D&D (2024) Toward a Theory of 6th Edition

[Oofta]

Yeah, not sure if it's worth changing, but if DnD were a new game, armour would reduce damage, not make you harder to hit. Dex already helps with Armor class, unless you are wearing the heavier stuff. Not sure that damage reduction is that big a problem. Barbarians do it with no armour at all...

I don't believe heavy armour was so encumbering, warriors couldn't stand up without assistance. I don't believe anyone would want to crawl through caverns and dodge pit traps in the stuff, though. Soldiers donned armour before a pitched battle, they didn't wear it all day, every day...But anyway, let's not argue about that and derail thread again.

Armour is kind of "painted" on in DnD, anyway, so maybe game should go more abstract. Each class gets a different armour class bonus (skip damage resistance altogether), and players can decide where it's coming from. Knight in shining armour, or battered leather, but I dodge really well, or I'm so cool, I just glide out of the way. Could do the same with weapons. Each class would do certain dice of damage, no matter what they are wielding. Fluff would be up to you. Course weapons wouldn't have special qualities anymore, but 5e is pulling away from that anyway.

These are just random thoughts, so don't want anyone jumping down my throat, especially since I'm not sure they are good ideas anyway.

This is a thread about ideas and what-ifs. Sorry if it sounded like I was jumping down your throat.

I think one of the problems you will always have with any kind of game design is you can't please everyone. Personally, I find reducing damage annoying other people don't.

If you could come up with a truly modular system - plugging in pieces you like, swapping out some things for others - that would be cool. But added flexibility always adds extra complexity and one of the nice things about 5E is how easy it is to grok.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My pet peeve is that people that plate armor was heavy and cumbersome. It wasn't. I'll refer you to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's web site on the topic here.*

Maybe historical plate armor in Europe wasn't cumbersome, but in D&DLand it is because it's made differently?

Anyway, if plate armor were not cumbersome then it would always, in all situations, be better than chain. So instead of having trade-offs (e.g. protection vs. agility) that lead to interesting decisions, it's purely a matter of how much you can afford. Which is boring.

All-in-all, I'd rather have a game be unrealistic in ways that result in decision-making that has interesting trade-offs.

I agree that avoidance vs. absorption should, in some sense, be modeled differently. But is it getting too complex? Is it still D&D? I would predict that it would never happen...it would be akin to moving away from d20...but Heavy Armor Master gives a tiny little hint that maybe it's not completely off the table.

EDIT: And, anyway, if HP are abstract and represent meat, endurance, luck, skill, etc., then absorbing a blow vs. deflecting a blow can be treated the exact same way. If you have plate armor and the attack misses you by 2 it means the armor absorbed it. If you are a monk and the attack misses you by 2 it means you dodged.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe historical plate armor in Europe wasn't cumbersome, but in D&DLand it is because it's made differently?

Anyway, if plate armor were not cumbersome then it would always, in all situations, be better than chain.

Sure, something like it was in the classic game.

All-in-all, I'd rather have a game be unrealistic in ways that result in decision-making that has interesting trade-offs.

Interesting ones, yes, though that requires some pretty careful balancing. 3e & 5e have both tried to balance armor in three categories, and ended up with an obvious-best light armor, and obvious-best heavy armor, and decidedly 'meh' medium armor. It's tough, because armor doesn't really do a whole lot to make multiple different kinds each distinctive, meaningful, & viable.

I agree that avoidance vs. absorption should, in some sense, be modeled differently. But is it getting too complex? Is it still D&D?

No & No...

Back on topic, how about armour? Should DnD have armour reduce damage, instead of making you harder to hit?

As shocking and innovative as it would be for D&D to rush into 1978 like that, maybe.

Classes could have a defense score based off dex, which slowly builds as players gain levels.

Attack as a bonus and Defense as a DC works fine in d20. Attacks could go against a certain defense, weapons against a DEX-based defense, poisons against CON, sneaky tricks & mind-affecting magics vs WIS, etc...

And, different defensive skills or tricks might substitute one for another. Armor, for instance, could substitute CON for DEX defense - you have to have the endurance to walk around in the stuff all the time, but enemies have to hit the bits not covered by the armor. Shields could do something similar for STR.

I also think heavy armour should be way too unwieldy to adventure in. Who in their right mind would go crawling around a dungeon in plate?

Heh. A fairytale Knight in Shining Armor would run around, crawl through dungeons, hack through briars, climb mountains, ride through flames, and swim oceans in full armor.

Yes, armour class as hp can work. Also, encompasses idea of character getting tired as extra hp from armour get eaten away. Can also simulate your armour getting battered, and requiring repairs or replacement. Does 5e still have wooden shields? Used to make me laugh how those things were indestructible...

Armor absorbing hp damage and needing repairs goes way back to the 1e UA Cavalier and it's Field Plate and Full Plate armors. It wasn't too wonderful a sub-system, about like the heavy armor feat in 5e, really.

As far as tools go, my problem is having both tool and skill proficiencies. What's wrong with just having skills? Some skills require tools, like carpentry, some don't like athletics (usually). Having performance and tool proficiency(instrument) is messy and causes confusion over which one to use.

I'm not sure exactly what motivated the whole Tool Proficiency thing. Maybe it was trying to wedge in the demand for crafting skills. They really do about nothing, but it was one of the hot buttons that got pushed when, after being largely ignored and irrelevant (except when combined with the Fabricate spell) for years in 3.x, it was simply dropped.

All that silly would be far enough in the past by the time a hypothetical 6e rolled around that it could maybe take a more rational approach...
...more likely, though, it'll just pendulum-swing to an extreme, again. ;(

 

[Mephista]

As far as tools go, my problem is having both tool and skill proficiencies. What's wrong with just having skills?

Fair enough. They basically are the same thing anyways.

True 20 was good system, although I never got a chance to use it. Liked the "build your own" feel.

Never tried it, what's it about?

This is a thread about ideas and what-ifs. Sorry if it sounded like I was jumping down your throat.

I think one of the problems you will always have with any kind of game design is you can't please everyone. Personally, I find reducing damage annoying other people don't.

I actually do like DR armor. Creates a bit more of a dynamic between shrugging off hits versus dodging hits. There's plenty of games that go this route, even in modern day, so its not like its not current.

I doubt D&D will go that way, though.

 

[corwyn77]

Fair enough. They basically are the same thing anyways.

Never tried it, what's it about?

True 20 is an OGL fantasy rpg, based somewhat on Mutants & Masterminds, an OGL supers game.

It has 3 classes where you build your character similar to D20 multiclassing - all of your abilities are additive - but the classes are very broad.

Warrior - features any ability you would expect that is not associated with a spellcaster or rogue-like class.
Expert - Rogue, non-spell parts of bard, etc.
Adept - all spellcasting features
Each class has a core ability that you only get if you take that class at level 1. Otherwise, there are no fixed class features. You start with 4 feats and get 1 every level which need to be from a list for the class you are taking.

So if you wanted a 5e bard you would take a mix of levels in Expert and Adept. Eldritch Knight would mix Warrior and Adept. You can be as much of a dabbler as you want at the cost of your other class(es).

No hit points, uses a toughness save based on con vs. damage taken
No ability scores, just the modifiers, starting with a total of 6 at character creation with increases at higher levels.

Those are the big changes. The link takes you to GR's store for all the true 20 stuff. The core book is only $10 for the pdf, $5 for the original non-revised one.

https://greenroninstore.com/search?x=0&y=0&q=true+20

 

[Guest 6801328]

Interesting ones, yes, though that requires some pretty careful balancing. 3e & 5e have both tried to balance armor in three categories, and ended up with an obvious-best light armor, and obvious-best heavy armor, and decidedly 'meh' medium armor. It's tough, because armor doesn't really do a whole lot to make multiple different kinds each distinctive, meaningful, & viable.

Agreed.

Yet-another-thing-I-love-about The One Ring is that any character can choose any armor, right out of chargen, but there really are serious trade-offs. Almost nobody...maybe an occasional Dwarf...chooses the heaviest option, Mail Hauberk, because encumbrance in TOR is a really big deal.

As shocking and innovative as it would be for D&D to rush into 1978 like that, maybe.

I tend to consider precedents from pre-AD&D to be non-starters. It's not like "Elf" as a class has any chance of being resurrected.

 

[corwyn77]

Agreed.

Yet-another-thing-I-love-about The One Ring is that any character can choose any armor, right out of chargen, but there really are serious trade-offs. Almost nobody...maybe an occasional Dwarf...chooses the heaviest option, Mail Hauberk, because encumbrance in TOR is a really big deal.



I tend to consider precedents from pre-AD&D to be non-starters. It's not like "Elf" as a class has any chance of being resurrected.

Heh, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy has Professional (class-ish) templates for Elf and Dwarf - not in the core rules, but still...

Of course it's trying to be nostalgic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Heh. A fairytale Knight in Shining Armor would run around, crawl through dungeons, hack through briars, climb mountains, ride through flames, and swim oceans in full armor.

I assume this was meant a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do appreciate a little bit of "fairy tale" in my RPGs. (One reason I am full of anticipatory hope about the prediction that Feywild will be the next focus.)

I do value mechanics that, as I said, I like interesting trade-offs, so on the armor issue specifically I wish there were more factors at play. Not because I care about realism. Realism is mostly just the enemy of fun.

 

[Arilyn]

I assume this was meant a little bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do appreciate a little bit of "fairy tale" in my RPGs. (One reason I am full of anticipatory hope about the prediction that Feywild will be the next focus.)

I do value mechanics that, as I said, I like interesting trade-offs, so on the armor issue specifically I wish there were more factors at play. Not because I care about realism. Realism is mostly just the enemy of fun.

Yes. Narrative fun is better, but we are all such big geeks, we get into ridiculous discussions on the true historical rapier, and is chanmail an actual armour, and how much water should one need to drink in a day's adventuring?

And we will never learn.

 

[Alexemplar]

Yes. Narrative fun is better, but we are all such big geeks, we get into ridiculous discussions on the true historical rapier, and is chanmail an actual armour, and how much water should one need to drink in a day's adventuring?

And we will never learn.

That's usually what it comes down to.

Some people are trying to model a fantasy story or varied genres/styles, with appropriate characters, cliches and story beats.

Some people are trying to model reality as it would be assuming that suddenly D&D cosmology, spellcasting, monsters, and the like actually existed in our world's medieval history.

A lot of people are somewhere between the two because of passing familiarity with either of the above and the fact that fact that they often bleed over with one another.