D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Scribe]

Given the number of times you have previously asked me why I complain about 5e as it is...it makes this comment either confusing or frustrating.

So honest question, why haven't you built your own?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

How so? Like, I have no idea how the fiction doesn't work that a dragon can attack a party of four thruout a round?

Attacks might be fine, that is not a full turn. That is just legendary actions. The issue was we were fighting a giant mountain troll that had 6 attacks, moves, and reactions (because 6 players). The image it conjured was of a giant Tasmanian devil zipping about the battlefield. It just didn’t fit and totally broke my immersion.

A dragon that has 4 attacks you spread throughout the round, we have that already and seems find. But if it also gets 4 moves, bonus actions, and reactions it starts conjuring ridiculous imagery again. At least to me it does.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

No, but magic is magic.

If we are saying at 16+ that everyone is magic (and maybe I will) that's it's own thing I guess.

Yes, that is exactly it. Everyone is a “demigod” and therefore magical.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Indeed. However, IMO it's the designers' job to do exactly that for 6e, as 5e has - despite the best attempts of many a DM - simply gone way too far toward "go easy on the characters".

Maybe this is because of doing some of the design by public survey. Players are almost inevitably going to upvote that which makes the game less challenging, and it's only natural that the designers (or their finance team) would listen to that pressure. Problem is, while maybe fun in the short term it ultimately makes for a worse game in the long run.

You should talk to my DM, he thrash us on the regular and claims he is pulling his punches!

 

[Lanefan]

this is more curious speculation but, i wonder what DnD 6e would be like if it fully abandoned spell slots for a spell points/mana structure like final fantasy typically does, spell levels could stay pretty much as they are i think (you can't learn a 3rd level spell before you're fifth level)

Having run that sort of system for 25 years and played in it for over 40, I can tell you it's good to great at low levels and flat-out broken at high.

Say a 1st-level spell costs 1 point to cast; a 2nd takes 2, a 3rd takes 3. Simple, right? But once you get into 4th and higher, does it stay one-for-one or do the higher level spells start taking more than a point per spell level e.g. a 1-2-3-5-8-13-etc. progression?

At 3rd level when you've only got 6 spell points, no big deal: you can cast 3 2nds or 6 1sts or whatever other combo adds to 6. But assuming a Fibonacci-like point progression to cast, you need spell points accruing on a gentle J-curve to keep up; meaning that by 10th level you might have 40 spell points...which means you can do 20 2nd level spells in a day, or 40 1sts, or 13 3rds, etc.

Once casters can spam their low level spells all day long, it breaks hard.

And that's why for my current campaign I went back to slots.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given the number of times you have previously asked me why I complain about 5e as it is...it makes this comment either confusing or frustrating.

The difference IMO is: you still want to play a version of official D&D. I no longer do.

 

[Zaukrie]

Attacks might be fine, that is not a full turn. That is just legendary actions. The issue was we were fighting a giant mountain troll that had 6 attacks, moves, and reactions (because 6 players). The image it conjured was of a giant Tasmanian devil zipping about the battlefield. It just didn’t fit and totally broke my immersion.

A dragon that has 4 attacks you spread throughout the round, we have that already and seems find. But if it also gets 4 moves, bonus actions, and reactions it starts conjuring ridiculous imagery again. At least to me it does.

Fair. To me, the combatants are constantly moving around the battlefield, so I'm not sure we'll agree on this, which is ok with me.

 

[Lanefan]

The balance for D&D about how much an implied setting it has versus how easy it is to use as "generic" fantasy has always been a bit hard to pin down.

One thing that would help is if the 6E DMG had something like the Daggerheart campaign frames section. That is, instead of the singular example of Greyhawk from the 2024 DMG, have Greyhawk plus Eberron plus dear-lord-something-new that includes things like classes and and races not being allowed and the dial settings 6E should have. Show people very concretely how to make Midnight versus Forgotten Realms.

Plus a full and complete section (or whole book?) on worldbuilding from scratch.

 

[payn]

Indeed. However, IMO it's the designers' job to do exactly that for 6e, as 5e has - despite the best attempts of many a DM - simply gone way too far toward "go easy on the characters".

Maybe this is because of doing some of the design by public survey. Players are almost inevitably going to upvote that which makes the game less challenging, and it's only natural that the designers (or their finance team) would listen to that pressure. Problem is, while maybe fun in the short term it ultimately makes for a worse game in the long run.

Thats all poppycock. Challenge is in the GMs hands. In this very thread a poster has been stating they never get past level 4 without TPK.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Fair. To me, the combatants are constantly moving around the battlefield, so I'm not sure we'll agree on this, which is ok with me.

Sure, it is a personal thing, which I think immersion typically is. Some people don’t even care about it and treat D&D just a game, not a role playing game. There are all types.