D&D (2024) Toward a Theory of 6th Edition

[Oofta]

Hit points & saving throws are another example, and, as Morrus points out, the debates those spawned go way back (though with the reverse of the emphasis you typically get, today), not just to the early days of these forums and to UseNet and BBSs and Out on a Limb, but, apparently, to people just harassing EGG about it enough that he wrote a whole treatise on the topic of hps in the 1e DMG.

There's a difference between simplifications of reality for ease of play and things that fall out of the realm of possible. If I punch somebody hard enough an long enough eventually they will fall unconscious. HP may be a greatly simplified way of representing that, but it's simple and it works.

That's different from a rogue's Blinding Barrage where they get to attack and blind multiple opponents because they have possession of a single dagger.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was going to respond ... but it's just not worth it. Other than to say I have no clue what point you are trying to make. Getting followers or being really good at stabbing somebody are not supernatural.

Neither is enemies running up to you. They're perfectly natural events. The 1e Fighter didn't send out a telepathic wave that mind-controlled men-at-arms into flocking to his banner, he built up a reputation in the process of reaching 9th level and built a keep and *ding* that attracted followers. A rogue's SA (or backstab in the classic game, for that matter) could do a lot of damage, on the theory he 'hit a vital spot' because the enemy couldn't properly defend himself. Other characters with daggers should, by all rights, be able to inflict the exact same wound, but they litterally can't, even when the enemy 'can't properly defend itself,' even when they score crits, for the most part, even when their chance to hit in the same circumstance is much better than the rogue's (entirely possible in 3e, for instance). They just don't produce the same damage number from a single attack with a dagger.
It's just an abstraction that, yes, perhaps, depending on how you imagine it, 'impacts the narrative,' but there's no need to call it a supernatural power.

 

[Oofta]

Neither is enemies running up to you. They're perfectly natural events. The 1e Fighter didn't send out a telepathic wave that mind-controlled men-at-arms into flocking to his banner, he built up a reputation in the process of reaching 9th level and built a keep and *ding* that attracted followers. A rogue's SA (or backstab in the classic game, for that matter) could do a lot of damage, on the theory he 'hit a vital spot' because the enemy couldn't properly defend himself. Other characters with daggers should, by all rights, be able to inflict the exact same wound, but they litterally can't, even when the enemy 'can't properly defend itself,' even when they score crits, for the most part, even when their chance to hit in the same circumstance is much better than the rogue's (entirely possible in 3e, for instance). They just don't produce the same damage number from a single attack with a dagger.
It's just an abstraction that, yes, perhaps, depending on how you imagine it, 'impacts the narrative,' but there's no need to call it a supernatural power.

I don't want to be rude, but we just have a different opinion of what qualifies as supernatural. End of discussion.

 

[TwoSix]

I was going to respond ... but it's just not worth it. Other than to say I have no clue what point you are trying to make. Getting followers or being really good at stabbing somebody are not supernatural.

Not to stretch out a normally tedious discussion that usually goes nowhere, but the relation between followers and "Come and Get It" is that they're both meta powers. They're abilities exercised by the player on behalf of the character, but have no origin on any capability of the character (other than the position in the game world he holds via the fiction of the game). Neither ability is supernatural, they're merely game constructs that give the player a plot coupon to make NPCs do something, instead of the DM doing it.

 

[TwoSix]

You’re an entire decade out. These conversations were happening on this very forum in 1999.

Fair enough; I just tend to associate those particular points with the peak of the edition war.

 

[Oofta]

Not to stretch out a normally tedious discussion that usually goes nowhere, but the relation between followers and "Come and Get It" is that they're both meta powers. They're abilities exercised by the player on behalf of the character, but have no origin on any capability of the character (other than the position in the game world he holds via the fiction of the game). Neither ability is supernatural, they're merely game constructs that give the player a plot coupon to make NPCs do something, instead of the DM doing it.

In the real world people built castles. People have followers. The details of how it happens is glossed over in the rules but it is in no way unnatural or supernatural.

 

[Alexemplar]

In the real world people built castles. People have followers. The details of how it happens is glossed over in the rules but it is in no way unnatural or supernatural.

In the real world, getting your own castle or follower is not an automatic thing just because you're a warrior. Likewise, in the overwhelming majority of fantasy stories, the warrior characters are usually really really good at holding the enemies' attention so they don't target/attack the more vulnerable characters.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

ASI: +1/+1 or +2. One at 8th, one at 16th, but not interchangeable with feats.

Class-based, siloed feat design: there are now three distinct types of feats: combat/exploration/social. Five feats across 20 levels. Each class gets a type of feat slot at a particular level based on their focus. A fighter, for instance, would get 1 combat feat at say 6th, another at 12th, and a third at 18th, as well as 1 exploration and 1 social somewhere (maybe interchangeable but only one of each across 20 levels). Wizard would probably be the same as the fighter (combat feats aren't just about physical fighting but any type of D&D mechanics involved with combat), whereas a bard would have more social and a ranger would have more exploration.

 

[Oofta]

In the real world, getting your own castle or follower is not an automatic thing just because you're a warrior. Likewise, in the overwhelming majority of fantasy stories, the warrior characters are usually really really good at holding the enemies' attention so they don't target/attack the more vulnerable characters.

I'll just repeat - just because the details are glossed over and because the game assumed it would happen, nothing supernatural is required.

Come and Get It on the other hand literally pulls creatures up to 15 feet whether or not they even know you exist.

It's apples and oranges. Heck it's not even apples and oranges, it's more like apples and a tire iron.

 

[TwoSix]

In the real world people built castles. People have followers. The details of how it happens is glossed over in the rules but it is in no way unnatural or supernatural.

Semantics at this point. Don't need another point-buy thread in my life, so concern level is now zero.