Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 1617181920212223242526
Results 751 to 757 of 757
  1. - Top - End - #751
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    But that's my point. I don't care if background and adventure career are tied or not - though I suspect there's a subset of players who basically follow the quick build guidelines for a class's background as it more easily explains how a character "got their powers".

    What I'd like to see in 6E is a more robust explanation for how and why a character starts down a specific adventuring career. Make it like current background attributes with 6-10 possibilities (kinda like Xanathar's class background options) and an option to 'create your own', but much like backgrounds, it should also have some small mechanical benefit. A Fighter who started as a soldier should have a different benefit than a Fighter who started as a captured slave in a band of orcs and different from a scientist, acolyte or hermit... (just using background names as ideas, not trying to tie them together).

    For one, I think it would help solidify the social and exploration pillars which most folks appear to agree need a mechanical boost from previous editions. For another, it would help further consolidate the idea of roleplaying... to help differentiate TTRPGs and D&D specifically from other table top games like Hero Quest and its ilk. (Which can be roleplaying games, but tend to be rules and rolls heavy vs roles heavy.)
    Trollbait extraordinaire

  2. - Top - End - #752
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mjolnirbear's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    What are classes, exactly? The PHB describes them as more than professions, they're your calling. But that doesn't make much sense either. A calling doesn't provide mystical power or a sudden knowledge of how to don armor and swing a sword with any accuracy.

    So how does one go from a profession in a background, say, Sage trained in the Library sciences to suddenly being able to wear medium armor with proficiency and swing a giant axe while being super angry?

    Handwavium sucks here too.

    I'm not advocating going to a classless system, because they nearly always devolve into picking/buying the best cookie cutter traits and everyone is playing the same full caster who dabbles in just enough martial skill to grab all the mechanically optimal things and eschew the rest.

    What I am asking is what is a Ranger, a Fighter, a Wizard - fundamentally. If there were colleges or military school or even guilds that train you in the fundamentals, that'd be one thing. But not every Fighter is a Soldier; not every Wizard a Sage and not every Druid is a hermit (however THAT works).

    Should a characters' adventuring profession tie somehow to their background profession? At the very least, should it not provide some options for a backstory as to not just why, but how?

    The older I get, the less I can just shrug and say "it just is because the rules say it just is." I need something a bit less nebulous than 'it's a calling'. I'd love integrated classes in 6E. I'd love for them to be called anything other than 'Class', but that's a step too far, I'm sure.
    I'd say, though, that the class is basically the metagame term.

    I played a dwarven thief, mark of warding. He was a thief. It was his thing, what he did, how he earned. But not a Rogue. He was an Artificer. Artificer was more a method.

    So a sorcerer, wizard, warlock, or bard might just be a mage. He does magic. The class is a metagame concept that explains how he does it. Or, even just describes the powers he earned as a mage.

    A class *can* also be a story concept... if that's easier for someone. But on the other hand, keeping it as a game term seperate from a story term allows for you to build a concept seperate from the mechanics. It allows you to start with the concept, and fit any number of classes into it to get the flavour you want. If you want a "take no crap gramma", you could use a monk smoking in pink slippers or a barbarian with a chancla or cane. If you want Batman, you could represent it with artificer or rogue or monk or maybe even warlock. I only see one benefit to have class be a story concept, and for me it doesn't counter all the pros of seperating the game concept and the story concept.
    Avatar by the awesome Linklele!

  3. - Top - End - #753
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mjolnirbear View Post
    I'd say, though, that the class is basically the metagame term....

    So a sorcerer, wizard, warlock, or bard might just be a mage. He does magic. The class is a metagame concept that explains how he does it. Or, even just describes the powers he earned as a mage.
    Nope. Your class is your character. Put 'bard' on the character sheet? You're a happy song-and-dance minstrel who went to 'bard school', your background and backstory be damned.

    At least according to a minimum of three ex-DMs.
    Niven's Laws, #5
    If you've nothing to say, say it any way you like. Stylistic innovations, contorted story lines or none, exotic or genderless pronouns, internal inconsistencies, the recipe for preparing your lover as a cannibal banquet: feel free. If what you have to say is important and/or difficult to follow, use the simplest language possible. If the reader doesn't get it then, let it not be your fault.

  4. - Top - End - #754
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2019

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Part of the fun of making a character is linking a background to the class and some of the most interesting characters will have non-typical backgrounds. So I wouldn't be in favour of linking class to background.


    In terms of background leveling, I'm on the fence. In many cases you stop your background when you start adventuring. It would seem weird for say a Merchant background to keep giving you more merchant related features if you gave up your merchant days when you discovered you had magical sorceror powers and joined an adventuring group. But in other cases it might make sense to keep progressing.

  5. - Top - End - #755
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Morty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    What are classes, exactly? The PHB describes them as more than professions, they're your calling. But that doesn't make much sense either. A calling doesn't provide mystical power or a sudden knowledge of how to don armor and swing a sword with any accuracy.

    So how does one go from a profession in a background, say, Sage trained in the Library sciences to suddenly being able to wear medium armor with proficiency and swing a giant axe while being super angry?

    Handwavium sucks here too.

    I'm not advocating going to a classless system, because they nearly always devolve into picking/buying the best cookie cutter traits and everyone is playing the same full caster who dabbles in just enough martial skill to grab all the mechanically optimal things and eschew the rest.

    What I am asking is what is a Ranger, a Fighter, a Wizard - fundamentally. If there were colleges or military school or even guilds that train you in the fundamentals, that'd be one thing. But not every Fighter is a Soldier; not every Wizard a Sage and not every Druid is a hermit (however THAT works).

    Should a characters' adventuring profession tie somehow to their background profession? At the very least, should it not provide some options for a backstory as to not just why, but how?

    The older I get, the less I can just shrug and say "it just is because the rules say it just is." I need something a bit less nebulous than 'it's a calling'. I'd love integrated classes in 6E. I'd love for them to be called anything other than 'Class', but that's a step too far, I'm sure.
    The problem, as usual, is that there's no one single answer. The degree of a class' definition of your character varies wildly. A fighter or rogue can have just about any background and it'll make as much sense as the next one. A ranger or a monk, less so. A druid is almost a class+backround package.
    My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gulaghar and Purple Eagle.
    Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.

  6. - Top - End - #756
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    What are classes, exactly? The PHB describes them as more than professions, they're your calling.
    They are a tool kit to guide in-game progression. They are, IMO, a meta game construct at this point. I think that your post is a great example of "Overthinkium"
    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    My point being, there’s some benefit for differentiating background from class. Is it always perfect? No. But it can lead to interesting characters.
    Yes. Examples: Ranger who was originally a spy (variation on Criminal background). Warlock (Archfey/Chain) who had the entertainer background and who passed himself off as a minstrel/bard all the time unless there was exploring or adventuring to do. Tempest Cleric, Sailor. Ranger(Hunter) Outlander. Warlock (GOO) Criminal (Fence). AT/Urchin. Lots of different ways to mix and match. That's customizability, and IMO, that's good. (It also helps new players get an idea for 'who is this character?' ). Bard(Valor) / Soldier.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjolnirbear View Post
    I'd say, though, that the class is basically the metagame term.
    A class *can* also be a story concept... if that's easier for someone. But on the other hand, keeping it as a game term seperate from a story term allows for you to build a concept seperate from the mechanics.
    My warlock mentioned above being a case in point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Nope. Your class is your character. Put 'bard' on the character sheet? You're a happy song-and-dance minstrel who went to 'bard school', your background and backstory be damned.
    At least according to a minimum of three ex-DMs.
    *Facepalm* I can see why they are ex DMs. Sorry to hear that you ran into that.
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2021-07-30 at 09:20 AM.
    Avatar by linklele
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct
    Quote Originally Posted by HappyDaze
    Self-deception tends to have a low target number
    How Teleport Works

  7. - Top - End - #757
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: What would you most like to see in 6e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    But that's my point. I don't care if background and adventure career are tied or not - though I suspect there's a subset of players who basically follow the quick build guidelines for a class's background as it more easily explains how a character "got their powers".

    What I'd like to see in 6E is a more robust explanation for how and why a character starts down a specific adventuring career. Make it like current background attributes with 6-10 possibilities (kinda like Xanathar's class background options) and an option to 'create your own', but much like backgrounds, it should also have some small mechanical benefit. A Fighter who started as a soldier should have a different benefit than a Fighter who started as a captured slave in a band of orcs and different from a scientist, acolyte or hermit... (just using background names as ideas, not trying to tie them together).

    For one, I think it would help solidify the social and exploration pillars which most folks appear to agree need a mechanical boost from previous editions. For another, it would help further consolidate the idea of roleplaying... to help differentiate TTRPGs and D&D specifically from other table top games like Hero Quest and its ilk. (Which can be roleplaying games, but tend to be rules and rolls heavy vs roles heavy.)
    Ahh I think I misunderstood you. Though I admit, I don’t 100% think I have what you desire yet either.

    To me this sounds more like building backgrounds in the way of Burning Wheel, where you pick paths and explain essentially what your character did through the years of their life. With each life path providing different benefits as you go.

    But that might be a bit much for D&D, which often ignores the minutia that Burning Wheel relies upon.

    Perhaps I would understand a bit better if I knew Xanathar’s class background option.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •