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

[Micah Sweet]

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

I think she likes 13th Age. That might be a feature for her.

 

[mamba]

I think she likes 13th Age. That might be a feature for her.

fine by me if that is what she is aiming for, it’s just not what I am looking for.

I also don’t think that it is just the time it takes to reach level 20 that prevents many people from playing high levels, but maybe that is my bias showing

 

[Steampunkette]

@Horwath
Current thoughts on attack differentiation:

Fighters just straight up get 4 attacks on any targets with no limitations.
Marshal gets 3 attacks, but the ability to give other players some of their attacks, increasing tactical utility.
Rangers get 3-4, and are incentivized to burn more action-economy on a single target, rather than striking multiple targets.
Paladins and Rogues get 2, and are incentivized to land their hits by adding in big damage drops (Paladins half as much on each attack as the Rogue on one)
Barbarians get 2 and are incentivized to swing a big heavy weapon to maximize their damage, with additional secondary-target hits for AoE.
Monks get 6 unarmed strikes, each for low damage, but add their modifier to every damage roll bringing up the damage dealt through guaranteed rather than random values.

Artificers, Bards, Bards, Druids, and Warlocks I'm not exactly sure how I want to handle. But I'm pretty sure they're all going to get two attacks in theory...

And then Sorcerers and Wizards will get 1 attack each.

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.

Yeah, 3e's structure was preferred to 4e's structure for martial characters. And I'm fully aware of Rogues with Sneak Attacks and Paladins with Smites. But it would also create -less- diversity in class function rather than encouraging more diversity in function, which is my primary goal, here. Making the classes feel different in how they play against each other while retaining a semblance of similar DPR.

As far as the elegance of accounting for Str or Dex or Int or Cha or whatever mod being applied multiple times in a turn, that's just something you have to take into account when designing the classes. 5e didn't do a great job of that. Vis a Vis the monk getting scaling damage on unarmed strikes to 1d10 with Str/Dex on every strike.

Which is a big part of the late game HP explosion that happened. With the sheer amount of damage flying around in every direction you need massive sacks of HP to last a few rounds against it all.

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

A5e introduced the concept through Shields, making them much more important for "Tanky" characters. I think it's a good idea that mirrors Thorin Oakenshield's whole schtick, but feel like there's more to be done with it.

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.

I actually put a whole Social Combat system into Martial Artistry if you wanna go grab a copy and take a look. It's on DTRPG.Com.

That said, I wish I'd taken more time to iterate on it 'cause I have a better handle on how I'd do it, now.

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

Yes and no.

There's sacred cows like 9th level spellcasting. The intent is to keep those sacred cows while reducing their mechanical power. A 9th level spell in this system concept is not as strong as a 5e 9th level spell, even if the name is the same and the broad general function is the same. Meteor Swarm, for example, would still call down a bunch of meteors each doing an AoE, but the damage of each would be scaled down to a game where 10HD Player Characters is the high end.

Proficiency Bonuses keep increasing to +6, though, for players and NPCs as well. To keep some level of there being strength of level over lower level creatures. After all when you have 10 d8 hit dice, a bunch of Goblins is a lot scarier than they are when you've got 20. But the party Bard's Enthrall save DC is gonna be high enough to shut most of them down.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Horwath
Current thoughts on attack differentiation:

Fighters just straight up get 4 attacks on any targets with no limitations.
Marshal gets 3 attacks, but the ability to give other players some of their attacks, increasing tactical utility.
Rangers get 3-4, and are incentivized to burn more action-economy on a single target, rather than striking multiple targets.
Paladins and Rogues get 2, and are incentivized to land their hits by adding in big damage drops (Paladins half as much on each attack as the Rogue on one)
Barbarians get 2 and are incentivized to swing a big heavy weapon to maximize their damage, with additional secondary-target hits for AoE.
Monks get 6 unarmed strikes, each for low damage, but add their modifier to every damage roll bringing up the damage dealt through guaranteed rather than random values.

Artificers, Bards, Bards, Druids, and Warlocks I'm not exactly sure how I want to handle. But I'm pretty sure they're all going to get two attacks in theory...

And then Sorcerers and Wizards will get 1 attack each.

Yeah, 3e's structure was preferred to 4e's structure for martial characters. And I'm fully aware of Rogues with Sneak Attacks and Paladins with Smites. But it would also create -less- diversity in class function rather than encouraging more diversity in function, which is my primary goal, here. Making the classes feel different in how they play against each other while retaining a semblance of similar DPR.

As far as the elegance of accounting for Str or Dex or Int or Cha or whatever mod being applied multiple times in a turn, that's just something you have to take into account when designing the classes. 5e didn't do a great job of that. Vis a Vis the monk getting scaling damage on unarmed strikes to 1d10 with Str/Dex on every strike.

Which is a big part of the late game HP explosion that happened. With the sheer amount of damage flying around in every direction you need massive sacks of HP to last a few rounds against it all.

A5e introduced the concept through Shields, making them much more important for "Tanky" characters. I think it's a good idea that mirrors Thorin Oakenshield's whole schtick, but feel like there's more to be done with it.

I actually put a whole Social Combat system into Martial Artistry if you wanna go grab a copy and take a look. It's on DTRPG.Com.

That said, I wish I'd taken more time to iterate on it 'cause I have a better handle on how I'd do it, now.

Yes and no.

There's sacred cows like 9th level spellcasting. The intent is to keep those sacred cows while reducing their mechanical power. A 9th level spell in this system concept is not as strong as a 5e 9th level spell, even if the name is the same and the broad general function is the same. Meteor Swarm, for example, would still call down a bunch of meteors each doing an AoE, but the damage of each would be scaled down to a game where 10HD Player Characters is the high end.

Proficiency Bonuses keep increasing to +6, though, for players and NPCs as well. To keep some level of there being strength of level over lower level creatures. After all when you have 10 d8 hit dice, a bunch of Goblins is a lot scarier than they are when you've got 20. But the party Bard's Enthrall save DC is gonna be high enough to shut most of them down.

I understand where you're coming from regarding high level spells, but that scaling down is much harder to do when the effect in question isn't about damage. At some point, to maintain parity (if that is your goal) I think you would need to compromise effect. Personally I feel that high level magic should be very powerful, but hard to find, lengthy to cast, and expensive. I'm talking about rituals you need to discover or create, and that require difficult to acquire components. In exchange, effects are truly impressive.

 

[Steampunkette]

I understand where you're coming from regarding high level spells, but that scaling down is much harder to do when the effect in question isn't about damage. At some point, to maintain parity (if that is your goal) I think you would need to compromise effect. Personally I feel that high level magic should be very powerful, but hard to find, lengthy to cast, and expensive. I'm talking about rituals you need to discover or create, and that require difficult to acquire components. In exchange, effects are truly impressive.

Yeah, it is... but that's why those spells are Class Abilities rather than Spells.

The goal, there, is for spells to be a fairly clean progression of combat effects with the class using a different kind of noncombat magic for other purposes.

 

[mamba]

There's sacred cows like 9th level spellcasting. The intent is to keep those sacred cows while reducing their mechanical power. A 9th level spell in this system concept is not as strong as a 5e 9th level spell, even if the name is the same and the broad general function is the same. Meteor Swarm, for example, would still call down a bunch of meteors each doing an AoE, but the damage of each would be scaled down to a game where 10HD Player Characters is the high end.

I assume the monster HP will also be scaled down, so the Meteor Swarm still has basically the same effect on them then as it does in 5e now.

Outside of damage, are you keeping things like Wish, Gate, Foresight, Force Cage and other non-combat spells as well?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, it is... but that's why those spells are Class Abilities rather than Spells.

The goal, there, is for spells to be a fairly clean progression of combat effects with the class using a different kind of noncombat magic for other purposes.

So like 4e rituals? Is there an in fiction explanation for why magic works that way?

 

[Steampunkette]

I assume the monster HP will also be scaled down, so the Meteor Swarm still has basically the same effect on them then as it does in 5e now.

Outside of damage, are you keeping things like Wish, Gate, Foresight, Force Cage and other non-combat spells as well?

Ehhh... Monster HP will be scaled down just like player HP will be. The point is that one Meteor Swarm isn't going to wipe out a PC or a Dragon, even with a 9th level spell slot, as a one-shot impact.

As far as those, yeah. Specifically as class features with limited options between them to avoid stacking Wish spells through Simulacrum and the like. Like you get one or the other. And, of course, reining in those spell functions, as well, so they're still the "Big Cool Spells" but more in line with a game that caps out at 10th level than a game that caps out at 20th.

So like 4e rituals? Is there an in fiction explanation for why magic works that way?

Right now I'm going on the idea that magic is magic, and how you access it depends on your class (and thus training) and the ease of use of the spell in question. Wish, for example, is a much more potent spell than any traditional 'combat magic' that can be snapped off in a moment. Time, focus, complexity is the fictional explanation.

That said, I did plan to allow "noncombat" spells like Wish to be combat-cast... Wish, as an example, would take 3 rounds to cast and require concentration for the casting. If your concentration is broken by damage or effects you have to start over. Allows for the BBEG to be casting a big dramatic spell that keeps him from dropping Spells and gives the party time to whup his butt and/or break his concentration.

Other spells like Invisibility or Fly might only take 2 rounds to cast, but represent something more complex than just snapping a firebolt off real quicklike.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't know how different you're planning on going. To my mind, with the exception of 1e --> 2e, every edition has been radically different than the one before it, so a hypothetical 6e can go wild.

I'm perfectly fine with 10-level class, crit protection, and warlords, although I think they should be renamed. Other notes:

2) Make Magic Users More Magical and Less Casty

I think this is definitely a way to make the caster classes different. I'd be interested in seeing what spells you want to keep versus what spells are going to be turned into abilities.

I assume that there will be abilities, feats, or subclasses that will allow for those class abilities to be used differently. E.g., something that lets you turn your "cure wounds" dice into "cause wounds" dice.

3) Day 1 Psionics

Kind of less fond, primarily because it needs a particular niche which, in current D&D, has a lot of overlap with the sorcerer. I'd say if you want a psion then you'd ditch the sorcerer. If you want both, I'd pick a very specific niche for sorcerers. For instance, they're can only use elemental magic, or each bloodline has a very small spell list to choose from (instead of a list that's basically the same as the wizard list).

One idea might be to make "spell packages"--a grouping of a handful of spells that are themed in some way. All healing spells, all fire spells, all spells that make you get bigger or stronger. Sorcerers can pick X number of packages as they go up in level.

5) Combat Maneuvers

Also a very good thing. I'll say that Level Up has too many maneuvers, but something between that and what the 5.14 battlemaster currently has (dunno about the 5.24 version) should be good.

6) Spellcasting Mechanics Variety

You say that clerics won't need as many spell slots, which is good, but you might want to consider giving wizards and other arcane casters some innate spell-abilities as well and cutting down on spell slots across the board. I've said elsewhere that I have no problem with wizards having damaging cantrips but few or no direct damage spells of higher levels. Even if you don't go that far, building a few cantrip-level abilities into the class cuts down on the number of slots they need later on.

While we're at it, you know how Level Up has the bardic Battle Hymns? I'd say go entirely in that direction for bards. No spells, just magical songs. I'd also be fine with druids having a lot of wildshape (like in the D&D movie), some animal/plant-based abilities, some abilities to conjure animals and fey, maybe some ability to affect the elements and weather (even if only at the cantrip level, or with lengthy rituals), and no spells. Maybe they get the ability to change into "harmless" shapes very often and combat-oriented shapes less often.

7) "Extra Attack" at 3rd with Caveats

I'm not 100% sold on auto-smites (unless it's against specific types of foes, like demons), but otherwise it seems OK.

8) Crit Protection as a Core Mechanic

I legit thought you meant only martials get to make critical hits with weapons when I saw the title.

That might be a good rule. Casters can crit with attack spells that roll a nat 20, but not with a weapon.

9) Exploration and Social Mechanics as Core

Definitely a big yes. If you haven't seen it, Draw Steel has awesome-looking negotiation rules worth examining.

10) Sensible HP Structures

I'm for fewer hp in general. I'd also get rid of different hp sizes for different sizes (or different creature types). It just leads to people making, say, Tiny creatures with 10 HD because they want a Tiny creature that won't get killed automatically.

Honestly, I'd give every class the same d6 or d8 hit dice, but different classes get different bonuses to the number rolled, in addition to whatever their Con bonus would be. Like, a wizard just rolls a d6, but a fighter rolls a d6+3+Con per level.

 

[Steampunkette]

Nutty thought: Hit Dice by Size.

Tiny d4
Small d6
Medium d8
Large d10
Huge d12

Gnome Barbarians would haaaaate that.

I'd have to do the added HP based on classes. +0 for Sor/Wiz, +1 for Artificer, Bard/Cleric/Druid/Monk, +2 for Fighter/Marshal/Paladin, +4 for Barbarian.