D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Micah Sweet]

okay, but i feel confident in asserting that if half the main cast had been subject to turnover between each instalment then far less people would've been invested in either of those franchises, the individual characters matter as much as the banner they unite under, the secondary cast might fluctuate but you've typically always got some of the old favourites in centre stage.

Between each installment is to my mind a tad hyperbolic.

 

[Minigiant]

I really like Prestige classes as a concept -- and dome were even well implemented. The only reason I did not suggest them for my theoretical 6E is because I really think talent trees is the way to go. I suppose you could have "Prestige talents" that unlocked in a similar way though.

I don't trust talent trees because I almost have never seen any designer in video games card games or tabletop games dude talent tree well the first time.

You are basically asking for something broken.

You would basically be ceding 6E to be broken

 

[Argyle King]

okay, but i feel confident in asserting that if half the main cast had been subject to turnover between each instalment then far less people would've been invested in either of those franchises, the individual characters matter as much as the banner they unite under, the secondary cast might fluctuate but you've typically always got some of the old favourites in centre stage.

Partially agree but also partially disagree.

Reacher (Amazon Prime) mostly has a new cast each season, and it's doing fine. Yes, there are a handful of characters who are re-occuring, but many don't; quite often, characters die.

So, I agree that there are main cast members who return to centre stage, like you say. But I'm not sure if the ones who die are exactly "secondary." It's more like they are primary characters within their respective seasons, but perhaps "secondary" if you look at the entirety of the series. I'm not sure, but there are certainly characters who are important who also die.

I think, in a novel or a show they could be seen as secondary because the writer/producer already knows the outcome. But a rpg is not typically pre-determined like that. I've seen characters who were intended to be secondary in a rpg become important because the players became attached to the local shop keep or held a grudge against the one orc who got away; I've also seen PCs die on the first roll of a campaign.

Failure and death need not be the end of the story. Too many people focus on the shine. You need a good heat for a proper comeback, and sometimes a heel needs credibility so that the babyface is more over in the end.


If I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize ahead of time. With this many pages, I'm losing track of who said what.

 

[ECMO3]

If all I ever do is try to avoid bring hit, I am not winning the fight. I might not be closer to losing after a round, but I am 100% going to lose in the end

And if you attack and miss you are not any closer to winning the fight either and you are closer to losing it than you would otherwise be.

The fact that you must do this to have any chance of winning does not mean it is not gambling. Just like when I am looking at that lottery ticket - if I don't buy a ticket I have no chance of winning the $100 million jackpot.

 

[Minigiant]

i think i'd add ghostwise and lotusden subspecies to the halfling options personally, goblins i'd probably try make three subclasses? baseline goblin i'd give darkvision, nimble escape and fey ancestry, one sub i'd give pack tactics and an enhanced help action like a 'hobgoblin lite', the next one a climbspeed and a stealthy feature 'you can take the hide action while only lightly obscured' or something, then the third would get an expertise to assign and an artisan's tool proficiency or something like either rock gnome's tinker or lizardfolk's cunning artisan as a cunning and crafty archetype.

i feel like i should add something for orcs too but nothing's coming to mind immediately?

I don't think every species needs a sub.

Common goblins and hobgoblins are too different.
Orcs don't have a natural biological separation in subculture .

 

[Scribe]

I don't think every species needs a sub.

Common goblins and hobgoblins are too different.
Orcs don't have a natural biological separation in subculture .

Other than the obvious (make some) I looked at more as a breakdown of 'small folk'.

Small Folk -> Halfling, Goblin, Gnome

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I mean...taking on a challenge you know is going to actually help expand your horizons, rather than a task that could easily be only the tiniest bit different...?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

I’m not being sarcastic, we just disagree and I was trying to gracefully exit from the conversation. If you don’t understand the fun of random and unexpected results the you don’t. Nothing I say will convince you.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I’m not being sarcastic, we just disagree and I was trying to gracefully exit from the conversation. If you don’t understand the fun of random and unexpected results the you don’t. Nothing I say will convince you.

Well then, I apologize for not seeing your intent. For the record, I do understand that other people feel that fun. I simply have not ever felt it myself, ever, despite repeatedly trying (mostly in non-D&D contexts, to be clear.) Being beholden to the dice in that way makes me anxious and frustrated, rather than excited and curious as it does to those who like this stuff. That's no slight against anyone else; if anything, it's an admission of flaw on my part.

My only point in responding as I did is because of the logical leap from "getting a random character" to "it will make you get better at improv", and thus why I pointed out that the improvement is in no way guaranteed, whereas you legitimately can guarantee it by selection if you...select things you know you aren't good at improvising to force yourself to do it.

If that is irrelevant to your point, then there's no need to say anything further. My piece is said but irrelevant, and yours is done.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think every species needs a sub.

Common goblins and hobgoblins are too different.
Orcs don't have a natural biological separation in subculture .

Other than the obvious (make some) I looked at more as a breakdown of 'small folk'.

Small Folk -> Halfling, Goblin, Gnome

My position has been to merge the two groups that are very similar and both partially lacking in long-term durable appeal--halfling and gnome--to create a single group with more options and stronger inherent flavor than either option alone. It's a rare example of me favoring an ever-so-slightly more minimalist position, but since almost nothing is actually lost (ghostwise halflings and svirfneblin aren't exactly dramatically different, and that's really the main "loss" here) I find it not much of a minimalism approach.

Likewise, I wracked my brain as much as I could and never came up with more than three options for humans: standard, dual-bloodline (aka "the place where half-elf, half-orc, aasimar, tiefling, etc. all get taken care of"), and "starbound" for slann/elan, low-power Kryptonian knockoffs, totally not Gallifreyans, Betazoids/El-Aurians, etc.--the whole "humanoid alien or alien-ized humanoid From Weird Fantasy Space" thing.

Other than that, every species/race/whatever had four flavors for overall consistency. Hinnfolk (halflings + gnomes) also had four: lightfoot, stoutheart, cragstep, ghostwise. They're creatures of the land, tending it and listening to it--but those who come from deeper in the earth are weirder than those that come from its surface. Cragstep aka "rock gnomes" are eccentric inventors and tinkerers, but usually not dangerous. Ghostwise are sharper, wiser, but also...more than a little too close to the weirdness of the Underdark.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Well then, I apologize for not seeing your intent. For the record, I do understand that other people feel that fun. I simply have not ever felt it myself, ever, despite repeatedly trying (mostly in non-D&D contexts, to be clear.) Being beholden to the dice in that way makes me anxious and frustrated, rather than excited and curious as it does to those who like this stuff. That's no slight against anyone else; if anything, it's an admission of flaw on my part.

My only point in responding as I did is because of the logical leap from "getting a random character" to "it will make you get better at improv", and thus why I pointed out that the improvement is in no way guaranteed, whereas you legitimately can guarantee it by selection if you...select things you know you aren't good at improvising to force yourself to do it.

If that is irrelevant to your point, then there's no need to say anything further. My piece is said but irrelevant, and yours is done.

I wasn’t trying to say it will make you better. I was suggesting that some might think it will.