🎨 Creative D&D 6E: what would you keep/ditch?

Shade the Lost

Registered User
Validated User
Yeah, I think race or class restrictions would be something best left in setting books or a DMG supplement that's full of design notes and shit that doesn't get covered in the DMG proper. (if the DMG is "how do we apply the default rules and run the game?" the book I have in mind would be "how did we arrive at these rules, and what are the ways the default rules can be changed without breaking things?" Tack on a bit of "these other rules definitely break a few things, but this is how they tend to break, so bear that in mind," and you've got a pretty decent chunk of content.
 

Dog Quixote

Registered User
Validated User
If you really want to keep a human-centric game you just say "One elf in the party, sorry, you need to work out who it's going to be."

Then you go and get a beer while they sort it out and when they get back you clean up the blood and start the game.
 

manwhat

Formerly 'buggritall'
RPGnet Member
Validated User
If someone wants to be an elf purely for the mechanics of it, but would be fine being a human fluffwise, it seems fine to say "OK, you're a human, you have the stats of an elf because [you have some elven ancestry/magical accident/your soul is the reincarnation of an elf/other made-up explanation that will never really matter]" and then move on.
 

NobodyImportant

Registered User
Validated User
I have a problem with race or class restrictions in that they make categorical statements about the setting. You’re within your rights to say that, for instance, dwarven clerics are extremely rare, but I don’t see that as a reason to disallow players playing dwarven clerics. PCs are already supposed to be exceptional people. The fact that dwarven clerics are so rare could have interesting story implications for those who choose to play one. The fact that most Athasian halflings are cannibals can only make the story of a non-cannibal halfling more interesting.

I guess you’re within your rights to say that a certain race-class combination just doesn’t exist in your world, but you’d better have a pretty good explanation.
 

Dog Quixote

Registered User
Validated User
I have a problem with race or class restrictions in that they make categorical statements about the setting.
And that's bad because?

I'm against a game without a specific setting making categorical statements about the settings it will allow.

But I can't see why there should be an issue with making categorical statements about a specific setting.
If I wanted to play D&D within the Earthdawn setting, for example, I would feel under no obligation to allow someone to play a Tiefling.

And really D&D now has so many races and so many forms of magic that it seems entirely reasonable, when making a homebrew setting to prune down some of the options.
 

NobodyImportant

Registered User
Validated User
And that's bad because?

I'm against a game without a specific setting making categorical statements about the settings it will allow.

But I can't see why there should be an issue with making categorical statements about a specific setting.
If I wanted to play D&D within the Earthdawn setting, for example, I would feel under no obligation to allow someone to play a Tiefling.

And really D&D now has so many races and so many forms of magic that it seems entirely reasonable, when making a homebrew setting to prune down some of the options.
I may have been unclear. I wasn’t referring to restricting individual races or classes; I was referring to restricting specific race/class combinations. I’m fine with a setting not including tieflings or paladins, but if it contains both, I don’t see a reason to say you couldn’t play a tiefling paladin.
 

Lewd Beholder

Member
RPGnet Member
Validated User
The baseline of 5e is fine, for the most part, but I'd probably do the following tweaks:

1. Size mods for pcs is flattened. Must dnd stink playing larger then human-sized pcs and that isn't a feature, that's a bug.
2. The skill system is okay in 5e, but I dislike tool use. It just seems like a bunch of overspecialized skills that generally don't come into play.
I'd rather have a pc be able to do a lot more then what's feasible with their background check.
3. I really like the idea of escalation dice that 13th age did and it really helps with the beats of combat.
4. Classes I would add back from 4e: Sword mage (eldritch knight is a poor substitute and I'd rather have a dedicated class for gishes), Warden (I really like this one), Warlord
5. Ranger is also based on the 4e type as the main subtype (because it is inherently wrong to not be able to play Robin of Locksley as a ranger out of the box), and we build any magical versions as subclasses/power substitutions.
6. If you need a simple class to introduce somebody to the game, make it a henchmen class based roughly on Nodwick. :p
7. skill challenges designed for team participation and a lot more nuanced for options (ex. bare succeeded, barely failed, total success).
8. I like the idea of the three pillars, but make sure all classes have the ability to participate, but in different ways.
9. bring back Orcus as a key player. Demogogian has had his way for far too long. I'd be seriously tempted to make Orcs and Ogres his children, but that might be a stoop to far.

Man I wouldn't mind psychic powers, but no clue how to make them work.
Same with Artificer.


http://breadthofpopsanity.blogspot.com/2016/03/5e-about-fighter-and-other-thoughts.html
http://breadthofpopsanity.blogspot.com/2018/10/what-5e-ranger-should-be.html
http://breadthofpopsanity.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-warlord-should-be-in-5e-dungeons.html
 
Fluff-wise, I'd split the difference between the different editions, and present both the Great Wheel and the World Axis as options (The Great Tree, being FR-specific, would go in the FR campaign book - likewise with the Eberron cosmology). It would be an all-in, everybody's accepted approach - the monsters would allow for you to be using them in either cosmology, so that depending on their origin (for instance, Storm giants as creations of Annam or as creations of the Primordials), their alignment would differ, and in some cases modifications to stats would be presented. Monsters would follow the 4e format insofar as having all the info needed to run one in its stat block. The Sorcerer would be fixed so that it could learn a number of spells comparable to the Wizard. I agree with a lot of what VoidDrifter posted, except that instead of only including 4e assumptions, I would allow the Players/DM to chose what assumptions to use in their games - 4e style Halflings or old-school style Halflings. Likewise with other PC races, like Tieflings and the like. Half-Orcs and Half-Elves would stay because some people would want that option included. Likewise, there would be references to both squares on a grid and actual feet, for those not using a grid. (I've always used a grid when playing, so that aspect of 4e never bothered me - I don't know how to play without one!) Game-mechanically, I did feel that 4e's classes felt too similar (although splitting the spell list among the classes did help), and the spells needed to read more like the rituals. In other words just make it feel less mechanical. I would keep the traditional nine alignments plus unaligned, with a "cheat sheet" for those wishing to carve it down to the 4e five. Or perhaps two alignments could be included in each stat block - whatever allows both sides to play the game they want. I think the reason people got upset at 4e is they decided to change a lot of things without getting people's buy-in... it was just "It's the World Axis now. Like the Great Wheel? Too bad." and so forth. 4e players got it in reverse when 5e ditched the 4e assumptions (mostly). Why not have a edition where everybody gets to play under the assumptions they like? One group can play in the World Axis using 4e Tieflings and Halflings and consulting their 4e books for extra fluff, while another plays in the Great Wheel with Planescape-style Tieflings and 2e Halfings while using their 2e Planescape books for added material.

NOW... while it might be possible to include both old and new fluff, game mechanics are another can of worms. I honestly don't know the answer to this one. I liked the slew of options 4e gave us, and the hybrid classes. There should be psionics in the core books, and maybe a optional system whereby instead of Vancian casting, you could have spell DCs and you would roll to see if you successfully cast the spell. (I'd allow anyone to TRY to cast a spell, but if they flub the roll, bad things happen, which is the real reason low level casters don't cast high level spells, in this option.) Definitely keep Advantage/Disadvantage and make sure lower-level monsters still have something of a chance against somewhat-higher level PCs (and visa-versa). Oh, and would bring back the Warlord (and maybe other 4e specific-classes) and include spell-less versions of classes that could exist in the real world (I.e. Ranger, Rogue, Bard, Fighter, etc.)
 
Top Bottom