6E Theory Rethinking Offense and Defense

[Silam]

5e has 6 types of attack rolls (one per stat) which all target a single static threshold (AC), and 6 types of DCs (one per stat) which can target any of 6 types of saving throws (one per stat). That’s 6+6*6=42 possible interaction pairs.

It’s kind of interesting, but also kind of complicated. What if we simplified?

I’m thinking of something along the lines of:

1. Offense is dynamic (the attacker rolls), while defense is static (the defender puts up a threshold to beat).
2. There are three defenses: Reflex Class, Will Class, Fortitude Class. These are static thresholds to be met by attackers who are rolling. There is no Armor Class.
3. There are 6 offenses, one per stat. These are used to make attack rolls against any of the three defenses (determined by the weapon/ability/spell/power you attack with).
4. Therefore, there are 3*6=18 permutations of offense/defense (more than enough variety).
5. After you hit or miss, the resulting effect gets resolved. In some cases, there is simply an effect (condition or damage) imposed on a hit and nothing on a miss. In other cases, a miss could also carry an effect (e.g., half damage, or graze). And finally in some cases the hit itself could be mitigated (see below).
6. Wearing armor does not grant a higher Armor Class (since that does not exist anymore), but it grants damage resistance. The heavier the better.

So most physical attack rolls would be resolved as a Strength attack or a Dex attacks against an opponent’s Reflex Class. Dex, Monk’s dodginess, wielding a shield, and those kinds of things all boost the Reflex Class. And then the armor’s DR, if any, would mitigate damage on a hit.

For spells it’s pretty much the same, your attack roll is determined by a spellcasting stat, and you target one of the three Defense Classes (as specified by the spell).

Thoughts?

 

[jmartkdr2]

I’m not sure this addresses a problem in the game - you generally only use one or two offensive calculations and there’s really only seven defenses - but any given roll only uses two numbers with rare exceptions. And all the relevant numbers are already on your character sheet.

Anyhow they tried this in 4e and frankly it didn’t help much.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Have you tried D&D 4E??

 

[tetrasodium]

5e has 6 types of attack rolls (one per stat) which all target a single static threshold (AC), and 6 types of DCs (one per stat) which can target any of 6 types of saving throws (one per stat). That’s 6+6*6=42 possible interaction pairs.

It’s kind of interesting, but also kind of complicated. What if we simplified?

I’m thinking of something along the lines of:

1. Offense is dynamic (the attacker rolls), while defense is static (the defender puts up a threshold to beat).
2. There are three defenses: Reflex Class, Will Class, Fortitude Class. These are static thresholds to be met by attackers who are rolling. There is no Armor Class.
3. There are 6 offenses, one per stat. These are used to make attack rolls against any of the three defenses (determined by the weapon/ability/spell/power you attack with).
4. Therefore, there are 3*6=18 permutations of offense/defense (more than enough variety).
5. After you hit or miss, the resulting effect gets resolved. In some cases, there is simply an effect (condition or damage) imposed on a hit and nothing on a miss. In other cases, a miss could also carry an effect (e.g., half damage, or graze). And finally in some cases the hit itself could be mitigated (see below).
6. Wearing armor does not grant a higher Armor Class (since that does not exist anymore), but it grants damage resistance. The heavier the better.

So most physical attack rolls would be resolved as a Strength attack or a Dex attacks against an opponent’s Reflex Class. Dex, Monk’s dodginess, wielding a shield, and those kinds of things all boost the Reflex Class. And then the armor’s DR, if any, would mitigate damage on a hit.

For spells it’s pretty much the same, your attack roll is determined by a spellcasting stat, and you target one of the three Defense Classes (as specified by the spell).

Thoughts?

You didn't play 4e did you? It sounds nice at first glance but makes character creation into ,"do it like this or else" and isn't very fun in practice

 

[Silam]

You didn't play 4e did you? It sounds nice at first glance but makes character creation into ,"do it like this or else" and isn't very fun in practice

I did play 4e, though only briefly through the first (heroic?) tier. What I recall of 4e is that the 3e saves returned (Fort/Ref/Will) but all 6 stats contributed to them (which is not what I’m suggesting…) and that there was still a concept of Armor Class, though I don’t recall if there was the 3e differentiation of Touch AC, Flat-Footed AC and "regular/full" AC. I’m not sure if I’m missing anything significant? And also not sure what is so similar between the OP proposal and 4e? (Fort/Ref/Will comes from 3e…)

I’m not sure this addresses a problem in the game

I need to apologize for writing the OP off the cuff and without much context. I did not say why I was proposing this.

In my opinion, the amalgamated concept of Armor Class that includes both dodging and enduring all in one is not ideal. I think 3e’s decomposition or Touch/Flat-footed/Full AC was a good model, though between those three types of ACs and the 3 saves, that adds up to 6 defenses and I just don’t think that’s necessary. Touch AC is basically Reflexes, so why have both? And armor that is worn (or natural armor) seems to me better represented by DR than by AC. So to me it seems cleaner to resolve a weapon attack as an attack roll vs reflex, followed by a damage roll vs DR.

Optionally, for those who want to pursue nitty gritty realism, the DR granted by armor could vary by damage type, but that seems not very straightforward (I’ve seen debates online saying that P/B/S is not really an accurate representation of real medieval weapon damage types and that more nuances would be necessary, but that can easily devolve into something similar to a full table of THAC0 by weapon and that seems too complicated to have as a default rule).

Thoughts?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Ah, okay. That’s a common observation about AC - it hasn’t modeled defense well since it was imported from naval wargames.

Incidentally, Star Wars Saga Edition (if you can find it) has a similar take - it’s very much an evolution of 3e but has no AC. Attacks are against Reflex Defense, which is 10 + Level + Dex + Other mods. Armor lets you use the armor’s level (5-10 or so) and you can attach other gear to it, plus there were feats to really benefit from it, but past level 11 armor was only useful if you invested in it.

It’s actually one of my favorite uses of armor in a DnD-like game. Daggerheart is somewhat similar thematically although the execution is obviously very different.

 

[NotAYakk]

If you look at inspiring fiction, there is generally more than one way to defend against the same kind of attack.

Someone swings a huge sword at you.

You could jump out of the way, block it, soak it, or plan so that you aren't even where the sword is when it is swung.

The idea that the attacker picks a defence is one of the reasons why D&D has AC; it is "how the defender chooses to avoid weapon attacks".

You could imagine attacks having more than one "dimension" of risk, and defenders being able to pick which dimension to use to avoid losing. Currently there is deflect/avoid (AC) and if not then soak (HP). A system where "parry with sword", "dodge entire blow", "block with shield", "deflect off armor" and "that doesn't hurt, I'm that tough" are all mechanically distinct can exist.

 

[GMMichael]

You could imagine attacks having more than one "dimension" of risk, and defenders being able to pick which dimension to use to avoid losing. Currently there is deflect/avoid (AC) and if not then soak (HP). A system where "parry with sword", "dodge entire blow", "block with shield", "deflect off armor" and "that doesn't hurt, I'm that tough" are all mechanically distinct can exist.

I use a three-pronged approach: avoid with arms, avoid with feet, and trust armor (parry, dodge, soak). Works pretty well.

 

[Silam]

I use a three-pronged approach: avoid with arms, avoid with feet, and trust armor (parry, dodge, soak). Works pretty well.

Is this in terms of narration (explaining after the fact what happened when a roll hits or missed) within vanilla 5e rules? Or some other system or homebrew rules you play with?

 

[GMMichael]

Other system. Although a little narration goes a long way. 6e could actually get there, given that D&D has finally dismantled attack rolls, alignment, spell preparation, and probably a couple of other sacred cows I don't remember right now.