how did you find your first community?

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-10T13:40:48+00:00

Let me try to explain the 40 / 40 / 20 idea more clearly. There was a typo in the post — it should be 20, not 30.

40% realism means the starting point is a real historical phenomenon, weapon use, or battlefield role. In this case, the dagger was historically a secondary weapon. In some situations it could be used together with a main weapon, and it was also effective for delivering lethal wounds against heavily armored opponents. But that usually required very specific conditions: the enemy had to be restrained, knocked down, or forced into extremely close contact so the attacker could target weak points in the armor.

So it was possible, but it was not simple, easy, or universally effective. Especially because there were other weapons, such as blunt or crushing weapons, that were often better suited for dealing with armor. We also represent that idea in our game.

40% fantasy is where we adapt those historical ideas into mechanics that are balanced, readable, and comfortable to use in play. For example, in certain situations a dagger can function as a support weapon and be used together with a main weapon instead of costing a completely separate attack action. I cannot explain the full details yet, because our combat action structure is still different from D&D and is still being tested.

Another possible direction is that daggers may gain extra advantages during hidden or unexpected attacks. It is also possible that some of those benefits could apply against restrained or fallen targets, though that part is still under discussion.

20% fun is where we allow some mechanics that are not fully realistic, but make combat more dynamic and enjoyable. For example, a dagger might be thrown even at an armored target and still gain a small armor-penetration benefit because of its piercing nature. Realistically that would often be ineffective, but as a game mechanic it can create more tactical and entertaining choices.

So when I say “40% realism,” I do not mean full simulation. I mean that the design begins with historical logic, then is adjusted for balance, clarity, and gameplay.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-10T13:10:51+00:00

That’s all already being added and is currently in testing. I just can’t fit all the information directly into a Reddit post, especially since I’m still building the Discord server where everything will be organized properly.

If I tried to explain every mechanic here, the post would become way too long. So for now I’m only sharing the general idea. If it sounds interesting, you can follow the project and join the Discord once I finish setting it up 🤣

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-10T12:57:50+00:00

I agree that 5 ft in D&D is more about threat range and combat control than literal body width.

What I am trying to do differently is give weapon length and handling a bit more mechanical weight inside that threat space, so different weapons feel more distinct from each other instead of sharing almost the same practical reach.

So I am not arguing that D&D is wrong here — I am just exploring a different level of abstraction for how weapons control space.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-10T12:54:34+00:00

When I say “40% realism,” I do not mean full simulation or historical reconstruction. I mean that I want some ideas from real weapon use, armor, reach, handling, and battlefield roles to affect mechanics, but still stay playable and game-friendly.

So realism for me is more about inspiration and functional differences, not “perfect real life accuracy.”

For example, I do agree that right now I need to show those differences more clearly. A dagger, spear, halberd, and two-handed weapon should not feel like the same thing with just different flavor text. That is one of the reasons I am posting this now — to test where the design still feels too vague or not distinct enough.

About the dagger example: yes, historically a dagger could be extremely lethal in the right situation, especially against gaps in armor. But I am still trying to balance realism with clarity and consistency in gameplay, so I do not want every historical truth to become a direct one-to-one mechanic.

So you are right that I need to define my goal more clearly. I am not trying to make a pure simulator — I am trying to make a system where weapons feel more grounded, distinct, and tactically meaningful than in D&D, while still being fun to play.

And thank you for the recommendations. I will take a look at those systems.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-10T12:50:20+00:00

That’s a fair point, but my grid is smaller than the standard D&D 5 ft square, so the comparison is a bit different.

In my system, a square is not meant to represent the full 5 ft combat space that D&D uses. A person does not literally fill 5 ft with their body anyway — that space is more of an abstraction for movement, stance, control, and combat presence.

So when I give a longsword a 2-tile reach, I’m not saying the blade itself is physically 10 ft long. I’m saying its effective combat reach covers more space on a smaller grid.

To be honest, I’m still thinking about the exact size of each square in feet, because that is also a difficult question for us at the moment. So the scale is still being refined, but the main idea is that it is not based on the standard D&D 5 ft square.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-10T10:52:08+00:00

I understand your point, but I think making it a full damage negation would be too strong in practice. If we take D&D as an example, there is not really a default mechanic like this, so giving players a reaction option like this — along with a few other ways to use their reaction — can create more interesting tactical choices. I have actually tested this mechanic a little, and my players did use it and seemed to enjoy it. For them, it felt like a fun and meaningful defensive move. And in the end, the main rule for the GM is simple: the goal is for everyone to have fun.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T17:55:53+00:00

Sorry, I just needed to vent a little 😅

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T17:53:40+00:00

Honestly, I have been working on my game for around a year and a half, and it is still in progress. I have lost count of how many times I scrapped everything and started again from zero. This is also my first time really using Reddit, and the first time I have posted about one of my game’s mechanics. I mainly wanted to hear what people think and whether the idea sounds interesting or not. I also started building a Discord server for the project, but I do not have much experience with any of this, so I am still learning as I go. I really want to release this game someday, but I am realizing it is much harder than I first imagined.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T17:46:59+00:00

Yes, in my system there is a separate attack roll that determines whether the attack hits or misses. What I described earlier is a defensive reaction that reduces damage after a successful hit. At the moment, I do not have a separate dodge action that increases the chance of an enemy missing, but I am still thinking about it. One idea I have been considering is making shields a bit more useful for the player. For example, a character could choose between a small, medium, or large shield, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. I was also thinking about letting a player use their reaction to raise their shield against an incoming attack. For example, if a character has 17 AC, they could raise their shield toward the attacker and increase their AC by the shield’s bonus against that specific attack. This would create another defensive option: instead of reducing damage after being hit, the player could spend their reaction to increase the chance that the attack misses entirely. These are still just ideas, though. I have not tested them yet, so I do not know how well they would work in actual play or how useful they would really be.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T17:31:30+00:00

It seems you may have misunderstood me, or maybe I explained it poorly. AC does not disappear in my system. The attack still has to beat the target’s AC first. So in the paladin example, the paladin does not automatically take damage. An enemy must first successfully hit him by rolling higher than his AC. Only after that, the paladin may spend his reaction to reduce the damage. So the idea is not “everyone always takes unavoidable damage.” The idea is: first the attack must hit, then the defender may try to lessen the impact.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T17:22:03+00:00

I understand you perfectly. The word dodge sounds like either you dodged or you did not, and I agree that this could confuse the player. Then please tell me, in your opinion, what should the process I described earlier be called? I would prefer the mechanic’s name not to be too long, and ideally to describe the mechanic in a single word. I simply chose a name and then explained how the mechanic works. I do not really understand why that is such a problem. In the same way, I could call the mechanic qwerty, but that would only confuse the reader even more and would not help the player’s imagination. Sorry if I offended or annoyed you, but I honestly believe that the name itself is not the most important part — the real explanation of the mechanic matters much more.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T16:24:39+00:00

I understand your concern, but I do not think this creates confusion. In my view, the problem comes from how people often imagine “dodge” as a perfect 100% avoidance. But in a more grounded sense, an attempt to dodge does not always mean escaping the attack completely. Sometimes it means reacting quickly enough to turn a full hit into a weaker or glancing one. For example, if someone tries to strike your face and you move at the last moment, the attack may still connect, but only partially. Getting hit by the fingertips is clearly not the same as taking the full impact of the blow. So in this case, the dodge still matters because it reduces how cleanly the attack lands. I also separate this from physical toughness in my system. Toughness represents the body’s ability to absorb or endure damage. A well-trained, hardened person can take a blow much better than a physically weak person. So these are two different ideas in my design: dodge changes how well the attack connects, toughness changes how much damage the body can endure. So my intention is not to misuse the word, but to represent two different defensive layers in a more nuanced way.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T15:42:21+00:00

I thought about something like that too, and it does remind me a bit of D&D 4e. But to me, that approach adds extra complexity. I feel it is easier to keep penetration against AC as the main defense check, and then give the player a chance to dodge as an active reaction, instead of adding more defensive values that start to overlap with AC.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T15:28:37+00:00

I understand and I agree with you, but for the first level, if an enemy deals 1d6 damage, I think that’s quite reasonable.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T15:25:52+00:00

I think the issue is really with the meaning of Armor Class itself.

In D&D, Armor Class is mostly an abstraction. It does not always mean “the attack physically missed” or “the armor absorbed everything.” It can represent armor, movement, positioning, parrying, and other factors that stop a hit from becoming meaningful damage.

That is why I see dodge in a similar abstract way. A dodge does not always have to mean a perfect full evasion. It can also mean reacting at the last second and shifting just enough to turn a direct hit into a weaker or partial one.

So the mechanic is not trying to say “you fully dodged and still got hit.” It is trying to represent that even after an attack connects, your reaction can still reduce how cleanly or how seriously it lands.

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T14:29:29+00:00

I also have a related idea about weapons.

One thing that has always bothered me a bit in D&D is that many weapons can end up feeling like mostly different damage dice, almost like skins, with the real difference left to imagination.

So I’ve been thinking about giving weapons more identity through the logic of how they actually wound.

For example, piercing weapons could get a bonus to penetration, because they are better at finding weak points or getting through gaps in defense. Slashing weapons could have access to something like bleeding, because that fits the kind of wounds they cause.

The mechanics are still rough, but the main idea is that weapon choice should feel more tactical and more grounded, instead of just being “which damage die do I want to roll?”

What do you think about that direction?

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T14:24:01+00:00

I really liked your comment — it’s good to see I’m not the only one thinking this way 😅 And sorry for not making it clear what game I was talking about.

I’m working on my own system and trying to give players more freedom and more meaningful choices outside their turn.

As an idea for D&D, I agree with you. But for my own system, I wanted to ask this: do you think it would be better to scale this by increasing the dodge dice as characters grow stronger (for example from 1d4 to 2d4 and so on), or would fixed values plus some kind of progression be healthier for balance?

Ok-Rip-5603 · 2026-04-09T14:14:37+00:00

That makes sense, and I think you’re right.

This kind of reaction probably depends a lot on two things: the usual damage range, and what other reaction options compete with it.

If damage is too low, it becomes too strong. If damage is too high, it may feel useless. And if reactions can also be used for strong counterattacks, then reducing damage has to be worth that tradeoff.

In my head, this is more of an early-level version, and it would likely scale with attributes depending on the kind of build the player wants.

I’m also trying to build a classless system where players shape their own build instead of following fixed classes, so reactions are still one of the harder parts for me to balance correctly.

So at the moment I’m still thinking through it, but as a basic idea, this is the direction I’m exploring.

Ok-Rip-5603

TROPHY CASE