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

[Yaarel]

As a fringe benefit, living underground especially deep underground would have some benefits in alleviating the differential effects of the stronger gravity on Earth.

I met an astrophysicist, a NASA scientist, who mentioned tentative US plans to build a colony on the Moon. I asked him how they would cope with the asteroid collisions there, thinking how they crater most of the Moon. He said they would build the colonies underground.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I met an astrophysicist, a NASA scientist, who mentioned tentative US plans to build a colony on the Moon. I asked him how they would cope with the asteroid collisions there, thinking how they crater most of the Moon. He said they would build the colonies underground.

The moon doesn’t get hit any more often than the Earth does, it’s just that without geological and meteorological activity the evidence is not destroyed.

Not that even a tiny impact couldn’t be catastrophic for a dome.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The horrifying abrasive nature of lunar dust is way, way, way more concerning than asteroid or meteor strikes for a moon colony.

 

[Reynard]

The horrifying abrasive nature of lunar dust is way, way, way more concerning than asteroid or meteor strikes for a moon colony.

Turns out that when there is no erosion, all that dust is just tiny stone knives in your lung tissue.

 

[Yaarel]

The moon doesn’t get hit any more often than the Earth does, it’s just that without geological and meteorological activity the evidence is not destroyed.

Not that even a tiny impact couldn’t be catastrophic for a dome.

On Earth, much of the hazard of space burns up in the atmosphere. A colony on the Moon could be hit by anything at any time.

 

[Stormonu]

On Earth, much of the hazard of space burns up in the atmosphere. A colony on the Moon could be hit by anything at any time.

That's why you have Tesla build electrostatic shields to protect your moon colony

 

[JohnSnow]

I generally do prefer to have firearms be at least somewhat more powerful than melee in modern and sci-fi games, both because it's more realistic to me and it encourages players to stick with the intended genre of play. Otherwise, the hit point system kinda craps all over modern warfare.

Except that they aren’t. The virtue of firearms is/was that 90% of them are simple weapons. Point and shoot.

A few take some training, and many can be improved by extensive training, but a child can kill someone with a gun.

Keep firearms simple weapons. You could stick with the damage dice in 5e, or steal them from d20 Modern, but increase the critical hit range. Keep hit point totals low, and/or implement d20 Modern’s massive damage threshold, which I believe was 15.

A single bullet can kill? Yes…and so can one sword strike. Landing a critical hit is just harder with the latter.

Personally, I don’t like realistic firearms rules because I’m not fond of disposable characters. YMMV.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

On Earth, much of the hazard of space burns up in the atmosphere. A colony on the Moon could be hit by anything at any time.

Not true. The reason the Earth doesn't have as many craters as the Moon is because of the aforementioned erosion, as well as the recycling of the surface via plate tectonics, neither of which occur on the Moon. The Moon has 4.5 billion years worth of scars. The Earth has had cosmetic surgery.

The atmosphere really does not offer significant protection.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except that they aren’t. The virtue of firearms is/was that 90% of them are simple weapons. Point and shoot.

A few take some training, and many can be improved by extensive training, but a child can kill someone with a gun.

Keep firearms simple weapons. You could stick with the damage dice in 5e, or steal them from d20 Modern, but increase the critical hit range. Keep hit point totals low, and/or implement d20 Modern’s massive damage threshold, which I believe was 15.

A single bullet can kill? Yes…and so can one sword strike. Landing a critical hit is just harder with the latter.

Personally, I don’t like realistic firearms rules because I’m not fond of disposable characters. YMMV.

It absolutely does. I'm looking for considerably more threat to life and limb, ideally, than WotC 5e provides. I just usually don't get it.

 

[Reynard]

For close combat weapons, training is paramount. Guns are equalizers. Even the poorest trained soldier can kill easily.

Unfortunately, we tend to carry our deeply ingrained awe for combat prowess into the era of modern firearms and imagine gun-fu master characters like John Wick. No such thing.

Training doesn't really help soldiers kill so much as it help them survive.