D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Micah Sweet]

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.

That progression very much depends on the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I'm fine with the incompatible 6e I advocate not being consistent. They already don't care about that, so why would they start now? I just want them to make their game and go away.

For a game I actually want to play, I completely want setting logic and consistency regarding magic. A5e has made many changes to spells of which I approve, both for consistency and to remove effects that interfere with other parts of the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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."


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.


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.

You have to defend your position too, to be fair. "A lot of people seem to be willing to pay WotC for it" is not to me a particularly good defense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yep and what's interesting is if you suggested taking away any spells at all or reorganising them people get incredibly upset, even over trash tier spells . But if WotC actually just does it, without discussion, people mostly just accept it! There are people who would write a 2500 word essay on why Nebulars Nebulous Nebuliser*, a spell from an obscure book in 2003, which 5E strangely retained, which has the sole purpose of disrupting cloud type spells of below level 3 and inexplicably cannot be upcast to deal with higher ones nor functions on natural clouds/vapours is the very soul and heart of D&D and losing it would be the end of their 30+ year love of the game, if you suggested removing it. But if WotC just throws it out of the PHB, they don't even blink, let alone write the essay mourning it and quitting D&D.

* = Fictional spell to avoid this becoming the "omg don't delete spell X!!!" thread

I talked about this before. No one wants to vote in a change that reduces their ability, to any degree, even if they would be fine if it happened without their consent.

Forgiveness, not permission.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No negative change that matters to you, to be fair. People do drop off when they change things, you know.

Believe me, I've seen this behavior pattern in plenty of other places, it ain't unique to D&D. "IF THIS IS GONE I QUIT!!!" 4000 upvotes.

Playercount when the official system changes: no negative change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really not a fan of game design

Dragonborn and Dungeonborn

To emphasize the brand.

 

[tombowings]

You don't need 400 incompatible systems to do that. You need a robust ttrpg scene selling RPGs tailored to specific types of play.

While I still think you underestimate the potential of subclasses as genre tools, I see your point here. You have made me change me Perfect 6e (TM)

I wish the WotC posse tries to integrate D&D with every other Hasboro IP and blatantly insults everyone in enough tiny ways that the game dies and stops dominating the TTRPG scene.

 

[TwoSix]

Believe me, I've seen this behavior pattern in plenty of other places, it ain't unique to D&D. "IF THIS IS GONE I QUIT!!!" 4000 upvotes.

Playercount when the official system changes: no negative change.

See WoW every time they reorganize talents or class abilities.

 

[Remathilis]

While I still think you underestimate the potential of subclasses as genre tools, I see your point here. You have made me change me Perfect 6e (TM)

I wish the WotC posse tries to integrate D&D with every other Hasboro IP and blatantly insults everyone in enough tiny ways that the game dies and stops dominating the TTRPG scene.

Yeah, this conversation reached it's endpoint. Goodbye

 

[Micah Sweet]

While I still think you underestimate the potential of subclasses as genre tools, I see your point here. You have made me change me Perfect 6e (TM)

I wish the WotC posse tries to integrate D&D with every other Hasboro IP and blatantly insults everyone in enough tiny ways that the game dies and stops dominating the TTRPG scene.

While I don't particularly want D&D to die, I certainly understand your sentiment here. I really want D&D to be less influential in the hobby, and I don't see a way to do that.