D&D 5E How would you prefer Swashbuckling AC be handled

[Raduin711]

I think the choice between Dexterity-Based or Armor-Based defense should be the choice between high-risk/high-reward and predictable/reliability.

A dex-based fighter should have a high miss chance, but when they get hit, they get hit hard. Whereas an armor-based fighter would get hit rather frequently, but benefit from some damage-reduction mechanic so they are regularly shrugging off the damage.

The two should work against each other to some degree, but not so much that you have to choose.

 

[ECMO3]

What would be your preference for handling D&D Armor in a Swashbuckling Setting?

So we all know Swashbuckling Fantasy Setting (and some other types of fantasy like Wuxia, Stealth/Heist, and sometimes Intrigue) tend to favor light armor and no armor for the feel. But in D&D, the game is "balanced" around having archetypes that gain high AC or even the best AC in medium and heavy armor. So how would you prefer to alter 5e's Armor and AC system to match a Swashbuckling world?

No Change: Characters just take builds that work with light or no armor. Almost everyone is DEX based or has high DEX. STR is dead.

I said no change, but that does not mean strength is dead. A high roll on strength is still going to mean a high strength and there are plenty of strong swashbuckling characters in books etc.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

In a system for a setting where it was mostly armed humanoids fighting each other with weapons I would have different weapons add different bonuses to armor in melee based on their parrying or other defensive properties, and have a miss by 1 (or 2 or 3 with the right weapon or special ability) provide the opportunity to riposte.

Active defense and counterattacks are very central to real world melee combat. I don't think they justify the complexity in normal D&D because it is more often modeling armed warrior vs. fantastical creature than armed warrior vs. armed warrior.

 

[Unwise]

So you remane the heavy armors to half armors and mediumarmors become leather?

Pretty much, but I would not go into detail like you did below this. I would not even really name them 'in world' just use the names for mechanical rules related reasons.

You simply describe what your cool armour looks like using those very vague guidelines. Then assign a mechanical benefit to it. Two people could have the same design of armour, one pays the minimum for the cheapest heavy armour, one pays the 1000gp for full plate. The expensive one is awesome and protects a lot better than the budget version with tin mixed into the steel.

What benefit is there to having to catagorise every peice of armour with a name like studded/ringmail/scale/half-plate/plate? I don't think it adds value thematically, or mechanically.

 

[Minigiant]

What benefit is there to having to catagorise every peice of armour with a name like studded/ringmail/scale/half-plate/plate? I don't think it adds value thematically, or mechanically.

Speaking.
I DMed an adventure in a land were they used different armors/weapons and constantly reminding the players what was equivalent with what without an official chart or list was so annoying that I made one when they went back.

That and I have shopper and fashionista players in ALL my groups.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In a system for a setting where it was mostly armed humanoids fighting each other with weapons I would have different weapons add different bonuses to armor in melee based on their parrying or other defensive properties, and have a miss by 1 (or 2 or 3 with the right weapon or special ability) provide the opportunity to riposte.

Active defense and counterattacks are very central to real world melee combat. I don't think they justify the complexity in normal D&D because it is more often modeling armed warrior vs. fantastical creature than armed warrior vs. armed warrior.

In a campaign that is more often warrior games warrior, I think it’s sensible to make a generic reaction or two that represent parrying, slipping away, etc, and a generic bonus action to feint, for a start. Basically I’d make the BM manuevers mostly things anyone can do on a more limited basis, whereas the BM does them op top of an attack, with bonus damage.

 

[Minigiant]

In a campaign that is more often warrior games warrior, I think it’s sensible to make a generic reaction or two that represent parrying, slipping away, etc, and a generic bonus action to feint, for a start. Basically I’d make the BM manuevers mostly things anyone can do on a more limited basis, whereas the BM does them op top of an attack, with bonus damage.

I was planning to do a Greco-Norse-Egypt-Persia-3K-Japan Swashbuckling setting and my current thought process is to give barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, and ranger a Sup Die and a manuever.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was planning to do a Greco-Norse-Egypt-Persia-3K-Japan Swashbuckling setting and my current thought process is to give barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, and ranger a Sup Die and a manuever.

That works. Could also expand on the recent Dragonlance UA and make custom feats that give one maneuver and PB/LR superiority dice, with the choice of maneuver keyed to either class concepts or in world schools or styles, orders, etc.

 

[FrozenNorth]

They only change I would make would be to give some sort of boost to high Str PCs (and it wouldn’t necessarily be a defensive boost), so characters would have some reason to invest in Strength.

 

[delericho]

I think I'd be inclined to go with the Class Defense approach. (And, since 5e already handles the case where characters can have multiple ways to calculate AC, that should be a fairly minor change - characters who choose to wear armour will "just work".)

That said, it kinda feels like a swashbuckling game should really have some sort of fancy parrying system to better reflect the derring-do - static AC doesn't quite feel right to me. But that's a much more involved approach, of course.