log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General Filling the Gaps

Samloyal23

Adventurer
What are some things you can do in real life that you think should be accounted for in the rules but are missing from the game? What do you see as gaps in the simulation that take you out of the immersion of gameplay, things there should be rules for but aren't?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maybe because I started with 1e I take it for granted, but the general assumption is that you are blocking with your weapon or shield, etc. That is abstract nature of AC & HP. A miss is not just a dodge, but could be block too. Heck a "hit" can even be a block.

What I prefer to do is define what is really a hit.
That's always been the explanation, but the rules don't bear it out. Whether you are holding a weapon is irrelevant to how difficult it is to hit you.

I don't want much more crunch here - I wouldn't want parry rolls or anything, but some nods towards it would be nice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
Blocking with weapons. It should be something everyone can do if they're holding a weapon, ergo it should be a factor for any weapon being held.
Why not back up a step? There aren't even rules for blocking with a shield or your armor. Rules for defense would be interesting. As it stands, your AC doesn't have anything to do with blocking - it's just a number that prevents you from losing your "durability, the will to live, and luck" (i.e. hit points). Blocking would prevent armor damage, wounds, and pain. If holding a weapon is effectively holding your durability, will, and luck, then sure; let the weapon add to AC.
 

Why not back up a step? There aren't even rules for blocking with a shield or your armor. Rules for defense would be interesting. As it stands, your AC doesn't have anything to do with blocking - it's just a number that prevents you from losing your "durability, the will to live, and luck" (i.e. hit points). Blocking would prevent armor damage, wounds, and pain. If holding a weapon is effectively holding your durability, will, and luck, then sure; let the weapon add to AC.
You need to use a lot less luck/durability/will to turn aside a blade with a sword compared to using your forearm. (Unless you're a monk) - so yes: that's exactly what I would like to see.

Somehow. Mechanical details matter, but the lack annoys me.

Edit: for example, something like (assuming 5e):

"When holding a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient, you may set your AC to 11 + the weapon's ability modifier.* When holing a martial melee weapon with which you are proficient, you may set your AC to 12 + the weapon's ability modifier.*

*The weapon's ability modifier is the ability modifier you use for attack rolls with that weapon, normally strength. You can still add applicable modifiers the you AC, such as from shields, spells, magic items, and fighting styles."

Slightly bad for Barbarians (as it makes their Unarmored Defense redundant), might be a little too good for Hexblades as written. But it's not getting you higher numbers than you could already get, just giving you the option of leaning on blocking rather than armor per se.

In 3e/PF1, I'd probably just use a feat tree with really low introductory prereqs or something. For 4e/PF2 I'd either do that or add armor-alternative class features.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
That's always been the explanation, but the rules don't bear it out. Whether you are holding a weapon is irrelevant to how difficult it is to hit you.

I don't want much more crunch here - I wouldn't want parry rolls or anything, but some nods towards it would be nice.
That is not true, there are rules for getting a bonus to your AC for a weapon. It doesn't apply for everyone though.

However, I could see adding a weapon bonus to AC like shields. I think that has merit. What would you suggest? My thought:

unarmed +0
dagger: +1
sword: +2

However, then I would give everyone a flat +2 bonus to hit maybe? Or if you want to keep the math as is:

unarmed -2
dagger: -1
sword: +0
 

That is not true, there are rules for getting a bonus to your AC for a weapon. It doesn't apply for everyone though.

However, I could see adding a weapon bonus to AC like shields. I think that has merit. What would you suggest? My thought:

unarmed +0
dagger: +1
sword: +2

However, then I would give everyone a flat +2 bonus to hit maybe? Or if you want to keep the math as is:

unarmed -2
dagger: -1
sword: +0
Post #23 has my current thinking. I think a flat bonus would need a cost, which gets away form the initial point.
 

You need to use a lot less luck/durability/will to turn aside a blade with a sword compared to using your forearm. (Unless you're a monk) - so yes: that's exactly what I would like to see.

Somehow. Mechanical details matter, but the lack annoys me.

Edit: for example, something like (assuming 5e):

"When holding a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient, you may set your AC to 11 + the weapon's ability modifier.* When holing a martial melee weapon with which you are proficient, you may set your AC to 12 + the weapon's ability modifier.*

*The weapon's ability modifier is the ability modifier you use for attack rolls with that weapon, normally strength. You can still add applicable modifiers the you AC, such as from shields, spells, magic items, and fighting styles."

Slightly bad for Barbarians (as it makes their Unarmored Defense redundant), might be a little too good for Hexblades as written. But it's not getting you higher numbers than you could already get, just giving you the option of leaning on blocking rather than armor per se.

In 3e/PF1, I'd probably just use a feat tree with really low introductory prereqs or something. For 4e/PF2 I'd either do that or add armor-alternative class features.
There wouldn't be redundancy if one were written in a way that made it stack with the other just as armor could be written.
 


dave2008

Legend
Post #23 has my current thinking. I think a flat bonus would need a cost, which gets away form the initial point.
OK, so you would add this on top of your AC? So plate with sword and shield would be AC 18+2 + 5 = 25? Seems a bit high at first glance

EDIT: on second thought I would just lower starting ac to compensate. So AC 5 is base. That makes commoners more squishy, which works for me. I like it.
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Gaps in the rules:

Someone already hit a big one - the stupid difference between 0 h.p. and 1 h.p. It's somewhat solvable if the designers ever want to do it, but it'd involve changing some major basic assumptions about how 5e works (including adding negative h.p. back in).

Related to that: the game's missing some form of a lingering dying condition where someone can be in what amounts to a steady-state of "dying" (i.e. won't and can't recover any health but won't die either) until either rescued and tended or something else (thirst, usually) acts as a finisher.

Further related to that: the game needs some sort of body-fatigue or wound-vitality overlay on hit points. Yes it adds complication, but it's more than worth it.

Degrading class skills over the long term. This guy was a 10th level Fighter 15 years ago but since then has barely picked up a sword, what codifed means can I use to determine what he's got left now?

Genetics. The offspring of a Half-Elf and a Human should be a 1/4-Elf. Start from that premise. Keep going. There's huge design space in it. Nobody's ever touched it to my knowledge.

Not so much rules-based as setting-design based: the biggest immersion-breaker is when PCs are treated by design as being separate or different from the population around them.
 

Yeah, I'm always bothered when a setting suffers from eternal stagnation. Even settings where prior civilizations are lying in ruins and former progress is evident, it's rare to have the players really contribute to that progress in a meaningful way.
In my experience the PCs usually contribute a great deal to civilizations lying in ruins. Civilizations tend to stagnate if they suffer recurring bouts of violent PCs.
 


OK, so you would add this on top of your AC? So plate with sword and shield would be AC 18+2 + 5 = 25? Seems a bit high at first glance

EDIT: on second thought I would just lower starting ac to compensate. So AC 5 is base. That makes commoners more squishy, which works for me. I like it.
NO, you have 12+str OR whatever your armor gives you. Take the better.
 


Hmm. I don't like that. Why sacrifice mechanical weight to armor for mechanical weight to weapons when you could have both?

But thank you inspiring me to come up with a system I do like!
I didn't want to need to change anything outside of the rule - a blended rule would require changing everything's AC, which I'd rather not do.

If that's not a hurdle for you, then of course something blended/additive would make more sense.
 

dave2008

Legend
I didn't want to need to change anything outside of the rule - a blended rule would require changing everything's AC, which I'd rather not do.

If that's not a hurdle for you, then of course something blended/additive would make more sense.
The only thing I would need to change is the starting / base AC of the players, Everything else stays the same. from the DM side I don't need to change anything
 

Rabulias

Adventurer
I would not give a weapon's full ability bonus to defense all the time. Maybe half your ability modifier when fighting with your weapon normally, but you get the full ability modifier only when you take the Dodge action?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I would not give a weapon's full ability bonus to defense all the time. Maybe half your ability modifier when fighting with your weapon normally, but you get the full ability modifier only when you take the Dodge action?
Simple: you have to commit at the start of the round as to whether you're attacking or parrying that round. Parrying gets the weapon's AC benefit. Attacking does not.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top