D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Remathilis]

Tell that to GRRR Martin.

I'd like to. By the end of GoT, (no the books no longer count, he's never finishing them) the sheer about of character assassination and murdered characters had left me with no character I was rooting for and secretly hoping they all lost.

If you want to run your campaign like George Rartin Rartin Martin, be my guest. I prefer a game where everyone doesn't secretly hope for a tpk to end the suffering.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'd like to. By the end of GoT, (no the books no longer count, he's never finishing them) the sheer about of character assassination and murdered characters had left me with no character I was rooting for and secretly hoping they all lost.

If you want to run your campaign like George Rartin Rartin Martin, be my guest. I prefer a game where everyone doesn't secretly hope for a tpk to end the suffering.

Heh I like his books but yeah your sentiments are understandable.

Dance of Dragons wasn't that good either. Getting to bloated and he painted himself into a corner. Even if he finished the ast two books I suspect he would have to rush them. Espicially Danny kicking around in Essos still.

 

[Minigiant]

Speaking on GOT/ASOIAF

If make the social pillar better.

I'd nerf tongues and make a common language for each "plane".

So you'd go out your way to have Common + the 4 other "Common"s in your party.

 

[Chaltab]

The planes generally do all have their own common languages. Well, not the Shadowfell in default D&D. Kobold Press introduced Umbran.

Material Plane = Common
Upper Planes = Celestial
Lower Planes = Abyssal or Infernal
Mechanus = Modron
Feywild = Sylvan
Elemental Planes = Primordial

 

[Zardnaar]

The planes generally do all have their own common languages. Well, not the Shadowfell in default D&D. Kobold Press introduced Umbran.

Material Plane = Common
Upper Planes = Celestial
Lower Planes = Abyssal or Infernal
Mechanus = Modron
Feywild = Sylvan
Elemental Planes = Primordial

Its basically the old alignment languages redone.

 

[ECMO3]

yeah, killing on a later turn means I eventually have to do something other than avoid getting hit, in which case I might as well do so now already.

Mqybe, maybe not. Like I said if you miss every single turn you still lose and if you end up missing every turn the rest of your party is worse off if you die quicker because you didn't dodge.

You are also leaving out other things you can do like flee that may not be a gamble or at least are not always a gamble.

Relying on others to solve the problem for me works as long as there are others and they do not follow the same failing strategy of avoiding getting hit at the price of landing hits.

Ok so you will gamble in the hope that you can solve the problem yourself or better contribute instead of not gambling.

The latter might be a strategy when you are close to death, but if this is your plan going in, you are just dead weight for the party

I am not talking about strategy. It is not about what is a good or bad strategy, it is about what is gambling and what isn't gambling. If you are giving up something you can do automatically to something else based on chance with the hope for a better result you are gambling.

A lot of times it is exactly the right strategy.

If I am playing blackjack and have a pair of aces against a 6 or 7 by the dealer the right strategy is to put more money on the table and split .... just because it is the best strategy and is statistically a good call does not mean it is not gambling.

the sure thing being standing around and not doing anything to help…

If you miss you aren't doing anything to help either. Your entire "strategy" is based on your "gamble" paying off .... just like if you choose to split aces at the blackjack table.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Tell that to GRRR Martin.

And what happened when Jon Snow was supposed to die in the show...?

They killed off one major character, early in the story. It put people on edge.

Once the story actually gets into the thick of it, random unexpected pointless deaths are no longer a concern.

Tell that to long-term fans of any sports team. Sure, everyone probably has specific favourite players at any given time but in the end it's always the team that matters, even if-when those specific favourite players aren't there any more.

Lanefan.

Are we invested in the story of specific players on an adventure?

Or are we there to look at literally 95% identical jerseys milling about the field?

The analogy fails because you've made it circular. You've started from something that isn't comparable in the first place.

That's how I tend to look at D&D parties, particularly when I'm the DM.

The vast majority of people do not.

The look at it like a TV show, book series, film series, etc. If Indiana Jones dies 2/3rds of the way through Temple of Doom and his place is taken up by, I dunno, Oregon Smith, his research assistant, people aren't going to give Oregon Smith and the Last Crusade much attention, even if it shows her connecting with Henry Jones Sr. over their reminisces about Dr. Jones.

If people are watching DC superhero movies, they're going to lose interest if you permanently kill off the founding members one or two at a time until all that remains are various B-listers.

This isn't like sports. People care about both the individual developments of each specific character, and about the two-person, three-person, etc. dynamics that arise between these specific people. Trashing the character development between characters is part of what killed a lot of the enthusiasm for the later Marvel movies, where they killed off developed characters only to replace them with alternate timeline versions that had zero character development.

Some of us like the challenge of trying again.

And your interests deserve to be included, supported, and respected.

But they don't deserve to be the only, primary, nor enforced thing everyone has to go along with. Design predicated on your way being the only way isn't going to fly.

Maybe the reason to keep investing is something beyond your own PC(s).

I do have that.

My investment in the other players' PCs. My investment in the interactions these characters have with each other and, both individually and collectively, with their enemies.

That is more than JUST "noooooooo my precious bag of mechanics! My personal playthiiiiiing! How daaare you take it away from meeeeee you big ol meaaaaany!!!" That is genuine investment in the story, in this group adventuring together and discovering who they all are and what they all want and why they all care.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My personal stance is that halflings and gnome actually don't share that much other than being.

Halflings literally are small humans and that's the problem.

Homes are there on thing.

So in order to really together halfling and gnomes you would have to really lose a lot from.

That's why to me personally would be to make halflings more separated from the talking idea of hobbits them being pretty much small humans that are slightly more lucky into small humanoids that have their entire existence based around luck.

Halflings would have a access to the luck mechanic that the base game uses much has how elves naturally have spells.
So to me halflings would have a natural luck point and a sub species would have individual subspecies uses for these luck points. Light food would be able to gain a luck point when they roll a one and does ignore the one results. Where is a stout halfling would have the ability to spend a luck point in order to reroll any status effect affecting them .

Gnome can then stay as masters of craft either by tinkering or illusion as Rock gnomes and Forest gnomes do respectively. That's why I kind of gutted any other kind of gnomes other than deep gnomes who would have a dueling and mining focus on Craft.

What would you say are the archetypes these options are offering?

Because for the life of me I cannot really see what is in either of them that is that compelling. That's why I advocate merging them. They become tenders of the land, from treetop to abyss. They become quirky welcoming but weird folks. Those that actually settle look like landed gentry, just as Bilbo does, and that is precisely what provides the opportunity to become a Renaissance man style gadgeteer tinkerer. Those that don't settle are somewhere between ranger (as in one who ranges cattle) and ne'er-do-well, which explains their link to luck.

 

[Lanefan]

Relying on others to solve the problem for me works as long as there are others and they do not follow the same failing strategy of avoiding getting hit at the price of landing hits.

The latter might be a strategy when you are close to death, but if this is your plan going in, you are just dead weight for the party

Not at all.

I've played this character. Best AC in the party by far but due to class, lack of strength, and lack of decent weapons he couldn't hit worth a damn and did trivial damage if he did. Oftentimes his best way of helping the party win combats was to run in, draw fire and foes that otherwise would have hit and hurt others but didn't touch him, and wait for the damage-dealers to come and bail him out...which they'd always do, seeing as I was the party's main healer.

 

[Lanefan]

I'd like to. By the end of GoT, (no the books no longer count, he's never finishing them) the sheer about of character assassination and murdered characters had left me with no character I was rooting for and secretly hoping they all lost.

Where I was reading the books (and, later, watching the shows) thinking "This is what a big long sprawling D&D campaign should look like! He's nailed it!"

If you want to run your campaign like George Rartin Rartin Martin, be my guest. I prefer a game where everyone doesn't secretly hope for a tpk to end the suffering.

I could be wrong, but I don't think my players are hoping for any sort of TPK anytime soon.