Results 1 to 29 of 29
-
2017-03-20, 06:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
[Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
Right! So, continuing the saga from my previous post about 5e skill points, the DM wants to remove most of the kinds of armor and Mage Armor in order to create a more world war one-esque environment (because plate kind of ruins the illusion). Personally I favor reduced HP and increased AC but that's neither here nor there.
So, how should he go about these sweeping AC changes? In particular, Unarmored Defense. How will the game be effected by essentially the removal of armor?
(I mean, it obviously makes dexterity super powerful)
-
2017-03-20, 07:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
In a medieval setting, your primary concerns are being stabbed or slashed by a bloke with a metal rod of some sort. Contact, not impact is what deals the damage, and so medieval armour is quite good at keeping a relatively low-impact weapon (such as a sword) from ever contacting you.
But as high-impact weapons developed (namely firearms) these defenses totally failed. The solution was simply to strip armour away; why encumber yourself for nothing? During the World Wars, soldiers sometimes wore bits of plate or bits of leather, but never a full suit, lest they be slowed down.
In other words, reduced HP and increased AC is almost exactly backwards. Increased HP and reduced AC would be truer to reality while maintaining the balance of 5e. Unchanged HP and a focus on Dex-based AC (light and medium armours, Unarmored Defense, maybe Dex saves) would be most true. Increased importance of cover and first aid would also be very appropriate.Last edited by GalacticAxekick; 2017-03-20 at 08:01 AM.
-
2017-03-20, 09:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
Yeah, physics-wise you are correct. I was shooting (pun intended) for a system where hits are less common but more of a big deal.
Regardless, your system does in fact actually make more sense, so let's go with that.
From the DM, who REALLY NEEDS TO GET AN ACCOUNT (hint hint, I know you're lurking):
"ask him how he thinks HP and AC should be balanced especially with monsters and sharpshooter and ask about cover and first aid"
-
2017-03-20, 09:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
behold I am here. I had thought of having some sort of cover system but wasn't really sure how it ought to work. I am curious what your ideas are on that as well as balancing hp/ac and your idea for first aid
-
2017-03-20, 09:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
-
2017-03-20, 10:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2016
- Location
- Florida
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
Well, was the purpose of this change to make hits much more common due to a lack of armor, or was it to appropriately adjust WW1 content relative to medieval technology and capabilities?
If the latter, I did try this on my group. Firearms largely ignore the AC contributed from armor, but feats with other benefits like Heavy Armor Master's damage reduction still apply. Some weapons, particularly stationary MG's, would function as a cone attack instead of direct fire, queuing dexterity saves and the evasion feature on rogues and monks. I decided based on fluff to keep unarmored defense working.
As a result, high AC characters were only the ones with unarmored defense, with heavy armor being a tool for damage reduction. Alternatively, unarmored defense could also be ignored because the two classes that normally possess it (not looking at bladesinger right now) also have damage reduction methods (deflect missiles for monks--you know they want to catch bullets--and rage's resistance to physical damage for barbarians). Casters were dependent on vision-obstruction spells like greater invisibility or cloud spells (fog cloud, stinking cloud, and the entirely appropriate cloudkill) to avoid being targeted, or with other alternatives like Blur or Mirror Image.
Cover, both the lay of the land/height variations and objects like fallen trees or craters, are absolutely necessary to include in maps. Because to-hit bonuses increase even when AC can't, all characters need to find some form of situational AC or they'll be floored. I tried half cover giving +3 AC and 3/4 cover giving +5, which resulted in non-melee characters still being able to get to where they need to or find defensive positions to bring their AC close to 20 and the chance to be hit down to 20% or less, while melee characters with unarmored defense were able to get themselves to 10% or less chance to be hit while they close in.
Spell Sniper and Sharpshooter both came up. Due to the relatively short range of many of the high-damage spells with area effects, most casters will still opt to get in close enough to use these spells rather than their to-hit cantrips from long range; the exception of curse being Warlock with and Eldritch Blass build. Sharpshooter's damage buff for an accuracy penalty allows for consistent higher damage on any target caught (or forced by pushing/throwing/spells) out in the open. The ignoring of 1/2 and 3/4 cover I only found appropriate for snipers, because otherwise cover is rendered meaningless for enemies, or everyone if you give it to any enemy of CR4 or higher. As such, keep it for spell Sniper, remove it for Sharpshooter. The removal of long range disadvantage is already a big enough buff from sharpshooter when competing against or using higher-tech ranged weapons.
Health was kept the same, but the weapons had an increased dpr over sword-and-sorcery weapons; this was either due to higher caliber weapons dealing more damage dice (2d12 or equivalent on the high end) or number of attacks per round (the number that's appropriate entirely depends on what you include and how deadly you want the average encounter to be). The number of weapons that outrange the longbow also have a factor to consider. Healer becomes one of the better feats in such an environment if nobody is a dedicated ranged healer, as simply getting players conscious again is more important than keeping them at high health, and a healer's kit is much cheaper than a health potion with a marginally better effect.
The end result:
Unless a character had unarmored defense, or was an exceptionally mobile druid in wild shape, they would be discouraged from any melee. Monks, Barbarians, and Heavy Armor Fighters served as the tanks soaking up damage and trying to get close enough to disorganize enemies. Dex fighters, Rangers, and Rogues took advantage of their higher number of attacks/targets/sneak attack to take advantage of higher powered ranged weapons, or their current one. Casters swapped between battlefield manipulation or blasting with AoE spells like fireball (make sure you check descriptions of the effected areas, if they turn around corners, things like that). Melee gets the short end of the stick in such a scenario, unless there is an exceptional amount of cover or a very short range; even then, cover-hopping is not very fun if it is your only option for several turns before being in range--casters were highly encouraged to give buffs like Haste and Freedom of Movement to these characters.
And if I totally missed the mark on what you were asking/going for, my bad.
-
2017-03-20, 11:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
Spoiler: Regarding Cover5e already has a good cover system.
- A creature with about half of its body obscured has 1/2 cover, and gains +2 to AC and Dex saves. This tends to come up when a creature is behind another, when a creature is behind low furniture, or when a creature is behind a simple fortification (like a fence or sandbags).
- A creature with more than half of its body obscured has 3/4 cover, and gains +5 to AC and Dex saves. This tends to come up when a creature is in a crowd, when a creature is behind high furniture, or when a creature is behind robust fortifications (like an arrowslit)
- A creature with its entire body obscured has total cover, and so they cannot be targeted at all.
Cover is sometimes mutual: two creatures on opposite ends of a fence both have 1/2 cover. But typically a creature adjacent to a cover source can easily aim around it. A creature behind sandbags can easily shoot over the sandbags, and a creature behind an arrowslit can fire through the slit, even if distant enemies will struggle to return fire. This makes cover a very powerful tool in ranged combat, and because 5e firearms are so much stronger than other weapons, this makes providing cover a great way to balance them out. Both sides hit hard, but both sides struggle to hit, so normal HP and AC should be fine.
Be sure to provide unique forms of cover, though, and goals besides "win the firefight". Toppled tables, trees, burrows, grappled enemies and vehicles can all be cover. Options like these give the players freedom to move around and reward their creativity.
Spoiler: Regarding First Aid5e's first aid system is relatively limited, but passable!
- When a creature is reduce to 0 hit points and begins making death saving throws, you may use your action to make a DC 10 Wisdom (Medicine) check to apply first aid. If you succeed, they are stabilized, meaning they are no longer at risk of death, however they remain at 0 hit points.
- If you possess a healer's kit, which has 10 uses, you may expend one use to stabilize a creature without making this check
- If you have the Healer feat, using a healer's kit in this way also grants the creature 1 hit point, meaning they regain consciousness and the ability to adventure.
- If you have the Healer feat, you can spend one use to heal 1d6 + 4 hit points, plus hit points equal to their level/hit dice. The creature cannot be healed in this way again until they finish a short or long rest
If you want, you could give everyone the Healer feat and a healer's kit for free, or you could designate a medic in the party to receive these things.
-
2017-03-20, 11:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
I'd be inclined not to use D&D for this at all, but if it's what's going to be used it might be worth bringing back more detailed range penalties and putting more detail into cover, to effectively get the AC back through other means, while also making cases where you get caught out in the open that much nastier. If you're aiming for more of a pulp feel then just getting AC from proficiency for some classes could work.
I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2017-03-20, 01:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
-
2017-03-20, 01:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
- Location
- Omaha, NE
- Gender
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
The Wheel of Time RPG that was based off of the D20 system had an interesting way to handle AC. Basically, there were different trees of AC growth that applied as you leveled up. You could choose to wear armor, in which case you would take the AC of the armor you were wearing, or your Class AC, whichever was higher; or, you could forego armor altogether and just go with your Class AC. It was basically a way to give a ruling for a character's growing ability to parry and dodge out of the way of blows with more and more combat experience. You should look into it and consider it as an option.
-
2017-03-20, 01:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
-
2017-03-20, 02:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
we currently have rifles as loading but made a feat that is basically a copy of crossbow expert but for rifles (campaign hasnt started so this remains speculation for now) but that makes melee even less effective because there is no reason but lack of ammo not to shoot someone at short range. should I remove the no opportunity attacks part or buff melee along the lines of if you didnt make a range attack last round and arent surprised you get a bonus to ac vs melee (so if you are close in and you keep shooting you are more vulnerable to melee attacks than if you switch to melee) or something else?
-
2017-03-20, 03:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
-
2017-03-20, 06:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
[QUOTE=Cap'm Bubbles;21828819 Firearms largely ignore the AC contributed from armor, b[/QUOTE]
what do you mean largely?
-
2017-03-20, 07:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
Can you guys please explain to him that CENTAURS CANNOT AIM SIDE-MOUNTED MACHINE-GUNS?!
-
2017-03-21, 09:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
Last edited by underwhelming; 2017-03-21 at 09:39 AM.
-
2017-03-21, 09:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
-
2017-03-21, 10:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
-
2017-03-21, 10:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
-
2017-03-21, 11:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
-
2017-03-21, 11:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
I meant the stats of the weapons themselves: damage type, damage dice, properties.
-
2017-03-21, 11:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2016
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
yeah, I got that, I was explaining my position.
There's a bit of debate right now as to what the stats should be. At the moment, Antitank rifles are designed to ignore resistances and sometimes immunities (to let infantry take down golems and such). Machine-guns I believe get the option of a normal attack or a cone or line attack. Machine-guns do the same damage as rifles, antitank rifles do slightly more but they only ever attack once a round so slightly worse with extra attack.
-
2017-03-21, 01:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
So I checked the DMG. Siege weapons (such as ballistas, cannons and rams) use have their own bonuses to attack and damage rolls, and ignore the user's stats. They require several actions to load, aim and fire because they're designed for use against fortifications, not moving enemies. Finally, they have their own hit points, AC and size categories. You could design massive modern weapons along these guidelines.
Not even siege weapons can overcome resistances and immunities, and neither should antitank rifles. Instead, consider the rules for damage threshold:
"Big objects such as castle walls often have extra resilience represented by a damage threshold. An object with a damage threshold has immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single Attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes damage as normal. Any damage that fails to meet or exceed the object’s damage threshold is considered superficial and doesn’t reduce the object’s hit points."
Using these rules, you can design anti-tank weapons that simply deal high damage (as they should) and that tear through tanks by virtue of this damage rather than a special property.
Machine-guns I believe get the option of a normal attack or a cone or line attack. Machine-guns do the same damage as rifles, antitank rifles do slightly more but they only ever attack once a round so slightly worse with extra attack.
This way, anti-tank rifles don't start out powerful and drop off later. They scale with everything else.
-
2017-03-21, 05:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
well the idea behind ignoring immunities for anti tank rifles was to let them pierce iron golems >.>
machine guns were going to get a short range cone attack and beyond that a cube attack centering on one point both with dex saves (possibly a larger area but a set number of targets) and probably doing somewhere in the vicinity of 2d12 (same as rifles at least as they are atm) as well as the option to make some number of attacks against a single target
-
2017-03-21, 08:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Gender
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
There's a mechanic in Star Wars RPG that lets you use a ship's weapon to fire at a person, but the shot gets a large penalty to accuracy. On a hit, it deals massive damage. It's based on size of the weapon versus size of the target, the idea being a Death Star will have a very hard time pin pointing a specific person, but if it does it them, it can vaporize them instantly. Maybe you can take inspiration from it, re: design of siege weapons.
Allowing siege weapons to ignore immunities means it's also a weapon against Liches, Rakshasas, and other powerful creatures. If you wanted to have it specifically be anti-golem, perhaps keep your current mechanic, but say it ignores immunities of constructs only?Last edited by LeonBH; 2017-03-21 at 09:00 PM.
-
2017-03-22, 04:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
-
2017-03-22, 05:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2014
Re: [Help] AC Changes for a higher-tech campaign
So if your weapons are dealing 2d12 and everyone's AC is set to 10+dex are you skipping the first couple levels? I haven't tried it but this feels like the recipe for a guaranteed tpk in the first session basically every time. When individual enemies have a reasonably high chance to render a 1st level character sheet dead in the first round of combat I feel like you've ratcheted the lethality so high that there's relatively little the players can do.
Is there something I'm missing here?Last edited by Flashy; 2017-03-22 at 05:15 PM.
-
2017-03-22, 05:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
-
2017-03-22, 05:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2014