D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[CreamCloud0]

Are you somehow assuming no one disagrees with you? It's not just me.

i'm not saying no-one disagrees with me or that it's just you who does it, you however, do seem to grind the discussion to a halt demanding an answer for how fantasy people in a fantasy world do standard fantasy things every time it comes up and it's just. so. tiresome.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In more game mechanical terms, the desire for those players is for nonmagical classes and subclasses to only gain abilities that modify and adjust the normal resolution system (attack rolls and skill checks and damage rolls), not provide new optionality.

They can get more and better attacks, better saves and more hit points, but they can’t get different options.

It’s BS, of course. Every character with more than maybe 4 levels is an inherently magical being.

Source please.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am completely in favor of the supernatural warrior class. Wrote up a concept a while back and posted it here.

So long as it's not "magic" and there's no implication it's magic, but rather some extremely ill-defined "internal energy" or the like, and it's PHB class, that'd probably be good.

Honestly I think at this point, we need to just delete the Monk class entirely for the sake of D&D. There's no other class I'd say that about with certainty. It's a weird little orientalist blob and 5E 2024 didn't fix it, just made it more mechanically effective and very slightly less orientalist (but not really). Let's kill it, and take its stuff!

Then we can have a class which could do armed or unarmed combat, armoured or unarmoured (really work on the balance so it's an actual choice, maybe subclass-based), and which has a name like Warrior (i.e. a name as broad as Fighter), and one of the subclasses is Monk (because D&D Monks are indeed "Warrior Monks") or similar, and has most of the trad Monk abilities (we don't need to replicate every subclass).

We probably also need a Rogue/Ranger/Ninja one separate from that unless the subclasses are absolutely incredible, depends on how skills are done in part I think. In 5E we would - maybe not in 6E.

Do we really need Proficiency? We have ability scores, adv/disadv, is Proficiency a variable that added value to your game?

I think it exists solely so Numbers Go Up, and you get a feeling of progression.

Now, does that mean we don't need it? Hmmm perhaps perhaps not. I think we probably do with a level-based game because Human Like It when Number Go Up. Even monkey can count banana, wish for more banana.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Source please.

Bro that's clearly what we call in this business "an opinion". It's not even stated LIKE it's a fact, whereas opinions often are and thus that request is more viable.

 

[Scribe]

I think it exists solely so Numbers Go Up, and you get a feeling of progression.

Now, does that mean we don't need it? Hmmm perhaps perhaps not. I think we probably do with a level-based game because Human Like It when Number Go Up. Even monkey can count banana, wish for more banana.

Yeah, I guess. Level, Tier of Play, I think all accomplish the same thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. You do.

Good arguments everyone!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, I guess. Level, Tier of Play, I think all accomplish the same thing.

Yeah and in DH as you know, your base Proficiency (which obviously is damage-related in that, but still) is literally the same number as your Tier. I suspect at some point in 5E's design it was the same as Tier but that it got expanded out for some mechanical or psychological reason.

In 4E they did just use level straight up (or half-level for non-proficient).

 

[CreamCloud0]

Do we really need Proficiency? We have ability scores, adv/disadv, is Proficiency a variable that added value to your game?

i think it's worthwhile, it measures a fundamentally different concept than the other two, ability scores measure your innate adeptness at a situation, dis/advantage is a representation of situational factors and proficiency (or the lack thereof) measures if you know how to properly perform a task or not,

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, if we're talking fantastical, the idea that a Fighter can in well under six seconds (from level 5 onwards) potentially kill or maim four different people in four different directions with four different attacks (each potentially having a different Battlemaster rider on them!), rising to 6 at 11 and 8 at 17, whilst also moving up to 30ft and not even having used up their Bonus Action (!!!), that's insanely fantastical, especially if they're using say, a greatsword or a greataxe or god help us, a maul (which I daresay is 100% physically impossible to do in six seconds, even a sweep/turn IRL is going to lose so much speed after the first impact it'll do next to nothing to the rest).

(To be clear I actually think Fighters can make too many attacks per round, I think that's basically a bad hangover from 2E and we should max out at 2 attacks + bonus action and most classes should get that, just Fighters should get attacks doing stuff like load and loads more damage - I mean, how come Paladins get to hit hardest in a single swing? - or whirlwind attacks or the like)

So this is completely inconsistent. It's not really about what needs a magical explanation, it just a selective "Well this impossible thing is okay because I personally don't imagine it to be impossible even though actually if I think about it for even a second it obviously is but that impossible thing should stay impossible even though it's not really any less plausible and is even more of a genre trope!".

D&D "but it's not plausible!" stuff remains crippled by the "feel free to jump off a building" nature of HP too. You don't even get stunned or risk death by massive damage in 5E lol. Let alone break anything. You literally just get prone'd if you jump a survivable height, even straight on to granite!

I'm happy to fix those things too. You got any more "whataboutisms"?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm happy to fix those things too. You got any more "whataboutisms"?

The fact that you agree they need fixing and for the same reason very clearly illustrates that they are in fact reasonable and relevant points and not totally unrelated "whataboutisms"