D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Minigiant]

But this is also an imaginary wishes thread, where people get to imagine a universe where Hasbro makes the game they want.

It's however not an imaginary wish thread where the community doesn't call your idea bad.
We just can't call it bad because it's a + thread.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I am interested in hearing more about that.

I backed the OSRIC 3rd Edition, and I believe that what you mention is how initiative is handled.

OSRIC 3 - BackerKit OSRIC 3

I don't have a 5e version but how we do it in our game is that each round everyone rolls a d6 for each attack (ties are not only allowed but expected) or just a single d6 if not in a multi-attack situation. Attacks from the same weapon cannot occur on the same segment.

If you're moving, we determine where you are at any given time if we need to based on your initiative and how far you're trying to go e.g. are you running past the door just when the lightning bolt comes through.

If you're casting a spell you start on your rolled init and finish x-number of segments (6 per round) later; every spell has a listed casting time.

Then, we go round the table dealing with 6s - player side first, then mine - on the understanding that it's all happening simultaneously. Then 5s, then 4s, down to 1s. Reroll for next round.

You could do this with d20 initiative but counting down from 20 to 1 every round would get tedious.

 

[Minigiant]

Another change

Everyone doesn't get Darkvision

There's

• Darkvision
• Elfvision
• Heatvision
• Nightvison
• Tremorsense

Torches out, baby.

 

[payn]

Re-rolling init each round preserves the fog-of-war aspect and shatters the too-predictable nature of strict turn-based init.

I like it, but its pretty time consuming unless you are using a VTT.

I've learned from experience that anything that helps initiative is massively overpowered in any system where init is rerolled each round.

If a player invests in it, it ought to help them. I think a small bump is different than the gulf that 3E feats, traits, stat jacking could achieve.

 

[Scribe]

I meant calling players "children."

It's a metaphor I've seen around here multiple times, no offense intended.

 

[Scribe]

Anyway, an 'initiative free' system doesn't have to mean free for all, and if there is anything truly OP, I dont believe initiative is enough to balance it.

 

[Chaltab]

I feel like the sentiment itself is unwarranted TBH. Plenty of nerfs did go through for the new PHB. Action Surge no longer allows spells, Divine Smite eats your bonus action, and busted spells like Forcecage got nerfed. I think the bigger problem was the accidental (?) new OP stuff like Conjure Minor Elementals.

 

[Rainbow Scissors]

My dream 6E would include a section that explains that Rainbow Scissors is playing D&D the one true way, and anything that I disagree with is badwrongfun.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Expect pushback if you complain about a game you've never run.

Ah yes, because no one can ever criticize a game they haven't run, but have played numerous times.

Such pushback is, frankly, ridiculous. I can read easily enough, and I've played 5e many, many times at this point. More than I've played 4e, both in terms of total session length and in terms of number of campaigns.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To me, the bolded are such basic assumptions they almost don't need to be mentioned.

And that's precisely what I'm calling out. You are taking one thing as a bedrock assumption so fundamental it doesn't need to be discussed, while rejecting the other explicitly, without justification. It's just...."well of course that's how it is, it just...is!" That, that thing right there, is a double standard in action. And most double standards end up being exactly what you described here: one thing is taken to be good/warranted/acceptable/justified/etc. at a level so fundamental it's beneath discussion, while the other is bad/unwarranted/unacceptable/unjustified/etc. explicitly, but without any explanation. It just isn't, and the previous just is, and the gap is never explained nor reconciled.

Wizards do not deserve a handwave free pass just because we call them "Wizards". If the Fighter is being explicitly called to justify learning impressive beyond-natural techniques, the Wizard needs to be held to the same standard. Anything less is "Well the Wizard deserves to be better than the Fighter because that's Just How Things Are Done."

That said, I can do without Fighters having wuxia powers. That's Monk territory, and also their niche.

Then what are Fighters getting that is comparable?

Because if the system isn't giving Fighters comparable--NOT identical, comparable--impact on the world, then you're openly admitting to "Well the Fighter just needs to be worse than everyone else."