6E Theory Rethinking Offense and Defense

[Vael]

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…)

Not quite, it's just that you took the higher of the two stats that were paired to a defense. So the higher of your Strength or Constitution determined your Fort defense, Dex or Int for Reflex (and AC, but then armor is added) and Wis or Cha determine Will save.

 

[Silam]

Not quite, it's just that you took the higher of the two stats that were paired to a defense. So the higher of your Strength or Constitution determined your Fort defense, Dex or Int for Reflex (and AC, but then armor is added) and Wis or Cha determine Will save.

Yes, I remember all that… but I still don’t understand what is the relation between 4e and the OP? Besides the mention of Fort/Ref/Will, which 4e did not invent?

 

[Blue]

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.

Well yes, but that's not meaningful. No particular reasonable character can use all six attack rolls, nor would they have much reason to do so. And for spellcasters like the Wizard where spell access and not class features are where the class's power lie, having access to multiple DCs is part of the character's strength, so taking it away would require reworking other things as well.

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.

You might really like 13th Age. Offense is dynamic vs. static Defense as you say, and it has three defenses: AC (/Armor Defense, but acknowledges everyone uses AC), Physical Defense (PD) and Mental Defense (MD). So it's the same number of permutations as you put forth.

As an interesting bit, calculating your defenses uses the middle ability modified from groups of three. AC is middle of Con, Dex or Wis, PD is Str/Con/Dex, while MD is Int/Wis/Cha.

1. 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).

(Hmm, it auto-renumbered when I separated this.)

13th Age also has effects on miss for a lot of attacks, much like D&D has things like half damage on a save (which is the same thing, except that rolls are now being done by the attacker).

1. Wearing armor does not grant a higher Armor Class (since that does not exist anymore), but it grants damage resistance. The heavier the better.

In the context of D&D combat, this isn't a modular thing you can put in by itself. It has a lot of implications, from making armor much more powerful against weak opponents and nigh meaningless against even things like ogres (CR 2). If it's tweaked to make meaningful it will also have a large impact on making combats go longer, and grind is basically universally bad. But you can't just reduce HPs to fix that because then lightly armored characters become less viable. Remember this needs to scale from hordes of rats to dragons, from commoners to heroes of the multiverse.

It's an interesting idea for other RPGs, but it would require major rework of the combat system because of the ripple effects of every change it required. Do we need to change spell damage? Do we need to change monster HPs and damage?

Plus, that's not a possible "6e Theory" concept as AC is a a sacred cow. But maybe a 3pp can re-engineer everything, and many other RPGs do already build that in at a foundational level.

 

[Umbran]

So to me it seems cleaner to resolve a weapon attack as an attack roll vs reflex, followed by a damage roll vs DR.

Okay, so, one thing to grapple with there is that D&D's approach to offense/defense isn't a realistic simulation, but it is among the cleanest mechanics around. To add complication to it, but then to speak about what's "cleaner" sounds a bit incongruous - not that it isn't valid, it just sounds incongruous, to me. If being clean was a goal, why change it?

That said, you may also want to look at Savage Worlds as an example. It doesn't have a ton of varied attack or defenses, but still seems to cover some of the same ground.

 

[Silam]

And for spellcasters like the Wizard where spell access and not class features are where the class's power lie, having access to multiple DCs is part of the character's strength, so taking it away would require reworking other things as well.

3e had three types of saves and Wizards had spells targeting each of the three (plus a bunch more that targeted Touch AC). I don’t think there’s any pundit saying 3e Wizards were weak due to targeting only 4 defenses rather 7, right?

In the context of D&D combat, this isn't a modular thing you can put in by itself. It has a lot of implications, from making armor much more powerful against weak opponents and nigh meaningless against even things like ogres (CR 2). If it's tweaked to make meaningful it will also have a large impact on making combats go longer, and grind is basically universally bad. But you can't just reduce HPs to fix that because then lightly armored characters become less viable. Remember this needs to scale from hordes of rats to dragons, from commoners to heroes of the multiverse.

I agree that making DR more prevalent is a big change. That is why I tagged the thread as 6e and not as Homebrew for 5e. That being said… even though I was not suggesting that, a naive attempt to bolt that onto 5e might not be as bad as you think. The Barbarian’s Rage grants resistance to P/B/S (and many others with the right subclass) and the game works fine with that. Giving that ability through some level of worn armor might not be the end of the world. The big issue would be to give Barbs something to compensate if one of their big feature can now be replicated by any Joe Blow with an item. But besides needing to de-nerf Barbs it might be just fine… actually, maybe this would help close the so called Martial/Caster divide?

Plus, that's not a possible "6e Theory" concept as AC is a a sacred cow.

I agree and that bugs me too, to be honest. I like the ring of "Armor Class" and it pained me when I wrote the line "There is no Armor Class"!

Maybe AC has to stay for old times sake, but its meaning changes… in this new system, AC now functions as today’s DR, but we call it AC (and there is no concept called DR since AC replaces it).

Okay, so, one thing to grapple with there is that D&D's approach to offense/defense isn't a realistic simulation, but it is among the cleanest mechanics around. To add complication to it, but then to speak about what's "cleaner" sounds a bit incongruous - not that it isn't valid, it just sounds incongruous, to me. If being clean was a goal, why change it?

I should not have used the word "clean" because it means too much and therefore too little. What I am really after are two things:

1. Simplicity of learning and playing the game.
2. Realism, not to the extent that it’s literally a physics sim, but sufficiently that fluffy narration flows naturally from the crunchy mechanics, without needing to be an expert improv player.

To explain the interplay between these, let me give an example using 3e and 5e as comparisons.

In 3e, there are, roughly speaking, 3 ACs (Touch, FF, Full) and 3 saves (Fort/Ref/Will). Technically there is also Touch&FF AC so it’s really a 2x2 matrix of AC for a total of 4 different permutations, but T&FF occurred so rarely that many players probably never even realized it existed. Those 6-7 defenses provide a great deal of realism. You could pretty clearly narrate what happened in a given roll. Contrast with 5e which also has 7 defenses (AC + 6 saves) but which provides less realism than 3e since the notion of Touch and FF ACs are lost entirely, and in exchange we get dubious utility saves for the secondary stats…

Unfortunately, 3e’s implementation was not that simple because there were so many different AC bonus types and some of them applied to Touch AC, others to FF AC, others to both or to none; and bonuses of the same types didn’t stack; and the numbers scaled high… it was quite clear but cumbersome to compute. Contrast with 5e which has very few bonus types, Bounded Accuracy which keeps numbers low, and very few stacking restrictions. 5e ends up being simpler to learn and play.

So which is "cleaner"? (That ugly word again…)

Well, what I’m trying to propose is a system which carries the realism of 3e, or close to it, but hopefully even more simplicity than both 3e and 5e.

How is that possible? Well, let’s have a single concept for getting out of the way. There is Reflex and Touch AC, but no need to have both. Then the other simplification is to remove the amalgamated full AC which lacks realism. The end result is 3 defenses + DR (which as I said above should perhaps be called AC for nostalgia’s sake, though mechanically it really is like 3e/5e DR).

You might really like 13th Age.

That said, you may also want to look at Savage Worlds as an example.

Thanks for both of these suggestions! I don’t know about either. I’ll check them out!

 

[NotAYakk]

A theorycrafted pseudo-DnD idea I've played with is to extend HP to support multiple defences.

Instead of HP, you get various kinds of defence. These defences are all attrition-based like HP, and become dice pools.

When someone tries to defeat you they attack you. Barring you defeating the attack, you are gonna lose. So you expend your defences to prevent that loss.

You have dodge dice, parry dice, soak dice, armor dice, etc. And you have modifiers for each one.

The attack in turn might have advantages against certain kinds of defences. Maybe it has aspects; your attack is 3d6+3 accurate and 5d12+5 damaging.

The defender tries to beat one aspect of your attack using one of their defences. You play a tiny game to see if they do; maybe just roll and add up, or maybe a risk-like game where they have to defeat each of your dice with one of theirs.

Defending dice that are defeated are lost. Maybe some kind of recovery mechanism (like taking a breather/second wind) recovers some.

A partial hit system, where the defender chooses to use up fewer resources in exchange for a partial blow, should exist; and should be optimal for defenders to use against challenging foes, to prevent the game from being just die-pool attrition.

Didn't get that far. And it doesn't look much like D&D already.

 

[Umbran]

Thanks for both of these suggestions! I don’t know about either. I’ll check them out!

Savage Worlds:

You roll an attack, using whatever skill is appropriate (Shooting or Athletics for ranged attacks, Fighting for melee, or your Spellcasting skill for magic). None of these skills tie back directly to their associated stats - the stats determine the cost of obtaining the skill, rather than provide skill modifiers.

The target has a Parry score that is the target number for melee attacks. Ranged attacks get a fixed target number, modified by range and cover, but not by target stats or skills.

If you hit, you get a damage roll. The target has a Toughness score (which is based on their Vigor/Constitution score). Armor increases Toughness. How far above the target's Toughness determines whether the target take Wounds. For most PCs, three Wounds, and you're down.

PCs and some NPCs may spend a resource to Soak damage, reducing the wounds they take.

The thing to take away from this is that having a bunch of different attacks and defenses isn't really necessary.

Indeed, while you are correct that D&D has a save for each stat, it isn't like all those saves are targeted with anything like equal frequency - the number of defenses doesn't tell you much about the game design in play.

 

[the Jester]

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?

Welcome to 4e.

 

[the Jester]

Yes, I remember all that… but I still don’t understand what is the relation between 4e and the OP? Besides the mention of Fort/Ref/Will, which 4e did not invent?

4e used attacker rolls vs. static defense, as suggested in the OP.

It also had attacks based on every stat, depending on your class.

Basically, the entire OP except for armor as DR is pretty much how 4e did it.

 

[Blue]

3e had three types of saves and Wizards had spells targeting each of the three (plus a bunch more that targeted Touch AC). I don’t think there’s any pundit saying 3e Wizards were weak due to targeting only 4 defenses rather 7, right?

Sorry, I thought it was clear from my comments about the amount of power in the base caster class vs. the spell list I was talking about 5e. 3.x was well known at having quadratic casters and linear martials, meaning casters grew in power much faster. There are other biases built into that system that made it that was that there's no way to point out that there were fewer saves and make an apples-to-apples comparison to 5e.

But if you really want to try, I'm game. Since 3.x casters are much more powerful due to systematic choices, let's compare the wizard, who's power was mostly from spell list, vs. other 3.x full casters who had more limited spell lists but also robust chassis.

In 3.x you often heard of CoDzilla - Cleric or Druid zilla. Which was that both of those full caster classes had robust chassis and then a full spell list, and were generally considered the strongest casters. So yes, relative to other casters the wizard was absolutely weaker in 3.x than the full casters that had both.

But again, the real question of number of saves being a point of power for spellcasters can't be answered looking at 3.x vs. 5e because the base level of the spellcasters varies so much between those editions.