D&D General Vote Up a 5e-alike: Some quick thoughts on combat and armor...

[Faolyn]

So I know that @Lanefan was saying that he meant roll-under only for skills and combat would be roll-over. I don't know what other people were thinking on it, but honestly, I hate the idea that some rolls are roll-under and some are roll-over. Way too confusing. While working on the Fighter, I was having some thoughts on this.

Attack Roll: Roll under BASE ATTACK (not stat, sorry) + PB + Str/Dex mod + other bonuses. Roll of 1 is always a hit and crit success; roll of 20 is always a miss.

The target would also have a Dodge equal to Dex mod, although some things might alter that--armor might reduce it, feats might increase it, etc. Thus, instead of saying "I rolled a 15, did I hit?" the player would say "I made it by 4, did I hit?" And the GM would look at the target's statblock and see that it has a Dodge of 3, so the PC hit.[1]

Armor counts as damage reduction. It doesn't make it harder to hit the target.

Maybe shields add to Dodge instead of DR.

Apparently in real life, from what I can tell with relatively minimal research, plate armor was pretty much impervious to a sword blow. We'll assume a d8 sword, so plate armor could give DR 8 (as opposed to its current AC 18). Or we could shrink the DR a bit, since we want combat to be deadlier: Light armor, DR 1. Medium armor, DR 3. Heavy armor, DR 6.

But to keep things from being annoying, any bonus to damage--from Strength, a maneuver, a magic weapon, weapon specialization, sneak attack--that bonus applies after DR is subtracted, so that you can still do some damage when you hit (one thing I hated about GURPS was that I could hit really well and still do no damage because of DR). Armor blocks the bulk of the weapon, but your skill with your weapon and any enchantment it has still allows you to harm your foe.

And if we really wanted to get complicated, then we can bring back armor being more or less effective against different types of weapons. (As Terry Pratchett put it, "chain-mail from the point of view of an arrow can be thought of as a series of loosely connected holes."

===

[1] Also, by saying "I made it by 4, did I hit," this opens up the idea for degrees of success. Maybe you do more damage if you succeed by 10. Maybe you do minimal damage if roll exactly your Strength + PB + bonuses.

===

Thoughts?

 

[Vexorg]

About 20 years or so ago, I started working on my own RPG system. The way combat attacking worked (translated to 5e speak) is that an attack had to defeat the target's defense score, which is 5 + Dodge Score + Block Score. Dodge score was affected by Dexterity and class abilites (think monk or rogue getting baked in bonuses). However, dodge was lowered by armor weight. Block score was based on skill and weapon or shield choice. Its easier to block an attack wielding a sword than an axe. Armor reduced damage, and if an attack hit well and did damage above a threshold, you also gained a wound. Hp healed fast, wounds gave penalties to rolls and were harder to heal.

 

[Tonguez]

so what are we actually proposing for attacks
eg I'm a Level 6 Fighter Str +2 so
Stat + PB + Str/Dex mod = 2+ 3 + 2 = 7 v AC 14 - what do I need to roll?

 

[Tonguez]

anyway personally I'd love for Attacks to be treated as normal Weapon Groups SKILLS using the same opposed skill roll as any other Skill (I'd also love for Spells to be treated as a Weapon Group skill too)

Armor does DR
but small piercing blades overcome DR for Plate

I'd also look at a system where critical hits make called shots to Dex (mobility), Con (Health), Str (wounds), Wis (perception), Int (stun) and Cha (morale)

 

[Faolyn]

so what are we actually proposing for attacks
eg I'm a Level 6 Fighter Str +2 so
Stat + PB + Str/Dex mod = 2+ 3 + 2 = 7 v AC 14 - what do I need to roll?

No AC. And looking at it now, I realized I made a big mistake when I wrote it. It should be a base attack (which I haven't figured out yet), not your stat.

So let's say you're level 1 (PB +2), have a base attack of 10 (just spitballing the numbers here), and have a Strength of 15 (+2). So you would need to roll under a (10 + 2 +2) 14 to hit. The AC doesn't come into it except as DR.

Because people wanted different classes to have different attack abilities, so a fighter's base attack could be higher than a wizard's. In case of multiclass, you use whichever one is higher.

 

[Faolyn]

About 20 years or so ago, I started working on my own RPG system. The way combat attacking worked (translated to 5e speak) is that an attack had to defeat the target's defense score, which is 5 + Dodge Score + Block Score. Dodge score was affected by Dexterity and class abilites (think monk or rogue getting baked in bonuses). However, dodge was lowered by armor weight. Block score was based on skill and weapon or shield choice. Its easier to block an attack wielding a sword than an axe. Armor reduced damage, and if an attack hit well and did damage above a threshold, you also gained a wound. Hp healed fast, wounds gave penalties to rolls and were harder to heal.

I like and may adapt some of that. It's a bit like the GURPS system, but it doesn't seem to require as many rolls.

 

[CreamCloud0]

should've commented on this earlier, personally i like how AC works as it does in 5e and don't see a huge benefit in changing to a new method for to hit, it's straightforward to understand and works quite well enough.

damage reduction for armour is an interesting mechanic though, heavier armours letting you soak more damage and giving them a distinct use while lighter armours have less DR but better evasion chances

i also think it could be interesting if magical resistance was a separate factor on armour though i think that has potential to become complicated with separate AC calcs for magic and nonmagic attacks

 

[Faolyn]

should've commented on this earlier, personally i like how AC works as it does in 5e and don't see a huge benefit in changing to a new method for to hit, it's straightforward to understand and works quite well enough.

I was thinking of it primarily because the majority voted for a roll-under system, and I'd rather not have both roll-above for combat and roll-under for everything else.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I was thinking of it primarily because the majority voted for a roll-under system, and I'd rather not have both roll-above for combat and roll-under for everything else.

maybe a more coherent way to keep the old system but with roll-under could be rather than having the attacker make a attack roll against a static defence have the defender make a defense roll against static attack values, basically reversing the position of who's rolling, this might also introduce an interesting more realistic facet for weapons that certain weapons could have better base attack modifiers representing how certain weapons like knives are easier to connect with.

 

[Faolyn]

maybe a more coherent way to keep the old system but with roll-under could be rather than having the attacker make a attack roll against a static defence have the defender make a defense roll against static attack values, basically reversing the position of who's rolling, this might also introduce an interesting more realistic facet for weapons that certain weapons could have better base attack modifiers representing how certain weapons like knives are easier to connect with.

Hmm, I'm not 100% sure I follow. First, who would have the static attack value? Is this a thing where everyone has an AV, and you roll against it to defend, but not to attack? I'm cool with that idea, although I'm not sure about the knife example. Or am I completely misunderstanding you (which is quite likely).