Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e With No Casters?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Khur" data-source="post: 4048977" data-attributes="member: 5583"><p>Highly dependant on interpretation, and the reasonableness of that interpretation, probably hence JohnSnow's point. Three item categories are “primary,” and the article makes that clear. Only very loose interpretation, the sort that ignores what the article says, can place secondary slot items in a “required” category. You need the items that give enhancement bonuses—weapon/implement (attack), armor (AC), and neck (defenses). Other items are entirely optional, and it’d be easy to gloss over them. As long as you find some way to emulate the three that the system actually does require, you can gloss over magic items altogether. The only one that would require any sort of stretch in a nonmagical world is the neck slot. If you really wanted to do it, you could instead come from another angle and reduce the attack bonuses and defenses in the game to account for a lack of such items.</p><p></p><p>The truth is, historically and generally, that every soldier wore the best armor he or she could afford. Gunpowder obviated the need for plate and similar scale armors, opening the way for lightly armored swordsmen to become the norm—until guns became really reliabele and fast. Then sword fighting became a hobby. Plate-wearing tanks and lightly armored pro soldiers only really coexisted because the lightly armored guys couldn’t afford all the steel the knight was wearing.</p><p></p><p>D&D mixes the two concepts (knights and swashbucklers) only to allow people to play characters they imagine rather than enforcing some artificial “tools of the time” limitation. In 4e D&D, a swashbuckler type is a rogue (sneaky) or a ranger (focused on efficient killing), emulating the "swashbuckly" style very, very well. This is without house rules or thwarting design-by-concept characters. A person who wants to play a swashbuckler is going to find a lot more interesting options in the ranger and rogue classes. Those who gravitate to fighters will want armor.</p><p></p><p>That doesn’t actually follow logically at all. The truth is that one class that occupies a role can substitute for another. That is a far cry from saying that one is so much like the other that it replicates abilities or fills another’s niche. The rogue is a striker, but playing one is nothing like playing a warlock—also a striker. A home game that allowed only martial classes would see differences in the roles and characters, even characters who had the same class but chose differing builds.</p><p></p><p>None of your examples here are the same as "The whole party is here, and I'm the only one who do FOO—at all." It's one thing to have a rotating spotlight, a challenge designed to reward a particular character build, or even an episodic focus on a particular PC. It's entirely another to challenge one PC in such a way that the adventure stalls or logjams. One is good design and DMing, the other simply isn’t.</p><p></p><p>4e isn’t going to stop you from scouting ahead or otherwise doing things that are your shtick better than your buddies. I’d like to know what gave you that impression so strongly that you’re willing to insult the game’s design philosophy and those whom WoTC considers average players, game sight unseen. That seems a little irrational, acknowledging some of that on all sides of 4e issues.</p><p></p><p>Similarly, encounter powers haven’t had much influence on my world building. I guess they don’t work the way you’re assuming they will in that regard. They do a reasonable job of simulating that big, exciting attack a hero does every once in a while. The world-changing stuff often relies on rituals, which can be limited in any way a DM needs them to be. D&D has always had elements that make worldbuilding tough if you focus on them.</p><p></p><p>I’m a storytelling sort of DM, and my players are highly demanding roleplayers. They’re used to rotating spotlight, episodic focus, and challenge focus. Of course they see parts of the accepted D&D milieu that are weird from a "Why doesn't this dragon rule the world?" or "What the heck is this bookworm doing spelunking?" standpoint. They haven’t complained once about the problems you’re imagining. Believe me, they would. Loudly.</p><p></p><p>If anything, 4e is designed with more awareness of potential logjams. You won’t see things like Cadfan’s sorry scene as often, to be sure. That doesn't mean you'll have no room for one character or another to shine, even in nonwombat situations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Khur, post: 4048977, member: 5583"] Highly dependant on interpretation, and the reasonableness of that interpretation, probably hence JohnSnow's point. Three item categories are “primary,” and the article makes that clear. Only very loose interpretation, the sort that ignores what the article says, can place secondary slot items in a “required” category. You need the items that give enhancement bonuses—weapon/implement (attack), armor (AC), and neck (defenses). Other items are entirely optional, and it’d be easy to gloss over them. As long as you find some way to emulate the three that the system actually does require, you can gloss over magic items altogether. The only one that would require any sort of stretch in a nonmagical world is the neck slot. If you really wanted to do it, you could instead come from another angle and reduce the attack bonuses and defenses in the game to account for a lack of such items. The truth is, historically and generally, that every soldier wore the best armor he or she could afford. Gunpowder obviated the need for plate and similar scale armors, opening the way for lightly armored swordsmen to become the norm—until guns became really reliabele and fast. Then sword fighting became a hobby. Plate-wearing tanks and lightly armored pro soldiers only really coexisted because the lightly armored guys couldn’t afford all the steel the knight was wearing. D&D mixes the two concepts (knights and swashbucklers) only to allow people to play characters they imagine rather than enforcing some artificial “tools of the time” limitation. In 4e D&D, a swashbuckler type is a rogue (sneaky) or a ranger (focused on efficient killing), emulating the "swashbuckly" style very, very well. This is without house rules or thwarting design-by-concept characters. A person who wants to play a swashbuckler is going to find a lot more interesting options in the ranger and rogue classes. Those who gravitate to fighters will want armor. That doesn’t actually follow logically at all. The truth is that one class that occupies a role can substitute for another. That is a far cry from saying that one is so much like the other that it replicates abilities or fills another’s niche. The rogue is a striker, but playing one is nothing like playing a warlock—also a striker. A home game that allowed only martial classes would see differences in the roles and characters, even characters who had the same class but chose differing builds. None of your examples here are the same as "The whole party is here, and I'm the only one who do FOO—at all." It's one thing to have a rotating spotlight, a challenge designed to reward a particular character build, or even an episodic focus on a particular PC. It's entirely another to challenge one PC in such a way that the adventure stalls or logjams. One is good design and DMing, the other simply isn’t. 4e isn’t going to stop you from scouting ahead or otherwise doing things that are your shtick better than your buddies. I’d like to know what gave you that impression so strongly that you’re willing to insult the game’s design philosophy and those whom WoTC considers average players, game sight unseen. That seems a little irrational, acknowledging some of that on all sides of 4e issues. Similarly, encounter powers haven’t had much influence on my world building. I guess they don’t work the way you’re assuming they will in that regard. They do a reasonable job of simulating that big, exciting attack a hero does every once in a while. The world-changing stuff often relies on rituals, which can be limited in any way a DM needs them to be. D&D has always had elements that make worldbuilding tough if you focus on them. I’m a storytelling sort of DM, and my players are highly demanding roleplayers. They’re used to rotating spotlight, episodic focus, and challenge focus. Of course they see parts of the accepted D&D milieu that are weird from a "Why doesn't this dragon rule the world?" or "What the heck is this bookworm doing spelunking?" standpoint. They haven’t complained once about the problems you’re imagining. Believe me, they would. Loudly. If anything, 4e is designed with more awareness of potential logjams. You won’t see things like Cadfan’s sorry scene as often, to be sure. That doesn't mean you'll have no room for one character or another to shine, even in nonwombat situations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e With No Casters?
Top