D&D General Filling the Gaps

[Samloyal23]

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?

 

[dave2008]

Long term innovations. Like creating self-cleaning chamber pots.

1. Gain inspiration for an invention (1/Story)
2. Gather rare materials (along your journey).
3. Create your invention (downtime).
4. Change the world a little.

OK, nothing I would use - but if that is what you want, fantastic!

 

[Seramus]

OK, nothing I would use - but if that is what you want, fantastic!

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. Of course, a good DM can handle those issues without a problem. But I would love to see a modest (not crunch) framework for this in the game.

Same for spellcasters. The game has a million fire-and-forget spells, but not many leave a lasting impact on the world. Where are my 'enchant a building against rats' spells? Or 'grant fertile crops for a year' spells? I would love to see a simple framework for this too.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

But I don't want to handle it "realistically." I just want it to be an option for defense. (Mostly because that's the easiest solution to the biggest hurdle to more anime-inspired games.)

You could just narrate the dodge action as taking a guard position (“guard” would be a much better name for the action than “dodge” anyway), and if an attack misses you, narrate it as a parry.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

 

[dave2008]

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

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

Well, I really wouldn't want to give barbarians an ac of 12 + str + dex + con...

But an alternative ribbon feature would seem more fair than doing nothing. Maybe varied by Path.

 

[dave2008]

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.

 

[jasper]

Bathroom breaks. Especially after you eat tacos. Talk about a short rest!