Andrezitos
2017-10-19, 01:17 PM
Hi everyone!
I had recently played Banner Saga and found the HP/ATK/Shield mechanics quite neat. One of my pass time activities is to try to merge traditional game play mechanics with new ones based on assumptions like realism, passing, tactics, etc. So I decided to try to implement Banner Saga mechanics in the DnD framework to achieve the same feeling of daring and meaningful choices and consequences.
For those who had not played, this is a summary: you start the combat with two different pools. One is your HP and the other is your Shield. HP also counts as your attack damage; so a unity with 20 HP would have 20 of atk damage as well. Your shield works like a damage reduction tax for every incoming damage, so long the damage is not focused on the shield pool itself. When attacking, the unity would chose between the HP/ATK pool or the shield pool instead. The strategic implications are huge. For one you could focus the shield of a creature to increase the damage it takes when it get hurts, or goes straight to the creatures hp, lowering its threat by reducing its atk, as well as its likelihood of surviving the fight due the eminence of death. There is much more than that, but this is the basics.
One thing that I did not realize when I started considering this case is that Banner Sage uses not one, but two different mechanics to give the feeling of daring consequences. First it gives the players the chance of deciding upon what he would focus (survival, damage threat, defenses), regardless of the option used (spell, attack, etc). The second is that the game considered survival and damage threat as the same thing. And that is really cool IMO.
So, what I propose is that the player in DnD should be able to choose what he want to focus (HP, attack or armor rating) in the same fashion that players in that game can. I know DnD revolves around a much larger pool, like HP, than small ones like attack or AC, so, to account for that the GM could limit the damage taken to these two new variables to only the fixed part of the rolls ( Attributes modifiers, weapon enhancement, etc). This limitation would turn the progression of the damage more predictable and ordinary (no spikes with critical). To repair the damage taken the unity could use his HDs, potions and so on, in the same way as how HP is recovered. Specific actions, or bonus ones, could help alleviate the consequences too. Things like "Rise your guard, soldier"- an action that recovers the last damage taken in the creatures armor-, or "Aim straight, damn it" - an action that recovers the last damage taken to the creatures attack, could be used.
I hypothesize that these changes would turn the game in a much more tactical and strategic endeavor. No more simplistic, repetitive, routines I expect. Things like number of attacks taken, enemies faced on one turn, characters based on bashing the face of everything, etc. would have a hard time facing dangers using these rules.
What you guys about this? I would like to try this in game to see if it holds its ground against the D20 stochastic and the players always increasing power of disrupting rules. For that I plan to roll a game with four or three players, starting low and accelarating fast, here, through PbP, or in the Roll20 through its fantastic free virtual table. :smallbiggrin:
I had recently played Banner Saga and found the HP/ATK/Shield mechanics quite neat. One of my pass time activities is to try to merge traditional game play mechanics with new ones based on assumptions like realism, passing, tactics, etc. So I decided to try to implement Banner Saga mechanics in the DnD framework to achieve the same feeling of daring and meaningful choices and consequences.
For those who had not played, this is a summary: you start the combat with two different pools. One is your HP and the other is your Shield. HP also counts as your attack damage; so a unity with 20 HP would have 20 of atk damage as well. Your shield works like a damage reduction tax for every incoming damage, so long the damage is not focused on the shield pool itself. When attacking, the unity would chose between the HP/ATK pool or the shield pool instead. The strategic implications are huge. For one you could focus the shield of a creature to increase the damage it takes when it get hurts, or goes straight to the creatures hp, lowering its threat by reducing its atk, as well as its likelihood of surviving the fight due the eminence of death. There is much more than that, but this is the basics.
One thing that I did not realize when I started considering this case is that Banner Sage uses not one, but two different mechanics to give the feeling of daring consequences. First it gives the players the chance of deciding upon what he would focus (survival, damage threat, defenses), regardless of the option used (spell, attack, etc). The second is that the game considered survival and damage threat as the same thing. And that is really cool IMO.
So, what I propose is that the player in DnD should be able to choose what he want to focus (HP, attack or armor rating) in the same fashion that players in that game can. I know DnD revolves around a much larger pool, like HP, than small ones like attack or AC, so, to account for that the GM could limit the damage taken to these two new variables to only the fixed part of the rolls ( Attributes modifiers, weapon enhancement, etc). This limitation would turn the progression of the damage more predictable and ordinary (no spikes with critical). To repair the damage taken the unity could use his HDs, potions and so on, in the same way as how HP is recovered. Specific actions, or bonus ones, could help alleviate the consequences too. Things like "Rise your guard, soldier"- an action that recovers the last damage taken in the creatures armor-, or "Aim straight, damn it" - an action that recovers the last damage taken to the creatures attack, could be used.
I hypothesize that these changes would turn the game in a much more tactical and strategic endeavor. No more simplistic, repetitive, routines I expect. Things like number of attacks taken, enemies faced on one turn, characters based on bashing the face of everything, etc. would have a hard time facing dangers using these rules.
What you guys about this? I would like to try this in game to see if it holds its ground against the D20 stochastic and the players always increasing power of disrupting rules. For that I plan to roll a game with four or three players, starting low and accelarating fast, here, through PbP, or in the Roll20 through its fantastic free virtual table. :smallbiggrin: