Would a 5e-based ruleset for gaming in the modern era work? Why or why not?
What if it ditched classes for partial point buy (select new abilities every level)?
Does the benefit of using a ruleset that lots of players are likely to be familiar with outweigh whatever awkwardness would arise from the adaptation of a medieval vagabond simulator to a gunfights and white-collar jobs simulator?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871985Would a 5e-based ruleset for gaming in the modern era work? Why or why not?
It would work about as well as the D20 version didn't.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871985What if it ditched classes for partial point buy (select new abilities every level)?
It stops being D&D.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871985Does the benefit of using a ruleset that lots of players are likely to be familiar with outweigh whatever awkwardness would arise from the adaptation of a medieval vagabond simulator to a gunfights and white-collar jobs simulator?
What does the track record of D20 Modern tell you?
It would need a completely revamped 'skill' system, to start off.
It's not going to work if you want a skill-centric game, and you need to still have classes or it's not D&D.
There is one good model of class-based modern/sf play I know of - Cyberpunk 2020, with its Solo, Nomad, Cop, Fixer etc. I definitely think the 5e Fighter and Rogue at least would be adaptable to a CP:2020 playstyle.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871985Would a 5e-based ruleset for gaming in the modern era work? Why or why not?
It will work about as well as D20 Modern did. (note the different phrasing from CB)
QuoteWhat if it ditched classes for partial point buy (select new abilities every level)?
No, not D&D then. If you're going to make that kind of change, then use a system that can actually do a good job with a skill based system.
QuoteDoes the benefit of using a ruleset that lots of players are likely to be familiar with outweigh whatever awkwardness would arise from the adaptation of a medieval vagabond simulator to a gunfights and white-collar jobs simulator?
Not to me, but then I use Gurps/BRP/EABA for most things that a 5th ed Modern would be used for. However, there are a pretty fair number of folks I know and see that use D20 Modern and might just very well use 5th ed Modern. I tend to think that it would work for people who use 5th ed.
I thought d20 modern was interesting. But it was also very flawed. D20m Gamma World just magnified those flaws.
If I were doing a modern setting using the D&D rules then I'd start with 5e Urban Arcana and not bog the game down with skills skills skills for every damn thing.
Use 5es broad proficiencies adapted to a modern setting.
Id avoid "point buy" classes in 5e. They tend to fall apart unless REALLY well thought out. Something like BX or 2e which had point buy systems for them could be a better fit. And even so it can get really messy really fast.
You might be better off taking 1st or 2nd ed Shadowrun and just shaving off all the fantasy and cyberpunk aspects.
Bad.
The whole D20/OGL thing has been done before, already and there are plenty of other generic systems out there. Can't we just let D&D be it's own game?
Alternative settings, yes! Modern references, akin to Ebberon to 20th Century Pulp, yes! Homebrew world creation, yes! Generic fantasy, yes!
A full generic, universal, all purpose system? No.
If they were going to create a d20 Modern: Revised Edition, I would just take Star Wars Saga and fix the flaws. It would work fine.
If WotC uses 5e for anything beyond D&D, I am hoping for a Star Frontiers revival. Drasalites 4 teh win!
Quote from: SionEwig;871998It will work about as well as D20 Modern did. (note the different phrasing from CB)
Given how badly it bombed and was promptly abandoned, I'd say both our statements are valid.
I just like to think mine's a little more obvious about it. :p
Quote from: Christopher Brady;872032Given how badly it bombed and was promptly abandoned, I'd say both our statements are valid.
I just like to think mine's a little more obvious about it. :p
Exactly!
Quote from: Spinachcat;872021If WotC uses 5e for anything beyond D&D, I am hoping for a Star Frontiers revival. Drasalites 4 teh win!
I'd be up for that.
Quote from: Christopher BradyIt stops being D&D.
I'd argue things like the ability score array, proficiency bonus, advantage/disadvantage, the various dice and what they are applied to, and other such elements would still make it very approachable to those familiar with 5e.
Someone already did a very professional science fiction conversion for 5E. You can download it here: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/b92nwlwcu98wm/Fifth_Age
I'm toying with the idea of converting my Stars without Number campaign
Notice something about the assumptions of D&D itself about the pseudo-medieval fantastic setting: everyday functionaries are not given their own classes because they are not the core conceit premise of play.
Milkmaids, chancellors, and tanners — essentially professions — are not given their own classes. Literary heroic archetypes are. If you are to bring 5e into our modern world, and what a diverse world it is, what sort of assumed premises do you want to narrow the scope of play?
When you can answer that question, "what slice of the modern world do I see as popular playable fun?", then you can establish the setting that births the needs of the system. If you can see a slice of modernity as close to a playable spread of literary heroic archetypes (and prepared to endure all the baggage that may entail), then more power to you.
Naturally, since "the fish may not have the distance to recognize the ocean its in, but intimately knows its own reef," you're facing an uphill battle in pitching this to others. People will not easily distance themselves to see their reality as a larger fabric with apparent broad patterns. They will focus instead on the detailed nuances of difference and in the end lose the suspension of belief. Archetypes speak to a generalization of individuals, whereas now we often live our individuality as glorified, irreducible monoliths. People generally don't 'disassemble self' well.
It's why even now most Modern games are in some way fantastic, or at least slices of the unusual (or heroic).
Bad idea.
There are already a plethora of games that do modern well, considerably better than any d20 offering perhaps without honorable mention of CoCd20 or Monte Cook's World of Darkness.
BRP, GURPS, Unisystem, Chill, Delta Green, One Roll Engine like Nemesis...
These vary from simple to complex and all do modern well IMHO.
D&D should stick to D&D. The new focus is spot on and should afford them much success in the future.
Quote from: S'mon;871992It's not going to work if you want a skill-centric game, and you need to still have classes or it's not D&D.
There is one good model of class-based modern/sf play I know of - Cyberpunk 2020, with its Solo, Nomad, Cop, Fixer etc. I definitely think the 5e Fighter and Rogue at least would be adaptable to a CP:2020 playstyle.
well neo tokyo works quite well at it to but its never had an English release so most ppl dont know about it
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871985Would a 5e-based ruleset for gaming in the modern era work? Why or why not?
What if it ditched classes for partial point buy (select new abilities every level)?
Does the benefit of using a ruleset that lots of players are likely to be familiar with outweigh whatever awkwardness would arise from the adaptation of a medieval vagabond simulator to a gunfights and white-collar jobs simulator?
I don't want a 5e-inspired modern game. I very much want a 5e DnD modern supplement.
DnD modern should use the standard PHB classes. All it needs is fleshing out some new tool proficiencies, backgrounds, and equipment.
I have no desire to play Papers and Paychecks. Modern DnD is still for action adventure. DnD combat worksjust as well for gunfire as it does for mwdieval combat, no probelms there.
I'd rather see more modern and sci-fi stuff in D&D (for certain campaigns, etc.) than see a modified set of rules for a modern/sci-fi campaign.
I wouldn't mind a 5e version of D20 Modern, or a 5e anime supplement in the vein of BESM D20.
Quote from: RPGPundit;872633I'd rather see more modern and sci-fi stuff in D&D (for certain campaigns, etc.) than see a modified set of rules for a modern/sci-fi campaign.
Same here. I'd like to see the Unearthed Arcana article on WOTC about Urban Arcana for 5e fleshed out more.
I think the OSR has proven to be useful for this kind of stuff, rather than 5e.
Rise old thread!! I have new things to say!
I just picked up Amethyst Quintessence, and I have changed my mind. Mostly. I think DD5e would work fine except I wouldn't want to see the "generic" classes. Instead, I would rather see a setting tuned to 5e with setting appropriate classes.
A little work ahead of time would make the game more fun to play and characters easier to make.
Quote from: trechriron;899059I just picked up Amethyst Quintessence, and I have changed my mind.
What did they do 'right'? Where the problems discussed in this thread addressed or did they sidestep the issues?
Quote from: trechriron;899059Rise old thread!! I have new things to say!
I just picked up Amethyst Quintessence, and I have changed my mind. Mostly. I think DD5e would work fine except I wouldn't want to see the "generic" classes. Instead, I would rather see a setting tuned to 5e with setting appropriate classes.
Honestly, I don't think the biggest problem with 5e for modern would be classes. It would be the damage/healing system. It seems bad for fantasy, worse for modern.
Classes, you could do it right or you could do it wrong. To me, a well designed class based system is designed around the challenges you expect the players to face. That was the central problem with d20 modern. The classes were flexible, but they really didn't get an advantage out of being structured like classes.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871985Would a 5e-based ruleset for gaming in the modern era work? Why or why not?
Not only no, but fuck no. The d20 system has yet to successfully tackle the way that modern firearms cause damage that does not destroy the concept of hit points.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871985What if it ditched classes for partial point buy (select new abilities every level)?
Still does not fix the combat problem.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871985Does the benefit of using a ruleset that lots of players are likely to be familiar with outweigh whatever awkwardness would arise from the adaptation of a medieval vagabond simulator to a gunfights and white-collar jobs simulator?
Nope. I think that T20 Traveller came the closest, but the combat system was confusing to read even if it did work fairly well in practice.
What about using the Urban Arcanna 5e rules off the WOTC site as a starting point? Again shave off the fantasy.
I've found that a lot of people who are against D&D Modern have this argument that guns can't be portrayed accurately. Usually, the fact that guns kill 'instantly' comes up. But the problem is, like a knife, the gun being the ultimate killer is actually a Hollywood myth. A gun kills just as well, and as fast as a bow, sling and crossbow, in real life. So if a Bow/Crossbow does 1d6, then so should a pistol. Unfortunately, Hollywood has ingrained this belief that the Gun is the ultimate weapon, and it's hard to let that myth go.
Which is odd, because we make fun of the old Katana myth now.
Quote from: trechriron;899059I just picked up Amethyst Quintessence, and I have changed my mind. Mostly. I think DD5e would work fine except I wouldn't want to see the "generic" classes. Instead, I would rather see a setting tuned to 5e with setting appropriate classes.
A little work ahead of time would make the game more fun to play and charact...
I picked it up while I am waiting for Ultramodern5. I've always loved Modern and even had my own hack of AD&D before 3e game out. I think the 5e rules handle it quite well.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;899126I've found that a lot of people who are against D&D Modern have this argument that guns can't be portrayed accurately. Usually, the fact that guns kill 'instantly' comes up. But the problem is, like a knife, the gun being the ultimate killer is actually a Hollywood myth. A gun kills just as well, and as fast as a bow, sling and crossbow, in real life. So if a Bow/Crossbow does 1d6, then so should a pistol. Unfortunately, Hollywood has ingrained this belief that the Gun is the ultimate weapon, and it's hard to let that myth go.
Which is odd, because we make fun of the old Katana myth now.
The Dragon 100 module City Beyond the Gate is still one of my favorites as it has all those rules for modern equipment, and the trouble of a fantasy character figuring out most of it. Pistols were 1d8/1d6. Rifle was 2d6/2d5, SMG was 2d4/2d4 and so on. Getting hit by a car was 1d4/10 mph speed.
Quote from: Omega;899132The Dragon 100 module City Beyond the Gate is still one of my favorites as it has all those rules for modern equipment, and the trouble of a fantasy character figuring out most of it. Pistols were 1d8/1d6. Rifle was 2d6/2d5, SMG was 2d4/2d4 and so on. Getting hit by a car was 1d4/10 mph speed.
It's a little high, for D&D. Then again, I used to be one of those kids who used to think that guns were too powerful for D&D, so what the fuck do I know?
I like how 5e handles firearms. It's kind of nice, considering I grew up with AD&D and the DM's guide had firearms in there as well. Though the thing I like about how 5e handles it, is there is no rate of fire for guns the way there was in previous editions. Okay, yes there is a multifire rule for automatic weapons, but for the most part you don't have characters squeezing the trigger two or three times per action. Mechanically, firearms as defined in the DMG have no real advantage over bows and crossbows. I like that. It's simple and easy to use, and doesn't contradict stuff from previous editions too much. If I want ballistic porn I'll go play Phoenix Command. :D
Quote from: Christopher Brady;899139It's a little high, for D&D. Then again, I used to be one of those kids who used to think that guns were too powerful for D&D, so what the fuck do I know?
It was meant for PCs level 9+, or with a little tweaking, level 5+. NPCs could be low level class equivalents, like a martial artist being a monk sans special powers, or a street gag being equivalent to fighters. Levels ranged from 1-5 for NPCs.
Though another favorite is Boot Hill. Even though my first character had an absurd amount of Strength (the equivalent to HP) with a total of 84. and could take 12 serious wounds before dropping. They could still be killed flat out by a lucky vitals hit. One of the few games where such a chance worked.
Quote from: Krimson;899131I picked it up while I am waiting for Ultramodern5. I've always loved Modern and even had my own hack of AD&D before 3e game out. I think the 5e rules handle it quite well.
I can't find any news on it, but I am seriously intrigued. Their forum software is seriously glitching right now or I would check them out.
Quote from: Roderick;872089Someone already did a very professional science fiction conversion for 5E. You can download it here: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/b92nwlwcu98wm/Fifth_Age
I'm toying with the idea of converting my Stars without Number campaign
Thanks for posting about this, I didn't even know this was a "Thing".
Quote from: trechriron;899187I can't find any news on it, but I am seriously intrigued. Their forum software is seriously glitching right now or I would check them out.
Ultramodern5 is the next book they are working on, as many of the mechanics are those in Amethyst Quintessence. I think I heard them say that it was likely due around Gencon.
Quote from: jeff37923;899106Not only no, but fuck no. The d20 system has yet to successfully tackle the way that modern firearms cause damage that does not destroy the concept of hit points.
That makes no sense. It doesn't handle the way that swords or arrows cause damage at all. It's all abstracted to the extreme. Why would modern firearms be any different? Are they supposed to be handled "realistically" for some reason you didn't state?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;899126I've found that a lot of people who are against D&D Modern have this argument that guns can't be portrayed accurately. Usually, the fact that guns kill 'instantly' comes up. But the problem is, like a knife, the gun being the ultimate killer is actually a Hollywood myth. A gun kills just as well, and as fast as a bow, sling and crossbow, in real life. So if a Bow/Crossbow does 1d6, then so should a pistol. Unfortunately, Hollywood has ingrained this belief that the Gun is the ultimate weapon, and it's hard to let that myth go.
Which is odd, because we make fun of the old Katana myth now.
well yes and no if you are talking the time it takes for some one to bleed out then yes any thing else not so much.
for example we have historical accounts of men in chainmail getting riddled with arrows during the crusades and they where unharmed.
but as soon as the first fire arms came in that same armor became worth less . witch is what lead to the change and eventual abandonment of armor all together
its also worth pointing out that a bow or a crossbow are weapons of physical strength where as guns are not.
that is a big advantage that dnd and most rpgs in general are pretty bad at showing with a bow to pull it back you need to produce enough force to pull it back and hold it as you aim .
where as a flint lock pistol can be loaded and fired by a ten year old and is just a capable of killing a man and we arnt even talking about the vast difference in range yet.
Quote from: kosmos1214;900077well yes and no if you are talking the time it takes for some one to bleed out then yes any thing else not so much.
for example we have historical accounts of men in chainmail getting riddled with arrows during the crusades and they where unharmed.
but as soon as the first fire arms came in that same armor became worth less . witch is what lead to the change and eventual abandonment of armor all together
its also worth pointing out that a bow or a crossbow are weapons of physical strength where as guns are not.
that is a big advantage that dnd and most rpgs in general are pretty bad at showing with a bow to pull it back you need to produce enough force to pull it back and hold it as you aim .
where as a flint lock pistol can be loaded and fired by a ten year old and is just a capable of killing a man and we arnt even talking about the vast difference in range yet.
Actually, it's been discovered that full plate armour was very good against single round shots and not so hot against shotgun style weapons.
The real issue though, you nailed it. To be a master warrior like a Knight you needed years, of not decades, of training. The rifle, five minutes, and four of them is teaching how to reload the weapon, and you can pump out riflemen by the hundreds in days.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;900079Actually, it's been discovered that full plate Armour was very good against single round shots and not so hot against shotgun style weapons
The real issue though, you nailed it. To be a master warrior like a Knight you needed years, of not decades, of training. The rifle, five minutes, and four of them is teaching how to reload the weapon, and you can pump out riflemen by the hundreds in days.
can i get a link to this my under standing was that the introduction of the match lock caused it to be dumped as full plate so they could make the breast plate thicker ie no bracers on leggings ect
Quote from: kosmos1214;900082can i get a link to this my under standing was that the introduction of the match lock caused it to be dumped as full plate so they could make the breast plate thicker ie no bracers on leggings ect
The handgonne, the first rifle, was created in the 15th century (The 1400s.) Plate harness was phased out of service during the 17th (1600s), the average musket ball wasn't quite as powerful as modern handguns are. There's an American History Channel on weapons, and unfortunately, tend to get flagged on Youtube, so I can't link it, but the armour was proof enough until the 1600s.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;900091The handgonne, the first rifle, was created in the 15th century (The 1400s.) Plate harness was phased out of service during the 17th (1600s), the average musket ball wasn't quite as powerful as modern handguns are. There's an American History Channel on weapons, and unfortunately, tend to get flagged on Youtube, so I can't link it, but the armour was proof enough until the 1600s.
yes i know of the handgonne my under standing was the lack of range was the reason it didnt push armor out and if i remember right the handgonne wasn't rifled that would technically make it a musket
also you dont need to explain differences in power of fire arms i do shoot new and historical arms
Quote from: kosmos1214;900096yes i know of the handgonne my under standing was the lack of range was the reason it didnt push armor out and if i remember right the handgonne wasn't rifled that would technically make it a musket
also you dont need to explain differences in power of fire arms i do shoot new and historical arms
Fair enough. Didn't know that.
I found a reenactment where the first round penetrates the armour, but the second just dents it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdXy0IfsWsE
They also claim that the breastplate is substandard, for some reason. IF that is the case, then it stands to reason that it could have held up better at that range. Also, Rifling was created (apparently) 1520, and was refined in the mid-1600s.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;900108Fair enough. Didn't know that.
I found a reenactment where the first round penetrates the armour, but the second just dents it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdXy0IfsWsE
They also claim that the breastplate is substandard, for some reason. IF that is the case, then it stands to reason that it could have held up better at that range. Also, Rifling was created (apparently) 1520, and was refined in the mid-1600s.
ok let me start of by saying sorry for the long reply i haven't been on a computer where i could watch YouTube videos
now i cant speak Russian (youtube thought it was Russian) / what ever it was so i had to watch it with auto translate.
now to be honest its an interesting video or ill say it would be but from what i can tell they dont seem to give most of the useful information.
what caliber is that gonne? what load is it using? what kind of steel is that plate made from? what era is that style from? how thick is it ect
with out this information its fun to watch but it dosnt really tell us any thing we have made huge advances in steel in the last century let alone the last 6 century's and a lot of reproductions are made from a modern steel.
not a steel that representative of the time meany of them are also thicker and heavier then any thing some one can actually where.
with out this information is about as informative as finding out a brick wall can stop a rock thrown by hand
for example there seemed to be little smoke witch is very different then what you get out of black power witch brings it to question if there where using paradox witch is not the same as black powder it needs a higher ignition temperature and has different burn characteristics
also while the 2nd shot dident pierce the armor you need to remember that you dont need to pierce it to kill some one there are people who are shot where bullet proof vests where the vest stops the bullet and the die form the impact and concussion