D&D (2024) Toward a Theory of 6th Edition

[dave2008]

It is often used by the designers to give classes abilities which would be better served by a non-magical source.

There is a long tradition of that in DnD. That doesn't mean it is a good idea though

 

[Li Shenron]

Race is a mix of your genetics and cultural upbringing.
Backgrounds are your personal life. Where you a noble? Farmer? Have to live on the streets for a living?
Class is a lot like your current profession. Your job. What you do for a living NOW.

Yes, that's the purported intent. And, as we've seen with classes like Barbarian and Ranger, the model breaks down and should be reconsidered.

The way I see it, it seems to "break down" because it is NOT the purported intent, while in fact it doesn't break down at all.

"Class" is a general heroic archetype and adventuring role. It is defined for player characters within the context of a campaign. It does not imply anything about the PC place in society, and is therefore not a job or profession. At best you could say it implies your "job within the adventuring party", but not entirely. It doesn't even have to make any sense within the fantasy world. It can have sense if you want to, so you can say that Sorcerer in your fantasy world is also a "job", and that there are sorcerers' clubs and unions and badges, but it's only an option. This is why a Barbarian class or even an Elf class doesn't break down, until you pretend it to be something outside its original context at any cost.

"Background" instead is pretty much exactly what you do for a living. It's a job/profession but in an extended sense, because it includes options such as Hermit or Outlander or Criminal which are ways to manage getting along in life without a true job, and yet they are exactly done for a living.

Then, there are fundamentally two different campaigning styles in a RPG:

- adventures are sparse: the PCs keep their "doing for a living" and background means "what you ARE when not adventuring"

- adventures are continuous: the PCs leave their "doing for a living" behind and background means "what you WERE before adventuring"

 

[TwoSix]

Tomorrow I'm starting a game of Beyond the Wall, an OSR that has a interesting way of generating interesting character with a workable background and with built-in tie to the party (or the campaign). They are called Playbook and they are a document with a general character concept where you get to roll on multiple tables to generate your stats, ties and background, going as far a giving bonuses to who participated in an event in your background (like: the player to your right helped you avenge the murder of your father some years ago, he gains +1 Str). I think D&D could benefit from this kind of design where the character is the total sum of all his components: race and background should be more than first level choices, they should have more meaning in the character developpment, giving you your working stats and features.

Like: Dwarf +2 con (Some features at lvl 1/4/6/8/11/15/17), Sage +1 Int (Some features at level 1/2/7/9/12/16/18), Fighter +2 strength (Features at lvl 1/3/5/10/13/14/19/20).

Props for BtW mention, which is a fantastic game.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Also, on magic. I think magic in D&D is cheap and dont feel magical. Cantrips are the worst offender, but the fact that any class have at least 1 archetype that gives access to magic is strange: spellcasters feel almost as generic as fighter when everybody in the party can do magic. Last week I told my players that if I was to ever design a game (I'll not, but just talking), magic would be much stronger and magical, but also more draining. I want a mage to be able to cast fireballs or timestop or teleport at low level because that's what magic is all about: if I cant know if my player threw a firebolt or a normal bolt from his crossbow if he doest tell me, then there's a problem, magic should be obvious. But give less spellslots, so what if the mage must spend the two last encounter in the day with his dagger if he has already cleared the first one with is Summon Commet spell? Just dont dump all physical stats and you'll be fine.

So fewer spellslot, but more magical spells. I'd like magic to be the rare ''ohhh sh***t'' moment. If I hear my player tell me again that he cast ''Create Bonfire'', turn after turn, I swear I'll do a nervous breakdown.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Also, on magic. I think magic in D&D is cheap and dont feel magical. Cantrips are the worst offender, but the fact that any class have at least 1 archetype that gives access to magic is strange: spellcasters feel almost as generic as fighter when everybody in the party can do magic. Last week I told my players that if I was to ever design a game (I'll not, but just talking), magic would be much stronger and magical, but also more draining. I want a mage to be able to cast fireballs or timestop or teleport at low level because that's what magic is all about: if I cant know if my player threw a firebolt or a normal bolt from his crossbow if he doest tell me, then there's a problem, magic should be obvious. But give less spellslots, so what if the mage must spend the two last encounter in the day with his dagger if he has already cleared the first one with is Summon Commet spell? Just dont dump all physical stats and you'll be fine.

So fewer spellslot, but more magical spells. I'd like magic to be the rare ''ohhh sh***t'' moment. If I hear my player tell me again that he cast ''Create Bonfire'', turn after turn, I swear I'll do a nervous breakdown.

Yeah, I largely agree with this. I really don't like cantrips. Not damaging ones, anyway. The cow is out of the barn with D&D, though, so we're stuck with it forever.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The way I see it, it seems to "break down" because it is NOT the purported intent, while in fact it doesn't break down at all.

"Class" is a general heroic archetype and adventuring role. It is defined for player characters within the context of a campaign. It does not imply anything about the PC place in society, and is therefore not a job or profession. At best you could say it implies your "job within the adventuring party", but not entirely. It doesn't even have to make any sense within the fantasy world. It can have sense if you want to, so you can say that Sorcerer in your fantasy world is also a "job", and that there are sorcerers' clubs and unions and badges, but it's only an option. This is why a Barbarian class or even an Elf class doesn't break down, until you pretend it to be something outside its original context at any cost.

"Background" instead is pretty much exactly what you do for a living. It's a job/profession but in an extended sense, because it includes options such as Hermit or Outlander or Criminal which are ways to manage getting along in life without a true job, and yet they are exactly done for a living.

Then, there are fundamentally two different campaigning styles in a RPG:

- adventures are sparse: the PCs keep their "doing for a living" and background means "what you ARE when not adventuring"

- adventures are continuous: the PCs leave their "doing for a living" behind and background means "what you WERE before adventuring"

Yes, my claim that the model is "breaking down" is entirely subjective. Some people are 100% happy with "Barbarian" (for example) being a class, and others like myself are not. Sure, it works for what it is, but I think the game would be richer if I could play a barbarian cleric or a barbarian rogue without having to multiclass.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yes, my claim that the model is "breaking down" is entirely subjective. Some people are 100% happy with "Barbarian" (for example) being a class, and others like myself are not. Sure, it works for what it is, but I think the game would be richer if I could play a barbarian cleric or a barbarian rogue without having to multiclass.

But what is really stopping you from saying that your Cleric or Rogue is also a Barbarian?

Is it the lack of specific mechanical options, such as not being able to gain "Rage" without taking levels in the Barbarian class? Is it really so important for you to get this one specific mechanic, so that you won't feel like your PC is a Barbarian without it? Can you not describe your PC as "raging" pretty much every time you want, with or without the mechanical effects? This is objectively something missing from the game, and for a reason: it is one of those few "niche protection" abilities that were not made available to everyone as feats. The idea was, that at least a few things should be class-exclusives, otherwise why having classes at all, let's go play GURPS. It was left to each gaming group to destroy niche protection as much as they like with house rules. But guess what, they also left an open door anyway: multiclassing. Is it the mere lack of Rage what makes you rage (pun intended!), or is that you want to a Barbarian without being a Barbarian (class), without making up a Rage feat, without multiclassing, without just pretending narratively that you are a Barbarian anyway... how do I know that even if 6e comes up with a Barbarian background you won't then want to be a Barbarian also without the background?

Or is it the lack of an official recognition, a "Barbarian" label to write on your character sheet? And why do you care? Even in organized play, no one can stop you from calling your PC a Barbarian if you want.

 

[TwoSix]

But what is really stopping you from saying that your Cleric or Rogue is also a Barbarian?

Is it the lack of specific mechanical options, such as not being able to gain "Rage" without taking levels in the Barbarian class? Is it really so important for you to get this one specific mechanic, so that you won't feel like your PC is a Barbarian without it? Can you not describe your PC as "raging" pretty much every time you want, with or without the mechanical effects? This is objectively something missing from the game, and for a reason: it is one of those few "niche protection" abilities that were not made available to everyone as feats. The idea was, that at least a few things should be class-exclusives, otherwise why having classes at all, let's go play GURPS. It was left to each gaming group to destroy niche protection as much as they like with house rules. But guess what, they also left an open door anyway: multiclassing. Is it the mere lack of Rage what makes you rage (pun intended!), or is that you want to a Barbarian without being a Barbarian (class), without making up a Rage feat, without multiclassing, without just pretending narratively that you are a Barbarian anyway... how do I know that even if 6e comes up with a Barbarian background you won't then want to be a Barbarian also without the background?

Or is it the lack of an official recognition, a "Barbarian" label to write on your character sheet? And why do you care? Even in organized play, no one can stop you from calling your PC a Barbarian if you want.

For a lot of players, a descriptor doesn't feel meaningful if there isn't at least a hint of mechanical connection to the concept. See Craft and Profession skills back in 3.5, and why removing them was controversial.

 

[Oofta]

I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.

For me there are two basic reasons.

Too many spells are still an "I win" button. Even some low level spells like Heat Metal can effectively take out your BBEG if he's wearing metal armor because he won't be able to hit anything, and the caster just has to run away to ensure the spell lasts and there's no saving throw. Forcecage and Banishment at higher levels also make encounter design incredibly difficult.

Then there's the ubiquity of magic. It's not as bad as 4E (where IMHO everyone had supernatural abilities) but it's still too common for a low magic world. It kind of forces you to have a high magic world, which is not necessarily what everyone wants.

I'm OK with it and enjoy the game, just means if I want to create a low magic world I have to do quite a bit of customizing which is hard to balance.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don't get why people on this board hate magic so much.

I prefer magic to be something wild and dangerous and mysterious, more like Hyperboria than the Wizarding World. I'd like checks to cast a spell with a chance things get crazy if failed. Like WHFP 2e.