D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Lanefan]

You said nobody could learn certain kinds of skills. Hence, there could not be schools, because...people don't learn them.

Are you now saying there are schools Fighters can attend to become (say) sword-saints, where they can learn Aura Cutter or whatever once they've refined their skills enough so that (again, at high level) they can strike someone, with a sword, without throwing it, from 20 feet away, or the like?

Because that, as I understood it, was the issue. You claimed they couldn't learn such things, and the conversation turned to one side having completely undescribed training while the other didn't.

I'm not talking about what they learn, I'm talking about how and where they learn it.

If one's game has Fighters able to hit someone 20 feet away with a hand-wielded sword then that training came from somewhere, same as did the Mage's training in how to cast 7th-level spells.

I should probably note here that I'm a fairly hard-line supporter of training-to-level rules (though 1e does get them wrong in some big ways); for several reasons:

--- having to train for each level slows the pace of levelling
--- training forces downtime, allowing for non-adventuring interactions with the setting
--- training is a good place for characters to spend treasure
--- training is a great place for characters to make contacts and (if needed) recruit henches or new party members.

Not "instead". In addition. This is a common error regarding 4e.

Fighters were the Defender who was best at personally doing damage. Pretty much bar none. You had to really, really work for any other Defender to reach what just a reasonably well-built, well-played basic Fighter could do.

Also, Rogues were....also that? Like...sneak attack has been a thing for Rogues for a long time, so...they've kinda had that "we do big damage" thing for a fair amount of time. But Rogues were specifically the type of Striker--what in a monster would be called a "lurker"--that does, in fact, sneak around, and do a bunch of skill-y things. Rogues get more baseline skills than any other class. Bards get the same number of "pick what skills you want", but Rogues get two baked-in skills, while Bards only get one. Utility powers take care of the rest.

Fighters should be both Striker AND Defender at the same time. Rogues should be neither, but instead be a fifth role, something like "Scout" (shared with Ranger).

3e, and to a greater extent 4e and 5e, made sneak attack far too easy to use; Rogues could do it almost every round and even from range. Hence, Rogues became the main damage dealers.

1e-2e had backstriking, where a Thief had the potential to do a big whack o' damage but probably only once per combat unless the circumstances were quite favourable...and it had to be melee, no ranged backstrikes.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not talking about what they learn, I'm talking about how and where they learn it.

If one's game has Fighters able to hit someone 20 feet away with a hand-wielded sword then that training came from somewhere, same as did the Mage's training in how to cast 7th-level spells.

I should probably note here that I'm a fairly hard-line supporter of training-to-level rules (though 1e does get them wrong in some big ways); for several reasons:

--- having to train for each level slows the pace of levelling
--- training forces downtime, allowing for non-adventuring interactions with the setting
--- training is a good place for characters to spend treasure
--- training is a great place for characters to make contacts and (if needed) recruit henches or new party members.

Fighters should be both Striker AND Defender at the same time. Rogues should be neither, but instead be a fifth role, something like "Scout" (shared with Ranger).

3e, and to a greater extent 4e and 5e, made sneak attack far too easy to use; Rogues could do it almost every round and even from range. Hence, Rogues became the main damage dealers.

1e-2e had backstriking, where a Thief had the potential to do a big whack o' damage but probably only once per combat unless the circumstances were quite favourable...and it had to be melee, no ranged backstrikes.

Fughter shoukd probably be tank or striker. Defenders not really a thing outside 4E. Pen and paper.

Not opposed to a defender type fighter but not as base fighter. You could probably port the 4E defender mechanic to 3rd level subclass.

Good striker fighter is best fighter as death is best debuff.

 

[Lanefan]

Apparently it wasn't a very popular classes so they buffed the hell out of it (same as cleric). And it still wasn't popular.

Natural spell had its origin in 3.0. Wildshape wasn't great in AD&D mostly a ribbon for exploration pillar.

In 1e, Druid shapeshifting is hella powerful. Not necessarily for combat but for scouting, sneaking, info-gathering, long-range travel, and getting into or out of tight places.

 

[Zardnaar]

In 1e, Druid shapeshifting is hella powerful. Not necessarily for combat but for scouting, sneaking, info-gathering, long-range travel, and getting into or out of tight places.

Aka exploration pillar. I played Dtuids in 1E and 2E one of my favorite classes. You weren't outshining thr fighter and no animal companion similar to fighter.

Best we had was friendly elephant. Named Clive. In barding. With custom built magical trebuchet. And feather fall......

Erm nevermind.

 

[Lanefan]

But that's not what it is.

Using completely made-up numbers: One thing starts at 10 and grows to 30. The other starts at 1, and grows so that between (say) 4 and 8, the two are pretty close together (intersecting at 6, where both are 16), only to then shoot off to 3000 by level 20.

As most games in all editions tend(ed) to end by level 10, getting to that 3000 point isn't as much of a concern.

Sounds like you're taking away from the player the thing they actually enjoyed doing, so that you can make someone else ridiculously powerful.

Doesn't sound like particularly good game design.

Good game design spreads the fun around vaguely evenly over the course of the game.

Which is a bad assumption to make.

Why? The theory is that the game starts at level 1 and goes to level 20; but the practice is that it starts at 1 and goes to about 10 or 12; with "high level" being anything about 9th or above.

 

[Horwath]

The theory is that the game starts at level 1 and goes to level 20; but the practice is that it starts at 1 and goes to about 10 or 12; with "high level" being anything about 9th or above.

I would say that game starts at levels 5/6.
1-4 is just training wheels.
then you can keep the average campaigns to levels 12-15.

 

[Minigiant]

The core problem with the fighter to me is that fans only want 1 class and to shove everything in it, forcing it to never commit to anything because it can't have features 2 icons don't share.

But like how sorcerer and warlock were added, add more classes.

• The Action Movie Hero path
  • Class: Fighter
  • Gimmick: Extra Actions
  • Epic Icon: John Wick, Movie Gimli, Movie Legolas
• The Hulk path
  • Class: Barbarian/Berserker
  • Gimmick: Rage
  • Epic Icon: Hulk, Hercules, Superboy
• The Wuxia/Martial Arts Movie path
  • Class: Monk
  • Gimmick: Focus
  • Epic Icon: Most martial arts movie protagonists
• The Accuracy &Speed path
  • Class: Marksman
  • Gimmick: High stats
  • Epic Icon: Deadshot, Bullseye, William Tell
• The Genius path
  • Class: Warlord
  • Gimmick: Preparation, Intuition
  • Epic Icon: Odysseus, JL Batman
• The Tech path
  • Class: ???? Chosen
  • Gimmick: Bonded Weapon
  • Epic Icon: Arthur, Lion-O, T'Challa
• The Paragon path
  • Class: "Paragon"
  • Gimmick: Best of the Best?,
  • Epic Icon: Movie Captain America, Tyrion (Warhammer), W40K Space Marines

Just... more classes

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fighters should be both Striker AND Defender at the same time. Rogues should be neither, but instead be a fifth role, something like "Scout" (shared with Ranger).

They very nearly are, it requires almost no investment to reach that. Actually investing in it makes them utterly terrifying: it's straight-up "eat actual Striker-like damage if you ignore the mark, or flail uselessly against a massive wall if you heed it."

3e, and to a greater extent 4e and 5e, made sneak attack far too easy to use; Rogues could do it almost every round and even from range. Hence, Rogues became the main damage dealers.

Yes....so....you see how your own point has been undercut by numerous editions at this point. Your conception of Rogues as not doing much damage is simply not accurate.

One interpretation of the Rogue--the "Thief"--says they should do minimal damage. You prefer that interpretation. It is not the one that has held sway for, at this point, 25 years, meaning, half the game's lifetime.

1e-2e had backstriking, where a Thief had the potential to do a big whack o' damage but probably only once per combat unless the circumstances were quite favourable...and it had to be melee, no ranged backstrikes.

So? I appreciate the history lesson, but "this is what was done" isn't "this is what must be done."

You are acting as though, because something was done in 1e/2e, it's how everything should always be--that I should instantly agree "oh, of course, that was the old way of doing it, why did I ever think of anything else?" That's not how it works; you have to actually defend why we should go back to something that we no longer do. The 1e/2e way isn't how it has been done for, as stated, two and a half decades, half the game's life. And Rogues actually doing damage on the regular has been popular with both GMs and players--see, for example, the positive responses to changes that made it so common classes of enemies weren't completely crapping on the Rogue's ability to do damage in combat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have to say, not really a fan of your "all this stuff shouldn't be in D&D" refrain. Why should anyone get to decide what the books (that are for anyone) contain? We're all welcome to exclude whatever we want from our games.

You can't have it both ways.

Either things need to be consistent, have a basis, and be possible to explain within the setting or that isn't the case. Demanding explanations re: one characters abilities but not the other is just illustrating a weird double standard.

D&D's arcane magic presents a huge problem here if you want to demand explanations - something you actively advocated for doing. Because there's absolutely no consistency and no "magic system" behind arcane magic in D&D. It's a random assortment of rule of cool, dungeon cheese, unnecessary and inappropriate landgrabs from the domains of other classes, show off stuff, and just random half-baked (in all senses of baked) stuff. Either you drop the demand for explanations or accept that arcane magic, more than any other area of D&D, needs a top to bottom review for consistency and that such a review will inevitably mean a lot of spells need to die or be drastically changed in functionality. Given you said you were eager to see things like implausible multi attacks and jogging away from 80ft falls on to rocks I'm surprised you're focusing on the fact that some spells would have to go too. That's the unavoidable result of precisely your own proposals.

I feel like with proper rigour the core of arcane magic could be rationalised but there would be casualties. Or we could just accept that there are inconsistencies and questions re all power sources.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The core problem with the fighter to me is that fans only want 1 class and to shove everything in it, forcing it to never commit to anything because it can't have features 2 icons don't share.

Yep. People act like genericization is a cost-free change.

It isn't. It's actually a very costly change. That doesn't mean we have to make a hyperspecific class for every concept....but it does mean that it is NOT guaranteed that "less is more". It, in fact, means that less is--to the shock of all involved--usually less!

Just... more classes

I have a specific list of 12 class-archetypes that I think warrant inclusion, based on their presence in 3e, 4e, PF, and/or closely-related games.

Spoiler: Missing Class Fantasies

• Alchemist†, the chemist-as-magician, who uses magical ingredients and concoctions to control the world...or themselves.
• Assassin†, the warrior-of-shadow, whose skill with all the subtle ways to stalk (and un-alive) someone transcends mortal limits.
• Avenger, the warrior-of-zeal, whose absolute focus is both shield and sword against their enemies, who executes the turncoat apostate.
• Invoker, the emissary-as-magician, who calls down disaster upon the foes of the faith, Elijah calling fire down against the altar of Baal.
• "Machinist" (not my fav name), the warrior-of-technology, who uses guns, machines, and tools to overcome their foes.
• Psion† (etc.), the telepath-as-magician, who draws on ESP, the paranormal, occult "science" etc. to bend the rules of reality in their favor.
• Shaman†, the spiritualist-as-magician, who straddles the line between material and spirit, the bridge connecting these realms.
• Summoner, the overseer-as-magician, whose magic lies in getting other beings to use magic for her.
• Swordmage†, the warrior-as-magician, for whom swordplay is magic, and magic is swordplay (or other weapons), one and inseparable.
• Warden, the warrior-of-the-land, who wears Nature's power like a cloak, and wreaks Her wrath where he walks.
• Warlord†, the warrior-of-tactics, who transcends limits by cooperating with others rather than purely through her own mettle.

Those marked with a dagger are the ones I think most likely to actually get implemented. Those without are not unlikely, per se, but they have a higher bar to clear for one reason or another. Psion and Swordmage, for example, are readymade archetypes, they've appeared in multiple editions, and they're things 5e has struggled with the absence of, repeatedly not-quite-successfully implementing the archetype as a bolt-on for something else. Summoner and Warden are more remote possibilities, as the former technically only appeared in Pathfinder, and the latter, while IMO very cool, is 4e-only and liable to questions as to why it isn't a Barbarian (even though I personally think it's obvious why it isn't.)