D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[mamba]

-melee characters often don't/can't spec for both dex and strength so are worse when forced into using ranged weapons.

we are changing the game either way, so why not address your points instead of making the sword work double duty as a bow

 

[mamba]

People here are complaining about balance, well this guarantees wide imbalance between players in any substantial size group, even if they make exactly the same build choices.

no sure which games this is referring to, but arrays and pointbuy are always options

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

So now we need to listen to fan response, but only when Lanefan thinks it's the correct fan response?

I am being a little harsh here, but this points to something that has frustrated me for a very long time. People have long (long long long long) justified hating on certain things, you know of what I speak, because of survey data showing X was unpopular, Y was too different, Z didn't go far enough, whatever. Now that people are souring on things 5e has done, given they know that it was ”design by (extremely poorly conducted) surveys”—a thing which was never a problem when those surveys were fresh, mind—oh, NOW challenging design by survey is all the rage. NOW it's time to point out that the designers need to declare what is so some of the time. Now it's appropriate for folks to argue that what polls well is not entirely the same as what actually plays well, that what looks nice on a page is not necessarily the same as what has nice gameplay effects, that what feels like good design often has no special relationship to what is functionally good design.

It's just irritating to have made that argument for, quite literally, almost 15 years, and only now—when it is convenient to others to get what they want—is this argument acceptable.

 

[mamba]

There is lot of fiction where that is true though. Heck, in the Record of the Lodoss War the fighter can do it with a broom!

at that point it really doesn’t matter what they hold in their hands, or indeed whether they hold anything at all

 

[EzekielRaiden]

way too overpowered abilities and anime themed. The starting point was

and that is beyond what I want at the top level, let alone the starting level.

I don’t want my starting character to jump from tree branch to tree branch ‘Crouching Tiger’ style, and then gain abilities from there.

Gotta keep them in the "less than what even regular athletes can achieve" gulag somehow.

For goodness' sake, it's a fantasy game. Why are only those who went to magic colleges allowed to be fantastical?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

So now we need to listen to fan response, but only when Lanefan thinks it's the correct fan response?

I am being a little harsh here, but this points to something that has frustrated me for a very long time. People have long (long long long long) justified hating on certain things, you know of what I speak, because of survey data showing X was unpopular, Y was too different, Z didn't go far enough, whatever. Now that people are souring on things 5e has done, given they know that it was ”design by (extremely poorly conducted) surveys”—a thing which was never a problem when those surveys were fresh, mind—oh, NOW challenging design by survey is all the rage. NOW it's time to point out that the designers need to declare what is so some of the time. Now it's appropriate for folks to argue that what polls well is not entirely the same as what actually plays well, that what looks nice on a page is not necessarily the same as what has nice gameplay effects, that what feels like good design often has no special relationship to what is functionally good design.

It's just irritating to have made that argument for, quite literally, almost 15 years, and only now—when it is convenient to others to get what they want—is this argument acceptable.

IDK, I seem to remember complain about the design survey pretty early on, but I agree the real route is: it is not designed how I want

 

[mamba]

Are you planning to completely rework the combat system and DCs to reflect the reduction then?

depends on how far you break the rules, but having to adjust encounters even with standard rules is not unheard of, and DCs are not all that hard to adjust either

 

[Lanefan]

And yet... I think 80-90% of groups wouldn't even notice a problem. And indeed some significant fraction of that 80-90% would probably think it was better. Because a huge percentage of people playing D&D just don't play it attritionally, don't even think about that aspect of the game much, and primarily do 1-3 fights per adventuring day, if that.

Sure. So design for 1 or 2 fights a day and make the attrition model span somewhat longer than a day. Partial recovery per long rest rather than full, stuff like that, forcing a near-constant choice between continuing on at less than full or - perhaps at risk - resting up longer. Maybe make some recovery only possible during downtime.

Or - and I'll throw this out there as a flyer just for kicks - maybe make recovery a lot less predictable. Long rest? OK, roll 2d10*, that's how many hit points you get back. Roll 2d6 for how many levels worth of spell slots you recover. And so on.

* - die size and numbers would be set according to how many hit points the rester has when full without reagrd to anything else: if full is 10 you roll a d6 for recovery, if full is 100 maybe you roll 4d10.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Because I am daunted by the scale of the task. A lone designer trying to do what literally a team of dozens of people took three years to build. Even if that team's result was unsatisfying, it is not a task a lone person takes on lightly.

Especially because I very strongly believe in collecting play testing data and actually analyzing it, rather than manufacturing push polls that merely rubber stamp what I was already going to do anyway. Or have you forgotten the times where WotC put out polls where the only options were various flavors of "yes"?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Gotta keep them in the "less than what even regular athletes can achieve" gulag somehow.

For goodness' sake, it's a fantasy game. Why are only those who went to magic colleges allowed to be fantastical?

That is not fair, CTHD goes far outside what anyone can do (that is why they use wires). So if you want to play zero to hero, and some people do, you need to start right at or just above 0 don’t you.

However, I would also make magic extremely limited at this levels too. Maybe start as rituals only, then a few cantrips per short rest, and the a first level spell.

The if you want to play superhero mages and materials start at level 5 or 10 or whatever works.