Concentration for Martials

[diplomancer]

This thought just occurred to me talking to Segev in the Hex thread: since all builds are encouraged to use their "Concentration slot" on something, this is an unused design space for martials. What do you guys think? Would it be a good idea to give Martials class features that use the Concentration slot (maybe at the subclass level, so those subclasses that get spells don't get sad)? And what good features could there be that would fit the martial fantasy, the themes of each class, but could also be considered something that would require "concentrating"?

[Psyren]

The main suggestion I've seen is that they can trade in their concentration for a bonus attunement slot. Whether this attunement can be lost by breaking your concentration would be up to the DM, but for ease of play I would recommend not.

[Darth Credence]

If I were to have concentration effects for martials, I would probably go with them concentrating to get some bonuses in combat from how they are fighting. I have given this absolutely 0 thought before now, but what if martials could use concentration to switch up their fighting style? Base fighting style is free because that's what they do normally, but if they focus on their style they can switch that to something else that may be useful in the situation?

Or perhaps concentrating on defense or offense specifically - when concentrating, you could either take a +2AC/-5 to hit or the reverse (numbers pulled from the nether), representing that you are focusing your efforts on one or the other.

Maybe an archer could concentrate on a target, and as long as they focus on that target they get advantage on attacks. Maybe you have to make a hit first to focus so it matters when concentration is broken.

I could see a monk concentrating into a state that lets them dodge pretty much everything. Concentrate and give up attacking and you get a +10 to AC or something.

Or a different path - maybe you can concentrate on detecting hidden enemies, keeping all of your senses tuned to doing so, and you prevent anyone from hiding from you, or maybe just get a +5 to perception (including passive).

Or concentrating on specific saves - if you are concentrating on dodging, you get a bonus to Dex saves, or if you are concentrating mental focus you get a bonus on Wis saves. This may help with the other thread about how higher-level martials fail saves like that all the time.

I'm going to stop there, because I like that last one quite a bit, and need to mull it over more. Probably going to go to homebrew and workshop it.

[stoutstien]

The fact the concentration is looked at like a slot to be filled means it probably not something you want to build off of the begin with.

[JLandan]

Whatever is used for the "concentration slot", remember, Barbarians can't do it while Raging, Druids can't start doing it while in Wildshape, no gish can do it while holding a smite spell, and rangers can't do it while using Favored Foe.

My opinion is that if this feature is open to any class, it must be open to use for casters while not otherwise concentrating. If it is only open to martial classes, how does it work with multiclass into casters?

Some things to consider.

[Kane0]

The main suggestion I've seen is that they can trade in their concentration for a bonus attunement slot. Whether this attunement can be lost by breaking your concentration would be up to the DM, but for ease of play I would recommend not.

Works for me

[KorvinStarmast]

The main suggestion I've seen is that they can trade in their concentration for a bonus attunement slot. Whether this attunement can be lost by breaking your concentration would be up to the DM, but for ease of play I would recommend not. While I think that the general idea of concentration for pure martials is a poor one, I like your idea on this.

[Psyren]

Whatever is used for the "concentration slot", remember, Barbarians can't do it while Raging, Druids can't start doing it while in Wildshape, no gish can do it while holding a smite spell, and rangers can't do it while using Favored Foe.

My opinion is that if this feature is open to any class, it must be open to use for casters while not otherwise concentrating. If it is only open to martial classes, how does it work with multiclass into casters?

Some things to consider.

Indeed, if the "4th slot" conflicts with normal concentration, then it becomes more of a tradeoff for gishes and casters than it is for pure martials. (I think some folks would consider that a feature rather than a bug.)


The fact the concentration is looked at like a slot to be filled means it probably not something you want to build off of the begin with.

I think it's only natural to think that way honestly. For many, it's fun to feel like they've maximized every "slot" on their characters - a productive use for every action/BA/reaction, every attunement slot filled, concentrating on something etc.

For example, on archery builds I'm constantly trying to figure out good uses for my reaction since I'm probably not going to be using OA or Ready very often.

[stoutstien]

Indeed, if the "4th slot" conflicts with normal concentration, then it becomes more of a tradeoff for gishes and casters than it is for pure martials. (I think some folks would consider that a feature rather than a bug.)



I think it's only natural to think that way honestly. For many, it's fun to feel like they've maximized every "slot" on their characters - a productive use for every action/BA/reaction, every attunement slot filled, concentrating on something etc.

For example, on archery builds I'm constantly trying to figure out good uses for my reaction since I'm probably not going to be using OA or Ready very often.

Eh. The idea that building PCs is more impactful to the outcome than playing them already bothers me, so treating the action economy like a bingo card rubs me wrong.

Not like they can actually get opportunity cost right so the PC building mini game is not even all that interesting to begin with. Funny enough to was better with it was just the PHB with no optional rules.

[Skrum]

Whatever is used for the "concentration slot", remember, Barbarians can't do it while Raging, Druids can't start doing it while in Wildshape, no gish can do it while holding a smite spell, and rangers can't do it while using Favored Foe.

My opinion is that if this feature is open to any class, it must be open to use for casters while not otherwise concentrating. If it is only open to martial classes, how does it work with multiclass into casters?

Some things to consider.

The entire point of this thread is that casters get this whole resource, concentration, that fighters, barbs, monks, and rogues don't get the benefit of using. You responding to spitballed suggestions with "well it's only fair if casters also get this!!!" is entirely missing the point - they already get to do this! They have spells with insane ongoing effects such that the wizard or cleric or whoever dropping concentration might literally swing the battle against the players. Why would they even *want* more ways to use concentration.

[GeneralVryth]

It's hilarious concentration is being thought of a resource, when its whole reason for being is to limit the number of ongoing effects spell casters can have active.

That said I do like the idea of trading the ability to concentrate for another attunement slot. Martials should have more of those, so it plays nicely in to it. I would phrase it as part of attuning that 4th item any character forfeits their ability to concentrate on a spell until they break attunements to the point they are back down to 3 (or whatever other limit they have). So if you are using your concentration for attunement it's not even an option to cast a concentration spell (and forfeiting the attunement in the process).

[Dr.Samurai]

A mechanic like this could be used to elevate martials into less mundane territories as well. You can call it Focus or something along those lines if you want to differentiate it.

I like the idea of stepping into forms or stances so long as you have Focus or Concentration, and while within those Stances/Forms you can do certain things.

[Psyren]

It's hilarious concentration is being thought of a resource, when its whole reason for being is to limit the number of ongoing effects spell casters can have active.

I mean, a game element can be both a resource and a constraint. See also spell slots, or attunement slots for that matter.


Eh. The idea that building PCs is more impactful to the outcome than playing them already bothers me, so treating the action economy like a bingo card rubs me wrong.

These two (building PCs and playing PCs) are not at odds with one another though, they both matter. Presenting them in such an either/or fashion is like... a weird version of Stormwind.


Not like they can actually get opportunity cost right so the PC building mini game is not even all that interesting to begin with. Funny enough to was better with it was just the PHB with no optional rules.

Not one but two personal opinions presented as objective fact. Interesting.


A mechanic like this could be used to elevate martials into less mundane territories as well. You can call it Focus or something along those lines if you want to differentiate it.

I like the idea of stepping into forms or stances so long as you have Focus or Concentration, and while within those Stances/Forms you can do certain things.

I'd be fine with martial concentration-duration buffs. If someone ever gets around to a 5e version of ToB I could see Stances using it.

The one concern I would have is that concentration is also meant as a way to discourage casters from being hit; and sure, no PC really wants to be hit, but martials (especially "tanks") do have a slightly different incentive structure in that regard.

[GeneralVryth]

I mean, a game element can be both a resource and a constraint. See also spell slots, or attunement slots for that matter.


Of course, at its root optimization is about getting the highest value of something (in this case a nebulous power), with a given set of constraints. It's still funny (in a disheartening kind of way). Optimization can be taken too far, and creating mechanics catering to extreme optimization is dangerous territory for a TTRPG.

I can completely imagine martial applications for concentration, and plenty of them make sense in character as well. So on that level it doesn't bother me. But the motivation of just trying to maximize a mechanical constraint is off putting.

[Dr.Samurai]

Of course, at its root optimization is about getting the highest value of something (in this case a nebulous power), with a given set of constraints. It's still funny (in a disheartening kind of way). Optimization can be taken too far, and creating mechanics catering to extreme optimization is dangerous territory for a TTRPG.

I can completely imagine martial applications for concentration, and plenty of them make sense in character as well. So on that level it doesn't bother me. But the motivation of just trying to maximize a mechanical constraint is off putting.
I get this. And it sort of jives with Psyren's point that martials with a concentration check are going to be making Con saves practically every round, and likely multiple saves each round, and losing whatever benefit they have pretty quickly.

Sort of demonstrates how the mechanic was built for something else and wouldn't slot easily into "resource" territory.

[Luccan]

If you give them a ring of spell storing and a party member (or NPC) willing to charge it, they can use some Concentration spells

[stoutstien]

I mean, a game element can be both a resource and a constraint. See also spell slots, or attunement slots for that matter.



These two (building PCs and playing PCs) are not at odds with one another though, they both matter. Presenting them in such an either/or fashion is like... a weird version of Stormwind.



Not one but two personal opinions presented as objective fact. Interesting.



I'd be fine with martial concentration-duration buffs. If someone ever gets around to a 5e version of ToB I could see Stances using it.

The one concern I would have is that concentration is also meant as a way to discourage casters from being hit; and sure, no PC really wants to be hit, but martials (especially "tanks") do have a slightly different incentive structure in that regard.

Unfortunately as a broad stroke casters are better taking, and more importantly avoiding, hits already so concentration is mostly a contingency. Too bad you can also bulletproof really that cheaply as well.

The whole paradigm of the guy in front taking the hits for the guy in back breaks down when the guy in back is perfectly okay with taking the hits.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sort of demonstrates how the mechanic was built for something else and wouldn't slot easily into "resource" territory.
They have already done something like "stances" for the Rune Knight in Tasha's. The "get large" ability lasts a minute, no concentration. the "resistant to BPS from Hill Giant rune (level 7) lasts for a minute. No concentration.

[Dr.Samurai]

They have already done something like "stances" for the Rune Knight in Tasha's. The "get large" ability lasts a minute, no concentration. the "resistant to BPS from Hill Giant rune (level 7) lasts for a minute. No concentration.
*grumbles about how they handed over the barbarian rage (advantage on Strength checks/saves, resistance to damage, bonus damage on hit) to the fighter*

[Saelethil]

I would consider Rage to be a powerful ability that “uses” the concentration slot. It wouldn’t be a bad idea for there to be more martial options that require “concentration” which can’t be broken by taking damage. More powerful ones would have limited uses but I could imagine a lot that could have unlimited uses since they could only have one active at any given time.

[Melil12]

“Stances” that require concentration … I have to re read barbarian

[stoutstien]

I would consider Rage to be a powerful ability that “uses” the concentration slot. It wouldn’t be a bad idea for there to be more martial options that require “concentration” which can’t be broken by taking damage. More powerful ones would have limited uses but I could imagine a lot that could have unlimited uses since they could only have one active at any given time.

Rage doesn't use concentration as much as just being incompatible with spell casting as a whole. The issue is the cost of that is grossly over budget.

If someone cannot use spells then they shouldn't also be stuck dealing mediocre damage and hoping they don't get ignored or just CCed out of the equation. Even the resistance portion is pretty meh once you start shopping around for different options. Is pretty amazing early on but falls off rapidly just when you'd assume it would actually be the most impactful.

[Skrum]

If someone cannot use spells then they shouldn't also be stuck dealing mediocre damage and hoping they don't get ignored or just CCed out of the equation. Even the resistance portion is pretty meh once you start shopping around for different options. Is pretty amazing early on but falls off rapidly just when you'd assume it would actually be the most impactful.

My current character is a tiefling barb with infernal constitution and a ring of necrotic resist. He's got resist to poison, cold, fire, and necrotic at all times. It's a huge a factor in his durability; resist to b, p, and s is good, but elemental damage becomes way too common outside of t1 for basic rage to be barb's only method of defense.


*grumbles about how they handed over the barbarian rage (advantage on Strength checks/saves, resistance to damage, bonus damage on hit) to the fighter*

Fundamental problem of martials, in a nutshell. They're only allowed to do a handful of things, so they necessarily step on each other's toes while simultaneously being constricted on growth.

Honestly, fighter, monk, and barb probably shouldn't be different classes. Barb and monk are representations of two common warrior tropes...fighter is "everything that isn't barb or monk." It's pretty silly.

[Rerem115]

Some of LaserLlama's work touches on this. They've done some class overhauls, and a lot of their martial options basically get a variant of Battlemaster maneuvers as the unifying martial mechanic, with different classes getting different maneuvers. Some of the options for Fighters essentially replicate spells that recharge on a short rest—such as spending a die to non-magically gain the benefits of Haste—and may require concentration.

Other 'maneuvers' don't, but they generally don't have as much impact, since they're not concerned with the risk/reward aspect of managing concentration

[Pex]

It looks good on paper, but I think it will fail in practice because generally part of the martial's job is to get hit and get hit a lot. He will fail the concentration check. Not necessarily the first or second time he's hit, but with many monsters having two attacks at minimum concentration will be broken by round 2, 3 if lucky.

If you still like the idea of this virtual resource slot, call it something else that uses a different mechanic. Call it "stance". This allows raging barbarians to have it. You can't stance and concentrate at the same time, and you get a stance check when you are frightened, grappled, restrained, tripped, shoved, or otherwise forced to move against your will. Being paralyzed or incapacitated breaks a stance. You can enter a stance as a bonus action in combat and out of combat just go into it.

What benefit you get from a stance and if you can have choices of stances to be in (only one stance at a time) is left to the reader.

[Saelethil]

Rage doesn't use concentration as much as just being incompatible with spell casting as a whole. The issue is the cost of that is grossly over budget.
I mean, sure. It isn’t actually using concentration but they are activating an ongoing effect that removes their ability to concentrate which is what I imagine other martial “concentration” features would do unless we want to just give them actual spells (which I’m against for the most part). Sure it removes the ability to cast spells while it’s active, which might be too restrictive, but Martials should be using weapons instead of spells most of the time anyway.

If someone cannot use spells then they shouldn't also be stuck dealing mediocre damage and hoping they don't get ignored or just CCed out of the equation. Even the resistance portion is pretty meh once you start shopping around for different options. Is pretty amazing early on but falls off rapidly just when you'd assume it would actually be the most impactful.
I’ve only briefly played a barbarian above level 7 so I can’t speak to their play-feel but I’m all for buffing barbarians both in and out of rage.

[Psyren]

Unfortunately as a broad stroke casters are better taking, and more importantly avoiding, hits already so concentration is mostly a contingency. Too bad you can also bulletproof really that cheaply as well.

The whole paradigm of the guy in front taking the hits for the guy in back breaks down when the guy in back is perfectly okay with taking the hits.

1) I'd argue that the defenses of the "guy in the back" being consistently higher than those of the "guy in the front" is more of a high-op table thing. It's not unheard of by any means, but definitely less common for most of the playerbase than you imply.

2) If caster defenses were so high and therefore concentration were as trivial to protect as you suggest, I don't think we'd see as many caster builds bending over backwards to grab Resilient Con or War Caster or starting with a level in Fighter/Artificer/Sorcerer as we do. In actual play at most tables, concentration breaks all the time, and would do so even more readily if they were on the front line, didn't build to protect their concentration as much as possible, or both.



Fundamental problem of martials, in a nutshell. They're only allowed to do a handful of things, so they necessarily step on each other's toes while simultaneously being constricted on growth.

Honestly, fighter, monk, and barb probably shouldn't be different classes. Barb and monk are representations of two common warrior tropes...fighter is "everything that isn't barb or monk." It's pretty silly.

This isn't just a martial thing though, any class/subclass system will end up with overlap given enough time. Nature Clerics step on Druids' toes, Clockwork Sorcerer steps on Abjurer Wizard's toes, Divine Soul steps on Cleric's toes and so on. "This Fighter subclass gets a rage-like feature" isn't actually a problem, it's an intended benefit of the system.

And regarding the refrain of "Barbarians should be a subset of Fighter" and all the rest - while I agree they could do that, I continue to be glad they didn't.

[Theodoxus]

I'm with Pex - call it something else, but don't let them stack. Martials might have Stance, or Focus - and it should state "While in a Stance..." or "While Focusing..." "you can't Concentrate on a Spell. Likewise, when Concentrating on a Spell, you can't benefit from an ability that requires being in [Focus] or [a Stance]."

This would allow something like Stances (especially if they're tiered) to be picked up via a feat, but not allow casters to get both benefits simultaneously (something a non-magical martial wouldn't have access to). Then, like Magic Initiate, if a caster wants a basic Stance, they can grab the feat, just like an otherwise non-magical martial can take MI for a bit of expanded abilities. And higher level Stances are out of reach of 'mere' casters; allowing for stronger options at higher levels.

[Dr.Samurai]

*looks at the 5E landscape*

Yeah, I think we can introduce a sub-system that says "If you can cast spells from a class feature or feat, you cannot make use of this feature."

Shouldn't break anything, except maybe caster entitlement :smallamused:.

[Kane0]

*looks at the 5E landscape*

Yeah, I think we can introduce a sub-system that says "If you can cast spells from a class feature or feat, you cannot make use of this feature."

Shouldn't break anything, except maybe caster entitlement :smallamused:.

Erm, what about races that get like, a cantrip?

[GeneralVryth]

*looks at the 5E landscape*

Yeah, I think we can introduce a sub-system that says "If you can cast spells from a class feature or feat, you cannot make use of this feature."

Shouldn't break anything, except maybe caster entitlement :smallamused:.

I kind of think/hope this was said in jest. Abilities that can't work if characters have another ability (not are using that other ability, but have it), are a bad design pattern. It's intentionally creating a Extra Attack dead level problem.

[Amnestic]

I kind of think/hope this was said in jest. Abilities that can't work if characters have another ability (not are using that other ability, but have it), are a bad design pattern.

Not sure I agree with that honestly. The extra attack issue has always stuck out primarily because it's entirely a balance ruling. There's no in-universe reason why a Fighter 5/Paladin 5 has only 2 attacks instead of 3. A dead level solely for game balance feels like the designers didn't plan properly.

But there might well be an in-universe reason why Spellcasting and Martial Focus (or whatever you call it) are incompatible, and that's a lot easier to understand. We already accept (sometimes begrudgingly) that while a barbarian is raging they can't cast or concentrate on spells. Same sorta thing.

[GeneralVryth]

We already accept (sometimes begrudgingly) that while a barbarian is raging they can't cast or concentrate on spells. Same sorta thing.

It's not the same thing though, that is exactly my point. You can have both the ability to rage and cast spells, you just can't do both at the same time. The player/character still have a choice of which they want to use in a given situation. The bad design pattern I was talking about would if you have spell-casting, therefor you can never have the rage ability even if you had a level that should grant it. There is no choice beyond the level up anymore, which if you have another reason to want levels in the class (Barbarian in this case) a dead level is created (well mostly dead).

[stoutstien]

It's not the same thing though, that is exactly my point. You can have both the ability to rage and cast spells, you just can't do both at the same time. The player/character still have a choice of which they want to use in a given situation. The bad design pattern I was talking about would if you have spell-casting, therefor you can never have the rage ability even if you had a level that should grant it. There is no choice beyond the level up anymore, which if you have another reason to want levels in the class (Barbarian in this case) a dead level is created (well mostly dead).
Eh. This is a symptom of how wonky level by level multiclassing is rather than a core design issue. You could easily have exclusive options because they just don't overlap anyways.

[Dr.Samurai]

Erm, what about races that get like, a cantrip?
That's fine, hence why I referred to class features and feats.

I kind of think/hope this was said in jest. Abilities that can't work if characters have another ability (not are using that other ability, but have it), are a bad design pattern. It's intentionally creating a Extra Attack dead level problem.
In jest only insofar as it would never happen.

But truthfully, having to worry about spellcasters poaching literally any mechanic we discuss to give to martials is annoying. I consider it bad design to create a set of classes that can do such a wide variety of things, approximate or just get other class' class features, and be built to meet or surpass others while still being able to do much more.

So not in jest :smallamused:.

[Witty Username]

I mean, a game element can be both a resource and a constraint.

To expand on this, resources are constrains. They are limits on the amount and context a character can do something.

Being able to spend a resource is not an advantage, things like spell slots, concentration, ki, prof uses per long rest, etc. Are fundamentally not helpful without an ability to use them.

If you have two characters, one has a +2 to attack rolls, and one has +2 to one attack roll if they spend a point. The one that does not require spending points is simply superior unless anothers affect is in play.

For this, use concentration if it looks like it will create an interesting play state or limit a powerful ability. But it is not a slot, not needing concentration is an advantage, not a limitation.

--
Spellcasters don't normally poach martial abilities by multiclassing, the tend to duplicate the effect with spells or invest a subclass as possible.
And as a hot take, they tend to be the weaker options or have unfavorable play in the martial space.

[Ionathus]

Whatever is used for the "concentration slot", remember...Druids can't start doing it while in Wildshape,

Point of order: your other examples are right but this is incorrect. Druids can sustain concentration while in Wildshape, on a spell that they cast before Wildshaping:


You can't cast spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn't break your concentration on a spell you've already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as Call Lightning, that you've already cast.
EDIT: Ignore that top part, maybe one of these days I'll read the full quote before leaping in with an Um, Actually

In broad strokes, I disagree with the idea that the concentration slot "should" be filled with something for martials -- as other people said, Concentration was introduced as a (quite elegant) limiter for buff stacking. There's no "need" to fill that for PCs who don't cast spells.

However (and this might feel like a semantics difference), I do believe finding a use for the Concentration mechanic would make martial gameplay more interesting. Not wanting to be hit because you might lose Concentration is a compelling wrinkle that affects combat tactics, as does the eternal tradeoff of "do I cling to my current Concentration spell, or would dropping it for another one be more effective?"

Those are two decisions that can absolutely make it more fun and flavorful to play a martial -- and there's nothing about those concepts that should make them exclusive to casters. Choosing between a "defensive" and "offensive" stance each turn, for instance, would add some much-welcome complexity to martial combat. And martials (usually) have better CON than casters, so they'd be able to tank higher damage without risking concentration, but would still have to weigh the costs of doing so.

[Theodoxus]

Point of order: your other examples are right but this is incorrect. Druids can sustain concentration while in Wildshape, on a spell that they cast before Wildshaping.

TBH, that's what JLandon said "you can't START concentrating [on a spell] while wildshaped." Meaning, if the concentration mechanic were expanded to include martial stances or whatever, a wildshaped Druid wouldn't be able to use said stance unless they started before assuming the wildshape. Of course, the desire to assume a stance would entirely depend on what the benefit would actually be... but given it's a martial thing, I don't see why a frontline Druid wouldn't at least consider incorporating it.


In broad strokes, I disagree with the idea that the concentration slot "should" be filled with something for martials -- as other people said, Concentration was introduced as a (quite elegant) limiter for buff stacking. There's no "need" to fill that for PCs who don't cast spells.

However (and this might feel like a semantics difference), I do believe finding a use for the Concentration mechanic would make martial gameplay more interesting. Not wanting to be hit because you might lose Concentration is a compelling wrinkle that affects combat tactics, as does the eternal tradeoff of "do I cling to my current Concentration spell, or would dropping it for another one be more effective?"

Those are two decisions that can absolutely make it more fun and flavorful to play a martial -- and there's nothing about those concepts that should make them exclusive to casters. Choosing between a "defensive" and "offensive" stance each turn, for instance, would add some much-welcome complexity to martial combat. And martials (usually) have better CON than casters, so they'd be able to tank higher damage without risking concentration, but would still have to weigh the costs of doing so.

I think it's a little too hard to talk about broad concepts and if they're appropriate or not, without having the specifics to discuss. The idea of using Concentration as a direct import from casters to martials is significantly different (and the abilities would more than likely need to be a lot stronger to match the potential loss through combat) than an ability that uses the same 'resource slot' or 'design space' or however you'd like to visual it, but not the same mechanic for loss (Concentration check).

[NichG]

I'd probably just design specific things for specific martial classes or subclasses, rather than try to have a generic 'martial use of concentration'.

Like, a class which can stack different kinds of buffs into its attacks as it lands hits, but which are lost if concentration is interrupted.
A class ability (barbarian? monk?) to buffer hitpoint damage (and at higher levels, things like poisons and status conditions) as long as concentration is sustained successfully - you take the damage/effects/etc the moment concentration is interrupted or allowed to lapse, but you can receive healing to drain the buffer or lose the status conditions.
A rogue ability to sustain sneak attack eligibility against a target you have successfully landed a sneak attack against as long as you sustain concentration.

Etc...

[GeneralVryth]

But truthfully, having to worry about spellcasters poaching literally any mechanic we discuss to give to martials is annoying. I consider it bad design to create a set of classes that can do such a wide variety of things, approximate or just get other class' class features, and be built to meet or surpass others while still being able to do much more.


Sounds like you are talking about non-magical characters more so than martials (unless a Paladin isn't a martial?). Also, can't any non-magical character poach spell-casting by taking levels in the right class (or some subclasses, or some feats)? How is that any different?

[Ionathus]

TBH, that's what JLandon said "you can't START concentrating [on a spell] while wildshaped." Meaning, if the concentration mechanic were expanded to include martial stances or whatever, a wildshaped Druid wouldn't be able to use said stance unless they started before assuming the wildshape.

R.I.P. My Reading Comprehension. You are totally right, I don't know how I missed that extra phrase in there.

[stoutstien]

Sounds like you are talking about non-magical characters more so than martials (unless a Paladin isn't a martial?). Also, can't any non-magical character poach spell-casting by taking levels in the right class (or some subclasses, or some feats)? How is that any different?

If a non spell caster wants lv 3 spells it's at least a 5 lv investment.

If a caster wants extra attack they can pick it up in the cheap with a subclass (a superior version with BS) or just casting a spell that grants it. Or just summon something that is equivalent to a semi optimized fighter without even eating into anything other than concentration.

If a non caster wants the big low level mitigation spells then they can grab a feat or multiclass to get 1-2 uses per day.

If a spell caster wants at least 19 AC, better saves, and doesn't want to delay progression it's a single level investment.

The budgets for features is very lopsided in favor towards casters cherry picking huge benefits with little cost where the flip side needs massive investments to get the same.

[Just to Browse]

Add my vote to the "we don't need this" pile. Concentration serves two very specific functions: (1) it limits the number of persistent, powerful effects a caster can keep active at a time, and (2) it discourages getting hit. #1 has no bearing on martial characters, and #2 is bad for a lot of melee characters, most of whom are martial.

If you (royal you in this case) think there's something is wrong with martial characters generally, any fix you write should be targeted to their problems. Hacking an existing subsystem to achieve your goals is just going to add unnecessary complication and deleterious side-effect.

[Theodoxus]

If you (royal you in this case) think there's something is wrong with martial characters generally, any fix you write should be targeted to their problems. Hacking an existing subsystem to achieve your goals is just going to add unnecessary complication and deleterious side-effect.

I can't speak for others who are discussing the pro side, but my reasoning is expanding martial options with a subsystem of stances that are similar to, but distinct from fighting styles, wherein they might boost something like saving throws (a +2 bonus to a specific save, for instance), or concentration breaking blows, where any hit deals disadvantage to the concentration check on the target; perhaps another stance that allows movement through another's space, etc.

Now, in my way of thinking, these types of boons require something akin to concentration. They can't be broken, so there's no concentration check, but they do require the same 'head space' that concentrating on a spell would take. Thus, you can't adopt a stance and concentration on a spell simultaneously. Does this bork Paladins or Rangers? Maybe. Though I think the option to use one or the other is a tactical decision that adds to the game. It keeps War Clerics from casting Bless and then stacking a saving throw stance at the same time. But it doesn't interfere with a Paladin's aura.

Like I noted above though, it depends on what the overall idea is. Since one of the more talked about updates to Fighter was making Maneuvers a base Fighter ability (as it was in D&DNext), then perhaps granting all the base classes that get Extra Attack the option to have these Maneuvers as stances, which you can only ever have 1 working/running at a time - but they don't use Superiority Dice, just a blanket +1 (or possibly PB, if you want them to be a bit better). It's a tiny boon but you can't also concentrate on a spell.

[Just to Browse]

I can't speak for others who are discussing the pro side, but my reasoning is expanding martial options with a subsystem of stances that are similar to, but distinct from fighting styles, wherein they might boost something like saving throws (a +2 bonus to a specific save, for instance), or concentration breaking blows, where any hit deals disadvantage to the concentration check on the target; perhaps another stance that allows movement through another's space, etc.

To me this still seems like it's going in the wrong direction. The logic seems to be:

Martials should have something to do with concentration.
What if martials had stances that use the concentration rules? That seems cool.
Shoot, now we have to change the rules to fit that (stance concentration needs to be different from spell concentration)
Shoot, we also have to work around the side effects in extant content (partial casters aren't benefiting as much, do we need to buff the ranger more elsewhere?)
Shoot, a commonly-requested martial feature can only be included in a limited form now (using a variety of maneuvers within a round doesn't work well with stance-swapping)
In the hypothetical example, martial classes already need a list of brand new content (stances with their variable effects) written out, which is probably going to have to interface with class levels, and might require special rules & lists for e.g. differentiating rogue vs fighter vs ranger stances. That's 80-90% of the work still on the table.

If you're already doing all the hard work of writing this homebrew basically from scratch, piggybacking off Concentration is going to add more to your workload than it takes off.

[Saelethil]

Now, in my way of thinking, these types of boons require something akin to concentration. They can't be broken, so there's no concentration check, but they do require the same 'head space' that concentrating on a spell would take. Thus, you can't adopt a stance and concentration on a spell simultaneously. Does this bork Paladins or Rangers? Maybe. Though I think the option to use one or the other is a tactical decision that adds to the game. It keeps War Clerics from casting Bless and then stacking a saving throw stance at the same time. But it doesn't interfere with a Paladin's aura.

This is pretty much what I was thinking. And I would make the argument that this is how hunters mark should work.

[Witty Username]

If I were going to use concentration as a limitation on a martial ability, I would probably want it to be an ability that drawing aggression is part of the deal.

Things like difficult terrain around the character or limiting anothers actions.

Concentration's only inherently useful trait is that it encourages enemies to target the character to break concentration. Spirit guardians is a great example of a spell that works like this, the damage and movement reduction are oppressive tactically which means a cleric can force enemies to attack them instead of other PCs.

Something like an action and concentration to 'prep' a free action surge could be neat as a holding action. The fighter will rip apart any that close if they aren't dealt with, holding enemies at bay with shear presence is useful in combat and on brand for a tank, and attacking the fighter in melee is a favorable scenario in comparison to a squishy.

But this is to keep in mind, if the goal is buffs, give buffs. No need to make it more complicated than that.

[Pex]

To me this still seems like it's going in the wrong direction. The logic seems to be:

Martials should have something to do with concentration.
What if martials had stances that use the concentration rules? That seems cool.
Shoot, now we have to change the rules to fit that (stance concentration needs to be different from spell concentration)
Shoot, we also have to work around the side effects in extant content (partial casters aren't benefiting as much, do we need to buff the ranger more elsewhere?)
Shoot, a commonly-requested martial feature can only be included in a limited form now (using a variety of maneuvers within a round doesn't work well with stance-swapping)
In the hypothetical example, martial classes already need a list of brand new content (stances with their variable effects) written out, which is probably going to have to interface with class levels, and might require special rules & lists for e.g. differentiating rogue vs fighter vs ranger stances. That's 80-90% of the work still on the table.

If you're already doing all the hard work of writing this homebrew basically from scratch, piggybacking off Concentration is going to add more to your workload than it takes off.

That we will need rules for this is not a bug. It's the whole point feature because we're specifically adding something to martials so naturally we need rules to know how it works. The easiest is simply use the Concentration rules. Done. The problem is because generally martials get hit a lot by Law of Averages they will lose their Concentration by round 2 due to monsters having multiattack and lose the benefit of Concentration. Also, barbarians. Therefore something else is needed that is not dependent limited to taking damage. Call it Stance. Call it Focus. Whatever it is called it necessitates it is not Concentration.

The devil in the details is to what these rules are, but that these rules are needed to exist is not proof they shouldn't exist at all because of "complexity".

[Just to Browse]

That we will need rules for this is not a bug. It's the whole point feature because we're specifically adding something to martials so naturally we need rules to know how it works. The easiest is simply use the Concentration rules. Done. The problem is because generally martials get hit a lot by Law of Averages they will lose their Concentration by round 2 due to monsters having multiattack and lose the benefit of Concentration. Also, barbarians. Therefore something else is needed that is not dependent limited to taking damage. Call it Stance. Call it Focus. Whatever it is called it necessitates it is not Concentration.

The devil in the details is to what these rules are, but that these rules are needed to exist is not proof they shouldn't exist at all because of "complexity".

I'm not concerned about complexity, not sure how that came across (edit: on second look, I don't think I wrote that word at all in this thread until now?). The comparison point is maneuvers (as brought up by Theodoxus just a few posts above yours), and those are certainly not rules-free.

My point is that this process is can't be "simply use the Concentration rules. Done." You have demonstrated that quite well for me: After after ostensibly being "done", you raised a critical problem with Concentration and proposed changing one of its fundamental rules! Concentration only does two things and you have to throw out one of them out immediately! Why latch on to Concentration if it's not reducing your workload and you immediately need to cut it in half? You can just make stances their own thing, or use a maneuver system like A5E, or both like Bo9S, or just write interesting & powerful martial features without hooking into an existing game system.

[Theodoxus]

The why is simple. The desire is to keep casters from easily grabbing the martial benny once again with zero impact onto their functionality.

If Focus doesn't play well with Concentration, that's a good thing. How you make that happen is of lesser import than that it exists.

[Amechra]

A little to the left of the topic, but...

I feel like a Concentration-based martial character would actually be a better fit for a Monk-style character than the current "spend points from a pool" system. Maybe you could have two "levels" of "Monk Concentration" — a state of deep focus that you can only restore by meditating as part of a short rest (but can be spent to do superhuman feats), and stances that work more like normal concentration buffs (you only get one at a time, they get broken by damage, etc). It'd give the class a glass cannon feel without actually necessarily being super fragile — you'd go into melee to beat up dudes, with "breaks" when you disengage to re-enter a stance if you take enough damage to drop your concentration.

...

The problem with this thread (and similar "hey, let's give the guys without magic cool stuff that the spellslingers don't also get" threads dating back to the 3.X days) is that WotC made the conscious decision to make magic a purely additive thing with no real personal costs. As a result, going "oh yeah, only non-spellcasters can Concentrate to get +2 to damage rolls" or whatever feels pretty tacked on.

I feel like a better solution would be to change the game at a more fundamental level — for example, you could move most of the benefits of Constitution to Strength (the HP, the bonus HP healed from hit-dice, saves vs. poison...) and make the sixth ability score something spellcaster specific. Like, I dunno, it's called Potency and all it does is determine your save bonus on Concentration saves and your spell save DC. Then non-spellcasters would all have a universal dump stat, making their other ability scores (comparatively) better.

Or, alternatively, you could break the spellcasting classes' monopoly on spellcasting by making it something that anyone can dabble with, so spellcasters are mostly specialists in something anyone can do (like the Fighter or Rogue are) rather than having a completely unique subsystem that they have sole access to. Who knows, maybe D&D 7e really goes all in on scrolls and the Wizard-equivalent is a scholar who gets various upgrades to scroll use (like having "spell slots" that they could spend instead of burning a scroll, or the special ability to memorize a scroll and use "spell slots" to cast this "known spell" even without having the scroll on hand!). It wouldn't be the first time D&D took a class's cool unique stuff and gave it to everyone else...

[Witty Username]

A little to the left of the topic, but...

I feel like a Concentration-based martial character would actually be a better fit for a Monk-style character than the current "spend points from a pool" system. Maybe you could have two "levels" of "Monk Concentration" — a state of deep focus that you can only restore by meditating as part of a short rest (but can be spent to do superhuman feats), and stances that work more like normal concentration buffs (you only get one at a time, they get broken by damage, etc). It'd give the class a glass cannon feel without actually necessarily being super fragile — you'd go into melee to beat up dudes, with "breaks" when you disengage to re-enter a stance if you take enough damage to drop your concentration.


I am reminded of 3.5s psionic focus which at least felt that way.
Hold focus have some passive effects like wall running and such
Expend your focus for a big hit or armor piercing shot

It was interesting, monk would be a decent spot for it to live but I think it would salt the wound of psionics being gone for me.

[Amechra]

I am reminded of 3.5s psionic focus which at least felt that way.

That might be because I was also thinking of the good ol' psionic focus. And hey, making that the Monk "thing" wouldn't necessarily mean no psionics — Monks were a psionic class in 4e, after all.

[Dr.Samurai]

The PH2 in 3rd edition also introduced the Combat Focus feats, which gave you a benefit, and that benefit increased if you had Combat Focus. And you could sometimes sacrifice that Focus to do something else.

I agree with Amechra though that probably redesigning the system would be better.

[Just to Browse]

The why is simple. The desire is to keep casters from easily grabbing the martial benny once again with zero impact onto their functionality.

If Focus doesn't play well with Concentration, that's a good thing. How you make that happen is of lesser import than that it exists.

The why from the OP is actually to fill unused design space.

I think if your goal is to give martials toys that casters can't abuse, you're far better served by binding those features to things like the Attack action, weapon attacks, Strength, and class features. Concentration slots will still get abused by casters who want to hold a buff without the risk of losing it. Darth Credence's first post contains several effects that a caster would be happy to snap up.

[Damon_Tor]

In the past I've used concentration to balance certain effects. For example, the "dragon" class I designed can fly from level 1, but any damage taken results in a concentration save, and if they fail they fall (the limitation is lifted at later levels).

[Snowbluff]

I've thought about letting casters "hand off" a concentration spell to a willing participant. Basically when cast a spell on one target you can let them concentrate on it instead, using their save and their "concentration slot" instead. This would technically be a buff to casters, but personally I like the idea because it encourages casters to spent more of their spell slots on buffing teammates.


Stances would be cool, too.

[stoutstien]

I've thought about letting casters "hand off" a concentration spell to a willing participant. Basically when cast a spell on one target you can let them concentrate on it instead, using their save and their "concentration slot" instead. This would technically be a buff to casters, but personally I like the idea because it encourages casters to spent more of their spell slots on buffing teammates.


This is basically the artificer's big T3 feature. It's regulated by being limited to half casting progression and and only one spell per day though 10 times a day is a ton.

[Snowbluff]

This is basically the artificer's big T3 feature. It's regulated by being limited to half casting progression and and only one spell per day though 10 times a day is a ton.

Oh no, I would argue that it's artificer schtick with infusions from the top down, which doesn't bother me in the slightest.


Though I will say the spell storing items (and by extension that actual magical item) have further reaching implications and affect many more spells (spells without concentration, spells with multiple targets, spells that don't target friendlies), enabling quite a bit of weird stuff. Furthermore, unlike with storing item, the hand of takes the caster's action rather than the other character's, which again I prefer to them using for helping their friends instead of themselves.

[Snails]

I think if your goal is to give martials toys that casters can't abuse, you're far better served by binding those features to things like the Attack action, weapon attacks, Strength, and class features. Concentration slots will still get abused by casters who want to hold a buff without the risk of losing it. Darth Credence's first post contains several effects that a caster would be happy to snap up.

Taking this thread on a related tangent, I am less concerned about the "Concentration space" than the "Reaction space".

I am not so much interested in rehashing the power level of Counterspell, Shield, Absorb Elements -- for purposes of this discussion I accept that the Wizard get great stuff at the cost of a slot is okay by some reasonable definition of okay. That said, I do think there is a serious Action Economy misbalance here. Casting two spells in a round is casting two spells in a round, and that is super powerful.

The problem here is not the Wizard in isolation. The problem here is that the Wizard does this an average of >1 times per combat, while in most combats the Fighter and Cleric does this zero times. The gap here is far too large IMNSHO.

To get to the point, I think some classes need medium power Reactions baked into the class chassis. The Rogue does well enough here with Uncanny Dodge. The Fighter might get a single Opportunity Attack once in a blue moon, but they basically need to pay the high cost of a Feat or a specialty subclass to do better than that. Some Cleric subclasses have something, but those mainly are appreciated because the Reaction cost is so irrelevant due to lack of options.

[Just to Browse]

Taking this thread on a related tangent, I am less concerned about the "Concentration space" than the "Reaction space".

This is probably me just being in the honeymoon period of design, but I've been loving rest-gated reactions for martials, particularly defenses. Forcing re-rolls of enemy attacks, getting a free re-roll on a save or an outright use of Legendary Resistance, triggered attacks for movement through a sizeable zone.

That said, if 4e taught us anything, it's that reactions slow the game down a ton when everyone has them. I think maximizing your use of reactions should be a core element of high-optimization play and ideally all classes get some, but they need to be opt-in the way spells are.

[Amechra]

I am not so much interested in rehashing the power level of Counterspell, Shield, Absorb Elements -- for purposes of this discussion I accept that the Wizard get great stuff at the cost of a slot is okay by some reasonable definition of okay. That said, I do think there is a serious Action Economy misbalance here. Casting two spells in a round is casting two spells in a round, and that is super powerful.

The thing is that this whole issue boils down to "they screwed up Shield and opportunity attacks".

If you look at the classes that get direct access to Counterspell and Shield in core, they're collectively the classes with the worst default passive defenses. They have tiny HD, no real armor proficiencies, and can't just slam their Dexterity to the maximum to compensate like a Rogue can. It seems pretty clear to me that the intent is that Sorcerers and Wizards feel squishy because they have to spend spell slots and their reaction on defending themselves against a concerted attack. Meanwhile, the Fighter's got good HP and AC pretty much by default, and can spend their reaction to punish anyone who tries to move away from them and towards the squishy guys. Feels nice and fair, right?

Then they made it trivial to pick up armor proficiency through the "optional" feat subsystem, and made opportunity attacks deal such a pathetic amount of damage that no-one's going to be terribly bothered if they get hit by one. Oops! I definitely agree that martial classes should get more features that buff opportunity attacks and/or broaden the number of situations where you can make them, because "don't ignore the fight-y guy with a weapon" is definitely something that 5e is missing. I kinda like the idea of making it so opportunity attacks auto-crit at around the point where Extra Attack comes online — threatening someone with 2d10+Str damage is going to be scary longer than 1d10+Str, it does fun stuff with Crusher/Piercer/Slasher, and it would mean that the tanky frontliner classes (read: Barbarian and Paladin) would have some nasty opportunity attacks (Paladins could smite, and Barbarians would actually have a good use-case for Brutal Critical...).

...

Personally, I think the big gap that I'd like to see filled is damage types and the different saves. Namely, it's kinda lame that spellcasters have such a pseudo-monopoly on targeting alternate saving throws or exploiting damage vulnerabilities. I don't have a good solution to this.

[Witty Username]

Once per turn affects on attacks could help some.

Rogue gets a decent amount of talk because its opportunity attacks sting like a mo fo. I have heard monk gets some cred with being able to stun and hand of harm off turn.

Similar things to these to make opportunity attacks a bit scarier could be fun.

[Theodoxus]

Personally, I think the big gap that I'd like to see filled is damage types and the different saves. Namely, it's kinda lame that spellcasters have such a pseudo-monopoly on targeting alternate saving throws or exploiting damage vulnerabilities. I don't have a good solution to this.

I agree with the rest of your post 100%.

That said, 4th Ed went this route. I don't know if targeting defenses other than AC was part of the whole 'Fighters and Wizards are the same, so bleh!' complaint or if allowing martials to target things other than AC was the bath water that was tossed out with everything else blatantly 4th Ed because 'bleh'.

It is definitely an opportunity lost; something that weapon mastery could take into account. Instead of bludgeoning weapons dealing auto damage on a miss, maybe they target Constitution saves instead, and deal half damage on a save. Yeah, they can't crit when used that way, but they are going to HURT no matter what (and it's not like the 'Ringing Bell' effect has to always be used - fighting a low AC, high Con Ogre, it would be silly to not target AC - likewise, fighting a high AC, lowish Con Life Cleric, use that Ringing Bell to the fullest!)

But having weapon masteries with the option to target specific saves? That'd be kind of fun. Nets targeting Dex saves; whips targeting Cha saves; etc.

[Amechra]

That said, 4th Ed went this route. I don't know if targeting defenses other than AC was part of the whole 'Fighters and Wizards are the same, so bleh!' complaint or if allowing martials to target things other than AC was the bath water that was tossed out with everything else blatantly 4th Ed because 'bleh'.

The thing about 4e is that you really can't trust people to be objective about it, because WotC messed up the PR for that edition so badly that a lot of existing D&D players were mad about it before they even opened up the book and tried it out. Don't get me wrong, the game was far from perfect... but I used to joke with my friends that people would've loved it if some 3pp had published it under the name Magic Sword (or whatever).

[Witty Username]

Obligatory smile nod, as I am still unable to comprehend 4e on some basic points.

[GeneralVryth]

I agree with the rest of your post 100%.

That said, 4th Ed went this route. I don't know if targeting defenses other than AC was part of the whole 'Fighters and Wizards are the same, so bleh!' complaint or if allowing martials to target things other than AC was the bath water that was tossed out with everything else blatantly 4th Ed because 'bleh'.

It is definitely an opportunity lost; something that weapon mastery could take into account. Instead of bludgeoning weapons dealing auto damage on a miss, maybe they target Constitution saves instead, and deal half damage on a save. Yeah, they can't crit when used that way, but they are going to HURT no matter what (and it's not like the 'Ringing Bell' effect has to always be used - fighting a low AC, high Con Ogre, it would be silly to not target AC - likewise, fighting a high AC, lowish Con Life Cleric, use that Ringing Bell to the fullest!)

But having weapon masteries with the option to target specific saves? That'd be kind of fun. Nets targeting Dex saves; whips targeting Cha saves; etc.

Attacks able to target different saves are interesting, need to be sure they don't break verisimilitude too bad, that shouldn't be too hard. One thing I haven't thought about in a while, but this made me think about is the Star Wars Saga System. It was the bridge between 3.5 and 4e in some ways. A bounded accuracy version of that, plus Armor as DR instead of AC (or reflex defense in this case) would be really interesting. If there is one sacred cow I would really like to see die it's armor as AC instead of DR. Having DR be a more standard thing allows for the difference between many attacks and big attacks to be actually meaningful. And it's another thing you can use to differentiate weapons (maces better at overcoming DR etc...). I also kind of liked the DT system, but that can be more iffy as it adds more complexity.

[Amechra]

Obligatory smile nod, as I am still unable to comprehend 4e on some basic points.

If I may ask, what rules don't click for you?


If there is one sacred cow I would really like to see die it's armor as AC instead of DR.

Sadly, I think we're stuck with that one unless they completely rethink how scaling works in D&D. Armor-as-DR tends to work best in games with very limited HP and damage scaling, since having one of your core defensive features be "attacks deal X-Y damage instead of X damage" limits what X can be pretty heavily. Like, it can work, but you'd have to rethink how weapon damage works and balance the math pretty tightly around it.

One solution to the Armor-as-DR thing that I've always kinda liked but never really caught on was how an old British game called Dragon Warriors handled it. It was kinda like a damage threshold set-up, except weapons dealt a flat amount of damage after checking to see if you bypassed armor. To quote the example of combat...

https://writeups.letsyouandhimfight.com/images/69d44ba5a1e8ec1d7d7405b23511db4c82893e1b70176b262b e0a841eb5bf161.jpeg

[GeneralVryth]

Sadly, I think we're stuck with that one unless they completely rethink how scaling works in D&D. Armor-as-DR tends to work best in games with very limited HP and damage scaling, since having one of your core defensive features be "attacks deal X-Y damage instead of X damage" limits what X can be pretty heavily. Like, it can work, but you'd have to rethink how weapon damage works and balance the math pretty tightly around it.


Oh I am sure it's not going anywhere, which is why I don't bring it up in a lot of these martial discussions. It's also hard to retrofit on to the current system while still keeping things balanced.

The way I would probably do it though, is give armor DR values (probably starting at 1 or 2 for leather, and then going up to 10ish for plate, magic armors would just increase this value), and then give weapons and other attacks a minimum damage they can't be reduced below (another way to differentiate weapons). Reducing health scaling would also be nice. I would start by looking at HP being equal to Con Score + (Con Mod * Prof Bonus) + (0-3 per level in a given class). That would give characters a lot more starting health, making the early levels less swingy. Obviously you need to figure out another source for AC growth, the easiest answer is to just pull from an even older SW system (d20 revised), and just have being X level of a class give you an AC bonus (along using things like a Shield, and gathering AC increasing features or reactions for temporary increases). If Fighters go from getting +1 AC at level 1 to +10 at level ~19 over the career, while Wizards go from 0 to +5, that solves some of the AC imbalance of casters in "heavy armor". If you want to be a high spell caster, you aren't getting good AC from your class period.

There is still more work from there, you would want a built in power attack option (or at least have it be a standard class feature for martial oriented characters), ideally you wouldn't be able to use the power attack and some kind of rapid strike option in the same turn.

But this is all even more of a pipe dream to hope for than a lot of other martial ideas out there.

[Skrum]

Oh I am sure it's not going anywhere, which is why I don't bring it up in a lot of these martial discussions. It's also hard to retrofit on to the current system while still keeping things balanced.

The way I would probably do it though, is give armor DR values (probably starting at 1 or 2 for leather, and then going up to 10ish for plate, magic armors would just increase this value), and then give weapons and other attacks a minimum damage they can't be reduced below (another way to differentiate weapons). Reducing health scaling would also be nice. I would start by looking at HP being equal to Con Score + (Con Mod * Prof Bonus) + (0-3 per level in a given class). That would give characters a lot more starting health, making the early levels less swingy. Obviously you need to figure out another source for AC growth, the easiest answer is to just pull from an even older SW system (d20 revised), and just have being X level of a class give you an AC bonus (along using things like a Shield, and gathering AC increasing features or reactions for temporary increases). If Fighters go from getting +1 AC at level 1 to +10 at level ~19 over the career, while Wizards go from 0 to +5, that solves some of the AC imbalance of casters in "heavy armor". If you want to be a high spell caster, you aren't getting good AC from your class period.

There is still more work from there, you would want a built in power attack option (or at least have it be a standard class feature for martial oriented characters), ideally you wouldn't be able to use the power attack and some kind of rapid strike option in the same turn.

But this is all even more of a pipe dream to hope for than a lot of other martial ideas out there.

So I know you're just spitballing and I just wanna be clear that I'm not trying to like bang the table about something offered here, but your ideas (and 5e as well) really makes me consider the value of "highly balanced" systems. 5e as we know isn't really balanced, or at least not well, but to some degree it is driven by bounded accuracy. That kind of system essentially by necessity puts a big damper on scaling, as bigger numbers can screw up the carefully balanced numbers.

My thought/concern though is like...how do characters differentiate themselves in a system that doesn't allow scaling. Ability checks are something of an example; like imagine if scaling in 5e was even more constrained, and ability scores was the only factor for skill checks. Well, my character might've been a blacksmith before he become an adventurer. So I made sure he has good str, as that's what he'd roll for smithing. Another character could have even more str...and just be "better" at blacksmithing, even if they've never narratively done blacksmithing.

That's just like a super simple example, but that's the idea. It makes me rethink the wisdom of something like bounded accuracy, or tightly balanced game systems.

*this problem is even worse in a game like DND which tends not to give some classes very notable or distinct abilities

[GeneralVryth]

So I know you're just spitballing and I just wanna be clear that I'm not trying to like bang the table about something offered here, but your ideas (and 5e as well) really makes me consider the value of "highly balanced" systems. 5e as we know isn't really balanced, or at least not well, but to some degree it is driven by bounded accuracy. That kind of system essentially by necessity puts a big damper on scaling, as bigger numbers can screw up the carefully balanced numbers.

My thought/concern though is like...how do characters differentiate themselves in a system that doesn't allow scaling. Ability checks are something of an example; like imagine if scaling in 5e was even more constrained, and ability scores was the only factor for skill checks. Well, my character might've been a blacksmith before he become an adventurer. So I made sure he has good str, as that's what he'd roll for smithing. Another character could have even more str...and just be "better" at blacksmithing, even if they've never narratively done blacksmithing.

That's just like a super simple example, but that's the idea. It makes me rethink the wisdom of something like bounded accuracy, or tightly balanced game systems.

*this problem is even worse in a game like DND which tends not to give some classes very notable or distinct abilities

You're right to a degree. Though I also think the point of Bounded Accuracy gets forgotten to a degree as well. Bounded Accuracy isn't about removing scaling, it's about keeping scaling from driving things (and combat abilities in particular) off the edge of the die range. With the goal of keeping lower level enemies relevant for a much greater scope of the game. In essence if an attack without circumstantial modifiers can only hit on a nat 20, or miss on a nat 1, or if DR is involved, damage is reduced to 0, that is bounded accuracy failing. Skills suffer from this because there should be more nuance and less randomness there, the problem is the game doesn't properly divorce skills from combat, so you can't just use a separate system for them or allow much higher bonuses (and 5e does do that some, and you can see some of the issues with the grappler with Expertise in Athletics). Ironically the Saga System I mentioned earlier had this a major pain point, because using the Force was tied to skill use, and you could scale skills faster than normal combat bonuses, and force abilities could allow you to substitute your Force skill for some offense or defense.

The fix for skills is to completely remove from any combat use (or at least make it some they can't be used against someone, or be used to evade or get out of attack). Then you can allow larger bonuses to better differentiate characters. Though for your Blacksmithing example, that just sounds like you should have had Smithing Tool's prof which would have helped in the comparison. Another thing you can do if you want to minimize changes is make skills roll 3d6, that significantly reduces outlier rolls so bonus matters more (and revert to d20 for combat related pieces), another is borrow from BG3 and only allow certain check if a character is proficient, or provide bonuses or alternative check options when proficient.

At its core, I really do like Bounded Accuracy, I like the idea that plain Hobgoblin Soldier can still sting a dragon if there are enough of them, and especially if they are led well. On the differentiation front, I do think that is possible, but you need to have a clear idea of what the themes of your classes are and make sure you have enough levers where you can achieve the same result through different means and making different classes good at those different means. That's part of why I like the DR thing, it's a lever for differentiation, it also has a nice verisimilitude bonus.

[Skrum]

only allow certain check if a character is proficient, or provide bonuses or alternative check options when proficient.

Really good point, and just one part of the development of skills that was left incredibly underbaked. Some things I would strongly favor/consider
- there should be a limit on untrained checks, something like 10 + modifier, or even just flat 10. I know this kind of parsing was mostly abandoned in 5e, but automatic disadvantage on checks above that DC, or just not being be able to try at all, would really raise the value of proficiency
- guidance on DC's, including examples of various common tasks
- some system of total failure, partial success (near miss?), success, and smashing success (or something). I would favor something like missing by more than 5, missing by 5 or less, just succeeding, and succeeding by more than 5 for mechanical categories




At its core, I really do like Bounded Accuracy, I like the idea that plain Hobgoblin Soldier can still sting a dragon if there are enough of them, and especially if they are led well. On the differentiation front, I do think that is possible, but you need to have a clear idea of what the themes of your classes are and make sure you have enough levers where you can achieve the same result through different means and making different classes good at those different means. That's part of why I like the DR thing, it's a lever for differentiation, it also has a nice verisimilitude bonus.

I think I would like it more if a few things were changed

1) AC was better managed
Between casters easily stacking full plate with shields and shield spells, and gishes combining heavy armor with haste or blur, and then randomass builds that have a flat 25 AC...bounded accuracy kinda falls apart. It doesn't even matter how hard a creature hits; if +5 to +7 is supposed to be relevant into t2 and t3, PC's simply can't have AC that's well into the 20's. Most monsters get to attack 4-9 times ever. With a 15% chance to hit (and that's before factoring in further defenses like silvery barbs and runic shield), 4-9 attacks adds up to .6 to 1.35 hits. Over an entire combat. That's simply not bounded accuracy in any meaningful sense.

2) Level cap was lower than 20
This is tied to a ton of other problems (casters scaling vs martial scaling), but as far as bounded accuracy goes, I don't want or need hobgoblins to be relevant enemies at level 15. 10, maybe, if there's a whole army of them. Between AC, HP, and sheer number of resources, at some point the characters are basically superheroes, and yah know what? Street thugs don't threaten Spiderman. I'd prefer to not pretend that they should. I really think that for bounded accuracy to remain true, characters would have to scale a whole lot less than they do...in which case, why have 20 levels? Why grind through 20 levels of extremely marginal changes, when 12 or 10 or 8 or 6 would bring you right up to the correct power level?

[GeneralVryth]

Really good point, and just one part of the development of skills that was left incredibly underbaked. Some things I would strongly favor/consider
- there should be a limit on untrained checks, something like 10 + modifier, or even just flat 10. I know this kind of parsing was mostly abandoned in 5e, but automatic disadvantage on checks above that DC, or just not being be able to try at all, would really raise the value of proficiency
- guidance on DC's, including examples of various common tasks
- some system of total failure, partial success (near miss?), success, and smashing success (or something). I would favor something like missing by more than 5, missing by 5 or less, just succeeding, and succeeding by more than 5 for mechanical categories


I like all of the above frankly. On the variety of success front another thing you could do with proficiency, is limit any successes to partial or basic success, and require proficiency for the greater successes.



1) AC was better managed
Between casters easily stacking full plate with shields and shield spells, and gishes combining heavy armor with haste or blur, and then randomass builds that have a flat 25 AC...bounded accuracy kinda falls apart. It doesn't even matter how hard a creature hits; if +5 to +7 is supposed to be relevant into t2 and t3, PC's simply can't have AC that's well into the 20's. Most monsters get to attack 4-9 times ever. With a 15% chance to hit (and that's before factoring in further defenses like silvery barbs and runic shield), 4-9 attacks adds up to .6 to 1.35 hits. Over an entire combat. That's simply not bounded accuracy in any meaningful sense.


I agree with all of this. One of advantages of armor as DR is takes some pressure off AC as the primary mitigation option. It should still be harder for casters to get heavy armor prof, but that is another topic. Imagine if the top of line tank Fighter at level 10 was only rocking 18 to 20 AC, but had 10 DR on top of that? While the friendly Wizard is at more like 15 or 16 AC, 3ish DR, and access to something like the Shield spell?



2) Level cap was lower than 20
This is tied to a ton of other problems (casters scaling vs martial scaling), but as far as bounded accuracy goes, I don't want or need hobgoblins to be relevant enemies at level 15. 10, maybe, if there's a whole army of them. Between AC, HP, and sheer number of resources, at some point the characters are basically superheroes, and yah know what? Street thugs don't threaten Spiderman. I'd prefer to not pretend that they should. I really think that for bounded accuracy to remain true, characters would have to scale a whole lot less than they do...in which case, why have 20 levels? Why grind through 20 levels of extremely marginal changes, when 12 or 10 or 8 or 6 would bring you right up to the correct power level?

I don't think lowering the level cap is necessary. The basic Hobgoblin isn't seriously expected to be a threat by level 15, or really likely tier 3 in general. But when you compare to prior editions, where they would be obsolete by level 7 or sooner it's an improvement. Also, I think the place it's more noticeable, are things like the Knights, Veterans, or more "elite" warriors. A CR 2 to 4 stays dangerous for a long time if there is a sufficient number of them. So to use your Spiderman example, street thugs can become obsolete but he still has to respect the SWAT team that gets called in (or following comic book logic maybe not, but you get the idea).

[Witty Username]

Then they made it trivial to pick up armor proficiency through the "optional" feat subsystem,

In fairness, feats is a pretty fair way to get armor.
Lightly armored into moderately armored does take into 8th level at the earliest. And means not getting anything else. Unless you already have lightly armored

One level in cleric for heavy armor without losing spell progression is pretty jacked though.

[Skrum]

I agree with all of this. One of advantages of armor as DR is takes some pressure off AC as the primary mitigation option. It should still be harder for casters to get heavy armor prof, but that is another topic. Imagine if the top of line tank Fighter at level 10 was only rocking 18 to 20 AC, but had 10 DR on top of that? While the friendly Wizard is at more like 15 or 16 AC, 3ish DR, and access to something like the Shield spell?

I vibe with that. Obviously we're well into rewrites of large portions of the game, but I'd probably start by curtailing some of the random +1, +2 AC bonuses (looking at you warforged and forge cleric), reintroduce something like arcane spell failure, and nerfing the shield spell. I'd probably also try to tinker with something like reducing the headline AC of armor, and then let some classes apply their proficiency bonus to their AC once they reach a certain level. Finally, give armor DR but have it scale differently if the character gets their prof bonus to their armor. It would be a lot of fine tuning.




I don't think lowering the level cap is necessary. The basic Hobgoblin isn't seriously expected to be a threat by level 15, or really likely tier 3 in general. But when you compare to prior editions, where they would be obsolete by level 7 or sooner it's an improvement. Also, I think the place it's more noticeable, are things like the Knights, Veterans, or more "elite" warriors. A CR 2 to 4 stays dangerous for a long time if there is a sufficient number of them. So to use your Spiderman example, street thugs can become obsolete but he still has to respect the SWAT team that gets called in (or following comic book logic maybe not, but you get the idea).

Maybe...I still think the problem is deeper than that. Consider HP bloat. Like monsters with 300+ hit points can't reasonably be taken down by weapon damage + modifier. So characters have to do A LOT more damage as they gain levels. And they do, to the point where they're one-shotting low level stuff. Conversely, a CR 2 that does ~7 damage a round after miss chance (this is being extremely generous to the CR 2 BTW), well that meant something when the characters had 45 hit points. But now they're level 14 and have 145 hit points. In a 3-4 round combat format, that's not meaningful damage. And yes, no one thinks CR 2's are supposed to be a threat by themselves, and not every combat has to be deadly++. But still like, what is the DM spending time on. Rolling for the 15% chance they inflict 2d6+3? C'mon.

My opinion, WotC set out to make a bounded accuracy game but with 20 levels to fill and a ton of legacy things to keep in the game (like 9th level spells), they lost the thread. And that's before factoring in the likelihood that magic items get involved and make the PCs superheros even sooner. In my experience, bounded accuracy stops working around level 8. This is ironically close to 3.5's E6 solution to out of control character growth - and that's comparing an edition that "solved" crazy numbers bloat to the edition that is most known for it.

Side note, DR would mostly end low-level monsters as threats. With reduced AC lets say the hobgoblin veteran now has a 40% chance to hit. But they do 2d8+3 damage, or 5 - 19. A 3rd level fighter with DR 3? Sure, that hobgoblin is credible. But if the fighter has DR 10? Now the average damage roll of the hobgoblin does 2 damage. 32% of the time, the hobgoblin does no damage even on a hit.

[Theodoxus]

I prefer ablative armor over DR (or at least large DR numbers). If I were to use DR, I'd run it as HAM, but using PB instead of a blanket amount. Heavy armor DR = PB; Medium armor DR = PB/2, and Light armor DR = PB/3.

I think that would keep DR functional without wrecking bounded accuracy. But I would definitely add an ablative nature to armor, which would allow for higher ACs (if desired) - but could also allow for better fine tuning of effects. (Beyond the complexity of B/P/S vs armor types, which definitely slows down combat sans an artificial DM.) But if you had a rule that say, Fighters and Paladins in Heavy Armor had double the DR (or twice the Armor Hit Points) for attacks that hit armor, then a Wizard getting Heavy Armor Proficiency via a Cleric dip isn't getting as much benefit as the same starting Fighter or Paladin instead (and thus losing spell slot progression for the sake of added armor protection). Likewise, something like a rule for Barbarians where their DR is doubled when they're NOT recklessly attacking, as they're getting more defensive value when they're not opening themselves up to retaliation, adds a bit of tactical decision making for the Barbarians player.

Of course, something should probably be granted to unarmored defense in lieu of DR; though probably just adding PB to AC would be sufficient. Makes Monks in particular more evasive.

As for how ablative armor works, my current version is a baseline AC of 8+PB, called Defense. So, anything that rolls below that is a full miss, no damage. Armor then provides an AC value that is added to that number. Take the current AC of an armor, subtract 10 and add the remainder to your Defense (+ Dex if the armor is Light or Medium (max Dex +2/+3 with MAM). That is your AC. Anything that hits between your Defense and your AC hits armor. Armor is rated with a number of Armor Hit Points (AHP) that absorb damage from a hit. If a hit deals more damage than the remaining AHP value, the remainder carries through to the PCs HP pool, and the armor is currently useless (proving neither DR (if applicable) nor AC - so the Defense is now 8+PB+Dex. Obviously, a hit that is higher than the AC ignores the AHP completely and goes straight to PC HPs (whether it also bypasses DR is another question - I rule it does).

The amount of AHP provided is more campaign specific than fixed; for players, they're always wanting more - but taking other forms of 'temporary HP, from THP to the arcane shield provided by Abjuration, I wouldn't recommend more than 10 AHP per AC provided. It shouldn't make it longer to take out a PC than normal.

Of course, spells with saving throws bypass armor as normal. Spells with attack rolls can hit and deal damage to armor. If DR applies or not, is again, a DM call. In a simplified version, I'm ok with DR working.

Repairing AHP can be as simple as an appropriate skill check (Leather working, smithing) over a short rest. Might repair 1 AHP per point of the roll; no minimum DC. Might repair a fixed amount per rest. Using something like Mending might work (despite the spell description not accounting for it). I'd recommend no more than 10 points per casting. Even completely rent armor should be repairable, though you might need to scrounge up additional material if you're not using magic.

For monsters that wear armor, I use a simple formula of 1/2 HP = AHP, and 1/2 HP = new HP value. The AC, I keep the same, and just have a range of 10 to AC hit armor. This does make monsters generally easier to kill (especially with saving throw spells), but I see that as a plus anyway.

[Snowbluff]

The thing about 4e is that you really can't trust people to be objective about it, because WotC messed up the PR for that edition so badly that a lot of existing D&D players were mad about it before they even opened up the book and tried it out. Don't get me wrong, the game was far from perfect... but I used to joke with my friends that people would've loved it if some 3pp had published it under the name Magic Sword (or whatever).

This. I think 4e has a lot of issues in terms of system variety but I think it's a fine game on its own. It'd fit right in with other game families that focus more on board game combat like ICON etc.

[Amechra]

My opinion, WotC set out to make a bounded accuracy game but with 20 levels to fill and a ton of legacy things to keep in the game (like 9th level spells), they lost the thread.

The irony is that pre-WotC D&D arguably handled scaling way better, since the "soft cap" was far lower. So, sure, you could get to level 20 (or further), but you would've been feature complete by around 10th level, with HP scaling dropping to a crawl (I believe 1e Fighter were the only class that got HP after 9th level, and it was only 3 per level? It's been a while, so don't quote me on that). Name level was effectively retirement age, and the rules for playing past that point were mostly aspirational.

[Witty Username]

This. I think 4e has a lot of issues in terms of system variety but I think it's a fine game on its own. It'd fit right in with other game families that focus more on board game combat like ICON etc.

I think on the 4e thing, if it fell closer to Star Wars Saga Edition than it did it would have groked better.
In the first set of things I had trouble groking was AC vs Reflex Defense. Saga Edition had a similar set up to defenses rather than saves but they cut AC with Reflex Defense applying to standard attacks.
Also classes having a much shorter list of abilities, and groupings of those abilities into archetypes so that you could get a sense of what your characters range was helped alot.

[GeneralVryth]

I vibe with that. Obviously we're well into rewrites of large portions of the game, but I'd probably start by curtailing some of the random +1, +2 AC bonuses (looking at you warforged and forge cleric), reintroduce something like arcane spell failure, and nerfing the shield spell. I'd probably also try to tinker with something like reducing the headline AC of armor, and then let some classes apply their proficiency bonus to their AC once they reach a certain level. Finally, give armor DR but have it scale differently if the character gets their prof bonus to their armor. It would be a lot of fine tuning.


I also agree on the need to reduce the number of random AC bonuses. But I think you may have missed a key point about my suggestion. Armor wouldn't give AC at all. It would be purely a source of DR. Then put a basic AC bonus progression on different classes. The standard AC formula becomes 10 (or whatever) + Dex + Class Bonuses. With maybe some option to replace the Dex mod in some cases, or adding another stat if your not wearing armor. It creates the ability to approach mitigation by a combination of not getting hit and not taking as much damage. Something like a Monk can be actual evasion tank (tossing them an ability like Defensive Duelist or Shield with maybe a Ki cost would be elegant here), while Fighters use a combination of Armor and Skill (Class defense bonus) to both avoid getting hit and mitigating hits. Reaction options to reduce damage for a hit would also fit nicely in a Fighters wheel house. Barbarians of course lean more in to the mitigation front, likely getting some kind of natural armor (DR) plus rage bonuses.

On the caster front, part of the point of this is to put more of the defense bonuses and abilities into the classes themselves. This reduces that value of armor profs, and if you can combine that with making them a little harder to get (or requiring higher stats to use) casters getting access to those armor profs become a lot more balanced.



Maybe...I still think the problem is deeper than that. Consider HP bloat. Like monsters with 300+ hit points can't reasonably be taken down by weapon damage + modifier. So characters have to do A LOT more damage as they gain levels. And they do, to the point where they're one-shotting low level stuff. Conversely, a CR 2 that does ~7 damage a round after miss chance (this is being extremely generous to the CR 2 BTW), well that meant something when the characters had 45 hit points. But now they're level 14 and have 145 hit points. In a 3-4 round combat format, that's not meaningful damage. And yes, no one thinks CR 2's are supposed to be a threat by themselves, and not every combat has to be deadly++. But still like, what is the DM spending time on. Rolling for the 15% chance they inflict 2d6+3? C'mon.


Obviously in the DR system I am talking about there would need to be some re-balance of monster statblocks. Another nice thing about DR though, is you can reduce the HP bloat on both the PC and monster side. The trick of course is keeping baseline values in check. You don't want passive DR (from armor etc...) from going over 15, anymore than you want passive AC going over 25 by level 20 (And probably more 10 and 20 for level 10).



Side note, DR would mostly end low-level monsters as threats. With reduced AC lets say the hobgoblin veteran now has a 40% chance to hit. But they do 2d8+3 damage, or 5 - 19. A 3rd level fighter with DR 3? Sure, that hobgoblin is credible. But if the fighter has DR 10? Now the average damage roll of the hobgoblin does 2 damage. 32% of the time, the hobgoblin does no damage even on a hit.

That's why I talked about weapons and other attacks having a minimum damage that they can't be reduced below. It keeps lower level monsters relevant longer because of the risk of the death of a thousand paper cuts (also casters are less likely to be sporting DR so while a basic hobgoblin may more or less be forced into minimum damage against a Fighter or Barbarian, the Wizard or Sorc is still going to feel pain if they are hit). It also is another differentiation point for weapons. A longsword may be a d10 weapon but with a min damage of 1 or 2, while a warhammer could be d8 with a min of 3 or 4 (or maybe they would be 0+str mod and 3+str mod respectively).



As for how ablative armor works, my current version is a baseline AC of 8+PB, called Defense. So, anything that rolls below that is a full miss, no damage. Armor then provides an AC value that is added to that number. Take the current AC of an armor, subtract 10 and add the remainder to your Defense (+ Dex if the armor is Light or Medium (max Dex +2/+3 with MAM). That is your AC. Anything that hits between your Defense and your AC hits armor. Armor is rated with a number of Armor Hit Points (AHP) that absorb damage from a hit. If a hit deals more damage than the remaining AHP value, the remainder carries through to the PCs HP pool, and the armor is currently useless (proving neither DR (if applicable) nor AC - so the Defense is now 8+PB+Dex. Obviously, a hit that is higher than the AC ignores the AHP completely and goes straight to PC HPs (whether it also bypasses DR is another question - I rule it does).

The amount of AHP provided is more campaign specific than fixed; for players, they're always wanting more - but taking other forms of 'temporary HP, from THP to the arcane shield provided by Abjuration, I wouldn't recommend more than 10 AHP per AC provided. It shouldn't make it longer to take out a PC than normal.

Of course, spells with saving throws bypass armor as normal. Spells with attack rolls can hit and deal damage to armor. If DR applies or not, is again, a DM call. In a simplified version, I'm ok with DR working.

Repairing AHP can be as simple as an appropriate skill check (Leather working, smithing) over a short rest. Might repair 1 AHP per point of the roll; no minimum DC. Might repair a fixed amount per rest. Using something like Mending might work (despite the spell description not accounting for it). I'd recommend no more than 10 points per casting. Even completely rent armor should be repairable, though you might need to scrounge up additional material if you're not using magic.

For monsters that wear armor, I use a simple formula of 1/2 HP = AHP, and 1/2 HP = new HP value. The AC, I keep the same, and just have a range of 10 to AC hit armor. This does make monsters generally easier to kill (especially with saving throw spells), but I see that as a plus anyway.

While I kind of see the value in this from a verisimilitude perspective, I wonder if it's over-complicating things. It's adding a couple more logical checks per attack. Where as a more basic DR system is just adding a mod on the damage roll (with a min value if you use my above example). It's also adding another value to track. While I do think 5e made some things too simple, the general idea of simplifying things where possible, and streamlining things does have value.


I think on the 4e thing, if it fell closer to Star Wars Saga Edition than it did it would have groked better.
In the first set of things I had trouble groking was AC vs Reflex Defense. Saga Edition had a similar set up to defenses rather than saves but they cut AC with Reflex Defense applying to standard attacks.
Also classes having a much shorter list of abilities, and groupings of those abilities into archetypes so that you could get a sense of what your characters range was helped alot.

I agree with this completely. A 4e that would have been more like Saga would have been received a lot better. Saga just suffered hard from the skills being used to attack/defend with (while following a different progression), and also the lack of bounded accuracy is even more noticeable in the Star Wars universe where characters in the stories are routinely driven off by basic soldiers.

[Pex]

I don't think a DR system would work due to fun factor. Sure, it's nice when taking 14 damage it's reduced to 2, but I think a player would rather not be hit at all. Combat becomes a long haul chore because it takes a lot longer to drop someone. Reducing hit points won't help because then that 2 damage starts to look a lot bigger despite not having taken 14. It becomes annoying and disheartening to keep reducing hit points 2 or 3 at a time as the combat progresses. It's slow torture. Players also will not be happy when their attack doing 15 damage gets reduced to 3 because of the monster's DR. Then of course what about spells? Do nothing then Fireball is still doing 8d6 damage while greatsword warrior is doing 4 points after DR. Include spell damage and watch spell casters master debuffing and terrain control maintaining their power. Meanwhile the warrior does 4 damage.

Maybe it is possible to create a game system that uses DR well. Ars Magica has Soak. Rollmaster has its tables where you're hit more often in heavier armor but could receive only 1 damage where in lesser armor you're hit a lot less often but when you are hit you take 30 damage where as the heavy armor wearer would have received only 10 damage on the same attack. You have to make the game system revolve around it. 5E is not wrong for not doing it this way and does not have to apologize for it.

[NichG]

I think per-round DR is nicer than per-attack for some of these issues. It means that coordinating attacks (and doing things to prevent attacks from being coordinated) becomes more important.

I guess the way I'd do it is, attacks have almost 100% hit rate by default - you're rolling d20+Dex modifier against an AC equal to the target's Dex modifier and thats (mostly) it, which means mostly you're looking for crits or natural 1s. Monks and Rogues get to increase their AC with level-scaling bonuses when wearing no armor or light armor respectively, with the Monk bonus capping out at 60% evasion against an equal Dex attacker and the Rogue bonus capping out at 30% (but these would stack if you cross-class). Maybe magic items or some spells can also fiddle with this, but leaning towards attacker Disadvantage rather than directly adding to the AC. Ring of Protection probably has to go away.

But now you have per-round DR from your armor instead, equal to say your Proficiency bonus (if proficient in the armor type) multiplied by 1 for light armor, 2 for medium, or 3 for heavy. If you aren't proficient, you just get the 1, 2, or 3 base value. Magic item plusses add to the effective Proficiency bonus being applied, so a +5 plate mail would give you a flat extra 15 per round soak. Sneak attacks and critical hits bypass this DR. Maybe some special things could 'break' or 'restore' this DR pool in multi-round fashion? You could have 'sunder' type mechanics but instead of destroying the item they do half damage but the DR pool cap is lowered by the damage dealt until repairs are made...

Tempted to let armor also block elemental damage with this DR, except perhaps certain thematic vulnerabilities - plate varieties are vulnerable to electricity and cold, chain/ring to acid (gets through the gaps), padded armors to fire, and scale and leather and splint are fine against all elements? Maybe necrotic gets through everything? Dunno... I'm also not sure where I want shields to go in this picture - I feel like a reaction to replace your AC with 5 + the shield's AC rating (rather than stacking) for the rest of the round could work but its a little messy, with early shields being worthless and stuff like +5 shields being way too good... Spells that would grant AC instead temporarily boost the DR pool for the round, or give Disadvantage to the attacker's roll.

Gotta rebalance some class features. There's stuff based on advantage on attack rolls or things like that, which is a lot less relevant with this. Reckless attack could just be 'deal 25% extra melee damage, take 25% extra melee damage', upgrading to 50%/50% at a later level. Unarmored Defense would give extra DR pool based on your Constitution rather than giving AC. Defense fighting style maybe upgrades the armor proficiency bonus by +1? Protection probably should just let the Fighter use their shield on someone else's behalf. Archery maybe just becomes a damage bonus? Case by case...

[Skrum]

I think per-round DR is nicer than per-attack for some of these issues. It means that coordinating attacks (and doing things to prevent attacks from being coordinated) becomes more important.


Agreed. I started spitballing a system that sorta worked like that....
Each character would have multiple pools of "hit points." Something like health, stamina, and will. All attacks and spells would deal damage to one of those pools. If a pool gets reduced to zero, they suffer the effect.

Ex: hypnotic pattern deals 4d6 Will damage. If that reduces someone to 0, they become incapacitated.

Pools would regain some value at the beginning of each turn, representing the character shaking off previous damage. Weapons could have different "reduce to 0" effects, and classes could also add options, like "when reducing a creature's health to 0 with X, you may do Y."

Honestly it's probably too complicated though xD. Tracking an entire battlefield's 3 pools, like that's a big yuck for the DM.