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

[Jolly Ruby]

I like the idea, but a lot of mechanics related to combat would need a gargantuan overhaul. Like it happened in real work, once you introduce modern firearms the whole system that existed before falls apart. The closest thing we have to firearms in D&D is the spell disentegrate. Dexterity saving throw and if you fail you die (or take up to a hundred damage). Once everyone have modern firearms melee is not an option anymore, armors are useless, cover is a lot more important and the wizards would have to develop new spells to survive (mage armor and shield are useless now).

 

[mellored]

Soldier (wizard): has no supernatural abilities and is much more vulnerable than his coworkers, but maintains the full support of his majesty arsenal. The latest in automatic fire weapons, radio communications, grenades, vehicles, and even calling in artillery support (once they have proven themselves enough). He prepares his load out at the start of the day and leaves destruction in his wake, while the ammunition lasts.

Vampire (rogue): used to sneaking in and stealing blood without leaving a trace, they prefer a distracted target to drain from, though their claws still possess unnatural strength. Bat forms and mist allow them to scout

Werewolf (monk): resilient beasts that charge in with a flurry of slashes.

Alchemist (Barbarian): based off the works of Dr Jekell, Alchemist have altered their body by drinking, turning into a madman.

 

[Celebrim]

D&D is not married to medievalism. Most people couldn't understand or relate to people from the medieval era, or even imagine it.

D&D is like most popular media married to heroism. And it's not coincidental that quasi-medieval trappings are popular when you are wanting to tell a heroic story. That's because the medieval period was the most recent period in human history where defensive military technology had outstripped offensive military technology. And in periods where defensive technology has the advantage over offensive technology, lone trained warriors with high tech gear are capable of taking on a dozen or two dozen peasants without their high-tech armor at once leading to heroic fiction that extols the virtues of such warriors and captures the imagination.

It's not a coincidence that most "science fiction" that has captured the imagination is actually fantasy in modern dress where this heroic age is recaptured by powered body armor, giant robot suits, personal shields, genetic super-soldiers, or magic given some pseudo-science gloss. It again lets you have a single hero who can plausibly (if you don't think about it too hard) take on dozens of less powerful beings at a time, recreating the heroic narrative. And face it, humans love a good story about a virile human punching a bunch of other less admirable humans.

Realism of any sort gives you cannon fodder and conscripts and trench warfare and horror. Realism gives you artillery randomly squashing you no matter how heroic you are.

I'm not sure you can actually achieve what you want without in some fashion playing a "supers" game. You are literally describing changing the baseline reality to have offensive weaponry more powerful than defensive weaponry, which is exactly the opposite of how you get heroic fiction. Someone has to be bullet proof in some fashion, whether having superspeed or body made of iron or whatnot.

 

[Reynard]

I like the idea, but a lot of mechanics related to combat would need a gargantuan overhaul. Like it happened in real work, once you introduce modern firearms the whole system that existed before falls apart. The closest thing we have to firearms in D&D is the spell disentegrate. Dexterity saving throw and if you fail you die (or take up to a hundred damage). Once everyone have modern firearms melee is not an option anymore, armors are useless, cover is a lot more important and the wizards would have to develop new spells to survive (mage armor and shield are useless now).

Firearms are not as deadly as you think they are. There are about 15K firearm homicides every year in the US, and about 115K injuries. People survive getting shot all the time. more important, as I have stated, we are still playing D&D. That means "realistic" approaches to firearms and no more necessary than realistic approaches to heavy blunt trauma ("no blood" indeed).

 

[Reynard]

Not my understanding. Warlock is a patron driven caster making them more like arcane clerics. Its all D&Dy to me. I dont think we will see eye to eye on this so ill see myself out of the thread.

My point is that in the inspirational literature, the "sorcerer" is the guy who traffics in demons for power. That is the warlock's schtick.

 

[Raiztt]

Firearms are not as deadly as you think they are. There are about 15K firearm homicides every year in the US, and about 115K injuries. People survive getting shot all the time. more important, as I have stated, we are still playing D&D. That means "realistic" approaches to firearms and no more necessary than realistic approaches to heavy blunt trauma ("no blood" indeed).

This is true. I have no idea why people have this disconnect where they demand strict realism when it comes to firearms, yet are totally cool with people getting hit by a greatsword and walking away mostly unscathed.

 

[Celebrim]

This is true. I have no idea why people have this disconnect where they demand strict realism when it comes to firearms, yet are totally cool with people getting hit by a greatsword and walking away mostly unscathed.

Strawman.

There is literally absolutely no one that thinks like that.

This is why it is so frustrating to talk about this topic.

 

[Raiztt]

Strawman.

Whose arguement am I misrepresenting so as to make it easier for me to argue against? Am I presenting an argument here? Or just stating my opinion?

This is not a 'straw man'.

There is literally absolutely no one that thinks like that.

So, I've been playing D&D for ~20 years and haunting the various TTRPG/D&D forums for that same amount of time and I have met plenty of these people so it appears to be false that "literally absolutely no one" thinks that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Firearms are not as deadly as you think they are. There are about 15K firearm homicides every year in the US, and about 115K injuries. People survive getting shot all the time. more important, as I have stated, we are still playing D&D. That means "realistic" approaches to firearms and no more necessary than realistic approaches to heavy blunt trauma ("no blood" indeed).

And people die from being stabbed with a pen knife. The big advantages of firearms are rate of fire and ease of use.

But not being medieval isn’t the same as being modern. D&D ditched medievalism a long time ago, although various historical periods provide use inspiration. FR is a bit Renascence, Eberron is a bit 1920s, etc. There are many aspects to a society beyond weapons technology.

If magic works in a world, then it implies that Physics does not. There is no reason to suppose firearms work the way they do in our world.

 

[Raiztt]

If magic works in a world, then it implies that Physics does not. There is no reason to suppose firearms work the way they do in our world.

...what? If magic became real tomorrow, you wouldn't say that physics no longer "works" you would say that our understanding of physics changed.