Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Parmandur" data-source="post: 8307251" data-attributes="member: 6780330">So, as a starting principle, Ibwould maintain &quot;modular&quot; backwards compatibility with 5E: nit necessarily keeping things the same, but working the math to ensure that people could bring 5E characters to a 6E table without causing disruption, or use 6E characters in a 5E Adventure without needing to recalculate anything. So, nothing radical on the gut level. More specific changes:- &quot;Races&quot;: I would take Tasha's approach to Lineages, and bake it in Core, and&nbsp; push it forwards a bit: make it easy for a DM and table to add in new Lineage options based on a player's ideas or the needs of the world.- Replacing &quot;Subrace&quot; with &quot;Culture,&quot; so that every PC mixes a Lineage with a culture, which cab be mixed and matched: Halflings raised by Dwarves, urbane Goliaths, etc.- Backgrounds: I appreciate that they are mechanically perfectly equivalent in 5E, and I would like to keep that. I would take more of the fluff from some Classes and put them into Baclgrounds that are Class agnostic (looking at you, Monk).- Classes: I would keep the current 13 Classes, promoting the Artificer, but some would receive significant changes: de-Orientalize the Monk (Mknasticsm is a Background, anyways), rebuild the Ranger extensively (make the usual Subclass choice be based on Favored Terrain: Underdark Rangers, Forest Rangers, etc), etc. Make every Class choose an Archetype at Level 1, which leads to- Themes/Archetypes: Replace &quot;&quot;Subclass&quot; with &quot;Archetype&quot; or &quot;Theme,&quot; based off of the Strixhaven UA: many if not most Archetypes could remain focused on a single Class, but allowing for cross-Class options built into the system would be amazing (maybe based around Fighter-Rogue-MU-Cleric groupings). Allow a Fighter or Rogue to take Ranger Archetypes to have a &quot;non-magic&quot; Ranger, or have Fey Warlocks and Fey Sorcerers key off of similar abilities. Other than that, wouldnchange much at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Parmandur, post: 8307251, member: 6780330"] So, as a starting principle, Ibwould maintain "modular" backwards compatibility with 5E: nit necessarily keeping things the same, but working the math to ensure that people could bring 5E characters to a 6E table without causing disruption, or use 6E characters in a 5E Adventure without needing to recalculate anything. So, nothing radical on the gut level. More specific changes: - "Races": I would take Tasha's approach to Lineages, and bake it in Core, and push it forwards a bit: make it easy for a DM and table to add in new Lineage options based on a player's ideas or the needs of the world. - Replacing "Subrace" with "Culture," so that every PC mixes a Lineage with a culture, which cab be mixed and matched: Halflings raised by Dwarves, urbane Goliaths, etc. - Backgrounds: I appreciate that they are mechanically perfectly equivalent in 5E, and I would like to keep that. I would take more of the fluff from some Classes and put them into Baclgrounds that are Class agnostic (looking at you, Monk). - Classes: I would keep the current 13 Classes, promoting the Artificer, but some would receive significant changes: de-Orientalize the Monk (Mknasticsm is a Background, anyways), rebuild the Ranger extensively (make the usual Subclass choice be based on Favored Terrain: Underdark Rangers, Forest Rangers, etc), etc. Make every Class choose an Archetype at Level 1, which leads to - Themes/Archetypes: Replace ""Subclass" with "Archetype" or "Theme," based off of the Strixhaven UA: many if not most Archetypes could remain focused on a single Class, but allowing for cross-Class options built into the system would be amazing (maybe based around Fighter-Rogue-MU-Cleric groupings). Allow a Fighter or Rogue to take Ranger Archetypes to have a "non-magic" Ranger, or have Fey Warlocks and Fey Sorcerers key off of similar abilities. Other than that, wouldnchange much at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification