D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Micah Sweet]

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.

If you're going to insist that an explanation is never needed, I'm going to disagree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.


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.

A5e has the Adept, which is broader yet includes the monk concept.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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"

That's not what "whataboutisms" are. The fact that other things are also relevant doesn't mean the ones under discussion shouldn't be addressed.

 

[Minigiant]

Why should the fandom do that? They're not getting paid to make product that doesn't suit their personal needs. The designers at least have $$ in the game.

Human nature.

 

[Reynard]

that was at least as much a reaction to the OGL as to 5e getting stale. When you are a 3pp and the license you rely on goes away, you do not have that many options

Maybe that is what motivated them, but their success means people ARE looking for different systems within the same genre slices.

 

[CreamCloud0]

If you're going to insist that an explanation is never needed, I'm going to disagree.

i'm not saying no explanation is needed, but we have one and i'm saying stop complaining our explanation doesn't meet your specific personal standards.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Human nature.

IME, human nature supports my point better than yours. Most folks want personal gain in exchange for work.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you're going to insist that an explanation is never needed, I'm going to disagree.

I think it's the selectiveness of the explanations being needed which is an issue, and the broad passes given to some classes.

Like, I do not think "It's arcane magic bro" should allow Wizards/Sorcerers/Warlocks/Bards a free pass to do absolutely any magical thing, yet it does. Equally, "It's divine magic bro" has similar issues, if you want explanations. And so on. Hell even "Well he's a Monk bro" allows literally any supernatural ability, including straight-up magic spells, so I think when you're ignoring the Wizard just doing a thousand different and conceptually unrelated things with spells, but saying "I'm going to need a detailed explanation in writing" re: a Fighter wanting to jump 30ft instead of 15ft or w/e then we're getting into some silly territory. And I'm sorry you can't argue "whataboutery" here, because that's literally the subject - inconsistency of requirement.

(I should note that in most fantasy settings there would be a level of consistency as to how magic works that is simply not even slightly present in D&D because D&D's magic is randomly cobbled together from some weird sci-fi adjacent fantasy novels, the Bible, a ton of "cool stuff" from a million other fantasy novels, weird ideas of dungeoneering-specific convenience spells, weird ideas of signature spells for specific PC or GMPC Wizards, and so on. So D&D has a problem here, a problem most fantasy settings do not have. They weren't attempting consistency, it was basically just a wargame. Oddly the most consistent magic in D&D by far in 4E, because it wasn't bound by the same system, so could focus on being consistent with itself.)

That's not what "whataboutisms" are. The fact that other things are also relevant doesn't mean the ones under discussion shouldn't be addressed.

The inconsistency is exactly the issue. You actually agree, you literally said you did - you literally responded by saying you wanted to fix those other issues (and there are many more). Pick a lane.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i'm not saying no explanation is needed, but we have one and i'm saying stop complaining our explanation doesn't meet your specific personal standards.

We have no explanation in the text, just personal feelings for one's own table.

 

[Reynard]

It's not that crazy


YEs I've played other RPGs.

You do realize every version of D&D uses the same resolution system as the main mechanic just with different numbers, formulas, and ranges?

1d20+X vs DC Y
If equal or greater, do AdB+C or Effect 1
If lower, sometimes half or Effect 2

Do you really think the only difference between Basic and 4E is the numbers?