D&D General 6E But A + Thread

In my book, I don't view dice rolls during play and during character generation the same. I view the latter as gambling with your character. In game, a dice roll represents a single action: swing a sword, pick a pocket, resist a spell. The odds of that one roll permanently affecting your character is small. The attack fails, but the rest of your attacks aren't affected. Plus, those rolls often have modifiers that influence them like ability bonuses or level bonuses (ThacO/BAB/PB).
Whereas ability scores generation is permanent. Those six rolls will stick with your character for their entire play. A bad roll here cascades to all future rolls with that score. Depending on edition, you may not be able to fix it without DM intervention (magic items and boons) or have to use multiple stat increases just to get to acceptable. Further, there are far less ways to weigh the dice favorably. An extra d6 (drop the lowest roll) being the only one, assuming you are picking a race for any reason other than the ASI.
So my rule is short term uncertainty is desired because that adds drama to the game, but long term uncertainty is bad and should be avoided. Things like ability scores and hp are too integral to be left to a single roll. (I mean, we don't roll to determine starting level, or roll to determine AC or attack bonus, but we do/did with AS and HP?)
This would be why I don't like random generation for character creation then--because yes, I do agree that's gambling, while hit rolls aren't.

I have even called rolled stats "ability roulette" on this very forum. That's just one recent example, I've used that exact phrase something like ten times.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This would be why I don't like random generation for character creation then--because yes, I do agree that's gambling, while hit rolls aren't.

I have even called rolled stats "ability roulette" on this very forum. That's just one recent example, I've used that exact phrase something like ten times.
Yup. I view it akin to character creation via slot machine. Especially the old "3d6 in order" method which doesn't even guarantee I will qualify for any class, let alone the one I want to play.
 

Yup. I view it akin to character creation via slot machine. Especially the old "3d6 in order" method which doesn't even guarantee I will qualify for any class, let alone the one I want to play.
The classic method works much better when you don't decide what class you're playing before you make the PC. That often what I do. I find it more exciting and more realistic personally.
 

I very much miss the arcane/divine divide or, failing that, any divide between different kinds of magic. In fact, since A5e has a lot of spell school tags for its spells (not just the classic 8), I'm thinking of having spell availability restricted by subclass and/or institution of learning.
Honestly I feel like the ideal would be almost all spells (or the vast majority) being unique to each class (albeit Sorcerer and Wizard should be the same class imho, just make one a subclass of the other). I know D&D has either never done that really (except 4E) and it doesn't really work with wanting each class to have bajillion spells to choose from but you can get incredible theme and flavour and balance from that. Oh well, something for my fantasy heartbreaker, should I write one I guess.
 

i think it would be interesting for 6e to explore having the expectation that you will end up with multiple class' progressions (despite previously saying i'd like them to remove multiclassing, go harder or remove it, but commit), character progression goes up to lv30, each class progression only has 10 or 15 levels of progression,
 

i think it would be interesting for 6e to explore having the expectation that you will end up with multiple class' progressions (despite previously saying i'd like them to remove multiclassing, go harder or remove it, but commit), character progression goes up to lv30, each class progression only has 10 or 15 levels of progression,
My personal take is that I’d like to see multi-class go the way of the dodo in favor of much more classes and subclasses. That may just be shifting problems around but at least the problems of balance will remain entirely within the class/subclass rather than interactions between different combinations of classes.
 

Honestly I feel like the ideal would be almost all spells (or the vast majority) being unique to each class (albeit Sorcerer and Wizard should be the same class imho, just make one a subclass of the other). I know D&D has either never done that really (except 4E) and it doesn't really work with wanting each class to have bajillion spells to choose from but you can get incredible theme and flavour and balance from that. Oh well, something for my fantasy heartbreaker, should I write one I guess.
Absolutely.

I mean, does a pyromancer or a necromancer or an angel summoner or a healer really need more than like 5 (scaling) spells?

You can support the "gotta catch 'em all" spell collector trope as a specific class without needing to give every other spellcaster concept access to 100+ effects.
 

i think it would be interesting for 6e to explore having the expectation that you will end up with multiple class' progressions (despite previously saying i'd like them to remove multiclassing, go harder or remove it, but commit), character progression goes up to lv30, each class progression only has 10 or 15 levels of progression,
Sounds like the Warhammer career progression.
 

My personal take is that I’d like to see multi-class go the way of the dodo in favor of much more classes and subclasses. That may just be shifting problems around but at least the problems of balance will remain entirely within the class/subclass rather than interactions between different combinations of classes.
I'll be honest, I think giving players more tools to realize specific character concepts is a much higher priority than balance.

D&D-type games aren't gamist enough for balance to be more than cursory consideration that some archetypes don't completely overshadow others.
 

I'll be honest, I think giving players more tools to realize specific character concepts is a much higher priority than balance.

D&D-type games aren't gamist enough for balance to be more than cursory consideration that some archetypes don't completely overshadow others.
Yeah, perhaps. I think it’s just a personal organizational preference of mine.

Like someone just being able to say “My character is a Bladesinger” and that be a concrete thing versus “My character is a multi-class Wizard Bladesinger who’s dipped Fighter for a couple levels but may go Battlemaster next level”.
 

Remove ads

Top