D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Lanefan]

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.

Fine. The Rogue can have the Fighter's niche.

I'll hear no more complaints about the poor downtrodden Fighter, though, if you're so willing to give away that which makes it strong.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I'm not at all sure this is the case.

Arcane magic and its spells and effects are fairly easy to explain en masse provided one accepts a couple of fairly basic assumptions:

--- magic is a harnessable force, or energy, and casters of all types know (to some extent anyway) how to harness and shape it
--- Wizards in the setting are capable of inventing new spells

Given that, it's pretty easy to see how we got a lot of the spells we have. Some Wizard* sometime in the past saw a need for a spell that did X-effect - say, that could put a bunch of weak creatures harmlessly to sleep - and set about designing and inventing a spell to do just this. Once that spell was finished and had been proven reliable, the inventor released it to the open market and other Wizards started copying it into their books; to the point where today it's the bog-standard Sleep spell. Lather-rinse-repeat this sequence for every spell out there and it's all quite explainable; never mind there's probably been thousands of other spells that never caught on and whose details have since been lost to time.

* - or group of Wizards operating as a collective or guild, for the really high-end stuff.

To topic: 6e needs a clear mechanism for PC Wizards to be able to design and invent their own new spells.

 

[Lanefan]

We should not design something based on the predicate, "Oh, nobody ever actually plays this, so it doesn't matter if it's badly-made!"

Because, as stated, it is bad design to take as an assumption, "Well, because nobody ever uses this, it's fine if it's badly-made."

Like just as a general principle of work, whether or not something is frequently used should never have any bearing on whether it is made with the best quality work one can produce. The only things that should affect the quality of one's work are the resources one has for producing it (including time), and the price one believes one's labor(s) to be worth.

There comes a point where diminishing returns have their say. If 95+% of the end use is in levels 0-12* but 40% of the work lies in designing for levels 13-20, is it worth it?

Better, says I, to design rock-solidly for 0-12 and leave it open-ended after that; and at the same time warn the end users in great big letters that things may or may not be or remain entirely functional as levels advance beyond 12, with increasing risk of dysfunction the higher you go.

* - I specifically start at '0' rather than '1' as IMO commoners and non-adventurers also need to be part of that solid design space, given how often and in how many different ways they're likely to arise in play.

 

[Lanefan]

I've been avoiding the 1e vs 4e fighter debate (round 4 million) but I'm jumping in here. We could argue about the dice and damage, but I will argue to my dying breath that rogues need sneak attack to be a reliable source of damage to be remotely useful in combat. It was absolutely ridiculous that the Thiefs signature combat action required so much DM-ajudicated setup for such little payoff (an extra dice or three depending on level) and it was so easy to thwart that I barely ever saw it used and never used to any great effect that rolling a critical hit didn't match. If you want to go back to limiting sneak attack, I recommend limiting spellcasting (a wizard can only cast one save or suck spell per combat, a cleric can only heal a character once per combat) and other class features (paladins get 1 smite per combat, monks only one stunning first per flight, etc). You know, to be fair.

You're assuming my intent is that everyone be consistently useful in combat. It's not.

Combat (particularly melee) should be the warriors' place to shine, with others merely helping to a greater or lesser degree. Rogues don't fight well, their job is to keep watch and maybe sneak behind the lines to cause mayhem. Clerics don't fight well, their job is to support with spells then patch people up after the fighting is done. Wizards don't fight well, their job is to support the warriors and otherwise stay well out of the way.

 

[Remathilis]

You're assuming my intent is that everyone be consistently useful in combat. It's not.

Combat (particularly melee) should be the warriors' place to shine, with others merely helping to a greater or lesser degree. Rogues don't fight well, their job is to keep watch and maybe sneak behind the lines to cause mayhem. Clerics don't fight well, their job is to support with spells then patch people up after the fighting is done. Wizards don't fight well, their job is to support the warriors and otherwise stay well out of the way.

I would have accepted that if the wizard and cleric spells weren't full to the brim with combat magic. But they are. You want to fighter to shine? Get rid of magic missile, fireball, flame strike, spiritual hammer, hold person, etc. Make THEM stand around doing nothing most of the combat too. (The cleric can heal afterwards, the wizard can't do something like grease once per combat.)

The fighter can tell us when he's done with combat.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And from here on it becomes a different game, different system, different rules, etc., in a different book called something like "D&D Mythic", to accommodate.....

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.

.....this. And it could go way beyond 20 if desired.

I'm also not a fan of tiers; I'd rather the progression from any one level to the next be roughly the same in terms of power-ability-etc. gain when averaged across the classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

--- magic is a harnessable force, or energy, and casters of all types know (to some extent anyway) how to harness and shape it

That's a total non-explanation. Just a dodge and nothing else. Totally empty of any meaning.

You'd have to describe the force in some detail and put limits on it to make it have meaning.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've been avoiding the 1e vs 4e fighter debate (round 4 million) but I'm jumping in here. We could argue about the dice and damage, but I will argue to my dying breath that rogues need sneak attack to be a reliable source of damage to be remotely useful in combat. It was absolutely ridiculous that the Thiefs signature combat action required so much DM-ajudicated setup for such little payoff (an extra dice or three depending on level) and it was so easy to thwart that I barely ever saw it used and never used to any great effect that rolling a critical hit didn't match. If you want to go back to limiting sneak attack, I recommend limiting spellcasting (a wizard can only cast one save or suck spell per combat, a cleric can only heal a character once per combat) and other class features (paladins get 1 smite per combat, monks only one stunning first per flight, etc). You know, to be fair.

I have seen some games hovering rogues both sneak attack and backstab.

Sneak attacks still at 2000 3.0 levels while hp has been increased in 3.0, 3.5, 4E and 5E.

See my points about fireball and hit point inflation. 3.0 basically just added con scores to 2E monsters though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would have accepted that if the wizard and cleric spells weren't full to the brim with combat magic. But they are. You want to fighter to shine? Get rid of magic missile, fireball, flame strike, spiritual hammer, hold person, etc. Make THEM stand around doing nothing most of the combat too. (The cleric can heal afterwards, the wizard can't do something like grease once per combat.)

The fighter can tell us when he's done with combat.

Well, it's a matter of degree isn't it? The fighter does the best consistent damage, because they can engage with their strength nearly every round, and their chances of success are high. They also have the best survivability (especially back in 1e when they were favored in saving throws). And they have access to the best gear.

Wizards have powerful but limited spells that allow them to sometimes do things no one else can accomplish. To be fair, that ability has to be limited, both in frequency and in success. They also have the worst survivability, again for fairness.

Clerics split the difference, worse in combat than fighters but better than wizards. Plus they can heal, a rare ability elsewhere.

Rogues can fight (somewhat), but their primary thing is skill use (the classic thief skills).

This is the ideal of old school D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

I would have accepted that if the wizard and cleric spells weren't full to the brim with combat magic. But they are. You want to fighter to shine? Get rid of magic missile, fireball, flame strike, spiritual hammer, hold person, etc.

Or keep all those spells but make them harder and-or riskier to use.

Make AoE require aiming thus making it possible to hit allies. Make casting while within reach of melee functionally impossible. Make casting much easier to interrupt, with interruption risking a wild magic surge. And make casting take time within a round rather than starting and resolving on the same initiative.

Do all that, and the high reward of combat casting is balanced out with some high risk.