D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[CreamCloud0]

I could see that work for the Warden. Druid is the sort of "Primal" caster while the Warden leans more into the shapeshifter.

never played 4e myself so i've never really managed to grasp what differentiates the druid from the warden, but when i say split the shapeshifting from the druid i mean split it properly, flavour and all, make the resulting class closer to the sorcerer's concept (not as a caster, i don't mean like that), a versatile base that can go in lots of different thematic directions based on the subclass you pick, one guy is turning into the beasts of the wild, another is draconic-focused, that lady is turning into various undead and her friend is going through a spectrum of elementals but it's all from the same class.

What I had in mind was more the continued existence of the different arcane casters. I know people disagree, but I don't necessarily think that Learned vs. Innate vs. Patron arcane necessarily are strong enough archetypes on their own merits. I would probably prefer stronger archetypes that gravitate more towards playstyles and themes.

i don't disagree, i do think the the wizard could be chopped up between bard and sorcerer, and i see the logic behind merging the cleric and the warlock though i wouldn't want to sacrifice pact magic to make that happen.

But I've spilt enough ink talking about that elsewhere.

I generally agree, got a link?

i wouldn't mind reading that too (although admittedly i probably already have at some point.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

never played 4e myself so i've never really managed to grasp what differentiates the druid from the warden, but when i say split the shapeshifting from the druid i mean split it properly, flavour and all, make the resulting class closer to the sorcerer's concept (not as a caster, i don't mean like that), a versatile base that can go in lots of different thematic directions based on the subclass you pick, one guy is turning into the beasts of the wild, another is draconic-focused, that lady is turning into various undead and her friend is going through a spectrum of elementals but it's all from the same class.

i don't disagree, i do think the the wizard could be chopped up between bard and sorcerer, and i see the logic behind merging the cleric and the warlock though i wouldn't want to sacrifice pact magic to make that happen.


i wouldn't mind reading that too (although admittedly i probably already have at some point.)

There's a shapeshifter class for 5e EN Publishing put out a while back in EN5ider that might tickle your fancy.

 

[Parmandur]

this thread has exploded so I haven’t kept up but my wishes:

- No proficiency system. In 3.5, I liked that fighters were better at melee than rogues. Proficiency just made every class exactly the same. Everyone is equally good at everything as long as you max your stat.

- Separate spells for every class. I think it’s okay if wizards are the only class with detect magic. And maybe only sorcerers have fireball. Whatever the different lists look like, it doesn’t matter to me except that they are unique

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.

To belabor this a bit: the Cosmere RPG actually does solve both of these poitns:

- Skills are 3E style points on a 5E bounded accuracy curve (so +5 is the max Skill level, but a Character can have them mixed around), while there is also "Expertises" which work more like AD&D Proficiencies: so the scholar who has no weapon or armor expertise can't do certain things the mega-fighter can.

- Magic as Skills, modified by "Feats" from the Class Talent Tree.

 

[dave2008]

And did they inform us that this modularity discussed early was NOT gonna happen? George Carlin would include this in his Advertising set.

Well the never informed us it was gonna happen or even what exactly that meant to them. It was discussed in some blog posts, that was it. Did they discuss moving away from that idea. IDK. However, it never made it into any of the playtest documents and that is where I would expect them to show what there intent is.

 

[Parmandur]

Well the never informed us it was gonna happen or even what exactly that meant to them. It was discussed in some blog posts, that was it. Did they discuss moving away from that idea. IDK. However, it never made it into any of the playtest documents and that is where I would expect them to show what there intent is.

Here's the thing: I think they delivered a system in 2014 that had modular capabilities. You can weld stuff onto 5E, and hack stuff in all sorts of ways.

I think what they found was that the market demand for a lot of the modules they were noodling with was lower than "here are some pirate ship rules!"

 

[dave2008]

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.

I guess I just think your being dishonest or misremembering (I could be too). I think you are putting a lot more importance and specificity to an idea than was ever discussed. I also think it a bit ridiculous to expect anyone, and particularly an overworked design team, to explain every twist and turn of their design process.

But we are off topic so I will stop.

 

[Parmandur]

I guess I just think your being dishonest or misremembering (I could be too). I think you are putting a lot more importance and specificity to an idea than was ever discussed. I also think it a bit ridiculous to expect anyone, and particularly an overworked design team, to explain every twist and turn of there design process.

But we are off topic so I will stop.

The person who discussed that idea, Monte Cook also quit almost immediately after that blog post.

 

[dave2008]

Here's the thing: I think they delivered a system in 2014 that had modular capabilities. You can weld stuff onto 5E, and hack stuff in all sorts of ways.

I think what they found was that the market demand for a lot of the modules they were noodling with was lower than "here are some pirate ship rules!"

I agree, I don't think you need to do anything to 5e to make it modular other make the specific modules. The fact that many people are still unaware of all of the variants and options in the 5e14 DMG makes it clear there is not the market for it hardcore gamers would like. I am guessing that is why they are not in the 5e24 DMG. I do really hope they come back in a stand alone DM book.

 

[dave2008]

The person who discussed that idea, Monte Cook also quit almost immediately after that blog post.

That was my memory as well, but I wasn't sure so I didn't add that bit

 

[dave2008]

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

We could, but what would be the point. I am not trying to defend Hasbro (never have) so it best to just drop it. Besides, no good thread can escape some tangents.