D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Micah Sweet]

I think that would be dishonest because they did not ever intend for it to be a modular design. It was a discussion and a hope at one point, but that is it. It never got to be an intention when they did the serious work of design IMO. It was never a part of any of the playtest packets. That is where the intent of the game was displayed.

Then they should have been honest from the beginning with their intentions, and corrected public perception as soon as they realized people had the wrong idea.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Because they said they did, then spun the marketing to make it look like what happened if what they always said they intended. I just want producers to be honest.

I feel that is a different conversation similar with my reply @Scribe.
If they can not do it right or have a history of market spin that is not the same as asking me what I want for 6e as opposed to what is realistic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You could also have Hasbro sell the game to someone else.

The Guild scenario is more realistic. Everyone says Hasbro will never sell.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I bet @dave2008 and @Micah Sweet could move that Hasbro discussion someplace else with the mere click of a few buttons.

Fair enough. I'll drop the Hasbro angle.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I can very much live without skill challenges and baked-in fail forward (which can be covered under "degrees of success-failure..." anyway) but the rest of this is pretty solid. Oh, and no metacurrency of any kind, please.

I'm including things to cover everyone.
The point with these tools and dials is to pick and choose to cater for your table's preferences.

Nailed it on multiclass. The other thing I'd like to see with multi is that it be sidealong a la 2e rather than additive a la the WotC editions.

Yes agree.

Something - perhaps another dial - could be added to acknowledge the wide spectrum of humour and whimsy ranging from deadly serious to pure slapstick; games can and do include elements of both at different times but some tips as to how would be handy for some.

I like that! It has been a long time (90's) since I tried a whimsy campaign where each character had a flaw.

 

[Lanefan]

And yes, that "I thought they were very generous" thing is precisely the problem. GMs, in my experience, always think official modules are over-generous. Even when they aren't.

They're over-generous only if the DM doesn't in tandem use the item-destruction rules, where all your worn-carried gear has to save if you fail a save vs AoE damage (and in a few other specific instances).

As DM I love giving out loads of magic treasure, and can do so safe in the knowledge I'll eventually be able to blow some of it up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I feel that is a different conversation similar with my reply @Scribe.
If they can not do it right or have a history of market spin that is not the same as asking me what I want for 6e as opposed to what is realistic.

Fair enough. I assumed the OP was looking for realistic answers based on what I believe the IP holder might actually do. As I said, I want them to make a noncompatible 6e, catering to what they think D&D brand fans want, so I can ignore it more easily, as I have the games I want right now. The only exception is IP for the Guild.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I agree with your goal, but I think you can achieve and still have proficiency. You probably need tiers of proficiency, but it would be easy to do IMO.

I agree. My point was, as is, every character pretty much has an attribute + proficiency to hit or to skills etc…. At a certain level, everyone maxes out those attributes so everyone is, for example +8 to hit. Instead of making this illusory choice, they may as well just said, “ At first level, everyone is +5 to hit” at 5th, everyone is +8 etc…

I’d like to see more variety and see more ability to choose what a character is good at. Everyone proficient in Investigation is similarly skilled. It’d be nice to see someone be able to invest more into a skill and be compensated for it

 

[Lanefan]

I find it a little frustrating and a little sad that so much of this discussion is backward looking. But I suppose I should have guessed that.

There's a lot of babies been thrown out with the bathwater as the editions have gone by; 6e provides the opportunity to go and retrieve a few of them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree. My point was, as is, every character pretty much has an attribute + proficiency to hit or to skills etc…. At a certain level, everyone maxes out those attributes so everyone is, for example +8 to hit. Instead of making this illusory choice, they may as well just said, “ At first level, everyone is +5 to hit” at 5th, everyone is +8 etc…

I’d like to see more variety and see more ability to choose what a character is good at. Everyone proficient in Investigation is similarly skilled. It’d be nice to see someone be able to invest more into a skill and be compensated for it

Level Up's skill specialties help with that. You get a certain number at creation, and they provide an expertise die (+1d4) for any attribute roll to which that specialty would apply. If more than one would apply, the die type goes up, to a certain maximum (which can be exceeded with certain class features).