D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[EzekielRaiden]

I would also want rules that explain where the super powers come from.

Okay.

When has that ever been true for the D&D Wizard? When has it ever lifted even a finger to show the academia from which these powers derive and to which these powers are directed? Or to show the hermetic mysteries and transcendental enlightenment Faustian archetypes sought?

Why is the Fighter held to a standard that the Wizard isn't? Why can't we just write the whole thing off with "I attended a special martial arts school which taught me to do amazing things", but we can write off the Wizard with "I attended a special magical arts school which taught me to do amazing things"?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay.

When has that ever been true for the D&D Wizard? When has it ever lifted even a finger to show the academia from which these powers derive and to which these powers are directed?

Why is the Fighter held to a standard that the Wizard isn't? Why can't we just write the whole thing off with "I attended a special martial arts school which taught me to do amazing things", but we can write off the Wizard with "I attended a special magical arts school which taught me to do amazing things"?

D&D has fallen down on such things (as a requirement at least; supplements touch on this area in some editions), and 3pp has done some work on this area as well. In my games, I make sure anyone with supernatural abilities has them for an in-setting reason, that can be further developed and/or explored if desired (by either the player or the GM). You can handwave it for everyone if you want.

 

[Scribe]

Why is the Fighter held to a standard that the Wizard isn't? Why can't we just write the whole thing off with "I attended a special martial arts school which taught me to do amazing things", but we can write off the Wizard with "I attended a special magical arts school which taught me to do amazing things"?

Because martial arts schools exist.

 

[tombowings]

D&D has fallen down on such things (as a requirement at least; supplements touch on this area in some editions), and 3pp has done some work on this area as well. In my games, I make sure anyone with supernatural abilities has them for an in-setting reason, that can be further developed and/or explored if desired (by either the player or the GM). You can handwave it for everyone if you want.

That would be nice. I have had to disallow so many subclasses (College of Glamour, Archefay Patron, for example) because I simply cannot work out how to the ability to supposed to function in the game world. If I can't even get a clear imagine of how the ability works, how a I supposed make rulings on corner cases that affect that ability?

Take an example:

How does a tramsuter wizard's transmuter's stone work? Does the transmuter invest a piece of his soul/magic in the stone? (Obviously, if when a new stone is created the first ceases to function, then the magic is not invoked into the stone?) If a piece of his stone is invested into the stone and the stone is captured by a necromancer, can that necromancer extract and trap that piece of the transmuter's soul? If so, what happens? If not, why?

My mind spins circles around these class features, but can't really make heads or tails of them in any objective way, which can make it difficult to agree on supplementary mechanics/rulings with individuals players.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

That's because combat in D&D is stupidly static and the designers have done little to improve that since 1st edition. So ofc the above example of the troll as you describe it like that is nonsensical but actually can make sense in the fiction. That thought process of combat is archaic but it's forced on the hobby by poor design.

Movement should take centre stage....to be used for positioning, rotation, avoiding/dodging, reaction etc. Instead it's relegated to Dash. Like I said D&D is 10 years behind at the minimum. Everything they're putting out players and other games are already doing via homebrew.

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

Yeah the game mechanics do not emulate that or demand that...which is the issue.

 

[dave2008]

No sense if you're not a fighter

No sense for a mundane fighter either. My son has trained in longsword fighting for the past year and I can guarantee you he can't hit a person outside the reach of his movement and weapon. He is, at this point, at least as well trained as level 1 D&D fighter.
Furthermore, he can train all his life and he will never be able to do what you are suggesting.

As @Micah Sweet mentioned, that is fine for a magic swordsman, but not a mundane fighter.

 

[AnotherGuy]

And no one has yet actually explained why I should pay for rules I know, consciously, are badly made.

5th Edition is I feel the good enough edition (out of all the editions) where tinkerers can finally make D&D what they want it to be.

I don't need a 5.5e or 6e unless they radically change the game for the better. Changing exhaustion and adding in weapon qualities is not worthy of me spending money for new books.
Many of us already had that in our games already...

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

That's because combat in D&D is stupidly static and the designers have done little to improve that since 1st edition.

Both 4e and 5e added lots of movement for solo monsters. I find your information quite outdated on this.

So ofc the above example of the troll as you describe it like that is nonsensical but actually can make sense in the fiction.

No it can’t. The troll was supposed to be a lumbering giant but acted like a chicken with its head cut off tat had also been hasted.

I find the idea of 1 turn per PC absolutely immersion breaking. I mean what if we had 8 or 10 PCs?!

That thought process of combat is archaic but it's forced on the hobby by poor design.

Legendary actions and being able to break your movement up between actions on your turn have solved this for our group (some late 4e monsters did similar things too). So again your information seems quite a bit outdated to me.

Movement should take centre stage....to be used for positioning, rotation, avoiding/dodging, reaction etc.

yep that sounds like how we play 5e

Instead it's relegated to Dash.

Not IME

Like I said D&D is 10 years behind at the minimum. Everything they're putting out players and other games are already doing via homebrew.

I have no idea what you’re talking about out here, I thought we were talking about monsters. If your 5e monsters aren’t moving that is a DM issue as far as I am concerned

 

[Chaltab]

He is, at this point, at least as well trained as level 1 D&D fighter.
Furthermore, he can train all his life and he will never be able to do what you are suggesting.

...I think you're vastly underestimating a level 1 D&D fighter or vastly overestimating your son.

Not that the rest of what you said isn't... like obvious? I'm not sure what GobHag is talking about. If you want range at level 1 you take a ranged weapon.

Or roll up Link and hope you stay at full health.