D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[kermit4karate]

Huh. In my experience, low damage and longer fights makes things feel like a slog. The most exciting fights I've ever run or played in D&D are ones where both players and monsters were hitting like a Japanese truck sensing an otaku in the road. The tension is higher when you have more risk.

My comment was in regard to the OP's point about wars of attrition. I agree with that. When players become such heavy hitters, DMs have to just keep throwing more monsters at them to wear them down. Combat, rest, combat, rest. I think that's boring.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They do only if one wants balance at every level. That's not a priority for some; I'm fine with the long-term balance of warrior types being boss at low levels and mages becoming boss at high levels.

But that isn't actually balance. Like even in a long-term sense, it's not actually balance.

It's literally not long-term balance, because in the long term, things become more unbalanced than they were before.

Instead, it is, at absolute best, temporary middle-term balance: a range of levels where the exponential wizard is comparable to the linear fighter, rather than painfully behind or ridiculously ahead.

Long-term balance looks either like oscillation, where two things repeatedly crisscross one another and neither maintains a lead for long, or like convergence, where two things take different paths to reach the same result. Middle-term balance just means you have two things genuinely comparable over some range, and anywhere else, anything goes.

It straight-up is not balanced to make one thing objectively horrible for the early run, comparable for a little while, and then objectively the best thing after that. Because all that does is teach players, "Optimize the early run so you can get nigh-infinite power. Keep trying until you get it, because once you get it, you'll be too powerful to lose."

Keep in mind, I don't accept uniformity as balance. That's the lazy non-answer. True balance--asymmetrical balance, where different paths really are different, but they're still comparable across a broad range of play--is a difficult but extremely rewarding target to reach. Many, many games have achieved it. D&D is only special by its all-too-frequent stubborn refusal to even try to seek it.

 

[Minigiant]

What would that look like?

A human shaped aberration with either mimic teeth, eye stalks, or face tentacles.

 

[Minigiant]

But that isn't actually balance. Like even in a long-term sense, it's not actually balance.

It's literally not long-term balance, because in the long term, things become more unbalanced than they were before.

And it was balanced around the idea that players had multiple PCs.
Gygax design are players have a retinue, real time resting, and a hubtown.

You could play fighters early and switch to high level MUs if some survived your throwaway sessions as your fighters healed up.

95% of tables don't do that.

Keep in mind, I don't accept uniformity as balance. That's the lazy non-answer. True balance--asymmetrical balance, where different paths really are different, but they're still comparable across a broad range of play--is a difficult but extremely rewarding target to reach. Many, many games have achieved it. D&D is only special by its all-too-frequent stubborn refusal to even try to seek it.

AKA the superhero teamup (Non-DC ).

People with different powers but similar power level.

Fans just wince because they know what kind of warrior would have to exist to stand near a high level arcanist or priest,

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What would that look like?

Well, if I were taking the concept seriously, I imagine it would draw upon and/or represent all the weird, amorphous, deceptive denizens of the dungeon, but in a way that grants them sapience, agency, and the ability to join society-at-large. Just as dragonborn draw upon and/or represent the presence and power of dragons, but in a way that allows them to choose their own destiny and join society-at-large.

Possible paths this could take:

• An ooze race that came into existence because of many, many adventurers all trying to reach the "jackpot" at the end of a particularly large and dangerous dungeon. Their...detritus...eventually resulted in a type of mimic that wasn't mimicking treasure, it was mimicking adventurers. This mimicry allows dungeonborn to manifest a certain amount of ability from one of four options, chosen when they finish a long rest: skillmonkey, front-liner, support, utility.
• Essentially some form of "dungeon elemental", where the PC is a spirit bound to a collection of physical items. They struggle to regain hit points normally, but can consume appropriate materials (such as the bodies of slain beasts or the equipment of slain combatants) to restore themselves (presumably, reduced healing from spells, but able to heal from material absorbed). Perhaps gaining the ability to attune to more items as long as they're all distinct, or the ability to make use of item charges for racial features?
• A re-build of the changeling or doppelganger, to make it compatible with player-side mechanics. This is kinda basic, but still fits the concept.
• A proper mortal race, perhaps originally created in some wizard's dungeon (hence the name), but which finds the weird and uncomfortable environment of the typical dungeon actually homely. Perhaps they have natural senses for navigating dungeons, and at higher levels manifest magical abilities depending on the specific kind of dungeon they're adventuring in. E.g. a crypt might give them the ability to avoid death or even bring an ally back to life, a proper dungeon (as in, a jail) could let them bind or imprison enemies, a sewer might let them cleanse debilities on their allies and inflict them on their enemies, etc.

Personally, I'd prefer to call them "dungeonwrought" rather than "dungeonborn", as that more naturally fits with dungeons being implicitly constructed things. Would also open the path for "dungeonwrought" to be something that happens to other species, e.g. they might be produced originally by dungeons transforming humanoid denizens. But that's just my personal preference.

 

[MichaelSomething]

People with different powers but similar power level.

Fans just wince because they know what kind of warrior would have to exist to stand near a high level arcanist or priest,

Edit: also thought another character soloing a dragon

 

[Minigiant]

P much

A warrior who actually could stand in melee with a dragon would have the same move speed as one and the damage to 2TKO one.
Or the oppoiste direction in defense.
And the slider inbetween.
Multiple paths to do it.
But many fear it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

None of which were voted upon and given a player thumbs up, because they wouldn't have happened if such was needed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Sure, absolutely.

That being said...expect pushback.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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."


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."

How do you think the fighter should have that comparable impact?