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

[Paul Farquhar]

Again, I am aware of all this (although I think you are overstating Star Trek's reliance on fisticuffs). I was specifically refuting @Raiztt 's post.

They are good examples of what you can do by changing the aesthetic though.

I agree about Star Trek, even TOS managed to avoid fisticuffs occasionally.

 

[KYRON45]

What is the ratio of people who want D&D to be something else to people who want something else to be D&D?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Also, historically speaking, once guns where common, melee weapons where not. You can't get into sword fights durring WW2. Your taking cover from snipers, flanking from 100', and calling in artillery from off the battle map.

There was a 400 year overlap from the major introduction of guns in the early 16th century until the end of WW1 where melee fighting still played a major role in combat. It wasn't until the full scale introduction of squad level machine guns in the interwar years that gunfights became so deadly that charging into melee became an act of desperation rather than a standard tactical option.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

What is the ratio of people who want D&D to be something else to people who want something else to be D&D?

Which elements of D&D are essential though? To me, the classic classes are pretty central, but the aesthetic is not. Others feel differently.

 

[Reynard]

What is the ratio of people who want D&D to be something else to people who want something else to be D&D?

To answer that you would need to define D&D.

 

[KYRON45]

Which elements of D&D are essential though? To me, the classic classes are pretty central, but the aesthetic is not. Others feel differently.

We both know this is its own rabbit hole.

 

[KYRON45]

To answer that you would need to define D&D.

I'm sorry sir; but I am not qualified for this level of discourse. I'm sure that someone else will be along shortly to take the helm.

 

[Celebrim]

There was a 400 year overlap from the major introduction of guns in the early 16th century until the end of WW1 where melee fighting still played a major role in combat. It wasn't until the full scale introduction of squad level machine guns in the interwar years that gunfights became so deadly that charging into melee became an act of desperation rather than a standard tactical option.

That's a widespread ahistorical myth.

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. In fact, the biggest influence of the bayonet on combat was probably morale, with it both improving the morale of the unit with it and reducing the morale of the unit facing it. But it rarely actually came to physical blows despite popular media then or now highlighting the importance of it. What usually happened is that if the target was basically out of ammo then when charged they'd tend to either disperse or surrender, while if they were not basically out of ammo the charging force would be utterly destroyed.

As early as the American Civil War it was becoming apparent that melee combat was becoming obsolete and that proper tactics involved basically trench warfare. Casualties inflicted by bayonets or sabers were less than 1% of total casualties, and casualties suffered by charging on average tended to be greater than those inflicted by such weapons. Successful charges were more often taking advantage of early repeating weapons that allowed shots to be fired while moving.

The problem was that almost no one was tactically evolving to the new reality. Tactics were stuck in the past. The generals in WW1 were initially trying to fight the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Some thoughts about mechanics is that for AC, there could be a system of: Some class-based number like (8, 10 or 12) + Proficiency bonus for AC.

Armor could be changed to Temp HP, either a flat number like 5 or 20, or a multiplier to proficiency bonus like 3*Prof bonus. With some armors also including damage reduction or a small AC bonus (just +1 or +2).

For something between the Industrial Revolution and WWI, keep in mind that Breastplate was still an armour that was used. I remember something on how the logistics for Napolean's army was like how Breastplate was good for stopping one gunshot.

Heavy armor training could be something that's removed from all classes, and only applicable through feats or special subclasses (if going the Steampunk route) such as a Mechanized Juggernaut Fighter subclass.

Since it's before WWI, I'd make sure automatic weapons (though remember the established rules for automatic fire is an area attack with a dexterity save to avoid all damage) are excluded, and only something available as siege weapons (since gatling guns in the 1800s needed to be pulled by horses) or large sized monsters like an Ogre Heavy Gunner. Maybe PCs could be allowed some, but only if they take a special subclass like a Heavy Gunner Fighter subclass where they'd be like Jinx from Arcane/League of Legends except more strength-based.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We both know this is its own rabbit hole.

It’s okay I have ferrets.