D&D General D&D 6e ala Steampunkette: Structural thoughts

[Distracted DM]

I already have a narrative challenge with players reaching high levels in short periods of game time.

"Listen here, fledgling 'heroes'! I am a mighty dragon who has spent decades building my power and influence, and putting my plans into motion. You will never stop me! Leave me, and don't come back without treasure I can loot from your corpses."

...a few moments later... "By Tiamat's five gizzards, how in the hell are you so powerful after 1 month!? This makes no sense!"

These days I'm trying out required training downtime/bastion progress to pass time between adventures, but as long as the players feel that there is an ongoing emergent plot, they naturally avoid any non-forced downtime. Can't let the villains rest!

13th Age does this by starting out with the PCs as notable heroes, they're not recent farmers or wizards apprentices. It's not zero-to-hero, it's hero to greater hero. Not only that, but incremental leveling. Pretty much each session you pick something from the next level: a spell, a feat, hp, etc. After 4 sessions, you level up (with the caveat that the party actually did adventuring stuff/progressed during the session, not just screwed around in the tavern).
It also helps if you sprinkle in some downtime between adventures.

 

[Gradine]

I could be sold on this entirely if you add one more concept:

11) Modularity

 

[Steampunkette]

I could be sold on this entirely if you add one more concept:

11) Modularity

Please expand on this for me?

 

[Steampunkette]

It's a matter of taste. But most of what you're suggesting is generally in the right direction for me.

#4, #6, #8 and #10 especially.

I often think about these little nuggets of design too. #10 is a good example. It seems so small, but it has huge repercussions on other design decisions.

I know it's a decision that's been had many times here, but I do feel like 4E fixed many of the issues that I had with D&D. It introduced other problems. And with 5E then shoveled all of it out and we have some familiar problems back. Nothing deal breaking but I agree that there's room for improvements.

I'm not a big fan of 7. I always found extra attacks to be more work at the table for something that's relatively uninteresting. The equivalent of a +1 to a sword instead of an interesting effect.

#1 is fine by me. I definitely never went above level 12-13 in a campaign. I'd definitely go towards a level-less design, but I think that's only personal taste and it would probably stray too away too far from D&D's core.

I would like to note: Extra Attack exists to make sure the Martial Characters have a decent damage throughput next to Casters.

It definitely slows things down, but it is pretty important, unless we wanna just turn Martial Characters into 'Quasi-Casters' with 4e style "Powers" that do multiple times weapon damage values on a single attack roll. Which is certainly an option... but not my preferred choice.

4e is intensely time consuming to try and do 3rd party class design for because of just how much of it is "The same effect, but higher level, with a higher damage multiplier". My hope is to create distinction and separation of class mechanics to some degree to minimize "Sameyness".

Rather than cutting things down to 10 levels, I would prefer to embrace more of 4E.

Have 30 levels split into chunks that have less of a power curve between them. Bring back something similar to Paragon Paths. Levels 1-10 are your base class for the heroic tier. If you want to play beyond that, you pick up a Paragon Path.

If most games don't get past level 12 why create levels 13-30?

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I would like to note: Extra Attack exists to make sure the Martial Characters have a decent damage throughput next to Casters.

I agree. It is a solution. I just don't think it's an interesting one. Maybe the solution is also to look at casters. 5E introduced cantrips so casters could do reliable damage every turn, I was always under the assumption that this was the distinction. Yes casters could unleash devastating spells at critical moments, but fighters had the AC, the HP and the consistency to fight round after round, encounter after encounter.

 

[Gradine]

Please expand on this for me?

I'm talking primarily about class features. The level-based systems of multiclassing are clunky and generally unfulfilling, and by hacking the number of character levels in half you're making that an even less attractive system than it already is. How do you propose to tackle this? More frequent feats and feats that mirror class features? Or do you have a system that makes the class system more modular than it already was?

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm talking primarily about class features. The level-based systems of multiclassing are clunky and generally unfulfilling, and by hacking the number of character levels in half you're making that an even less attractive system than it already is. How do you propose to tackle this? More frequent feats and feats that mirror class features? Or do you have a system that makes the class system more modular than it already was?

I don't intend to tackle it through modularity, no. I feel like cutting classes apart to stitch them together to be unfulfilling.

I'd much prefer to use Archetypes and New Classes to cover concepts that aren't already covered by the base classes. Depending, of course, on just -how- far afield a given concept strays.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree. It is a solution. I just don't think it's an interesting one. Maybe the solution is also to look at casters. 5E introduced cantrips so casters could do reliable damage every turn, I was always under the assumption that this was the distinction. Yes casters could unleash devastating spells at critical moments, but fighters had the AC, the HP and the consistency to fight round after round, encounter after encounter.

That was the point of fighters back in the TSR days too. That and and having a ton of hit points, great AC, and usually the best saves on average

 

[Zardnaar]

I wouldn't do some of them in 6E if I was in charge assuming you want to sell the game.

Other things like 10 levels are a good idea theoretically but kind of requires a time machine as 1-20 is fairly ingrained by now.

 

[Zardnaar]

Rather than cutting things down to 10 levels, I would prefer to embrace more of 4E.

Have 30 levels split into chunks that have less of a power curve between them. Bring back something similar to Paragon Paths. Levels 1-10 are your base class for the heroic tier. If you want to play beyond that, you pick up a Paragon Path.

If I did 4E again I would cut to 20 levels.

If you're cutting to 10 levels 4E 2.0 is 15 levels top.

There's just no point designing for level 21+. Hell 15+ is pushing it.

Im leaning towards 10 levels myself but suspect we are stuck with 20.