D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Ruin Explorer]

My ideal would be something like this, although I'm not tied to any of the specific details.

1) At character start, there are something like 20 classes, all of which go to level 6. Every character picks 2 of the 20, although there are special rules for characters who want to pick just one.

2) Characters pick a prestige class at level 7, which covers advancement from 7 to 14. There are a few prestige classes in the PHB, but most are in the DMG or later supplements, and are tied to diegetic achievements, not character build.

3) Characters pick a master class at level 15, which advances to 20. Just like prestige classes in that almost all of them are discoverable rewards, not build tools.

No level-by-level multiclassing.

I love all this except prestige classes being tied to diegetic achievements, which I want to love, but it is really, really tingling my Spidey-Sense. That's because unless you also have instructions/fairly strong suggestions for the DM to try to cooperate*, that's just going to lead to weird and unfortunate situations where some PCs are given easy access to powerful PrCs (there's no way they're perfectly balanced, some will have insane synergy with certain classes/MC combos, but be totally useless to others) that suit their class(es) perfectly, but others will just... not. And if you absolutely have to use a PrC to advance 7-14 (like, you literally can't use a base class), then relying on diegetic achievements is particularly bad, because they've got to have happened already in levels 1-6 (which isn't a lot of sessions in most versions of D&D!), or some players may end up having to pick really dire-for-them PrCs for their PCs (not just mechanically, likely also thematically/RP-wise). The same applies to master classes fully.

What would you propose to avoid this issue Mr Senator? (Sorry for asking such a reporter question lol)

 

[TwoSix]

I love all this except prestige classes being tied to diegetic achievements, which I want to love, but it is really, really tingling my Spidey-Sense. That's because unless you also have instructions/fairly strong suggestions for the DM to try to cooperate*, that's just going to lead to weird and unfortunate situations where some PCs are given easy access to powerful PrCs (there's no way they're perfectly balanced, some will have insane synergy with certain classes/MC combos, but be totally useless to others) that suit their class(es) perfectly, but others will just... not. And if you absolutely have to use a PrC to advance 7-14 (like, you literally can't use a base class), then relying on diegetic achievements is particularly bad, because they've got to have happened already in levels 1-6 (which isn't a lot of sessions in most versions of D&D!), or some players may end up having to pick really dire-for-them PrCs for their PCs (not just mechanically, likely also thematically/RP-wise). The same applies to master classes fully.

What would you propose to avoid this issue Mr Senator? (Sorry for asking such a reporter question lol)

It is, admittedly, a difficult problem to solve.

What I feel D&D really needs is two interleaved concepts to be true in its systems.

1) The game play loop should be that "Exploration leads to rewards, those specific rewards lead to specific character growth".
2) Character growth should not be pre-directed or assumed. A player making a character at the campaign start should not know what the character is going to look like in the teen or higher levels.

The inherent tension in those ideas with modern play is that creating those types of systems, where the rewards provide a path for growth for a character, place a lot of power onto the DM to determine those pathways, which naturally takes a lot of the authority away from the players.

I've done some experiments with this kind of play in 5e, and the central system we used was ad-hoc negotiation of new powers for the players, based on the narrative events impacting the characters. Which is, of course, pretty impossible to systemize.

Diegetic advanced classes is sort of a compromise vision of that approach. Probably the best approach I can think of is tying the diegetic advanced classes to something simple to introduce within play, and then providing enough options such that every PC might have between 2-4 good options to pursue, above and beyond the standard options. An encounter with a friendly pirate might unlock the "Black Sea Cutlass" class, or unlocking a tome of forbidden necromancy might unlock the "Death Mage" class.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Diegetic advanced classes is sort of a compromise vision of that approach. Probably the best approach I can think of is tying the diegetic advanced classes to something simple to introduce within play, and then providing enough options such that every PC might have between 2-4 good options to pursue, above and beyond the standard options. An encounter with a friendly pirate might unlock the "Black Sea Cutlass" class, or unlocking a tome of forbidden necromancy might unlock the "Death Mage" class.

I think that's probably the right track, but also I think unless those first six levels take people, like, a long-ass time, you're probably not going to be able to fit that in reliably.

But there are other ways which could be diegetic, especially if you have significant downtime built into the game like, maybe there's six months between adventures, and the PCs can choose what to do with that time, and that includes options to go and "seek out" stuff which would lead them to diegetically having certain options available later on. Like maybe you decide to take vows as a Squire of the Thorned Stem, which gives you some minor benefit and some RP material in your six months, and then later on your can potentially join the Rose Knights (an advanced class). This would combine with other options, not replace them of course.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that's probably the right track, but also I think unless those first six levels take people, like, a long-ass time, you're probably not going to be able to fit that in reliably.

But there are other ways which could be diegetic, especially if you have significant downtime built into the game like, maybe there's six months between adventures, and the PCs can choose what to do with that time, and that includes options to go and "seek out" stuff which would lead them to diegetically having certain options available later on. Like maybe you decide to take vows as a Squire of the Thorned Stem, which gives you some minor benefit and some RP material in your six months, and then later on your can potentially join the Rose Knights (an advanced class). This would combine with other options, not replace them of course.

I would love a game where every subclass (advanced, prestige, what have you) had a specific method by which a creature could encounter and potentially learn those abilities and/or join that group, and you would need to fulfill those requirements to take the class. It would work best with a sandbox game I think, since the players have the most freedom to explore the setting through their PCs in that style.

 

[Reynard]

One other 6E demand: make the default campaign length years instead of months again, and no longer have "campaign length" adventures as the main adventure support.

 

[mamba]

Like I said before, IMO you should never go into a 3d6 stat roll with a character concept.

I agree, I just found a different solution for that dilemma

 

[Scribe]

I would love a game where every subclass (advanced, prestige, what have you) had a specific method by which a creature could encounter and potentially learn those abilities and/or join that group, and you would need to fulfill those requirements to take the class. It would work best with a sandbox game I think, since the players have the most freedom to explore the setting through their PCs in that style.

You would essentially hard code your settings that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You would essentially hard code your settings that way.

If you want to produce multiple settings each would have its own subclass triggers, yes. This would also encourage setting-specific subclasses, and the game can provide more general triggers (while encouraging GMs to design specific ones) to provide inspiration or to use on the fly.

 

[payn]

One other 6E demand: make the default campaign length years instead of months again, and no longer have "campaign length" adventures as the main adventure support.

I think that needs to be on a dial, and shouldnt be a default. While APs get all the rage these days, AL and PFS make plenty of back in the day single module length adventures. For some reason folks dont ever talk about them though. I assume folks think you have to play AL or PFS to use them, and you dont. On the other hand, Paizo's (formerly before the recent announcement and I think this is one big downside of fewer bigger books) AP chapters are pretty easy to strip apart and run independently. You dont have to see them through start to finish.

 

[Faolyn]

Training still does those other useful things though, mostly around forcing downtime.

That, and I really don't like the idea of every character levellng at once no matter what that character has actually done to earn that level.

Unfortunately, unless the game does a better job at awarding XP for non-combat things, I'm sticking with milestone; D&D is perpetually miserly about what non-combat success is worth. Draw Steel gives you 1 Victory Point (XP) for every challenge completed, no matter what type the challenge. Combat, puzzles, and social and exploration challenges each give 1 VP (with the option for the GM to give more than 1 if it was particularly hard). Mind, that game also says you can only convert VP into actual leveling-up experience points during a respite, which is a bit more involved than a D&D long rest, and also gives a good reason to not convert them every chance you get

I do like the idea of training, although after a while it gets a bit silly--there's only so many other people of equal or higher level. I'd stick with training for lower levels (10~ or lower). By the time you get to that level, you're good enough to truly self-teach.