D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Well put yeah that is what it comes down to.

Re changes, I don't think any removal or class/race/spell/etc change has caused me to stop playing D&D. All the stuff that's been bad enough to cause me to stop has been either stuff that seemed superficially good or interesting, or was a mechanical thing I didn't see coming. Them ruining Bards in 3E (specifically, 3.5E didn't fix them but did move them in the right direction) didn't make me refuse to buy 3E nor did a lot of weird changes over the years. But how pervasive and annoying the class imbalance in 3E was, together with how much work it was to build encounters (and that CR was actively misleading, literally eyeballing was safer than using it!) did wear me down, and I didn't see either coming! 4E I loved until finally the combat being terminally slow above level 11 or so got to me, again didn't see that coming!

So I'm not convinced race/class/etc changes cause any meaningful drop off, because there are always alternatives there, and the freak who only plays elves will play them even when they're terrible (which has never happened in D&D but...). But every edition does potentially cause drop off from other factors.

 

[Chaltab]

Elves have always been terrible! They beget terror.

 

[Scribe]

• 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.

So, most of these I think I get, but I'm left with the following.

• 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.
• Warden, the warrior-of-the-land, who wears Nature's power like a cloak, and wreaks Her wrath where he walks.

I don't see how these are not either Fighters (Avenger/Warden), a Cleric/Sorc/Warlock (Celestial themed) or Artificer? What makes them specific enough to require their own class, when we have Subclasses, and Feats to 'turn the dial' as well as Background as another lever?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, most of these I think I get, but I'm left with the following.

• 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.
• Warden, the warrior-of-the-land, who wears Nature's power like a cloak, and wreaks Her wrath where he walks.

I don't see how these are not either Fighters (Avenger/Warden), a Cleric/Sorc/Warlock (Celestial themed) or Artificer? What makes them specific enough to require their own class, when we have Subclasses, and Feats to 'turn the dial' as well as Background as another lever?

Well, artificers are spell-users, for one thing.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Because homeopathy magic has been relegated by the elites.

I was describing movement in combat in general and given your description of a Tasmanian devil like troll the limited mechanics are informing your perception of combat.


Again design issue informing your perception of combat. Attacks should be seen as opportunity attacks within those 6 seconds (or a given time frame) not a creature's turn, his turn, her turn..
Fighter rushes into reach range (movement in) and makes an attack and avoids the natural retaliation of the troll who swipes back (movement to the side or away), while the troll is distracted the Wizard fires off some magic missiles, the troll spins around as the missiles strike its back and moves towards the Wizard (the wizard has no movement available so is a sitting duck), at this point a cleric intercedes between the Wizard and troll (movement) and the troll claws out at the cleric who is dodging/parring with his shield (he's run out of movement) so he faces the full brunt of the attack by the troll which he manages to parry but has to make a strength check to remain on his feet, he doesn't and is knocked prone. The troll sees its opportunity but the rogue moves in (movement in) and slices at the troll rear thigh, the troll turns to face this new threat, attempting to grapple the halfling rogue who deftly uses the remains of his movement (cunning action) to move away.
You can expect a troll to react to each successful attack on it until its defeated or runs away. It doesn't have to come down to creature A has only 2 attacks a round.

To give you an example movement should be NECESSARY to help with avoiding attacks particularly attacks by creatures larger than you and making dexterity saves to avoid a Fireball (right now we are making Dex saves for area attacks while our PC can remain stationery - how dumb is that???)

Again your description of the troll defending itself sounded static.


Hopefully now you've understood what I'm getting at. It's not just movement by monsters but by anyone on the battlefield.
Currently movement by monsters is being punished by opportunity attacks...and even full spellcasters with a dagger in their hand are so martially adept that they get an AoO against the moving beast. Meh.

I apologize your response was too long for me to go through. The fact that you deny my experience is enough for me not to want to engage any further with your comments.

 

[Minigiant]

honestly you add in some more charisma/int based manuevers and I think the battlemaster is a solid Warlord Chassis.

To me.

The Battlemaster is more a maneuver user.

Where the Warlord has an Aura/Emanation that grants allies who are in on The Plan new actions, Maneuvers, or Masteries.

I Knock em Down Hard vs We Knock em All Down

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Then I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding you.

What did you mean by references to old school play, in the context of what I had said previously? That is, prior to the misunderstanding, the conversation was:



Because, as I was given to understand, you were agreeing to the claim that the rules sucked, by saying that "a lot of [you] old-timers have that attitude." Were you not intending to agree with that?

What I was responding to (I think, don't actually remember as to much has happened between then and now) was that people wanted the rules to suck (and I personally don't like that term as the rules did work for some people so the didn't suck they just didn't work for me).

Also, the attitude I was discussing was that you were not looking for all the answers in the rules. You learned the rules, or made the rules, by playing not by reading the rulebook cover to cover. It is that DIY attitude that I treasured and continue to use when I play RPGs. IMO, from a certain point of view, all game rules "suck" until you make them work for you.

=====
Separately from the above, I missed this message so I'm replying now.

This is what novice levels are for. They allow the "zero" stage to be given real mechanical weight and meaning, and even better, if paired with robust incremental advancement rules, they allow such players to stretch out the lower levels to whatever length they desire, rather than forcing everyone else to play less game.

That is a matter of opinion. Why not have levels 1-10 be "novice?"

Good luck. The wizard fans will never permit it. Believe me. I've seen their rabid hate of anything that even slightly weakens their position or raises up anyone else's position. And if you try to spring it on them later, you'll just get the same kind of smear campaign that The Edition That Must Not Be Named got--but emboldened because they know it worked once, so it should work again.

I disagree. Also, as I don't have to worry about selling this thing - so I don't care!

All this does is functionally force everyone to play through low levels they hate.

Or adds the low levels everyone else loves? I mean the whole argument is one of opinion.

Novice levels actually solve the problem in a much more elegant way, while granting fans who like the long, slow, glacial grind to "maybe kind of sort of slightly heroic-ish if you squint" not just support but substantial support.

It is possible to please groups that have opposing desires as long as you can find a way to meet both goals on different playing fields. That's what novice levels and incremental advancements achieve. They separate the two fields, thus allowing each to work.

Why can't the novice levels be 1-5? Personally I think the idea of 0 levels and particularly negative levels are just silly. Start at l (or 0) and move everything up from there. Then you should have robust guidelines desrcribing how to start at any level you want.

You want 0-hero: start at level 1
You want hero-legend: start at level 5
You super hero: start at level 10.

That seems a lot more straightforward than sub-level 1 novice levels and incremental advancement rules.

 

[Lanefan]

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

I'd add:

The Grace path
--- Class: "Swashbuckler"
--- Gimmick: high-risk high-reward derring-do
--- Epic Icon: Inigo Montoya, anything played by Errol Flynn

 

[Chaltab]

To me.

The Battlemaster is more a maneuver user.

Where the Warlord has an Aura/Emanation that grants allies who are in on The Plan new actions, Maneuvers, or Masteries.

I Knock em Down Hard vs We Knock em All Down

Basically this, and it goes for the Warden, Avenger, and Invoker as well. The general problem with trying to take what was a class in previous iterations of the game and fold them into a subclass in 5E is that the design space for the core class will always crowd out the parts that many fans find essential to the class flavor.

There's only so much room in a subclass. The only way I could see these working as sublasses would be if 6E expands the possibilities of subclass design to actually excising and replacing parts of core class functionality. IE if you pick a Warlord Fighter, then you might lose your Extra Attack II and instead pick up expanded Command and Presence abilities at 11th.

 

[Scribe]

Why can't the novice levels be 1-5?

I increasingly believe this is the way.

1-5 is the low level stuff in terms of what threats are being faced or at at least HOW you face them. No, you do not get to punch Demogorgon in the face here. This more OSR style 'hide, trick, steal' from anything that is you know, wildly stronger than you are.

6-10 is the graduation of that tier to mastery of the physical. Your characters are now a 'big deal'.

11-15 is the realm of domain play, and you are now shaping the world.

16-20 is the realm of the gods. You have broken the chains of mortality, you have looked your gods in the eye and we are at the planar level of adventure. Real crazy stuff, and where the 'op and broken' things live.

Thats how I am looking at it anyway.