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

[dave2008]

So I've talked a few times about what I'd want in a 6e game. Often enough that at 3am this morning I was plagued with thoughts of game design and couldn't sleep. So here's some of the stuff I'm looking at. Putting them in quotes to be easier to isolate and parse.

1) 10th Level Classes


2) Make Magic Users More Magical and Less Casty


3) Day 1 Psionics


4) Warlords


5) Combat Maneuvers


6) Spellcasting Mechanics Variety


7) "Extra Attack" at 3rd with Caveats


8) Crit Protection as a Core Mechanic


9) Exploration and Social Mechanics as Core


10) Sensible HP Structures


What do you think about a system like this? Interesting package of alternate rules, overengineered nonsense, or nothingburger?

I agree with a lot of your ideas, but not as much with your implementation.

1. Disagree: I think the game should support 20+ levels of play. However, I would be fine if it was parceled out like BECMI was into tiered rules / guidance.
2. Agree: My implementation would be different, but I like general idea.
3. Disagree (sort of): I generally don't like psionics and I don't want in my game. However, I could be converted and I don't mind it if is something easy to ignore.
4. Agree I guess. I don't have any issue with warlords, but I also don't think they are gone really.
5. Agree (I think): I am not sure what you are going for, but I don't maneuvers for all to take from the fighter's niche. That being said I think there is a way to make this work.
6. Agree. I would make arcane casters the only ones that cast spells. Cleric, paladins, warlocks, etc. would use magic but not cast "spells."
7. Not sure: I am thinking extra attack should be a fighter only feature (or you can buy it with a feat maybe)
8. Agee: I may have different ideas on how to do this though.
9. Agree: Not sure about the how though.
10. Agree: I would probably go about it differently, but I agree with the general idea.

 

[Steampunkette]

this could get conversations, why do I only get +1 with my greatsword and that one gets +1 for the dagger?

"Why does someone with a dagger get +4 to their damage for having high Dex?" is the same argument, in the end. But yeah. I could see that thing happen, too.

That said... I might be inclined to do the no-mod design with the +1 per point over the target's AC because not only does that sound really cool? It also results in a Goblin rolling a Crit dealing, potentially, quite a bit of damage to a player... Which makes goblins dangerous even to high end characters!

 

[Distracted DM]

"Why does someone with a dagger get +4 to their damage for having high Dex?" is the same argument, in the end. But yeah. I could see that thing happen, too.

That said... I might be inclined to do the no-mod design with the +1 per point over the target's AC because not only does that sound really cool? It also results in a Goblin rolling a Crit dealing, potentially, quite a bit of damage to a player... Which makes goblins dangerous even to high end characters!

High end melee characters end up with an AC of like.. 25 or more. So that goblin won't be threatening them, if I understand it right, but on the other hand those high end casters with 18 AC could get hit decently hard.. in fact it'd give a reason to use Shield spell against attacks that hit, if I understand the idea correctly.