Search results

Yes, and that was my point. The changes you don't want in a hypothetical 6e are no more radical than the changes that were made in other editions.

Jokes aside, bring back object hardness. That'd prevent cutting a galleon in half from non-epic characters.

Why does a game where you can have elf thieves instead of just playing Elf, the class, have to be called D&D and be made by the D&D people? Why does a game that has no level or class restrictions for elves, so you can have 20th-level elf paladins, have to be called D&D and be made by the D&D...

I think it could work. Level Up uses exertion points, which only martials get, and are used to power maneuvers. And adepts--which are monks, but renamed so as to be more encompassing--get extra exertion and use it both for maneuvers as a replacement for ki points. So there could be Ability...

And that leaves the GM having to push back when the players don't ignore the implications.

Funnily enough, with the exception of 1e to 2e, every edition has been extremely different from the previous one. People should be more willing to throw things out and try new stuff for this hypothetical edition.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Then you either need to get rid of the spells entirely or come up with some really good reasons why they haven't altered the world.

I dunno, I'm kinda hoping for Adventures in the Ramtops, Adventures in the Counterweight Continent, Adventures in the Sto Plains, and Adventures in Fourecks, if only to see what they would do with it. Heck, maybe we could finally get an answer to the Muntab question.

There's about a bazillion generic systems out there that can do this already, though.

The thing is, GMs don't necessarily need to know every spell the PCs have, but they should know what's in the system and actually plan the world (and adventure) around that. A world with teleport and sending in it will be different from one that doesn't have that spell. Maybe sending only...

Bring 'em back! Quote the things you thought were interesting and talk about them! Don't let the thread die due to kvetching! (Nobody commented on my two ideas, snif snif)

I mean, yeah, it's a suggestion, and I usually do run far fewer than that because my table doesn't care all that much for combat. But as I said elsewhere, I've run into a large number of people who not only took that suggestion as a rule but thought that I was failing at D&D for not adhering to it.

Sure, but it's still a ridiculously high number of encounters.

Ah. Strangely, I thought lumberjack.

Or at the very least, give martials a bonus to fighting that non-fighters don't have. Very much agreed. I'm actually going through all the Level Up spells (both official and 3pp) + the spells that didn't make it over from 5e and trying to remove as much crossover as possible. There's still...

...what's dead dude on lumber from, and/or why would you not want to remove one?

Also, here's my ideal Humanoid Book, which would be separate from the rest of the monsters. (Separate in this case can mean "it's own chapter in the PHB or MM") Step 1: Create a whole ton of NPC statblocks for every tier. Make them both as generic and as flavorful as possible. Yes, it's a weird...

Weirdly, I've been told (primarily by redditors) that I'm failing at D&D if I didn't do 5-8 encounters per day.

I kinda want to go wacky and get rid of classes. Take all those archetypes and turn them into a whole buncha. Maybe even just 10-level classes instead of 20-level classes. Have some core abilities that can be used throughout so you can say "this class is a Full/Half/Tertiary Spellcaster" or...