allow Con ST against Fireball, or Str ST against paralysis effects, or Int ST against illusions. Just don't allow anything against everything

Overall this will help against spellcasters, but let's keep in mind that spellcasters already have the advantage of choosing the spell, and hence they can typically choose targets which presumably are more vulnerable. And of course also keep in mind that the monsters should use this option too

Functionally, the math could be the same, you just need to decide who breaks ties. Since base AC is 10+mods, and you hit if you hit, then I think attacker should have the tie advantage.

Yes, this is consistent with the basic attack vs AC rule.

Such a system could also allow for complications. Maybe if you fail by a certain amount (proficiency bonus maybe?) you can suffer a complication in order to avoid the brunt of the attack. If you fail a parry roll, you can be disarmed instead of taking the hit. If you fail to dodge a fireball, you end up prone and lose your reaction.

Unless you vary the AC based on the option chosen, you have to introduce some difference in the outcome, otherwise there will be only a difference in description.

But the difference can't just be in complications. There should be a reason why a PC may want to choose dodge over parry one time, and the other another time. Or at least different PCs choose different tactics.

 

[ExploderWizard]

D&D combat is abstract. Adding defense rolls to the system while leaving mountains of accumulating hit points will produce combats that may never end.

GURPS has the dynamic you are looking for. Defenses are part of the core system but tons of hit points are not. There is also much less abstraction in combat. The single second combat round maps to blow by blow combat much better than a longer round in which more activity is assumed. In contrast, one or two really good hits with heavy melee weapon will put most character's down. If you want a game in which an individual must take a half dozen loaded crossbows pointed at them seriously regardless of "level", then GURPS is it.

At one point I thought defenses would be great for D&D too. We played a B/X campaign with a simple rule of opposed d20 rolls. A couple of high level fighters could end up battling for a couple hours or more of game time and still both be above 50% of their max hit points. It wasn't more dynamic or exciting it was exhausting.

I have come to appreciate the abstraction and simplicity of D&D for speed of play. When I want more dynamic combat action then I grab GURPS.

 

[DEFCON 1]

One point that strikes me as I read this and think whether it would add to the game... for me personally, I know that I have a hard enough time as it is remembering all the various abilities my monsters have during play, especially if there are two or more different types of enemies. To then distract myself further by needing to roll defenses and/or having to think of complications in addition to everything else I'm trying to do and remember during combat, makes me think I'd just end up making everything even more poor. My tactics, the abilities of the monsters, my descriptions, etc.

This isn't to say it couldn't still work, but it is something that you'd possibly want to consider as you worked on it. Does it add too much extra stuff for the DM to have to keep track of?

 

[Xeviat]

This isn't to say it couldn't still work, but it is something that you'd possibly want to consider as you worked on it. Does it add too much extra stuff for the DM to have to keep track of?

You bring up a good point. It would be feasible to make it a player and specific NPC ability, rather than a generic ability, so as not to add extra work on the DM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jon Tate]

Try this: http://nevinera.net/corrected-5e-players-roll/
This is a mathematically corrected version of the UA article "players make all the rolls". I have been using it in my game and it's been working great!

 

[Fanaelialae]

Something to keep in mind is that rolling defense will make each encounter more swingy, which tends to work against the players in the long term. (The monsters in an encounter are typically expendable, so if they have a bad streak on defenses it's just an easy encounter, but if the players have a bad run it could well mean a TPK.)

 

[Xeviat]

Something to keep in mind is that rolling defense will make each encounter more swingy, which tends to work against the players in the long term. (The monsters in an encounter are typically expendable, so if they have a bad streak on defenses it's just an easy encounter, but if the players have a bad run it could well mean a TPK.)

I'm aware. My hope is added benefits from the system, like say movement from a successful Reflex save or an attack bonus against someone whose attack you just parried, will make up for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheNoremac42]

Definitely an interesting idea. Make a monster/character's attack a static number while having them roll to defend. Like, if a creature has a +6 to hit, then the player has to roll a 16 (including bonuses) or higher in order to block/dodge.

As a side note: The way I usually narrate combat is if let's say they are attacking something with an AC of 18 (scale mail, shield, and +2 DEX). Anything below a 10 is a flat out miss, 12-10 is a dodge, 14-13 hits the shield, and 17-14 is stopped by the armor. You can mix and match that in any way that makes sense to you as it's really just flavor text.