Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Laurefindel" data-source="post: 9736215" data-attributes="member: 67296">Hum, that’s harder than I thought it would be. I’ve been at this for over an hour and wrote and erased the whole thing three times! Looks like I have several conflicting hypothetical 6e designs in mind, but i will stick to the « most traditional D&D » of them.- things stay mostly the same in terms of core mechanics but with more modularity; variant rules are baked in the core rules the same way subclass abilities are baked in classes. The current set of rules is but one of several « sub-ruleset ». Perhaps the PHB offers only the default sub-ruleset, which ties in with their alpha setting, but variant ruleset exists and planned for when designing spells and rule-affecting abilities.- through these sub-rules is given mechanical support to different play styles and genres, from low-magic/humans only to high-magic/high-fantasy. Sub-rulesets are primarily determined by setting.- Social and Exploration pillars are expanded upon, and variant sub-ruleset allows for more or less emphasis on each of them.- Classes and subclasses are kept to a low-ish number common to all settings. Setting books expand upon that.PHB insist more on core rules. Fluff goes more into settings. PHB uses alpha setting as an example but explicitly states that it can be different. PHB is sold alongside this alpha setting but DMG expands into different settings with different sub-rules.Anyway, you get the gists. I don’t want 6e to be that much different, but I want it to offer the potential of being very different in a thoughtful and planned way. That’s as + thread I can go.</blockquote>

Verification