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

[Zardnaar]

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

Yup.
. If you cut fighters back to one attack you have to have non scaling cantrips (or cut them), and reign in danage dealing spells by a lot.

Or you bloat it in other ways eg 2W, 3W etc which is kinda silly.

Moot point until you decide what to do with monster HP anyway.

 

[Lanefan]

Your #1 is sound but the other 9 largely leave me somewhere between lukewarm and ice cold.

Design for 10 levels but leave it open-ended, with a great big caveat that going beyond 10th means you're on your own as the system may or may not continue to function properly, with the likelihood of functionality decreasing as the levels get higher.

And I agree with @Gradine that there needs to be a lot of modularity - tweaks and dials to make the game more gritty or slower-advancing or more downtime-focused or more boardgame-tactical or whatever - but even with that I'm not sure your root proposals could produce a game I'd be willing to play or run.

 

[Horwath]

1. I like the 10 level structure.
but, since there is only 10 levels and full casters, add 10th level spells at 10th class level of full casters.

2. What about proficiency bonus?
2+1/2 level would be nice, +2 at 1st, ends at +7 at 10th level.

3. Martials could do with more attacks.
more attack roll -> more fun

maybe add +1 attack per 2 levels for best attack class(fighter), so extra attack at levels 2,4,6,8,10
barbarian, monk, warlord could be +1 attack per 2,5 levels, extra at levels 2,5,7,10
ranger, paladin,rogue,artificer could be +1 attack per 3 levels, extra at levels 3,6,9

4. subclasses, if kept in similar format should start at 1st level IMHO.
features at levels 1,3,5&7.
if power budget is watched, there is room for universal subclasses.

about TWF, don't know, maybe make light weapons really light(2 damage steps lower), d12->d8, d10->d6, d8->d4, d6->d3
and just have it that you make 2 attacks for every attack granted by your Attack action.

 

[Horwath]

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 would add a feat at every level in addition to class feature(that can be fixed or multi choice), then for MC, you can spend that feat to get a level of class features of another class, without the bonus feat OFC.

 

[Steampunkette]

Your #1 is sound but the other 9 largely leave me somewhere between lukewarm and ice cold.

Design for 10 levels but leave it open-ended, with a great big caveat that going beyond 10th means you're on your own as the system may or may not continue to function properly, with the likelihood of functionality decreasing as the levels get higher.

And I agree with @Gradine that there needs to be a lot of modularity - tweaks and dials to make the game more gritty or slower-advancing or more downtime-focused or more boardgame-tactical or whatever - but even with that I'm not sure your root proposals could produce a game I'd be willing to play or run.

Gradine's modularity was about class abilities/multiclassing. Modularity of abilities between classes so you can mix n' match to make your perfect class.

1. I like the 10 level structure.
but, since there is only 10 levels and full casters, add 10th level spells at 10th class level of full casters.

I guess I could? My intent was to give a scaling spell progression so at 2nd you have two first level and one second level spell. Then at 3 you get a 3rd level, and another second. Putting you at 2/2/1. And then just continue the 2/2/2/1 until 9th. Then at 10th level it's 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2

18 total spell slots, evenly spread across all levels, and then do a reworking of the spell breakpoints and damage values to smooth the progression.

2. What about proficiency bonus?
2+1/2 level would be nice, +2 at 1st, ends at +7 at 10th level.

My plan was +2 at level 1, +3 at 3rd, +4 at 5th, +5 at 7th, and +6 at 9th.

3. Martials could do with more attacks.
more attack roll -> more fun

But also, more rolls --> more time.

Really just gotta find some kinda break point to ensure the fun without getting tedious.

maybe add +1 attack per 2 levels for best attack class(fighter), so extra attack at levels 2,4,6,8,10
barbarian, monk, warlord could be +1 attack per 2,5 levels, extra at levels 2,5,7,10
ranger, paladin,rogue,artificer could be +1 attack per 3 levels, extra at levels 3,6,9

If I were to do something like this, approaching it as clusters, I'd probably drop the lines you have here by 1, and push the bottom row to 1 every 5 levels.

But I really feel like approaching it individually would work better, since it takes into account the individual class' structure. Paladins and Rogues, for example, both function by adding additional damage dice to single powerful swings, while a Monk or Ranger should probably focus on taking more shots in general, with the monk stacking smaller hits while the Ranger focuses on several well placed shots. In contrast, the Barbarian's attacks should probably be less focused and broader swings that represent a more wild style.

By tailoring attack structures rather than going by broad categories you can get a more defined identity out of the class.

4. subclasses, if kept in similar format should start at 1st level IMHO.
features at levels 1,3,5&7.

Agreed, more or less.

I'd probably put a ribbon at level 1. Something to signify that you're part of this group, specifically, compared to other members of the same class without a big power at that point. Like giving Eldritch Knights the ability to use Cantrips at that level. Sure it's magic, but it deals no more damage than an attack and takes the same action. Theme and narrative establishment.

if power budget is watched, there is room for universal subclasses.

Absolutely is, yeah... well... kinda. If a subclass hands out Spell Lists for Fighters who have no spell slots it's still moot.

about TWF, don't know, maybe make light weapons really light(2 damage steps lower), d12->d8, d10->d6, d8->d4, d6->d3
and just have it that you make 2 attacks for every attack granted by your Attack action.

Could do something like that... but by your calculations a TWF Fighter at 10th level using a Rapier and Dagger would be throwing off 12 attack rolls every turn. Sure 6 of 1d8 half a dozen of 1d4, but the sheer quantity of rolling is probably too high.

 

[Steampunkette]

After thinking on it more... yeah.

Barbarians get Cleave at 3rd. If they hit a target with their attack, they get to make a follow up on a nearby target.

At 5th they get extra attack, which gives them two attacks and a second shot at Cleave.

At 8th they get Great Cleave. Now they no longer have to hit their target to attempt a cleave.

In fights with multiple enemies they essentially get 4 attacks per round, in fights against a single powerful target it's just two big swings. Makes them more reliant on big heavy weapons since they only 'get' 2 attacks.

Meanwhile locking the Ranger in with two attacks, and the ability to bonus action attack, alongside their Hunter's Mark gives them a strong incentive to keep hitting the single hard target with multiple attacks, and gives a nice cushion for using faster attacks that do less individual damage since the d6 from the mark is there to offset the loss.

 

[Horwath]

I guess I could? My intent was to give a scaling spell progression so at 2nd you have two first level and one second level spell. Then at 3 you get a 3rd level, and another second. Putting you at 2/2/1. And then just continue the 2/2/2/1 until 9th. Then at 10th level it's 2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2

18 total spell slots, evenly spread across all levels, and then do a reworking of the spell breakpoints and damage values to smooth the progression.

if keeping spell slots and not going for spell points, I think that it's better to give more low level slots later on or even at the start.
Just to have casters more magic actions available.
And just have full casters and halfcasters. keep it simple.
and maybe give halfcasters same rate of gaining spell levels, but capping at 5th level and fewer spell slots.
IE:

full caster:

half caster:

cantrip scaling at levels: 3,5,7,9

My plan was +2 at level 1, +3 at 3rd, +4 at 5th, +5 at 7th, and +6 at 9th.

just thinking of rewarding that final level...

But also, more rolls --> more time.

Really just gotta find some kinda break point to ensure the fun without getting tedious.

If I were to do something like this, approaching it as clusters, I'd probably drop the lines you have here by 1, and push the bottom row to 1 every 5 levels.

this is true,
if just using basic attacks, it might get boring.
adding some version of maneuvers or mastery for all martials could keep every attack fresh, possibly with different rider every time.

But I really feel like approaching it individually would work better, since it takes into account the individual class' structure. Paladins and Rogues, for example, both function by adding additional damage dice to single powerful swings, while a Monk or Ranger should probably focus on taking more shots in general, with the monk stacking smaller hits while the Ranger focuses on several well placed shots. In contrast, the Barbarian's attacks should probably be less focused and broader swings that represent a more wild style.

By tailoring attack structures rather than going by broad categories you can get a more defined identity out of the class.

yeah,
monk could have not scaling unarmed damage but more unarmed attacks instead of weapon attacks.
I.E. at 1st level you make 2 unarmed attack instead of one attack during Attack action, if you spent power for flurry you make 3 attacks instead of 2.
later when you have 3 attacks in Attack action, that would be 6 unarmed attacks or 9 unarmed with flurry activated.

Agreed, more or less.

I'd probably put a ribbon at level 1. Something to signify that you're part of this group, specifically, compared to other members of the same class without a big power at that point. Like giving Eldritch Knights the ability to use Cantrips at that level. Sure it's magic, but it deals no more damage than an attack and takes the same action. Theme and narrative establishment.

Absolutely is, yeah... well... kinda. If a subclass hands out Spell Lists for Fighters who have no spell slots it's still moot.

some sub-classes could require "spellcasting" feature to be taken.
and yeah at 1st level I would keep to proficiencies and spells known/prepared.
3rd level can come with a real power spike.

Could do something like that... but by your calculations a TWF Fighter at 10th level using a Rapier and Dagger would be throwing off 12 attack rolls every turn. Sure 6 of 1d8 half a dozen of 1d4, but the sheer quantity of rolling is probably too high.

without any special feats it would be just 2 light weapons in both hands.
so some martial d4 finesse light weapon or d6 STR light weapon.

maybe 12 attacks per round is too much to roll for someone, but it would give the feel of cinematic flurry of slashes.
And it would iron out much of good/bad luck with rolls.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

You can do scaling martial damage without the need to give them "martial cantrips". (Although I think martial cantrips/at-wills are great!) I mean, just look at rogues and sneak attack.

I'm pretty sure Mike Mearls said in some 5e post-mortems that Extra Attack was added because having martials do more than one attack per round simply polled better than adding more damage to a single attack. So Extra Attack was added to 5e, even though it makes the design less elegant, when you have to worry about any one damage bonus being multiplied several times.

 

[GM Lent]

8) I like this idea and will begin using some version of it as a houserule immediately.

9) For ages I have heard people asking for more social interaction mechanics, and nobody has ever provided an example of what they mean. Thank you for doing so.

I generally don't like the idea of social mechanics, since interaction is part of the roleplaying aspect I like the most. Reducing it to combat-esque emchanics, in my opininon, just means more dice-rolling drudgery and tedium - just like combat. I also don't like encouraging people to look at their character sheets for things they can do rather than just saying what they want to do and figuring out how the rules can accommodate an attempt.

However, as I run games in public for strangers, I also acknowledge that not everyone was a theater kid and a nerd like me, and it's good to have mechnics there for those who need/want them. I'd be down with options such as you desdcribe here, or at least a section explicitly describing, "allowing," and talking about how to go about adjudicating such a thing.

 

[mamba]

So you are compressing the 20 levels into 10 rather than shaving off 11 to 20, and if anything increase the power at the higher levels? Not interested in that. Also isn’t that what 13th Age did?

Shadow of the Weird Wizard / Demon Lord uses a middle ground, stop at 10 but don’t reach 20th level power. Personally I prefer that approach