D&D 5E Thoughts on Divorcing D&D From [EDIT: Medievalishness], Mechanically Speaking.

[Yaarel]

The reason this thread is under the 5E tag is that I want to talk about mechanics and figure using the current rules makes the most sense from that perspective.

When I say "divorcing from medievalism" I mean building a D&D in a modern-ish assumed setting (not necessarily out Earth). Somewhere between the Industrial Revolution and WW1, technologically speaking. This doesn't have to be steampunk -- in fact, i would rather it weren't, but whatever. But remember in this thread I am more concerned with mechanical changes that help support this assumed setting than I am with thematic, lore or other fluffy changes.

First on the list, I think, is to greatly reduce or eliminate the focus on armor as a thing. Certain classes should be proficient in Defense (adding their PB to their AC).
Second is to add guns and decent firearms rules. Firearms should not be overpowered. Rather, they should be considered the standard weapons, from small and simple to heavy and complex. There should be a difference between a revolver and a bolt action and a tommy gun, etc. And they should not be the purview of any specific classes. Rather, there should be simple and martial firearms just like other weapons. other weapons should not be ignored, but they take a back seat to guns.
Classes would need a complete overhaul. Some, in their current form, would have to go completely (Bard, Paladin, Druid, Monk and Sorcerer) and others would have to be significantly changes (Cleric, Ranger, Warlock) to fit more modern themes. Rogue, Fighter and Wizard would need some tweaks to fit.

The idea is to maintain the same kinds of adventures that D&D does well, from treasure hunting to saving the prince from the dragon, but to move it completely out of the shadow of the medieval and into the recent (pre information age) past.

Thoughts?

I like and have run a near-future setting. It is mostly the same as reallife now, plus special locations of accelerating technology.

I pretty much use "spells" for all technological effects, from surveillance (Divination), to nuclear weapons (Radiant+Thunder damage), to nanotech (Transmutation).

Guns make armor obsolete. Normally guns ignore armor, except for special modern body armor that tends to be Light or Medium. A totally encased power armor, like being inside a robot, is minimally Heavy Armor or a kind of vehicle.

Because modern guns generally ignore armor, they hit by means of a Dexterity saving throw, not an Attack roll. So wearing medieval armor that limits Dexterity while useless against guns is a bad idea. Cover and Prone are important.

The damage of a typical bullet is 1d8, same as a longsword. A bullet thru the gut is moreorless the same thing as swordblade thru the gut. Hit points are avoiding getting hit. Getting "grazed" is the Bloodied condition.

When I need a map, I use a search engine, such as Google Map, and go as close as possible. It takes some getting used to, but like old school Marvel Super Heroes, divide the place into "Close" "zones", very roughly 30-feet (10 meter) per "zone". Completely make up what a building floorplan looks like inside, including how many stories above and below ground. The main awkwardness is the incredible shifts in scale. An encounter is incredibly closeup, about one city block, and yet to understand where one is and what is going on in a modern city, needs to zoom out to see the entire greater city including its suburbs, in which case there might be thousands of city blocks. An adventure hops around almost randomly like trying to find a needle in a haystack. The DM needs to hold the hands of the players to guide them to the remote places that happen to be relevant.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

As early in fact as the 18th century, melee fighting was already no longer playing a major role in combat and only generating single digit percents of the casualties inflicted. The bayonet charge persisted largely despite its effectiveness rather than because of it.

I know there was maybe only a few casualties from this, but apparently the last successful bayonet charge in history was more recently in Fallujah by British forces who were low on ammo.

 

[Yaarel]

I know there was maybe only a few casualties from this, but apparently the last successful bayonet charge in history was more recently in Fallujah by British forces who were low on ammo.

Modern armies still use "cold weapons" for stealth or emergency.

 

[Baron Opal II]

From notes I made BITD:

• Meteor swarm was better than artillery in 1910, but inferior by 1920. WWI had massive upscaling in AoE and intensity of artillery shells.
• If you consider the lethality of a broadsword and a .45 equivalent (c.f. Rob Roy), you don't really need to change damage ratings. You do want to consider the impact of higher rate of fire, reliability of use, and utility of cover/ concealment.
• People experimented with heavy armor in WWI. It was ultimately discarded because of slower movement rate and visibility. You might be protected from rifle fire, but you would still get shredded from Gatling or Maxim guns, or artillery. Slow and visible was a lethal combination.
• The Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901) had a number of proponents who believed their mystical martial arts and invocations to their deities would protect them. Many secret societies and martial arts schools surfaced at that time.
• Aldo Nadi (1899-1965) Was a premier Italian fencer. High level fencing was a spectator sport much like boxing was in the US in the 60s and 70s. Many schools of fencing existed throughout Europe until the mid 20th Century.
• The Opening of Japan occurred in 1853. Steamships were in common use.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

The "classic" D&D setting derives from American pulp fantasy (we credit Tolkien for being the originator of D&D's tropes, but that's not the case whatsoever), which derives from American history of the "wild west" and manifest destiny.

The core of D&D is people designating an extant culture as either "savage" or "fallen" and moving in to take all their stuff, striking out from small pockets of civilization into an untamed wilderness bereft of civil authority nonetheless full of thinking, emotional creatures whose right to life is arbitrarily disregarded.


D&D is cowboys and indians with swords.

 

[GrimCo]

Problem with guns are submachine guns. MP 18, WW1 weapon, with it's fire rate of 350 rounds/minute, can empty it's 32 round magazine in one round. Once automatic weapons come into play, it changes the game, specially in tight space. And then there was BAR, full auto battle rifle. On the other hand, bolt action rifles were quick and easy to reload and had longer ranges. So in your open field, you could end up in shootout at 1000 feet ranges (300 m).

In classic medievalish setting, armor (defense) is better than weapons (offense). That's why there isn't so much suspension of disbelief when your tin can fighter tanks. He is getting hit. It just doesn't do anything (or very little) to flesh underneath the metal.

For Mummy like game, you can also take a peak at Masque of the Red Death, a 3ed splatbook which sets game in Victorian period.

 

[Reynard]

The "classic" D&D setting derives from American pulp fantasy (we credit Tolkien for being the originator of D&D's tropes, but that's not the case whatsoever), which derives from American history of the "wild west" and manifest destiny.

The core of D&D is people designating an extant culture as either "savage" or "fallen" and moving in to take all their stuff, striking out from small pockets of civilization into an untamed wilderness bereft of civil authority nonetheless full of thinking, emotional creatures whose right to life is arbitrarily disregarded.


D&D is cowboys and indians with swords.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this response is, other than to attempt to veer the thread into dangerous waters. Please don't do that.

 

[Yaarel]

What does this have to do with modern adventure fiction in the form of D&D play?

The cultural absence of firearms is significant in a modern setting, which is mostly nonlethal.

Essentially winning or losing a "combat encounter" happens at the Bloodied condition. When combatants either flee or surrender, or force surrender or capture.

Even reaching the Bloodied condition might annoy any nearby police officers. Plus surveillance (Divination) becomes an issue.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Another thing that was pointed out to me:

When you see a scene of a "war-torn land" you see mud, burnt and broken trees, smoldering fires here and there, shattered homes. That's a direct and lasting impact from WWI and later artillery on filmmaker's psyches. Regular cannon fire didn't (usually) start fires or break more than a couple trees. Yes, cannon can be devastating, but mostly at a point only. Broad area of destruction and incendiaries are from WWI on.

 

[Celebrim]

I know there was maybe only a few casualties from this, but apparently the last successful bayonet charge in history was more recently in Fallujah by British forces who were low on ammo.

They certainly still happened and they have a "shock" value that exceeds the actual casualties that they inflict because people aren't actually rational and resisting a charge is not instinctive but something that requires a high degree of military barring. I said that bayonet charges weren't a major impact on the Civil War and almost no one was ever coming to grips at close quarters, but the whole war actually turned on a bayonet charge on Little Round Top by the 20th Maine. But it wasn't actually the bayonets themselves that inflicted the majority of the casualties. Indeed, I'm not sure their is documented evidence that it inflicted even one. It's more the panic that ensued and the fact that it created a flanking maneuver that meant that the trees the Confederates had been using were no longer effective cover.